Há pessoas generosas que se dedicam a afirmar que os media são de esquerda, outras questionam: importam-se de apresentar provas sobre o esquerdismo dos media?
A origem actual da coisa está no French Kissin a partir de um texto de JPP.
Eu gostava que alguém provasse por A+B que isso sucede, mas não acredito ser possível. A intuição vem dos EUA, há anos, com exemplos destes [negritos meus]:
DEMOCRATS' SPURNED MEDIA LOVE.: At this point, even Democrats acknowledge that the opposition is more adept at media management. "Democrats are less disciplined," says former Kerry campaign manager Jim Jordan (echoing others). "We're chattier, less discreet, more prone to sending advice and tough love to the campaigns through the press." Every operative and journalist has at least one theory about why this is: Democrats are inherently less hierarchical. Republicans have more respect for authority. Democrats never punish anyone for blabbing. Republicans have a more corporate mindset. When a presidential candidate lacks a trusted team, as did the past couple of Dems, the campaign is run by hired guns whose first concern is advancing their own careers--which, folks from both parties note, typically requires ingratiating yourself with the political media.
But another, less frequently discussed factor is that Democrats simply like the media more than Republicans do--or, at least, more than the Republicans currently running the show. They respect the profession more, feel more of a kinship with reporters, and generally care more about being liked by the media than do members of Bush World. This relationship is as much about a perceived cultural affinity as any politically based "liberal media bias," and, contrary to what conservatives would have people believe, it hardly guarantees more sympathetic coverage of Democratic campaigns. In fact, as often as not, it winds up muddling Dems' working relationship with the media, leaving both groups unhappy with one another. And, as anyone in politics can tell you, a surly reporter is a dangerous one.
THE TRIANGLE: Matthews, Moore, Murtha and the Media: These narratives [Bush is likable, Bush is a regular guy, Bush is firm, Bush is a religious man, Bush relishes a fight, Democrats are muddled, Democrats have no message, national security is Bush?s strength, terror attacks and terror threats help Bush (even though he presided over the worst attack ever on American soil), Democrats are weak on security, Democrats need to learn how to talk about values, Republicans favor a ?strict interpretation? of the Constitution, and on and on.] are woven so deeply into the fabric of news coverage that they have become second nature and have permeated the public psyche and are regurgitated in polls. (The polls are then used to strengthen the narratives.) They are delivered as affirmative statements, interrogatives, hypotheticals; they are discussed as fact and accepted as conventional wisdom; they are twisted, turned, shaped, reshaped, and fed to the American public in millions of little soundbites, captions, articles, editorials, news stories, and opinion pieces. They are inserted into the national dialogue as contagious memes that imprint the idea of Bush=strong/Dems=weak. And they are false.
What?s so dumbfounding to progressive netroots activists, who clearly see the role of the traditional media in perpetuating these storylines - and are taking concrete action (here, here, and here) to remedy the problem - is that Democratic politicians, strategists, and surrogates have internalized these narratives and play into them, publicly wringing their hands over how to fix their "muddled" message, how to deal with Bush?s "strength" on national security, how to talk about "values." It?s become a self-fulfilling cycle, with Democrats reinforcing anti-Dem myths because they can?t imagine any other explanation for the apparent lack of resonance of their message. Out of desperation, they resort to hackneyed, focus-grouped slogans in a vain attempt to break through the filter. [...]
The media can create a crisis -- and can squelch one. The media can deliver narratives, they can frame events, they can shape the way Americans see the political landscape. A disproportionate amount of power is wielded by a handful of opinion-shapers, and when these individuals tell America a story that favors the right and marginalizes the left, the remedies are few.
Progressive bloggers and the millions of online activists whose conversations they shepherd are fighting to close the triangle. Sadly, Democrats will resist, out of fear. And the press will fight back, hard. Not to mention the anticipated wrath of the rightwing machine, built on the "liberal media" myth. Still, the latent power of the netroots is ignored at the political and media establishment's peril.
No Outlet Stands Out as Most Reliable: Republicans express less confidence than Democrats in the credibility of nearly every major news outlet, with the exception of Fox News Channel. [...]
Party differences also are substantial for daily newspapers as well as for the Associated Press a major provider of newspaper content. Just 10% of Republicans who could rate the AP said they believe all or most of what the wire service reports, compared with 25% of Democrats. Similarly, 12% of Republicans give their daily newspaper the highest rating for credibility, compared with 26% of Democrats. [...]
Despite the substantial partisan differences in credibility ratings, the gap has narrowed since 2004 for many major outlets. This has occurred largely because Democrats see many news sources as less credible now than they did two years ago, including CNN, the major television networks, and the New York Times. At the same time, the credibility of nearly all of the sources remained statistically unchanged for Republicans.
Taking on the '527 Media': The first ground truth is that the liberal media, not the Democrats, are the party standing in opposition to the Republicans. The Democrats ran out of ideas the night Bobby Kennedy died, and since then the media have become the primary source of Democrat ideas and policy.
The second truth is that the media are more than just the Dems' think tank. In fact, some of the biggest media outlets are the source of thinly veiled attack ads aimed at your candidates just like the so-called "527 Groups," those huge soft-money peddlers supposedly independent of the candidates they support. Think of what George Soros could do if he had a global news network that could produce multi-million dollar attack ads every day, and then you'll know what some mainstream media outlets have become. [...]
Americans knew they'd heard something important last year when Washington Post editor Marie Arana said, "The elephant in the newsroom is our narrowness ... If you work here, you must be one of us. You must be liberal, progressive, a Democrat. I've been in communal gatherings at the Post, watching election returns, and have been flabbergasted to see my colleagues cheer unabashedly for the Democratic candidates." Tell America that it's a media culture, not a conspiracy.
Claro que se pode avançar para este tipo de coisas:
Democrats.com Media Watch Project: Media_Watch has 3 goals:
(1) document specific examples of anti-Democratic media bias
(2) take direct, immediate action to challenge anti-Democratic bias
(3) keep up the pressure to END anti-Democratic bias
The Patriot Project: Freedom of speech and the right to dissent are cornerstones of our democracy.
The Patriot Project will defend any man or woman, regardless of party or affiliation, who is attacked or defamed and whose patriotism is questioned simply because they exercise their rights as Americans.
This is our mission.
Ah, e claro que vão surgir também projectos deste tipo: "Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost. As the vice regents of God, we are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors -- in short, over every aspect and institution of human society." (via The Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party)
O escrutínio dos media e dos jornalistas é tão giro, não é? Não páro de me admirar porque são sempre os jornalistas ou quem é pago pelos media que suscitam estas questões. Onde pára a chamada opinião pública? Duas notas de um mesmo autor:
1) "o estudo da comunicação social numa perspectiva histórica permite compreender alguns conceitos com que lidamos hoje e encaramos como naturais";
2) "É fácil fazer uma observação sobre as limitações que a nossa sociedade democrática sofre devido às limitações que os media têm. A crítica é fácil. Pode até pôr-se em causa a existência de uma opinião pública verdadeira, na medida em que esta exige uma opinião pública crítica, livre num espaço amplo de debate de ideias. Parece-me óbvio haver condicionamentos a que os media estão sujeitos, por via dos vários poderes da sociedade - dos económicos, mas sobretudo dos políticos. A questão é até onde poderá ir a corrosão sem afectar profundamente a estabilidade do regime democrático, mas a resposta é política. Uma via de solução passa pela intervenção dos cidadãos. A cidadania tem aqui um papel fundamental. A organização e consciência dos cidadãos do perigo real que isto tem para a democracia está a ser assumida."
