The Secret’s Out: Big Media Has a Liberal Bias

Tue   20 Feb 1996   7:58 by Kevin McGehee in North Pole, Alaska 0 comments [Media Ochre] [My Two Cents]

[Editor’s note, May 2007: The date I’ve put on this post is only a guess; for some reason the one copy of the piece that survives does not have its date of origin anywhere on it. I’ve arbitrarily dated it one week after the original publication of this op-ed by Bernard Goldberg, the reaction to it being the proximate cause of this piece.] Even CBS correspondent Bernard Goldberg admitted in his controversial op-ed piece that Big Media’s liberal bias is “so blatantly true” that it’s no longer worth debating. And to people long accustomed to Big Media’s denials, the fact that the entire network skyscraper seems about to fall on Goldberg comes as no surprise. After all—from the network’s point of view—what Goldberg did was tantamount to sharing a national-security secret with a wartime enemy. That’s why Big Media has become so pathetic in recent years. They’ve been treating one of the most widely known facts about the journalistic profession as though it were something they could deny, cover up, and keep secret. It’s as though the War Department had continued to deny the existence of the atom bomb all this time after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. At least from this we can get an idea where the Clintons picked up the notion they could deny, cover up, and keep secret the truth about Whitewater. For some time now, Big Media has tried to fend off accusations of a liberal bias by pointing out that media outlets are owned by corporations whose stockholders, as presumed setters of management policy, operate under the profit motive—a well-known capitalist affliction which Big Media assumes therefore must make its sufferers conservatives. The argument seems to be that since members of the Boards of Directors at Westinghouse or Capital Cities want corporate profits to go up, that means the media apparatus these corporations own must have a tendency toward conservative bias, if any at all. This is no less ridiculous than the idea that Big Media could deny its liberalism. If their “chain of command” argument had any validity (even assuming it were based on astute observations about the political leanings of corporate executives and directors, which it is not), then we should certainly see CBS News running regular exposes on Maytag and Whirlpool, rivals to new owner Westinghouse, with the clear (but scrupulously denied) intent of improving sales of Westinghouse appliances. Likewise, NBC should have spent its RCA/GE/Black&Decker period attacking rival electronics manufacturers, rival power-tool manufacturers, and rival light-bulb and appliance makers. Like, say, Westinghouse. Talk about your network wars. Boy, just wait until Coke and Pepsi own rival networks! No, the whole no-liberal-bias argument is a crock, and what’s really newsworthy about Bernard Goldberg’s op-ed piece is not what he said, nor the reaction of his bosses. It’s that he has ripped from Big Media the tattered cloak of deniability they have maintained about their bias. What John Dean did for the Watergate scandal, Goldberg has done for a much older and more damaging scandal. This is truly a great time to be alive and conservative.

Dole Slips, Buchanan Bounds, Gramm Is Gone

Mon   12 Feb 1996   22:57 by Kevin McGehee in North Pole, Alaska 0 comments [Get Offa My Lawn!] [My Two Cents]

Unless late caucus results bring in a massive influx of new numbers supporting Senator Bob Dole for the Republican presidential nomination, the long-presumed “front-runner” for that nomination has finished just far enough ahead of Pat Buchanan to keep the feisty challenger from treading on his heels. With 88% of caucus results reported, CBS showed a mere four percent difference between the two. This is far short of the massive lead Dole needed in a state where he is regarded as their “third Senator,“ and where Dole defeated then-Vice President George Bush in 1988. Dole’s strength there has been so broadly accepted that the narrow margin of his victory can only be seen as a moral defeat for the Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate. Dole had been taking hits in the media for a lackluster performance in the GOP response to President Clinton’s State of the Union speech last month, and for being a willing user of what Big Media regard as that most despised cancer upon the electoral process, the “negative ad,“ but Dole has also suffered from a number of problems during his campaign, not least of which is the fact that he was “universally” regarded as the front-runner in the first place. Dole’s poll numbers had been strong throughout 1995, often showing almost half of Republicans preferring him over any likely challenger for the nomination—and leading many Republicans to conclude that he had a “lock” on the nomination. More astute observers, however, had sensed that Dole’s strong numbers indicated “soft” support on top of what would prove to be a much smaller base of committed supporters. Dole also has a well-earned image as one who has no visceral objections to tax increases—having pushed both Presidents Reagan and Bush into tax hikes that proved bad for the economy (and in Bush’s case, political suicide). The moral victory in Iowa clearly goes to Pat Buchanan, who not only denied Dole the huge, easy win he had every right to expect, but came to Iowa after having defied the Hawkeye State’s GOP by campaigning in Louisiana. Iowa Republicans, jealous of their state’s status as the “first-in-the-nation” for delegate selection, had warned the GOP field to boycott Louisiana’s caucuses last week. Texas Sen. Phil Gramm defied the warning because the Louisiana event was staged for his benefit, but Pat Buchanan challenged Gramm there and won. Now Buchanan has bloodied Bob Dole on his own turf. Although I have reservations about Buchanan, I must point out that of three states that have had presidential preference events so far in 1996, the consistent winner in each has been Patrick Buchanan. There can be no credible argument that he is not, at this time, the real front-runner for the 1996 Republican Presidential Nomination. Phil Gramm is the first casualty of 1996, having publicly stated that he would not remain in the race unless he finished at least third in Iowa. His best possible finish as I write this is fourth place, which means that his word obligates him to leave the presidential race.

A Moment of Silence for the Phil Gramm Campaign

Wed   7 Feb 1996   8:42 by Kevin McGehee in North Pole, Alaska 0 comments [Get Offa My Lawn!] [My Two Cents]

The Louisiana caucuses that took place Tuesday, February 6, were organized expressly to benefit the presidential campaign of Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas—yet Gramm was trounced by Pat Buchanan. Gramm finished fifth in the Alaska straw poll largely because, despite his huge campaign warchest and his visits to Alaska, his campaigning technique appeared to have been transplanted whole from his campaigns for re-election to the Senate. Shmoozing with the party establishment may be a good way to ensure that Texans won’t impose de facto term limits on the senior Senator, but it’s no way to win the rapt attention of the party rank and file that a presidential aspirant needs. Gramm’s method gives lie to the whole point of his challenging “front-runner” Bob Dole (who came in third in Alaska), and suggests that his hopes were pinned on his ability to act the front-runner, should Dole ever stumble. With the results in Louisiana, it is clear that Gramm is the one who has stumbled, and badly. Being unable to win a set of caucuses hurriedly organized with the clear intent of giving him a “gimme” before the Iowa caucuses next week, the Senator has made some of his early supporters wonder if he is really serious about winning the presidency in 1996. This, too, could be damning in light of the cantankerous mood of the country, and especially of that of Republican rank-and-filers that have had the euphoria of their 1994 congressional victory tempered by the collegial caution of longtime GOP officeholders like Dole and Gramm. It appears as though Gramm has privately conceded Dole the 1996 nomination (merely his first mistake), accepted Dole’s promise not to seek a second term (another mistake, in my opinion), and decided that he must run this year in order to be in line for the coronation next time around. Both Senators have badly misread the direction of the political winds; the old system of nominating the candidate with the most seniority as a would-be president is already breaking down, now that voters have seen how old-line Republicans prefer to govern—make the deal, and principle be damned! The departure in 1994 of then-House Minority Leader Robert Michel, under a Gingrich threat to oppose him for the leadership in 1995 if he stayed around, was a sign of things to come, just as Michel was an example of the Republican way during decades of Democratic rule. If Phil Gramm has been serious about his desire to become President this trip, he seems to have assumed that by talking a better game than Dole on taxes and certain other issues he can make enough of a distinction between himself and Mr. Tax Hike to excite voters. The scope of this campaign has betrayed him, if that is the case, because in 1996 the Republican voter can see Gramm not only in contrast to Bob Dole, but also in contrast to Pat Buchanan, Alan Keyes, and Steve Forbes. And Gramm’s campaigning technique so far makes him look entirely too much like Dole, and not enough like the real challengers. In Iowa, Gramm will not attain the coveted “strong second” he would need to be poised for victory in New Hampshire. He may come in a distant second, or even third. If Dole fails to finish first with a massive margin over the rest of the pack, it will constitute a moral defeat for him. Keep an eye on both Buchanan and Forbes. Alan Keyes is in the exasperating position of having a solid core group of very excited supporters, while a much larger number of people like what he says but think his support base is too small for him to have a chance. I believe that if all of those who think Keyes can’t win, voted for him, he could very easily become the strong new challenge to Dole. One sure loser in 1996: Garry Trudeau, creator of the “Doonesbury” comic strip. [Editor’s note, May 2007: Prior to the electoral outcome that occasioned this piece, I had been a Gramm supporter. My disillusionment with Gramm’s camapigning style clearly colored my commentary.]

Page 18 of 18 pages « First  <  16 17 18