The Daily Signal - How This Independent Journalist Documents Media Bias

Episode Date: June 1, 2021

The left-leaning media sometimes uses the news to promote an agenda, independent journalist Drew Holden says. Holden has become known for his Twitter threads, in which he shows how news coverage changes depending on whether the subject is a liberal or a conservative.  "What we've seen in the last couple of years," Holden says, "is a more activist stance in newsrooms to say, 'We actually have a moral duty and a fiduciary obligation to the people who read our stories, to not bring them this kind of both-sides conversation, and to instead home in on the truth,' particularly if it is opposed to someone like Donald Trump." Holden joins "The Daily Signal Podcast" to shine a light on just how bad media malfeasance is, what the resulting misinformation means for society, and how conservatives can reclaim a place in the media ecosystem. Also on today’s show, we read your letters to the editor and share a good news story about Korean War veteran Ralph Puckett, who recently received the Medal of Honor at age 94.  Enjoy the show! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is the Daily Signal podcast for Tuesday, June 1st. I'm Virginia Allen. And I'm Doug Blair. On today's show, I speak with freelance journalist Drew Holden. We discuss his work exposing media bias and some of the ways Americans can hold the media accountable. We also read your letters to the editor and share a good news story about Korean war veteran Ralph Puckett, who has just received the Medal of Honor at the age of 94. But before we get to today's show, we want to tell you about the most popular resource on the Heritage Foundation. website, The Guide to the Constitution. More than 100 scholars have contributed to create a unique line-by-line analysis of our Constitution.

The guide is intended to provide a brief and accurate explanation of each clause of the Constitution as envisioned by the framers and is applied in contemporary law. There has never been a more important time to have an understanding of our founding document. So if you want to learn more about the Constitution, go ahead and visit heritage.org slash constitution or simply search for The Heritage Guide to the Constitution. Now stay tuned for today's show, coming up next. My guest today is Drew Holden, a freelance commentary writer, whose work can be found in outlets like the New York Times,

Fox News, The Washington Post, and the National Review. Drew, thank you so much for joining me. Doug, thank you, sir. The pleasure's mine. I'm happy to be here. Absolutely. Awesome. So, Drew, you've spoken extensively about left-leaning bias in mainstream media outlets nowadays. So my question for you is, how did we get here? Is this something that's always existed and we're just known against it now, or is this a more recent phenomenon?

Yeah, you know, Doug, it's a good question. I think it's the sort of phenomenon that existed, at least in smaller part, for a really long time. They've done some studies in years past. The biggest one, I think, was at the University of Indiana around the tendency of people who become journalists to lean left and to therefore report a little bit left. That's a pretty well-known phenomenon. They've done studies and things about what percentage of the media tends to be left-of-center versus right-of-of-center. which over usually it's about three to four times as many people who identify as left of center than right of center.

And those are historical figures, right? That's always sort of been the case. And I think in a lot of senses, that's where the idea of a liberal media bias comes from. And it's nothing new, right? These are the sorts of things that George W. Bush ran on as a, you know, a problem. What I think is new and relatively recent is in the era of Donald Trump, when you've seen this real partisan break between the two parties, it's come out into the open a lot more. and it's become a lot more overstated in a way that for years, you know, you would have kind of the newsroom conservatives who would have their own view or their own bent, what have you. But it was always about how do we get to objective facts?

And some reporters might say that that has a slight liberal bias, but it was always on the margins. What we've seen in the last couple of years is a more activist stance among newsrooms to say, we actually have a moral duty, a fiduciary obligation, if you will, to the people who read our stories to not bring them this kind of both sides conversation and to, instead hone in on the truth, particularly if it is opposed to someone like Donald Trump. And where that's gotten us is I think it's taken a phenomenon that's always existed, concerned us had kind of made peace with, and really blown it out of proportion in the last couple of years. Right. I think what you're saying is that this has always sort of existed, but it was sort of contained. And now that we've gotten to this post-Trump era, this is something that's

become explicitly to the fore. I think that there's an interesting question to be asked, is even is it possible to have news media that's not objectively biased in some sort of sense? Do you believe that it's possible to have news media that doesn't have some sort of bias in it? Yeah, you know, it's a good question. I think the answer very narrowly is probably no. We'll always have biases. I mean, at the end of the day, if journalism is going to be a profession that's more or less white collar, which I think it will be, tends to be people who have master's degrees, probably went to Yale and Harvard and Columbia and other places.

It's going to continue to have a liberal bias. What I do think could exist, though, is I think that newsrooms could be more deliberate about knowing their blind spots. I think you can actually make an enormous amount of ground in making the media better by pushing to cover things in a way that isn't just aligned with the preconceived notions and biases of the folks who happen to be reporting those stories. This is something the New York Times said they were going to start doing in 2016 after Trump won, right? They had this postmortem around how, wow, how could we have missed this? How could we have gotten it so wrong? as you, I think anyone could probably see, the last five years have been borne out that project. But I do think that, you know, on its merits, a project like that is worthwhile and could probably make a lot of progress.

Right. So then sort of a follow-up question then is these organizations did post-mortems, but they didn't really do anything. Does that involve maybe fixing the problem would be hiring on, say, for the New York Times, a conservative, or would that say maybe for Fox News hiring a liberal? Would that, would that be the solution or what are we looking at here in terms of solutions? I think so. I think it's got to be more than just a tokenization, though. It can't be you have one conservative or one liberal in newsroom. I think part of it is liberal outlets in particular, right? The thing of it, too, is explicitly liberal and explicitly conservative outlets, they're going to have their own bent, right? And they're explicitly in the wiring of these different outlets, which is fine, right? People are looking for particular types of,

types of media. They're going to want to have it fit into their view of the world. My bigger concern is with mainstream media who pretend to not have a bias. And when that comes in, that I think is an enormous problem for everyday readers and listeners who just think, oh, this is just the news. These are just the facts that I'm getting. And I think for those organizations, it's incumbent upon them to make it an explicit, almost diversity-focused concern to have conservatives who are in the newsroom, to have conservatives who are at the editorial level, to have them be in the room when we're making the decisions about the stories to cover, the ways we want to cover them, sense checking things like headlines,

I think that could actually go a really, really long way in helping to restore, not all, not all of conservative trust in the media. But I think that could actually make pretty meaningful inroads. Yeah. No, I think that definitely what you're saying is that there needs to be a sense of something is being done. Otherwise, conservatives are just going to tune out and say, well, it's all just, you know, liberal hoo-ha. In terms of media bias and what the actual consequences are, I think looking at how certain networks cover certain political figures. So, for example, you've done a lot of work on the coverage of Governor Cuomo and Governor DeSantis and how they were sort of treated differently based on the biases of the networks. But

my question for you is why does it seem like in the mainstream one philosophical side is sort of outweighed by the other side? I know you've mentioned that, you know, there definitely is sort of a white collar profession, but is there any other reason why this is? Is there sort of like an intentional aspect to it? Yeah, it's a good question. You know, I think I probably differ from a lot of conservatives. My bent is that for the most part, probably not. I don't think it's delivered. I don't think it's, I don't think that people in the media profession are going out and feeling like they have to sell widgets, that they have to do it in a way that's going to get the most, the most of the audience on the left. There's certainly outlets who do more of that. MSNBC, I think

pretty openly does it. CNN, I think, is actually, unfortunately really drifted to that style of news coverage. But when you talk about like a Reuters or a New York Times, I think that really what it comes down to is who are the people who are reporting the news and what do they think their remit is in reporting that news. And so if it's a whole bunch of people whose worldview happens to be a little left-leaning, they're going to report facts and information through that lens. And then I think also my bigger concern is if they feel that their remit is broader than just informing their audience on the facts, that there's a moral obligation to tell the right story. Facts, you know, facts can get in the way of that, unfortunately. And so if the goal is to bulldoos through some of those facts and tell the

important broader story with fact checkers and context and all these other things. That to me, I think, is the big driver of most of the recent phenomenon we've seen. I think that's a really interesting point. I want to shift slightly into something you've mentioned previously. You've said that you feel like there's a crisis of misinformation in America right now. One, do you still think that we have that post-2020, post-2016? And then if we do, what is the implication of that for society as a whole? And of course, how do we handle it?

What do we do about it? Yeah, it's a great question. I mean, unfortunately, I think that we probably still do. I think some of this is sort of just endemic to a democracy. If we were going to allow different people to have differing views on really important issues, whether that's a global pandemic or anything else, then you're going to run into challenges of fact that are just going to happen. I think one of the big problems is there's a lot of incentives to not tell the truth these days. There's a lot of incentives to create information and to run with created information on,

both sides, right? This is a liberal or a conservative phenomenon. And so to me, I think that if we can tweak, if we can make changes, the way to do it is probably to encourage social media outlets to disincentivize those sorts of posts and those sorts of things that go viral, but maybe are untethered to the facts. But all of that being said, even though I certainly agree that we have this misinformation, this disinformation crisis, I can't shake the thought that any of the solutions on offer are probably worse than the disease itself. If you're putting people, be they, government or Facebook or Twitter. If we start giving people leeway to decide what is and isn't facts, we're going to, unfortunately, I think, cut ourselves off from a lot of valuable information.

The recent idea, you know, only a couple of months ago that the potential that the coronavirus had leaked from a lab in Wuhan was misinformation and disinformation according to every social media network and every media outlet up until a couple of weeks ago. And so if we, and now we're learning that actually that's a plausible, viable potential, you know, potential origin story. And so I think we have to be super careful when it comes to cutting something out of the public square. And to me, if we're trying to cut down on disinformation and all we're doing is cutting out some information that may or may not be true, we're creating a worse problem than we're starting with. I want to follow up on something that you mentioned that you said this is possibly on the social media company side to do this. One of the things that I've always found really interesting is when you study the founding, they very much favored having the populace be the ones who are sort of like you need to keep the rook.

public alive. You need to keep these things in front of mind. Do you see a role for the American public in this sort of new wave of misinformation that we need to become better informed? Or is this more like, you know, the information's out there. The social media companies also need to have some responsibility for making sure that this doesn't get out. Yeah, you know, Doug, it's a good question. I think that I'm still, I'm sympathetic to the idea that there's a role to play from these other actors and I worry deeply, I think, about the incentive structure. I think that where the incentive structure exists, there's some work to be done there. But yeah, at the end of the day, I mean, this is kind of like federalist paper stuff, right?

You need a well-informed citizenry. You need a moral citizenry to be able to make these sorts of decisions. And so to me, it probably does at the end of the day fall on the American people. And I think that's insofar as I have a solution on offer. It's rather than putting this to a bunch of technocrats or Facebook's or wheelie and board sort of structure, what we probably need to do is be better, right? We need to do better. We need individuals and media outlets.

and people who are driving the discourse to just be better and more attentive to these sorts of things. And I think that that's not an enormous ask. And I think that a lot of this, the phenomena that we've seen is that we've all kind of gotten a little bit fast and loose with the truth in the age of Donald Trump. And that in the last couple of years, we've really seen a lot of different conversations and things corrode and erode. And I think that part of the problem is if we're all going for slam dunks, and I'm as guilty of this as anyone else, but if we're all going for slam dunks all day, then we're not creating the right, we're not creating

the right incentives for ourselves to really rigorously apply the truth. Right. I think that's definitely a good point. On that topic, I think as we're talking about what America is and sort of like what the citizenry is all about, to me, I believe that America is a country where competing ideas kind of come together and there's this open form of discussion and from that we find, you know, the truth or we find the best solution for ourselves. media outlets, I think, we can see are creating these echo chambers.

If you're on the right, you'll probably watch one set of media. And if you're on the left, you'll watch another set of media. In terms of these people that want to indulge in their confirmation biases, is there any sort of like way that we can do that? Is it mostly just watching other sources of news? Or is it what should we be doing? Yeah, that's a good question. I think a lot of it does come down to you need to be,

you need to be looking for less than just confirmation. in terms of the information that you're consuming. So, yeah, I mean, I think some of it, I think the best question I ever get from people are, who are the top two or three people who you really like reading, who you don't agree with? I think there's got to be a little bit more of that exercise of who are the sorts of voices that maybe you don't always agree with. Hell, maybe you never agree with them. How can you do more to seek those people out who are thoughtful and intelligent and push

the envelope? I think a lot of it is on that. But then I think some of this, too, is there has to be some level of trust, to your earlier point, in the American people to be able to make these sorts of decisions. I think I agree with you on this marketplace of ideas concept. And unfortunately, in a lot of cases, I think a lot of folks in the mainstream media don't really believe in that, right? And so I think that you have a lot of people who say, unfortunately, given where America

is at right now, if all we do is give them the information, they won't draw the conclusions that they should. And that's a really dangerous mindset to go in any of these sorts of conversations with. But what comes out of it is a pretty haughty and arrogant mentality of, I can decide for them because I can decide better. And whether that's the New York Times or the Washington Post or Facebook or Twitter, anyone who tends to be making those sorts of decisions, I think I've got my guard up against that. I think that across the board, those things tend not to work very well. Sure, definitely.

One last question for you. If we can take away one thing from this interview, if our listeners could glean one piece of information and they go in, they live their lives and say, you know what, I learned that from that interview with Drew Holden. What would that be? And then secondly, what can conservatives do to make sure that our voices and to make sure that our perspective is accurately represented in the media? I think when you were discussing, you know, sometimes it's difficult when some of the larger outlets kind of have one perspective that they want to push. And that's not always the conservative perspective. How do we make sure that those perspectives are represented accurately? Yeah, both good questions.

I think on to your former point, in terms of being able to to be better at these sorts of things, I think what conservatives really need to do, what people need to do is find voices you disagree with, find outlets you disagree with, and read them, and read them voraciously, and read them with an open mind. Come at these things as valuable pieces of information and don't write them off. I worry, I think, a lot, particularly lately, that a lot of folks that conservative media or conservative kind of ecosystem and universe have decided that the media is all bad and all rotten, right? I see it all the time, this is this sort of perspective. And I think that we can't come at it that way, both because it's not true, but maybe more importantly, because if we do, we won't make any inroads.

So to your second question, I think that what conservatives need to do to be able to tell our story better is recognize that there's actually still a lot of people in mainstream media who are clamoring for those voices. They're going to screw up. They're going to make mistakes. They're going to make mistakes based on the biases that they have. But I think that one of the things that I always step back and try and remind people of is the media aren't the enemy of the people. They are not out here seeking the destruction of the United States. They make mistakes in the same way that you would expect any organization with 85. percent of its membership to have a certain worldview. Conservatives need to be a corrective for that

worldview, recognizing that it's a minority stake that we have in all of this. And so I think it's, we've got to come to these things in good faith. We've got to advance the best arguments we can make and do it in mainstream publications. I think a lot of my pieces, I aim for a New York Times, not just because of the name recognition of an outlet like that, but because I think these are the people who need to hear this side of the story and that there are editors who are still clambering for this information and that if conservatives can approach these sorts of things in good faith, don't make the slam done. cases necessarily, but make the most compelling cases that we can articulate and bring those to these sorts of audiences in good faith, they're going to find a lot more traction than I think

folks realize. Those are fantastic points. Well, thank you, Drew. That was Drew Holden. You can follow him on Twitter at at Drew Holden 360 or read his work in a wide variety of outlets. Thanks again, Drew. Doug, pleasure is mine. Thank you, sir. Virginia Allen here, I want to tell you all about a great way you can stay in the know on all the news the Daily Signal covers. social media. The Daily Signal has an active presence on Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter. We are constantly posting news stories, clips from interviews, videos, and more across all our social platforms. Follow the Daily Signal on social media so you can get all the latest content from Reels on Instagram to video clips on Facebook and political commentary on Twitter.

Thanks for sending us your letters to the editor. Each Monday, we feature our favorites on this show. Doug, who's up first? In response to Fred Lucas's piece, House Republicans target teaching critical race theory, Audra Hill of Park Rapids, Minnesota writes, Thank you for Fred Lucas's informative article on the introduction of congressional legislation on critical race theory, including bills from representatives Burgess Owens, Chip Roy, and Dan Bishop. It's so refreshing to see that someone in our government actually is doing something to stop this nonsense and chaos that is promoting racism in the name of stopping racism.

Critical race theory is so twisted actually promoting what it says it's trying to stop. As an educator myself and married to a high school coach and business owner, I can say that our schools should be teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic. They should be teaching about the history of this great nation and survival skills in the job market. Additionally, we should be teaching respect for each other, not promoting racism and making people look bad. That is absolutely not the job of our schools and institutions of higher learning. Thank you for giving some hope.

to those of us in this nation who stand up for freedom and opportunity. And Peter Hoff writes, Dear Daily Signal, having followed the Heritage Foundation for decades, I just thought I would drop a line to say thank you. Of all the excellent conservative organizations, the Heritage Foundation is the best. Free markets, free elections, and limited government are the best hope for a prosperous, peaceful world.

And no one delivers this message better than you. Your letter could also be featured on next week's show. send an email to Letters at DailySignal.com. Hi, I'm Virginia Allen. I want to tell you all about an awesome Heritage Foundation resource called the Index of Economic Freedom. The Heritage Foundation Index of Economic Freedom ranks nearly every nation in the world according to its level of economic freedom. Whether for personal, professional use, or for school research, the index is a wealth of information. You can learn why it's easier to start a business in Switzerland than it is in France.

and where America falls on the ranking. So go ahead and visit heritage.org slash index to explore the newly released 2021 Index of Economic Freedom, which features interactive maps, country rankings, graphs of data, and much, much more. Virginia, you have a good news story to kick off our Tuesday. Over to you. Thanks so much, Doug.

When retired Army colonel, Ralph Puckett Jr. learned that he had been invited to the White House to receive the Medal of Honor for his acts of bravery and courage in the Korean War, his first response was, why all the fuss? Can't they just mail it? But President Joe Biden told Puckett that his lifetime of service to America deserved a little bit of fuss. At the age of 94, Puckett joined the president at the White House a little over a week ago to be honored for his extraordinary heroism during a battle in Korea in November 1950. As the president bestowed the Medal of Honor on Puckett just over a week ago, the story. of the colonel's bravery was recounted in front of the nation, per CBS News.

Let's take a listen to the story of Puckett's courage and incredible leadership. As his unit commenced a daylight attack on Hill 205, the enemy directed mortar, machine gun, and small arms fire against the advancing force. To obtain fire, First Lieutenant Puckett mounted the closest tank, exposing himself to the deadly enemy fire. Leaping from the tank, he shouted words of encouragement to his men and began to lead the Rangers in the attack. Almost immediately, enemy fire threatened the success of the attack

by pinning down one platoon. Leaving the safety of his position with full knowledge of the danger, Frose Lieutenant Puckett intentionally ran across an open area three times to draw enemy fire, thereby allowing the Rangers to locate and destroy the enemy positions and to seize Hill 205. During the night, the enemy launched a counterattack that lasted four hours.

Over the course of the counterattack, the Rangers were inspired and motivated by the extraordinary leadership and courageous example exhibited by First Lieutenant Puckett. As a result, five human wave attacks by a battalion strength enemy element were repulsed. During the first attack, First Lieutenant Puckett was wounded by grenade fragments, but refused evacuation and continually directed artillery support the decimated attacking enemy formations. He repeatedly abandoned positions of relative safety to make his way from foxhole to foxhole to check the company's perimeter and to distribute ammunition amongst the Rangers. When the enemy launched a sixth attack, it became clear to First Lieutenant Pucket that the position was untenable due to the unavailability of supporting artillery fire. During this attack, two enemy mortar rounds landed in his foxhole, inflicting grievous wounds which limited his mobility. Knowing his men were in a precarious situation, First Lieutenant Puckett commanded the Rangers

to leave him behind and evacuate the area. Feeling a sense of duty to aid him, the Rangers refused the order and staged an effort to retrieve him from the foxhole will still under fire from the enemy. Ultimately, the Rangers succeeded in retrieving First Lieutenant Puckett and they moved to the bottom of the hill, where First Lieutenant Puckett called for devastating artillery fire

on the top of the enemy-controlled hill. First Lieutenant Puckett's extraordinary heroism and selflessness, above and beyond the call of duty, were in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit upon himself, his unit, and the United States Army. The Medal of Honor is the highest military honor and individual can receive. Retired Army General John Walter Hendrick said of Puckett that he feared no man, he feared no situation, and he feared no enemy. Colonel Puckett, thank you for your service. to this country. Virginia, thank you so much for sharing.

We're going to leave it there for today, but you can find the Daily Signal podcast on the Rickashay Audio Network. All of our shows can also be found at DailySignal.com slash podcasts. You can also subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, or your favorite podcast app. And be sure to listen every weekday

by adding the Daily Signal podcast as part of your Alexa Flash Briefing. And if you like what you hear, please leave us a review and a five-star rating. It means a lot to us and it helps spread the word to other listeners. Be sure to follow us on Twitter

at DailySignal and Facebook.com slash the DailySignal News. Have a great rest of your week. The Daily Signal podcast is brought to you by more than half a million members of the Heritage Foundation. It is executive produced by Rob Blewey and Virginia Allen. Sound design by Lauren Evans, Mark Geinney, and John Pop. For more information, visit DailySignal.com.