Photo Credit: Shutterstock.com
May 27, 2013
|
One of the all-time greatest hits of right-wing pundits is the
insistence on a “liberal bias” in the media. Journalist and historian
Eric Alterman exposed this myth in his 2003 book,
What Liberal Media?
yet it persists, often resulting in mainstream media outlets caving to a
strategy known as “working the refs,” in which shrill cries of bias
cause journalists and pundits to privilege right-leaning perspectives so
they won’t be accused.
A disturbing example of this trend haunts the pages of the
New York Times,
in which the pernicious work of the decidedly right-wing Peter G.
Peterson Institute is treated as ideologically unbiased while that of
other organizations across the spectrum are consistently mentioned along
with an ideological tag; often one designed to misguide readers on the
actual nature of the organization’s agenda.
Let’s take a tour of the NYT archives.
When the Koch-backed Cato Institute is mentioned, the label “libertarian” tends to appear. An
article
about Ben Bernanke’s stance on China’s currency undervaluation, for
example, tells us that “speakers at a conference in Washington,
organized by the libertarian Cato Insitute warned that the Fed’s
monetary policy could lead to asset-price bubbles….” The ideological tag
alerts the reader to take the assertion with a grain of salt. The
obviously right-wing Heritage Foundation is usually tag-less and never
characterized as “right-leaning,” but occasionally the term “
conservative” will appear when it is mentioned.
The Obama-supporting Center for American Progress is alternatively described as “
liberal” or “
center left”
as in this article: “The center-left Center for American Progress
opened in 2003 when the Democrats were in political exile.” The
Institute for Policy Studies is
called a “left-leaning think tank in Washington.” (AlterNet, on the rare occasion it is mentioned, is
described as a “left-leaning news site.”)
Third Way, a
big money front group whose governing board is totally dominated by Wall Street financiers, is absurdly
characterized as a “moderately left-wing think tank,” when in fact, as
Bill Black has pointed out, it is dedicated to a right-wing agenda of shredding the social safety net and imposing self-destructive austerity on America.
Which
brings us to the case of the Peter G. Peterson Institute, which backs
Third Way. Pete Peterson, the founder and principal doner of this
“policy center” is a conservative Republican billionaire who made his
money as a Wall Street hedge fund manager and served as secretary of
commerce under President Richard Nixon. He has devoted himself and his
billions to promoting deficit hysteria and convincing the public that
programs like Social Security and Medicare will destroy the economy. His
economic policies come from the far right and his organization is
dedicated to producing propaganda masquerading as serious research. He
has a huge and well-paid staff (and one of them will be contacting me
after the publication of this article attempting to brow-beat me into
telling lies about their boss).
The mythology promoted by Peterson
has done incalculable harm to America. His belief in the absurd
efficient market theory, in which financial markets magically regulate
themselves, has helped produce widespread and continuing fraud
epidemics. He has consistently pushed austerity (based, as we now know,
on the
discredited research of Harvard economists Reinhart and Rogoff) which has led to job loss, economic stagnation and untold misery for millions.
Yet something interesting happens when you type Peterson Institute” into the
New York Timesonline archives.
Nowhere do you see the phrase “right-leaning.” When you do see a
descriptor at all, it’s one of praise – Adam Davidson of the NYT
Magazine, always eager to show off his affection for economic quacks,
refers to the Peterson Institute
as a “prominent Washington policy group.” The fact that the Peterson
Institute never receives an ideogical tag conveys that its positions are
neutral, and therefore highly credible.
Which is absolute bunk.
On
Saturday, May 25, the NYT ran a front-page story purporting to examine a
new trend in Chinese economic policy, a topic of great importance to
readers. Quotations in the article come from bank officials, a Chinese
government website, politicians, and exactly one think tank
representative, Nicholas R. Lardy, “a senior fellow at the Peterson
Institute for International Economics and an authority on the Chinese
economy.” The reader is not informed that the positions of the Peterson
Institute will tend to include free market fundamentalist economic
theories that focus on discrediting economic stimulus, driving down
wages and curbing regulation. All of these positions appear in the
article, without any counterweight.
For what many people still
consider the paper of record, this kind of reporting merely muddles the
record and allows propaganda to disguise itself as truth.
Lynn Parramore is an
AlterNet senior editor. She is cofounder of Recessionwire, founding
editor of New Deal 2.0, and author of 'Reading the Sphinx: Ancient Egypt
in Nineteenth-Century Literary Culture.' She received her Ph.d in
English and Cultural Theory from NYU, where she has taught essay writing
and semiotics. She is the Director of AlterNet's New Economic Dialogue
Project. Follow her on Twitter @LynnParramore.
No comments:
Post a Comment