For everyone who ever thought that the FOX News slogan
“fair and balanced” is a cruel joke, hope is at hand
with the signing of comedian and best-selling author Al Franken as
the lead man of a new liberal radio network ““ Progress Media.
The establishment of a forum for liberal issues will be positive
for the United States because it will help balance the increasing
number of right wing news outlets in the mass media.
But the signing of Franken is also representative of the recent
trend in the mass media toward attack-based political shows ““
shows where real issues and problems take a backseat to making the
other side look bad.
If current trends continue and these conservative and liberal
media outlets continue to gain bigger portions of the market, then
it is a dark day for the country. The airwaves will be dominated by
attack journalism. Serious political shows like Matthew
Miller’s weekly “Left, Right & Center” show
on National Public Radio will be a distant memory.
While mainstream media does have its problems, it strives to be
fair and unbiased. But ideologically driven columnists like Ann
Coulter and Rush Limbaugh don’t even try to hide their
agendas or adhere to the same standards of journalism to which
mainstream media adhere.
To see the problem more clearly, consider three contemporary
political books: “Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold
War to the War on Terrorism” by Ann Coulter, “The Two
Percent Solution: Fixing America’s Problems in Ways Liberals
and Conservatives Can Love” by Matthew Miller, and
“Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced
Look at the Right” by Al Franken.
Coulter’s “Treason,” a right-wing attack on
liberals, is full of ungrounded accusations and intellectually
dishonest arguments. Franken’s book is a liberal response to
right-wing attack pundits such as Coulter. While his book is
grounded in facts, its main focus is still making the right wing
look bad ““ today’s political issues are secondary.
On the other hand, “The Two Percent Solution” by
Matthew Miller focuses on a serious and factual discussion of
contemporary problems confronting America and how to solve them in
a bipartisan manner. It discusses how to address these issues
through both the liberal approach of using a serious amount of
money and through the conservative approach of having market-based
solutions.
At its best, Miller’s book reached No. 5 on the Los
Angeles Times bestseller list. In contrast, the books of Coulter
and Franken became New York Times bestsellers.
Miller’s type of discussion is obviously the kind that
needs to be taking place right now in the media. But it isn’t
taking place. Pundits like Miller who get any coverage or
readership at all are few and far between.
The mainstream media is too distracted by its own profits to
worry about discussing solutions for the 42 million uninsured
Americans or a Social Security system that is on course for a
crash-landing worse than the Hindenburg.
And I fear that even if the liberal radio network is successful,
they will still fall into the same trappings that the conservative
media has fallen into ““ focusing on partisan tactics and
agendas instead of seriously talking about how to solve our
nation’s problems.
While Franken’s show is likely to include a healthy dose
of comedic wit, it will probably lack any serious policy analysis
or proposal.
It seems as though the media in general has almost given up on
keeping the public informed on the issues. Discussion of the issues
is too boring and turns viewers off. It simply isn’t
profitable.
An analysis of front-page coverage by the New York Times of the
1960 and 1992 presidential campaigns, presented in a lecture by
UCLA Professor Martin Gilens, illustrates this problem. In 1960, 55
percent of front-page articles focused on policy issues while only
45 percent focused on shallow coverage of the campaign as a
“horse race” or “game.” In 1992, 15 percent
of front-page articles focused on policy issues while 85 percent
focused on the campaign as a “horse race.”
There is some hope, though, that Progress Media will not fall
into this trap. One of the other big names they have signed is
noted environmental lawyer Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a famous policy
wonk from the National Resources Defense Council.
While Kennedy’s show will probably have a more limited
focus ““ environmental and globalization issues ““ it
will still be a step in the right direction. Additionally, much of
Progress Media’s lineup remains to be determined; as of right
now they have only determined 65 percent of it.
Regardless of where the new radio network ends up going, its
impact should not be underestimated. It will certainly take at
least a few years to build up a viable base of listeners but once
it does, it will be a significant force in contemporary political
discourse. For example, in the 1994 midterm elections, conservative
“talk radio hosts were credited with mobilizing young, male
Republican voters, thus helping secure GOP control of both houses
of Congress for the first time since 1954,” according to
Richard Davis and Diana Owen in “New Media and American
Politics.”
I know that regardless of its exact methods, Progress Media will
have at least one devoted listener,because quite frankly, I am sick
of listening to FOX calling itself “Fair and Balanced,”
to Bill O’Reilly calling his show the “The No Spin
Zone,” to Ann Coulter accusing liberals of
“treason,” to Bernie Goldberg accusing the mainstream
media of being guilty to “liberal hate speech,” and to
Rush Limbaugh claiming volcanoes do more harm to the ozone layer
than human-produced chemicals. So despite my reservations, I would
like to wish Progress Media good luck and bon voyage.
Bitondo is a third-year political science and history
student. E-mail him at mbitondo@media.ucla.edu. Send general
comments to viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.