Patterico has a post up about Howard Dean's latest stupid comment, this one about the Kelo decision. I agree with him that Dean's comments are absurd, but not with his "oh my god, the media is so liberal for not reporting this" stance. First, the substance. Here is what Dean said:
"The president and his right-wing Supreme Court think it is 'okay' to have the government take your house if they feel like putting a hotel where your house is."
Well, no. You can certainly criticize Bush himself on the subject of eminent domain. After all, he has personally benefited to the tune of several million dollars as a result of eminent domain being used to build a new stadium for the Texas Rangers when he was part owner of that team (which is why his press secretary was so reticent when asked repeatedly about Bush's reaction to the Kelo decision). But you certainly can't criticize the "right wing supreme court" for Kelo; the entire conservative coalition on the court was in dissent, joined by O'Connor, while the entire liberal coalition on the court was in the majority, joined by Kennedy. The opposition to Kelo has been virtually unanimous among conservatives and libertarians, while liberals have generally been split. You can criticize judicial conservatives for a lot of things (and I often do), but you sure as hell can't lay Kelo at their feet.
Now, Patterico uses this to make a big deal out of the fact that the "liberal media" hasn't published stories about Dean's statement, proving, of course, that they are liberal. But he's kidding himself if he thinks we can't find equally stupid things being said by Republican party leaders or Bush's spokesmen every day that rate hardly a blip in the media. As an example that I've often mentioned, during the 2004 campaign Bush's press secretary told a bunch of reporters that the President thought he had outlawed 527 organizations from buying campaign commercials when he signed the campaign finance reform bill and that Bush was going to go to court to get a judge to declare them illegal. Not one of those reporters mentioned in their respective media outlets this stunning statement, a statement that made Bush's position absolutely ridiculous in about 5 different ways.
This strikes me as one of the faults of partisan thinking. Someone so motivated could read through the daily press briefings and press releases from the White House and from the Democratic National Committee and other similar organizations and probably find 5 statements a day that are either dishonest or completely ridiculous. And with each one of them they could wonder why on earth the media isn't reporting those ridiculous statements and charge the press with ignoring them out of bias toward their opponents. But the mere fact that their opponents can justifiably do the very same thing tells you all you need to know. That's why Accuracy in Media can gripe about the media ignoring bad stories about the left and Media Matters can gripe about the media ignoring bad stories about the right, and both be correct much of the time. The hallmark of simplistic partisan thinking is the inability to see the validity of the same arguments made by one's opponents. It reminds me very much of Mencken's statement: "The two parties spend most of their time and energy convincing us that the opposing party is corrupt and unfit to rule, and both succeed admirably."
- Log in to post comments
Ed,
I'm not sure that what I said was quite as hyperbolic as you suggest. Here's what I said:
I then noted that the story hasn't appeared anywhere in Big Media, save Fox News.
I do think it's news -- just as the example you give in the post was news.
Liberal bias? I don't know for sure. Maybe the media just didn't have the story until now. Maybe it will get some play now that Instapundit has noticed.
But I do find it interesting that even your example is, in my view, an example of possible leftist bias. I find that the media tends to be more biased on issues than on personalities. Your example makes Bush look bad, but deep-sixing it serves the larger cause of saving face for campaign finance reform, an issue dear to the left.
My example is pure leftism on both personality and issues -- ignoring it protects Dean, flushes an opportunity for Bush to promote Roberts, and protects eminent domain. A hat trick.
Nevertheless, I am hopeful that some intellectual honest folks in Big Media will take this and run with it. It could happen.
Point of order. Dean should recognize that his duties as head of the DNC are to (i) raise money, and (ii) get people to run for office. Those are the only duties of the chairpersons of the political parties. He should shut up.
Patterico-
I find your explanation of why the press didn't pick up on the example I gave rather fanciful, but that is neither here nor there. The larger point remains true, that if one wanted to pick out false or absurd statements made by political hacks from either party, they would have a full time job. A small fraction of those false or absurd statements receive any significant media coverage at all. So picking out that lack of coverage in any particular case, or in a whole list of cases for that matter, as proof that the press is biased against one side or the other is illogical. The other side can produce their own list of equally stupid statements made by your side that went unreported and offer exactly the same argument to prove conservative media bias. And you'll find that ridiculous, but their evidence and reasoning is precisely the same as yours.
The fact is that the media rarely reports anything stupid or dishonest that politicians say, or at least fails to recognize or point out that they are stupid or dishonest. They're too busy sucking up to politicians so they can maintain their access to them for exclusive interviews, seats on the bus or plane, and those infamous "sources in the White House say" or "sources on Capital Hill say" statements that they rely on to get the scoop.
It's not as if the media don't have a field day nearly every time Dean opens his mouth, always plucking a dumb-sounding comment of his out of context and blowing it way out of proportion.
The media could just as easily focus on every hostile, angry, or loopy thing that Ken Mellman says (which is plenty), but then again he's not Dean, who has been duly branded as crazy and out of control, so he gets a free pass. The notion that the media is biased in favor of Dean strikes me as insane.
The notion that the media is biased against a conservative Bush SCOTUS nominee strikes me as anything but insane.
Ed, I agree that "look at what they didn't report!" examples of bias are not the best evidence of bias. But 1) other forms of evidence mostly point to a leftist bias in Big Media, and 2) I don't see this big list of unreported stupid comments by right-wing pols -- including your example (which, as I said, is more easily explained as leftist issue bias, or simple laziness or incompetence (same with the Dean example)).
I definitely see no effort to suppress dumb statements by the Bush Administration. Are you telling me with a straight face that you do??
Maybe that has something to do with the fact that Bush is the President, Patterico, not just some random former governor who talks a lot. It's evidence of a left bias that a chairman of a party gets less press than the president?
The media's attitude towards Roberts has been one of a protracted love affair, which he may or may not deserve. They have done their best to paint him as a non-controversial figure whom everyone seems to like (which again may be perfectly true). Not really sure how that adds up to bias against him.
Patterico said:
Go to mediamatters.org every day and you will see lots and lots of examples very much like the one you gave that allegedly prove "conservative bias". I've read all of the arguments on both sides claiming bias for the other side. They are virtually identical in structure, evidence and reasoning. Neither are compelling.
No, quite the opposite. It's your supposition that the lack of coverage of that dumb statement represents an "effort to suppress". But I could as easily show you a dozen equally idiotic statements made by Bush or his people that also got little coverage in the media and you would deny that this is evidence of an "effort to suppress" anything. In fact, you might even invent some fanciful rationale like above to turn it around and blame it all on liberal media bias. But liberals will do the very same thing and I think you are both equally blinded, filtering everything through your preconceived notions of bias.
My position is that while you will find individual reporters with a clear bias in one direction or the other, there is no overall political bias. There is primarily a bias toward playing lapdog for whichever party they are dealing with in power, a bias which is broken only if the editors see an opportunity to significantly boost readership or viewership. Watch any TV news show or read any newspaper and you will see half a dozen instances every single day of patently absurd statements by politicians of both parties, without a word from the person doing the reporting pointing out that those statements are absurd. Why? Because the media, by and large, don't care about what is true. They care about catering to the public and that means two things, primarily. First, since most of the public thinks at about a middle school level (newspapers are famously aimed at an 8th grade reading level for a reason) they have little hope of understanding why those statements are ridiculous. Second, a sizable portion of those who are capable of thinking beyond that level are political partisans of one party or the other, so they'll scream to high heaven if the ridiculous statements of their own party are shown to be ridiculous, or if the statements of the other party are not shown to be ridiculous (both being convinced of this bias, as noted above). And third, that the press as a group only really gets excited and plays gotcha when it's something that will significantly boost readers or viewers, like a sex scandal. Other than that, their primary job - at least the primary way they actually do their job - is to act as a mouthpiece for the idiotic statements put out by both parties, without caring whether they are true or not.
I just went to Media Matters and was unimpressed -- but that's meaningless, of course, because I'm a partisan.
If you don't see leftist bias in Big Media, I'm confident I won't change your mind -- probably ever, and certainly not in a single blog comment thread.
I am most expert in the bias of the LATimes. My entire blog stands as a testament to their leftist bias. I am occasionally told that someone could easily do the same exact thing for the LATimes from the left. If you ever see anyone actually do it, rather than simply claim that it would be easy, you let me know.
Oh, and Matthew? You're having reading comprehension problems. When I said the media regularly reports Bush Administration (not just Bush) misstatements, I was responding to Ed's suggestion that media types routinely suppress such misstatements by politicians in return for access. I was not citing that as positive evidence of leftist bias. So please save your incredulous tone for a moment when it might be halfway appropriate.
The idea that the White House press corps has been "sucking up" to Bush and McClellan lately is, to my mind, far more fanciful than the theory that the press might not be eager to report a statement that exposes the ludicrous nature of the infallible McCain/Feingold law. Have you *seen* some of these press conferences lately? "Sucking up" is as far from an accurate description of the ones I've seen as I could possibly imagine.
The statement was just rhetoric. To Dean all of the justices are conservative in the same way that to Focus on the Family they are all liberals. I don't think the media has ever thought it material to correct rhetoric.
Patterico wrote:
A slight correction. I don't think they're actually suppressing such statements, and certainly not out of bias. I think it's just the norm of how things operate. Everyone knows that if a reporter routinely points out that statements made by Politician X are false or absurd, they will no longer get access to Politician X. So they just don't bother with it. Most reporters, I believe, really do think that their job is to report whatever a politician says without comment. The moment they make a comment, they are criticized for "bias" by whichever side has been taken to task, so they just don't comment even if they know that the statement they are reporting is bullshit.
I can't find anything at the NYT, LAT or CNN about Bush's batshit crazy remarks about ID. I'm shocked. Since I thought the press was so crazy left-wing, I figured they'd be all over this. I mean, heck, the president of the US, who often states that his positions on things reflect "science," has just revealed to the whole planet that he has no idea what science is, and so by extension that some of his policies are guided by some kind of superstition, or at least by massive ignorance about basic science. Maybe the correct ad hoc explanation is that the vast left wing conspiracy known as the press is just inefficient.
Or maybe they aren't as "left wing" as some suggest.
Hagabard
I can't find anything at the NYT, LAT or CNN about Bush's batshit crazy remarks about ID. I'm shocked. Since I thought the press was so crazy left-wing, I figured they'd be all over this.
New York Times: Bush: Intelligent Design Should Be Taught
L.A. Times: 'Intelligent Design' Gets Bush's Nod
CNN: Bush: Schools should teach 'intelligent design'
You just weren't looking very hard.
If you don't see leftist bias in Big Media, I'm confident I won't change your mind -- probably ever, and certainly not in a single blog comment thread.
Actually, no you won't. The "leftist" epithet has become so overused that it means nothing more than "I don't like". You really should grow up and get over it.
I've been called a leftist, a rightist, a libertarian and a conservative depending on where I post and the issue on which I post. Get over yourself with the "leftist" silliness.
That said, Howard Dean should shut up and do what the head of the DNC is supposed to do, which is to get candidates to run for office and raise money to help them run. That's the long and short of it.
raj,
What?? You are telling me to "grow up" because I use the term "leftist" to describe people who are (in my opinion) on the political left? Because the word has no meaning?
That's hard to take seriously. Really. It really sounds like you are just looking for something to criticize.
Arguing that the media really don't lean left is one thing. But criticizing me for even using the word "leftist" strikes me as just plain bizarre.
Just out of idle curiosity, what word would you have me use to describe people whose politics lean to the left?
Just out of idle curiosity, what word would you have me use to describe people whose politics lean to the left?
politcos antidexterous?
Just out of idle curiosity, what word would you have me use to describe people whose politics lean to the left?
politicos antidexterous?
Patterico at August 3, 2005 02:28 PM
What?? You are telling me to "grow up" because I use the term "leftist" to describe people who are (in my opinion) on the political left? Because the word has no meaning?
Actually, yes. And I mean it. The word "leftist" has become an empty epithet that means little more than "I don't like." If you have something to say in opposition to what somebody else posts, post your opinion and some evidence why we should believe what we say. Merely tossing around words like "leftist" this and "leftist" that is ludicrous.
I don't have the slightest idea who you are, and the likelihood that I will never meet you in person is between slim and none. But, just to let you know, throwing out "leftist" against those who oppose you on an issue is silly. If you wish to make a point, marshall your evidence, create an argument based on that evidence, establish a post, including citations to the evidence, and post it. That's what we lawyers used to do (I know that lawyers have become sloppy about that). Blathering about about "leftist" this and "leftist" that is not an argument. It is BS artistry.
Do you understand?
But, just to let you know, throwing out "leftist" against those who oppose you on an issue is silly.
Just to let you know, your use of the word "silly" shows you need to grow up. We lawyers know that "silly" is a word devoid of meaning, that has come to mean "I don't like." "Blathering" is also devoid of meaning, as is "BS artistry."
Do you understand? Or do I need to patiently explain it further to you?
Back in this world:
I think, Ed, that you and a couple of your commenters have missed a large part of my point: namely, it's not just that Dean made a gaffe that makes this news. It's that (as I said in my original post) the head of the Democrat party has made an argument for the appointment of more judges in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. He doesn't appear to realize that he has done so -- but he has.
Even if that doesn't result in a stand-alone story, I think it would be inexcusable for the next major media figure who interviews Dean not to bring this up, confront him with it, and ask him whether he indeed favors the appointment of more judges such as the ones who dissented in Kelo.
Well for the record, I use the word silly all the time to describe arguments that are, well, silly.
I agree with you that what Dean said was incredibly stupid and that he inadvertantly made an argument against his position. If I was a reporter, I would certainly make a big deal out of it. As a blogger, I'm more than happy to hammer him for that stupid statement. I just don't think it's a compelling argument for liberal bias in the media, for the simple reason that one can find lots of equally stupid statements made by Republicans, including Mehlman who is Dean's exact counterpart, that received little or no coverage in the media. I agree with you that it's inexcusable for the media not to point out how stupid that statement is, but that's true every time they allow a stupid statement by either side to go unchallenged. But that's the reality of the mass media in this country. It's one of the primary reasons why blogs have taken off, in my view, because bloggers can and will say the things that journalists won't. Bloggers aren't afraid to say the emperor has no clothes. Journalists won't generally do that because they lose their access, but I don't think that has much to do with whether the emperor is liberal or conservative.
Well for the record, I use the word silly all the time to describe arguments that are, well, silly.
Me too. My comment directed to raj was entirely satirical, poking some fun at his tendency to claim that given words or phrases lack meaning; to say "just to let you know"; and to generally adopt (at least with me) a rather all-knowing and condescending tone (such as lecturing me on how to make an argument).
I just don't think it's a compelling argument for liberal bias in the media, for the simple reason that one can find lots of equally stupid statements made by Republicans, including Mehlman who is Dean's exact counterpart, that received little or no coverage in the media.
Well, again, it's not just that Dean said something stupid. It's that he inadvertently argued for the other side. If Mehlman (the RNC chair, not the cartoon giraffe) were to make an argument that (though he didn't realize it) was an argument for more Justices in the mold of Justice Ginsburg, I would expect him to be called on it. If he were to make an argument that (though he didn't realize it) supported the Democrat position in any way, I would expect him to be called on it.
As far as I am aware, though, he has not done so.
Enlightened?
But seriously, doesn't the expression 'leftist' have the connotation 'left-wing'? If we describe John McCain as 'moderate', although his politics 'lean' to the right, shouldn't people whose politics 'lean' to the left also be 'moderate'? These aren't purely rhetorical questions: the phrase 'leftist' for me inspires a vision of wild-eyed socialists and anarchists planning the downfall of the bourgeoisie, but it may not to other people.
There's also the question of where the 'middle' is. To some people, CNN has many 'rightist' qualities -- if you're Eugene V. Debs, you would see CNN as a mouthpiece for a corrupt capitalist establishment, and accusing it of being 'leftist' would be patently absurd.