Kevin Drum has discovered a rather large number of seemingly anti-Bush movies:
By my count, that makes three separate movies this campaign season that are either pro-Kerry or anti-Bush:
Fahrenheit 9/11
Bush’s Brain
Going Upriver: The Long War of John KerryPlus two more that, while not specifically anti-Bush, are certainly unsympathetic to the conservative cause:
Control Room
OutfoxedHave liberals finally figured out an effective way to fight back against talk radio?
UPDATE: And there’s more!
Uncovered: The War on Iraq
Orwell Rolls In His Grave
The Hunting of the President
The Corporation
Team America: World Police
Silver City
Hollywood isn’t exactly the most pro-Republican place is it? I’m shocked! Shocked I say!
This fascinating discovery would be less annoying if it had not been accompanied with the following statement: “Have liberals finally figured out an effective way to fight back against talk radio?”
The answer is: of course not. Conservative talk radio was the way that conservatives decided to fight back against the liberal media (and I’m using that word in the plural).
But that is the long way to the scab to be picked at–liberal bias in the news media. Patterico has an insightful post on some of the more subtle manifestations of liberal news bias:
The article, a front-page news analysis titled Kerry Put On Defensive About Iraq, just drips with sympathy for Kerry. But I don’t find any clear misstatements of fact in the piece. The bias is in the way it’s worded, starting with the very first paragraph:
Over the past week, President Bush and Vice President Cheney have thrown Sen. John F. Kerry on the defensive with a daily assault designed to tarnish his credentials as a possible commander in chief. But the orchestrated attacks also revealed the president’s vulnerabilities on the issue that continues to shape the presidential campaign as much as any other.
I chuckled when I read the part about the “orchestrated attacks.” It reminded me of the survey that one web site did of all the times Dan Rather had used the phrase “carefully orchestrated leak.” You will not be surprised to learn that Rather always used the phrase to refer to alleged leaks by Republicans. Republicans are apparently the masters of “orchestration,” whether you’re talking leaks or attacks.
You see, whenever one candidate criticizes another, there are two ways to characterize what’s happening. If you think the criticism may be valid, you will refer to the criticism passively, and discuss the “mounting criticism” of the candidate being criticized. But if you don’t like the criticism, then you will refer to the criticism as an “attack.” You will consistently phrase the description of the criticism in the active voice, as in: “Cheney attacked Kerry over the issue of . . .” Rather than saying that the parties voicing the criticism have “pointed out” their opponent’s misstatements, you will say they “seized on” those misstatements.
I saw quite a bit of this type of reporting regarding the Democratic Convention. The speakers were constantly reported as avoiding ‘attacks’ when they cleary did not do any such thing. They hedged some of their attacks, they veiled some of their attacks, but they didn’t avoid attacking. Nor should they have. But that doesn’t excuse pretending that the general tone was uplifting and warm.
Patterico then has a brilliant side-by-side reworking of the article. It uses all the spin techniques found in the article except it spins them in favor of Bush and against Kerry. I really encourage everyone to read it. The stories are factually identical but the underlying tone is amazingly different. He highlights precisely what conservatives mean when they talk about media bias, and then turns it on its head. I was aware of the techniques he used, but I wasn’t concious of them–if the distinction makes sense.
Read his side-by-side articles and then come back and pick the scab.
Just goes to show, Sebastian. If one wants to feel like a victim one can always come up with evidence.
Without delving into the, um, substance of the post, I will note that the inclusion of Matt Stone and Trey Parker’s Team America: World Police on that list is nigh-unto stupid on Drum’s part. The two are self-described libertarian Republicans, and have a big, big problem with liberalism.
Yes, the techniques you refer to were used extensively by the media against Al Gore in 2000. George Bush is president because of that “liberal” bias. (Similar remarks can be said about the 2002 election cycle). Seems to me this election cycle is not as skewed in favor of the Repubs — hence the bellyaching.
The truth of your point is that the media carelessly slants things (or not so carelessly), but to suggest that it has some overall liberal bias is a conservative fantasy.
Do you really mean this?
Conservative talk radio was the way that conservatives decided to fight back against the liberal media
I see — deliberately slanted and inflammatory news coverage is the appropriate response to alleged liberal media bias.
So conservatives believe all media should be biased, and news without their slant is “biased.”
I get it.
Yes, the techniques you refer to were used extensively by the media against Al Gore in 2000. George Bush is president because of that “liberal” bias. (Similar remarks can be said about the 2002 election cycle). Seems to me this election cycle is not as skewed in favor of the Repubs — hence the bellyaching.
The truth of your point is that the media carelessly slants things (or not so carelessly), but to suggest that it has some overall liberal bias is a conservative fantasy.
Do you really mean this?
Conservative talk radio was the way that conservatives decided to fight back against the liberal media
I see — deliberately slanted and inflammatory news coverage is the appropriate response to alleged liberal media bias.
So conservatives believe all media should be biased, and news without their slant is “biased.”
I get it.
Hollywood may always have been liberal, but they didn’t always make many explicitly political movies and the ones they did make were not successful.
Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins both starred in Bull Durham and Dead Man Walking (a rare earlier example of a politicial movie) and held the same political views when they started each, but one makes a political statement and one does not. “Gigli” and “Daredevil” did not make a political statement, even though Ben Affleck probably supported John Kerry all along. Oh, I suppose there are enough socially liberal messages–acceptance of gay people, etc.–but even those are a minority. “Chasing Amy” and “Dogma” had some political or idelogical content. “Clerks” and “Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back did not.” “Canadian Bacon” was probably explicitly political, but not as important as “Fahrenheit 9/11”, because no one actually saw it. I don’t care what causes the makers of “Armageddon” and “Con Air” and “The Story of Us” and whatever other crappy movies I’ve seen on Peter Pan bus rides–I defy you to find a political message.
And this is an illustration of the central problem with conservative “media criticism”: they think the question is how journalists vote, not what they write. But of course that’s not true.
A liberal journalist might allow that bias to show in his reporting, or he might be able to remove it and be neutral, or he might overcompensate by being conservative in his writing, or he might overcompensate by treating GOP and Democratic arguments exactly the same even if one is demonstrably false and the other is demonstrably true, or one is much more extreme than the other.
Then in addition to the question of the direction of the bias vector there’s the question of it’s size. The New York Times is liberal, but Fox News is much more conservative than the Times is liberal. NPR is liberal, but Rush Limbaugh is much more conservative than NPR is liberal.
And then you have the question of quality, which is COMPLETELY ignored. The NY Times is a flat out better newspaper than the NY Post, even if they were equally biased. The McNeil Lehrer News Hour is flat out better than Fox News, even if they were equally biased (I’m not convinced the News Hour is biased at all, but that’s arguable; it being better than Fox News is not.) The Telegraph is better than the Mirror. The Economist is a good conservative magazine; the National Review is kind of a crap conservative magazine. The better outlets do tend to be more moderate than the worse ones, but that’s not strictly required. I.F. Stone was socialist if not Marxist, but he was still a good reporter.
This is why Campaign Desk is actually worth reading, unlike 90%+ of “media criticism”…they do not focus on reporters’ bias; they focus on articles’ QUALITY.
Following up, The Corporation is anti-capitalist, not anti-Republican; the mind boggles at Kevin Drum, or anyone else, failing to conceive of any Democratic capitalists. To my understanding, both Orwell Rolls In His Grave and Uncovered are both nonpartisan as well, the first being devoted to criticism of doublespeak and the like in political speech generally, and the second being a bipartisan criticism of the war in Iraq. (Again, one wonders at being unable to conceive of Republican war critics.)
It might be best for Kevin to actually learn about these movies before he tosses this stuff out, but I can’t control what the man writes.
Conservative talk radio was the way that conservatives decided to fight back against the liberal media
“You can’t say you’re fighting back against talk radio! We were fighting back against you first!”
Groan. Not the silly “liberal media” trope again. The “liberal media” that followed merrily along Newt Gingrich’s path of earth-scorching and character assassination? The “liberal media” that was all Monica all the time? The “liberal media” that relentlessly reprinted wild accusations that the then-President actually conspired to assassinate a White House official? The “liberal media” that hounded Al Gore for weeks for misstating the title of the FEMA official he traveled with? The “liberal media” that gave — and continues to give — George Bush a complete pass on pretty much any understanding of any issue at all?
It reminds one of a sort of blind religious faith. If there is positive disproof of a point of dogma, then it’s clearly only a test of your faith by an unknowable higher power. If we agree with a story then it’s true, but if not then it’s the “bias” of the “liberal media.”
Groan. Not the silly “liberal media” trope again. The “liberal media” that followed merrily along Newt Gingrich’s path of earth-scorching and character assassination for several years? The “liberal media” that was all Monica all the time? The “liberal media” that relentlessly reprinted wild accusations that the then-President actually conspired to assassinate a White House official? The “liberal media” that hounded Al Gore for weeks for misstating the title of the FEMA official he traveled with? The “liberal media” that gave — and continues to give — George Bush a complete pass on pretty much any understanding of any issue at all?
It reminds one of a sort of blind religious faith. If there is positive disproof of a point of dogma, then it’s clearly only a test of faith by an unknowable higher power. If one agrees with a story then it’s true, but if not then it’s the “bias” of the “liberal media.”
Groan. Not the silly “liberal media” trope again. The “liberal media” that followed merrily along Newt Gingrich’s path of earth-scorching and character assassination for several years? The “liberal media” that was all Monica all the time? The “liberal media” that relentlessly reprinted wild accusations that the then-President actually conspired to assassinate a White House official? The “liberal media” that hounded Al Gore for weeks for misstating the title of the FEMA official he traveled with? The “liberal media” that gave — and continues to give — George Bush a complete pass on pretty much any understanding of any issue at all?
It reminds one of a sort of blind religious faith. If there is positive disproof of a point of dogma, then it’s clearly only a test of faith by an unknowable higher power. If one agrees with a story then it’s true, but if not then it’s the “bias” of the “liberal media.”
“And this is an illustration of the central problem with conservative “media criticism”: they think the question is how journalists vote, not what they write. But of course that’s not true.
A liberal journalist might allow that bias to show in his reporting, or he might be able to remove it and be neutral, or he might overcompensate by being conservative in his writing, or he might overcompensate by treating GOP and Democratic arguments exactly the same even if one is demonstrably false and the other is demonstrably true, or one is much more extreme than the other.”
This is explicitly dealt with in Patterico’s side by side language comparison.
Groan. Not the silly “liberal media” trope again. The “liberal media” that followed merrily along Newt Gingrich’s path of earth-scorching and character assassination for several years? The “liberal media” that was all Monica all the time? The “liberal media” that relentlessly reprinted wild accusations that the then-President actually conspired to assassinate a White House official? The “liberal media” that hounded Al Gore for weeks for misstating the title of the FEMA official he traveled with? The “liberal media” that gave — and continues to give — George Bush a complete pass on pretty much any understanding of any issue at all?
It reminds one of a sort of blind religious faith. If there is positive disproof of a point of dogma, then it’s clearly only a test of faith by an unknowable higher power. If one agrees with a story then it’s true, but if not then it’s the “bias” of the “liberal media.”
Groan. Not the silly “liberal media” trope again. The “liberal media” that followed merrily along Newt Gingrich’s path of earth-scorching and character assassination for several years? The “liberal media” that was all Monica all the time? The “liberal media” that relentlessly reprinted wild accusations that the then-President actually conspired to assassinate a White House official? The “liberal media” that hounded Al Gore for weeks for misstating the title of the FEMA official he traveled with? The “liberal media” that gave — and continues to give — George Bush a complete pass on pretty much any understanding of any issue at all?
It reminds one of a sort of blind religious faith. If there is positive disproof of a point of dogma, then it’s clearly only a test of faith by an unknowable higher power. If one agrees with a story then it’s true, but if not then it’s the “bias” of the “liberal media.”
Oops, sorry. Typepad said it couldn’t post.
He does. But the version on the left is more accurate, less biased and less hopelessly passive-voice-ridden; he does not give a neutral version; and in the left version Cheney gets away with much more than he should with the “sensitivity” attack. Anyway, this deals with EXACTLY ONE ARTICLE. Do you know how many counter examples one could find?
You write as though you have no understanding of where movies come from. Did HOLLYWOOD really produce those documentaries and movies?
Maybe if your argument was that “The Manchurian Candidate” was anti-Bush because the main antagonist was a firm similar to Halliburton…
but documentaries generally don’t even get funding from LA County let alone Hollywood.
They may end up getting distribution from LA but only after they have won awards and/or have proven to have a relatively good chance of returning a profit on the investment.
And I have still to see the so called’ liberal’ media march en masse to the talking points the way the conservative ‘entertainment’ folks do to the RNC’s daily message.
Subtle nuance vs. “flip-flopper” “sensitive” “french-looking” “only served FOUR MONTHS” the list goes on.
Funny, I see the left-wing equivalent of ‘talking points’ all the time.
I don’t understand your problem with pointing out ‘subtle’ bias. The whole point of subtle bias is to be confused with straight reporting. If you can’t understand the difference between ‘attacked’ and ‘pointed out’ or ‘seized on’ rather than ‘noticed’ I am unsurprised that you are unable to detect liberal bias in news reporting.
I used your argument that the liberal subtle nuance is the mainstay and right wing media is only there to provide a feeble attempt at a counterbalance.
No wonder young people are turning to Jon Stewart for their news.
People like you want to spin so deep that it looks like you’re exploring for oil.
The main ‘liberal’ culprits like The Washington Post? Or the New Your Times?
Yes, their news and even their opinion pages were amazingly adroit at showing that only peacenik hippie types opposed the lead up to invasion of Iraq. No need to question the White House press releases – no wouldn’t want to appear to be exploring the issues when it could hinder the president’s intiatives.
Liberal? Maybe once when Democrats controlled congress but that was a long time ago.
Nooooo. . the liberal media bias shibboleth has invaded even the most sacred spaces.
The mainstream media has a sensationalism bias, an echo chamber bias, a ‘common wisdom’ bias, a laziness bias, and a dual-masters bias that collectively dwarf any bias introduced by reporter ideology. Anyone from any side can find an infinite number of examples where this pantheon of stupidity has harmed their side.
I thought we had a consensus on that.
America is the most conservative of the liberal developed democratic states, and its mainstream news media reflects this. The Gray Lady may be “centre-left” in its editorial bias when viewed from the USAian political perspective, but the claim that the news media is in any meaningful sense biased towards the left, even the anaemic American left, is truly laughable.
Hollywood may well be generally liberal (by and large, I suspect, a result of the creative types not wishing to side with the bullet-headed bullies who beat them up in High school for being “fags”), but people, last I checked, don’t actually rely on Hollywood for their news reporting.
In addition, my problem with people like Limbaugh and Coulter is not their politics, but the fact that they simply cannot make an argument without throwing distortions of fact and outright logical fallacies in there — they are, in fact, really bad at making coherent and cohesive arguments. They sound drunk. If the last line of defense that the poor beleagured conservative cause had against the monolithic liberal media is Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, I think it’s a shocking indictment of conservative ideology — you can only believe it if you’re prepared to suck up the fallacies and deal.
Not that I believe that, of course, but conservatives whinging about the liberal media bias always seems to me much like the Christians whinging about the religious persecution they encounter these days (or expect to encounter any day now, when the Muslims get in power). It’s the luxury of those who have nothing to complain about to complain about it anyway.
I’d have commented on Kevin Drum’s list of movies in Political Animal, but by the time I saw it the comments thread was already so long I was fairly sure that KD’s regular trolls were posting there.
The “liberal media” thing is a nonsense, as others have already ably pointed out.
But movies are biased (usually: there are always exceptions) in a different way from other major media outlets. A newspaper reflects yesterday’s political talking points: a radio broadcast reflects today’s: TV reflects today’s-if-it-has-a-picture: blogdom (if I can count it as a “major media outlet”) reflects what’s-on-the-web.
A movie begins a year at least before it’s released. And usually more. A major movie project might be five years from first concept to final release. Nakedly political movies usually fail for that reason: there is, all too often, a gap between the consensus that existed at the time the movie was made, and the consensus that exists now. (F911 is a success in part because Moore picked a topic that was going to go on being of major interest right up until November this year, and in part because Moore is a damned good moviemaker… but all his ability wouldn’t have helped him if he’d been wrong about guessing what way politics in the US would be going at the time of F911‘s release.)
A movie works best when the creators guess right about what people will be thinking about, will be fearful of, will be interested in, a year or two years in the future. The difference between a success and a flop is often just the difference between a good hunch and a bad one.
Kevin’s right in that I think current movies are a bad show for Bush: but not because they’re overtly liberal. Because I think we’re now seeing the real effects of September 11 on the American psyche: it happened long enough ago that disaster movies now coming out are showing that effect transmuted through the moviemaker grasp of American gestalt thinking. And my impression is that what they’ve grasped is that people don’t trust the government to save them. I’m not seeing movies like Armageddon, where the World Is Saved by the USG’s willingness to hire a group of roughneck drillers: I’m seeing movies like The Day After Tomorrow, where the USG explicitly doesn’t know what to do and does it all wrong anyway.
(I’m willing to accept correction on this: I’m not the world’s foremost moviegoer, and it’s entirely possible I’ve just missed a whole stack of disaster movies where the government Saves The Day.)