Leading media outlets leaning left, alienating many readers (2024)

A day in the life of a newspaper. The editors debate a classic: How to tackle topic X? After the usual back and forth, a young editor interjects: «But we have to take the right stand!»

Woe to the publication if it’s the wrong one. Take an instructive case from America, because the ideological soup cooked up there is always brought to the European table, if also somewhat cooled-down. The curse of «wrongthink» hit James Bennet of the New York Times in 2020. The head of the paper’s editorial page was forced to resign because he had published an editorial from Republican Sen. Tom Cotton on the op-ed page.

Cotton had sinned, according to the thought police. In Minneapolis, a police officer had killed George Floyd, a Black man, during his arrest. Nationwide protests and outbreaks of violence followed. In his piece, the senator argued for the deployment of the military to protect lives, limbs and property. His message ran: Without security, there is no freedom, especially not in the poor, nonwhite districts that suffered most from the looting. The upscale residential districts remained untouched.

«Without fear or favor»

In a December issue of the British magazine The Economist, Bennet, who has found a new home there, called out an «illiberal bias» running through American media, especially The New York Times, The Washington Post and the mainstream news networks. He reminded readers of the motto of the once dull «Gray Lady» – an old nickname for the newspaper – which, was now waving the rainbow flag. The publication’s journalistic maxim has long been «without fear or favor,» he noted.

Bennet wrote of a «hypocrisy» that is damaging the entire republic. That stance is «transparent for conservatives, dangerous to liberals and bad for the country as a whole,» he wrote. He continued: «The Times is a paper where America’s progressive elite talks to itself.» This diagnosis can also be applied to politically correct European media. The result is isolated «echo chambers.» Rather than listening, the nation is closing its ears. This is far from the democratic agora of the ancient Greeks, where competing arguments flew back and forth.

«Terrorist» or «militant»

But let us not overestimate the good old days. The past was not always better – certainly not the leaden gray of the old gazettes. Back then, they were hardly more diverse. Even in the 18th century, most of them functioned as church mouthpieces. Publications served up a religious or secular worldview. Today, the average reader can’t tell the difference between soft-pedaled opinion and hard news. It is a blend of both.

The front page of The New York Times, like other agenda-driven newspapers, is the real editorial page. The actual opinion pieces are icing on the cake. It begins with the headlines, where the right adjective triggers the right emotions. The «framing sentence» in the lead sets the tone. For example, «In his speech, which is likely to be widely criticized, the president said . . .»

When someone writes «terrorist» or «militant,» «abortion» or «induced pregnancy,» the phrasing puts the readers in the right mind. What is asked or omitted in an interview, or accepted uncritically as an answer, channels people’s thoughts. It would be more enlightening to spear contradictions and embellished facts. Questioning is not cronyism. Depending on the slant of the media, this happens on both the left and the right, albeit with a major quantitative difference: Left-leaning outfits are the majority, especially in the high-quality segment. In Germany, there is no Fox News on the right going up against the dominant public TV networks ARD and ZDF, with their leftish coloration.

Leaning left

Nor is there a balanced spectrum in the rest of Europe. The center of gravity is on the leftish side. The exceptions are the nationalist right-wing media in Hungary and Poland – at least until the recent change of government in Warsaw. In the West, the liberal-conservative press and their readers live in a kind of intellectual reservation. What about the mass-circulation German tabloid Bild? It is populist. So, it draws happily from both the left and right of the political spectrum.

The New York Times has a circulation of more than 8 million (digital and dwindling print). The right-leaning New York Post is a local paper. Similarly in Washington D.C., the rightish Examiner cannot compete with the leftish top dog, The Washington Post. In Germany, leading media such as Spiegel, Süddeutsche Zeitung and Die Zeit position themselves on the center-left. They tower over conservative newspapers such as the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and Die Welt. In the highbrow segment, the imbalance is palpable. The predominant media dwell on income redistribution, multiculturalism, and the sympathetic treatment of sexual and ethnic minorities, especially migrants.

Now The Economist has gone to the trouble of dissecting the matter systematically. After analyzing hundreds of thousands of data, the centrist magazine has come to a conclusion that confirms first impressions: «There is indeed an affinity between the media and the left,» it sums up. The primary issues are international security, crime, the environment and, above all, race, where left-leaning ideology far outstrips other tendencies.

What could sober up the «woke» media giants? With the exception of the pro-capitalist Wall Street Journal, which rigorously separates news, analysis and opinion, there are no other publishing giants in the United States apart from the Times and the Post. But there is something new under the sun – rising digital competition from such outfits as Unherd, Substack and Free Press. «Unherd» is a nice play on words, an acoustic fusion of «unheard» and «breaking from the herd.» These websites are pitting themselves against the established media’s bien-pensants.

«Uncurated» freedom

This is the sunny side of a market economy. Anyone can play publisher on the internet with a modest investment. The tech sector calls this «disruption.» Oligopolies are being cracked, and new products are pushing into the market. But there is no sun without shadow – just look at Twitter/X, Tik-Tok or Telegram. These platforms are chock-full of misinformation and propaganda, be it served up by ordinary folks or governments. Just think of Putin’s election interference in the West or the flood of conspiracy theories during the coronavirus pandemic.

This is the dark side of «uncurated» freedom. Moreover, the new media do not solve a fundamental problem of liberal democracy. Theoretically, mega-diversity could inspire intellectual progress. But the proliferation of «echo chambers» has a nasty downside. We hear, watch and read what suits our own ideological preferences. The agora is becoming ever more fragmented, with everybody getting their own «safe space.»

The increasing isolation of individuals and groups is becoming an invisible threat to the democratic ethos. This diagnosis is not a plea for a philosopher-king whose wisdom serves the common good. Power and morality don’t go hand in hand. Rather, the task is to enable an ever-wider agora in this labyrinth of bunkers. The point is to unleash dialogue where different beliefs confront one another. The issue is: What are the facts? Can you prove them? In this arena, right and wrong would not be determined by ideology. Drowning out an argument lowers the collective IQ. And consider this: Without an overarching consensus, there can be no fruitful democratic debate, nor a vibrant democracy.

Where are the journalists?

What is the role of journalists? In reporting, they should not act as advocates, but as honest brokers, presenting rather than lecturing. If they want to spread their convictions, they should do so on the editorial pages, as long as these are indeed «diverse» and «inclusive,» to use the current vocabulary. Athena, the goddess of wisdom, craftsmanship and art, would smile kindly at them.

Is this idealistic or even naive? In practical terms, here is an irrefutable fact for publishers and journalists – again according to American data that mirror similar trends in Europe. A recent Gallup poll reported that 50 years ago, around seven out of 10 Americans avowed trust in the media. Today, only half as many express the same sentiment.

What is the moral of the story for the media establishment? The migration to micro-media reflects the growing mistrust that is gnawing away at their customer base. The top dogs are aware of this trend, which they themselves have promoted, as if their readers were a church parish. And lo and behold, The Economist’s analysis reveals an all-but-miraculous trend. Since the beginning of this decade, the share of ideology-charged language in both the left- and right-leaning media has been quietly declining, even in The New York Times, albeit at a snail’s pace. Gaining people’s trust is obviously the better business model.

Josef Joffe is a distinguished fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. He teaches international politics and political history.

Latest articles

Below, you’ll find links to a selection of our free content. If you’d like access to all of our content, including the full version of our twice-weekly newsletter, please upgrade here.