by Adam Johnson
In the past few years, the
Democratic Party’s rank and file have shifted left on major issues. From healthcare
to legalization
of drugs to taxes,
the heart of the party has grown more progressive—and, in many instances, overtly
socialist in nature. Forty-seven percent of Democrats and
Democratic-leaning independents now identify
as both socially liberal and economically moderate or liberal, up from 39
percent in 2008 and 30 percent in 2001.
In contrast, nominally liberal
media—or major media whose editorial line is reliably pro-Democratic—have
drifted rightward. On Wednesday, MSNBC announced
it had hired torture-supporting,
climate-denying,
anti-Arab
racist Bret Stephens, a recent hire at the New York Times opinion page.
Stephens—whose very first article at the Times had
to be corrected due to his misunderstanding of basic climate science—will
be an “on-air contributor” for both MSNBC and NBC.
This pickup continues a
conservative hiring spree at MSNBC, including former George Bush adviser
Nicolle Wallace, right-wing radio host Hugh Hewitt, old-school
conservative Washington Post columnist George Will, and
former Fox News stars Greta
Van Susteren and Megyn
Kelly (though Van Susteren’s show has already been canceled due to
comically low ratings).
Despite their ratings
going up as their marquee liberal firebrands rail against Donald Trump on a
day-to-day basis, MSNBC has decided not to double down on this approach, but
rather is populating its 24-hour broadcast with an increasing number of
Bush-era also-rans and ex–Fox News personalities. At the same time, the New
York Times has added
the far-right Stephens to its coveted and influential list of full-time
columnists—joining fellow #nevertrump conservatives David Brooks and Ross
Douthat.
As notable as their outreach
to the right is these outlets’ resolute resistance to introducing any new
voices to the left of the party’s corporate center. Forty-three percent of
Democratic voters backed
Bernie Sanders in the primary, yet the New York Times and MSNBC editorial teams
don’t have one vocal Sanders supporter. Some, certainly, are sympathetic to
him, such as MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes, and the Times’ Charles
Blow. But none openly back him in the way Paul Krugman, Gail Collins and
Joy-Ann Reid (FAIR.org, 4/20/17)
openly spin for his more centrist primary opponent, former Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton. (Indeed, MSNBC’s Reid spends an unhealthy amount of time on Twitter
dragging
the
Vermont senator for being inadequately obsequious to the corporate wing of
the party.)
Obviously, sitting around
waiting for corporate-owned media to embrace subversive left political
commentary—or even Sanders’ brand of soft European-style social democracy—is a
fool’s errand, and one should be under no illusions this will ever happen. But
the lack of any effort to represent a major sector of their audience is still
worth pointing out. If the media were “all about the clicks” or “the views,” a
major network would jump at the chance to at least have one token leftist to
appeal to this underserved demographic. Yet they keep going in the other
direction, hiring more right wingers without any apparent marketing reason
to do so.
Shaping ideology and public
opinion is less about the voices we hear, and more about those we don’t. The
range of debate is set by liberal gatekeepers like the Times and MSNBC, and
it’s clear, with each additional hire, the Overton window at these institutions
won’t budge one inch to the left, regardless of how much their consumers do.
One is left to conclude that MSNBC and the New York Times are not veering right
despite Democratic voters’ increasing embrace of left policies; they’re doing
so precisely because of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment