Not So Subtle

By way of BooMan comes this anecdote about Katie Couric (who I dislike - but that's another issue) and the none too subtle ways that influence how news is reported:

She had firsthand experience with what she considered the chilling effect on the media. Two months before the 2004 election, when she was still at NBC's "Today" show, Couric had asked Condoleezza Rice whether she agreed with Vice President Cheney's declaration that the country would be at greater risk for terrorist attacks if John Kerry won the White House. Rice sidestepped the question, saying that any president had to fight aggressively against terrorism.

Couric interrupted and asked the question again. Would a Kerry victory put America at greater risk? Rice ducked again, saying that the issue should not be personalized.

Soon afterward, Couric got an e-mail from Robert Wright, the NBC president. He was forwarding a note from an Atlanta woman who complained that Couric had been too confrontational with Rice.

It goes on to say that when Couric would run into Jack Welch - then head of GE, owner of NBC - he would comment that they didn't see eye-to-eye politically.

It's difficult to excerpt this one without running into the wrath of the Gods of Copyright so I encourage you to click the link and read the whole thing (it's only 7 paragraphs).

But the point here, really, is that we are bombarded with stories and studies purporting to show that news reporters are a bunch of left-wing zealots. Nobody seems to ask the same questions about the editors and, more importantly, the publishers and owners of news organizations.

Couric's current employer, CBS, is headed by Sumner Redstone (who also founded and heads Viacom). In 2004, Redstone, who describes himself as a "liberal Democrat," endorsed Bush for president saying:

"I look at the election from what's good for Viacom. I vote for what's good for Viacom. I vote, today, Viacom.

"I don't want to denigrate Kerry," he went on, "but from a Viacom standpoint, the election of a Republican administration is a better deal. Because the Republican administration has stood for many things we believe in, deregulation and so on. The Democrats are not bad people. . . . But from a Viacom standpoint, we believe the election of a Republican administration is better for our company."

Even "family businesses" like the New York Times and the Washington Post have a great many irons in the proverbial fire, many of them requiring approval by various federal agencies so it behooves them to not get on the wrong side of the government. That, combined with the ingrained conservatism of most businessmen/women surely exerts a downward pressure. The producers and editors and reporters are well aware just who signs their paychecks.

Would that less attention be paid to who reporters vote for and more to who publishers and owners vote for and contribute to.

.