Chris on 
The only time I listen to the radio is in the car on the way to work. I decided in high school (after being a lifeguard force fed WIFC all summer) that I did not want to listen to the radio. But, I tune in most mornings and listen. Recently I listened to Jerry Bader and a man Brian Sikma take a Marshfield reporter named Logan T. Carlson to task. I found the attack to be very demonstrative of a question I often wonder about.
Bader and Sikma made constant reference to the “Mainstream Media” in what can only be considered a denigrating manner, as if somehow the mainstream media was incompetent and a negative thing. And this made me wonder, what is the mainstream media? And I wonder this both as someone who has worked in media most of my adult life and as someone who is acutely aware that words have meaning.
Logan Carlson is a young reporter for the Marshfield newspaper owned by Gannett. After just a bit of digging it appears that Carlson has been assigned the education beat, and he seems to be pursuing it with a bit of vigor.
According the website for his newspaper, the Marshfield News-Herald has a afternoon circulation of 8,755. The City of Marshfield has a population of roughly 19,000 people. So, within Marshfield the newspaper reaches less than half of the population. If we factor in children, let us say that the newspaper reaches half. If we add a few thousand people who look online, but not that many since the Gannett firewall took over, we can safely say that the paper reaches maybe 10,000.
Jerry Bader on the other hand is carried by three stations. WTAQ in Green Bay. Green Bay has a population of 105,809. Jerry also appears on WHBL in Sheboygan. Sheboygan has a population of 49,135. And Jerry appears here in Wausau. Wausau has a population of 39,213. This is without factoring in the reach of the transmission to supporting communities. This is a grand total of 194,157 people. Even if we discount the roughly 50% like happens with the Marshfield newspaper we are still 97,078. If you factor in visitors, people on the internet, I think it is fair to say that the radio station reaches 100,000 people every day.
100,000 people is ten times more than 10,000 people. It used to be that mainstream was a measure of people reached. The Rolling Stones are a more mainstream band than The Jesus Lizard. You know the model.
So, by that model the mainstream is Jerry Bader. He has a considerably larger reach, listenership, and by extension influence than Logan T. Carlson.
Now, the issue that Bader and Sikma had with Carlson was his unwillingness to pursue a story about this or that. Apparently there is a left wing conspiracy, a liberal media bias, or a mainstream media something or other in play. There was a bit of a back and forth on twitter, and Sikma and Bader took to the airwaves to talk about the mainstream media, and they elevated this guy Carlson as the poster boy.
You see, according to them, Carlson was a college democrat, helped with his county democratic party, and this all discounted him from having journalistic judgement. On a side note, I really thought it was something that they failed to mention that Logan did two tours in Iraq. So, instead of the Pavloving thanking a soldier for his service, they just forget to mention it. (So thanks for your service, Logan.)
But, this brings me back to this idea of what the mainstream media is these days? You hear it in almost a constant drumbeat from Rush, O’Reilly, Beck, Hannity, Palin (though she does the even cooler LAMESTREAM media), Coulter, Malkin and all the rest. Rachel Maddow talks about the Beltway media.
What does Bader mean? I think Bader means that the voices of the right have taken on this sort of outsider status, this almost martyr or victim mythology. They have claimed this sense of disenfranchisment for themselves. Even thought Rush is the largest radio voice in the country, and Fox has a massive share of the cable audience each night for Hannity and O’Reilly. They invoke this idea that the news is not covering a story or not covering it properly. And as a result the people are not learning what they need to learn about something.
I hardly find this to be true. Further, I hardly find it close to true in the case of Jerry Bader. I am not sure when the last time a Democrat was on his show, even to disagree with Jerry and have a back and forth discussion on something. But, I know I have heard from a Republican governor on his show.
So, has the word “mainstream media” been used by the right leaning media in this country long enough now that it is a negative? When I say “mainstream media,” does it mean something different than when Sean Hannity says it?
How can Jerry Bader or Rush Limbaugh invoke this sort of mythology of outsider when all the numbers indicate that they are the largest voices in their markets, with the largest reach and the most significant influence? So, does Mainstream just mean Democrat or Liberal at this point? Are people like Bader, Limbaugh and Hannity on the outside looking in?
When I hear the term “mainstream media” it tells me more about the speaker than the subject. It makes me think the speaker is a Fox news watcher and Tea Partier.
This is really good stuff, Dino.
Has the term “mainstream media” ever been used in a sense that is not negative? What it has evolved into is a simple ‘ad hominem’ attack. When a news source is labelled ‘mainstream media’ the implication is simply that whatever it says cannot be seen as being true. So the statement is simply declared to be false because of its origin.
Your use of the phrase “mythology of outsider” is a good one. There is an attempt to create a linkage between the listener and the radio voice as both being the outsiders. The fact, as you mention, that the conservative media dominates the airwaves as well as the ratings is irrelevant. The image is that of the small group of true believers with the real knowledge versus everyone else. Reality plays no part in it.
Here’s another example – a recent letter to the WDH supported the Pat Snyder candidacy. One of the attributes cited (and based on his performance on his show) was that whether or not Snyder agreed with the caller he was always willing to listen to the caller, was always respectful and was always tolerant of others’ point of view. The reality, of course, based on listening to the show was something quite different. But that doesn’t matter. Snyder and the letter writer are both involved in this myth of the outsider. Like Snyder or not, it is difficult for anyone to say with a straight face that he was always respectful and tolerant of caller’s viewpoints – or those of Tom King for that matter. It suits the myth if not the truth, and it is the myth that matters.
Yeah Matt, I am not sure it was ever good. But, now it is a sort of political litmus test.
The right seems to use it as a way to say…DEMOCRAT, LIBERAL, that other guy who sucks.
Any time the news source some people are listening to says something they don’t agree with, they claim the entire news source is biased towards the other side of the argument.
“Mainstream Media” has been adopted by many speakers on the far right political spectrum for any outlet that doesn’t agree with them. They immediately dismiss anything they do not want to hear as propaganda from liberals and claim the liberals control the media.
Anything the left leaning groups disagree with they’ll call “Faux News”, even if it wasn’t heard on a Fox news channel. They immediately dismiss anything they don’t want to hear as well. Rebecca illustrated that well.
It’s yet another sign of how intolerant both sides have become towards any ideas aside from their own. If you disagree you must be instantly labeled and tossed aside.
In Rebecca’s defense, at least two research studies – one from Fairleigh Dickinson and the other from the University of Maryland – showed that people who said they got their news from Fox News were less informed than those who said they got their news from other, let’s call them ‘mainstream media’ sources.
Also, since the term ‘mainstream’ media is used almost exclusively on right wing broadcasts, including
Fox News, identifying someone who uses the term as a watcher of Fox News isn’t such an extreme notion. And it certainly isn’t immediately dismissive. It simply says that people who use the phrase are right wingers and not as well informed as people who get their news from sources other then Fox News. Both, as general statements, are fairly easily defended.
Also, can you please identify a left wing politician of the stature of Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachman who has used the term “faux news” to discredit a story? I not sure that your assertion that left wingers dismiss things as ‘faux news’ with anyway near the frequency as you suggest. And I further doubt that any progressives or liberals of consequence use the term to the degree that influential right wingers use the term “mainstream media”.
I don’t doubt the results of the study you cited. But it’s still prejudice. Prejudging someone and dismissing them.
This discussion wasn’t only about politicians saying it. Dino’s original post was about radio hosts. My post didn’t mention just politicians using it.
Left leaning commentators use “Faux News” all the time. Bill Maher, Chris Matthews, Jon Stewart, etc. It’s a common theme with those programs that have millions of listeners and supporters. Two of the above shows I absolutely love by the way.
“But it’s still prejudice. Prejudging someone and dismissing them.”
Well, it’s not necessarily prejudice. Remember Rebecca’s comment “When I hear the term “mainstream media” it tells me more about the speaker than the subject. It makes me think the speaker is a Fox news watcher and Tea Partier.” As I pointed out people who follow right wing media are not only less well informed, they also tend to use the term ‘mainstream media’. Rebecca’s simply pointed that out. And, as a general statement, it can be proven. So it’s a truthful statement, not a prejudicial one. It was you who decided that somehow she was dismissing them or their argument (if simple namecalling called be raised to the level of an argument) without considering it. You might be right, but you have no proof of that, which I think meets your own criterion for prejudice.
“Anything the left leaning groups disagree with they’ll call “Faux News”, even if it wasn’t heard on a Fox news channel”. That is a simple overgeneralization. Are you saying that there has never been a single issue that one left leaning group has criticized without claiming it came from “Faux News”? Because, if you are, you’re wrong. and if you’re not, then even you don’t accept the accuracy of your generalization.
“Left leaning commentators use “Faux News” all the time. Bill Maher, Chris Matthews, Jon Stewart, etc. It’s a common theme with those programs that have millions of listeners and supporters’” I follow Jon Stewart and Bill Maher regularily (and Chris Matthews sometimes) I cannot remember a single time any of them has used the term ‘faux news’. I don’t deny that they may have used the term (nor do I deny that they are all critical of Fox News)but I do contest your assertion that their use of the term ‘faux news’ is a common theme. I don’t claim to have a encyclopedic knowledge of what they have uttered. However I do believe that if the use of ‘faux news’ was a “common theme” I could recall at least one or two times they did it.
But another consideration, especially for Maher and Stewart, is that when they criticize something from Fox News they follow the criticism with an explanation of why the Fox News statement and/or action is untrue. The right wingers when they use the term “mainstream media” (or Sarah Palin’s “lamestream media”) often simply dismiss the statement as false because of the source and offer no evidence that the statement is untrue.
It’s not prejudice to dismiss a statement as untrue if you have evidence to demonstrate that it is. But is is prejudice to dismiss a statement as untrue simply because of who said it.
The tiniest of tinies…I now find it awesome that I can name the likes of Maher, O’Reilly, J-Stew…but I have a hard time recalling the anchors for the big three.
What is a television journalist? What is a pundit? What is a comedienne?
Brian Sikma is a paid right-wing operative with Media Trackers, which sometimes tries to pretend to look like it has something to do with actual journalism. It doesn’t. Media Trackers is about as non-partisan at the Tea Party.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/05/media-trackers-opposition-research-wisconsin-dark-money
As propagandists themselves, neither Bader nor Sikma would seem to be in much of a position to complain about anything even remotely resembling legitimate news media. It would be like Larry Flynt complaining about a photo in the Marshfield Herald showing too much cleavage or something. And while it is true that Jerry Bader has a lot larger coverage area than the Marshfield Herald, the newspaper has far great influence and penetration within its market area than Bader does.
Hello, I found this blog after being confused, by multiple people, as a Fox news educated right-winger, not because I said anything remotely right-wing, but because I used the word “mainstream”.
I believe in socialism, and I’ve used the word “mainstream” long before Fox because my views were so dramatically different than any of those portrayed on TV or in papers. It was as if nobody in the world thought the way I did. Naturally, that seemed unlikely, so I began to consider it an intentional marginalization. I define mainstream as the range of views that is treated with respect in the dominant culture and have very often considered myself outside of the mainstream.