This morning I was reminded of the hateful message I got about Tim Russert when I read this piece in the WSJ about how — according to this particular ex-media type who concerns himself with media bias — Mr. Russert was one of the few big-time TV types who shared his concern:
…No, what made Tim Russert different, and better, I think was his willingness to listen to — and take seriously — criticism about his own profession. He was willing, for example, to keep an open mind about a hot-button issue like media bias — an issue that so many of his colleagues dismiss as the delusions of right-wing media haters. (Trust me on this one, I worked at CBS News for 28 years and know Dan Rather personally.)…
Personally, I have to take other people’s word for whether Russert was a good guy or not. When I was introduced to him at the 2004 Republican Convention in New York (by Lindsey Graham, as it happened), I did my best to act like I knew who he was (I looked him up later), just to be polite. Yes, my ignorance of TV news is that complete. I’d heard the name, but that was it. I go to church on Sunday mornings. I will say this about him, though — now that I think about it, he struck me as the kind of guy who wouldn’t have been insulted if he’d known I didn’t know who he was. He didn’t seem like the big-headed type. So that’s something.
But while I don’t have an informed opinion about Mr. Russert’s character, I do have a lot of informed opinions about what is oversimplified as "media bias." Here’s the short version — i’s definitely real, and here’s the form it takes:
Journalists spend their lives in a bubble, largely because of the work they do and the hours they keep. They tend to work with people just like the people they went to journalism school with, and because work doesn’t allow them to go to PTA meetings and otherwise live normal lives around normal people. Take that and combine it with the fact that journalists try to studiously avoid having opinions, and even fool themselves into thinking they are perfectly objective, which causes them to have the most entrenched sort of opinions there are — unexamined ones.
Other people get out of college and hang with all sorts of different people, and form impressions of the world that they are not ashamed to think about in opinionated terms. Journalists pretend to themselves that they are not forming opinions, and therefore their ability to form grownup, evolving opinions about the world gets stunted. So they, and the people around them, go through life with the sort of vaguely liberal inclinations that they bought into as college sophomores.
This phenomenon was touched upon in the WSJ piece:
Tim understood that without that kind of diversity, journalism would be in trouble. He knew it wasn’t good for journalism or America if almost all the people reporting the news lived and worked in the same bubble.
"There’s a potential cultural bias. And I think it’s very real and very important to recognize and to deal with," he told me. "Because of backgrounds and training you come to issues with a preconceived notion or a preordained view on subjects like abortion, gun control, campaign finance. I think many journalists growing up in the ’60s and the ’70s have to be very careful about attitudes toward government, attitudes toward the military, attitudes toward authority. It doesn’t mean there’s a rightness or a wrongness. It means you have to constantly check yourself."
Related Posts
I think Tim Russert by all accounts was a real “stand up guy” and very well rounded in his life – with his family, his beliefs (religious) and his work and none of these taking short shrift in his attention.
I am grateful for his life and for the effect he has had on the news broadcast industry and I hope his fellow broadcast journalists at MSNBC continue to hold to his high standard.
I think media types have a ” Christ ” complex. In other words they think that they can solve all the world’s problems. The problem is they are not Christ and even he knew that it was up to the individual to solve his or her own problems but if you could help them then you would be blessed.
Whenever anyone tells you that they think “journalists” at MSNBC hold and maintain high standards, you can stop right there. At least that’s where I stop. How ridiculous this is, on it’s face!
MSNBC and its’ hopelessly in-the-tank liberal “journalists” (advocates) for the Democrat National Committee have NO standards, other than that they will say or do ANYTHING to advance the liberal agenda. As one example of literally hundreds everyday, Chris Matthews just yesterday used the occassion of the death of Tim Russert in the most shameless and opportunistic manner I’ve ever seen: He actually blamed Russerts’ death on President Bush, because according to Matthews, Bushs’ policies have caused the stress and tension in people that cause cardiac arrest in guys like Russert.
Margaret, You can watch MSNBC and believe in them if you want. I’m sure they appreciate you and the other six people that watch. Meanwhile the vast majority of people in the country recognize the truth: MSNBC is the simply the media arm of the democrat party.
It is.
David
FACT: Several comprehensive surveys of large newspaper editors and TV news producers have found that 86% of them vote Democrat.
Tim Russert tried to be fair, in spite of his obvious bias towards Democrats and big government. He did ask the questions of all guests that most reporters avoid, but that just means he was doing a minimal job, compared to the shirking journalists who don’t .
Lee – Have you seen any sites that list party affiliation percentages for different occupations? (Do modest paying jobs that are sold as serving the public tend to attract liberals and keep them that way? do high paying market-using jobs tend to attract conservatives and keep them that way?)
David – I assume you have an equally negative opinion of Fox news for pandering the other direction? (My favorites for good journalism are some of the interviewers on the BBC world service , they are often good at savaging both sides. Chris Wallace seems reasonable to me on Sunday morning as well.)
Just, I’m not really much of a fan of any of them, FOX included. I don’t believe that there really is an unfiltered, unbiased source for news on the TV. I find that I get better information from the new media ~ talk radio and the internet to be exact. The only reason I even felt the urge to comment was Margarts’ expression of support for and faith in MSNBC. What she said is stunning, and would be funny if it weren’t so sad.
And now, I’ve had a tough day of military maneuvers and target practice at the compound. Me and some of my separtist militia buddies are gonna go shoot some pool and drink some brewskis down at the VFW.
David
There is no such thing as “an unfiltered, unbiased source for news” ANYwhere (and certainly not on talk radio — but you were kidding about that, right?)?
I realized that a long time ago, which is why I made the transition from news to opinion in January 2004. Not only had I realized it was impossible for me or anyone else to report anything “objectively,” I had ceased to believe that was even a desirable goal. In trying to be “objective,” a well-meaning person will deliberately leave out honest observations that he fears are too “subjective,” and therefore does not tell all he knows. I’d rather just tell you what I know and what I think about it, straight up, and let you decide what to do with it from there. Hence the change to opinion.
It took you until 2004 to realize that your 25 years as a reporter had been biased and filtered?
I liked Russert. He never seemed condescending or haughty on the air. His success didn’t seem to spoil him. He was a character actor among leading men. The star complex took its toll on some of the leading men, Rather most of all, but it never seemed to hit Russert.
If you didn’t know who Tim Russert was in 2004, Mr. Warthen, you have been in a bubble.
Brad, I said I get “better” information from the new media than I could ever get from the old, sold-out liberal TV talking heads.
BETTER. Not that I consider them the burning bush.
Better is a relative term. It implies that two or more things have been compared, and one is considered to have more value than the other. It does not imply that the one which has more value is perfect.
Do you really think it’s at all difficult to find something ‘better’ than Chris Matthews? Or Dan Rather? Or Keith Olberman?
I mean for crying out loud! You’re scaring me. David
While a news VP for CBS, Dan Rather acted as MC at many Democrat Party fundraisers.
I find that I get better information from the new media ~ talk radio and the internet to be exact.
-David
You are kidding aren’t you? Talk radio provides better information? Really that is just about the stupidest thing I’ve ever read. Talk radio is simply a media tool for the GOP. It provides no real information at all. It’s nothing but propaganda. It’s worthless nonsense designed for the purpose of entertainment of a few right-wing, brain-dead idiots. Really David, let’s get real here.
Talk radio: a biased medium that admits its bias.
Dan Rather: a biased mediocrity who thinks he’s above bias.
Actually, bud, talk radio averages less propaganda per sentence than your posts and does offer real information with a decided tilt.
How worthless could the nonsense be if McClatchy’s laying off 10 percent of its news people but Rush Limbaugh isn’t backing down at all?
Right wing? Sure. Brain dead? In your dreams. Get real? Then quit listening to the Democrats.
There’s a reason there’s no left-wing talk radio, bud, and it’s not because the Democrats have the right idea.
“There’s a reason there’s no left-wing talk radio and it’s not because the Democrats have the right idea.”
And here I thought it was because the lefties didn’t need someone to tell them how to think on a daily basis. 😉
Now if only the posters here would sometimes admit that their “facts” might be a bit biased…
Good Bud. Glad you don’t like it. I pretty much judge the worth of whatever I’m doing by what you think of it: The more you dislike it, the better it is.
You’re a loon.
I think I’ve mentioned that to you before, but…you’re still a loon.
I bet if there were any left wing socialists liberal hacks that could even make it on the radio, you’d be their biggest fan. No worries about that though…none of them can cut it because no one in the general population wants to hear what your side has to say Bud. How’s that feel?
(I did hear something about a liberal network called Air USA, or Scare America or something. It had Mario Cuomo and Al Franken and all your other super stars on it. Along with about 30 people in the listening audience. I think it lasted about a month.)
And yet you revel in that. Good job Bud. As long as I displease you I’m know I’m on the right track.
David
I’ve seen Russert more than a few times; seemed like a decent guy to me, but he was very biased towards the left. But heck, what do you expect; he was a yankee journalist.
As for Rush; he only thinks he is conservative. That fat bastard doesn’t have a clue when it comes to the Conservative movement; hell, he thinks Bush and his worthless father are/were conservatives.
There is no one that represents true conservative ideals more than a Southern Democrat–a pre 1960s Southern Democrat, that is.
We have seen the leftist bias and its disciples in the SC media; most recently the tobacco haters. No Southern/Christian/free-thinking person would ever support ANY anti-smoking ordinances. Let’s be concerned with the atheistic/liberal bias in SC and spend our resources fighting it before we worry about someone who ain’t even one of usworking for some corporate network that doesn’t have a clue about normal, civilised people.
Brian
“There is no one that represents true conservative ideals more than a Southern Democrat–a pre 1960s Southern Democrat, that is.”
Whoo-hoo! Finally someone raising the call for resegregating our public bathrooms! Can slave reparations (for the former owners that is) be far behind? {<-sarcasm}
Resegregation of bathrooms wouldn’t be too horrible if it meant that guys only went into guy bathrooms and gals only went into gal bathrooms. THAT’S the kind of resegregation I want.
I’m just sayin. David
Lefties just need someone to tell them how to act. Thinking is not required.
why do people think Tim Russert is a great journalist? Isn’t he the one who wouldn’t let ralph nader or Libertarian candidate Harry Browne on because he thought they stood no chance of winning. Nice bias there to keep the Republicrats in power. He also when talking to Ron Paul said that how can he be a defender of the constitution but then want to amend it. Doesn’t he realize the constitution allows itself to be amended or did he sleep through gov’t 101. I guess the thirteenth amendment that ends slavery should be thrown out because it is “unconstituional”.