Thursday, December 02, 2004
The "Liberal Media"
According to CNN, CBS and NBC recently refused to run an 30-second spot by a liberal church advertising its openness to gay men and women. CNN Story CBS cited a policy against "advocacy advertisement" as the rationale for refusing to run the ad; NBC relied on their "long-standing policy of not accepting ads that deal with issues of public controversy." The networks' stated rationales simply don't hold water. As the article notes, both CBS and NBC aired controversial advocacy ads during the recent presidential campaign.
This decision was nothing more than an economic maneuver, designed to avoid offending a vast and newly coherent voting bloc in this country: the Middle American Evangelical Conservative. Who can blame the networks - which are, after all, businesses - for refusing to air an advertisement that would offend, and likely run off, a large portion of their viewing audience? The Religious Right demonstrated that they will vote against homosexuals in the voting booths, so it's only logical to believe that they would cast a similar vote with their remote controls. The networks simply can't afford to insult a viewing audience as large and as belligerent as the Religious Right.
The critical lesson of this story is that the "liberal media" is a will-o'-the-wisp. The media is in the service business. To operate successfully, the networks must cater to the wishes of their audience. Network executives don't base advertising or programming choices on political beliefs. Rather, executive decisions of this type are based solely on the impact to the bottom line. As the nation moves right, so will the media. Anyone who has listened to AM radio in this country knows that the talk radio airwaves are dominated by conservative voices. The cable news channels, while more concerned than talk radio stations with maintaining pretensions of journalistic objectivity, present largely conservative views. This is especially true in foreign policy matters, where the cable news networks report from an assumption of American benevolence. How many cable news programs have attempted to estimate the number of Iraqi casualties, or questioned the United States' motives* in this war?
That the broadcast networks are moving to the right should come as no surprise given the success of the right-leaning cable networks and talk radio stations. Success breeds imitation, and the cable news channels have found a truly successful business model in parroting the ignorant, myopic viewpoints of the Religious Right.
* Many news networks have questioned the US's justifications for the war, but have uniformly approached the issue from the angle that Bush, while acting in good faith and with good intentions, merely acted rashly and misread the available "evidence."
This decision was nothing more than an economic maneuver, designed to avoid offending a vast and newly coherent voting bloc in this country: the Middle American Evangelical Conservative. Who can blame the networks - which are, after all, businesses - for refusing to air an advertisement that would offend, and likely run off, a large portion of their viewing audience? The Religious Right demonstrated that they will vote against homosexuals in the voting booths, so it's only logical to believe that they would cast a similar vote with their remote controls. The networks simply can't afford to insult a viewing audience as large and as belligerent as the Religious Right.
The critical lesson of this story is that the "liberal media" is a will-o'-the-wisp. The media is in the service business. To operate successfully, the networks must cater to the wishes of their audience. Network executives don't base advertising or programming choices on political beliefs. Rather, executive decisions of this type are based solely on the impact to the bottom line. As the nation moves right, so will the media. Anyone who has listened to AM radio in this country knows that the talk radio airwaves are dominated by conservative voices. The cable news channels, while more concerned than talk radio stations with maintaining pretensions of journalistic objectivity, present largely conservative views. This is especially true in foreign policy matters, where the cable news networks report from an assumption of American benevolence. How many cable news programs have attempted to estimate the number of Iraqi casualties, or questioned the United States' motives* in this war?
That the broadcast networks are moving to the right should come as no surprise given the success of the right-leaning cable networks and talk radio stations. Success breeds imitation, and the cable news channels have found a truly successful business model in parroting the ignorant, myopic viewpoints of the Religious Right.
* Many news networks have questioned the US's justifications for the war, but have uniformly approached the issue from the angle that Bush, while acting in good faith and with good intentions, merely acted rashly and misread the available "evidence."
Comments:
<< Home
"It's ironic that after a political season awash in commercials based on fear and deception by both parties seen on all major networks, an ad with a message of welcome and inclusion would be deemed too controversial," said Rev. John Thomas in the statement.
"We find it disturbing that the networks in question seem to have no problem exploiting gay persons through mindless comedies or titillating dramas, but when it comes to a church's loving welcome of committed gay couples, that's where they draw the line."
Brick I would agree this would seem to represent a financial decision made by the networks to not offend those opposed to gay marriage, in the aftermath of elevating this issue during the recent elections. I would add though that it is not designed to avoid offending only the "Middle American Evangelical Conservative" voting bloc but also citizens from virtually all over this country who object to gay marriage, both liberal and conservative.
Despite an increased tolerance in society of those of the gay persuasion, there still remains a majority of both liberals and conservatives who feel the traditional definitions of marriage between a man and woman should be preserved.
This was shown to be the case in several states, including both red and blue states where these ballot initiatives were soundly defeated by leaners of both the right and left persuasions. I dont believe that this is necessarily a conservative or liberal perspective, despite the success of the Republican party in painting it that way in the recent elections.
"We find it disturbing that the networks in question seem to have no problem exploiting gay persons through mindless comedies or titillating dramas, but when it comes to a church's loving welcome of committed gay couples, that's where they draw the line."
Brick I would agree this would seem to represent a financial decision made by the networks to not offend those opposed to gay marriage, in the aftermath of elevating this issue during the recent elections. I would add though that it is not designed to avoid offending only the "Middle American Evangelical Conservative" voting bloc but also citizens from virtually all over this country who object to gay marriage, both liberal and conservative.
Despite an increased tolerance in society of those of the gay persuasion, there still remains a majority of both liberals and conservatives who feel the traditional definitions of marriage between a man and woman should be preserved.
This was shown to be the case in several states, including both red and blue states where these ballot initiatives were soundly defeated by leaners of both the right and left persuasions. I dont believe that this is necessarily a conservative or liberal perspective, despite the success of the Republican party in painting it that way in the recent elections.
notorious,
While I agree with you that the issue of gay marriage is not a Red State / Blue State thing, I completely disagree regarding the dichotomy of opinions on gay marriage between conservatives and liberals. What the gay marriage initiatives demonstrated is that social conservatives are not lumped exclusively in the Republican bin. Many Democratic voters are social conservatives whose party affiliation has more to do with labor and economic issues than social concerns. The Republican Party is first and foremost the party of the wealthy, and thus many socially conservative blue-collar workers vote Democratic.
There is almost exclusive overlap of the groups who support / oppose gay marriage and liberals / conservatives, in large part because one's views on such topics play a key role in defining whether one belongs in either the "liberal" or "conservative" set. In that sense, whether one is liberal is not independent of whether one supports legal recognition of gay marriage. One's answer to that question might very well determine whether one is liberal or not. However, the same is not true of party affiliation (which is the criterion used to determine a state's color on those silly election week maps).
While I agree with you that the issue of gay marriage is not a Red State / Blue State thing, I completely disagree regarding the dichotomy of opinions on gay marriage between conservatives and liberals. What the gay marriage initiatives demonstrated is that social conservatives are not lumped exclusively in the Republican bin. Many Democratic voters are social conservatives whose party affiliation has more to do with labor and economic issues than social concerns. The Republican Party is first and foremost the party of the wealthy, and thus many socially conservative blue-collar workers vote Democratic.
There is almost exclusive overlap of the groups who support / oppose gay marriage and liberals / conservatives, in large part because one's views on such topics play a key role in defining whether one belongs in either the "liberal" or "conservative" set. In that sense, whether one is liberal is not independent of whether one supports legal recognition of gay marriage. One's answer to that question might very well determine whether one is liberal or not. However, the same is not true of party affiliation (which is the criterion used to determine a state's color on those silly election week maps).
Yes in the dynamic environment of today's definitions of liberal and conservative idealogies I would more correctly have inserted "Republican and Democratic".
I have seen over my life the theoretical bar between the left and the right political party platforms shift significantly towards the left. Views on issues like abortion, acceptance of the alternative gay lifestyle and others are now tolerated by even prominant candidates within the Republican party. This would have been unfathomable only a few short years ago. The Democratic party has shifted farther towards the left on certain moral issues resulting in the alienation of part of its traditional base as well. This shift is due in no small measure to the increased prominence of radical liberal special interests groups, contributors and lobbies. Not too many years ago many of George W. Bush's current positions would have more closely resembled the Democratic party than Republican. The Republican party has shifted towards the left far enough to capture many who were just to the left of center. This likely will result in a compensatory rightward shift in the Democratic party, particularly as it pertains to some of these "hot button" moral issues in an attempt to recapture its lost base. This dynamic realignment occurring within the parties is very similar in degree to what occurred in the late 1980's and early 90's leading up to the election of William J.Clinton.
It also is reminiscent of the days of "The Moral Majority" when there was an increased emphasis on traditional moral values over social economic issues under Ronald Reagan.
Recent events even within the traditional liberal network media show that they are not immune to the power of majority.
Post a Comment
I have seen over my life the theoretical bar between the left and the right political party platforms shift significantly towards the left. Views on issues like abortion, acceptance of the alternative gay lifestyle and others are now tolerated by even prominant candidates within the Republican party. This would have been unfathomable only a few short years ago. The Democratic party has shifted farther towards the left on certain moral issues resulting in the alienation of part of its traditional base as well. This shift is due in no small measure to the increased prominence of radical liberal special interests groups, contributors and lobbies. Not too many years ago many of George W. Bush's current positions would have more closely resembled the Democratic party than Republican. The Republican party has shifted towards the left far enough to capture many who were just to the left of center. This likely will result in a compensatory rightward shift in the Democratic party, particularly as it pertains to some of these "hot button" moral issues in an attempt to recapture its lost base. This dynamic realignment occurring within the parties is very similar in degree to what occurred in the late 1980's and early 90's leading up to the election of William J.Clinton.
It also is reminiscent of the days of "The Moral Majority" when there was an increased emphasis on traditional moral values over social economic issues under Ronald Reagan.
Recent events even within the traditional liberal network media show that they are not immune to the power of majority.
<< Home
