The myth of the liberal media

Myths are difficult things to destroy. They have a compelling way of simplifying and organizing the world that can make them immune to facts and reason. I am reminded of this by the surprising number of people I talk with -- seemingly intelligent people -- who still mindlessly accept the long-ago disproved myth of the liberal media.

Created as a cynical tool of the conservative political machine during the Reagan years, the myth of the liberal media's existence has been used to brush aside and discredit any sort of damaging national news about Republican candidates and campaigns for more than two decades. It is a lie that persists, but it is still a lie.

I understand that I am in one of the few places on Earth still approving of the "Decider's" performance as president. That fact is no doubt indicative of a level of intelligence in the local population that is particularly receptive to mythology. I would urge anyone under the illusion of a liberally biased media in this country to look at the latest crystal-clear example of exactly the opposite playing out as the 2008 Presidential Election gets underway.

Look at how the mainstream American media are treating one of Utah's favorites among the major Republican contenders, compared to the treatment of the past two Democratic standard bearers. Tell me if you honestly believe Mitt Romney is being held to the same standard of credibility as John Kerry or Al Gore during their respective runs at the White House.

Recall that during the 2000 election, Al Gore was relentlessly savaged by the mainstream media as a serial exaggerator. So consistent was the media attack on his character that it rapidly became part of the conventional wisdom about him that lasts to this day. There were two relatively trivial things that fueled this media attack.

During an interview early in the campaign, Gore gave a complicated explanation of his real role in facilitating the development of the Internet, which somehow became interpreted as a claim that he actually sat down and invented the entire thing himself. Then, during one of the debates, he confused two different disaster areas he had flown over and two different cabinet officials with whom he'd flown. That's about it. The hunt was on.

The 2004 election cycle was déjà vu, only this time the conventional wisdom generated the mainstream media about Kerry was that he was a flip-flopper with no core beliefs, and he would do or say whatever he needed to do or say to get power.

As proof of this, the media seized on his poorly worded explanation about having voted for a war funding bill before he voted against it. This statement actually makes perfect sense to anyone with even minimal understanding of how the legislative process works and how things can change as they become law. Somehow, it was made to seem ridiculous, and soon Kerry seemed ridiculous to most people.

Now, compare those two election cycles to what has happened so far during this one. We have barely gotten out of the primary starting gate and already Romney has claimed that he watched his dad march with Martin Luther King Jr. -- which didn't actually happen -- and talked about his childhood as an avid hunter, which turned out to mean that he shot at a couple of squirrels once with a pellet gun.

He breathlessly declared in a recent speech that the next 10 years would bring more change in the world than the previous thousand years, and no one laughed. Really, Mitt? The world will change more in the next 10 years than it has changed between the Dark Ages and now? Imagine if Gore had made a statement like that.

Romney has also been for gun control, civil unions, gay rights and abortion rights before he was against them. At least Kerry's changing positions were in response to changing facts. Romney's ideological gymnastics are obviously in response to the changing values of the voters he is trying to woo.

Yet, Romney offers awkward, inadequate explanations for all of this and the media response is, "Oh, OK then," and the subject is dropped. Whenever Gore and Kerry tried to explain their gaffes, the media response was, "Oh, give us a break!" and not-so-subtle suggestions that they were mentally imbalanced. That is the definition of a double standard.

So, a liberal bias in the media? Where? I don't see it. The next time you catch someone blabbering on about the "librul media" or you catch yourself doing it, think of the easy ride Romney is getting right now.

letters@chronicle.utah.edu