The debate about the existence of political bias in the mainstream media has some striking similarities to the abortion debate: much of it hinges largely on faith and belief rather than evidence-based analysis. We recently revisited the debate (albeit without a great amount of intensity) in our interview with Bob Mueller, an anchor at WKRN and host of a Sunday morning political news show. We asked Bob whether he thought that mainstream media exhibited a liberal bias. He asserted that he did not believe it did. I happen to share his belief. But we are operating largely on the basis of anecdotal evidence and faith rather than hard and firm facts. And even when media watchdogs like Media Matters for America stockpile reams of digital evidence that, in fact, conservative bias exists, there are natural questions that arise about just who is defining the terms of the debate. These are the core existential questions of what exactly constitutes liberal or conservative bias in the media.

Part of the element of faith is directly involved in the stated intentions of people involved in creation of media. For instance, Bob Mueller claims no political agenda other than an interest in politics and the coverage thereof. I take him at his word. This is faith on my part. He is a journalist, and when he tells me he occasionally asks tough questions, I expect that they will be in the public interest of learning more about the positions and experiences of political figures rather than in the interest of driving a specific political agenda. Now I can understand how supporters of a given candidate or elected official could see critical questions in the light of a bias, and I can see how those with a specific political agenda cherry-picking instances of such questions to bolster claims of bias can further strengthen the opinions of those who already suspect a bias. Worse, these same folks can reinforce this belief by asserting that those who are not supportive of their agenda are in fact in opposition to their agenda. For instance, because NPR is not explicitly conservative in its coverage or immediately supportive of the president or a Republican Congress, it must be liberal. This is a vicious cycle.

Distinguishing agenda-driven coverage from fact-driven coverage begins with statement of intent. I will hereby clearly state point blank that Mary and I have a specific political agenda with Liberadio(!). We are operating from a political perspective that largely runs counter to that espoused by the right-wing radio hosts that have created local and national names for themselves: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Steve Gill, Phil Valentine. As I covered in my recent FCC testimony, there are 170 hours of conservative talk radio where a similar agenda-driven bias is apparent, being broadcast in Middle Tennessee. There are 0 corresponding hours of liberal or progressive talk radio being broadcast as a counterpoint. And those agenda-driven right-wingers often assert that the mainstream media and NPR are biased. Again, a vicious cycle. There is no legitimate foil to the right-wing echo chamber, so they are free to go after the people who have no agenda asserting time and again that, in fact, there is an agenda. This puts Bob Mueller and others like him in the awkward position of having to defend journalistic integrity at every turn. Bob is a sturdy enough journalist with enough decades of experience that I doubt if he second-guesses himself when it’s time for tough questions; but a new reporter on the political beat might not have as much resolve.

The real reason I’m writing about this, though, is from a rebuttal typed by A.C. Kleinheider over at Volunteer Voters responding to our noting in our interview with Bob that WKRN employs two people whose biases are clearly visible in their commentary, and those biases are conservative, whereas they employ no one from the alternative political persuasion. In this rebuttal, he goes to great lengths to do three things:
1. distinguish his form of conservatism from that of Steve Gill
2. assert that Steve Gill’s WKRN conservatism is different from his WLAC conservatism, so everything is cool
3. assert that because all perspectives are heard in his blog, everything is cool
4. assert that Brittney Gilbert, mistress of the Nashville Is Talking domain, is liberal, and she’s at WKRN, so everything is cool

I don’t really care about Item 1. Nitpicking about the intricacies of conservative ideology is not really what this debate is about.

Item 2 is a bit of a cop-out, in my opinion. It’s as if to say that Steve Gill is in character on his radio show, and that he’s somehow out of character as soon as he’s put in front of a television camera at WKRN. His job description is different, so therefore, the nature of his conservatism is different. I don’t buy it. Steve Gill has a reputation as a conservative talk radio host at WLAC, and that reputation follows him to WKRN. And Mr. Gill even notes in the comments on Kleinheider’s post that there should be skepticism of George Stephanopolous at ABC News based on his past political role in the Clinton White House. I don’t disagree with him. In fact, that helps make my point for me. The difference is that George Stephanopolous does not, in his show, state how he is a liberal Democrat and then ask people questions. He has taken on a new role as a journalist. He does not have a show on the side where he promotes a liberal Democratic agenda. He’s done being an agenda-driven political media figure. Further, he works closely alongside Mark Halperin, the ABC News political director whose recent conservative media figure book tour surely put paid to the notion that ABC is the domain of liberal bias in the mainstream media. Mary and I were focused on the specific case of a local ABC affiliate that has two people of publicly-stated political conservative persuasions (nuance aside) being paid to cover politics, and no one from a publicly-stated liberal or progressive persuasion paid to cover politics.

Item 3 is problematic for precisely the reason that Rush Limbaugh could say the same thing. “I cover all sides of the story. The fact that I publicly and continuously insult the side that isn’t mine doesn’t matter as long as I provide people my bibliography.” I don’t buy it. Commentary is persusasive. Making a long, extensively researched argument against abortion rights with a footnote telling people they can examine the positions and policies of NARAL Pro-Choice America at the following link does not make for a fair and balanced coverage of the issue. When I include evidence in my commentary, I’m doing it to make a point, and I’m usually making the point in order to be persuasive. If I’m a fact-driven journalist, I’m not attempting to persuade; I’m attempting to provide the evidence. If I’m an agenda-driven pundit, I’m attempting to persuade, and I’m using the evidence provided by fact-driven journalists to bolster my commentary.

And Item 4 is ridiculous. Brittney is on payroll, and she’s liberal, so there’s nothing to see here. Ms. Gilbert occasionally blogs about politics. And, yes, it’s apparent from her political blogging that she is liberal, whereas Uncle Kleinheider is conservative. But her beat is not politics; it’s buzz. If the buzz is political, her coverage of it might very well have a liberal inflection. But people looking for political coverage are more likely to turn to Mr. Mueller’s This Week, which has no agenda; or to ABC’s nightly newscast, which, when it features Steve Gill, provides a microphone for a personal agenda; or to follow Volunteer Voters, where they can learn about Mr. Kleinheider’s personal brand of conservatism (which, like my particular brand of liberalism, is probably not akin to what many people identify as mainstream). So for WKRN’s dedicated political coverage, they provide outlets for agenda-driven commentary and coverage.

Bottom line: I think the questions we asked Bob Mueller were well worth raising. And I am of the belief that his role in the WKRN process is decidedly different from the roles of Mr. Kleinheider and Mr. Gill. Bias begins at conception, and the concept of This Week is, in my opinion, to be largely devoid of bias. If the WKRN management were to tell me that Mr. Gill were hired with the concept of unbiased political coverage, I would be of little faith.

This post was written by Freddie