Remember the poll done after one of the Clinton victories in which 80+% of reporters polled said that they voted for Clinton?
Anybody remember the specifics? Have similar polls been done since?
Could you find the poll? When you say reporters, do you mean only the reporters, or do you mean everybody in the news from the producer through the executive producer up to the managers and corporate heads?
“There is a liberal media” is the 21st century equivalent of “the Earth is flat.”
And why is it that whenever conservatives rant against the alleged bias of reporters, they never bother to look at the bias of the editors and publishers who call the shots? Or do they truly believe that reporters can write whatever they want without any supervision from their superiors?
Here’s a discussion that looks at both sides of the argument: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States
The general treatment of Bush in the 2000 election and over much of his Presidency…and in particular, the treatment of Iraq in the lead-up to the war…should have put the final nails into the coffin of the idea that there is a liberal media bias. One would have hoped that a liberal media…or even a more competent neutral media…would have been able to get the Americans the facts above the rabble of propaganda. That this did not occur (and continues not to occur as the PIPA polls have demonstrated) is evidence that the media is doing a very poor job at keeping conservative propaganda in check, let alone indoctrinating us with liberal propaganda.
Also, the question of whether there is a liberal or conservative media bias tends to be confounded by a few factors:
(1) Some of the bias may be more of an “urban bias”. In particular, I think studies have shown that reporters tend to be more liberal than the general public on social issues but more conservative on economic issues. My WAG is that publishers and owners of the media also might be a bit more liberal than the general public on social issues but considerably more conservative on economic issues.
(2) In the 2000 Presidential election, the most notable media bias seemed to be one in favor of the less-intellectually threatening, more personable candidate and against the more intellectual, wonkish, and know-it-all-y candidate.
(3) Government, particularly a tightly-run administration like this one, can help create its own media biases by being very diligent about rewarding favorable reporting and punishing unfavorable reporting.
More of the so-called “liberal” media:
“How liberal is the national media?” and “How liberal are members of the media?” are not the same question, and should not be treated as if they are.
Yes, Virginia, there is a liberal media. But it’s been largely marginalized* by the mainstream media, which usually lets itself get blown more to the right than to the left by the prevailing political winds.
Rightwing nutballs are fond of finding scattered liberal voices in the wilderness and padding them with straw into “liberal media” boogeymen.
So, in the sense that there is an Ivory Billed Woodpecker, yes, there is a liberal media.
*For truthtelling, if you ask me.
Actually, Ivorybill has always struck me as a quite moderate conservative. (I miss her posts.)
Because it would shoot their argument full of holes, duh. Better to keep things simple. Besides, the editors and publishers are mostly not ranting right-wingers themselves, which to the critics, makes them fellow-travelers.
Here’s a link to a number of studies. I’m sure parts of it can be picked apart but there is alot of info:
http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp#TV%20and%20Newspaper%20Journalists
For those of you who will attack the site repeat after me … “I will no longer cite liberal sources. I will no longer cite liberal sources.”
How very interesting! So, what we have here is a completely factual, entirely unbiased assessment of the liberal media, from an entirely objective source? Did you happen to take a little stroll over to their “Free Market Project” sub-site? Interesting stuff there, about how the liberal media spreads anti-capitalist propaganda. You know, wild lies about how the oil companies are making windfall profits.
And advertising, of course. Hey, gotta make a buck, right? Advertising such sternly non-partisan sites as TownHall.com. Mmmmm, yes. And “Newbusters: Exposing and Combatting Liberal Media Bias”.
And a book is offered by the illustrious and widely-respected Herman Cain! Who? Why, the widely respected and illustrious Herman Cain! With a forward by Zell Miller!
You can find out more about this deathless tome at Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0974537608/103-5352287-1259052?v=glance
If you like this book you will like:
Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America by Thomas Sowell
and, naturally, South Park Conservatives: The Revolt Against Liberal Media Bias by Brian C. Anderson, and of course, Newt Gangrene’s latest.
Gee, thanks for the utterly unbiased and objective source, guy!
What the hell is that supposed to mean? Look, that is a conservative site dedicated to find liberal media bias and, if you ask me, their attempts to do so are less convincing than attempts on the left to find conservative biases in the media. See FAIR, MediaMatters, and PIPA. (The latter does it somewhat indirectly by looking at what Americans believe and how those beliefs vary with what media they watch.)
By the way, Al Franken has a great story in one of his books about when he was on a show with Bernard Goldberg who relied heavily on Media Research Center for his examples of supposed liberal bias. Basically, Franken showed that they had taken a quote from an anchor totally out-of-context…during the days of the Russian coup. (Goldberg didn’t even know this.) Without that context, it sounded like the anchor might be very left-wing…almost pro-Soviet…but put back into context (and with other quotations from that same broadcast included), it became very clear that it was absolutely nothing of the sort.
This recent thread was an enlightening one on the topic of media bias, especially as regards the difficulty of establishing an agreed standard of evidence.
Regards,
Shodan
I disagree. For starters, he says “media” but also refers to “reporters” which is why I asked who he meant within a news organization. A lot of people like to walk about the media as if it’s this one big thing when really it’s a bunch of organizations that, publicly traded, act predictably like any other.
If you look at how one of those organizations work, organizationally, and combine that with the increasing conglimeration of all media into what are essentially 10 holding companies,… you might feel that the mind of the man managing all of CNN’s different news managers is part of the equation. What does he think leads? What are his performance targets? How long does he like a story to be?
We may not answer those questions on the board but I think it’s more fruitful than deciding if Al Franken or Ann Coulter does more damage. Both sides claim bias because both sides are right.
Every news organization is biased at various times when it’s mission is compromised by individuals within their organization. Whether it’s Dan Rather leading with forged documents on CBS or its NBC honoring their contract to basketball during the first week of the Iraq war as looting began.
Do any of their links deal with voting patterns?
I’ll repost the link to the article that JS_Africanus plugged in the last major thread on media bias. It is very informative, and you can read it here. This treatment of media bias is far more rigorous than the tendentious drivel one usually finds on this subject.
Don’t look at me… I’m a member of the media. A stat showing that 80% of reporters (without specifying which medium, if any) would be proof for some people that “the media is liberal,” but I don’t think that’s sufficient. I think examining patterns of coverage and investigating them for bias is much more telling than something as simple as “80% voted Democrat.”