The term “liberal” itself has become pejorative – there’s not need for terms such as “ultra-liberal.” How many presidential candidates in recent memory have actually described themselves as liberals? They avoid the word like the plague.
But on the other end of the (extremely narrow, in the U.S.) spectrum we have GW, the “compassionate conservative.” Dole, Bush, Reagan – all where comfortable with the term “conservative.”
Finally, when right wing commentators want to describe something as being left of liberal, they usually call it “socialist,” “communist,” or “Marxist.” Again, no need for a term such as “ultra-liberal”.
Actually, I believe he chose to ignore the implications of “archconservative” in favor of going off on a tangent about non-political usage of the term “ultraconservative”. I realize it’s a valid, if evasive style of debate. In the possibly futile hope that comprehension will dawn (“Go toward the light, Carol Ann!”), I repeat that the search engine links contain ample evidence of news stories employing loaded descriptive terms predominantly against conservatives. And it is the height of disingenuousness to suggest that they are not derogatory.
It is pitifully obvious that a self-serving study by a biased organization is no match for the longstanding and consistent observations by logical people in both the center and political right, that a substantial left-wing media bias exists. If I note that the sky is blue, I’m not likely to give much credence to the Alternate Hue Society’s proclamation that the sky is, in fact, green. I’ve been both a reporter and consumer of news, I have what could be described as both left and right-wing opinions on a variety of topics, and the bias issue to me is obvious. If your orientation suggests to you that Pacifica radio is in the political center, of course you will think that the mainstream media are rightist. And you will be nuts.
Denial is so, so powerful. But I have the strength of ten, because my heart is pure.
A lot has been made of the “FAIR” study on this page, and I want to make a couple points about it.
I don’t believe that the source of the study automatically invalidates it, but it’s reasonable to be skeptical of it. Suppose I came up with a study by the NRA that said there was media bias in favor of gun control. Any reasonable person would give such a study less weight because of the source.
I’m not sure exactly what “externally verifiable” means, but, I have now taken a look at the study, and it is clear that judgment calls were made in preparing it. For example, in preparing the analysis, the “Brookings Institution” is categorized as “centrist or center-right” by FAIR. By contrast, other people have categorized Brookings as “liberal.” Taking a quick look at Brookings’ web site, it’s hard for me to tell. In any event, to the extent that the FAIR study requires such judgment calls, its results are subjective.
And my opinion is that my position has been misstated.
Again, where have I claimed that a Google search proves something about media bias?
Wow… I never realised that google searches were such a difinitive source of information. YOu don’t even have to look at the links, just do the search, and see how many hits you get. Ingenious! Absolutely Brilliant. Our logic and reasoning crumbles before your mighty google searches. How idiotic we’ve been.
The only problem is that google is run by liberals. They go and delete many of the links to ultra-liberal or archliberal. Why? becuase they don’t want unflattering links for liberals.
No. A reasonable person would look at the study, examine the facts closely, and see if they held up or not. They wouldn’t give it less weight just because of the source, they might be more critical of the findings, and see how the data was retrieved. But if it was externally verifiable (which Jackamanii is convieniently twisting to his own definition) that they would give it the exact same weight.
So all conservatives are exactly the same? Therefore any label used to differentiate between different levels of conservatism are automatically derogatory? Or is it just the specific words “ultra” and “arch” that offend you? If so, then what words are acceptable and why aren’t those two?
Sorry, but the commonly used label “ultra conservative” is not derogatory simply because you say so; nor is it disingenuous to suggest such a thing simply because you disagree with it.
Since you have stated that the number of times a word is used is evidence of bias, then it is certainly not evasive to show that the same word is used for totally unrelated topics.
And it is pitifully obvious that self-serving anecdotal information does not trump actual data, no matter who provides it.
First of all, Ace Face’s comment is extremely on point. Might wanna evaluate it, Jacky.
Externally verifiable. Reproducible. If FAIR counts, through the LEXIS/NEXIS database, all the times in which think tanks of varying ideological bents are used as sources in the major news media–and operationalizes “think tank,” “ideology,” and “major media”–then the resulting numbers are something which can be doublechecked by you, or me, or anyone else with enough time on their hands. Therefore, while you may have room to dispute the conclusions they draw from the numbers based on FAIR’s own partisan nature, you cannot automatically dismiss the numbers themselves unless you know of supervening factors which render the data or the data collection methods unreliable.
Look. FAIR purports to gather hard quantitative data, which it then uses to advance its argument. Certainly the argument itself may be faulty. And there’s room to dispute the ways in which FAIR classifies the think tanks ideologically, based on FAIR’s own politics.* But if The Washington Times, or Stanford University, or Cecil Adams or anyone else attempted to gather the same quantitative data, their results, presumably, would be exactly the same.. Externally. Verifiable. If you think my presumption about the fitness of the data to be misguided, then explain why this is so. Otherwise, stick to the argument and the interpretation of the data, rather than adding hominems left and right.
By the way, who would you consider to be an unbiased source in this regard? And before you answer, let me warn you that I’ll be really cheesed off if out of all of the above, you choose to quote and respond only to that last sentence. Why do I say this, you ask? Well, look here:
Absolutely nothing, nor was it meant to. Your selective quote removed that passage from its context, which is pretty dirty pool. I was giving an example of a different kind of externally verifiable study, one which is even more reproducible because all it takes is access to Nightline guest lists and an understanding of who’s who. By changing the intent of that quote with your ellipsis, you obscured my point: Dismissing the Nightline study–for example–because FAIR put it out is ludicrous. The study should be evaluated based on interpretation of the given data, not the source of that data–because, essentially, the source of the data is more properly LEXIS/NEXIS (those pinko bastards). I used the Nightline study because there are certainly valid grounds on which to criticize the argument that they advance; it’s just that those grounds don’t include whining, “That came from FAIR!”
Do you understand that I’m not even necessarily disputing this?? I question the degree to which those labels are more pejorative than “liberal,” like Ace Face, but I have also presented what seems to me to be a perfectly plausible explanation for the relative disparity. You have not yet begun to address that explanation, other than by declaring it invalid on its face. Forgive me if that little bit of rhetorical obscurantism doesn’t dazzle me into submission.
How 'bout a direct question: Do you believe that the radical right has more power and visibility in this country than the radical left? Can you back up that belief? How?
All we need is the cowardly lion and the tin woodman. I prefer my news coverage to be as free from bias as practicable, thank you; when have I stated differently?
Actually, I believe I dealt with both. It’s just that you’ve chosen to ignore my explanation of the former in favor of claiming that all the links you saw with regard to the latter were domestic and political–something which is emphatically not the case on LEXIS/NEXIS. Care to show me how to reproduce your results? Even assuming that the damn thing was germane at all?
(Oh, and how in the bloody world was my pointing out that many uses of “ultra-conservative” were non-political a tangent?? Do you even know what “tangent” means? Or are you defining it simply as “anything that isn’t exactly consonant with my own interpretations?”)
I know that Pot/Kettle rejoinders have gotten old, so I’m going to refrain from pointing out the incredible hypocrisy inherent in your calling me evasive–especially when I have, at the very least, offered an alternative interpretation of every argument you use to support your side. What a joke.
Why is that necessarily so? It seems to me as if you’re approaching this issue with your own inherent biases. Why is “arch-conservative” any more inherently derogatory than “liberal?” Especially when–as I believe I may have pointed out–so-called “arch-conservatives” are more visible and influential than their counterparts on the extreme left.
Or are you saying that the mere act of calling someone an “arch-conservative” belies a bias, no matter how divergent from the mainstream that person’s views might be? What, then, would you suggest that we call them? In the interest of accuracy, of course.
First question: What longstanding and consistent observations might those be?
Second, and more important, question: What makes those “logical people” in the center and the right any less biased in their judgment? Can I automatically discount their opinions? Please oh please?
By the way… I do not think that “left-wing” necessarily means what you think it means.
Good for you. Other “logical people” disagree.
Well, it’s a good thing that I don’t think either that Pacifica radio is centrist or that the mainstream media is conservative, isn’t it? And it’s a good thing you’d never, ever put words in my mouth, isn’t it? Hard as you try, bud, you can’t spin straw men into gold.
lucwarm:
You said this:
This presupposes that the Google search does mean something about Internet bias. Sorry I used the term “Internet media” when disputing that presupposition; I assumed that your post was meant to be at least somewhat relevant to the issue at hand.
Well, you know what happens when you make an assumption. You make an ass out of you and Umption.
(By the way, the first web page that turned up when I searched Google for “ultra conservative” was included because of the following text: “I’m what many of you folks would call an ultra-conservative right-wing fanatic.” Looks like Google’s even more meaningless than you thought, in terms of proving that point.)
[sub][sup]*[/sup](Although I’d be interested to see how someone could challenge their labels; of the six top-cited think tanks of 1999, four are clearly and demonstrably conservative–unless you want to argue in favor, say, of the Heritage Foundation or the American Enterprise Institute being centrist. snort And as for the Brookings Institution, they consider themselves to be “fanatic moderates,” and their position on many issues certainly seems to bear that out.)[/sub]
So I’m the only person ever to say that habitually pasting an extremist label on someone with differing opinions is objectionable? Aside from the fact that this problem was commented on by other posters in this thread, there are many conservatives who have made clear that they are offended by being tagged as “arch” or “ultra”. Perhaps I could pretend that “bleeding-heart liberal” is a term of praise, since it just means that such a person is kind. But no one would be fooled.
Scratchie, you really need to read what I’m saying in my postings to take intelligent exception to them. You’re just repeating the same absurdities over and over.
FAIR - http://www.fair.org is not the only group ever to look at bias in media. How conveniently some of you overlook the illustrious Accuracy in Media - http://www.aim.org - a group operating for a longer time, and whose methodology and bias are easily as suspect as those of their left-wing counterparts. As an alternative, I stress the power of logical observation and paying heed to the long-standing public consensus as to how the mass media operate. Open your mind, and all else follows.
**
[/QUOTE]
What I said presupposes no such thing, which you would know if you read my post and read what I was responding to. I’m tired of explaining myself and tired of having my words twisted. This is my last post on this issue in this forum (“Great Debates”).
Since there is little to be gained by further comparative studies on who’s being misrepresented, rhetorical style points and the like, I’ll leave this particular battle for anyone who has the stomach to wade through all the previous posts. The self-delusional quality of some of it is rather stunning, though.
Giving superlatives where they are due, this is one of the most hilariously fatuous statements I’ve ever encountered. Whatever your line of work is, Gadarene, it can’t be in some field of science, or you would be laughed out of a job the first time you were asked to reproduce a dubious result and responded that “presumably Authority X would agree with me”. Externally verifiable? Fine. Get someone (preferably several someones) who doesn’t see radical fundamentalists under the bed to actually verify it. Then we’ll talk.
Unfortunately, we’re all dealing in a realm fraught with subjectivity where imperfect modalities such as pejorative word counts in the news have to be factored in along with other evidence. Journalism itself has dropped the ball on any kind of meaningful, long-term surveillance of this problem. We see the newsroom surveys showing the overwhelming predominance of Democratic Party and liberal identification among news professionals, we note the story output, we look at the heavily one-sided nature of the complaints of bias (do you dismiss this as fantasy or some sort of domination tactic by those vile conservatives, or genuinely wonder why?) - and those of us who aren’t blinded by an ideological win-at-all-costs mentality perceive a pattern of left-slanted bias in news reporting. (Speaking of win-at-all-costs, I think that lucwarm was treated badly here. He made a viable point, tempered by a caveat as to its full applicability, then had his remarks distorted and attacked unfairly because they were perceived as giving comfort to the Enemy).**
While you seem to be really hung up on this one, unfortunately I’m not certain who you would define as “radical right”. The Aryan Nation? Gary Bauer? Rod Paige?
My feeling is that the Dems are largely hostage to the Left and the GOPs largely hostage to the Right on an ideological basis, but neither extreme wing has the power or influence that would suggest. Both are fed with crumbs while the party pols belly up to to the pork-barrel trough. Consider how the Schlafly-Falwellites should have been in clover during the Reagan-Bush Sr. years. Based on all the liberal wailing and gnashing of teeth at the time, we should have expected a Fundamentalist Theocracy to be installed. But the “radical right” was marginalized, just as they will be under Bush Jr.
Let’s face it - only in an In-A-Gadarene-Da-Vida world of partisan fantasy could the twisting of the news be missed. I think this state of affairs is seen by some liberals as a sort of birthright, to compensate for the Repubs’ longterm money advantage. But since the Dems have nearly caught up on scandalous fundraising (the new party chairman is a professional moneygrubber extraordinaire) you don’t really need a news bias advantage anymore. Let’s have an end to it.
I should mention that local news operations are much more likely to give a fair hearing to ideology shunned by the majors. In the recent campaign, Ralph Nader was able to get a few of his ideas across in local news coverage, while the national media, after virtually ignoring him for months, suddenly decided in a body that his candidacy was threatening Gore and covered this story to the exclusion of everything else about Nader. Food for thought - for you gluttons for punishment.
Which demonstrates the fact that the media is shallow, rather than biased, if you ask me. It seems to be intent on seeking out devisive issues and reporting them in such a vague manner that the reader loses sight of the facts. As ITR champion points out:
[rant]
(I swear to God I’m on the verge of becoming a conspiracy theorist these days. I just read three pages of arguments for and against Bush’s proclamation on cutting aid to international agencies that “support abortion”, along with half a dozen linked articles, and in the end I still didn’t know really what the implications of his policy were. Not one of the articles listed a single agency that might be affected by his cuts. Different articles explained his policy in different ways. And sure enough, three pages of Dopers arguing over a policy that I’m not sure anyone understood. Is there some conspiracy out there to keep the citizenry ignorant and embroiled in constant bickering over irrelevant side-issues?)
[/rant]
I’m not sure this is even worth posting, but it seems to me that this argument rests on a false assumption from the beginning – to wit, that there is some kind of “fixed point” in politics (or the media) against which opinions and reporting can be judged as biased left or right. Actually, IMHO, it all depends on the positon of the observer. What I might call moderate, someone else might call far left. What I consider draconically right-wing, someone else might consider middle-of-the-road.
Thus, to me at least, the idea that the media in the US has a “liberal” (read: leftist) bias is completely ridiculous. By Swedish (even European) standards, Democrats are pretty far to the right of the political spectrum. And journalists, regardless of whether they are Democratic or Republican, tend to share a set of assumptions (like most Americans) – America is a DEMOCRACY, for example (without problematizing exactly what a deomcracy is), or America stands for FREEDOM, and so on. So a journalist’s political affiliation, if Democratic or Republican, don’t make no never mind – he/she is still pretty far to the right, and media coverage in the States is biased to the right as a result.
But of course, that’s a judgement based on my perspective way out here in left field – a value judgement, not something that can be objectively validated.
Jackmannii:We see the newsroom surveys showing the overwhelming predominance of Democratic Party and liberal identification among news professionals,
And we also see the surveys showing the overwhelming predominance of Republican Party and conservative identification among owners and publishers, not to mention the advertisers who have large (and increasing) influence over how the news is selected and presented.
we note the story output,
We should be careful that we’re looking at all the story output. When we look at stories or editorials with a focus on economic issues, for example, we note that they’re overwhelmingly positive about globalization and other centrist/conservative positions (and this rightward tendency holds even among those “liberal” reporters and editors who are farther to the left on social issues, as Gadarene already noted).
we look at the heavily one-sided nature of the complaints of bias (do you dismiss this as fantasy or some sort of domination tactic by those vile conservatives, or genuinely wonder why?)
Well, there are lots of parallels to help us understand it: for example, the bulk of vociferous complaints about religious oppression and bias in schools come from Christians, even though our culture is heavily Christian-dominated and Christians in fact suffer from actual, legally forbidden religious discrimination much less than members of other groups. The people who are yelling the loudest are not necessarily the ones who are really hurting the worst.
- and those of us who aren’t blinded by an ideological win-at-all-costs mentality perceive a pattern of left-slanted bias in news reporting.
But as was pointed out before, where’s your evidence that your assessment of “blindness” and “perception” isn’t itself biased? Simply assuming a magisterial tone of impartiality doesn’t automatically make you impartial.
My feeling is that the Dems are largely hostage to the Left and the GOPs largely hostage to the Right on an ideological basis,
See, now my (also unavoidably biased) perception is that this is an extremely right-biased assessment. As Svinlesha pointed out, there’s no visible Left in this country that even begins to compare with that end of the political spectrum anywhere else in the world; the vast majority of Democrats are what most Leftists would call “centrist/conservative”.
Let’s face it - only in an In-A-Gadarene-Da-Vida world of partisan fantasy could the twisting of the news be missed.
Again, another magisterial assertion of objectivity that doesn’t actually do anything to demonstrate that your perception of “twisting” isn’t just a bias of your own. This isn’t going to be changed by simply making more such assertions: as I noted above, the number of claims made on each side doesn’t in itself affect how true the claims are.
Who don’t write the stories, and care only about the bottom line.**
[/quote]
We should be careful that we’re looking at all the story output. When we look at stories or editorials**
[/quote]
Let’s stick to the news. Editorials should not be an issue, although there plenty of people who are still outraged that a news organization should express an editorial opinion.
**
This particular issue comes across as ideologically neutral. It’s one area where Bill Clinton can join hands with Phil Gramm and tap-dance across labor rights and environmental protection laws.**
Religious mania is a red herring. Virtually any tactic is seen as acceptable if it helps spread a particular gospel. Wait a minute, that’s starting to sound like the media apologist crowd.
Jack, I’m at a loss. You seem bent not only on intentionally misrepresenting my position, but on bizarrely calling me to the carpet due to your own apparent inability to understand the simplest of statements.
Does anyone else think my definition of reproducibility to be “incredibly fatuous”? Does anyone else not get my point that if extreme labels are appended more, in absolute numbers, to one group than another, it may be due to differences in relative visibility rather than embedded bias on the part of the reporting agents? If so, let me know. If not, then Jack, there’s nothing I can do for you.
Honestly–I thought I made my last post as clear as I could. I don’t really know what more I can do.
Sorry, Jack, but until you actually address the substance of the post that I, y’know, spent about an hour composing, then I’m completely done with you.
lucwarm: I apologize for having misrepresented your position. I still maintain that the Google search you did is absolutely meaningless.
Um, see Kimstu on the dangers of seeking safety in numbers. And it was “hilariously fatuous”.**
More promises.
An hour???
You know, it would have been a better sell if someone had come up with the following:
“Sure there’s some media “bias”, but it’s a safe J-school grad, approved-by-the-publishers-and-network-bosses, mild form of liberal slant. It doesn’t jeopardize the financial return on investment. It also doesn’t address real issues that committed progressives find really important, like globalization*, the School of the Americas, Vieques, poisoning of civilians by spent nuclear fuel in bombs, population control and so on. We are not benefiting from your “slant”. Corporate interests find it to their advantage to appear to back the underdog, while purging from the news issues of real consequence.”
Not that I find this all that compelling, but it’s better than what I’ve seen here to this point.
*One of globalization’s most ardent foes is none other than Pat Buchanan, boy liberal.
Jackmannii: *see the surveys showing the overwhelming predominance of Republican Party and conservative identification among owners and publishers
Who don’t write the stories, and care only about the bottom line.*
Which is seriously affected by the opinions of the advertisers, who, as I pointed out above, have increasing influence over news selection and presentation and who tend to be conservative.
*with a focus on economic issues, for example, we note that they’re overwhelmingly positive about globalization and other centrist/conservative positions (and this rightward tendency holds even among those “liberal” reporters and editors who are farther to the left on social issues
This particular issue comes across as ideologically neutral.*
!!! Comes across to whom? Economic policy is hardly an issue where political principles are irrelevant.
It’s one area where Bill Clinton can join hands with Phil Gramm and tap-dance across labor rights and environmental protection laws.
Well, maybe you interpret that as evidence that the “area” is “ideologically neutral”, but I see it more as evidence that Bill Clinton isn’t much of a leftist.
[on my comment that Christians are less religiously oppressed, and more vocal about religious oppression, than others:] *Religious mania is a red herring. Virtually any tactic is seen as acceptable if it helps spread a particular gospel. *
Well, that’s far from the only example of one side of an issue getting a large chunk of the exposure even if the available facts don’t warrant it. For example, grievances about the injustices of political correctness or affirmative action these days are at least as audible as complaints of plain old-fashioned discrimination against minorities, even though statistical evidence shows that the majority group is still significantly more privileged, and significantly less likely to suffer from discrimination, than minority groups.
Or consider the large number of people working today who assert that Social Security will be bankrupt before they retire, even though the vast majority of economists consider that extremely unlikely. Or the number of people who believe in alien abductions or psychic powers, for that matter. No, I don’t think you can validly use the argument that the amount of noise being made on one side of an issue is necessarily correlated to its objective truth: there are way too many counterexamples.
So I don’t really buy your deduction that because the shouts of “liberal bias” are noisier than the shouts of “conservative bias”, that must be the way it is. And I haven’t yet seen any other argument from you on this issue that seems like a really reliable objective yardstick, either. Basically, we’re left with Svinlesha’s relativism: from where you stand politically, the media looks left-leaning to you, whereas I see it differently. That’s fine as a personal opinion in either case, but it’s not the same thing as objective evidence.
