James Wolcott thinks that Bush supporters are preparing to deny the legitimacy of a Kerry victory, and shift the blame for disaster in Iraq, by blaming media bias.
Matt Welch has a reasonable response to this idea:
My main objection is this (note: he’s quoting Mark Steyn, although he could have found the same thought from James Lileks or a dozen others):
If the present Democratic-media complex had been around earlier, America would never have mustered the will to win World War II or, come to that, the Revolutionary War.
Firstly, as Steyn surely knows, the press was much more explicitly partisan and venal back before and during WWII, and because of a lack of things like television, barons like William Randolph Hearst (who bitterly opposed the entrance to the war, and even employed Hitler as a columnist) had far more comparative power than anyone you could name today.
As I pointed out in this column back in May, it’s amazing that the same people who constantly prophesize and compile evidence about Big Media’s demise will in the next breath blame the MSM for losing wars, tipping elections, and otherwise delivering massive outcomes contrary to the Republican agenda. They’re either all-powerful or not; I’m putting my money on “not.”
{ 47 comments }
Giles 10.27.04 at 3:52 pm
“the press was much more explicitly partisan”
The point is that it was explicitly partisan then and people knew that whereas now it pretends to be objective.
So saying it must have been more powerful is not true – it was less objective and people factored that in – much as they do with the British press – where generally there’s less complaints about big media.
reuben 10.27.04 at 4:21 pm
Didn’t Democrats lead us into almost every war of the 20th century? Where did this myth that Republicans are the war-ready tough guys while Dems are lily-livered patsies come from? Is it a product of different approaches to defense budgets?
Sam 10.27.04 at 4:32 pm
I agree that the press was much more explicitly partisan in the pas tthan it is now. However, that misses the point; until Viet Nam, the conduct of foreign policy during wartime was not a partisan issue. Despite Hearst’s hatred of Roosevelt, he did not cover every setback and screwup in WWII (and God knows there were plenty) as an almost-fatal disaster; he did not cover every difference of strategy within the Allied commands as reflecting directly on Roosevelt’s competence; he did not report every death of an enemy civilian and every report of brutality (and there were plenty of both) as an argument against the war; and he certainly did not run any (Ted Rall like) propaganda for American defeat. The newspapers were far more “rah rah America, the wise and impeccable”, and far more anti-German and anti-Japanese, than anything today except maybe National Review.
son volt 10.27.04 at 4:32 pm
WW2 != Iraq War.
Most isolationists before and during WW2 were Republicans.
There is no Democratic-media complex. The usual suspects (NY Times, CBS, Newsweek, etc.) were much more harshly critical of Clinton and Gore than of Bush. And far from opposing the war, major media in this country totally beat the war drums, only souring on it when it was clear that everything the Bush admin said about the war (WMDs, small force sufficient, cakewalk) was laughably false.
Barry Freed 10.27.04 at 4:35 pm
it was less objective and people factored that in
The latter half of that statement is an unsupported assumption. Unless you were alive and say, over the age of 20 or so and an avid reader of the press you have no basis on which to make that assertion. And even were that so, that might just be you. I’d say it calls for a little reception-theory “archeological” investigation.
Brian 10.27.04 at 4:41 pm
In the lead up to the Iraq war the “liberal” media was beating the drums with a whole lot of furor. I remember when the war started they would show explosions and firefights over and over on TV with this “gee this is neat!” mentality.
The idea that the mainstream media opposed this war is nothing less than an attempt to rewrite history. Yes, after a while when it became clear the thing was a fiasco there was some buyer’s remorse but before the war you didn’t hear anyone who was opposed to it.
jet 10.27.04 at 4:50 pm
Even Kerry was gung-ho and full of tough guy rhetoric before the war. So just because the media didn’t appose the war doesn’t mean they still weren’t biased. They just weren’t left of Kerry ;)
But anyone who says the press is worse today than it was in WWII makes me ill. That is the worst sort of assclownery possible. We either had Hearst and his ilk, or media complicity in covering up military blunders that cost thousands of US lives.
Truth be told, the US has never been less corrupt, more democractic, and more prosperous than today. Cheer up, this is as good as it has ever been ;)
Chris Lawrence 10.27.04 at 4:52 pm
“Bush supporters are preparing to deny the legitimacy of a Kerry victory.”
A wag might say turnabout was fair play. Good thing I’m not a wag, or, for that matter, someone who thinks this endless carping about “selected not elected” (or whatever the 2004 variant advanced by the losing side turns out to be) is good for democracy or civil discourse.
Jason 10.27.04 at 5:27 pm
I have to say I think the carping about “selected not elected” is good for democracy. It highlights how the system is flawed (and non-democratic), and hopefully causes more people to think about ways to patch the system and make the US a real democracy.
yabonn 10.27.04 at 5:39 pm
The “MSM” is less about bias in the media than about a recent evolution in some parts of the “mainstream” right in u.s.
The evolution is that it’s not very mainstream anymore, and begins to use the far right themes, such as the infalsifiable “MSM” theme.
bull 10.27.04 at 5:45 pm
The press isn’t liberal? Right. Exhibit number 6,417: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/10/27/kerry_winning_the_battle_over_coverage_study_says/
And in a close election, “all powerful” isn’t necessary to tip the balance.
That said, Bush deserves a heaping portion of blame himself — he’s such a screw-up that he’s in danger of losing to a pompous, poofy-haired, Massachusetts liberal who’s done practically nothing in 20 years in the Senate beyond gaze lovingly in the mirror. What a feat. Shouldn’t even be close.
Thomas 10.27.04 at 6:00 pm
Hell yes Bush supporters will deny legitimacy for a (thank god still hypothetical) Kerry win.
Why wouldn’t we?
I mean, there doesn’t seem to be any downside to that strategy, based on the last 4 years.
Thomas 10.27.04 at 6:03 pm
Having now read Wolcott’s piece, I think he’s missing the point: the point about media bias complaints now is to drive turnout, not to prepare to deny legitimacy to Kerry.
Barry Freed 10.27.04 at 6:13 pm
Having now read Wolcott’s piece, I think he’s missing the point: the point about media bias complaints now is to drive turnout, not to prepare to deny legitimacy to Kerry.
I think you’re both wrong. I see the purpose of charging media bias as a preset justification for the Republicans charging Democratic electoral fraud in the (increasingly likely, thank the gods) event of a Kerry win.
serial catowner 10.27.04 at 6:36 pm
Typical Mark Steyn- “if the Democratic media-complex had been around earlier”….
Just WHO does he think elected the DEMOCRAT FDR?
Seems the stress of current events has finally qualified Steyn for a room with rubber walls. Allowing him to make such a fool of himself in public hardly seems fair.
Sebastian Holsclaw 10.27.04 at 6:38 pm
I think the key phrase here is “present Democratic-media complex”. Steyn is suggesting that the present media complex is different than the past one. He is suggesting that it attacks the ability to conduct war in a different way than previous media complexes. This point is not refuted by suggesting that past media complexes were more partisan, or more powerful. He is suggesting that the media employed its power differently in the past. He may be wrong about his premise or conclusion, but you aren’t really identifying his premise well enough to attack it properly.
Mildly off topic, it wouldn’t be ridiculously difficult in the modern age to ensure that a voter was a citizen, voted exactly once per election, and was otherwise eligible to vote. Yet neither of the two big parties have pursued such a system. The only reason I can think that neither party has done so is that both parties are convinced that they are better than the other at cheating the system. Is there another likely explanation?
tom 10.27.04 at 6:51 pm
Hmm, and it wasn’t a Democratic President that led us into, through, and beyond WWII? How odd.
Barry Freed 10.27.04 at 7:00 pm
Steyn is suggesting that the present media complex is different than the past one.
Well, yes of course it is. There was no cable TV for one, hell, not even any broadcast TV for that matter, nor were any one of the internets around (Al Gore wouldn’t even be born till a few years after WWII). No cellphones, e-mail, Usenet, BBS’s, etc.
A very good point indeed.
Just as President George W. Bush is the first President of these United States of Amerikee to ever fund stem cell research. No doubt FDR was far too busy planning Pearl Harbor to be bothered.
Matt Weiner 10.27.04 at 7:02 pm
Citing media bias is supposed to be an attempt to deny legitimacy even if Kerry wins the popular and electoral votes. If Kerry were to lose the popular vote, and win the electoral vote only because of a highly dubious Supreme Court decision, then the attempts to deny him legitimacy would probably focus on that, not on media bias.
That’s why Democrats who call Bush illegitimate focus on the vote and on Bush v. Gore; Democrats who complain about the media’s anti-Gore bias don’t tend to say that this in itself makes Bush illegitimate.
abb1 10.27.04 at 7:04 pm
The US media sure are powerful. They sure are to blame for disaster in Iraq. Mr. Steyn sure is a neocon and a fool. That’s all I have to say.
David 10.27.04 at 7:13 pm
Having recently read through a number of newspapers published during World War II (on microfilm–ick), I can say that the number of attacks on American foreign policy, war policy, and the general running of the war was high, and the language was critical indeed.
David 10.27.04 at 7:14 pm
Having recently read through a number of newspapers published during World War II (on microfilm–ick), I can say that the number of attacks on American foreign policy, war policy, and the general running of the war was high, and the language was critical indeed.
junius ponds 10.27.04 at 7:39 pm
“I, for one, welcome our all-powerful media overlords…”
I suppose this particular version would be quite appropriate for Kent Brockman.
Sven 10.27.04 at 7:45 pm
Have things really changed all that much? I think one could argue that, while the “mainstream” press will critique strategy and tactics, it rarely questions the fundamental premises of the administration’s “War on Terror.”
I also think it’s a mistake to assume that the World War II press never criticized strategy and tactics:
Barry Freed 10.27.04 at 8:22 pm
The US media sure are powerful. They sure are to blame for disaster in Iraq.
You do realize that that necessarily follows as a corollary of a Faith-Based worldview as opposed to a Reality-Based one.
You’ve got to take your epistemology and stick it where your ontology used to be and vice versa. Or just go ahead and throw your ontology out the window, it’s all just words anyway. It’s important that the words of the media harmonize with the words of our dear Leader.
Giles 10.27.04 at 8:24 pm
“The latter half of that statement is an unsupported assumption.â€
Barry I was basing my assumption on the present i.e. the media in places like the UK which doesn’t pretend to be objective. When I read the Times, Telegraph or Guardian I factor that in; and I think the general population does as well. Where the Current US situation differs from the past is that large sections of the population will tell you, with a straight face, that they think that for instance the NYT or WSJ is a “paper of record†and objective. Which is tosh
dem 10.27.04 at 8:26 pm
Comparing the media’s war coverage in WWII and now as though differences were only explicable through changes in “bias” completely ignores the technological differences, first apparent in the Vietnam era, in which graphic multimedia reporting from the front lines is available almost immediately and with much less censorship than was exercised on the print reporting in WWII and before. This change triggers the (perhaps) overplaying of mediagenic and exciting “action adventure” stories on the television, which affects print coverage in reaction. Second, the by-lined reporters of today appear to form more of a pack or clique than those writing in the past, and I believe this leads to more instances of the flock of sheep running in a group to one side of the pasture, whether the side is on your right or on your left.
HP 10.27.04 at 10:27 pm
I believe that the media is biased, but I don’t believe the media is politically biased. The overwhelming bias in the media is toward a consistent and compelling narrative. Events that don’t propel the narrative forward are downplayed, events that further the narrative are either emphasized or invented.
In the case of Iraq, the story arc follows a relentless logic: “We all” believed Saddam was linked to Islamic terrorism; “we all” supported the decision to go to war; “we all” cheered our troops on; later, “we all” were dismayed to discover no WMDs, “we all” were shocked by Abu Ghraib; and now “we all” are concerned that the war is unnecessary and mismanaged. It’s a great story, but it’s totally manufactured. None of those things ever happened, except in the media.
HP 10.27.04 at 10:45 pm
“we all†are concerned that the war may be unnecessary and mismanaged
…is what I meant to write.
John Quiggin 10.27.04 at 11:14 pm
Any time Steyn gets on to this kind of thing, he produces absurd howlers. For example, there’s this marvellous quote“Of the 20th century’s three global conflicts – the First, Second and Cold Wars – who was on the right side each time? Germany: one out of three. Italy: two out of three. For a perfect triple, there’s only Britain, America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand. ” (original link lost). Umm, Belgium? France?
dipnut 10.27.04 at 11:59 pm
You’re disqualified if you surrender to the guys on the wrong side, John. France perfomed valuable service for the Axis in World War II.
Nicholas Weininger 10.28.04 at 12:54 am
Note, too, that if we judge “right side” by the side whose victory would have produced the better outcome, Germany actually gets two out of three in Steyn’s ridiculous metric, and in doing so ties with the Anglosphere. The world would almost certainly be a much more peaceful, prosperous, and free place today if the Central Powers had won WWI.
Giles 10.28.04 at 1:06 am
Also since France wasn’t in Nato during the cold war its hard to see how it was on the right side in that conflict.
In WW2 French forces were fought by the Allies in North Africa (torch) and the South of France (Tolon). Hard to argue they were unequivocally on the same side in that conflict.
Belgium was of course Neutral at the outbreak of war, so again is hard to include as a willing ally. Greece is probably a better bet as the omitted country.
So Steyn is right that these were the only countries that can unequivocally be defined as allies in all three conflicts. He did however make one incredible howler – Canada did not gain full independence until 1931, so technically was not an “ally†in WW1. Steyn is Canadian.
WeSaferThemHealthier 10.28.04 at 3:14 am
Quiggin,
There is one quote from Steyn I like though:
“But that was the way they did things back then. Find the most promising local client, before Moscow or Paris or Beijing does. As the classic realpolitik line has it, he may be a sonofab*tch, but he’s our sonofab*tch. As I wrote a couple of weeks after 9/11, apropos the House of Saud and President Mubarak, “the inverse is more to the point: he may be our sonofab*tch, but he’s a sonofab*tch.” Trying to cherrypick local strongmen is a fool’s game.”
I wonder how he feels sabout Allawi.
Jackmormon 10.28.04 at 5:00 am
Granted that the media prefers grand narratives, granted that the media during WWII was more critical than we allow for. But hasn’t the position of the US vis-a-vis the world fundamentally changed since the second world war? I’m not an expert on that period, but I would guess that American society didn’t generally recognize itself as being a decisive superpower in that fight–although, of course, it turned out to be one. After WWII, the US realized that it was indeed powerful, and since then it has in various ways tried to come to terms with its power.
Frankly, in examining media bias in news reports, I would compare current coverage about Iraq to coverage of the Opium Wars before I would compare it to coverage of WWII…
John Quiggin 10.28.04 at 10:00 am
“Belgium was of course Neutral at the outbreak of war’
Umm, I think there was a large country, west of the Atlantic that was neutral at the outbreak of both WWI and WWII.
Of course, as Nicholas implies, neutrality was the right position in WW1.
dsquared 10.28.04 at 10:36 am
Also since France wasn’t in Nato during the cold war its hard to see how it was on the right side in that conflict.
In WW2 French forces were fought by the Allies in North Africa (torch) and the South of France (Tolon). Hard to argue they were unequivocally on the same side in that conflict.
A ludicrous calumny. There were precisely two countries which chose to enter the Second World War at its outset; the UK and France, who declared war on Germany in fulfilment of their treaty obligations. All other participants waited until they were attacked.
Chris Bertram 10.28.04 at 11:48 am
Also since France wasn’t in Nato during the cold war…
Also false btw. France withdrew from the military command in 1966 (at which time the cold war had been going for a while, as I recall) but has remained a _member_ of NATO from its foundation to the present. France rejoined the military command in 1992.
jet 10.28.04 at 1:11 pm
So in 1966 when all US soldiers were kicked off French soil and major tensions were created, I guess they were still technically a member, but certaily not in spirit. In 1966 France became the same kind of ally Russia had been in 1944. Not really an ally, just sharing a common enemy. They get no credit in my book.
jet 10.28.04 at 1:19 pm
This sums up France in the 20th century. In WWI in order for US soldiers to fight in France, France forced the US to purchase a French squad heavy machine gun. This thing was a POS which cost many man his life when it jammed, misfired, or just broke. Meanwhile, the best machine gun of WW !TWO! sat hidden in R&D facilities in 1914 throughout WWI…unused.
The French, always making a buck over a dead body.
raj 10.28.04 at 1:24 pm
So much of what Mark Steyn writes appears to have been derived from judicious studying of his nether regions that it’s surprising that anyone takes him seriously.
Matt Weiner 10.28.04 at 3:05 pm
Germany was on the right side in the Cold War? Is Steyn aware that during the Cold War there were two countries called Germany?
The Federal Republic of Germany is 1 for 1.
Giles 10.28.04 at 6:11 pm
“There were precisely two countries which chose to enter the Second World War at its outset”
Err, not quite two precisely- didn’t Australia declare war before Britain? And New Zealand? And South Africa?
“All other participants waited until they were attacked.”
What like Brazil? They just waited till they saw which way the wind was blowing.
Kevin Carson 10.28.04 at 7:42 pm
Ummm,
The Revolution was a war *against* the legal governments of the American colonies; and it occurred because of, not despite, an increasing level of critical thought among the citizenry.
Anything that makes foreign adventurism by the centralized state less feasible is a GOOD THING.
Anyway, if Steyn is saying that democracy can’t work unless the people are protected against hearing negative and critical things about the government, he’s got an awfully Straussian idea of democracy. Does anyone remember the days when self-described “conservatives” actually DISTRUSTED the government?
Kevin Carson 10.28.04 at 7:50 pm
sam,
Given the role of FDR in cynically manipulating the American people into war, and given the results of that intervention (sixty years of a national security state, global interventionism, and permanent war economy), I’d say it’s too damned bad that FDR’s motives weren’t an issue on the table.
If the public feels a “patriotic” obligation to get all “rah rah,” suspend their critical thinking abilities, and unite behind Glorious Leader in wartime, that’s quite an incentive for power-hungry politicians to get us into wars, don’t you think?
If the government can lie us into war, and we’re obligated to “rally ’round the flag” as soon as they start, just when the hell is it permissible to actually debate foreign policy? When the revisionist histories are written fifty years later and nobody gives a shit anymore?
abb1 10.28.04 at 8:10 pm
You are allowed to debate foreign policy. What country should be invaded next? Debate.
freddie 10.29.04 at 2:11 am
TheSincalir demand that all of his 40 tv stations carry an anti-Kerry film is a fine example of liberal control of the media, right?
Comments on this entry are closed.