One of the supposed attractions of the news site Politico is that every so often they give you a peek behind the media curtain, trying to explain how Beltway journalism works. So they don’t just obsessively cover Sarah Palin—they explain why they obsessively cover Sarah Palin: “For the media, Palin is great at the box office.”
John F. Harris and Jim VandeHei offer a similar piece (2/7/11) that takes aim at the supposed turnabout in Barack Obama’s political fortunes after the midterm election. Part of the answer is that the White House is doing things they know the media will cheer on as a return to “centrism” and a triumph for Beltway bipartisanship:
This three-month metamorphosis says something about Obama’s survival skills, but the turnabout says even more about the mainstream media: Obama is playing the press like a fiddle.
He is doing it by exploiting some of the most longstanding traits among reporters who cover politics and government—their favoritism for politicians perceived as ideologically centrist and willing to profess devotion to Washington’s oft-honored, rarely practiced civic religion of bipartisanship.
They add:
Conservatives are convinced the vast majority of reporters at mainstream news organizations are liberals who hover expectantly for each new issue of the Nation.
It’s just not true. The majority of political writers we know might more accurately be accused of centrist bias.
While their definition of press-approved centrism seems a little off (“they believe broadly in government activism but are instinctually skeptical of anything that smacks of ideological zealotry and are quick to see the public interest as being distorted by excessive partisanship”), the larger point—that reporters are more favorably disposed towards policy that is endorsed by leading figures from both major political parties—seems right on the money.
And, for the record,a far more forceful explanation and critique of centrist media bias appeared a mere 22 years ago in Extra! (10–11/89), courtesy of FAIR founder Jeff Cohen.
What is presented, in the corporate press, as the “center” has continued to move to the right in the decades since Jeff wrote that, while the public has, if anything, moved further to the left. The concept ofs “centrist” and “moderate,” as they’re used by much of the press, have become sharply divorced from the actual political center of the country, and the current treatment of Obama, who has largely governed well to the right of the public and now gets kudos for “moving to the center” by virtue of his moving even more to the right, is just the latest example of this. If the concept of the “political center” has any meaning, it must be defined by the broad public consensus (where it exists). The U.S. is probably the most heavily polled country on earth, and on most issues, that isn’t hard to find.
For example, the lame-duck session of congress that closed 2010 featured a fight over extending the Bush tax cuts. A December Bloomberg poll asked respondents if they’d favor or oppose ending the Bush income tax cuts for those of higher incomes. 59% said they favored it. A little later, a CNN/Opinion Research poll on the compromise bill that was passed and signed into law asked if people favored or opposed the extension of the income tax cuts for the wealthy: 62% of respondents opposed it. Ending those tax cuts was the “centrist” position. Obama was running counter to that center by caving on that issue, but he was given kudos by the press for moving to the center by virtue of his having caved.
Defining policies of the “center” as “policy that is endorsed by leading figures from both major political parties” is even more problematic, because Republicans, these days, don’t support any policy adopted by the Democrats, not even their own. On nearly every major issue, Obama has adopted, as his own position, one Republican policy after another, and whenever he does so, the Republicans have, to a man, dropped it like a hot rock.
Clinton did this in the 1990s, but Republicans would sometimes work with him. The health-care fight, back then, was more representative of policy fights today. The liberals, then as now, favored a single-payer approach. Polls showed that the public did, as well, by huge margins (those margins, btw, have been maintained for nearly two decades; that isn’t to render judgment on the strength of that support, but it has consistently hovered at around 56%-65%). In the “center”-loving press, then as now, it was never even presented as an option. Clinton never considered it, and adopted, instead, a conservative, industry-friendly “managed competition” plan, a top-to-bottom duplicate of one created by then-Republican House leader Rep. Bob Michel. For it, Clinton was denounced as someone pushing for a “government takeover of health care,” an advocate of “socialized medicine.” Senate Republicans created an alternative to “Clintoncare.” It went nowhere then, but was later adopted by Massachusetts’ Republican governor Mitt Romeny, who imposed it on his state. This plan, in turn, was copied by Obama, and “Obamacare” was born. And Republicans abandoned it, to a man. And while Republicans who had previously supported the plan denounced it with exactly the same rhetoric as they had the earlier Clinton effort, the press refused to tell the public this history, and now, Obama–like Clinton–is being portrayed as some too-far-lefty who is in the process of shifting to the “center.”
The press likes the “center,” but only as long as that “center” is well to the right of the public.
Where is the mainstream media source that is not pro corporations, and advertising?
There is no such thing, Tom Hendricks. Really. Perfectly said, classicliberal2.
Too bad, Obama pulled one over on us, we thought we were getting a progressive leaning president, only to have a trojan horse leap out at us and adopt Republican memes. Very sad.
classicliberal2, well said!
Raymond you must go back to the election and admit the conservative voices had this guy pegged.He was jello. And as we tried to nail jello to the wall, you and the press let him slip in without so much as a cursory hat check. That said……I do believe Obama is a dyed in the wool progressive/liberal/socialist- leaning person. Nothing in his life from the cradle forward prepared him for anything else.He has never shown a hint that he could even understand(let alone run)a capitalist economy based on vibrant self reliance,and explosive entrepreneurial spirit. He is a classic tax and spend lib.By now he has seen that a lot of his beliefs are impracticable,and unworkable outside academia.He has had a wake up call education.He has met the wall of conservatives thought and an angry public ,and blinked.He just has nothing in his DNA that can allow him to move forward.In the end doing nothing has been his only real contribution to stemming this hemorrhaging economy.The new budget is 2/3 cuts …1/3 tax hikes!He has a whole list of spending proposals.He has walked away from his own spending commission.He just does not get it.And by the way neither does some of the old dog Republicans.(That is why the Tea party freshman are at war with these old fools)
So now he is in job save mode.Jello.Something for everyone.Gotta go
Classical lib2
Few things.Number one the country has always been, and remains center right.Single payer is not wanted by the majority of America ,and as far as wanting the tax hike in place against the wealthiest Americans, one only has to look at the psychology in the question.Lets pose the question:Government promises not to raise your taxes and shall ask they be paid by the rich folks who live over the hill.You know the ones we have been taught to hate who probably hate us and who we never see anyway.”Please raise your hand if you agree.”And yet in this amazing country you don’t receive a 100% as you libs thought you would. Because people know it is intrisically wrong.
Lastly Mitt will need a come to Jesus moment and see how his experiment failed(and it has)or he is toast.Nothing wrong with being wrong.You just cant hang on to it like death.
Wonderful goods from you, man. I’ve understand your stuff previous to and you are just extremely magnificent.