In the past few years, the Democratic Party’s rank and file have shifted left on major issues. From healthcare to legalization of drugs to taxes, the heart of the party has grown more progressive—and, in many instances, overtly socialist in nature. Forty-seven percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents now identify as both socially liberal and economically moderate or liberal, up from 39 percent in 2008 and 30 percent in 2001.
The Daily Beast (6/28/17) reported that MSNBC–“once considered the “liberal” cable-news outlet”–continued its “conservative hiring spree.”
In contrast, nominally liberal media—or major media whose editorial line is reliably pro-Democratic—have drifted rightward. On Wednesday, MSNBC announced it had hired torture-supporting, climate-denying, anti-Arab racist Bret Stephens, a recent hire at the New York Times opinion page. Stephens—whose very first article at the Times had to be corrected due to his misunderstanding of basic climate science—will be an “on-air contributor” for both MSNBC and NBC.
This pickup continues a conservative hiring spree at MSNBC, including former George Bush adviser Nicolle Wallace, right-wing radio host Hugh Hewitt, old-school conservative Washington Post columnist George Will, and former Fox News stars Greta Van Susteren and Megyn Kelly (though Van Susteren’s show has already been canceled due to comically low ratings).
Despite their ratings going up as their marquee liberal firebrands rail against Donald Trump on a day-to-day basis, MSNBC has decided not to double down on this approach, but rather is populating its 24-hour broadcast with an increasing number of Bush-era also-rans and ex–Fox News personalities. At the same time, the New York Times has added the far-right Stephens to its coveted and influential list of full-time columnists—joining fellow #nevertrump conservatives David Brooks and Ross Douthat.
As notable as their outreach to the right is these outlets’ resolute resistance to introducing any new voices to the left of the party’s corporate center. Forty-three percent of Democratic voters backed Bernie Sanders in the primary, yet the New York Times and MSNBC editorial teams don’t have one vocal Sanders supporter. Some, certainly, are sympathetic to him, such as MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes, and the Times’ Charles Blow. But none openly back him in the way Paul Krugman, Gail Collins and Joy-Ann Reid (FAIR.org, 4/20/17) openly spin for his more centrist primary opponent, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. (Indeed, MSNBC’s Reid spends an unhealthy amount of time on Twitter dragging the Vermont senator for being inadequately obsequious to the corporate wing of the party.)
Obviously, sitting around waiting for corporate-owned media to embrace subversive left political commentary—or even Sanders’ brand of soft European-style social democracy—is a fool’s errand, and one should be under no illusions this will ever happen. But the lack of any effort to represent a major sector of their audience is still worth pointing out. If the media were “all about the clicks” or “the views,” a major network would jump at the chance to at least have one token leftist to appeal to this underserved demographic. Yet they keep going in the other direction, hiring more right wingers without any apparent marketing reason to do so.
Shaping ideology and public opinion is less about the voices we hear, and more about those we don’t. The range of debate is set by liberal gatekeepers like the Times and MSNBC, and it’s clear, with each additional hire, the Overton window at these institutions won’t budge one inch to the left, regardless of how much their consumers do. One is left to conclude that MSNBC and the New York Times are not veering right despite Democratic voters’ increasing embrace of left policies; they’re doing so precisely because of it.
You can send a message to the New York Times at letters@nytimes.com (Twitter:@NYTimes). You can add comments to MSNBC’s site here (or via Twitter: @MSNBC). Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective.
“MSNBC and the New York Times are not veering right despite Democratic voters’ increasing embrace of left policies; they’re doing so precisely because of it.”
And one would hope the obverse will be true.
It’s not that they are conservative. It’s that they are dishonest and ignore facts. MSNBC is gradually becoming fox. I’ll still watch Hayes, Maddow and Laurence but the rest of their lineup is ridiculous. I dropped the New York Times when they added Stephens. The guy is just dishonest.
MSNBC (MSDNC) IS after all an acronym for its founders/owners – the execrable privatizer Gate (MS) and NBC – GE war profiteer sold to Comcast evil cable corporation…
Their warped pro-neoliberal, pro-war bias “informs” their hiring decisions even more than “ratings”…
This is after all the “network” that fired its highest rating getting Phil Donahue during the run-up to Iraq Slaughter One in the early 90s — the last REAL anti-war voice to appear on that network (or any other) since…
I think you mean the second Iraq war.
MSNBC wasn’t around in the early 90’s.
I should probably get a life, but instead I’ve been thinking about the NYT lately, who are they and who do they want to be? It’s such an unwieldy set of ideas: the progressive ones they stand for to the rest of the nation, the often great news reporting especially on national politics, and their mostly incredibly myopic and misguided op-eds whose liberal voices aren’t even always that, much less progressive. I should note that they weren’t regularly writing about women (you know, most of us), until a couple of years ago and it still seems like an uphill battle to get women represented in the newsroom and the news there. And the feel of the paper is still white metro people writing about other people.
Also, all major media are perhaps still scrambling in the wake of Humiliation 2016. They got it so wrong, and few if any have stepped up to admit it. So now the right-swing may be part of the fallout. Put less charitably, the dumbest solution to not knowing the nation is to hire another media elite who tows the GOP line. Neil DeGrasse Tyson recently said that hearing a range of voices means that we can all agree on the problems, but our theories on how to solve them may differ. Climate change was his example but it applies to gun control , health care, education, housing, jobs, etc.
How in the world do you calculate that media is “nominally liberal media?” Who owns the media? If you were to look, you would find that media – especially broadcast and cable media – are owned by some of the most predatory, right-wing, warmongering corporations on the planet. How could you possibly call it “liberal?” Oh, I see, you believe corporate media from the get-go. Now I understand.
serious question: do you know what the word “nominally” means?
LEFT is left and RIGHT is right and never the twain shall meet. Hmm, since 6 corporations or so own all the major media newspapers, and communications systems———-I can’t believe any major media either in reports or polls. I keep getting email for support the FREE PPESS; I would love to—–but where is it?
I have a list of relatively independent media sites (including this one) – it has RSS, WWW, & Twitter URLs on a standalone page you can download: http://www.mediafire.com/file/15vubeeh3fxamcc/IndyNewsRSS.html
Liberals have never had a back bone….I agree with Saul Alinsky’s view of them – “Never trust your back to a Liberal!”
I love FAIR and yet another brilliant piece of Adam Johnson, you folks doing a great job continuing to show the truth and heeding the warnings your brilliant founder Jeff Cohen has been arguing for years and in his book Cables News Confidential. Its high time people decolonize their mind and turn off and don’t read the crooked corporate media.
Just because a liberal or left leaning news service hires a person who years ago worked for a Republican does not in any way mean the news service is “moving” right. Neither of the former Bush presidents were supporters of the current administration. Some of those appointees hold the many of the same views as the news services by whom they were hired. It does not take a long interview to determine if someone who worked for an administration 15 years ago agrees with or will parrot a news services core beliefs, especially if that person is underemployed and/or simply needs the money. The recent Harvard study on journalistic bias showed that 92% of news stories on President Trump are negative. A news service can hire whomever they want but it’s the end message that counts and that message has not moved “right” in any appreciable way.
I haven’t watched television news for at least 15 years and I don’t know many people who do watch it. There are alternative sources out there, like this site and The Real News, and TYT, and podcasts like David Sirota’s and the Guardian and even Al Jazeera and Amy Goodman. From my perspective, they are not news organizations they are propaganda sites for Wall Street and the Chamber of Commerce. I don’t buy the crap they sell either. Why would I? It’s crap.
If Dem voters are shifting left it makes them all the more foolish for staying in a corporate bribed party that has its primary system rigged to make sure they are never represented.
Agreed. I joined to vote for Bernie and just today mailed in my voter registration card un-enrolling. I am now back to being an indie as there is no party that represents me.