Media Bias: C-SPAN just aired (to be repeated 1PM later today, EST) a panel discussion on media bias that basically broke down into a debate over the Iraq War. This was somewhat unfortunate and suggests the need for good moderators. Actually, it touches upon a broader problem that I see in part in my time on message boards and the like -- people talking past each other. This is complicated by people coming from things from very different mindsets. It pleases me when such people can find some common ground, and it actually does at time occur.

Anyway, the "liberal" side basically felt that the "liberal media" exists, but they are so cowed and bend over backwards so much to be fair (and are often shallow or have some other problem*) that they are kind of worthless. Meanwhile, the "conservative media" was focused on message (perhaps, given some years, it would be forced to bend like anyone in power too long?). Eric Alterman focused on this idea the most. Sort of "hey guys, if we are going to be labeled liberal, can't we at least act a bit more like it?!" Well, perhaps if some forced more people that they interview to answer the f-ing question.

Tucker Carlson (playing the calm one, including submitting an interesting anecdote about the media being personally against Gore) tried to explain how the "conservative media" is pretty tiny (Al Fraken focusing on FOX too much helped him out), but made some questionable remarks of his own such as the suggestion that apparently no one in the mainstream media hunts or goes to church. Laura Ingraham tried to be more of a heavy about the "liberal media," but got the least time. The whole thing was somewhat tedious, giving the whole Iraqi component, but some amusement (Carlson, who I'm getting a bit more of a taste of lately, has a sense of humor and modesty of sorts that helps ... I liked his book partly for that reason, even if some of it was a tad bit skewered) and helpful things were discussed.

* This subject is well discussed in The Press Effect: Politicians, Journalists and the Stories That Shape the Political World by Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Paul Waldman. One example discussed (more or less) by the panel involved a debate between George Bush and Al Gore. The press focused on a small (trivial) issue of exactly who the Vice President visited with to some disaster site, while mostly ignoring the misleading comments by Bush concerning his tax program.

This really annoyed Franken, but Carlson (having a point) noted that going with the easy "Gore fudges" (which he accepted as a given too easily, which could lead one to totally write his opinion off, thus the whole "talking past each other" issue) frame (to take the concept discussed in the book) was a whole lot easier to analyzing tax policy. Anyway, as Franken noted before, they probably figured Bush ("Bush as stupid" frame) didn't know any better. Or perhaps, misrepresenting tax policy on the stump is not considered news, is boring, or whatever. This is perhaps why some critics feel the press is basically just not doing their job, which is in the words of the authors to be "custodians of fact." A recent attempt by Paul Krugman to discuss how they can do this can be found here.