Media bias vs. 'middle America' candidate
By BILL CONNOR Saturday, September 13, 2008“The reason so many Americans who are pro-life and anti-affirmative action or who support gun rights detest the mainstream media is that day after day they fail to see in the media any respect for their views. What they see is a mainstream media seeming to legitimize one side (the media elites agree with) as valid and moral while seeking to cast the other side as narrow, small-minded, and bigoted.”
So wrote Bernard Goldberg, New York Times best-selling author and, for almost three decades, a former member of the elite media establishment. Though written in 2003, the words are quite appropriate to what we are experiencing with the media in the 2008 presidential campaign.
The recent announcement of Sarah Palin as Sen. John McCain’s running mate has exposed the contempt of many in the mainstream media to “middle America.” The shock generated by the Palin candidacy has caused near-hysteria among many. We have all read Gene Robinson’s rants about Sarah Palin’s “inexperience” in foreign affairs, opposition to abortion or her support of “intelligent design.” We watch feminists and Democratic commentators decry Gov. Palin’s support for “abstinence only” over mandated sex ed in public school. In a hypocritical turn of events, the same liberals who self-righteously defended Bill Clinton’s public scandals as being “between Bill and his wife” now highlight and lambaste Sarah Palin’s pregnant daughter. This being used as an attack against Palin’s Christian beliefs about sex within marriage. What brings this emotion and vitriol against a person holding the views of so many in “middle America”?
The answer lies with a mainstream media primarily made up of liberal, like-minded people.
Individuals who are not part of a conspiracy to slant the news but naturally tend to conform events to their world view. Ted Smith III of Virginia Commonwealth University conducted a detailed and comprehensive study of those making up the mainstream media establishment. His focus was on the national news media. For the sake of brevity, I will not list off all the statistics. The voting patterns of journalists are in overwhelmingly in favor of Democrats, well beyond the national average. Those in the news media overwhelmingly favor abortion rights, gay marriage, and gun control. The following quote from Ted Smith sums up the study: “(there now exists) a huge body of literature − including at least 100 books and research monographs − documenting a widespread left-wing bias in the news.”
Bernard Goldberg explains why the mainstream elites won’t face the bias and see support for Palin as a threat: “Given their arrogance, I should have known that sooner or later they would say, ‘We don’t have a bias problem − and if you think we do, then that proves that you’re the one with the bias problem.’ Never mind that millions of Americans scream about liberal bias in the media; all the journalists say is “you’re the one with the bias!” The emperors of objectivity have been naked for quite some time now, and sadly, they’re the ones who haven’t noticed. ... Their liberal friends in Manhattan and Georgetown share those same views, which practically by definition make them moderate and mainstream.
So the thinking goes, it is all those MIDDLE AMERICANS who take the opposing view on, say, guns or gay marriage who are out of the mainstream, the ones who are on the FRINGE.” As Andrew Sullivan put it: “Only those elite armies of condescension keep marching on, their privates swinging in the breeze.”
Many in the mainstream media look at a person like Sarah Palin and sense the antithesis of everything they hold dear. To add salt to the wound, Gov. Palin went to University of Idaho (clearly not “Ivy league!) and has lived a small town life. Conditioned through media peers and superiors to believe only a “fringe” of “middle Americans” support gun rights, Christian beliefs and traditional marriage, they become angry and confused. They lash out, in subconscious hatred, at the symbol of middle America, Sarah Palin. American support for Palin shows “they,” the elite media, are actually on the “fringe.” In anger, they move beyond even the pretense of objectivity and attempt to find some kind of “dirt” on Sarah Palin to tarnish her image. Anything to bring her down and ensure “their” candidate, Barack Obama, is elected. Obviously, there are exceptions to the rule and many fine objective journalists, particularly at the local and state level. However, liberals like Gene Robinson predominate at the national level.
My advise to Gov. Sarah Palin: Ignore the talking heads and hold fast to what you believe. The majority of Americans are “middle Americans” and know biased reporting and condescending attitudes when they see them. When the garbage is thrown your way, understand the source and motivations. Don’t attempt to become “liked” by the media establishment. Nothing you do can appease their desire to destroy you and your candidacy. Just look past them into the cameras and speak to the American people. We are waiting for true leaders.
Attorney Bill Connor of Orangeburg is a regular contributor to The Times and Democrat. He is author of the book Articles From War about his experiences in Afghanistan (www.bbotw.com).
To subscribe to the print edition of The Times and Democrat, click here.



newsnetworks wrote on Sep 19, 2008 11:17 PM:
Well enjoy your "Unemployment at a 15 Year high" and "Double Digit Rate Unemployment" given to you under the Bush administration. Don't forget the massive bail-out this country is going through under the Bush administration.
McCain and Palin will make that seem like the good old days if they make it to the White House.
It's not that Obama and the "Liberal" media doesn't understand you. It's that you are not capable of understanding them. Don't hate someone for not talking down to your level. Educate yourselves up to their level.
It's not that Middle Americans are thought of as out of the mainstream, it's that you're out of the TIMESTREAM!! Still stuck in the past, with your old Citadel/"Confederate" ways. "
Airborne Ranger wrote on Sep 19, 2008 10:52 AM:
My first name is Stan my last name is the same as the middle name of the Silver Fox who graduated from The Citadel(class of 74) and retired from the Army as a Two Star General in March of 2008 (I commanded a BFV company in his battalion 92-93). I know you know who this is because if I am not mistaken you are a Citadel Grad. I served in the 82nd Abn Div, 3ID, I briefly served as advisor to South Carolina National Guard, 218th BDE, 10th Mountain Div, FORSCOM, and 3rd Amry. I served in the Army from 1985-2006. I don't live in the area anymore but I am from St.Matthews. I followed the South Carolina National tour of duty in the War and I was very proud to say I am from South Carolina. My email address is Stanley.Last Name@us.army.mil
Rangers Lead the Way!!! "
baldtiger wrote on Sep 18, 2008 8:46 PM:
What leadership role does a state senator have? What do they do that is apparently so much more impressive than a state governor? He was only a United States Senator for 193 days before he decided that he was capable of running a country. You are OK with this lack of experience? I also find humor in how you point out that Obama was "Chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committe." That's all great and wonderful except that committee never met. And what does being black have to do with being "President of the Harvard Law Review?" Is that even relevant?
By the way, Alaska has almost 700,000 people. "
confisus_sum wrote on Sep 18, 2008 4:44 PM:
1) Community organzier? What is that? Registering people in Chicago is simple. You just write down the names off the headstones, like always has been done there. No experience gained here.
2) How does being the first "black" at anything give you experience at being President? I thought this was not about race. Experience in using the race card. (He wins this one too.)
3) Obama was NOT a constitutional law professor, another of his "misspeaks". Obama has taught courses in constitutional law, and so in casual conversation his students might well refer to him as "Professor." But he is listed on the University of Chicago web page as "Senior Lecturer in Law." His publications page lists his two autobiographical books, but no academic work of any sort, much less any academic writings on constitutional law. This demonstrates experience in falsifying qualifications.
4) Chairman of a health services committee for the Illinois senate. With NO legislations crafted under his watch. Experienced in wasting legislative time.
5) He has NOT spent 4 years in the Senate. Rather a mere 143 days, as the balance has been spent receiving a paycheck while running for President. This is living off the back of the taxpayers experience. (I'll give you he is good at this.)
6) He only CO sponsored bills, never producing anything by himself. Of the bills he co sponsored NOT ONE ever became law. I guess this would be the experience of being insignificant.
7) As the steward for the foreign affairs committee, he has yet to convene a meeting of his committee. What experience has he gleaned from this? The ability to dodge responsibility? "
connor wrote on Sep 18, 2008 3:44 PM:
Once again, too bad you will not use your name. We sound very similar in experience with the military (and my record is public and can be checked). However, unless you use your name, how do I know you aren't making it up????
Some continue to compare Obama and Palin. Why? The comparison about President is between Obama and McCain.
Reality: Obama only served about 140 days as a US Senator before starting his campaign. As far as "Country First": Obama has completely neglected his duties in oversight over NATO issues in Afghanistan. He is head of that Senate committee. Having just left the Southern Region, I can tell you he needs to do his job. NATO issues are a mess.
Obama's main experience in life was as a Law Professor. As a member of the Bar, my opinion is that his years as a law professor mean very little in the way of POTUS building experience. Let's be real about his 3 years of pre-Law school "community organizing".
Anyway, I'm not going to respond again unless you choose to use your name.
"Rangers Lead The Way"
Bill Connor "
Airborne Ranger wrote on Sep 18, 2008 3:05 PM:
To Confisus Sum: You do the Math.
Obama's file.
1. Three years as a community organizer that registered over 150,000 voters.
2. First Black President of the Harvard Law Review.
3. Twelve years as Constituional Law Professor
4. Eight years as State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people.
5. Chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committe.
6. Four years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people(sponored 131 bills).
7. Member of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Enironment and Public and Veteran's Affairs committes.
Palin's file
1. Local weather girl four years.
2.City council six years
3. Mayor of a town of 7,000 (slightly bigger than St. Matthews).
4. Twenty months as the Governor of a state with only 600,000 people. "
confisus_sum wrote on Sep 18, 2008 1:48 PM:
confisus_sum wrote on Sep 18, 2008 7:01 AM:
connor wrote on Sep 18, 2008 4:09 AM:
Just out of curiousity (completely off this discussion): I finished Ranger School on Sept 3, 1991, the last class through Dugway Utah. I later went back to command B Co, 4th Ranger Tng Battalion from summer 1998 to summer 1999 (this was after commanding B Co 2-27 Wolfhounds in Hawaii). Did our paths cross? I wish people would just use their names in all these discussions.
One comment about experience: I realize Palin is not as experienced as I would desire for a Presidential Candidate. However, similar to Harry Truman, at least she will have time to learn and grow before, God forbid, McCain dies. Yes, a meteorite could hit the US or McCain could die in the first months in office. Heck, I terrorist nuke could hit at the wrong time and kill a number of national leaders.
NOW, think about Obama. I would argue he is less ready and experienced to be POTUS. Being a law professor, then state Senate (trust me, we have yo-yo's elected at the state level all the time, read the CVs of many of our own legislature and you will laugh). No matter what, he will have to take the job on day one and have no time to grow into it. Actually, Joe Biden was always the best Democratic candidate, but with Obama's youth he will never see the Presidency.
One last thing as one Ranger to another: Having been to war, I do think it's important to have a veteran as President during this time of world conflict. Obama has not served a day in uniform and McCain spent over 23 years as a Naval Officer. He made the right call on parting with Regan in not sending the Marines to Beirut due to his military experience. He will better understand what needs to be done in the fight against radical Islam.
Regardless of our debate, as an old Airborne-Ranger with over 60 jumps: Rangers do lead the way!!!!!! "
skyler 6 wrote on Sep 18, 2008 1:02 AM:
confisus_sum wrote on Sep 17, 2008 6:05 PM:
Airborne Ranger wrote on Sep 17, 2008 11:28 AM:
Obviously your concern is not with the security of this nation. The Vice President of the United States has two primary functions, cast the tie breaking vote in the Senate and be ready to assume the Office of the President of the United States. If you are suggesting that Gov Palin has the experience and expertise on world affairs to be Commander in Chief is intellectually dishonest. If you are suggesting that John McCain picked the most qualified person as his running mate and potential Commander in Chief, then you probably still believe in Santa Claus. The novelty of Sara Palin will wear off after the Vice Presidential debate and you will still believe in Santa Claus. I am not trying to convince you of anything. We have lost a lot of our National treasure because of a lack of understanding of world affairs.
Rangers Lead the Way!! "
zephbe wrote on Sep 17, 2008 9:27 AM:
Look what he proposes for health insurance.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/11/politics/animal/main4440453.shtml
(Political Animal) THE TAX INCREASE MCCAIN DOESN'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT.... Time's Joe Klein, in an effort to move away from "the sewage that Steve Schmidt is shoveling," turns to an aspect of the healthcare debate that hasn't generated nearly enough attention.
John McCain wants to tax your employer-provided health care benefits. He wants to replace those benefits with an insufficient tax credit -- $2500 for individuals and $5000 for families (the average cost per family for health insurance is $12000). There is a positive, progressive tax aspect to this: wealthier people should have to pay for health insurance themselves, without tax breaks from the federal government.
But make no mistake: this plan will do little or nothing for those who do not have insurance now -- unless they are young and healthy -- and it may well hurt a fair number of workers, especially unionized workers, who get gold-plated benefits from their employers.
It will certainly do nothing for families with members who have pre-existing conditions or children with special needs -- because it makes no provision to regulate the insurers, forcing them to cover all comers at "community" rates that don't discriminate against the people who need health insurance most.
It is amazing to me that Obama campaign has let things go this far without pointing out that McCain -- who opposes the energy bill because it would increase taxes on oil companies -- is actually proposing a tax increase on health care benefits for American workers. But that is precisely what the Senator from Arizona is doing.
On the substance, Klein is exactly right. McCain's proposal would count the healthcare benefits Americans receive from their employers as taxable income, leaving tens of millions of middle-class families paying higher taxes and leaving millions more without insurance behind.
But on the politics, I'm not sure if Klein's observation is quite right. He finds it "amazing" the Obama campaign hasn't pointed this out yet. But here's the thing: the Obama campaign has pointed this out. Obama talks about it on the stump, and his team have been writing about it for quite a while.
It hasn't generated any real interest from political reporters, though, because a) it's substantive; b) it takes a few seconds to explain; c) there's no provocative video to accompany the story; and d) it makes McCain look bad.
Copyright 2008 "
skyler 6 wrote on Sep 17, 2008 12:28 AM:
confisus_sum wrote on Sep 16, 2008 3:56 PM:
Airborne Ranger wrote on Sep 16, 2008 11:35 AM:
skyler 6 wrote on Sep 16, 2008 11:06 AM:
elcid87 wrote on Sep 16, 2008 9:58 AM:
connor wrote on Sep 15, 2008 5:26 PM:
I am just an ordinary concerned citizen who has never worked as a professional journalist or politician. I have never run for political office or worked on a campaign and will not vote with "party" if the party deviates from my core values or what I think is best for America.
Additionally, I don't hold myself out as a member of the media. Most of my working life has been as an Army office, though I am now an attorney in civilian life while maintaining my reserve commission. I am not a journalist and my columns are editorial in nature.
All that said: I do make the effort to back up what I write with fact. That is why I provide so many quotes and research studies. In this article I give the opinion about media bias and its effect on the campaign. The answer to the problem is for those in leadership positions in the media to actively seek out "true" diversity. Diversity is not only in race, but background and worldview. How many "born again" Christians work as reporters at places like the New York Times? How many avid hunters? How many of those who are anti-abortion? THAT is where the problem lies.
As I stated in the article, the issue is not a left-wing conspiracy. Reporters do not get together and conspire to slant the news. However, if the people surrounding virtually all hold the same views....... Guess what happens to the group opinion of mainstream????
Another way the public corrects the media is by voting with their feet. When they see biased reporting, the ratings of the biased news sources go way down. That is why "Air America" was an utter failure and Fox News is leading the cable networks. If the other networks were less biased, many would not feel the need to go to Fox and Fox would not succeed as it has.
Fsteele,
I find it interesting you wrote nothing while Gene Robinson went on and on with lambastes of Palin being the next Hitler. From what you are arguing, Gene clearly does not know what Palin promotes, and yet you stayed quiet until someone rebutted Mr. Robinson. Hummmm. The point of my article was not necessarily Palin's specific positions, but the media bias in coverage of Palin. Your comments would have been quite appropriate after one of Gene Robinson's rants about Palins "extreme" and "far-right" positions on religion, homosexuality, abortion, etc. Why do you wait until I have written a response article about Media Bias to write "please check what Palin does promote"?????? Re-read what I have written and you will note that I never argued Palin planned to cram her views down anyone's throats. That is what Gene keeps saying.
Any "
SweetHomeCarolina wrote on Sep 15, 2008 3:11 PM:
Mr. Connor, in summary your column suggests a liberal slant in the mainstream media, correct? If so, are your regular opinions contributed to the T & D (which are more conservative in nature) your answer to the problem? Also, what media "sources" do you believe people should go to for objective information? "
confisus_sum wrote on Sep 15, 2008 1:21 PM:
skyler 6 wrote on Sep 15, 2008 11:19 AM:
grateful wrote on Sep 15, 2008 7:27 AM:
fsteele wrote on Sep 14, 2008 11:32 PM:
h t t p : / / clintondems.com/2008/09/palins-agenda/
Much of it comes from a very informative article at USA Today that puts Palin's agenda in persective: she works on the issues most people can agree on, rather than offending Democrats by pushing social conservative issues.
h t t p : / / www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-11-palin-cover_N.htm
titled “Palin ‘governed from the center,’ went after big oil” It also says: “But in her 21 months as governor, Palin has taken few steps to advance culturally conservative causes. …. never put those issues forward in the campaign. …. that wasn’t her agenda. …. She came in with a big oil and gas agenda, which really required Democratic allies to get through.” "
Keith Pounds wrote on Sep 14, 2008 7:44 PM:
O.k., I’ll bite.
Fsteele may be right. Perhaps Palin hasn’t been “forcing any extreme views on other people.” In fact, according to the original article (where the Clinton website information actually came from), the writer suggests that Palin has done very well in Alaska to satisfy Democrats in much of her work. What this tells us is that, in Palin, we may have a real bi-partisan coordinator on our hands!
Fsteele then wrote that “Palin vetoed a related anti-gay bill, saying it was unconstitutional.” In this remark, Fsteele engages in the very liberal bias that Connor attempted to write about. Interesting how liberal hysteria overcomes us even when we’re trying to denounce its existence.
What Fsteele doesn’t realize is that the original article, which appeared in USA Today read, “as Alaska’s governor in December 2006, Sarah Palin vetoed a bill that sought to ban benefits for the same-s*x partners of state workers.”
Palin’s veto was NOT anti-gay. That is a phrase that the Clinton website coordinators inserted to bias readers against Palin! All we know is that Palin vetoed the bill because IT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.”
If you feel like something is unconstitutional I would hope you would feel the obligation to veto it.
Fsteele wrote that Palin hasn’t forced ideas down people’s throats. Then Fsteele wrote that Palin is anti-gay. So which is? Is Palin moderate or fanatical? All Fsteele knows is what was read on a Clinton website distorted for the intent of bias.
Good catch Connor! "
abeck wrote on Sep 14, 2008 1:58 PM:
Palin oursmarted Charlie Gibson (if you read the transcrpit of that interview rather than the chopped-up and regurgitated portion ABC showed) and McCain and Palin have outsmarted Obama. I'm with the winners this time. Dems, take note! "
fsteele wrote on Sep 14, 2008 12:32 AM:
In Alaska she has a 80-90% approval record, which suggests that she has not been forcing any extreme views on other people. In a recent referendum on a gay issue, 47% supported the gay side -- so we can't say that 80% of Alaskans are extreme social conservatives. (In fact Palin vetoed a related anti-gay bill, saying it would be unconstitutional.) Cites can be found at clintondems.com/Palins-agenda "
connor wrote on Sep 13, 2008 8:36 PM:
connor wrote on Sep 13, 2008 8:31 PM: