Is the Media Liberal? Pro

Note: Some of the concepts described below may contain values commonly mistaken as conservative.

It’s a general rule in quantum mechanics that when measuring objects, one can either measure the position of an object, or one can determine where the object is going, but never both.  

The same applies to news media. In trying to pinpoint where the media lies on the political spectrum, the observer loses sight of how the press progresses in relation to the rest of the country.

Conservatives may see the news media as raging progressives while a staunch liberal may not see the media as liberal enough.

Instead of trying to decide whether the media is liberal or not, the more important question is which direction the media is heading and who are they leaving behind.

The study, “The American Journalist in the Digital Age,” conducted by two Indiana University professors used surveys conducted across four different decades, measuring how journalists identified themselves.

The most recent survey noted that independents have grown the most consistently. At the same time, those identifying as Democrats outnumber those identifying as Republicans over four to one.

It would stand to reason then that the media is undoubtedly liberal. However, there are forces at the top whom many people see as stifling progress.

In Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman’s 1988 book, “Manufacturing Consent,” the authors identify big business as being in charge of media and designing a narrative to maintain the status quo to maintain their stranglehold on the public.

The image they paint is one of corporate giants keeping the journalist on the beat from critically reporting on issues.

This image, however, does not hold up against what drives profits in the 21st century.

Even though media conglomerates such as Disney, Viacom and Comcast do in fact run most media outlets, this doesn’t mean the news isn’t liberal.

The premise of this argument relies on the notion that big business and modern liberalism

cannot exist at the same time.

In the case of the news media, maintaining the status quo in order to drive profits and keep the public buying their goods stands in direct opposition to the nature of the press.

News thrives in chaos.

Readership for newspapers during the Obama years dwindled, but Trump became a

catalyst for media consumption since he walked on the scene in 2015.

The Hill’s Paulina Firozi reported on Feb. 26 that Dean Baquet, executive editor of the New York Times, in an interview on CNN’s “Reliable Sources,” said that “Trump is the best thing to happen to the Times’ subscription strategy.”

In an age of shrinking margins, political alignment simply does not prioritize against profits.

Mainstream press have found their pariah in Donald Trump and business owners are all too happy to accommodate a journalist’s penchant to critically report on the current administration.

Some of the best investigative work has been done in 2017. The press has examined every action Trump and Congressional Republicans have taken.

Contrast this to the kind of journalism being done during the Obama years. A lawsuit from prominent journalists and writers against President claimed the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 allowed the indefinite suspension, without trial, of journalists who could be considered a threat to public safety.

Similarly, the NDAA of 2011 suspended the Posse Comitatus act, allowing for military detention of citizens who may be domestic terrorists. Obama’s immigration bans fell through the news.

Most of these facts escaped front pages and primetimes alike.

It seems time and time again that the media picks and chooses what stories get through and which fall by the wayside.

It is this committal to conscience that has opened the way for so-called fake news. Once dedicated to preserving objectivity, the media prided itself as nonpartisan.

However, once media changed priorities, they left half of the country behind.

The New York Times’ own Public Editor Liz Spayd wrote in an editorial entitled, “Why Readers See The Times As Liberal,”  that the perception the Times has made for itself is “poison.”

Many journalists have forsaken the conservative end of the country and in doing so left conservatives grasping for media that would represent them and their beliefs, fostering a culture of conflicting news.

Activism in journalism has dire consequences, spurring equal and opposite reactions from those abandoned by a liberal progression. There is a place for activism and punditry, but journalism should never be that place.