Friday, August 15, 2008

The Media's Double Standard, Yet Again

Books with a liberal premise, for example, "Why Women Should Rule the World," not only got published by major publishers, but received hundreds of thousands of dollars in free advertising thanks to softball interviews on major TV shows and minimally vetted reporting in the print media. That's true, even though its author, Dee Dee Myers, makes the wildest, unsubstantiated broadbrush anti-male sexist assertions, for example, that women are more practical than men are and that the U.S. economy would be stronger if women were in charge.

Yet books with a conservative premise rarely get published by a major publisher, and if such a book manages to defy the enormous odds, it rarely gets significant media coverage, which usually dooms it to failure. And if a conservative book is the extreme rarity that, despite the media censorship, becomes so popular that it can't be ignored, the media applies a double standard and vets it with the rigor of an IRS auditor or dismisses the book based on an ad hominem attack: usually mainly by calling the author a biased conservative. (As though the media is not dominated by biased liberals.)

So, for example, Harvard Ph.D., Jerome Corsi's book The Obama Nation was dismissed in the New York Times and elsewhere in the mainstream (read, liberal) media mainly because it was written by a conservative who wants to see Obama lose. Why was that criticism not applied to the endless parade of Bush-bashing books such as Bushwhacked or Shrub, written by people who wanted to see Bush lose or be impeached? Although Corsi's 384-page book contains over 600 citations, the media has found only minor errors in his work, certainly not substantive enough to invalidate the book's core contention: that Obama is more liberal than the media would have us believe.

Then yesterday, the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by conservative American Enterprise Institute scholar Charles Murray, For Most People, College is a Waste of Time in which he argues, as I have, that college degrees are overrated. Attacks on the article immediately were published, notably in the prestigious Chronicle of Higher Education. Did the critiques argue that in fact, a college degree results in learning that justifies all the time and money? No, they mainly argued that the article should be dismissed because it was written by a conservative and an elitist.

The most powerful entity in the U.S. is no longer the military-industrial complex. It's the media, which is ever bolder in restricting the ideas we're exposed to, thereby essentially brainwashing us into becoming liberals and supporting, with our tax dollars and nonprofit donations, the risky Leftist schemes that the media and its anointed emperor, Barack Obama, will force on us.


Anonymous said...

Since I only watch Fox News, I've seen endless talk on "Obama Nation." And with Kerry bringing so much attention to it, it will only sell more copies.

Marty, I admire your efforts and cause, but you're fighting a losing battle. You're correct on all accounts, and I wish it would change things in the media and in education, but I truthfully feel nothing will ever change.

Anonymous said...

You know that if the Fairness Doctrine returns, and there's a poll saying that nearly half of America wants exactly that, then this will only get worse, right?

If it returns, then there will be no place for those who are not liberal to turn. Conservative, libertarian and centrist blogs, talk radio and other outlets will go away or underground, and everything will be like the mainstream media. This during a time when most Americans have little trust in media outlets or politicians, except, of course, when it's their own.

Sometimes I just don't understand why people who are so eager for something like this to occur do not see that this will affect them too, and probably not in a good way.

By the way, the Charles Murray article is part of a book that will be released next week. It might be worth a look if you liked the article.

Marty Nemko said...

Candidly, I agree with Anonymous: I believe the media will not change because ever more aspiring journalists come from the liberal-indoctrinating journalism schools. Nor will pressure to change come from the public, because the media and the colleges are making the public more liberal, and demographic changes are resulting in an ever higher percentage of minorities, who tend to be liberal.

I keep blogging about the media's liberal bias because I can't stop--the injustice seems so great, so potent in its effect that I must keep writing, even if doesn't change things and even if it's to my detriment.

And it is to my detriment because I am a member of the media. Perhaps it's just coincidence, but since I've started blogging about the media's liberal bias, my boss at one of the major media outlets for which I write has given me no assignments, whereas before, I'd been assigned many articles, and just before I started blogging about media bias, my boss at that publication flew me to its headquarters to provide strategic planning advice to it. Yet in the past few months, I've been asked nothing.

Grace said...

Though I am a liberal, I agree with you about the double standard. There is no fairness here. The thing is, whoever is perceived to be the majority or to have the real power (i.e. the white male) will always be an easy target whether it is deserved or not. If you are in the majority, and you complain about anything, you are seen as a whiner, even if your complaints are justified.

It's like when Hollywood stars complain about having no privacy. Even though this is true, and even if their lives are dangerously intruded upon, the world laughs and says, "You can't have it both ways!" When the white male cries, "Unfair", the media cries, "Suck it up!"

Perhaps Mr. Nemko should write a book (or a blog post) "Why men DO rule the world." Do you think that would win any friends in the liberal media?

Ken said...

White I do not regard myself a right-winger, I am really disturbed about the state of the media, in which the lefties keep brainwashing the general public with endless mass of PC stuff.

They are all clever strategists. They know how to play the game: they capitalized people's short attention plan and emotional driven mentality (accelerating after left-turn of the 60s?), and keep bombarding them with emotional and PC driven messages in order to deprive the receiver any chance of deep-thinking and analysis.

"Liberal" in America no longer means "open-mind and generously", just an agenda driven "bigot"

I am especially worry about those under 25, who spend all of their info from MSN, Youtube, Yahoo, Google, can they make a wise judgment if the only information they receives are the one provided by the lefties?

I don't see a society overly obsessed with feelings, emotion, sentiments and political identity--what the lefties are promoting--can have any btight future.

p.s. I am the same Ken who comments on "How to Identify Yourself"

Anonymous said...

While many of your posts seem to seek overlooked perspectives, this one sounds like selective attention to me. For example, Obama Nation. There are several books critical of McCain that have received hardly any attention at all. Actually, I've never heard of them mentioned in the press yet.

Marty Nemko said...

My attention is selective because that book is the NY Times #1 bestseller and the subject of a page 1 story in the New York Times and constantly on Fox News. Politics is not my central interest, so I only read and write about things that are widely publicized.


blogger templates | Make Money Online