It is not too apocalyptic to say that a full-scale war has broken out between the left-leaning “Establishment Media” and the right-leaning “New Media” in the wake of the bombing in Oklahoma City. This war is the clearest indication yet that we have entered a new era of “partisan media.”

Today’s media environment has become more and more reminiscent of the period in American journalistic history in which the newspapers promoted specific agendas or supported particular political parties. Newspapers that still bear the names “Democrat” or “Republican” or “Independent” remind one of that era.

Although its members do not flaunt a party label, the Establishment or Old Media, characterized by CBS, NBC, ABC, Time, Newsweek, the New York Times, The Washington Post, National Public Radio, and most other major newspapers and local television stations, generally supports President Clinton.

The “New Media” are best characterized by National Empowerment Television, talk radio, the 700 Club and Pat Robertson’s affiliated media outlets, GOP TV, and the 1,200 stations to which James Dobson’s programming is syndicated. Of the more than 700 right-of-center radio talk-show hosts nationwide, Rush Limbaugh, G. Gordon Liddy, Oliver North, Gary Nolan and Michael Reagan, who have nationally syndicated programs, are the better-known talkers.

The Washington Times, the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal, and pundits, columnists and commentators such as Fred Barnes, Bob Novak, Tony Snow, Mona Charen and others operate essentially within the establishment media but are attitudinally part of the New Media. Stalwarts such as the National Review, Human Events and the American Spectator are members of this category as well.

A distinguishing feature of the participants in the New Media is that they admit their ideological biases. In fact, instrumental to its success is the symbiotic relationship the New Media maintains with conservative foundations such as the Heritage Foundation and the Progress and Freedom Foundation, which serve as breeding grounds for conservative public policy. The libertarian Cato Institute also falls into this category on many issues.

The New Media have recently experienced a tremendous increase in growth and popularity. An ever-growing percentage of the American public, possibly disaffected by what they are reading, seeing and hearing from traditional news outlets and from the government, are turning to alternative news sources that more closely reflect their views and appeal to their sensibilities.

What should have liberals in and outside the Establishment Media concerned are the numbers that reflect this trend. According to a survey released several weeks ago by the Times Mirror Co., the percentage of adults who say they’ve read a daily newspaper in the past 24 hours has fallen to the mid-40s. This figure is down from the mid-50s of only one year ago.

Meanwhile, as a percentage of the entire radio market (i.e., adult contemporary, country, etc.), the talk format just soared solidly into first place.

Another factor that has drawn people to the New Media is that they are much more “user-friendly” than the Establishment Media. The dynamic nature of the New Media, compared with the more static nature of the establishment fare, allows New Media users to more easily get the information they want, when they want to get it.

For example, you have to be in front of a television at a prescribed time to get Bryant Gumbel or Dan Rather. In stark contrast, 24 hours a day you can always find a conservative talk show on the airwaves. In addition, anyone with a computer and a modem can “plug in” to a variety of conservative on-line World Wide Web sites at any time, day or night.

The New Media have made great advances in part because they have responded to the public’s increased desire for interactive communication. In the unfiltered realm of talk radio and on-line information services, the audience members get to voice their own opinions. Consequently, they feel more in control and “in touch” with the world around them. It is no wonder the Establishment Media and the president have begun to question their relevance.

But President Clinton and some in the Establishment Media have attempted to take advantage of the unfortunate events surrounding the disaster in Oklahoma City to instigate a political war against the New Media.

The bombing in Oklahoma City has taught us that we are not immune to home-grown terrorism. It has also shown us that Mr. Clinton and some left-leaning Establishment Media are willing to stoop to new depths in their efforts to combat the rising tide of conservatism in America. The revelations that the prime suspect in the bombing, Timothy McVeigh, might have associated with one or more anarchistic paramilitary groups have generated from the liberals in and out of the media a torrent of insinuations that the bombing may be the inevitable product of an angry climate of anti-government sentiment in America, i.e., that the Nov. 8 elections, the conservative Congress and talk radio are somehow to blame.

Whether it is in the form of NBC’s Brian Williams and his fawning question to President Clinton at the April 21 press briefing on Oklahoma City that offered an explicit link between the bombing and the Nov. 8 elections, talk radio and the “climate” in America, or Rep. Charles Schumer’s shameless attempt to blame the National Rifle Association’s criticisms of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms as inciting the bombing, liberals have opened a new front in their war on the “right wing.”

Indeed, the language employed in the political rhetoric and writing describing the suspects and the “militia” groups involved in the investigation appears to have been carefully chosen to associate them with participants in the conservative movement. Not surprisingly, the liberals’ and the Establishment Media’s invectives have been hurled most often in the direction of the New Media.

Haynes Johnson, writing a commentary in The Washington Post, opined that we are heading for self-destruction if “we continue attacking our government, depreciating the people in it, and diminishing our public institutions.” Post staff writer John Schwartz observed the role of the Internet and other on-line information services in relation to the bombing in Oklahoma. Seemingly disturbed by a medium “largely unfiltered by national publications or anyone else” and based “more on rumor or attitude than fact,” Mr. Schwartz sniffed in his April 23 article, “Besides being used as a place to vent frustrations or search for the latest news, much of the on-line debate devolved into a shouting match over gun control, liberalism and the political direction of the United States, often reflecting the anger and paranoia that may have fueled the bombing itself.”

Round 1 was won on points by the Establishment Media. Round Two will be different. It will take a strong effort, but an honest approach that counters the liberals’ propaganda head-on can hold sway on the final judgment in the minds of the American people.

The battle will be over which side can deliver its message with the most reach, impact and repetition. Historically, the Establishment Media’s juggernaut has triumphed. But the tide is turning. As was evident in the battle over Mr. Clinton’s health care plan, the Clinton crime bill and the November elections, the New Media are a force to be reckoned with and are here to stay.

* Craig Shirley is a media consultant.

LOAD-DATE: May 4, 1995

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

Copyright 1995 The Washington Times LLC All Rights Reserved