#52 The Second of Two Posts: The Media's Conservative Bias

I know that some folk will argue that the media are liberally biased, and favor Barack Obama by giving him more face time, more complimentary stories. I don't buy that. I see the media as having an increasingly strong conservative bias.

I'm not just talking about Rush Limbaugh or other radical right-wing talkers, though Rush (as those of us who don't know him call him) is of course a prime example. I'm talking about the lack of success of liberal talk shows (Al Franken's, anyone?) whose audience has been sufficiently small that liberal talk radio's number of markets has decreased noticeably in recent months. Of course, that's the result of "market forces," but it doesn't change the nature of the argument. There are more--many more--hosts spouting the conservative mantra in the media than there are liberals, or even moderates.

Glenn Beck appears daily on, of all networks(!), CNN Headline News. I watch his show occasionally. At least, until what he says makes my blood pressure rise to untenable levels. The fact is, I agree with some of the things he says, but I'm very much put off by his frequent nastiness. Tonight, for example, he had an ad on about his now appearing on YOUR cell phone. Well, okay, not on mine. I don't have video, and I don't keep my cell phone on anyway. But he has select ringtones that (I suppose) people can download or buy or whatever one does with ringtones, and one of them (he indicated) says, "I smell a liberal calling!"

That may be his attempt at humor. But even as a joke, it's not funny. It's just silly and sophomoric, though I admit that I had to suppress a smile when I first heard it.

But when you add the Glenn Becks of the media to the ENTIRE fox network, and combine their conservative ranting with the fact that other networks generally do NOT editorialize within alleged news shows (as fox does), then you get a pretty heavy dose of anti-Obama "news" and commentary. Note that I did not say, "pro-McCain." I find it significant that the editorialists, even when parading under the guise of news reporters, have more negative things to say about Obama than positive things to say about McCain.

I am concerned that the weight of such anti-Obama comments will eventually takes its toll, the precise hope of the far-right commentators, and that people on the fence will fall over into the McCain camp, in order to cast a vote against what Obama allegedly stands for (as alleged by the conservative media). Obama cannot afford to be answering his many critics all the time, and so far I think he's found a pretty good balance between answering them and providing the positive information about his own ideas for change in America.

Obama needs to continue doing so.

On another (though always related) topic, I think that Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, my favorite choice for the Republican VP slot, has intentionally or unintentionally removed himself from consideration by John McCain. Yesterday Pawlenty said--out loud, in public, for everyone to hear--that in this campaign the Republicans should adopt the more positive tone that Senator Barack Obama has adopted. Pawlenty did not say that McCain was being negative (though McCain's ads, probably under the guidance of the Evil Karl Rove, have been very negative).

With Pawlenty likely out of the running (will McCain surprise everyone and pick him anyway for his legitimate conservative credentials?), Mitt Romney may have the upper hand as the VP choice. I've already discussed why he would be a weak choice for McCain (he won't bring Michigan, but he will bring Idaho and Utah, which have no chance of NOT going Republican anyway). I see only one "positive" to Romney's being selected: that he can adopt McCain's negative campaigning by being the attack dog against Obama; and John McCain can try to elevate himself to a higher level than he has been on so far. I actually don't think McCain is in sufficient control of his own emotions to carry it off.

-- triton --