The mainstream media is often criticized for having a political bias. Conservatives claim it’s a liberal bias. And they are right. Liberals claim it’s a conservative bias. They are right too. The fact is that there is no shortage of bias that can be found coming from either end of the political spectrum. Often its an unavoidable byproduct in the creation of news and public interest stories. The problem is not so much with the bias itself but with the way in which it’s passed off as objectivity.
When I worked as a newspaper editor I was open and honest with my readers that I had a conservative, Republican-leaning bias. My goal, of course, was to be as objective as possible. But I knew that an unconscious bias would slip thru from time to time and that my audience should be aware of that fact. Rather than being offended by the admission, my newspapers subscribers appreciated my candor and knew that they had to apply a bit of “Kentucky windage” to our reporting in order to correct for my inherent conservative slant.
On most issues I went out of my way to be fair, even adopting a policy where I would count the number of political stories to ensure that local Democratic political candidates received the same amount of coverage as their Republican opponents. I instituted the change after I became keenly aware that I was developing a “selection bias.” On every editorial page, for example, I would include three syndicated editorial cartoons. Not once, however, did I ever run a cartoon that was directly critical of the President (which drastically limited the number I was able to choose from each week). The fact that most readers would have never noticed this selection bias made it all the more insidious. What was left “unsaid” had a powerful way of framing a particular point of view.
I was reminded of this after reading a recent AP article on country music. The story, which has all the typical fingerprints of “liberal media bias”, begins with the misleading headline, “Country music radio full of pro-war songs.” As a fan of country music, I listen to it almost daily. Since 911, I believe there have been about five songs that are overtly “pro-war.” With most radio stations have a rotating list of the forty most popular songs that change from week-to-week, the release of five songs over a three-year period is hardly evidence of a dominant theme.
The bias jumps out again in the lede graph, “Country music artists are hardly united in their support of the war in Iraq -- but you'd never know it from listening to the radio.” The evidence for such a claim?
“Willie Nelson, Merle Haggard and Nanci Griffith released anti-war, or at least questioning, songs that went nowhere.”
Willie Nelson and Merle Haggard have never been the “rally around the flag” types to begin with so their inclusion in this list is hardly surprising. But the fact that these country legends haven’t had many hits over the past few decades probably has more to do with their song’s lack of airplay than with the content of their songs. And Nanci Griffith, who shouldn’t even be classified as a country artist, has never had a hit (and unless she learns to sing, she probably never will).
The story makes a point of clarifying that not all country musicians are “conservative.” They prove this by referring to “alt-country icons”, Emmylou Harris, Steve Earle, Rosanne Cash, and Lucinda Williams. Again, none of these singers are staples on country radio nor are they representative of the genre as a whole. The fact that the reporter never mentions a singer who is both anti-war and has had a recent top-40 hit, is indicative of his obvious lack of knowledge on the subject.
The article concludes that even if a “hot contemporary artist” produced an anti-war song it would “fizzle” and fail to connect with country listeners. This is probably true, though, as Kenny Rogers (the one who has had more success with chicken than music lately) notes:
"I don't know of a successful song that has said 'We need to stop this,"' he said. "But I do think if one were written well and had an honest thought process behind it and was not strictly politically driven, radio would play it."
From this article we learn that country music is “full of pro-war songs”, that songs that are anti-war don’t get airplay, that country music fans don’t want such songs anyway, that pro-war songs have reached saturation levels, that Al Franken thinks that stifling free speech is a bad thing, that some “country musicians” who aren’t really country musicians are against the war, that these people who are never played on country radio still don’t get airplay, that country fans don’t want anti-war songs, and that a chicken entrepreneur thinks that if a non-political anti-war song (whatever that means) was well written it would get played.
But even with all the open bias in the article, an even more important selection bias is in effect. The AP thinks it's note-worthy to point out the paucity of anti-war songs within the country music genre. But why didn’t they ask a more obvious question: why are there no pro-war songs in any other popular genre of music? Isn’t it odd that there has not been one pro-war song produced by a pop, rock, rap, or R&B musician that is played on the radio? Why is it assumed that all these musicians would be anti-war? Is this a case of what Al Franken refers to as, “"a chilling effect on what people felt they could or couldn't say”?
In order to become well-informed citizens, we must always be mindful of bias in the media. But the failure of reporters and editors to be objective is only one aspect of the problem. We are often keenly aware of the bias that we see and hear. It’s the bias that we don’t see that should cause us the most concern.
I suppose it would come as a surprise to the AP writer to find out that a majority of country music fans are from the "red states," and would prefer to hear music that lifts up our country and armed forces, instead of tearing down. Station managers will play what the audience wants to hear, regardless of what Al Franken says.
If it's a question of bias in programming, then the issue is whether songs with a certain message are being systematically kept out of certain formats.
You yourself report that major country artists have written anti-war songs that have not been put into rotation.
You explain this by saying that "the fact that these country legends haven’t had many hits over the past few decades probably has more to do with their song’s lack of airplay than with the content of their songs." You seem to imply that these artists are no longer popular, or are on the fringes of "real" country music. Possibly so, but it is hard to imagine that Willie Nelson just can't find an audience these days. And it requires a specific decision from programmers whether to put songs into rotation or not. For some reason, country programmers have decided that Willie Nelson and Merle Haggard aren't good enough for country-music radio when they sing against the war.
So, we have one data point: major country artists who have in the past been well-represented on country radio have not had their anti-war songs played.
Now, how about the other side of the question: is there a systematic exclusion of pro-war songs from non-country radio? You note (I assume correctly - I wouldn't know) that there are no such songs on pop stations. But you do not offer any evidence that any such songs are being excluded. You imply that there are pro-war pop singers out there, but name no names, and cite no songs they have written that are available to pop radio. By your own (lack of) evidence, there actually are no pro-war pop stars. Certainly if there were, it would be in the news - their songs would be heard on their albums and in concerts, and they no doubt would be getting into highly-publicized hissy fits with left-leaning stars at benefit concerts. I don't follow pop music closely, but I'm not aware of any such controversies.
So, we have another (missing) data point: there is no evidence that pro-war pop songs are languishing due to the decisions of pop-music radio programmers.
I am aware of Clear Channel's heavy-handed promotion of pro-war rallies, its banning of - not just anti-war, but even vaguely pro-peace - songs in the runup to the Iraq war, and the organized protests against anti-war artists such as the . . . Dixie Chicks, and their banning from playlists on some country stations.
Thus, yet another data point: there is long-standing evidence of the promotion of pro-war music in certain music venues, and of the exclusion of anti-war or anti-Bush artists, especially in country-music venues.
All the evidence - some of it circumstantial, some of it openly acknowledged - points to the systematic exclusion of anti-war views from country radio. There is no evidence that any songs with contrary messages have been excluded from pop radio - there is in fact no evidence that there are any such pop songs to begin with. Certainly no dominant national broadcasting conglomerate has banned pro-war singers from its stations, organized protests against the war, or publicized protests and CD-burnings aimed at pro-war artists. That's right-wing behavior.
The issue is complicated, as you note, by the question who is "really" a country musician, and also by the limits of the Top-40 format (some artists, such as Nanci Griffith, may be very popular but be under-represented on radio because they do not have one of the 40 most-played songs at any given moment). Well-known artists do fade over time, and some artists who sell lots of albums and concert tickets may not fit mainstream radio formats. However, there is plenty of room in radio for any popular artist (no station follows a Top-40 format literally, or they would have only 40 songs to play in a given week). When well-known and highly popular artists do have songs available and those songs are deliberately excluded from playlists, there is at least a suspicion that there is a reason for the exclusion other than the circular logic of the Top-40 (where the songs that get played the most are the songs that are popular, as determined by which songs get played the most). That suspicion becomes more accute when the silent exclusion from radio parallels the open and public exclusion of the same or sympathetic artists for the express reason of having voiced anti-war opinions.
Your own evidence (or lack thereof) runs exactly counter to the claims you make.
There are plenty of pro-war songs in traditional Celtic music. Seems I remember a few pro-war American folk songs, too. Remember "The Battle of New Orleans", made popular by Johnny Horton but better-performed by the writer, Jimmy Driftwood?
I think Nanci Griffith has a lovely voice, by the way. No Christmas music collection is complete without her rendition (accompanied by The Chieftains) of "The Wexford Carol".
As for the country music pro-war bias, it merely reflects the views of country music fans. I play in darts tournaments at a lot of country bars, and Toby Keith's "put a boot in their ass" lyrics seem to resonate with country music fans.
Rob:
I play in darts tournaments at a lot of country bars
You have my condolences.
Tgirsch: You'd be surprised at what eclectic crowds often appear at these tounaments, despite the venue. And some of the backwoods denizens of these rustic watering holes are my great pals. We generally avoid politics and religion in conversation, though. We stick to family, sports, recreation, entertainment, etc. The music, though, can be quite tiresome at times.
"Certainly no dominant national broadcasting conglomerate has banned pro-war singers from its stations, organized protests against the war, or publicized protests and CD-burnings aimed at pro-war artists."
I supposed no RADIO broadcasting conglomerate has done these things, but there is ample evidence that national TV broadcasting conglomerates have banned pro-war persepectives, heavily publicized anti-war protests (while calling the advertising "news"), promoted and celebrated those who are anti-war to the exclusion of pro-war voices, promoted anti-administration books while pretending to have no tie to the publication, etc. etc.
"That's right-wing behavior." Really? Never happened by the left, eh? Pretty broad statement of fact. How's about some actual evidence, rather than extending your few and highly selective data points beyond reason?