(This update courtesy of the Media Research Center.)
Near the top of the Washington Post's August 29 Op-Ed page ran a column by Robert J. Samuelson which was prompted by the elevation this week of Howell Raines to be Executive Editor of the New York Times after spending many years as editor of the editorial page where he directed all manner of liberal crusading.
Samuelson observed how the editorial page run by Raines “was pro-choice, pro-gun control and pro-campaign finance ‘reform.’ Last year, it endorsed Al Gore. In general, it has been critical of President Bush, especially his tax cut.” Samuelson ruminated: “Does anyone believe that, in his new job, Raines will instantly purge himself of these and other views?”
An excerpt from Samuelson’s August 29 column as run in the Washington Post:
We in the press are routinely self-righteous, holding others — politicians, public officials and corporate executives — to exacting standards of truthfulness, performance and conflict of interest. But we often refuse to impose comparable standards on ourselves, leading some (or much) of the public to see us as hypocritical. A troubling example involves the recent promotion of Howell Raines from editorial page editor of the New York Times to executive editor, where he will oversee the Times' news staff of 1,200, including 26 foreign bureaus. Raines assumes his new job Sept. 6.
In many ways, he seems superbly qualified. Raines, 58, has been a Times bureau chief in both London and Washington. In 1992, he won a Pulitzer Prize. But what ought to disqualify him is his job as editorial page editor, where he proclaimed the Times' liberal views. Every editor and reporter holds private views; the difference is that Raines's opinions are now highly public. His page took stands on dozens of local, national and international issues. It was pro-choice, pro-gun control and pro-campaign finance “reform.” Last year, it endorsed Al Gore. In general, it has been critical of President Bush, especially his tax cut.
Does anyone believe that, in his new job, Raines will instantly purge himself of these and other views? And because they are so public, Raines's positions compromise the Times' ability to act and appear fair-minded. Many critics already believe that the news columns of the Times are animated — and distorted — by the same values as its editorials. Making the chief of the editorial page the chief of the news columns will not quiet those suspicions….
Even more revealing has been the press coverage. Since Raines's appointment was announced in May, there has been almost no criticism of possible conflicts. (I examined stories in the Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, Vanity Fair and in the forthcoming issue of the Columbia Journalism Review.) The silence suggests that the press tolerates conflicts as long as they conform to its dominant — mainly liberal — beliefs. Suppose, hypothetically, that the Wall Street Journal had named Robert Bartley, its fiercely conservative editorial page editor, to run its news columns. Questions surely would have arisen (and properly so) about his suitability — about whether he might use the news columns to promote conservative views. Similar questions apply no less to the liberal Raines.
Among editors and reporters of the national media — papers, magazines, TV — a “liberal bias” is not so much denied as ignored, despite overwhelming evidence that it exists. Consider a recent survey of the public, the press and “policy leaders” by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Public Perspective magazine of the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research. Among the press, only 6 percent identified themselves as “conservative” and 4 percent as Republican. Among the public, the figures were 35 percent and 28 percent and, among policy leaders, 18 percent and 24 percent. This poll confirms many others….
Among journalists, pressures for intellectual and social conformity mean that challenges to what “everyone believes” are rare. Journalists, like most people, want to be liked and respected by peers and friends.
“The press becomes the unwitting ally of a reform politics which, in fact, primarily represents a constituency of well-educated, upper-middle-class whites who respond to the direct mail appeals [of advocacy groups],” writes Thomas Edsall, a Washington Post political reporter, in Public Perspective. Although Edsall was referring to campaign finance “reform,” the point applies to many liberal causes, from strict environmental regulation to women's and gay “rights.” Similarly, the press “has been blindsided by … significant political developments because so few members of the media share the views of the voters who have been mobilized by these movements,” says Edsall. He mentions — among others — “the conservative upheaval of 1980 that produced Ronald Reagan … the rise of the Christian Right … the popularity of welfare reform in the 1990s.”…
