I think these couple of paragraphs by EJ Dionne Jr. in today’s column sum up the media dynamic that has taken hold during the first few months of the Obama administration:
A media environment that tilts to the right is obscuring what President Obama stands for and closing off political options that should be part of the public discussion.
Yes, you read that correctly: If you doubt that there is a conservative inclination in the media, consider which arguments you hear regularly and which you don’t. When Rush Limbaugh sneezes or Newt Gingrich tweets, their views ricochet from the Internet to cable television and into the traditional media. It is remarkable how successful they are in setting what passes for the news agenda.
The power of the Limbaugh-Gingrich axis means that Obama is regularly cast as somewhere on the far left end of a truncated political spectrum. He’s the guy who nominates a “racist” to the Supreme Court (though Gingrich retreated from the word yesterday), wants to weaken America’s defenses against terrorism and is proposing a massive government takeover of the private economy. Steve Forbes, writing for his magazine, recently went so far as to compare Obama’s economic policies to those of Juan Peron’s Argentina.
Basically, he says, the media has bought into this — most likely because the cable news cycle relies on conflict and, given the weakness of the Republican Party, Limbaugh, Gingrich and Sean Hannity offer a level of conflict that makes for good TV. The “media,” he says,
play an independent role by regularly treating far-right views as mainstream positions and by largely ignoring critiques of Obama that come from elected officials on the left.
This was brought home at this week’s annual conference of the Campaign for America’s Future, a progressive group that supports Obama but worries about how close his economic advisers are to Wall Street, how long our troops will have to stay in Afghanistan and how much he will be willing to compromise to secure health-care reform.
In other words, they see Obama not as the parody created by the far right but as he actually is: a politician with progressive values but moderate instincts who has hewed to the middle of the road in dealing with the economic crisis, health care, Guantanamo and the war in Afghanistan.
While the right wing’s rants get wall-to-wall airtime, you almost never hear from the sort of progressive members of Congress who were on an America’s Future panel on Tuesday. Reps. Jared Polis of Colorado, Donna Edwards of Maryland and Raul Grijalva of Arizona all said warm things about the president — they are Democrats, after all — but also took issue with some of his policies.
The effect is to drag the debate to the right, foreclosing the ability of progressives to put their agenda on the table. Take the health care debate: The most progressive option, a Canadian-style single-payer health-care system, has been taken off the table meaning that the left starts from a position of weakness at the bargaining table. Dionne writes:
Edwards noted that if the public plan, already a compromise from single-payer, is defined as the left’s position in the health-care debate, the entire discussion gets skewed to the right. This makes it far more likely that any public option included in a final bill will be a pale version of the original idea.
That’s assuming it survives at all, given that some Blue Dogs have said they oppose it.
Dionne says that Edwards’ “point has broader application.”
For all the talk of a media love affair with Obama, there is a deep and largely unconscious conservative bias in the media’s discussion of policy. The range of acceptable opinion runs from the moderate left to the far right and cuts off more vigorous progressive perspectives.
Washington — both in terms of its political and media cultures — has yet to awake from its nightmare of three decades of conservative bias, regardless of what the polls say about the issues. Powerful committee chairs like Max Baucus are still buying into the conventional wisdom, which narrows debate.
And too many on the left have stood by without complaint. To understand what has happened to the left, one only needs to look at the way MoveOn.org has turned sycophant to the Obama administration, going so far as to bury discussion of Afghanistan. (To be fair, MoveOn crawled into bed with the Democrats several years ago, allowing itself to become a thinly veiled adjunct of the party — a very sad development. Although, to be fair, the organization just sent around a petition on health care calling for a public option that could compete with private plans, lending its resources to the fight for reform — although, again, it has allowed itself to define the left-most regions of debate as compromise.)
It is time the left got up off its heels and made it clear that its critiques of the Obama administration warrant serious coverage and need to be a part of the larger debate. The spectrum of opinion in this country — opinion that is within the mainstream — should not be far-right to center-left; let the far-right speak, but make sure the left is well represented.
The stakes on this are too high, as Chris Bowers points out on Open Left in discussing the health care fight and what it portends for Obama’s presidency:
Real health care reform–aka, a public option–is the lowest bar for progressives to clear with the current congress. It has the most lobbying behind it, bringing in not only health care reform groups, but also unions and mutli-issue groups like MoveOn. It only requires 50 votes in the senate, whereas Republicans will force 60-votes on virtually everything else. It is a very popular, not only in absolute terms (60%+), but also relatively popular compared to other major Democratic agenda items like climate change. And President Obama won’t have a 60%+ approval rating forever, either.
The bottom line is this: if we can’t get our most popular major agenda item, during the peak in Democratic popularity, when we need only 50 Senate votes, and on the issue where we have given our strongest lobbying and activist efforts, then we aren’t going to pass meaningful progressive legislation on anything else.
We are at 35 votes in the Senate on a non-trigger public option. Unions and MoveOn
are working on acquiring more. Instead of floating a “trigger” compromise, the White House needs to start getting on planes, and holding rallies in the states with Democratic Senators who are currently not on board with the public option. (Such a tactic, if effective, would also provide a template for future progressive victories in the Obama admintration.) We can do this–but we can’t do it if the White House is willing to fold without even publicly pressuring the retrograde Democrats.If we don’t pass a non-trigger public option, it won’t just mean the end of meaningful health care reform. It will mean the end of any meaningful progressive legislation for at least two more years, and possible eight. Given the low bar, high popularity, and peak efforts we have on this one, a defeat on health care means that Republicans and Senate conservodems will be able to water down, or kill, all other progressive legislation proposed to this Congress.
Hank Kalet 
The wing nuts vomit up this nonsense about a liberal media bias 24/7. Almost 99% of talk radio is far right wing hate mongers. I gave up on WABC radio years ago because of the right wing spewing garbage. NJ101.5 is reactionary retrograde rightwing/libertarian Neanderthal filth.If not for the jerks and corporate crowd, we would have had universal health care decades ago but instead we are struggling to have a half-a$$ compromise bill that may not even succeed. So will we have to wait another 20 years for health care reform?
>The wing nuts vomit up this nonsense about a liberal media bias 24/7. \”Nonsense\”? Any objective study, and even some non-obkective liberal media studies, show the liberal bias.>Almost 99% of talk radio is far right wing hate mongers.Well, what do you call NPR? And, then, how do you define \”hate\”? > I gave up on WABC radio years ago because of the right wing spewing garbage. Me2. Right wing agreed. Garbage — don't agree. Free speech.>NJ101.5 is reactionary retrograde rightwing/libertarian Neanderthal filth.Not \”libertarian\”. I object to that characterization. Libertarians are more accurately described as \”classical liberal\” who object to the actions of both Church and King. \”Church\” in that libertarians are socially liberal. And, \”King\” in that they are closer to fiscal conservatives. We fight that marriage ain't nobody's business; certainly not the State's. We fight against taxes that are theft and paper money, not gold or silver, that allow the \”King\” to hide taxes and steal wealth by inflation.>If not for the jerks and corporate crowd, we would have had universal health care decades agoUniversal heathcare is an illusion. Translate that into \”political rationing\”. Look at the VA, Canada, England, Mdeicare, and Medicaid. Let the geniuses in the District of Corruption and Trenton fix those and then come tell us how great it \”will be\” when they do it to us!>instead we are struggling to have a half-a$$ compromise bill that may not even succeed. I have to hope that it doesn't succeed and we have an FDR-style entitlement that can never be changed. (Because people will become dependent upon it!) And, there is NO money to pay for it. Trillions and trillions of dollars of debt. Unfunded liabilities. Argh!>So will we have to wait another 20 years for health care reform?Why can't we do some simple things:Make the tax code neutral with respect to benefits. Emerging form the WW2 wage and price controls, the gooferment has distorted the “playing field”. “Benefits” are deductible to the corporation and not to the individual. That has set up the situation where an individual’s health insurance is tied to their job. No job; no insurance.How much better would things be if it was like life insurance or automobile insurance. I can buy 20 year term life cheap and no one cares who my employer is. I am required by the gooferment to have auto insurance (an absurd concept), but it’s not tied to my employment.Then some not so simple things:Eliminate all licensing requirements. This making healthcare cheaper. (Think Consumer Reports versus the AMA!) Eliminate all government restrictions on pharmaceutical products and medical devices. (Think USP and Underwriters Labratory as opposed to the FDA!)Deregulate the health insurance industry. (Real dereegulation; not some \”barbara streisand\”. Like Life Insurance!)Eliminate all subsidies to the sick or unhealthy. (Eliminate Sugar Tariffs and subsidies. Milk price supports. Think Credit Unions for Health Care!) In short, please keep your government to yourself. Us Libertarians want freedom and liberty for you. Then, we can have it equally for ourselves.imho!
Right wingers always bring up NPR as an example of liberal bias. BUNK! Even including NPR in the mix, talk radio is still well over 90% right wing. NPR doesn't even have the same format as the typical right wing talk show. NPR is not a left wing flame thrower, it is not a propaganda arm of the Democratic party, it does not spew liberal points of view 24/7 as does the typical talk radio show which is usually right wing. NPR is mainly an educational station, it has great science, cultural, political, current events, local issues and music shows which are neither right nor left. The Car Talk show with the Magliacci brothers is neither right wing nor left wing, it's just an entertaining and informative show. The cooking shows, the plant show are neither right wing nor left wing. NPR has public affairs shows on which right and left views are presented without the screaming, without food fights and without the host over shouting liberal guests and then cutting them off which is what happens on right wing radio shows. NPR does not have the liberal equivalent of Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Beck or Savage on for 2 or 3 hours every day spreading hate, lies and misinformation. NPR is actually fair and balanced and it spreads truth, facts, information and diverse views as opposed to propaganda. There is no comparison between NPR and WABC 770, for example. WABC radio is a one note pony while NPR is a national treasure which serves an actual educational function. NPR allows conservatives to present their views without being shouted down or cut short. As they say, truth has a liberal bias.Garrison Keillor may be a liberal but his show is only on for an hour on the weekend and his show is mainly music, satire and comedy, it's not that political at all. He doesn't spend 3 hours bashing GOPers and conservatives as does Limbaugh bashing Democrats and liberals all 3 hours 5 days a week. No comparison between NPR and the right wing FILTH propaganda machine. Right wing talk radio has blood on its hands for fomenting hate, intolerance and prejudice. They do bear some responsibility for the recent spate of shootings of liberals and Dr. George Tiller. Right wing talk radio is fomenting hatred against our current president, this is very worrisome. I don't mind strong, vigorous criticism of Obama. I have some strong disagreements with some of Obama's policies but that's a far cry from calling him a traitor or terrorist lover or claiming that he's not even a citizen of the US.The only way that I can listen to actual liberals is via the Internet.Sometimes, when the wind is right, I can pick up 1600AM which has liberal as well as some conservative talk show hosts.WBAI is mostly unlistenable but they do have a few good liberal shows and a few good shows that are neither left nor right, just good entertainment or good informational shows.rein says: \”Any objective study, and even some non-obkective liberal media studies, show the liberal bias.\”Really? What studies? Don't give me Sean Hannity, John Stossel or Neil Boortz studies.
Arbitron is not a liberal group:\”Arbitron, the national radio ratings company, reports that more than 90 percent of Americans ages 12 or older listen to radio each week, “a higher penetration than television, magazines, newspapers, or the Internet.” Although listening hours have declined slightly in recent years, Americans listened on average to 19 hours of radio per week in 2006.Among radio formats, the combined news/talk format (which includes news/talk/information and talk/personality) leads all others in terms of the total number of stations per format and trails only country music in terms of national audience share. Through more than 1,700 stations across the nation, the combined news/talk format is estimated to reach more than 50 million listeners each week.As this report will document in detail, conservative talk radio undeniably dominates the format:Our analysis in the spring of 2007 of the 257 news/talk stations owned by the top five commercial station owners reveals that 91 percent of the total weekday talk radio programming is conservative, and 9 percent is progressive.\”