Former BBC producer Anthony Jay explains why the MSM are liberal and why that won't change.
And the starting point is the realisation that there have always been two principal ways of misunderstanding a society: by looking down on it from above, and by looking up at it from below. In other words, by identifying with institutions or by identifying with individuals.
To look down on society from above, from the point of view of the ruling groups, the institutions, is to see the dangers of the organism splitting apart, the individual components shooting off in different directions, until everything dissolves into anarchy. Those who see society in this way are preoccupied with the need for order, discipline, control, authority and organisation.
To look up at society from below, from the point of view of the lowest group, the governed, is to see the dangers of the organism growing ever more rigid and oppressive until it fossilises into a monolithic tyranny. Those who see society in this way are preoccupied with the need for liberty, equality, self-expression, representation, freedom of speech and action and worship, and the rights of the individual. The reason for the popularity of these misunderstandings is that both views are correct, as far as they go, and both sets of dangers are real but there is no "right" point of view. The most you can ever say is that sometimes society is in danger from too much authority and uniformity and sometimes from too much freedom and variety...
I can now see that my old BBC media liberalism was not a basis for government. It was an ideology of opposition, valuable for restraining the excesses of institutions and campaigning against the abuses of authority but it was not a way of actually running anything. It serves a vital function when government is dictatorial and oppressive, but when government is ineffective and over-permissive it is hopelessly inappropriate.
I can't deny that my perceptions have come through the experience of leaving the BBC. Suppose I had stayed. Would I have remained a devotee of the metropolitan media liberal ideology that I once absorbed so readily? I have an awful fear that the answer is yes.
Journalists are taught (some would say indoctrinated) in school that their job is to comfort the afflicted and to afflict the comfortable. Indeed, it makes sense that journalists should question authority and institutions since too much authority leads to oppression of individuals.
But as Jay points out, we are possibly going too far the other way these days. Because of the individualization (is that a word?) of culture (through inventions that allow us to pursue our own choices), we are in danger of losing the institutions which bind us together.
In former times, families stayed in one room both for heat and company. They ate collectively because that was how food was prepared. They travelled together because it was safest. And because we stayed in groups most of the time, we developed various cultural norms which bound us together.
But modern life is all about the individual.
It is astonishing how many of the technological inventions of the past century have had the effect of separating us off from the group. The car takes us out of public transport, central heating lets each member of a family do their own thing in their own room, watching their own television, listening to their own music, surfing the net on their own PC or talking to a friend on their own mobile. The fridge, the microwave and the takeaway mean that everyone can have their own meal in their own time. Our knowledge of public events and political arguments come direct from the media rather than from a face-to-face group. We still have some local, territorial group memberships, but their importance is now much diminished and their influence weakened.
Jay's argument is that in championing individualism, journalists discounted the importance of institutions and collective identity, even while identifying with their own collective (i.e., other journalists).
I can testify that when I was a journalist, almost every friend I had worked in media. We all had nearly identical attitudes about politics, religion, education, law, and so on. This is why I don't believe the liberalism of journalists is a conspiracy (something Rush Limbaugh used to say frequently), but rather a result of their environment. If you spend all your time with like-minded people, you all start to sound alike (just visit a few nutroots sites--and a few rightwing ones, as well--and you'll see what I mean).
Jay does an excellent job of explaining all this from a British perspective, but some of his points can apply to the U.S., as well.
It was not that we openly and publicly criticised the government on air; the BBC's commitment to impartiality was more strictly enforced in those days. But the topics we chose and the questions we asked were slanted against institutions and towards oppressed individuals, just as we achieved political balance by pitting the most plausible critics of government against its most bigoted supporters. And when in 1963 John Profumo was revealed as having slept with a call girl and lied to Parliament about it, the emotion that gripped us all was sheer uncontrollable glee. It was a wonderful vindication of all we believed. It proved the essential rottenness of the institution.
Sound like any story we've heard lately?
Again, it's understandable when journalists seem gleeful at the downfall of a Newt Gingrich or, to a far lesser extent, Jim Wright. As the champion of "the little guy," journalists are going to attack the institutions they believe are corrupt. The problem is when journalists attack the little guy's institutions, such as the Catholic Church or even a figure like Jesse Jackson, with whom a lot of the little guys identify. That's when charges of media bias come in.
And those charges are well-deserved. As Jay explains,
Its commissioning editor for documentaries, Richard Klein, has said: "By and large, people who work in the BBC think the same, and it's not the way the audience thinks." The former BBC political editor Andrew Marr says: "There is an innate liberal bias within the BBC".
Most Americans notice that bias, as well. That's why they don't trust many of the stories that appear in the MSM (and, unfortunately, fall for the truly reprehensible crap that appears on the web...*cough*9/11 truthers *cough*).
Defending the little guy is a noble cause, but when one's ideology prevents one from attempting objectivity (something every J-school teaches), that's a problem. But as Jay unfortunately confesses, it's only when you leave the bell jar that you stop believing the liberal ideas.
|