Sunday, March 10, 2013

A User's Guide to the Liberal Legacy Media

You hear the constant complaint that the media are biased against conservatives in general and Republicans specifically.  Indeed, straightforward partisan bias--Republicans bad, Democrats good--would appear to explain about 98 percent of the political reporting found in the legacy media.

As explanatory theories go, 98 percent is good, but not good enough.  I have discovered a theory that explains 100 percent of the content found in the legacy media in the areas of politics, government and public affairs.

Legacy Media coverage is not shaped to promote the interests of one political party over another (however much that may appear to be the case).  Media coverage is shaped in a way to promote, protect, and defend the progressive case.  Those are two different, though related, concepts.  Here, I define "Progressive' as an ideology which promotes government-based solutions for societal problems.

All news accounts published in legacy media outlets (newspapers, along with broadcast TV and radio news) can be classified into one of six categories.  The six categories correspond exactly to the life-cycle of a progressive idea.

Keep in mind that the legacy media reporter/editor/publisher may not even be consciously aware that this phenomenon is occurring.  Trained at liberal journalism schools, steeped in the generally liberal culture, and surrounded by like-minded colleagues, it is entirely possible that members of the media class merely believe that they are reporting the natural state of the world, rather than promoting a particular ideology.

To illustrate my theory, I use examples from local Twin Cities media (mostly the Minneapolis Star Tribune) from the weekend of March 8-10, 2013.

Stage 1:  The Trial Balloon
This type of reporting represents the "coming attractions" feature of the progressive state.  Those wacky ideas that right-wing radio talk show hosts like to make fun of are actually next year's public policy debate and will be state law within two years.

The "news" story itself may appear to be little more than a rewritten press release from a progressive non-profit, labor union, or academic institution.  It represents the newest, freshest products from the progressive laboratory of ideas.  The purpose of Stage 1 reporting is to acclimate the general public to whatever new direction the progressive infrastructure would like to take us.  Problems you never knew existed are identified and government-based solutions are devised.

An example from Sunday's Minneapolis Star Tribune has this headline,

"Prepaid debit cards carry few safeguards:  the cards are increasingly popular, but the regulations are few and the fees are confusing."[1]

That pretty much covers it.  Your diligent progressive advocates discover an obscure, less-regulated corner of the financial services industry.  Find a few victims, name a few villains, include a supporting statistic, identify the government solution and the media's job is done.  And there is always the helpful quote from the local non-profit.

In this instance, the supporting statistic is provided by the left-leaning non-profit Pew Charitable Trust.  The government solution is provided courtesy of the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which plans to issue new rules.  The villains are big banks, JP Morgan, Wells Fargo, etc.  The victims include 30 million "unbanked" households.

To be sure, the Star Tribune includes some of the positive aspects of prepaid cards and some defense of the industry.  In fact, the article itself, once you get off the front page and onto page A13, provides ample evidence of a market at work driving down costs and providing more convenience and value to consumers.  But the thrust of the piece is how new regulation is needed, a premise that goes unchallenged.

Stage 2:  The Heroic Struggle
Not all progressive ideas are greeted with standing ovations.  Occasionally, a struggle is required to overcome the reactionaries and other obstacles standing in the way of the idea's implementation.  Chief among the obstacles are Republicans who are not willing to vote for said program.

Take, for example, the effort to raise the minimum wage in Minnesota.  Employers are concerned with rising costs; economists point to rising unemployment.

Right on cue, here comes the Star Tribune to provide some support for the struggle.  Sunday's edition assures us through an opinion poll that the "Majority supports minimum wage hike."  In case you missed the point of the headline, or the timing of the story, or the intended audience, the paper informs you in the third paragraph,

"The new poll comes as legislators are considering a variety of proposals to raise the minimum wage."

The villains?  "Small-business owners and business groups" and Republicans at the state legislature.  The heroes?  Unnamed "advocates" and Democrats at the state legislature.

Stage 3:  The Shower of Benefits
Even after a progressive idea has passed into law or official policy, some critics may remain or a large segment of the population may still be unconvinced of its effectiveness (cf. Obamacare).

The legacy media will step in to reassure any skeptics that yes, the idea is working as designed and the promised benefits are being showered upon a grateful populace.

This weekend's example comes from the front page of the local section of the Sunday Star Tribune, "State puts preschool strategy to the test: will focus on early childhood education help ensure success later in life."  Pre-school programs are already in place at the state level, and there is widespread support for extending the concept.  However, there are real questions remaining over just how effective are the specific programs being employed.

Not to worry.  The opening paragraph introduces us to two pre-schoolers "flourishing" in the program.  This "prized strategy" appears headed for a substantial increase in funding at the state legislature.  Concerns about the program are buried on page B6 and are "placed in context" so your rest will remain untroubled.

Stage 4:  Defense of the Status Quo
As signs of failure begin to appear in a progressive program, the legacy media spring into action to wave their arms and declare loudly "move along, nothing to see here."

Case in point--and giving the Star Tribune a brief break--is this Minnesota Public Radio (MPR) report on the University of Minnesota's administrative bloat scandal.  I've written on this issue a number of times (see 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5), which was the subject of a big expose in the Wall Street Journal right before New Year's.  The University selected a consultant and paid for a study that (surprise!) completely exonerates the University on the charge of administrative over staffing.

Late in reporting on the scandal itself, local media have eagerly participated in covering the cover-up.  The MPR story, "Officials pleased by report on U of M administrative efficiency," merely illustrates the axiom, "he who pays the piper, calls the tune."

Stage 5:  The Call of the Sherpa
When failure can no longer be hidden, or the failure of one effort becomes so glaring as to threaten the larger progressive enterprise, the liberal sherpas appear on the scene ready to minimize the damage.

The casual media consumer may read such stories as a refutation of partisan bias.  In fact, such efforts are the most critical to keeping the progressive project running.  All such stories blame the failure of a progressive policy or program on (1) a lack of resources (money) or (2) poor execution or some combination of the two.  The premise itself can never be shown to be at fault.

Case in point is the Star Tribune's coverage of special education in public schools.  Saturday's editorial on the subject caps a series of reports in the news pages.

The board states the premise,
"Students with special needs—ranging from mild learning disabilities to more severe physical problems—deserve to be educated to the best of their abilities.  That’s why state and federal laws rightly require school districts to serve them."
The board outlines the problem,
"Yet that worthy mandate often puts a strain on school district budgets...Students with the most serious disabilities can cost $100,000 or more.  For Minnesota, those costs have skyrocketed to $1.8 billion this year. That’s up 70 percent in the last decade, forcing many districts to divert revenues from general to special education.  That’s not sustainable over time, nor is it fair to traditional students."
The board then suggests the obvious solutions:  more money and better management.  The original premise--that ordinary public schools represent the best vehicle in all instances--is never re-examined.

Stage 6:  The Bitter Regret
Occasionally, a less-enlightened jurisdiction may embrace an idea that is actually anti-progressive, or the progressive state may suffer some (temporary) setback.  Such stories are always written in a tone of bitter regret--more in sorrow than anger--at the progressive paradise foregone or not allowed to thrive.

An example of each appears in Saturday's Star Tribune.  An example of the former, those troglodytes over in South Dakota had the nerve to pass a law allowing schools teachers to be armed in the classroom.  (The use of the phrase "so-called" was certainly a tip-off.)

An example of the latter, a local news story rebukes a state supreme court decision from 2011 that limits the use in medical research of blood samples taken from newborns.  The court placed limits on the use of such material because of privacy concerns.  The paper offers a local college freshman--born with a medical condition--as living proof of the wrongheadedness of the court's decision.  Not one word in defense of the privacy viewpoint is offered.

Ideology > Party
Reporters/editors/publishers in the legacy media react strongly against any and all accusations of partisan political bias.  In their view, such charges are not merely mistaken, but grossly unfair.  The legacy media does not want to say bad things about Republicans.  The legacy media would dearly love to say more nice things about Republicans, if only they could find more Republicans willing to cooperate.

Any Republican who does or says something supportive of progressive policy will receive more and better news coverage than a similarly situated Democrat.  A Democrat supporting a progressive program is "dog bites man."  A Republican progressive is "man bites dog":  not only is it inherently more newsworthy, but it lends the whole enterprise a veneer of bi-partisanship, if not the appearance of outright common sense.  Positive coverage of such Republicans will be held up as evidence refuting the thesis of partisan bias, when it fact it reinforces the theory of ideological bias.

Consider this March 2013 item from the Associated Press, claiming that the late-President Richard Nixon supported gun control.  The AP recasts the liberal Nixon as "a conservative president" who was "willing to take on the National Rifle Association."  Far from being biased against conservatives and Republicans, the legacy media will go out of their way to say nice things--even about as reviled a figure as Nixon--if it serves the progressive cause.  Oh, what might have been, if not for that darn Watergate unpleasantness.

To the charge of partisan bias, the legacy media pleads innocent.  When confronted with the charge of ideological bias, a legacy media reporter/editor/publisher will confess only to "looking out for the little guy" or "rooting for the underdog."   It would seem that the only way an underdog can be helped is by a fully-funded, tax-payer financed government mandate.

So I encourage you, the reader, to try out my system.  Next time you pick up a newspaper, check out the political/government/public policy coverage, and see if you can fit each story into one of the six categories.

This theory implies that certain kinds of media coverage will never be seen.  Favorable coverage of conservatives will not be seen, regardless of party affiliation.  Just as Republican conservatives like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz will not receive favorable media coverage, neither did Democrat conservatives, such as Zell Miller.  A conservative Republican like Marco Rubio will only receive favorable coverage when supporting progressive causes, such as immigration reform.

To recap:

I hereby promulgate Glahn's First Law of Legacy Media Bias:  All media coverage of political, governmental, and public policy news will support the advancement of the progressive cause.

Corollary 1:  Republicans who support progressive causes will receive more and better media coverage than similarly situated Democrats or others.

Corollary 2:  When progressive ideals clash, the outcome more important to the financing of the progressive cause will prevail (follow the money).

Corollary 3:  When the "little guy" or the "underdog" gets the shaft from the progressive state, this story will not be printed, except to blame the victim.  (See property owners or small business owners and coverage thereof.)

Corollary 4:  No conservative will receive favorable coverage for advocating conservative ideas.


[1] Bjorhus, Jennifer.  "Prepaid debit cards carry few safeguards," Star Tribune, March 10, 2013, page A1, cont'd, p. A13.

No comments:

Post a Comment