Weekend Edition January 13-15, 2012
Why the New York Times is So Hawkish
The “Liberal” Media and American Foreign Policy
A recent article by Robert Naiman (Al Jazeera, Jan. 9) examines
the New York Times’ current coverage of Iran’s nuclear program. In it he
exposes a disappointing but unsurprising mishandling of the facts.
References to the paper’s shameful prewar reportage on Iraq and Saddam
Hussein’s regime are appropriate. But if the Times is indeed liberal,
why the repeated adoption and promotion of misleading, hawkish
assumptions?
The New York Times could probably be fairly described as liberal. The
term has lost much relevance and meaning in recent years, along with
its counterpart designation “conservative.” But if we apply the label
generally to mean mildly progressive and roughly approximating the
political center, one could reasonably assert that the Times falls
within range of the liberal framework. (I would argue it’s
right-of-center, but will remain general for present purposes.) The
paper’s editorial positions on domestic issues and social policy are
safely categorized as such. When it comes to gun control, abortion, gay
rights, immigration and so on, the paper is in the vicinity of the
center (it is important to bear in mind that liberalism is a centrist
philosophy, not a leftist one). Moreover, key members of the paper’s
staff – former executive editor Bill Keller, former public editor Daniel
Okrent – have openly admitted as much.
Naturally, the New York Times’ orientation reflects, for the
most part, the opinions and attitudes of those who work for the paper
and those who read it. According to the Times’ media kit, their
readership tends to be educated, has a median age of 49, and a median
household income of $99,654; of the paper’s 4.78 million readers, 12
percent are “C-suite/top management.” The nation’s third largest daily
newspaper, the Times offers a window into the professional and
intellectual culture(s) in the United States. In other words, and
taken broadly, the paper reflects the view of the class running the
country – at the managerial level – as well as playing a considerable
role in influencing opinion. When rightwing commentators dismiss
the Times as catering to the East Coast liberal Establishment, in a
way, they are not totally out of bounds. The
professional-managerial-academic culture tends to be liberal in its
positions on domestic social policy. But then there are matters of
state.
The New York Times’ coverage during the run-up to the
invasion of Iraq (i.e., weapons of mass destruction) was largely in-step
with the Bush II administration. At the time, similarly woeful coverage
could also be heard on National Public Radio, another news outlet
safely described as liberal. In both cases, the two proportionally
increased their support for the White House and State Department
rhetoric concerning post-9/11 policy. Even when the United States is not
about to invade and occupy a country, coverage of official Washington’s
core interests is generally gracious. Discussing same-sex marriage, or
in-depth features on race, poverty, or the environment are well and good
– and, it should be noted, politically inexpensive – but the principal
doctrines of US state power are usually treated gently, with criticism
taking place within acceptable limitations: talk of tactical matters,
mistakes, misjudgments, and lack of planning instead of fundamental
issues like international law, human rights, misuse and mistreatment of
the military, economic burden, and further inspiration of terrorist
reprisal.
Simply put, this change in behavior represents the liberal parameters
of American political discourse: basically progressive on domestic
issues; basically compliant on matters of statecraft and foreign policy.
This too, again taken broadly, reflects the thinking of the class
reading the New York Times. Given the connections between
government, the corporate sector, and academia – and the frequent
migration between the three – it is somewhat predictable that there be
a measure of uniformity in the thinking throughout. Upbringing,
schooling, social groups, competition for positions: members of the
professional class grow up being taught the assumptions that point to
and/or serve class interests, or that at least allow one to blend in.
Going along and getting along are essential to advancement.
The population, on the other hand, is less constrained in its
thinking and represents the true political center. Its majoritarian
views are comparably liberal in the domestic-social realm: between 60
and 75 percent on most policy issues, not including gun control and the
legalization of non-medicinal marijuana. And the public’s
progressiveness continues into the domain of foreign affairs.
So an otherwise liberal newspaper handling foreign-policy issues in a
manner not dissimilar to those news organizations owned and operated by
authoritarian states, is sadly to be expected. But it needn’t be
tolerated. If we are to better understand issues like the Middle East,
we need better information. Among the Times’ class of readers
exists a pride in belonging to an enlightened, progressive social
stratum – a personal observation made over now many years. This is not
to suggest they are bad people; they’ve just never been told anything
else. Much like the subject of Iran, the ingrained orthodoxies prevail.
However, to truly progress beyond the demarcations of acceptable liberal
discourse, the barrier between the domestic and foreign spheres needs
to be dismantled. In this endeavor, the public has the lead. In this
endeavor, the population is the vanguard.
GREGORY HARMS is an independent scholar focusing on American foreign relations and the Middle East. He is the author of The Palestine-Israel Conflict: A Basic Introduction (2nd ed., Pluto Press, 2008), and Straight Power Concepts in the Middle East: US Foreign Policy, Israel, and World History (Pluto Press, 2010) and the 2012 forthcoming It’s Not about Religion (Perceval Press).
