PW: Why did you want to write What Liberal Media?
Eric Alterman: [Because of] frustration at the power of a dangerous and destructive myth. For the past 30 years, the conservatives have been working the refs when it comes to media bias. It's working, and it's about time somebody pulled the curtain away and showed the elves at work. I wrote this book because I want to feel like I've done everything I could. I'm trying to even up the sides a little bit.
PW: If the notion of liberal media bias is a myth, how has it persisted for so long?
EA: I think the power of the myth is so strong that in the American news media, if you're not playing to the master narrative you just don't get heard. No matter how much evidence you present, unless you create an alternative narrative and give it some buzz, nobody's going to care. One good think about books that no other medium can do is that they can challenge the entire narrative.
PW: What do you mean by "master narrative"?
EA: There's a story line—you say the words "liberal media" and it conjures up a whole host of images and alleged facts that make it possible to make a case without actually making the case. It's a kind of shorthand and substitute for careful thinking, to say nothing of actual journalistic proof.
PW: At points in your book, you sound very pessimistic, saying it's impossible to get across complex ideas in our sound-bite—driven media. Is the future bleak for public discourse?
EA: Yes. I think that television will always be what it is, largely an entertainment medium that is hostile to ideas. But ideas have to come from somewhere. You can't articulate a new idea on television, but you can refer to ideas that appear in print or elsewhere. To some degree, the Internet could be the answer to this because of the ability it has to disseminate a large amount of information very quickly.
PW: What does it matter who we call a conservative or a liberal? Why not just focus on the issues?
EA: It matters because what the right has been able to do successfully since the early '80s is call people who are centrists, and even moderate conservatives, liberals, and give them the liberal place in a debate, so that genuine liberals are sort of laughed out of the room, not to be taken seriously. I'm a liberal. I'm not a socialist, I'm not even very much of a leftist anymore, I'm just a liberal. But I am to the left of anyone who is included in the mainstream debate, with the exception maybe of Frank Rich and Paul Krugman. But I was on Crossfire once discussing a book of mine with Bob Novak, and he said I was to the left of Khrushchev.
PW: This book is in some ways a counterargument to Slander and Bias, both of which were bestsellers. How do you account for their success?
EA: There's a conservative movement in this country, and it's big. One of the opening quotes of this book is Paul Simon's "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." I think people like to buy books that confirm what they believe they already know, and there are a lot of them on the conservative side. They're very good at getting the word out... these people are dedicated and they care about politics—they're good citizens. I wish liberals would behave more like they do.
PW: So who is your audience?
EA: My audience is the universe of sensible people. Liberals will like it, liberals will feel good about it, and to some degree I wrote it to make them feel better about the way they see the world. But I think one difference between my book and both Slander and Bias is that you don't have to see the world my way to agree with what I'm saying. I make the argument—I give you the evidence.
