I ask you, "Is the media biased?"
And with a knowing snicker, you say, "Of course."
"You are wrong," I respond.
And, as you shake your head in disbelief, I follow with this rejoinder: "No, the media are biased."
Not only should this remind us that media is a plural term (The media are ...), it should also remind us that the media are not monolithic -- not all news organizations and media outlets have the same viewpoints or have a political agenda, nor do all those who communicate through the media, including reporters, columnists, commentators, etc.
You might believe the media are monolithic if you have been listening to the public dialogue in recent days as "the" media have come under sharp attack.
What started this latest go-round was the inept performance of ill-prepared CNBC moderators (I am loath to call them journalists) at last week's Republican debate. There's no doubt they lost control of the debate and played into the hands of those who were ready to turn the tables on the moderators. It was embarrassing.
Not only did they ask some trivial questions, including some in the "gotcha" category, the bumbled in not having information needed to back up some questions. An egregious example occurred when moderator Becky Quick, who appeared to be very much out of her depth, began asking a question of Donald Trump. "You have been very critical of Mr. Zuckerberg of Facebook ... ." Trump interrupted, as he often does, denying the basis for the question and leaving the moderator on the defensive. "I never said this," Trump insisted. "I have not been at all critical of him."
Quick apologized and was clearly flustered. "Where did I read this and come up with this that you were?" The egg on her face almost became visible. Trump pounced: "Probably, I don't know. You people write this stuff." The audience laughed and applauded. But, in fact, Trump had been critical of Zuckerberg and referred, in Trump's immigration policy paper, to Sen. Marco Rubio as Zuckerberg's "personal senator." (Zuckerberg and Rubio support increasing the number of visas granted to tech workers from overseas.)
Quick later tried to return to the subject, having apparently gotten the documentation in the meantime. However, as Megyn Kelly, the Fox News star, who knows a little about blustery push-back from Trump, commented in referring to Quick's question, "This is why you never ask a question like this without having your source material at the ready."
Candidate Ben Carson deflected questions about his relationship to Mannatech, a disgraced pharmaceutical company, denying that there was any relationship, though some evidence suggests otherwise. As the Wall Street Journal reported, Carson' relationship with the company deepened over time, including "four paid speeches at Mannatech gatherings," including one in 2013 for which he was paid $42,000. When moderator Carl Quintanilla noted that Carson's picture was on the company's home page, the taciturn Dr. Carson said it was without his permission. When Quintanilla tried to follow up, the audience booed. "See ... They know," Carson said, and that ended the exchange.
Candidate Ted Cruz said the debate questions "illustrate why the American people don't trust the media." However, in the face of petty questions, there's no reason one of the candidates couldn't grab the microphone and say, "Enough of this trivial tripe. Let's talk seriously about Syria and what our strategy should be." The problem is most of them don't want to talk about such complex and controversial issues, particularly when they can keep the focus on media.
Using the media (or press) as a punching bag has a long history. Candidates have often blamed campaign problems on the press. At the 1964 Republican convention, former President Eisenhower drew thunderous applause when he criticized "sensation-seeking columnists and commentators." That marked the emergence of the press as a major political target. In his 1996 campaign, Republican Bob Dole implored his audiences to "rise up" and not "let the media steal this election." He said President Clinton was being "propped up by the media." Republicans have regularly sounded that theme. It should be noted, however, that over the years the Clintons have taken lots of heat in the media.
Nothing could be more mainstream than the Wall Street Journal, owned by Rupert Murdoch, as is Fox. Journal editorials and columns regularly lambast Hillary Clinton, as was the case with her husband.
And the media constellation is considerably different than it once was. Fox News is a conservative powerhouse. And there are dozens of Republican or conservative-friendly blogs, websites, pundits, columnists and commentators -- not to mention the undeniable significance of talk radio. Monolithic media? No way.
One year from now, barring a Florida-like fiasco in counting the ballots, we will know who will have survived all this. What we already know is that the media have a responsibility in serving and informing the public and the media are certain (not "is" certain) to remain at the center of controversy.
Commentary on 11/04/2015