media
24 Aug 2009
Small 'L' Liberal Is Not Left Wing
It's often claimed that most journalists are lefties at heart. But opinions from the far left are much less visible in the Australian media than those from the far right, writes Lindsay Foyle
John Howard recently complained about journalists being biased to the left. Gerard Henderson, Andrew Bolt, Keith Windschuttle and Piers Akerman also make the same claim — often. All of them have attacked the ABC about left bias. So too have many of the cabal of mad right opinion writers who infest most of Australia's newspapers.The problem for most of the people who complain about left bias in the media is that they don't know what they are talking about. You would think that such an extensive array of highly paid individuals would know a thing or two about what they are claiming. But the truth is they don't.
Let me explain.
When he was prime minister, John Howard liked to portray himself as representative of "middle Australia", but at the same time claimed to be the most conservative (right wing) prime minister Australia has had. Nobody ever claimed he was not the most conservative PM we've ever had, so it is reasonable to say he is justified in the claim. His supporters loved to assert he had moved the country to the right too. That is a debating point, but what is not a point in question is whether he moved the centre of politics to the right. Politics stayed where it always was; the right stayed on the right and the left stayed on the left.
What Howard and his mates should have been saying is that, on the political spectrum, lots of journalists in Australia are more to the left than they are. That would not be hard and might also be correct as the far right in Australia has little electoral support even within the Liberal Party.
Someone should have told them that not liking what they were hearing did not make it biased to the left.
Neither Howard nor the other self-possessed political commentators has offered any evidence for their claim of left-wing bias in the media — no research, no proof. In fact when this claim was put to the test at the ABC after complaints were lodged by former communications minister Richard Alston, no systemic bias was found.
Phillip Adams works for the ABC and is claimed to be a left-winger. That is the same Phillip Adams who spent many successful years working in the advertising industry. The same Phillip Adams who is a very successful businessman. The same Phillip Adams who, many say, has made millions. If he is a left-winger then day is night. Looking at his history and taking into account his writings and political views, far from being a socialist, it would be hard to describe him as anything but a small "l" liberal.
One quick look at the major newspapers in Australia would kill off any claim they are a home for the left. Every one of the News Ltd newspapers leans to the right. Not everybody who works on them is a political right-winger — there are some journalists working there with other views — but the newspapers do support the right in political debates. The only argument about that assertion would be: how far? The Australian leans further to the right than the others and the people running it take pride in doing so.
The News Ltd newspapers often make the claim that the Fairfax newspapers are biased to the left. While they might not be as far to the right as the News Ltd newspapers, readers would find it hard to spot left bias. On some days the Sydney Morning Herald or The Age might run the odd story expressing small "l" liberal views, but that is a long way from being left.
When was the last time any major newspaper in Australia ran an article pushing the wonders of communism? Is there one journalist in the mainstream of Australian political reporting who is a "card carrying" communist?
If there were left-infested political reporters in Australia there would be articles about nationalising the banks, not lots of stories extolling the virtues of privatising Government-owned enterprises. If you are looking for real left comment in the mainstream Australian newspapers there is far more chance of you finding it on the Letters page than on the Opinion pages. But that is not journalist bias, that is reader bias.
It would be hard to find any left political reporting in any of the major Australian newspaper's business sections. There is not any in the sport pages. Restaurant reviews have little political comment; motoring reporting is hardly filled with left bias. And general reporting in newspapers is not infected with left views either.
So where are all the left leaning journalists working? The truth is they are just not there in anywhere near the numbers that the far right claim there are. Even most of the ones they claim are left are in reality just small "l" liberals.
Howard, Henderson, Bolt, Windschuttle, Akerman and members of the far right get a very good run in Australian newspapers. Lumped all together their views are probably over represented. By contrast, the people pushing hardcore left views are all but excluded.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
Yup! Well said!
P.Adams in the last few years has been pushed further to a Right strain, under ABC (Howard) Management policy, and he DOES also work for R.Murdoch in The Australian. These days it is very hard to find any leftish views from him, or from his interviewees. If someone does get out a sort of leftish comment it is quickly drowned by P.A., and hustled off the programme, as was Antony Lowenstein.
ABC National Radio is fast becoming utterly boring and predictable.
No chance of any good change under Krudd, either.
Excellent work. It has been a long time since I read anything from the so called left with the same sort of lock them up and throw away the key attitude as Miranda Devine or Andrew Bolt. And they have the gall to castigate the ABC.
Great article. You’re absolutely right. Years ago when Chomsky appeared on the ABC there was a huge outcry about left-wing bias. How ridiculous! The very fact that it was unusual, for someone like Chomsky to be on the ABC points to their lack of left wing bias.
Disagree. This article doesn’t even scratch the surface.
First, the author makes no effort to look at the subtleties of the left/right progressive/conservative categories. Someone might be conservative on social issues (like marriage) but lean to the left on economic issues (advocating more equitable social distribution). That’s a pretty basic thing to overlook in an article about "the left" vs "the right". In reality, those categories are overly simplistic and pretty useless these days.
Second, journos may not overtly state bias to "the left", but that doesn’t mean that they don’t push a "progressive" agenda which is based on socialist principles. Down here in Melbourne, The Age consistently favours euthanasia, abortion and same-sex marriage, adopting the same line as Labor’s left faction (which is overtly left) and the Greens (who do not wear the "left" or "socialist" label but whose policies clearly follow a socialist program.)
The same-sex marriage issue is a classic case in point. It is not an issue which most young people would identify as a question of "left" vs "right". Rather they see it simply as a question of social justice, as would some journalists. Yet all of the major public campaigns and demonstrations in favour of same-sex marriage receive major backing from the socialist left (http://www.greenleft.org.au/2009/805/41439; http://www.sa.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2080&Item…)
The point is, when certain parts of the media consistently espouse the view of the left on issues such as same-sex marriage, then it’s pretty clear we have a case of "left" media bias.
What makes the left-bias more insidious is the fact that it is usually surreptitious. By contrast, right-biased media commentators usually wear their political allegiances on their sleeves.
Oh TW Cannon - get real! It seems like you fail to understand the difference between a liberal progressive perspective on social policy and genuine left wing economic politics. When the mainstream media starts seriously questioning the dominant economic theory of capitalism then you can claim a left wing bias but until then claims about subtle difference in categories is a smokescreen and your red herring about same-sex marriage is just such an example.
I think Lindsay Foyle is absolutely correct. I understand TW Cannon when he/she says that a person can be "to the right" on one issue and "to the left" on another. Extreme "Right" or "Left" regimes often seem to use the same tecniques for obtaining and maintaining power and essentially resemble each other. I don’t agree with Cannon that left wing bias is more insidious than right wing bias. I hope that Lindsay Foyle will write another article giving his take on what constitutes bias in journalism, because I thought the ABC merely tried to be even handed in its coverage.
The attempt to figuratively crucify someone has become so easy - call them a leftie, and apparently now they only have to approve of gay marriage, (which is becoming increasingly accepted) and hey presto, there is your proof.
But write the ideological claptrap that Akerman and Bolt produce in their futile attempt to perpetuate Howardisms, and no one dares speak till now.
Australia desperately needs change in many areas. Our culture of drinking, gambling, social irresponsibility, violence and waste must change if we are to continue to prosper. And change is a natural process. But the far right seem so firmly cemented in their ways they are unable to change or adapt.
Anywhere left of them has to be an improvement.
From the jounos I read and hear each day I would agree with Lindsay that there are hardly any opinions or news articles that would be considered as being from the left. Just because someone didnt agree with the Howard govt of the day didnt make them a leftie.
I yawn when I hear those from the right accusing journalists of the SMH/Age papers or ABC being lefties. Most have what I would term middle of the road views as expressed in their articles and utterings. It is ridiculous to see some opinion writers accuse Robert Manne or David Marr of being hard core lefties….however Antony Lowenstein yes I would consider him being left but where is his constant presence in mainstream media. Whereas the Bolts, Akkermanns etc are in our daily media every day.
Lindsay mentioned you will probably find more real left wing comment in the Letter’s page than the opinion page. Well even that page has been hacked for some years limiting the number of ‘serious’ letters in preference for letters that are short and witty, eg. with spring just days away I expect someone to write a letter about being awoken early in the morning from hearing the first sounds of a cicada…as though that is somehow interesting for a letter’s page.
Has any survey been done or exist of what the political preferences of our journos and ubiquitious opinion writers are?
I understand what TW Cannon means about the subtleties of left/right as I have been accused of being a right winger for being against women wearing the hijab/burqua and would like to see it banned, I live in Lakemba where there are probably more Muslims than any other suburb of Australia and would like to see this outfit banned. But on other issues I like to think I am left so perhaps journos also have these quirks where they are not seen to be considered Left on every topic as there are some issues that both left and right can have similar views on. Anyway amongst my circle of friends we no longer consider ourselves left or right wing. With so few real newsworthy articles not already written by P/R spin mercahnts in our papers, that is why many of us have gone online in search of stories that are meaty and make us think and enjoy the article.
I agree with Con Viatsas to a certain degree, when it comes to left & right wing tagging of journalism, it starts to become tit for tat. As I read Lyndsay’s article, I couldn’t help but think that certain point’s were being left out & once I had finished, it reminded me of deafening silence. The same deafening silence that is used to deny articles from being published by media outlets, which are in contradiction to what the editor want’s the public to believe. That alone constitutes left & right wing journalism by journalists.
T.W. Cannon summed it up with that statement about family law.
David H:
Marx himself saw that abolishing the traditional ‘bourgeois’ family was fundamentally related to overthrowing the capitalist system. He says so right there in the Communist Manifesto. That’s why same-sex marriage receives such overwhelming support from the radical left. It is ironic, because radical leftists claim that gay people are being denied a human right to marriage (which is a broadly appealing assertion), when all the left really want to do is destroy traditional marriage altogether (the surreptitious agenda I was talking about). In a way, you could say that the left are manipulating legitimate popular concern for human rights in order to further their own political and economic agenda.
This often overlooked reality crept to the surface at Melbourne’s gay marriage rally on August 1 this year, when "Radical Women spokeswoman Alison Thorne told the Melbourne rally that marriage was an oppressive institution designed to condemn women to lives of slavery, but same-sex couples should nevertheless be equally entitled to it" (The Age, http://www.theage.com.au/national/wedding-protest-sealed-with-a-kiss-200…).
Why campaign for the "right" to an oppressive institution? It’s like campaigning for the "right" to be a slave. It doesn’t make sense, unless you have an ulterior motive.
Same-sex marriage is only one example of a leftist policy which, although not explicitly anti-capitalist, is nevertheless a very real part of the left’s conscious effort to undermine and eventually overthrow the capitalist system. Another example is environmentalism. Large parts (but NOT all) of the environmental movement are driven by the left, although most people don’t see environmental issues as a matter of "left vs right" politics. But if you want to undermine capitalism, doing so under the banner of "defending the environment" is always going to be more acceptable than a direct economic or political attack on capitalist institutions. The Australian Greens run an essentially socialist policy platform, but many of the people who vote for them simply think they are voting for an environmental party.
It’s naive to think that left/right politics is only about economics. It is about the entire system of social organisation, and the ideology behind that system. When the media campaign in favour of same-sex marriage they are pushing an agenda which is fundamental to leftist socio-economic ideology. They are pushing a leftist agenda, whether they know it or not.
As if Serf Choices didn’t put stress on families by forcing lower wages, family unfriendly hours and the constant threat of the sack if you didn’t work free overtime. What of the families that were destroyed through poverty when manufacturing jobs were ‘globalised’ to generate more company profits in the race to the bottom for wages. What of families wrecked by having sick children poisoned by man made chemicals or heavy metals in the environment? Is it too greeny and left wing to expect to have access to a healthy environment for your family? What is so family friendly about a CEO earning millions while the cleaners who polish his desk have to work 60 hours a week just to break even and put food on the table for their children. Go on, tell me how they should just find a new job after some study.
The moral right wings obsession with sex blinds them to the reality that a community consists of all types while an economy has no morals. Such pious clap trap.
Cannon;
The majority of same-sex marriage supporters, I’m sure you know, see it as an issue of discrimination and rights, not destroying the capitalist family institution. As you mentioned, that woman you quoted was from ‘Radical Women’, and is obviously on the far left of the spectrum. But what she said DOES make sense; how you can fail to see that doesn’t. She would not get married herself, but, as anyone with a heart should, does not see it as her right to impose her views on others. It is not about ulterior motives or hidden agendas. I myself think that marriage is oppressive, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to impose this view on others who do not think the same way. Just as I may not want to have an abortion for moral reasons, but I don’t feel like I need to force others to act the same way. Same goes with euthanasia.
What makes you think that radical left-wingers only support gay marriage because it undermines capitalism? As if they all have hidden agendas? They wear their politics on their sleeves.
What a broad, naive, assumption.
T.W.Cannon:
The left may well want to destroy traditional marriage, but campaigning for same-sex marriage won’t acheive that. Because traditional marriage will always be a union between a man and a woman, and same-sex marriage won’t change that. If Alison Thorne says that marriage is an oppressive institution designed to condemn women to lives of slavery, that’s her opinion and she’s entitled to it. She obviously doesn’t wish to marry. But what groups like CAAH, AME, ACE and Equal Love are campaigning for is the right of marriage to be extended to anybody who does want it. Likening this to the "right" to be a slave is inaccurate because marriage is generally voluntary, and slavery never is. A better analogy would be to imagine if slavery was still socially acceptable, but was restricted to people who have blue eyes. It would be very easy to argue that this was discriminatory.
"What Howard and his mates should have been saying is that, on the political spectrum, lots of journalists in Australia are more to the left than they are."
Lindsay you’ve convinced me: most journalists in Australia are to the right of where you are.
Where’s the centre? Why, that would be me of course; the same answer almost everyone gives to that question.
I like what T W Cannon has to say about the difference between left and progressive stances, and agree that the distinction is pretty finely drawn at times. I also agree that journalists could well be better described as progressive than left, in the context of current discussion.
There may be a good reason for that. Journalists get to see the waste, conflict, stupidity and weakness of the current system. They have long been made responsible for addressing unfairness, especially when it falls outside of the influence of the judiciary, or is so supported by the status quo that it takes the attention of the populace to require change from politicians.
I like for journalists to have this responsibility. If that means they are less than conservative then great. There are more than enough conservative pressure on our society as it is, often to the point where we are dragged backward, as happened during Howard’s reign.
This is where Cannon and I diverge, as they are clearly in favour of the status quo and place the word progressive in inverted commas, like genuine progress is only possible within the narrow confines of their conservative structures. This is, of course, nonsense. Now, more than ever we need tension to move society forward. Climate change and global financial crisis both point to the vast inadequacies of the conservative position.
Journalists are largely well educated, from a range of socio-economic backgrounds, comparitively well informed and outward looking in their approach to the world. Perhaps the problem is not that there are too many progressives but that we are not listening enough to the ones we have.
In regard to same sex marriage I for one cannot imagine why any gay or lesbian person would want to engage in an institution that is based on the teachings of a religion that has roundly and violently rejected them. If the right was not so affiliated to (and utterly compromised by) Christianity they would realise that these couples are probably pretty conservative themselves, and likely on their side on many issues.
Dr Dog:
The institution of marriage is not based on the teachings of the Church. People were getting married long before Abraham wandered into Canaan. Marriage occurs in every culture, and it takes many forms. It can involve multiple partners, or it can be the betrothal of an adult to a much younger child. Figures from the ABS show that the majority of Australian marriages are no longer performed by a minister of religion.
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/3306.0.55.001Main+Feature…
To say that marriage is based on Christianity is a rather conservative view.
Hi Stephen,
I take your point, and probably should have said marriage as it is currently practiced in our society. For you to imply this current practice is not deeply associated with Christianity is a little rich for my blood though, certainly as it applies to the rationale of opponents to gay marriage.
I am not suggesting that ongoing partnerships formally acknowledged in front of the state or more importantly the community are not desirable and I support the right of anyone to make that committment if they see fit. I found your information from the ABS most heartening but am still surprised by those from the gay and lesbian community seeking a church wedding.
This points to the interesting difference between conservatism and rightist politics. It is possible that I am falling into the trap of hoping that progressive equates to left. The Liberal voting gay and lesbian folk I am alluding to in the above post could be considered progressive when it comes to marriage, yet remain on the right of the political spectrum.
Of course the opposite side is equally true. Some people on the left are as conservative as all get out, to the detriment of socialism everywhere.
Cheers for pulling the call.
anyone read peter costello’s piece in The Age yesterday?
‘Everyone’s ABC? Only If You Lean Left’
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/everyones-abc-only-if-you-lean-left-200…
I think Costello writing in The Age and Sydney Morning Herald (26.08.09) proves
my point about the Right not knowing anything about media bias.
Towards the end of his Opinion yarn Costello wrote, "Back in 2001, the
ABC’s then managing director declared he would look for a right-wing
Phillip Adams to balance that program. It must be an exhaustive
search. The new managing director is now in his fourth year of office.
Apparently, the corporation is still looking. I predict they will
still be looking under the next managing director. There appears
nothing urgent about the task of getting balance into the ABC. But if
it did find a right-wing Phillip Adams, we would then have a Liberal
in Perth and one in Sydney too. "
Well Costtello could not have looked too hard. The program that was
promised by the ABC MD is Counterpoint and the presenters are Michael
Duffy and Paul Comrie-Thomson. They have been on Radio National for years.