Don't Follow The Money

If you're looking for a savvy-sounding but deeply, deeply implausible explanation for why John McCain is a media darling, I recommend the notion, advanced by Mark Kleiman and seconded by Matt, that media types suck up to McCain because he's a longtime member of the Senate Commerce Committee, where he's presided over an era of media consolidation that (to quote Kleiman) "has greatly restricted citizens' access to diverse points of view while greatly enriching the media barons who own the networks, TV stations, and cable companies." Or as Matt puts it: "McCain getting good coverage from the corporate media is in part something just along the lines of James Inhofe being well-liked by the energy industry."

Anything's possible, I suppose, but based on my (admittedly limited) experience in the media business, I have a hard time imagining a plausible account of how, precisely, the "let's stay on McCain's good side" sentiment supposedly harbored by "media barons" filters down to impact day-to-day coverage. Particularly since it's hard to detect any pattern of pro-Commerce Committee media bias when you look at the full list of committee members. (I wouldn't describe John Kerry as a media darling, exactly.) I also think - along with Jack Shafer, among others - that the idea that our era of big-media consolidation has "greatly restricted citizens' access to diverse points of view" is risible on its face, but that's an argument for another time.

Comments

The fact that people read Mark Kleiman and Matt strongly suggests that they're wrong on the 'diverse points of view' bit. Of course, they are in and of the party that thinks of intellectual and political diversity as nothing more than the voices in the left-wing choir. You've got your labor perspective, your radical feminist perspective, etc.

Posted by Thomas | February 22, 2008 4:31 PM

Astute, Thomas. That's why we wound up invading Iraq, because the labor and radical feminists on all the political shows on TV all the time all pushed so hard for it.

I agree with Ross's point in this post-- it's too far removed for this chain to produce much of an impact. The media hated Edwards, hated Romney, hated Gore, loves McCain, is OK with Obama, and hates Clinton. It's personality-based, not ideological.

I do think that there has been a narrowing of the views we see on TV-- no one further to the left than Joe Klein can appear on CNN-- but I am not willing to blame media consolidation. At least, not as part of an intentional scheme by plutocrats. There just happens to be a culture of "the GOP is tough"/"the Dems are like totally uncool" in the media these days. I could be wrong, but I really don't think it's ideological or from above.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | February 22, 2008 4:44 PM

I also think - along with Jack Shafer, among others - that the idea that our era of big-media consolidation has "greatly restricted citizens' access to diverse points of view" is risible on its face, but that's an argument for another time.

Careful, Ross, aren't you under some obligation as a blogger for the Atlantic to pretend that your co-bloggers' (ie Matt) opinions are respectable, and not obviously ridiculous on the face of it?

Posted by Deuce | February 22, 2008 5:46 PM

Of course given business realities some, particularly media types, will be McCain sycophants given his position on the Commerce Committee; McCain would not be above accepting their support and contributions.

The issue is whether McCain is above narrow considerations of power and capable of a broader vision and the ability to achieve some of it. Compared to Clinton and Obama at least he is a grownup who has proved some courage and serious accomplishment.

Posted by Peter Leavitt | February 22, 2008 6:04 PM

My recollection is that McCain is the only Senator who voted against the Telecom Act of 1996, which allowed more media consolidation in the name of deregulation. I also believe he was against the giveaway of digital spectrum to broadcasters -- he thought they should have been made to bid on the digital spectrum through an auction, like wireless companies have had to do for their spectrum. So, as usual, he has been a maverick with regard to media issues, and has not played along with the media's bidding these last 10 years. At least, that's my recollection. We can look these things up.

Posted by Lisa | February 22, 2008 6:23 PM

The issue is whether McCain is above narrow considerations of power and capable of a broader vision and the ability to achieve some of it.

And as his ludicrous flip-flopping on torture and tax cuts for blatantly transparent political opportunism demonstrate, he is not.

Posted by Consumatopia | February 22, 2008 7:02 PM

This issue drives me nuts, because the people on my side of the issue have a tendency to make stupid arguments.

The problem with big media consolidation is not that it "greatly restrict(s) citizens' access to diverse points of view." Given the internet, people have access to more diverse points of view than ever before. The problem is one of market penetration. Most people are not news junkies; they get their news from the morning paper, from the radio while driving home, and/or a little bit of TV news.

Media consolidation has greatly reduced the diversity of outlets for LOCAL news, and it has greatly reduced the number of people doing independent reporting on national issues. As an example, in my hometown (Indianapolis) the only surviving daily newspaper is a chain-owned fishwrap that often uses AP reports to cover events taking place in their own city and pulls most of their op/ed columns from syndication. The radio stations are all owned by national conglomerates like Clear Channel.

I think this is a big problem, but it's not a problem that can be easily framed as an ideological grievance for the Right or Left.

There is also an trend on TV and radio to reduce the amount of reported news (which is expensive and time-consuming) and replace it with shows where people talk about the news. So most citizens acquire much of their news secondhand, usually filtered through a narrow range of pundits. It's a national echo chamber. This trend is primarily driven by the corporate bottom line, but it's exacerbated by media consolidation.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | February 23, 2008 11:40 AM

To LaFolette -- you hit the nail on the head. Proof is newspapers sales numbers for daylies vs. local weeklies.

Posted by zic | February 23, 2008 9:41 PM

...he is a grownup who has proved some courage and serious accomplishment.

It surprises me to learn that Peter Leavitt voted for John Kerry in '04. Who'd a thunk it?

Posted by DMonteith | February 24, 2008 8:14 AM

Nah, DMonteith, having read Unfit for Command, a well researched and documented book, and observed Kerry from Massachusetts, I regard him rather as a political weather vane with severe spinal difficulty.

Posted by Peter Leavitt | February 24, 2008 1:55 PM

Ross has it exactly backwards. Klieman's theory is plausible but not at all savvy-sounding.

John McCain has a great personality and he likes to talk to reporters. That's all it takes to get good coverage.

Reporters are anonymous schlubs traveling with a rock start. Of course they love his attention and go all googly-eyed.

This is so in-you-face that a strained explanation like Klieman's is anything but savvy.

Posted by tomtom | February 24, 2008 6:02 PM

It's off the mark to think media favoritism works in the way described here. I once worked in a left-wing media operation and saw the exact same dynamic at work, albeit in the other direction. We never got any memos, but everyone wanted to please the boss and the result was political groupthink.

Posted by fishbrake | February 25, 2008 8:36 AM

In John McCain's case it makes sense to follow the honey or honeys.

Posted by Stan | February 26, 2008 2:53 PM