Imagine for a moment this scenario: Billionaire George Soros, who is very active in and supportive of left-leaning causes, purchases CNN.  He immediately installs Al Franken as his lead newscaster.  He gives Tim Robbins and his wife, Susan Sarandon, a nightly news/interview show.  He gives Barbara Streisand a weekly opinion show. Regular contributors include Noam Chomsky, Alexander Cockburn, and Gore Vidal. Michael Moore is given the title of Director of News.  The closest thing they have to a conservative on the network is a show featuring Mario Cuomo and Michael Medved, in which they debate the issues of the day.  They come up with a catchy slogan, "The Truth and Only the Truth." How long would this network be on the air before it was being investigated for slander, unfair reporting, complete and utter bias, and misuse of the public trust? This, however, is the scenario one would have to concoct to be as outlandishly biased as the allegedly "Fair and Balanced" Fox News Channel.  The fact is, liberal media bias is a myth and a hoax; an invention of the Far Right in the early 1970s that succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.
          The first cry of "liberal media bias" came from segregationists who were upset at the press's depiction of the Civil Rights struggle in the South in the mid-60s.  The person who made the phrase "liberal media bias" popular was a TV Guide writer named Edith Efron, who wrote a book in 1971 called "The News Twisters." Efron's book, which was described in reviews as "inaccurate," "dishonest," and "bizarre," based its entire claim on a flimsy pretext: she taped every broadcast of the three major television networks in the last seven weeks of the 1968 presidential campaign, and then marked the transcripts either "pro" or "anti" bias.  Her claims were laughably subjective.  For example, any reference to the Vietnam War that wasn't completely pro-government was labeled "liberal." Mere mention of the demonstrations outside of the Democratic National Convention in Chicago was branded "liberal." "The News Twisters" made it onto The New York Times best-seller list, a laudable achievement until it was revealed in 1994 by Charles Colson, special counsel to President Richard Nixon, that Nixon himself ordered Colson to take $8000 out of Nixon's reelection committee coffers to "get it on the best-seller list."
          This phrase was picked up by the likes of Pat Buchanan and Spiro Agnew, who used it to fend off criticism of network coverage of the Vietnam War.  So, when the administrations of both Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon were feeding the American public blatant lies about the success, or lack thereof, of our strategies in Vietnam, brave and persistent journalists went to Vietnam and came away with a completely different picture, which at the time was viewed by many, particularly the Right, as out-and-out unpatriotic left-wing bias.  Time proved that the journalists, for the most part, were speaking the truth, as painful as it was for Americans to swallow.  Likewise, Watergate was dismissed as a "left-wing" witch-hunt until the truth became too obvious for even the right to deny.            
          Exposés on the environment and public safety, from Rachel Carson's Silent Spring to Ralph Nader's unceasing lobbying for automobile safety, clean air and water, and worker's safety issues were all dismissed as left-wing drivel until subsequent investigations proved them prophetically correct.
          The next milestone in the "liberal media bias" misinformation campaign came in 1981 in the form of a book by Robert and Linda Lichter, along with Stanley Rothman entitled The Media Elite.  This study took a sampling of 238 journalists out of 210,000 editors and reporters and 47,000 TV journalists then working and compared their voting habits and personal beliefs to those of CEOs and other top executives at six Fortune 500 companies.  Guess what? The journalists came out more on the Democratic side than did the CEOs! What a revelation! What is truly laughable about this is that the only issues that the journalists came out possibly more liberal than the general population was on the environment and women's rights. In terms of economics, the journalists were generally more conservative than the general public.
          Now, just on the face of it, drawing any conclusions from a survey that only takes into account the opinions of 238 out 258,000 people is absurd on its own merits, but consider this: the reporters and journalists at any print publication do not set the tone or opinion of any individual newspaper or magazine.  The publishers and editors do.  Anyone with a job knows that one's first obligation as an employee is to one's employer, no matter what your own personal beliefs happen to be.  Newspaper publishers (owners) are overwhelmingly conservative, and voted for George W. Bush by an over 2-to-1 margin nationally in the last two elections.
          The Media Elite became the Bible for the liberal media bias campaign. The sloppy methodology notwithstanding, the right-wing has been regurgitating and repeating, and repeating and regurgitating this non-information over and over and over again for so many years that even liberals and others who should know better have come to swallow this canard.  This has become a deeply embedded concept.
          If you want a sober read about this entire subject, pick up The Republican Noise Machine by David Brock.  Brock knows exactly what he is talking about–he was a writer at the conservative Washington Times, was a research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank, and was an investigative writer at The American Spectator–impeccable credentials for telling this story.  Brock lays out the whole sordid history of the conscious and deliberate effort of the far right wing, which included the spending of hundreds of millions of dollars, to convince the public that there was actually such a thing as liberal media bias.  The fascinating thing about this is that the right-wingers themselves didn't think that they would ever be as successful at this deception as they ultimately were. Another excellent book covering this topic is What Liberal Media? by Eric Alterman.  Alterman takes each of the various mediums, from television to radio to print, and provides ample evidence that far from there being a liberal media bias, there is considerable evidence of a conservative media bias.
          When Hillary Clinton went on an early morning news program during President Clinton's impeachment hearings to decry a "vast right-wing conspiracy," I remember thinking at the time that this was just histrionics, or exaggeration at the least.  The fact is there has been a multi-billion dollar effort to systematically change the public's perception about the media.  There are right-wing media schools and dozens of think tanks spewing out the likes of Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin, who do nothing but venomously bash anything from the right-center over in the most hateful ways, while claiming the whole time that liberals are mean-spirited and vacuous.

This was the right-wing's plan to create the illusion of liberal media bias:

          In the first twenty-five or thirty years of television, the three major networks, ABC, NBC, and CBS dominated the airwaves and had a virtual triopoly on news coverage and current events.  The news departments at these networks prided themselves on their journalism, and presented the news in a straightforward, dry way.  Was there liberal bias? Only if you were a Southern segregationist or a Vietnam hawk would you think so.  If you were looking at a standard 12-inch ruler, and the "6" was absolute objectivity, and "1" was the left wing, and "12" was the right wing, these networks were probably at 5 and-a-half on the ruler.  The right-wing strategy was to call for "balance" on the networks by sending "12s" to the Sunday talk shows and news programs and demanding "equal time." This was the game, and it worked.  We are seeing the results today.
          There has been nothing close to liberal media bias.  The whole thing is a right-wing concoction. In all the years of screaming liberal media bias, it is the most radical right-wingers who are all over the airwaves claiming it.  Who has ever been the equivalent of Ann Coulter? Would it be Fidel Castro? Who is the equivalent of Bill O'Reilly or Michael Savage? Or Rush Limbaugh? There never has been any, until the left started pushing back in the last few years with the likes of Keith Olbermann and Bill Maher.  These are now your mainstream commentators.  To go that far to the left as you have on the right with Coulter, Savage and perky flamethrower Michelle Malkin, you would have to be listening to Noam Chomsky all the time (only he presents an overwhelming accumulation of facts), or Abbie Hoffman–remember him? How about Angela Davis? I don't remember Gore Vidal ever being an evening newscaster.  No one–no one from the far left gets one-tenth the face time on mainstream television that these far right-wingers get.  These types used to show up late at night on Dick Cavett or Tom Snyder as a kind of novelty, but never giving opinions on mainstream news shows.

What about Air America?

          Air America was a failure for a number of reasons. First of all, it was a poor imitation of the worst of right-wing rant radio. Just like the failed impersonation of Jon Stewart's The Daily Show on FoxNews, some things (like right-wing comedy) are better left alone. Secondly, the quotient of xenophobic, angry white males needed to sustain such a format was mercifully lacking on the left. And third, the advertisers needed to support Air America never materialized, as much of the bloviating was aimed squarely at the corporate hand that fed them.
          Anyway, what the right did was paint the networks as inherently left wing, which is false, and then put far right-wingers on to balance the "liberal media bias." What this has done, in effect, is move the center of the ruler from "6" to "9."  Now, anything to the left of the "9" is seen as "liberal," so, for example, a report questioning the strategies or tactics of this administration, which in any other era would have been seen as responsible journalism, is now seen as "liberal bias." If you believe that there somehow still exists a liberal bias in the media (and why wouldn't you, it's shouted from the rooftops by every right-winger from Maine to Hawaii), then you have probably accepted the notion that to watch Fox News is to somehow restore a "fair and balanced" view of the news.  Actually, Fox News is the most biased news entity in the history of television.  No one else has ever come close. You want to know what the liberal media bias version of Fox would be? You would literally have to be watching The Nightly News with Castro and Chavez to see the left-wing equivalent.
          On the other hand, if you happen to wander into any local Christian bookstore, you will find books by convicted criminals Oliver North and Chuck Colson; you will find a book by Daryl Cole on the Christian case for war; and you will find up to eight different books on Ronald Reagan, three on George W. Bush's prayer life, and one each on former Republican Senator Bill Frist, Secretary of State Condi Rice, and American Idol runner-up Clay Aiken.  Don't misunderstand me–this is not a criticism of Ronald Reagan, or any of these other people.  But what, pray tell, does Oliver North, or Condi Rice, as nice as her story may be, have to do with Christian living, other than the fact that they're Republicans?
          The best example of this kind of bias in "Christian" bookstores would have to be a book by Christian talk-show host and author Hugh Hewitt titled If It’s Not Close, They Can’t Cheat: Crushing the Democrats in Every Election and Why Your Life Depends On It.  I was perusing the selections in a Nashville Christian bookstore recently when I came upon this book.  Hugh Hewitt is obviously a well-respected author in this venue judging by the amount of copies of this selection that were displayed and the amount of copies of his newer book the store had on hand.  The poor fellow at the register in this particular store was just going about his business when I marched up to the counter, book in hand, and said, “ I know you just work here, but is this a Christian bookstore?” “Yes it is,” he replied. “Then how can you sell this?” I asked as I tossed a copy of the Hewitt book down on the counter. “Wha...” was his attempt at a reply as he apparently looked at the book for the first time. “I’m a Christian and I can’t believe you’re selling a book called ‘Crushing the Democrats’–that’s not okay,” I said to the now attentive clerk. “It says that?” was all he could reply as I walked out the door.  I’ve never been good at finishing this kind of conversation.  I must admit that I haven’t read Mr. Hewitt’s book.

Isn’t is a bit disingenuous not to mention going against much of what you’ve previously written to criticize a book you haven’t even read?

          I’m not criticizing the book, per se, although it is obvious from the title I probably wouldn’t care for its contents. I have a much bigger problem with a Christian bookstore carrying this kind of book.  

The other side writes these kinds of books, too–what’s wrong with a little "balance" in the marketplace?

          Once again, I have no problem with the fact that this type of book exists; I’m glad that our Freedom of the Press guarantees that all sides can be freely heard.  The other side does write this kind of screed.  This book should be sold where the rest of these type of books are sold–in a Border’s, or a Barnes & Noble, or on Amazon.com.  I have a real problem with a Christian bookstore selling such an obvious politically biased hatchet job, especially considering the fact that the same type of store won’t even touch many Christian authors with even a slightly progressive view.
          What you won't find, with few exceptions, are any books about Christian pacifism or non-violence, or books by Christian authors critical of the policies of Republicans in general or this administration in particular.  You won't find any books by qualified Christian authors and theologians that lay out the biblical case against the war in Iraq.  You won't find any books by qualified Christian authors and theologians that lay Jesus's teachings side-by-side with the Bush administration's actions.  You won't find any books by qualified Christian authors that show the disconnect between the rhetoric of compassionate conservatism and the poverty that exists in the United States today, with the possible exception of God's Politics by Jim Wallis.  You have about a fifty percent chance of finding any books by Jimmy Carter, an avowed and very public Southern Baptist, who has dedicated his life after his presidency to peace and the reduction of poverty around the world.  Where are Father John Dear's books? These books not only exist, they are for sale at places like Borders Books, Barnes and Noble Bookstores, Tower Books, Amazon.com, and many other secular places of business.
          I have to ask, in all seriousness, why? Why must I go to secular bookstores to find these Christian authors? What sort of deeply ingrained bias is this? Believe me, I am not talking about fringe people here.  These are leaders of churches, leading theologians with long résumés, authors with Jesus on their minds and in their hearts, and a strong desire for justice and peace, and a calling to end poverty in our country and around the world.  It is a very telling statement on the condition of evangelical Christianity that you have to go to a Borders to find these types of books.  This is beginning to remind me a little of the Dobson/Disney scenario; you have to go to the secular store to find books on Christian non-violence–that's just great.

Maybe the Christian Bookstore owners only stock the things they know they will sell– it's possible that they know their clientele better than you do.

          This argument is brought to us by the same people who have told me that Christian radio's target demographic are the 35 year-old housewives in Peoria, so all of their focus groups are geared towards 35 year-old housewives from Peoria.  It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.  The 35 year-old housewives from Peoria in the focus groups confirm to the Program Directors at these stations that the music they like the best is music for 35 year-old housewives from Peoria.  If Joe or Judy Christian is perusing the shelves of the local Christian bookstore and he/she sees The Christian Case For War, is it not unfair and presumptuous that Joe and Judy can't browse a copy of The Christian Case Against War and make up their own mind?
          Can we at least agree that this is part of why we have received only one side of the story? The very most biased people there are have told us that there is a bias in the media.  These same people have told us that "liberal" means the opposite of what it does.  We have been told that to be a Christian, we must support this and this and this, without probably ever hearing the rational Christian case against the same.  We have been told that it is our duty as Christians and our patriotic duty as Americans to support a lie masquerading as the War on Terror, and we have been told that to even listen to another Christian perspective on this is to be unpatriotic, a "friend of the terrorist," "an appeaser," or worse.  We can't even find this perspective to make up our own minds in a Christian bookstore.  The gatekeepers have made up our minds for us.