The greatest [calamity] which could befall [us would be] submission to a government of unlimited powers."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Declaration and Protest of Virginia, 1825. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors, ME 17:445

"The only greater [evil] than separation... [is] living under a government of discretion."
-- Thomas Jefferson to William Gordon, 1826. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors, ME 10:358

EVIDENCE OF PHONY "LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS"

Despite claims of liberal media bias, the data shows that the views of the right-wing are well represented, even more so, than liberal or progressive viewpoints. As the media empirical data shows, there is not a total liberal view on policy matters. The centrist Brookings Institute led the way with the most citations of all think tanks followed by the ultra-conservative think tanks, CATO Institute second and the Heritage Foundation third being heard with more air time on the networks. The think tanks do get the prestige of having their representatives being heard in the public debate which has transcended the electronic age political debate of image and demagoguery. (1) The CATO Institute has prided itself in shifting the liberal debate on social life in America to the conservative point of view, and had claimed it has been more than successful. Have you heard that liberals have been polluting America and are the continued source of America’s ills in the media? Well, the evidence does not necessarily reinforce this accusation. FAIR reports that from 1995-to-1996 that the CATO Institute had been cited over one thousand times respectively, in both the print and electronic media as experts on different conservative and liberal fields of study. (2)

In 1999 there were citations in the media a total of 8,964 or fifty-one percent by think tanks with a Conservative or Right-Leaning bias or perspective. In 1998 there were citations in the media a total of 9,443 or fifty-three percent by think tanks with a Conservative or Right-leaning bias or perspective heard. In comparison to Progressives or left-leaning perspectives or bias in 1999 there were citations of a liberal view thirteen percent of the time on the air waves with a total of 2,344. In 1998 there was a total of 2,029 total citations in the media at eleven percent of the time. In contrast, in 1999 the Centrist viewpoint was heard in the media at a thirty-five percent outtake with a thirty-five percent of the time on air. In 1998 the centrist view was heard with the date at a 6,403 citations which registered at thirty-six percent of the time. (3)

The Brookings Institute which has centrist perspective was in media in 1999, 2,883 times while in 1998 there were 2,952 media citations. The Cato Institute which is a conservative/libertarian think tank has had 1,428 media citations in 1999 while it had 1,516 media citations in 1998. The Heritage Foundation which is a conservative think tanks had 1,419 media citations in 1999 while it had 1,347 in 1998. The American Enterprise Institute conservative 1,263 media citations in 1999 with 1, 494 citations in 1998. The Council on Foreign Relations which is a centrist think tank was cited 1, 231 times in the media in 1999 with 1, 467 media citations during 1998. The Center for Strategic and International Studies conservative think tank had 1,205 media citations in 1999 with 1, 066 media citations in 1998. The RAND Corporation center-right think tank had 950 media citations in 1999 while in 1998 there was 711. The Family Research Council which is conservative think tank had 933 citations in 1999 while in 1998 there was 1, 452. The Carnegie Endowment which is centrist think tank had 729 citations in the media in 1999 while in 1998 there was 626. The Urban Institute which is a center-left think tank had 712 media citations in 1999 while in 1998 it had 516 citations in the media. In 1999 the Economic Policy Institute which is a progressive think tank was cited 506 times in the media while in 1998 there were 607 media citations. The Hudson Institute which is a conservative think tank had 449 media citations in 1999, while in 1998 there were media citations 420 times. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities which is progressive think thank had media citations a total of 449 times in 1999 while in 1998 it was cited a total of 294 times. The Freedom Forum think tank which has a centrist perspective was listed in the media in 1999 a total of 441 times while in 1998 there were a total of 524 media citations. The Hoover Institution which is a conservative think tank was listed in 1999 with media appearances 360 times while in 1998 it was listed in the media a total of 306 times. The Institute for International Economics which is centrist think tank was listed in the media in 1999 a total of 349 times while in 1998 they were listed in the media a total of 533 times. The International Institute for Strategic Studies which is a centrist think tank was cited in 1999, 295 times in the media while in 1998 they were listed in the media 225 times. The Manhattan Institute a conservative think tank had media citations in 1999 a total of 295 times while in 1998 there were media citations a total of 183 times. The Independent Women's Forum a conservative think tank was listed in the media a total of 244 times in 1999 while in 1998 there was a list of 541 times. The Institute for Policy Studies which is a progressive think tank had 228 media listings in 1999 while in 1998 there was 193 citations. The Center for Defense Information which is a progressive think tank had media citations a total of 228 times in 1999, while there was a total of 190 tomes in 1998. The National Center for Policy Analysis which is a conservative think tank there were media citations in 1999 a total of 224 times while in 1998 there were a total of 212 times. The Worldwatch Institute which is a progressive think tank had 221 media citations in 1999, while it was in the media or press a total of 229 times. The Progressive Policy Institute a centrist think tank was listed in the media in 1999 a total of 213 times while in 1998 they were listed in the media a total of 76 times. The Competitive Enterprise Institute which is a conservative think tank was listed in 1999 a total of 194 times in the media while in 1998 they were listed a total of 195 times in the media. (4)

Kangas points out that even William Kristol admitted that liberal bias hardly dominates saying “I admit it: the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures.” (5) Adam Myerson who is the Editor of the Heritage Foundation's Policy Review spoke on the issue of liberalism versus conservatism in the media: He said about the opinions expressed that:

“[Pundit] journalism today is very different from what it was 10 to 20 years ago. Today, op-ed pages are dominated by conservatives… We have a tremendous amount of conservative opinion, but this creates a problem for those who are interested in a career in journalism after college… If Bill Buckley were to come out of Yale today, nobody would pay much attention to him. He would not be that unusual… because there are probably hundreds of people with those ideas [and] they have already got syndicated columns.” (6)

It was in the 1990’s and the election of President Clinton in 1992, that saw the rise in popularity of right wing hate radio, in American life and culture. Pat Robertson and the Reverend Jerry Falwell have used the pulpit and the media to parrot the administrations of Reagan, Bush I, and now Bush II. The biggest attacks came against homosexuals and the gay lifestyle and gay agenda as the right wing termed it. (7) The hatred of this group of people had a convergence of agreement in both talk radio and with right wing preachers tied to the Republican Party. People like Rush Limbaugh reveled in the fact that they called themselves and proudly, homophobic. After being censored to get onto the show the caller will be put on hold as the host is informed prior what will be the view of the person calling-in. There is a tape delay on all talk shows which does not only rid any bad language but it also allows the programmers or host to prevent the real free speech to flow by not allowing speech onto the show which might not go along with the host’s perspective. Callers get cut off if deviating from the intended call. Again, the general public will never really know this happens. With this type of behavior by talk show hosts, programming directors, and advertisers how does one actually gage that there exists this “consensus, community standard, or moral code” that one is led to believe. The talk radio medium has suggested that in America there is a “preexisting” view of politics. (8) Hatred of gay people was fueled by Clinton admitting gays and lesbians into the military, but as a tool in the right-wing’s agenda. Talk show hosts use the gay agenda for their own commercial consumption of ignorant listeners with ongoing “hate campaigns,” where bible belt ministers justified their moral crusade pointing out “the dangers of homosexuality.” (9) The morals of the radical right were rewarded in 1994 when the Republicans won both Houses of Congress for the first time in over forty years. The rhetoric of Christian fundamentalists and Rush Limbaugh paved the way for this win against President Clinton, a man they hate. Burkart points out that “the hype of Rush Limbaugh and other self-identified 'mainstream' (i.e. conservative) personalities on AM are the surface effect of a far more profound sea change in talk radio programming. On shortwave radio, call-in talk shows catering exclusively to racist, survivalist, right-wing audiences have proliferated in the past ten years.” (10)Right wing radio has a political agenda with a common goal to destroy the liberal psyche using repetition as a propaganda tool. Joel Schalit said that the religious right makes its case in clever ways in American culture by using the radio and television to undermine those who do not agree with their way of thinking about the world. Their goal is to undermine anything connected with the world. Their goal is to undermine anything connected with the world liberal. (11) Schalit says in describing their hidden agenda that:

“...(T)he religious right is repeating the Nazi tactic of disguising its own xenophobia through a strategy of deliberate and calculated self-marginalization. But the Evangelical community lacks a Versailles Treaty to blame its woes upon. The only difference between the new religious prejudice and its fascist predecessor is that it has simply replaced Jew with liberal and the free market with democracy.” (12)

Patrick Burkart in his article, the “Radio Shock: Talk Radio Propaganda” says that Schalit's thesis demonstrates that in the commercial market exists “extreme cases of contemporary Republican propaganda,” which impacts, “economically unstable, chronically underemployed electronically mobilized white commuters.” (13) This is the strategy of the Republican party as they work in tandem with conservative radio talk show hosts, in what Burkart calls the “the new power of talk radio.” Essentially this has created both a “new conservative hegemony” and a “technical hegemony.” (14) From Ann Coulter to Rush Limbaugh the message is “fueled with highly inflammatory, agitational, partisan political messages, interactively constituted within contemporary media markets.” I would have to agree with the assessment of Burkart that:

On the market, talk radio is inherently conservative because disagreement and dissent are programmed out of talk radio shows de facto, by reaching only those audiences with lifestyles that support consumption of this entertainment technology. Technologically speaking, the mobile phone craze has facilitated talk radio's market growth and ease of transition into a hegemonic propaganda format.

Author Jean Baudrillard writing, In the Shadow of the Silent Majority about media propaganda and manipulation said many Americans think listening to talk radio is equivalent to direct political participation, but, not true. He characterizes talk radio as nothing, but, “blackmail through speech.” (15) It is true that most listeners who do call radio talk show programs are usually in agreement with the opinions of the host. One needs to realize that little authenticity occurs on talk radio other than the host of the show’s opinion, which does not equate exactly to free speech as callers are met with censors before opining. This is not real public opinion but packaged commentary without callers actually being engaged in direct political debate. The caller could be left to feel a sense of “affirmation or disgust on live radio for a host.” (16) Few people fully know about the operations of radio talk shows, listened to on the car radio. The real story is that “the programs they are hearing are carefully pre-planned and controlled by marketing, advertising, and broadcasting technology. The effect is a semi-public electronic forum populated by estranged participants who don't know each other except as characters in an imaginary and endless storybook punctuated with lawn care ads.” (17) After being censored before the host takes the caller, one is put on hold. This is to inform the host to what the caller will say prior going on the air. There is a tape delay on all talk shows which does not only rid any bad language but it also allows the programmers to prevent speech which contrasts the host’s opinion. Callers will often be cut off when they deviate from what the host does not approve, but the general public is unaware. With this type of behavior by talk show hosts, programming directors, and advertisers there can be said little in the way of “consensus, community standard, or moral code” from the likes of Rush Limbaugh, with a medium of talk which gives a “preexisting” view of politics. (18)

The President of CATO Institute is Edward H. Crane who as a financial analyst helped form this group in 1977 with Charles Koch. .(19) The Koch family supports right-wing causes, including the Heritage Foundation. Fred Koch had a major role in the founding of the John Birch Society. Charles Koch was co-founder of the CATO Institute which has libertarian view on issues. (20) In keeping with the spirit of traditional America, this organization was “named for Cato's Letters, libertarian pamphlets that helped lay the philosophical foundation for the American Revolution.” (21) CATO Institute’s Board members are hostile to social activism in the public sector, because it conflicts with the interests of the private interest. In late 1997, FOX/News Corporation Chairman of the Board Rupert Murdoch joined the Board of Trustees at the CATO Institute. On joining the team at CATO, Crane released a statement in November-December of 1997, saying that Murdoch shared similar political-economic viewpoints of the right-wing policy think tank:

“Rupert Murdoch is one of the most successful entrepreneurs in the world, a strong advocate of the free market and a committed civil libertarian. We're very proud to have him join the very distinguished men and women who guide the Cato Institute in its ongoing pursuit of the traditional American principles of limited government, individual liberty, and a free-market economy.” (22)

How does the present CATO Institute’s right wing connect with the old right? One of the connects is that CATO opposes workers rights and the minimum wage standards. (23) The CATO Institute has been in favor of turning back the gains made during the era of “big government” known as the New Deal and the Civil Rights movement. This group with its strong right-wing message has gone as far to oppose the “old age and disability insurance system,” in addition to wanting an end to Social Security, Medicare, Unions, and have supported the de-funding of public education. (24) CATO Institute is rooted which supports the corporate interest not only has Murdoch as a member, but, also includes Frederick W. Smith, the Chairman of the Federal Express Corporation as a member. (25)

The media is corporate and protects the private industry in its news broadcasts in the United States. It does not tolerate anti-capitalism sentiment on any of the networks. Corporate Boards in the media are backed by big business and most of the pundits which appear as news analysts hail from very conservative think tanks or moderate to centrist ones the majority of the time. As mentioned before, CATO Institute is a public policy organ of the Republican Party that FOX News channel Chairman Rupert Murdoch is a member. When it comes to having a free media or press, relationships as Murdoch’s with a very energetic policy think tank taints the reporting of events and analysis.

John C. Malone who just so happens to be the President and CEO of the largest cable company Telecommunications, Inc. is a member of CATO. Although CATO is tax exempt, both Murdoch and Malone are both involved with this group raises ethical questions, if they pursue political and economic objectives with their business interests. As FAIR points out these “two men are well acquainted, and their companies have long been intertwined in media deals involving satellite television, cable TV, program distribution and other big telecommunications ventures.” And as far as the ethical concerns are concerned it was pointed out by FAIR that these two men have found themselves engaged in “formally helping to run a think tank which boasts that it has “‘actively promoted the deregulation of the television and telephone industries.’” The Federal government which has the authority to regulate the telecommunications industry has been making it easier for moguls like Murdoch and Malone to operate without being overly constricted in recent years. At the same time the federal government put severe limits on municipalities to protect the public utilities from being eaten up for profits by these telecommunication capitalists. Therefore, these media moguls have taken advantage of the lessening of the standards in the deregulation wars between the Republicans and Democrats in Congress. With the market becoming more deregulated the telecommunications industry has taken a wide turn in the game of monopoly for a few who hold all the cards in the media wars. In the long-run there very well could be a monopoly or very small concentration of media moguls controlling every corner of the market since this often is the fallout when deregulation goes unchecked completely. Murdoch and Malone are interested in their careers, not that of the public interest, only as far as it promotes theirs, which is consistent with the free-market and no government interference doctrine of the conservatives. (26)

President Ronald Reagan ended the Fairness Doctrine with a veto which opened the gateway towards bias reporting in the media and all-out right-wing political punditry. In this regard equal time to opposing views are no longer necessary. This veto was made with the argument that the telecommunications industry should be deregulated. The “Fairness Doctrine” was designed to prevent a one-sided viewpoint creating media bias which required broadcasters to air opposing views. At one time, this doctrine had the support of both liberals and conservatives, but now that the media are owned and controlled by corporations, the conservatives have come to defiantly oppose the Fairness Doctrine. This is the best proof that the media's bias is conservative, not "liberal.” (27)

When one watches television or reads periodicals about the world news events one should not expect to hear objective or an educated political analysis. Most often, the information will reinforce the corporate interest within the political process. The definition of plutocrat as a noun in the 1993 Edition of the New Roget’s Thesaurus and Webster’s Dictionary, means “ a person possessing power on the account of his riches.” This is the best way to describe to present day news organizations in the United States. The electronic media is the medium shaping modern day political debate, as the news becomes manufactured towards the corporate-capitalist agenda, and profits over people. Those in the electronic media and corporate sponsors are most interested in maintaining power in politics. Those journalists who are mostly syndicated but are definitely self-admitted conservatives in the press are Pat Buchanan, Fred Barnes, John McLaughlin, David Gergen, Robert Novak, William F. Buckley, Jr., George Will, William Safire, Cal Thomas, Jonathon Alter, Joe Klein, Robert J. Samuelson, James Kilpatrick, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, and Ann Coulter. Those who are more to the center of right includes Sam Donaldson, Mark Shields, Michael Kinsley, Morton Kondrake, Al Hunt, Jack Germond, Hodding Carter. Those who could be considered as progressive are Maureen Dowd, Barbara Eirenreich, and Molly Ivins. (28) In 1995, FAIR did a study based on the Nexus search of total citations and it did not come back with the liberal view that has been so criticized by those on the right attacking the left. Conservatives were cited a total of 7792, the progressives were cited 6361; while the progressives were heard a total of 1152 times. (29)

As FAIR reported there are ten main media companies although this number is shrinking through the consolidation process of mega media giants. This ten includes the merging of Disney and ABC ; General Electric and NBC; Viacom and CBS; AOL and Time Warner; News Corporation and FOX; New York Times Company; the Washington Post Companies; The Dow Jones and the Wall Street Journal; the Tribune Company; .Knight-Ridder news service; and Gannett. FAIR also reported what big money people are on their Board of Directors. Because the list of commercial donors and other big businesses is too large to repeat it will be in the form of a long footnote. The powerful businesses of Bristol-Meyers Squibb; Carlyle Group; Chase Manhattan; Metropolitan Life; PepsiCo; Ford;, Sears; and Texaco; are show here, in order to show what powerful names are on the Board of Directors at the New York Times. At Rupert Murdoch owned FOXnewscorp, the a sampling of the Board of Directors shows a connection from his native country, which includes: the Commonwealth Bank of Australia; New York Stock Exchange; and Worldcom. At Disney/ABC a sampling of the Board of Directors includes: Boeing; FedEx; Northwest Airlines; Sun Microsystems; and Xerox. At General Electric/NBC, one will find some of the most influential companies taking up seats on its Board of Directors including the all powerful: Chase Manhattan; Coca-Cola; Honeywell; Internet Security Systems; Morgan Chase & Co; Microtune; New York Stock Exchange; and Texaco. At Viacom/CBS its Board of Directors list is also quite formidable represented by Amazon.com; American Express; Chase Manhattan; Dell, Honeywell; Morgan Chase & Co; New York Stock Exchange; Pfizer; Prudential Insurance; and Verizon. At AOL/Time Warner, there interests on the Board of Directors is not a too shabby list either as it has the following which is evident of the all-powerful media in America: Allstate; American Express; Dell Computers; Morgan Stanley Dean Witter; New York Stock Exchange; PepsiCo Pfizer; Pharmacyclics; and Sears. (30)

In American foreign policy circles, the right wing’s beliefs have shaped the present day tactical strategy. The neoconservatives inherent in the Bush administration and past Republican administrations are “former liberals“ who had been opponents of communism during the Cold War era. When the threat of communism ended they saw the new threat to America as the “rising threat of global terrorism.” (31) These neocons who have worked in tandem with the Christian Right are backers of hard-lined Israeli policies against their Muslim neighbors and hold a very stereotypical viewpoint of Islam. Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz in the Bush administration who is part of this neoconservative base of the Republican Party whose strategy advocates ending the containment policies of the Cold War era on favor of pre-emptive strikes, unilateral action, ending previous arms treaties, undermining international agreements, which is consistent with their anti-pluralistic and anti-multicultural agenda as they try to show the United Nations as ineffective body. Berlet and Hardisty point out both the neocons and the Christian Right claim to be for just “traditional” moral values” which is geared primarily towards men in an effort to “mobilize resentment among predominantly White middle class and working class constituencies,” by playing upon emotions in a benign way. Their argument constructed in political jargon, has been repetitive, in saying there has been an “erosion of traditional privileges” that was once the staple of an entire white male structure. (32)

With the organization of the conservative base which has taken advantage of the “role that special interest money plays in national politics,” they have been successful in getting their core message out to the American people for less government, less taxes, and no handouts in the public sector. Callahan also points out that “the single issue focus of many liberal and left institutions, and their failure to develop and communicate to the American electorate an overarching public philosophy” has given way to conservative policy think tanks which have “multi-issue organizations with multi-million dollar budgets” as they “pursue bold structural reforms,” from their “broad public philosophy” by “tying specific policy initiatives,” as part of the overall plans. During the Clinton years there was an enormous growth of activism considered to be “a period of continued institution-building by political conservatives.” (33)

In the present day the right-wing has another very active member who has banded together with other groups in their anti-liberal agenda. Grover Norquist's famous Wednesday meetings where conservatives map out their agenda and strategy discussing ideas but more importantly to turn back liberalism using any device necessary with no compromises. Norquist speaks to a wide array of right-wing groups which includes, Christian groups, financial groups, and social groups. The Republicans also hold their yearly revival meeting known as the Convention of the Conservative Political Action Committee meeting, where grass-roots activists from around the country are called into battle and given their marching orders for the conservative cause to defeat liberalism. (34) The criticism which think tank “scholarship” provides reflects the view of the neoconservatives and many of the views of the Bush administration and the pro-GOP representatives on cable news talk shows. This wave of anti-Muslim and anti-liberal bias is part of a greater conservative strategy that has been the backbone of the GOPAC meetings of Newt Gingrich and Grover Nordquist which is reflected in the words and writings of extremists such as Ann Coulter and Daniel Pipes, which are cleverly marketed as packaged items.

With the tight hold on Congress by the Bush administration, one cannot say with a straight face that social engineering is not absent within the GOP agenda. This is evident with the American Enterprise Institute which has a strict view in how Federalism should be implemented in the United States. According to Simon Lazarus, Michael Greve, who serves as the director of the Federalism Project of the American Enterprise Institute, has pushed for “the federal judiciary not only to give the states exclusive authority over designated areas,” but in the tradition of the old ideas of Federalism, allowing “the courts (to) bar the states from delegating their authority back to the federal government -- precisely to force state health, environmental, safety, welfare and similar programs to compete in regulatory “races to the bottom.”” (36)The same people involved in attacking intellectual freedom and the rights of free speech to speak out against bad government policy are also involved in the current stream of right wing think tanks. (37) Without this right-wing resurgence, laws such as the Patriot Act and criticizing administration policies of President Bush would not be so vilified in mainstream America.