"Mainstream" (ie., right wing) Media Only Gets Worse

When the Neocon Republicans had a majority and Bush the Second was in office, all the cable news shows and much of the "mainstream" media always had many, many more Republicans on the air as "experts" all the time. The ratio of Republicans to Democrats was always greater than two to one.

When this was pointed out by reputable journalists from Counterspin and other watchdog groups, their rationale was always that, well, hell, the Republicans are the majority so we give them the majority of the air time.

OK. Now the Democrats are the majority. Are they giving the Democrats the majority of air time?

Silly question. You already know the answer to that one: Of course not.

The ratio is still greater than 2:1, Republicans to Democrats. A recent survey reported by Counterspin this morning showed 51 Republicans to 24 Democrats. And on NPR, which used to be unbiased, now usually leads with the Republican talking points. Again today, for example, when their evening news story about the financial package getting the critical vote in the Senate appeared, their lead interview was with a Republican who, naturally, opposed it.

I'm been a journalist. I majored in journalism in college. I worked on three different newspapers while going to school and after I did my military time. I know what's legitimate reporting and what isn't. In the NPR story, the lead should not have been about Republican opposition. The lead was that the package passed. Then a legitimate news organization would have gone into a bit of detail about what we could expect next. Instead, every time there's a story about this, on any TV or radio station (except on Pacifica Network stations and maybe a few other small ones) it's always about Republican opposition.

So, when Republicans were in power, they got more coverage. When they're out of power, they get more coverage. Why? Because they control the media. Because the media is now owned only by gigantic corporations who promote the Republican party line. Because journalists don't have balls anymore. Except for Bill Moyers, Amy Goodman, Jack Cafferty and a small handful of others. Also, I think incompetence in journalism is more common than good old fashioned legitimate factual reporting. How many times, for instance, have you heard the phrase "huge recovery package" or "giant" "mammoth," and other adjectives that are always used, including by NPR, any time the thing is even mentioned.

But they never used those adjectives to talk about money the Republicans have spent on the Iraq war, about the money given to Halliburton and other sleazebag contractors with no oversight. Nope, inflated adjectives are only for Democratic proposals. When I worked on a newspaper, we had copy editors who cut crap like that out of a story unless it was called for legitimately. Apparently in journalism today you can write or say just about whatever you want, as long as it follows Republican talking points.