In November of 1994, Peter Jennings summed up the recent election of many Republicans by saying, “Imagine a nation full of controlled two-year-old rage. The voters had their temper tantrum last week.”
Even better, Dan Rather told Bill Clinton that if they(the news media), “could be one-hundreth as great a you and Hilary Rodham Clinton have been in the White House, we’d take it away and walk away winners.”
In 1996, 89% of the national news media voted for Bill Clinton and 7% for Dole(check the Roeper Forum survey results). Let me make myself clear. I do not care if any news reporter is liberal or conservative. What bothers me is that they get away with pretending they are not partial either way. Rather even is on record saying that he, “respectfuly doesn’t know what you’re talking about,” when asked about the liberal bias.
Is this fair? Does anyone care? How do they get away with it?
Well, look at it this way… in the eyes of someone like Rush Limbaugh, a Moderate Media would seem very liberal. So when Limbaugh says “Liberal Media”, you have to attach your little Reality Gauge (patent pending) to the comment and adjust the term “Liberal” back over to “Moderate” again.
Why do I say that the media is “Moderate”? Twofold: 1. For every major Liberal source you can name, someone else can name an equally verbal Conservative source, and 2. the Media is about getting money, and if they alienated a good chunk of the population, they wouldn’t get much… by stradling the middle, they only push away the fringe groups, which are a minority of the population.
“But why oh why does the media always seem to pander to Bill Clinton all the time?” Three words: He was PRESIDENT. They were pandering to the office, not the man. A news show sees it’s ratings go UP when interviewing the most powerful man on Earth… and if he expected to be attacked/insulted/etc., he wouldn’t allow himself to be interviewed.
Money, my friend. That’s the only political figure that the Media worships.
To repost a slightly modified version of what I posted in another thread this evening…
Check out the FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) website, http://www.fair.org for example…they have done studies looking at this. (It is true that reporters are personally left-of-center on social issues but not on economic ones…where they are right-of-center. They’ve also looked at the number of times people from various think-tanks are quoted. Why, just the other day, that bastion of liberalism NPR had a story on the California electrical crisis and was quoting a guy from the Cato Institute.)
Also, try subscribing to real leftist media like The Nation, The American Prospect, Mother Jones, … (all of which, I believe, also have websites). You’ll be interested to find out what you’re missing in the standard corporate-media view of the world! (oldscratch has also provided a good link to some real liberal media.)
Of course the media is left of center. But your implication is that a) noone notices, and b) noone says anything. I disagree. I think most people realize the press is leftist, except those who are even left of the press itself. Take a few of my friends, who posted above. And plenty of people, especially those on the right point out that the press is liberal.
I’m not sure there’s anything wrong with that. I don’t think the press is anything special or magical that needs to be held to some higher standard. They’re just a group of people, like unions or educators (also leftists) or corporations or gun owners (both rightists).
'Preciate the shout out, oldscratch. (“cuddly??”) Needless to say, this has been covered before, and I strenuously disagree both with the OP and with Bill.
Nice post, SPOOFE. Really. And I gotta agree with jshore and scratchie: their links are the liberal media. Note the difference.
It should be noted in this debate that “liberal” general means favoring change, and “conservative” generally means favoring status quo.
“Major breaking news story: nothing changed today.” Hmmm.
Naw, ain’t gonna attract a lot of attention. Thus, the media will naturally tend to pay slightly more attention to news stories that have to do with “liberal” perspectives. At the same time, of course, as noted by SPOOF, they want to attract the majority of the population, and so must be reasonably centrist.
[amused irony]Spoken like a true soldier in the war against ignorance…[/amused irony]
The thing is, in order to “show” that liberal bias exists, you must demonstrate a pattern of slanted reporting and commentary that is so widespread among the major media that it constitutes such a bias. But, if I understand you right, even though the “liberal media” idea has no compelling evidence to support it, you’ll hold to that opinion simply because it can’t be disproven?
Your first comment went over my head. But in any event, you have apparently misunderstood my words.
What I meant was that a person’s assessment of whether or not an idea was disproved in a given argument will depend heavily on whose side of the argument he was on. oldscratch is obviously inclined to come down on one side (he participated as well), as is Gadarene who was the main debater. I, for my part, think I completely and totally destroyed them. So I suggest that every person read for themself and decide, rather than let spinmeisters declare the winner.
The rest of your comments have no connection to anything I’ve said here. But I will say in general that it is very difficult to have an objective standard by which to judge bias. (Much of the previous debate consisted of pointless semantic disputes). I believe it is true because it makes sense in light of the known biases of journalists in actual voting.
Izzy: I think the phrase “mutual assured destruction” bears a strange relevance to that old thread; each of us thought we absolutely trounced the other.
So much so, in fact, that we can reduce the rest of this thread to rhetorical shorthand.
You say “pointless semantic disputes,” I say defining the terms by which we set our criteria.
And I’ll see your “known biases of journalists” and raise you one “corporate control of the media.” I’ll even throw in a “political proclivities of editors and executives” and a “conflation of liberalism with the Democratic Party without mention of the dominant centrist ideology therein.”
Exactly the point of my first remark. A person’s assessment of whether or not an idea was supported (which is more to the point) in a given argument should depend not on their opinion going into the argument, but on the evidence presented in the course of debate. To decide the value of an argument based on the attractiveness of its conclusion rather than on the legitimacy of its bases seems counter to the purported aims of this MB. ('S’all I was sayin…)
It makes sense to me that the known biases of the corporate giants controlling the media outlets have much more of an effect on the story selection and reporting than the political leanings of the journalists. However, I’d like to see compelling evidence of this before I charge “conservative bias.”
C’mon, Izzy–you throw out your shtick about “semantic quibbling” and “journalistic biases” and then bow out when we remind you of all the other factors that come into play? You and I got off on a tremendous tangent in that other thread; it’s my subjective opinion that you’ve given no real rebuttal of the points made by xeno and I, either now or then.
Unless you can refresh my memory: out of Viacom, General Electric, AOL, Disney, Gannett, and Rupert Murdoch–which are supposed to be the liberals?
Who said a reporter is supposed to be neutral? A reporter is supposed to be honest and report fairly what they know, not neutral, which is like saying that they can’t takes sides in a war. By investigating a crime, one is rarely neutral to the fact that it is a crime, which is the mindset of the criminal who committed it. Reporters report the known evidence for any hypothesis they care to imagine, as in science. They don’t have to believe a word of a politician who argues for tax cuts for the wealthy and imcreased spending without paying down a debt first, when those debt bonds are held by the wealthy. Reporters need more training in logic and then they will be able to also report the fact that some arguments don’t make sense. They rarely do this. Therefore, the media is undereporting information in my opinion. I could now state, that the media is “neutralized” when in fact they don’t owe anybody anything in the name of neutrality. Integrity is more important.
I addressed that specific point over and over in the previous thread. In your opinion I am still wrong. OK. Fortunately, an actual real life journalist came along who gave some support to my position. But you’re still convinced that you’re right. Not much more I can do.
