The problem with "liberal bias"
Ezra Klein has written some amazing posts this weekend about the myriad problems with the Washington Press Corps and the liberal/Democratic reaction to it. I think his basic thesis, that the press (and this is almost especially true of the neoliberal press) doesn't so much hate Democrats as it's over-emotional to the point of unprofessionalism about them, is basically accurate: Joe Klein is perhaps the poster-boy for this dynamic. Ezra's posts made me think about my favourite article on the topic, Michelle Cottle's funny, deadly analysis of Dems and the media during the 2004 campaign:
But another, less frequently discussed factor is that Democrats simply like the media more than Republicans do--or, at least, more than the Republicans currently running the show. They respect the profession more, feel more of a kinship with reporters, and generally care more about being liked by the media than do members of Bush World. This relationship is as much about a perceived cultural affinity as any politically based "liberal media bias," and, contrary to what conservatives would have people believe, it hardly guarantees more sympathetic coverage of Democratic campaigns. In fact, as often as not, it winds up muddling Dems' working relationship with the media, leaving both groups unhappy with one another. And, as anyone in politics can tell you, a surly reporter is a dangerous one.
That's a big part of the problem right there: the press' unprofessional bias isn't a "liberal" bias; it's, as Ezra says, an intellectual one. It's the "cultural affinity" that lends itself to a sort of ultra-urban, world-weary, postmodern cynicism, but one born of a squandered and still-yearned-for j-school or thinktank idealism. Journalists don't just want to report. They want to be part of, to write the story of, something big. They want to be inspired. But failing that, they want to be repulsed, and to have the license to write their disappointment in bold text, to condemn and sneer. They want their suspicions confirmed. So they seek out a complicated narrative about the pols that interest them, searching out contradictions; finding larger meanings in behavioural tics; ruminating on "process" or on the existential-political fall from grace (monkey business, zippergate).
This over-sophistocated approach is maddening because it crowds out things that ought to matter in elections (Kerry's assumed, and unprovable, political opportunism becoming of equal weight during the 2004 campaign with Bush's dishonesty and incompetence in getting the country into Iraq) and because it complicates our politics without illuminating them (journalists' quest for narrative doesn't preclude a distaste for hard work, like, say, wading through the untruths of the Swift Vets to find out which ones were provably untrue and which ones were just unlikely impressions from a bygone era.) But mostly, it promotes, and ties the Democrats to, a worldview that is just screamingly out of touch with the way most citizens effectively approach politics. By so doing, it confirms the conservative complaint that the media is culturally elite and fundamentally detached from, if not contemptuous of, the interests and concerns of most Americans. That's what conservatives really mean by "liberal" bias.
And they're right, to a point. Bush's great advantage in all this is that he and his party (except maybe for Newt Gingrich and Jack Kemp and John McCain) bore the Washington Press Corps. They're too simple, too bottom-line-oriented, not tortured enough, not fallible enough, not really human enough. The grizzled old Washington journalists are too jaded to be shocked by the dishonesty (Medicare bill) or corruption (Abramoff) or a total lack of interest in the public good (MTBE lawsuit exemption) on display in today's GOP. But since Delay is just a corrupt scumbag, he's not really worth worrying about, getting riled up over. He has no pathos. Bush is only slightly more interesting and no more scrutible. Failing to understand how Bush could get himself elected and reelected, journalists aren't really intrigued by the mystery of his electoral success. But they respect it. And so they won't mock Bush (even when the press rains down bad news on Bush, it never mocks him) the way they'll mock liberal candidates who let them down personally.
One of the most illuminating examples of the problem was Dana Milbank's admission in an online Washington Post forum on media bias that:
I have voted in five presidential elections, twice for a Democrat and thrice for a Republican. I am registered as an independent. While covering national politics for the last couple of elections, I have done write-in votes, choosing the ideal candidate rather than one of those on the ballot. Some might say this is throwing away my vote, but I live in DC, so my vote doesn't make much difference.
So Milbank isn't a Democrat. But in the broadest sense, Milbank's position is still "liberal". It's part and parcel of Cottle's "cultural affinity" with the party of policy wonks. Milbank is informed and cynical and sophistocated. And his informed cynicism told him not only that Bush was a boob but, by the same token, that the last two Democratic candidates weren't good enough to vote for either. In prototypical pundit fashion, Milbank's vote is conditional on his being very impressed with what he sees.
Milbank's voting behaviour is perfectly valid, some would even say admirable. But it's hardly representative. What's signficant about Milbank's "independence" isn't that he's not really the flaming Democrat of Hugh Hewitt's fevered imagination. It's that he's an extremely unusual voter: almost nobody casts write-in votes for the "ideal" candidate (my money is on John McCain), even in safe states. In the 2004 election, turnout hit 1960s levels and third-party voting accounted for less than 1% of the votes cast. Between 2% and 3% of total votes cast in the typical presidential election end up spoiled, and most of those are aborted attempts to vote for one of the major party candidates -- remember Florida 2000. Milbank is not only a poor example of the typical Democratic voter. He's a poor example of any kind of voter.
And that's the problem for Democrats. Liberal journalists have expectations that liberal politicians must live up to if they want good coverage, if they don't want to be punished for failing the Test of Greatness to which they'll automatically be subject. Democrats don't have the GOP's benefit of inscrutable distance. And, of course, the relationship is reciprocal: our guys also hunger for the admiration of Washington journalists and suffer when they get its ugly twin: the contempt bred of an assumed familiarity. But at the same time (and with many terrific exceptions) the "liberal press" doesn't represent effective liberalism anyway. It actually does represent a form of elitism. Which means that appealing to journalists, even when it doesn't backfire, is no pancea for winning elections, even if it does beat getting trashed.
But another, less frequently discussed factor is that Democrats simply like the media more than Republicans do--or, at least, more than the Republicans currently running the show. They respect the profession more, feel more of a kinship with reporters, and generally care more about being liked by the media than do members of Bush World. This relationship is as much about a perceived cultural affinity as any politically based "liberal media bias," and, contrary to what conservatives would have people believe, it hardly guarantees more sympathetic coverage of Democratic campaigns. In fact, as often as not, it winds up muddling Dems' working relationship with the media, leaving both groups unhappy with one another. And, as anyone in politics can tell you, a surly reporter is a dangerous one.
That's a big part of the problem right there: the press' unprofessional bias isn't a "liberal" bias; it's, as Ezra says, an intellectual one. It's the "cultural affinity" that lends itself to a sort of ultra-urban, world-weary, postmodern cynicism, but one born of a squandered and still-yearned-for j-school or thinktank idealism. Journalists don't just want to report. They want to be part of, to write the story of, something big. They want to be inspired. But failing that, they want to be repulsed, and to have the license to write their disappointment in bold text, to condemn and sneer. They want their suspicions confirmed. So they seek out a complicated narrative about the pols that interest them, searching out contradictions; finding larger meanings in behavioural tics; ruminating on "process" or on the existential-political fall from grace (monkey business, zippergate).
This over-sophistocated approach is maddening because it crowds out things that ought to matter in elections (Kerry's assumed, and unprovable, political opportunism becoming of equal weight during the 2004 campaign with Bush's dishonesty and incompetence in getting the country into Iraq) and because it complicates our politics without illuminating them (journalists' quest for narrative doesn't preclude a distaste for hard work, like, say, wading through the untruths of the Swift Vets to find out which ones were provably untrue and which ones were just unlikely impressions from a bygone era.) But mostly, it promotes, and ties the Democrats to, a worldview that is just screamingly out of touch with the way most citizens effectively approach politics. By so doing, it confirms the conservative complaint that the media is culturally elite and fundamentally detached from, if not contemptuous of, the interests and concerns of most Americans. That's what conservatives really mean by "liberal" bias.
And they're right, to a point. Bush's great advantage in all this is that he and his party (except maybe for Newt Gingrich and Jack Kemp and John McCain) bore the Washington Press Corps. They're too simple, too bottom-line-oriented, not tortured enough, not fallible enough, not really human enough. The grizzled old Washington journalists are too jaded to be shocked by the dishonesty (Medicare bill) or corruption (Abramoff) or a total lack of interest in the public good (MTBE lawsuit exemption) on display in today's GOP. But since Delay is just a corrupt scumbag, he's not really worth worrying about, getting riled up over. He has no pathos. Bush is only slightly more interesting and no more scrutible. Failing to understand how Bush could get himself elected and reelected, journalists aren't really intrigued by the mystery of his electoral success. But they respect it. And so they won't mock Bush (even when the press rains down bad news on Bush, it never mocks him) the way they'll mock liberal candidates who let them down personally.
One of the most illuminating examples of the problem was Dana Milbank's admission in an online Washington Post forum on media bias that:
I have voted in five presidential elections, twice for a Democrat and thrice for a Republican. I am registered as an independent. While covering national politics for the last couple of elections, I have done write-in votes, choosing the ideal candidate rather than one of those on the ballot. Some might say this is throwing away my vote, but I live in DC, so my vote doesn't make much difference.
So Milbank isn't a Democrat. But in the broadest sense, Milbank's position is still "liberal". It's part and parcel of Cottle's "cultural affinity" with the party of policy wonks. Milbank is informed and cynical and sophistocated. And his informed cynicism told him not only that Bush was a boob but, by the same token, that the last two Democratic candidates weren't good enough to vote for either. In prototypical pundit fashion, Milbank's vote is conditional on his being very impressed with what he sees.
Milbank's voting behaviour is perfectly valid, some would even say admirable. But it's hardly representative. What's signficant about Milbank's "independence" isn't that he's not really the flaming Democrat of Hugh Hewitt's fevered imagination. It's that he's an extremely unusual voter: almost nobody casts write-in votes for the "ideal" candidate (my money is on John McCain), even in safe states. In the 2004 election, turnout hit 1960s levels and third-party voting accounted for less than 1% of the votes cast. Between 2% and 3% of total votes cast in the typical presidential election end up spoiled, and most of those are aborted attempts to vote for one of the major party candidates -- remember Florida 2000. Milbank is not only a poor example of the typical Democratic voter. He's a poor example of any kind of voter.
And that's the problem for Democrats. Liberal journalists have expectations that liberal politicians must live up to if they want good coverage, if they don't want to be punished for failing the Test of Greatness to which they'll automatically be subject. Democrats don't have the GOP's benefit of inscrutable distance. And, of course, the relationship is reciprocal: our guys also hunger for the admiration of Washington journalists and suffer when they get its ugly twin: the contempt bred of an assumed familiarity. But at the same time (and with many terrific exceptions) the "liberal press" doesn't represent effective liberalism anyway. It actually does represent a form of elitism. Which means that appealing to journalists, even when it doesn't backfire, is no pancea for winning elections, even if it does beat getting trashed.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home