This question has it’s origin in a thread I started here which wound up here wherein I stated:
Am I tilting at windmills with this opinion? Any replies appreciated.
Astro, I think it depends on what your political leanings are. A person to the left of the political spectrum will look at all the articles supporting the president and the war in Afghanistan and conclude that the USA press (in general) is conservative and patriotic.
Some peripherally relevant threads.
So lots of reading for you. 
I think so. It’s more of what they choose not to report, and most important issues can’t be condensed into nice little soundbites. They define the terms of the debates, and usually come off pretty lefty.
I honestly don’t think so. Sure, there are some liberal reporters and anchors, but the overall coverage is fairly balanced in my view.
Perhaps we could discuss a few specific examples.
Most of the (less frothing) opinions I’ve read on the subject imply that there is a difference depending on whether one is talking about social or fiscal liberalism. Usually mainstream media is characterized as socially liberal and fiscally conservative.
I’ve heard credible arguments that it’s actually fairly conservative, however, and am inclined to note that the vigorous media organizations on the right that are inclined to complain about the mainstream media are not echoed on the left. FAIR does not wield anything near the power over public opinion that Rush does, and left-wing think tanks rarely get quoted or sourced in the mainstream media as much as right-wing ones do.
My perception is that every little bit of this statement is absolutely true…except for the last word.
As I said (ill-fatedly) in the Democratic corruption thread linked above: institutions–like the media–are generally perceived by liberals to be not as liberal as they would like, and by conservatives to be not as conservative as they would like. Thus Fox News Channel’s claim: “We report. You decide.”
A human tendency is to focus on those portions of someone’s argument (or those stories in the network news) with which we disagree (in presentation, scope, or tenor), and thus aggrievedly claim bias.
Says the Carolina fan after a loss: “Those referees were blind!”
Says the Carolina fan after a win: “The other team’s coach was whining about the refs again!”
(Not singling out Carolina fans, except…okay, yeah, I’m singling out Carolina fans. )
Which would make sense, intuitively, given that members of mainstream media possess generally higher levels of education (and income) relative to the public at large. Education has been shown to possess a positive correlation with social liberalism and fiscal conservatism. A better-educated person will tend to be more socially liberal and more fiscally conservative than “yer average American.” (Higher incomes, by the way, tend to correlate strongly with fiscal conservatism as well.)
Whether or not these tendencies shine through news coverage–and I’d argue they do, to a degree–they are probably present.
Gad: the big problem, in my opinion, is that the only source that insists on its neutrality (Fox News) is the only one that wears its political positions on its sleeve. I’m always getting the feeling when reading conservative commentaries about media that they are trying to redefine the centre to being what most would consider moderate conservativism rather than truly centrist. The extreme sees the moderate as centrist, I suppose. If there were an equally strong force coming from the other direction that would be different, but by and large it isn’t. (Unless you’re talking about the protest types, but frankly they aren’t organized well enough).
It’s actually funny… I’d love to see an left-wing counterpart to Fox News. The idea of a mainstream news source that wears its ideology on its sleeve isn’t necessarily evil, but some balance would be nice. It’d be nice if liberal think tanks and academia could actually get some press for a change. 
In my media and politics class we discussed this and the professor said that most of the major national newspapers were more liberal leaning, while local papers tended to be more conservative.
The same thing doesn’t hold with television, though. Fox tends to be more conservative, but not much. The restricted time frame on television doesn’t allow much in-depth analysis or editorializing to take place, and so not as much room for partisan slants. Also, due to the restricted time frame, most of the national television news focus on the same subjects as they don’t want to be scooped by each other, in a kind of bizarre herd mentality. This reduces the bias that occurs because only a few national headlines get mentioned, and they tend to be the same, and the stories are so reduced that not as much bias can get through.
Agreed, Demo, in that ideology should be worn on the sleeve. I’m not so sure I see the value of a left-wing counterpart to Fox News, though, except–by demarcating a political middle separate from either netwoek–as a demonstration of FNC’s lack of neutrality. I’d prefer it if Fox simply fessed up to being a right-wing alternative to mainstream news–an admission which would be principled and honest whether or not the mainstream was actually tilted left.
(By the way, has anyone ever told you that your screen name sounds like something out of the Cthulhu mythos?)
I’ve trod this ground before, but there’s liberal-leaning (Post, Times), and then there’s liberal-leaning (Madison Capital Times, Minneapolis Star Tribune). The difference is especially salient on economic issues. Also in play is the degree to which a newspaper buys into the binary dynamic of policy alternatives: sometimes the two mainstream party (Democrat/Republican) positions on a given issue can be fairly characterized as both conservative or both liberal. Any newspaper that doesn’t look beyond the party platforms in its news coverage is more partisan-leaning or establishmentarian than it is itself liberal or conservative. Does that make sense? I’m tired.
Anyway, don’t forget the grand old exception to the “liberal leaning major national newspaper” rule–the Wall Street Journal. Conservative through and through.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Gadarene *
**
Have you ever watched Fox News? You certainly don’t decide. You watch, and they decide what insignificant questions to ask you.
This phenomenon is pretty well-described in this article by Noam Chomsky:
The same thing is going on, especially on the conservative Fox News. They have the little polls that ask a question about the strategy and tactics behind the war, but never asking whether we should be there in the first place. Admittedly, it is one of the more extreme examples. All news is biased whether or not you like it, which is why one should read a variety of viewpoints to get the full picture.
Preachin’ to the choir, Palve.
Anyway, I’ve thought of a proposition involving meta-debate that needs making: At the beginning of this thread, I linked to earlier “liberal media” discussions we’ve had on this board. Some of those discussions occurred a year ago or more, and yet their participants (myself included) may very well be chiming in on this thread here. With the knowledge that people’s opinions or arguments might change over time, I’d like to propose that to the extent someone’s statements on this thread conflict with their statements in the past threads, the more recent statements should not be seen as any less legitimate.
For example, if I said a year ago that Rush Limbaugh is a vacuous blowhole, and I say now that he is a much-maligned prophet of our age, it is wholly unfair to contest my current opinion by brandishing my former one at me. Let’s just assume that to the degree the statements differ, it represents a change in my position, and no hypocrisy exists in having abandoned or modified old ways of thought. Sound good to everyone?
Ah yes, Noam Chomskey, one of my favorite intellectuals. Darling of the left, scourge of the right. And usually out of touch with the reality of what he’s talking about.
Two points. Differences between Vietnam and Soviet Afghanistan? Um, how about the fact that in Vietnam we were there at the invitation of the government of that country and the Soviets overthrew the government of Afghanistan when that government desired to take a more nationalistic approach to policy. Aggression wasn’t really taking place, either, in the fact that the North struck first, and that US troops were not sent very far over the border and then for limited forays.
Second, the reason that the media was reporting the debate between doves and hawks was because that’s what the friggin’ debate was. You didn’t see anyone in the government or in major think tanks advocating advocating Chomskey’s view (mostly because it was not based in reality). Why the hell would the media report a viewpoint that didn’t really exist or matter in the decisions about foreign policy?
Third (yeah, I said two points, sue me :)) where the hell do you think the statistics about the war’s approval rating in the national public come from? There were several polls asking about whether we should invade Afghanistan or not in the beginning of the affair. I’ll try and dig some up.
I agree that all news is biased though. Nor am I a big fan of the role of media apologist.
Which government invited us in 1954? It was part of the treaty in Geneva to have a popular election for the government within two years. We, that is the US, pretty much quashed the elections that would have put Ho Chi Minh in office. As for South VietNam, and North VietNam those are constructs of our political strategies from times past.
Not to turn this into a gun debate, even though that’s one of my favorite topics, but how 'bout gun control. The Media Research Center, in 2000, released a report analyzing the slant of gun stories on national television news shows. They found that stories "advocating more gun control outnumbered stories opposing gun control by 357 to 36….(Another 260 were neutral.)”
Seems like a bias to me.
Define “advocating,” Beer.
Ah, UncleBeer beat me to it…