OPINION:
The media’s liberal bias has dominated headlines in the wake of the CNBC Republican presidential primary debate where moderators attacked the candidates with false premises and gotcha questions. The Republican National Committee has gone so far as to pull its upcoming debate with NBC because of its sister network’s performance.
Liberal media bias isn’t exactly a surprise. Dating back at least to its defense of the Soviet Union and communism in the 1930s, the media has long been a major champion of liberal causes. Yet it’s rare that such bias is on such full display as it was on this occasion. More common is the liberal media’s use of spin and euphemisms to frame issues to give its side an inherent advantage in any public policy debate.
Perhaps the most egregious example at the moment is the description of constitutional conservatives as “far right” or “hard right” — phrases with obvious fascist connotations. The New York Times and The Washington Post are among the most prominent offenders. It doesn’t matter that even those with the most basic knowledge of the political spectrum recognize that far right means a more powerful and centralized government, not less — as those who get stuck with that description advocate.
In contrast, note how the media has increasingly referred to liberals in recent years as “progressives.” At some point they recognized that liberals and liberal ideas were so unpopular in this country that the descriptor had to be changed. British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher made the point: “Socialists have always spent much of their time seeking new titles for their beliefs, because the old versions so quickly become outdated and discredited.”
Phrases such as “social and economic justice,” “a sustainable economy” and “income inequality” are all attempts to spin the core goal — bigger government and increased wealth redistribution — into something more palatable for the American public. Liberals are increasingly using the word “fair,” as in “a fair economy” or “fair taxation,” to explain their platform.
To achieve a dramatically increased minimum wage, liberals and the media who carry their water have increasingly used the phrase “living wage.” This is no accident. Who could be against giving people enough money to live on? It doesn’t matter that in reality, living wage mandates reduce the job opportunities that actually allow people to live.
The same story applies with the food activists who call sugar and trans fat “poison” or say that we are “addicted” to certain foods that have no addictive properties. Recently, the media parroted the claim that cheese is now addictive. Such spin is an important aspect in overcoming the argument that what we eat should be a matter of personal responsibility, making it easier for them to get support for imposing taxes and regulations on what we put in our bodies.
The list goes on. Referring to spending programs as “investment” and always prefacing infrastructure with the adjective “crumbling” are attempts to reverse the burden of proof to those not in favor of government spending.
Or how about this election cycle’s rallying cry among Democrats: referring to the process in which individuals donate to independent groups supporting a candidate as “buying our democracy” or the use of “dark money” (which happens to be bipartisan).
All this spin has the effect of putting people who don’t agree with the liberal line on defense before the issue debates begin. It’s an attempt to win by appealing to emotion when the facts aren’t on their side. But there is only so much lipstick you can put on a pig.
Defenders of conservative principles, not to mention the English language, should refuse to use this terminology and call it out for what it really is: doublespeak. Explain how fair taxes are actually unfair given that the top 1 percent already pay roughly 50 percent of all federal income taxes. Explain how living wage mandates are actually a road to no wage at all. And explain how progressives are not for progress at all but for stasis and the return to an outdated and discredited worldview.
In the words of George Orwell, “Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”
• Richard Berman is president of Berman and Co., a Washington public affairs firm.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.