creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion General Opinion
Brent Bozell
L. Brent Bozell
17 Feb 2012
Grammy Stupidity Meter off the Charts

The shocking death of pop star Whitney Houston built a massive audience for the Grammy Awards telecast Sunday … Read More.

15 Feb 2012
The Kennedy Has No Clothes

Valentine's Day is probably not the day most people would pick to remember the marriage of John and … Read More.

10 Feb 2012
Another Fleeting Failure For NBC

Super Bowl XLVI was a good football game, marred once again by the bohemian elite at NBC. NBC could have prevented,… Read More.

Our "Intolerance Festival"

Share Comment

It's very easy to be outraged by the way our "objective" media greeted the massive Sept. 12 rally against Big Government in Washington and across the country. They treated it as a menacing surge of white anger, meanness, and racism. But all the media bias against this rally clearly illustrates one nagging truth for media liberals: They really don't think conservatives should be allowed to protest. It's somehow like a copyright violation.

On Monday night's "Countdown," MSNBC's David Shuster found the protest united "in apparent hatred of the current president, Barack Obama." It was undemocratic, a sign of people not accepting election results, and Shuster even suggested Sen. Jim DeMint's speech at the rally signaled he favored a "military coup." The unglued anchorman also dismissed the crowd as "white, whiter and whitest," all attending an "intolerance festival."

Now, remember David Shuster in 2003, when all kinds of unsavory radical-left elements were opposing President Bush's aim to liberate Iraq. ("Bush lied, thousands died." Remember that?) The leader of the opposition was Ramsey Clark, America's nutty left-wing lawyer for a collection of disreputable dictators, and the man who would in time represent Saddam Hussein in court. But the protesters weren't nasty, even as they railed against Bush and greedy, imperialist, blood-for-oil America. They were ... a superpower.

On "Hardball," Shuster thumped the bongos for dissent: "The size of the demonstrators, at least here, at least in Europe, seems to underscore, Chris, that there are now perhaps two world superpowers. There's the United States and then there are those millions of people who took to the streets opposing U.S. policy."

Over on ABC, anchorman Bill Weir, the man who became a national laughingstock for crowing on Inauguration Day that "even the seagulls must have been awed" by Barack Obama's crowd, could find only a mob "descending" on Washington like the flying monkeys of the Wicked Witch of the West: "This morning, outrage. Protesters descend on Washington to rally against the president's health care plan. As civility gives way to shouting, what's fueling all this anger?"

But on that same ABC network, back in 2003, the attitude was different.

Anchor Chris Cuomo told viewers that throughout history, protesters have been a leading national indicator of wisdom: "While protesters like today are a statistical minority, in American history, protests like this have been prescient indicators of the national mood. So the government may do well to listen to what's said today."

Protests are not by definition a sign of the "national mood" or a guarantee of policy success. They certainly didn't stop war in Iraq in 2003. Massive, media-celebrated protests by illegal aliens and immigration "rights" activists didn't liberalize our immigration laws in 2006. The rallies on 9-12 may not stop some version of newly socialized medicine this year. Protests are, in one sense, a publicity stunt. They are meant to signal motivated opposition to a policy course.

There was a reason for conservatives to be pleased with coverage of these protests: For once, they got coverage. Huge crowds have amassed in Washington in the coldest days of January for the "March for Life," but since it's an annual event, the networks skip it virtually every year.

The Saturday rally led the newscasts on both CBS and NBC (ABC was airing college football). They may have properly sensed that with all the free time they've been offering President Obama, it might be polite to grant a few minutes to some regular Americans who aren't Obama voters.

But the major media came to the rally not to develop a broad sense of the crowd's common complaint, but to isolate and humiliate conservatives by finding the lunatic fringes. Nobody walking the street in Washington on Saturday would tell you there weren't some ugly signs. But neither can anyone attending President Obama's inaugural deny there was ugliness among the celebrants. More than once, I witnessed crowds roar the "na na nah nah ... hey hey hey, goodbye" taunt at President Bush. Reporters were too busy mind-reading seagulls to notice.

The media's coverage of anti-war protests clearly had a different motto: no enemies to the left. There were no radical fringes that could not be whitewashed, and the peace protesters were painted in warm and glowing tones as a broad spectrum of races and creeds all united to demonstrate that dissent is the ultimate form of patriotism, even if your sign reads "Victory to Iraq."

The media's coverage is obviously biased, but it should cause conservatives to take heart. The tide is turning. The tea parties are scaring liberals. They are the "prescient indicators of the national mood."

L. Brent Bozell III is the president of the Media Research Center. To find out more about Brent Bozell III, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS.COM


Comments

1 Comments | Post Comment
Mr. Bozell,
Your main points are well taken. There is indeed a bias favoring the liberal perspective in the major media. I can say this without hesitation because I am a liberal. We, liberals, are unlikely to protest this state because it favors our perspective. I do not fool myself by thinking that any media source can ever be truly objective. I believe, however, that every perspective should be available to the public. Appealing to the extant media to alter their propensities in order to achieve greater objectivity is unlikely. Conservatives, instead, should redouble their efforts to create additional media outlets where their values frame coverage. The very fact that I visited the site featuring your column indicates that, given a greater number of sources, people of the opposing perspective will have the opportunity to be exposed to conservative viewpoints, and as such, be subject to potential influence. Those who have no interest in ideas different from their own, of course, can stick with outlets that confirm their views.
Liberalman.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Liberalman
Wed Feb 15, 2012 3:11 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
L. Brent Bozell
Feb. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 31 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Michelle Malkin
Michelle MalkinUpdated 27 Feb 2012
Mark Levy
Mark LevyUpdated 18 Feb 2012
Oliver North
Oliver NorthUpdated 17 Feb 2012

27 Jul 2007 Where Are the Admirable Athletes?

27 Nov 2008 Colbert Shreds Sunday School

24 Dec 2009 Deconstructing Christmas