Last Updated: May 26, 1999
Printer-friendly version
ASNE on the move
Letters
Argument on the myth of the liberal slant is weak
Nice try. But Everette Dennis’ January-February cover story ("Liberal
reporters, yes; liberal slant, no!") appears more calculated to explain
away some embarrassing poll data than to put forward a cogent argument.
What the ASNE workforce survey (presumably not "the handiwork of right-leaning
groups and critics) shows is that by a 4-to-1 margin, newsroom employees
prefer to think of themselves as "liberal and Democrat" rather than "conservative
and Republican." Of course, we all know the many fine reporters (of both
persuasions) who manage to overcome their biases and report the news fairly.
But does Mr. Dennis seriously believe that it’s so easy for most of us
to put aside our beliefs when we don the mantle of "reporter"?
Marketplace forces would discipline those who stray from objectivity,
he reasons. It’s a fair point. It may also be one reason why newspaper
readership is declining nationally and has been for some time. Ditto for
viewership of network news. I fear that the market is indeed working —
and the message it’s sending is not reassuring.
Well, Dennis persists, surely all those "conservative" owners wouldn’t
allow such liberal bias. Put aside the question of which owners he has
in mind (Sulzberger, Graham, Ted and Jane Turner?). Any owner unwise enough
to tamper with existing newsroom culture would be asking for a heap of
trouble. Imagine the outcry if the publisher’s diversity committee were
to insist on intellectual diversity — i.e. hiring two "conservative" reporters
for every "liberal" reporter until ideological equity had been reached.
Dennis’ argument can’t be taken seriously by anybody who reads leading
American newspapers. True, the op-ed pages have trouble finding "liberal"
columnists. But what’s the point when so many of them are able to get across
their views on the front page?
Thomas J. Bray
Editorial page editor
The Detroit News
The American Editor was unintentionally educational when it ran in the
same issue, "The myth of the liberal slant" and "If you want a minority
perspective, ask for it."
If you or the honorable professional Everette E. Dennis wanted a conservative
perspective, why in heaven’s name didn’t you ask for it? Instead, Mr. Dennis
is "the expert" who will tell us what the conservative view is and then
why it is wrong. An editor should have asked, "What are your sources in
addition to yourself?"
A page or two after Mr. Dennis has finished putting up his straw man
and then knocking it for a loop, we find my old friend and former colleague
Andrew Alexander telling us that one rising Cox star’s views on minorities
in the newsroom represent the American journalism universe. At least he
has a survey (MORI Research of Minnesota) to cite. A semblance of data
is available, although a survey about "feelings" in any newsroom has to
be controversial.
The point, however, is that "feelings" about the media’s liberal slant
don’t count, while "feelings" about discrimination in the newsroom are
evidence of "white racism." Is that logical? Is this the way American journalism
can help its readers think critically about important issues?
I have friends (not journalists) across the political spectrum who believe
that this kind of slipshod journalism is the norm in what they read, see
and hear every day. That may be why they are more comfortable with publications
and programs that advertise a point of view and strive to defend it with
facts and figures. Rush Limbaugh, The Nation, George, The Weekly Standard,
and The American Spectator come to mind as a few examples.
I would invite Mr. Dennis to have a long lunch with media critic John
Corry and jot down some notes on who has looked for and found evidence
of so-called liberal bias in the handling and presentation of so-called
news. Andy Alexander might have an instructive chat with Professor Robert
Weissburg of the University of Illinois-Champaign-Urbana on the subject
of where the theory of "white racism" is leading us.
The editors of The American Editor might cogitate on what they intended
to convey by having media critics, non-liberal by definition and therefore
presumably conservative, portrayed as graffiti idiots smearing nice professional
journalists.
Of course, you can do as newsrooms so often do — ignore the criticism
as irrelevant and/or irreverent. I have the feeling (will you count it?)
that many newspapers believe their job today is to be more entertaining
than informative. Your January-February issue certainly could be deemed
a reflection of that.
William H. Wild
Dayton, Ohio
