# Is the "Media" Liberal **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 15, 2002, 10:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-media-liberal/98444 "2002-03-15T10:42:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2002, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-media-liberal/98444/41 "2002-03-16T23:26:22Z")
Lucwarm: > [@](#): > > What makes you so confident that ultra-conservatives get press coverage while ultra-liberals are mostly ignored? But what makes someone an ‘ultra-liberal’? We need a more exacting characterization of ‘liberal’ and such proclivities as can be carried forward to the extreme or ‘ultra’ without destroying the fundamental ‘liberal’ nature. Fer starters, there’s nothing ‘ultra-liberal’ about a communist. Originally posted by k2dave > [@](#): > > Also a fair definition of a liberal in my humble O is one who thinks society can be best served by people not directly involved with an issue so they can look at the issue objectively, while a conservative thinks that the people directly involved should be the ones to deal with the issue. But how does that definition take into account those conservatives who believe that religious elders should dictate so many aspects of peoples lives. > [@](#): > > I use liberal throughout as a synonym for gun control advocate though they aren’t. Shouldn’t gun control be more properly characterized as ‘conservative’ in the sense of being ‘strictly regulated’, and the lack of gun control ‘liberal’ in the sense of being ‘less restrictive’ or ‘permissive’? ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2002, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-media-liberal/98444/42 "2002-03-17T01:10:41Z")
\*\* jshore \*\* 1st I must say that campaign finance reform is unconstitutional as I understand it and expect it to be struck down by the S.C. If I understand it correctly the 1st amendment was written with political speech in mind - though we are lead to believe that is was intended to protect crucifixes dipped in dung in a jar of urine. Back about 1 yr ago I saw a poll that showed C.F.R. was really a non-issue - people really didn’t care. C.F.R. would benefit the media since they will be the only game in town to talk about a candidate. Also unions (usually go along with liberals) are exempt. But If I and a bunch of people of common interest wanted to pool our money to buy a TV ad to run near election day we couldn’t under CFR. > [@](#): > > Do you believe those with the most \*money \* should have greater access and influence over our politicians? [ ideally no, BUT you just don’t side step the Constitution - amend it if you want to take away the 1st amendment. For that matter amend it if you want to take away the 2nd. Until that is done Congress shall make no law and the right of the people … shall not be infringed. I think most politicians are influenced by (lets call it as it is) bribes, Don’t you think those who have money will find ways to get it to their politician even with CFR, where does that leave me? - shut out, unable to voice my humble O. **Crusoe** I’d say another fair definition but I must add for the right side - but if it’s broke fix it (i.e. school vouchers) \*\* Icerigger \*\* I would have to say that the public is the one who loves what Ronald Reagan did - not the media. > [@](#): > > Tell me something, is being referred to as “the conservative” as bad as being referred to as “the enemy who wants to destroy America” as Rush labels liberals? I’ve never heard this - when did Rush say this and what is the context? \*\* sqweels \*\* that was a generalization that admittedly was not 100% accurate > [@](#): > > Shouldn’t gun control be more properly characterized as ‘conservative’ in the sense of being ‘strictly regulated’, and the lack of gun control ‘liberal’ in the sense of being ‘less restrictive’ or ‘permissive’? If you use the dictionary definition then yes, but if you use real world meanings of the 2 parties then no. I see conservatives as more for personal freedom and liberals as more for gov’t regulation of all aspects of out lives - so conservative = less restrictive while liberal = more restrictive. ---
**Author:** ![Ned](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/848f3c/32.png) [@Ned](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ned)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2002, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-media-liberal/98444/43 "2002-03-17T02:00:03Z")
> [@](#): > > If you use the dictionary definition then yes, but if you use real world meanings of the 2 parties then no. I see conservatives as more for personal freedom and liberals as more for gov’t regulation of all aspects of out lives - so conservative = less restrictive while liberal = more restrictive. I do agree with your main point that a dictionary definition is silly when it is entirely reasonable to associate liberal groups with gun control efforts in the real world. On the other hand I don’t think liberalism mandates gun control and many liberals like guns hence my disclaimer. Your other point is a bit simplistic as government actions are not the only ones which restrict our freedom. Laws against assault seek to protect our freedom to live free of physical violence. laws against theft protect our freedom to own personal property and accumulate wealth. Democrats are in some areas more prepared to enact laws that they see as increasing the freedom of most people to live free of the negative aspects of others conduct. Conservatives do the same in other areas, they just don’t like to recognize it. Conservatives generally don’t seem to have a problem restricting many types of personal conduct and enforcing tradition values which certainly restrict freedom. You may not agree personally but you must admit that in the real world your end of the political spectrum cannot escape this any more than the left can escape its ties to gun control. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2002, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-media-liberal/98444/44 "2002-03-17T03:32:42Z")
> [@](#): > > Laws against assault seek to protect our freedom to live free of physical violence. laws against theft protect our freedom to own personal property and accumulate wealth. Are you saying that liberals are stricter on crime then conservatives - or am I misreading you? > [@](#): > > Conservatives generally don’t seem to have a problem restricting many types of personal conduct and enforcing tradition values which certainly restrict freedom. To some degree I have to agree, drug use comes to mind but I’m sure there are more (again not all L or C is for/against legalization of marijuana but I do see a trend). I have strayed too far off topic here. I have noticed something and would like to know if you opinion (since no one responded the 1st time) - Conservatives in the media come right out and say so, while liberals in the media claim to be objective or mainstream. I think that is the basis of the media bias. Basically you have someone who is suppose to be objective obviously leaning to the left. If they just came out and said they are a liberal journalist then that would take the liberal media fuel away. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2002, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-media-liberal/98444/45 "2002-03-17T03:36:46Z")
Just to add: > [@](#): > > while liberals in the media claim to be objective or mainstream. I really think most journalists who fall into this category really think their views are mainstream but don’t really know the price of a loaf of bread (they live in a different world then the ‘common’ folk) and as such think their liberal views are mainstream. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2002, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-media-liberal/98444/46 "2002-03-17T04:05:06Z")
> [@](#): > > If you use the dictionary definition then yes, but if you use real world meanings of the 2 parties then no. I see conservatives as more for personal freedom and liberals as more for gov’t regulation of all aspects of out lives - so conservative = less restrictive while liberal = more restrictive. But how we get from the dictionary definition to something meaning the complete opposite? Like **Ned** was saying whatever happend to liberal meaning ‘permissive’? Liberals are ‘soft on crime’, liberals are for drug legalization, liberals are for gay marriage, liberals are for family planning, liberals are against an anti-flag burning amendment, liberals are for assisted suicide, liberals are against censoring porn, etc. Clearly we need to look elsewhere for our definitions of liberal and conservative than ‘more restrictive vs less restrictive’. ---
**Author:** ![Ned](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/848f3c/32.png) [@Ned](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ned)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2002, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-media-liberal/98444/47 "2002-03-17T04:05:07Z")
> [@](#): > > Are you saying that liberals are stricter on crime then conservatives - or am I misreading you? Yes, you are misreading me. My point was simply that regulation of one persons activity can be seen as defence of freedom for others. Criminal laws of this type are ones most of us can agree result in a net gain of freedom. But yes, we are drifting far from the topic. I think the trend towards more self identified conservatives is related to the dearth of liberals in the punditocracy. In general news reporting there is a belief in journalistic methods that promote objectivity and, I think, a real effort to actually be objective. I have a number of friends who are journalists and I can tell you they take the responsibility to report objectively very seriously notwithstanding the acknowledged reality that true objectivity is probably impossible. There are certainly many examples of conservatives taking the role of objective reporter who don’t wear their political affiliations on their sleeves but the crossover to pundit seems more common with them. Conservatives lately seem to be embracing postmodern thought lately in ways that I don’t think are terribly healthy for society. The impossibility of objectivity does not mean the pursuit of objectivity is without merit. We are getting to the point where the right and left can barely communicate and fractionalization of the media is part of the reason. ---
**Author:** ![veg\_all](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc8723/32.png) [@veg\_all](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/veg_all)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2002, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-media-liberal/98444/48 "2002-03-17T04:09:27Z")
k2dave: oops. sorry. But I don’t think you need context to see Ashcroft’s statement as a direct contradiction to (your) sig. ---
**Author:** ![JubilationTCornpone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee59a6/32.png) [@JubilationTCornpone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JubilationTCornpone)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2002, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-media-liberal/98444/49 "2002-03-17T05:39:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > \*\* > Would you consider that an example of bias? Because that is the way conservatives often get treated. \*\* Another example is the abortion issue. Pro-choicers are typically described as “pro-choice” or “abortion rights advocates.” Their opponents are typically described as “anti-abortion” or “anti-abortion extremists.” Additionally, whenever Roe v. Wade’s anniversary rolls around, publications such as _U.S. News and World Report_ are quick to print articles on the occasional abortion clinic bombing – even months or years after the fact – but almost never report on peaceful alternatives to abortion provided by thousands of pro-life agencies. [http://www.mediaresearch.org/news/mediawatch/1990/mw19900801stud.html](http://www.mediaresearch.org/news/mediawatch/1990/mw19900801stud.html) ---
**Author:** ![Ned](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/848f3c/32.png) [@Ned](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ned)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2002, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-media-liberal/98444/50 "2002-03-17T06:05:24Z")
> [@](#): > > Their opponents are typically described as “anti-abortion” or "anti-abortion extremists. Got a cite to back up that contention? In my experience backed up by a google search I did just now pro-life is the prefered term by the mainstream press by a fairly wide margin. They seem to use anti-abortion more when describing criminal acts like clinic bombings which I take to be an effort by the press to distinguish such individuals from the mainstream pro-life movement. Confusing the issue somewhat is whether anti-abortion is such a bad name. A significant portion of the sites my google search came up with were pro-life sites which used the term to describe their activities. Some even argued it was far more appropriate than pro-life. ---
**Author:** ![veg\_all](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc8723/32.png) [@veg\_all](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/veg_all)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2002, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-media-liberal/98444/51 "2002-03-17T06:47:11Z")
JubilationTCornpone : And after all the work expendended on that silly “pro-life” media label. At least the right can still (amazingly) say with a straight face, “the ‘Democrat’ party,” turning the name into an epithet. I’m not a member of the DemocratIC party, but this still grates on me. Lott and his lot are often quoted verbatim (in _the media_ !) using this crude phrase. W.F. Buckley himself frowns upon this hijacking of the English language for political purposes: http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2001/11/wallraff.htm Oops. The source appears to be a member of the liberal media. Well, the quotee has certainly secured his _bona fides_. ---
**Author:** ![JubilationTCornpone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee59a6/32.png) [@JubilationTCornpone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JubilationTCornpone)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2002, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-media-liberal/98444/52 "2002-03-17T07:03:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ned \* > \*\*Got a cite to back up that contention? \*\* Not on hand; however, I had read articles to that effect (which I unfortuanately don’t have on file), and this was consistent with my own readings in the print media (which would not be completely reflected by a Google search). I keep an eye out for such things when the anniversary of Roe v. Wade rolls around. Also, the web page which I cited earlier provides several other examples of slanted abortion-related reporting by the media, including the use of terms such as “militant” or “strident” to describe pro-lifers. The study cited likewise emphasizes that pro-lifers are often depicted in extreme ways (e.g. opposing abortion even in cases of rape or incest), whereas the extreme measures of groups like NARAL (e.g. endorsing abortion even to the last moments of preganncy) are not emphasized and seldom mentioned. Similar claims can be found at: [http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0428\_Clearing\_Media\_Smoke.html](http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0428_Clearing_Media_Smoke.html) ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2002, 7:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-media-liberal/98444/53 "2002-03-17T07:18:57Z")
IMHO the whole problem with this type of discussion is that “liberal” and “conservative” are relative, rather than absolute, terms. Someone on the far right is likely to consider moderates to be liberals., while someone on the far left is likely to consider moderates to be conservatives. I’ve seem some sources accuse the mainstream media of having a liberal bias and I’ve seen others accuse it of being hopelessly conservative. It’s completely subjective. ---
**Author:** ![Ned](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/848f3c/32.png) [@Ned](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ned)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2002, 7:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-media-liberal/98444/54 "2002-03-17T07:57:04Z")
> [@](#): > > Not on hand; however, I had read articles to that effect (which I unfortuanately don’t have on file), and this was consistent with my own readings in the print media (which would not be completely reflected by a Google search). I keep an eye out for such things when the anniversary of Roe v. Wade rolls around. Not on hand because they don’t exist. The articles you read use the same methodology you do which is to say none at all. I might also point out both articles you cite are over 10 years old and groups which use militant tactics tend to get called militant. It would seem that the media you prefer to read has little respect for the facts. NARAL takes the position that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land and this does not allow for unrestricted access to abortion until the moment of birth. If you are talking about “partial birth abortions” then you are into an area where your side has gotten the press advantage by a huge margin. Apparently to the extent that you don’t even know what the NARAL position is in that respect. If you read the media looking for bias I guarantee you will find it. If you try to examine the issue with some objectivity it is considerably more difficult. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2002, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-media-liberal/98444/55 "2002-03-17T13:24:46Z")
Here’s you cite about anti abortion: [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&q=anti-abortion+extremists+newsday](http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&q=anti-abortion+extremists+newsday) the 1st 2 google search hits are for Newsday, a paper that claims to be objective but is IMHO very left leaning. Actually I was surprised you even asked - I have almost always heard pro life referred to as anti abortion and pro choice referred to as pro choice in the media. \*\* veg\_all \*\* Context can mean everything with such a statement but lets just say he said and ment it as is and lets just say that I strongly disagree with him on that subject. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2002, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-media-liberal/98444/56 "2002-03-18T01:56:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by UncleBeer \* > there is a demonstrable bias in mainstream media towards gun control. There was a very recent thread in this forum where that was demonstrated very conclusively. I didn’t read that thread, but that seems plausible to me. Methinks, the mainstream media has a NYC/DC/LA bias, because of their location. All those areas are urban, which would tend to advance the gun control position. But let’s look at the large question objectively ;). Or rather, let’s try. One measure might be the sort of “experts” that tend to be cited in various articles and their affiliations. If the preponderance of think tanks that are cited tend to be conservative, that might indicate a conservative bias. Ditto if the positions of certain liberal think tanks tend to be under-reported or ignored. Ok, here’s a table from [FAIR.](http://www.fair.org/extra/9805/think-tanks.html) Top Ten Think Tanks, by Newspaper Citation ```auto Think Tank Political Orientation 1997 Citations 1996 Citations Brookings Institution centrist 2,296 2,196 Heritage Foundation conservative 1,813 1,779 American Enterprise Institute conservative 1,323 1,401 Cato Institute conservative/libertarian 1,286 1,136 RAND Corporation center-right 865 826 Council on Foreign Relations centrist 755 727 Center for Strategic and International Studies conservative 668 586 Urban Institute center-left 610 655 Economic Policy Institute progressive 576 452 Freedom Forum centrist 531 625 ``` Note that there are only 2 lefty organizations on the list. (Note also that [Brookings has a preponderance of Republican analysts and managers](http://www.fair.org/extra/9811/brookings.html), justifying its “centrist” label.) I concede though, that relative to Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, Tom DeLay and the current administration they are indeed liberal. ---
**Author:** ![Ned](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/848f3c/32.png) [@Ned](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ned)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2002, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-media-liberal/98444/57 "2002-03-18T05:27:32Z")
Well, I did a search on cnn comparing the usage and was surprised to see that anti-abortion and pro-life are used almost interchangably sometimes within the same article. I still fail to see the bias in not using an ideologically loaded term that does not accurately describe the advocacy. Sometimes ideologicaly loaded terms do get used when there isn’t a more descriptive neutral alternative. Family values comes to mind as an example of this. Pro-choice is probably less so but it isn’t used much when abortion rights fits in gramatically. I continue to find it amusing to see the same crowd who can’t understand PC applying the logic so vociferously to their own causes. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2002, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-media-liberal/98444/58 "2002-03-18T06:34:01Z")
Oh, and here’s a summary table, from the [FAIR](http://www.fair.org/extra/9805/think-tanks.html) link: ```auto Think Tank Ideology Media Citations 1997 Media Citations 1996 Conservative or Right-Leaning 7,733 (53%) 7,706 (54%) Centrist .....................4,623 (32%) 4,329 (30%) Progressive or Left-Leaning ..2,267 (16%) 2,177 (15%) TOTAL .......................14,623 .....14,212 ``` Looks to me like the US media has a center-right bias. I doubt whether this would surprise many Europeans. ---
**Author:** ![Profane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e47774/32.png) [@Profane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Profane)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2002, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-media-liberal/98444/59 "2002-03-18T07:17:22Z")
Part of the reason that anti-abortion and pro-life are used interchangably, is that pro-life people are anti-abortion. For the most part, they don’t want people to _ever_ have abortions. Pro-choicers, again for the most part, are not pro-abortion. They are not trying to get every woman to have an abortion, they want every woman to have the _option_ available. As to the OP, people’s own leanings usually affect how they perceive bias. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2002, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-media-liberal/98444/60 "2002-03-18T12:56:56Z")
**flowbark** , I once simply _linked_ to a site that called the Brookings Institution “centrist”, and was warned that **Kimstu** would kick my ass for it. I wonder where she is? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-media-liberal/98444.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-media-liberal/98444.md?page=4)