TD,
Thank you for your comment and question. Let me try to give an answer that explains my position in the context of the reality of today's media. I will spell things out simply and clearly, so those lurking for whom this might be a new idea can easily follow along too. After explaining, I will give a few examples.
First of all, it's important to realize that we are dealing with a sliding scale of political viewpoints. When we speak of the media as being 'liberal' or 'conservative', we don't mean that it is 100% one or the other, but leaning more in one direction than the other. In some cases, we mean they are just over the center line. In others, they are far to one extreme. People are like this too.
This helps explain why you still see dissent in the mass media. If one voice is very conservative, and the other voice is less conservative, yet still not liberal, it can seem as if it is "Liberal versus Conservative" as if those are ever the only two choices. In fact, if you find (and it's not that easy to do this) a true liberal media source, you are immediately struck by how 'extreme' it sounds, since you never hear this message on the mainstream news. The true liberal voice is almost never presented on the news. The average American never comes in contact with real liberal news. This will come as a shock to the conservatives among us, for whom anyone who is not as conservative as them = liberal, but that is not how the words get defined regardless of what they think.
Secondly, the oft-quoted study that shows most reporters are personally liberal is probably true. Reporting doesn't pay well usually, and so it is often a job of the young, and the young are often idealistic, and thus liberal. As we will see, however, a reporter's personal views don't always make it into print, as they are not the ones who decides what gets published.
With those two points in mind, let's find initial agreement: Almost all media sources are now owned by large corporations. Your local newspaper is probably owned by Gannett or News Corp or some other large corporation. Disney owns ABC. GE owns NBC. AOL TImeWarner owns CNN. And so on.
How do corporations survive? By increasing shareholder wealth and increasing profit. How does a Gannett newpaper or ABC News make their profits? Primarily through advertising. Where does advertising come from? Other large corporations that are very much in tune with the public's mood. They know what appeals to the public and what doesn't, and their very existence as corporations depends on presenting appealing messages. Anything that doesn't appeal doesn't get funded.
Who own and run advertising companies and Gannett and News Corp and Disney? Extremely rich persons who, as a tendency, are conservative in their views. It pays to be conservative when you are rich -- preserves capital, after all. You occasionally get a rich liberal, but they are more the exception than the rule. Ted Turner may give away a billion dollars to the UN, but it makes headlines when it happens.
By the way, this ownership issue also helps explain why you still get dissent in the mainstream press. They may almost all be conservative to one degree or another, but they can disagree among themselves on the best conservative course to take. So they argue about it. Through their newspapers or TV news. Remember, just because you get opposing views, it doesn't automatically make it Liberal versus Conservatives. Sometimes you get two conservatives arguing amongst themselves, both putting forth a conservative solution, just different ones.
So now we have a group of very rich men controlling what gets advertised in the media outlets. And we have other rich men controlling the media outlets and needing to please the advertisers. If the rich men controlling the media outlets want to run a story suggesting that corporate America is ruining the environment by their pollution, how many advertisers do you think will want to spend thier money on such a program? Right, none. If, instead, the media outlet wants to run a story talking about pollution and how corporate America is rolling up its sleeves to clean things up, how many advertisers will want to be a part of that program? Right, plenty of them.
The above paragraph is not theoretical, but a real example. Erik Barnouw in his book The Sponsers, on page 135, describes a time when NBC was proposing a documentary series on environmental problems during a time when the environment was a hot topic. Unfortunately, since the series did not toe the corporate line of reassurance in this area, but pointed out that there were corporate failures in protecting the environment (a perfectly true thing to say at times), NBC couldn't get any advertising for these documentaries. They never got made.
Here's an excerpt from Procter and Gamble's instructions to their ad agency: "There will be no material on any of our programs which could in any way further the concept of cold, ruthless, and lacking in all sentiment or spiritual motivation." (The Media Monopoly, Ben Bagdikian, p. 160) Not surprisingly then, we often see the deptiction of businesses as caring, warm, needing to make a buck to be sure, but caring for the consumer's interests too.
Some examples I have personally noted about the increasing corporate-first news media:
When the Seattle riots occurred, the message in the mass media was that these were "anti-globalists." Although a few of those did exist, you almost never heard the dominant and true message of these protestors -- they were in favor of globalization, but wanted environmental and labor laws protected in the process, and wanted the decision-makers to stop deciding the fates of nations behind closed doors and let a diverse viewpoint be heard as they made those decisions. On the nightly news, however, you almost never heard this. Instead you heard about anarchists breaking windows, and college students having a lark by joining a protest. Their message was trivialized because it wasn't one that would be popular to the corporations controlling the news.
After 9/11, the media immediately leaped to the conclusion that Osama bin Laden was behind it. When Bush, a few days later, spoke to the nation and said that he had direct evidence linking the hijackers to bin Laden, it seemed to confirm what the media had been saying. Only one problem: it wasn't true at that time. In the week that followed the speech, four different military and administration sources admitted to a reporter from the more liberal New Yorker that they still had no direct evidence linking the hijackers to anyone. They just didn't know yet. Did any of this make the mainstream news? Did any news organization point out that Bush had said something that wasn't true to the American people? No, they just continued to wave the flag and repeat the party line.
That reflects another problem with the mass media: They are dependent on government sources for many of their leads, especially in a time of military conflict. If they start contradicting their official sources, and pointing out when they are being lied to, their sources will dry up. So they have an overriding need to maintain relatively good relations with their official sources. As we have seen in recent decades, political sources in the White House are perfectly willing to lie to reporters to further a political agenda. This is a dangerous combination then, with sources willing to lie to reporters who need to maintain a good working relationship with these sources, and thus are hesitant to point out lies.
In summary, when you have a group of rich men controlling the media, needing to please another group of rich men controlling advertising, who in turn need to appeal to the largest group of consumers as possible, and thus need to avoid offense, you get a gradual softening of the news. It is an inexorable process that has been happening for years now, ever since the news outlets got bought up. Individual reporters may be liberal in their outlook, but their editors and news managers decide what gets into print. If the head of ABC News says that ABC cannot criticize Disney (and he did say that), it won't matter how liberal an ABC reporter may be personally, he or she will never get on the air a piece that criticizes Disney.
When the news outlooks cease to be independent, but exist as a profit center for larger corporate interests, the bottom line rules. The bottom line is conservative, since it doesn't pay to rock the boat. Give the people what they want, make them feel secure overall, make them want to buy the advertiser's products, and it's a wonderful world.
Except for those of us who want an independent voice to tell us what is really going on.
