Rhetorica: Press-Politics Journal

[Ed. Note: The following also applies if you substitute "conservative" for "liberal," although the specific example is liberal.]

According to the liberal bias “theory” of the mainstream media (”__” because is isn’t one), this should be front-page news everywhere. But it’s not. Hmmmmmmm… Someone explain to me how it is The New York Times and the Washington Post didn’t splash this all over their front pages.

If the journalists at these newspapers are liberal–meaning, consequently, that they do what they do based on political considerations first–then the still unverified nature of the story should not have kept them from playing it up. If you’re out to push the liberal agenda, who gives a rip if it isn’t nailed down from “both sides”? If you’re out to push a liberal agenda, who cares if the correspondents who claim to have witnessed the events contribute to an overtly biased publication? If you’re out to push a liberal agenda, isn’t it enough that the implications of this story help you prove that American society is racist and the Old South mentality still hasn’t been brought to heel? If you’re out to push a liberal agenda, doesn’t this recall (among other things) Selma, Kent State, and Chicago 1968? (Note: anaphora and rhetorical question combination. Why am I telling you this?)

[Ed. note: This story should be reported, but it should not be published until verified. Mayor Nagin's quote could be considered verification. But it appears there's been very little follow-up, i.e. "Tell us Mayor Nagin, how do you know _____"? If any Rhetorica reader has seen a follow-up, please post the link in a comment. Note that this CNN story quotes Bradshaw, one of the correspondents for The Socialist Worker. One might be tempted to claim that publishing anything at all is liberal bias. But all you'd have is an anecdote that doesn't stand up to how we might reasonably (assuming you want to be reasonable) expect a truly liberal press to behave.]

[Ed. Note: This is a great "story" (re: narrative bias) no matter what your politics. Cops holding back African-Americans fleeing a disaster by blockading a bridge and shooting over their heads! That's drama! It even has a great symbol of racist struggle--a bridge. It's a great story if you feel for the displaced. It's a great story if you think the cops heroically held off a mob. It's a great story if you if you think situations like these are always more complicated and complex than usually portrayed in the press. There's just no way this isn't a great story--assuming its true.]

I’m a liberal. And just as Mr. Spock was in control of his emotions, I’m in (at least a certain measure) of control of my ideologies (because of my awareness of the role ideology plays in human cognition–an awareness I suppose most reasonable people possess). If I were publishing a newspaper and allowed myself to be guided by my liberal ideology, I’d be splashing this story all over the front page. And I’d beat that horse until is was dead dead dead.

Jay Rosen is 100 percent correct: The media bias debate is dumb dumb dumb.

(Well, not really. It’s a rhetorical and political maneuver that’s working (See paragraph above, re: “I’m a liberal.”) By saying it’s dumb–I can’t speak for Rosen here–what I’m saying is that it does not conform to a reasonable understanding of how the press actually works. The folks pushing the political bias debate from the right and left don’t care about how the press actually works. They simply wish to win politically. Lord knows there’s plenty wrong with how the press actually works to keep critics’ ears steaming. But political (right or left) bias isn’t one of those problems. Or, rather, bias is a byproduct of other phenomena, i.e. other problems.)

A reminder:

Journalists, too, speak from political positions but usually not overtly so. The journalistic ethics of objectivity and fairness are strong influences on the profession. But journalistic objectivity is not the pristine objectivity of philosophy. Instead, a journalist attempts to be objective by two methods: 1) fairness to those concerned with the news and 2) a professional process of information gathering that seeks fairness, completeness, and accuracy. As we all know, the ethical heights journalists set for themselves are not always reached. But, all in all, like politics, it is an honorable profession practiced, for the most part, by people trying to do the right thing.

The press is often thought of as a unified voice with a distinct bias (right or left depending on the critic). This simplistic thinking fits the needs of ideological struggle, but is hardly useful in coming to a better understanding of what is happening in the world. I believe journalism is an under-theorized practice. In other words, journalists often do what they do without reflecting upon the meaning of the premises and assumptions that support their practice. I say this as a former journalist. I think we may begin to reflect upon journalistic practice by noticing that the press applies a narrative structure to ambiguous events in order to create a coherent and causal sense of events.

…

I have asserted that some critics of the press think of it as speaking with a unified voice with a distinct ideological bias. I have further asserted that this simplistic thinking fits the needs of ideological struggle, but is hardly useful in coming to a better understanding of what is happening in the world. For that better understanding we need a theory.

A theory offers us a model that tells us why things happen as they do. Further, a theory allows us to predict outcomes and behavior. Assertions of ideological bias do neither. While we can expect the press to demonstrate ideological biases in regard to certain issues or other localized phenomena, these and other behaviors are explained and predicted by the structural biases. Since the press sometimes demonstrates a conservative bias, asserting that the press is liberal neither predicts nor explains. Since the press sometimes demonstrates a liberal bias, asserting that the press is conservative neither predicts nor explains.

[Ed Note: Don't accuse me of pushing publication of this story or even believing it. Re-read the second paragraph carefully...and this.]

(Lack of verification can create the effect of a political bias. It happens “both” ways. Why do I spend more time fighting the liberal variety? The answer may be found in the parenthetical thought above. Hint: It has nothing to do with my political ideology, although that may be an effective counter-argument (politically) to claim otherwise. But, then, how would one justify the notion that would have to obtain: That political ideology trumps other ideology.)