Thanks to all who gave suggestions - and in particular, I shall address ElJeffe’s extensive advice:
I completely agree with you here - as far as I’m concerned, this not only makes for a balanced, fairly reported story, it is the very least that should be expected of a journalist. It also makes the story more interesting - after all, conflict is news, so a variety of viewpoints makes the story more interesting as well as being more fair.
Understand what you’re saying, but the Australian media doesn’t seem to use these labels as frequently as the U.S media does, in part, I’m sure, because the leading conservative party in Australia is called the Liberal Party.
This is one of my pet hates, too, and I hope I shall never engage in this practice. God, if you’ve got an opinion, write an op-ed. If you’re reporting the news, then report the news, goddamn it!
More to the point of this thread, and much simpler to boot, is the fact that the terms ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ are used by the press as substitutes for ‘good’ and ‘evil,’ respectively. Thus, every ruthless dictator in modern history – no matter what his/her political agenda or views – is routinely described in the press as ‘conservative’ and/or ‘right wing.’ It has less to do with actual politics or policy than it has to do with perception and personality.
And in my opinion, the statement that "the disput [sic] over its meaning goes a long way toward explaining why the media is reluctant to label anyone ‘liberal’ " is hogwash. ElJeffe was much closer to the mark when he pointed out that most journalists are positioned so far to the left in the first place that it’s difficult for them to find anyone more liberal to whom they can apply the label.
I couldn’t disagagree more. You can’t insult a conservative by calling him a “conservative”; that’s a badge they wear with pride. But when conservative pundits us the term “liberal” it is dripping with contempt. So if “liberal” means “evil” and “communist” then of course no one is going to want to call themselves liberal or label anyone else that if they don’t mean to insult them.
I would contend that the average journalist is center-left and this is enough for a little bias to squeak through. The idea that the average journalist is as far to the leaft as, say, anti-globalization activists or blacks demanding reparations is what’s hogwash. Another example is Michael Moore. He’s pretty far to the left and yet there’s quite a contrast between him and the average mainstream media journalist.
It’s also worth pointing out that the left/right dichotomy focuses mostly on economic issues while the liberal/conservative dichotomy is more about social issues (such as those involving religion) although there is some overlap.
Sorry, gotta disagree with you there. Yes, the average conservative wears the Conservative Badge with pride. And I’m sure the average Nazi wears the Nazi Badge with pride. That However, the average news consumer isn’t the average conservative. The average news consumer lives in a world dominated by Hollywood, where the idea of being a gasp republican is comparable to the idea of being a serial child rapist. Witness Julia Roberts, who noted with trademark brilliance that “republican” falls between “reptile” and “repugnant” in the dictionary. Or the savvy political observations of Alec Baldwin (“If Bush gets elected, I’m leaving the country”) and Cher (“If that man gets elected, we won’t have one f**king* right left!”). These people, the people who (unfortunately) shape the lives and opinions of a large portion of America, try to insure that the word “conservative” is associated with stupid, close-minded evil. So when a news reporter uses the word “conservative”, there’s a reasonable chance that he’s using it to conjure, in his readers, visions of wicked baby-killers who like to starve the elderly and kick the homeless. The same way that a conservative op-ed writer will use the word “liberal” to suggest a propogator of hair-brained “let’s legislate wealth” schemes who likes to get bj’s in the oval office in his spare time. Just because conservatives don’t mind the word doesn’t mean that it’s not used in a negative fashion.
Jeff
This is, of course, complete and utter piffle. True, famous actors tend to be liberal and support liberal causes and candidates. That this fact “shape[s] the lives and opinions of a large portion of America” is disrespectful of all non-celebrity Americans of any political stripe. Those of us who are liberal are liberal because of our own abilities to reason and form opinions. The fact that some famous people might agree with us is just a bonus. But, really, the whole premise of this question is fallacious. The kind of people who are shaped by outside forces are just as likely to be shaped by televangelists, talk show hosts, and new age fakers as they are by actors, and these represent a wide range of political opinion.
Yes, yes they are. But guess who hogs most of the limelight? In a given day, how much would you say the average person is confronted by images of Hollywood, as compared to say, televangelists? And if you truly doubt that America’s opinions are shaped by Hollywood, then you might want to get ahold of all the advertisers out there. I’m sure they’d be grateful to know that they can stop spending millions on celebrity endorsements, because the public doesn’t really care about the opinions of the superstars.
“But surely you don’t believe that just because a person trusts Britney Spears to select his cola for him, he’s going to listen to her political views?”
No, of course not. We’re way to rational to let that happen.
Jeff
Case in point:
Probably a years worth of investigative hours looking through every nook and cranny of the American election system after the “2000 thing”, hours upon hours of philosophy, opinion, research, interviews and ‘facts’ transmitted through all medias.
The result:
Not once did a single report or sentence emerge, which articulated that 99% of votes in America are counted by a computer network; and as such, many Americans don’t vote; because there is no reason to believe that voting is anything but a pretense; used to disguise the fact that we are not in a country that uses representation; or any form of democrcy for that matter.
It certainly does make one wonder about the news,
(as it’s a f**king no-brainer), realizing that this is the only issue requiring attention in the U.S., and that every reporter and government official not articulating this is not doing their jobs in a logically consistant means; and thus are by default all catagorized as counter-intelligent human beings; the walking dead of absolute hypocrisy brewing to the very depth of logical discernment.
—If you get a quote from one side, make damn sure you get a quote from the other side. And make sure that the sources are of equal validity.—
This is actually, if you think about it, more of a problem than a solution. How do we decide who represents which “side”? There are usually many more than two opinions on a single issue, and some are more inflamatory (i.e. newsworthy) than others, even if they are a minority of concerned people. The idea that there are a solid block of conservatives and liberals who uniformly disagree about every single issue in the same way is itself divisive nonsense, and yet that’s the sense we often get from reports of this kind.