Why is this blog called "Media Outrage"?

Google the phrase "media outrage" and you will find many versions of the sentence "where is the media outrage?" (one among many). Usually, the questioner is someone on the Left astounded that traditional media have not become more indignant over or gotten more aggressive in their questioning of some horrible the Bush administration has done. The question implies that the mode response of the traditional media is outrage. It's easy to see how one might believe that. A quick look at Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly (a.k.a. Papa Bear), Coulter, John "War on Christmas" Gibson, etc. would have us believing that members of the media are a furious folk.

In fact, most journalists are far more tame, tentative, and skeptical. Given the insistent accusations of liberal bias from the Right, most journalists shy away from lines of questioning that might indicate left-leaning outrage. Aside from this ideological prohibition, only in particular moments do they ever become outraged or aggressive. Steve Clayman at UCLA has a NSF grant to "the social factors that explain variations in the aggressiveness with which journalists question the president". One of his interesting findings is that controlling for economic indicators, presidential approval poll ratings have no effect on aggressiveness of questioning. This suggests that journalistic aggressiveness is less reflective of public outrage more a reflection of their own concerns.

This blog is so named because the traditional media is no longer (was it ever?) adequately outraged over issues on the Left and is not responsive to the outrage of the public at large. Anything that fails to properly stir the traditional media is worth raising here.