John Stossel claims media has liberal bias

Great Debates
41

(1) I didn’t know that CBS was in the habit of judging ads for their “quality”. I thought that they were paid a lot of money to air them. Can I send CBS feedback on other ads I think are low in quality and maybe they’ll refuse to take these people’s money too?

(2) Appropriate for the timeslot? I saw the ad and I must say that it did not have a whole lot of violence or sexual innuendo. (Or maybe that was the problem…They needed more graphic shootings with blood or a few hot chicks in bikinis?)

(3) As for the ad possibly being inflammatory, weren’t we treated to ads during the superbowl a few years back that equated people using marijuana to supporting terrorism? [Hmmm…I wonder if CBS would have been willing to air those ads that created the same analogy for people driving SUVs?]

I mean maybe CBS has a strict policy of not airing political or issue ads during the Superbowl (although I think those drug ads were treading awful close), but I haven’t heard that such is the case.

42

It is my opinion that the Dean campaign, particularly coupled with the lead up to the Iraqi war has dis-proved the myth that our mainstream media is “liberal.” They first portray Dean as a left wing radical just for speaking against the war (more on that in a minute). Parts of the rest of Dean’s record like: The fact the NRA gives Dean a rating of “A” (essential for any candidate hoping to win in rural America), the fact he ended up balancing Vermont’s budget hardly got any attention (President Bush for some reason would rather spend and cut taxes, a sure way to increase the deficit), and Dean’s very good ideas on reforming our health care system all got pushed to the bottom of the radar screen because they were all reasons that should have made Dean to be a very strong candidate. I think this is because the establishment looked at him as someone who may shake things up a bit and the press, businesses, or lobbying groups did not want things to be shaken up.

Now to the war in Iraq. It’s probably not fair to make critical assessments of the Bush Administration on going in today. An interesting, under-reported, gem I have found in my research was the German intelligence actually painted Iraq as worse than the Bush Administration did. So all this WMD nonsense was an intelligence failure on a global scale, perhaps like none the world has ever seen. Now I think, if the media was really explicitly “liberal,” in other words out to paint everything Bush does as the scourge of the earth, some journalists would have smelled something rotten all the way back in February and exposed the President for lying to all of us. No, instead any anti-war rhetoric, most specifically by our boy Dean was painted as left wing fringe communication.

I’m not sure what all of this means. I’m fairly sure that Dean is done though. Giving us this JFK man (John Frederick Kerry) who is completely un-inspiring. This has me rather disappointed—it’s pretty easy to see why only 50% of the country actually votes given these options for President. Why can’t we get better candidates than this? That is the real question here. Frankly, I don’t know.

43

What most people want is not an unbiased news source. What most people want is a news source that reflects their own personal views, and to somehow force the public and especially those in power to listen to that source and be magically persuaded of the rightness of their cause. Liberals seem to be the worst offenders, maybe because of a more idealistic philosophy. There’s always a lot of carping about, for instance, why the media don’t cover accounting scandals more critically, when in fact every reputable news outlet did nothing but criticize such scandals for months. The problem wasn’t that the story was not being told - the problem was that most people just didn’t give a crap unless they were personally involved. As a liberal, I am just now developing an acceptance of these realities.

I read Bernard Goldberg’s book (“Bias” or something like that) and found myself in agreement that in a certain sense, the media do have a liberal bias, but it tends to be about minor, irritating things like always having to interview a minority no matter what the story is. The conservative bias, toward things like the rights of corporations, seems subtler but much more important to me.

Dealing with bias is a fundamental part of communication, not just journalism, but daily interactions as well. Every account is biased, because a person with no point of view wouldn’t bother to give the account. I think the public is much better at detecting bias than the Stossels and Goldbergs give them credit. It’s just that most people, perhaps due to a lack of understanding about how actions in far-off places can affect their lives, really don’t have an interest in most of the news. It would be great if everyone read the paper every day and gave some thought to what was in it, but if you wait for that to happen, you will be waiting for a long time indeed.

44

I am convinced the only bias in the media is a bias towards making money. Folks on the right are discouraged to think critically about most government policies. They would prefer to abolish the government entirely than raise anyone’s taxes. So the radio talk show hosts simply sing to people who support those ideas anyway. These are people who don’t know beans about the coming social security disaster and want to keep it that way. So they listen to these guys on the radio that jabber about the same simplistic things everyday and feel ahead of the genetic curve.

You want to have a look at the real liberal sites on the web? Try going to progressive.com or commondreams.org or alternet.com These people are un-questionably liberal. None of the big networks would ever put any of this on the air.

The truth is that because the reporters for the big networks are all living in urban areas, their perception of an issue like gun control will be skewed to the control side of policy. They can not relate to people who hunt or target shoot for recreation because that is not deemed as a social norm with the people they know.

45

That’s fine and good, but note that I wasn’t talking about legislators, but the various pundits, talking heads, representatives and “sides of an issue” supporters who frequent the morning shows on the networks and the afternoon and evening schedules of the cable news nets.

Way to misread and put words in my mouth. I very clearly shared my observations, noting only anecdotally that I began to make note of these things after reading Goldberg’s book. I began to pay attention to see whether or not he was correct, I found that in my experience, he was. What does that have to do with someone “telling me what I want to hear?” You don’t know anything about me or what I “want to hear” and you’d be well served not to be presumptuous.

If you could point out any statement I made which labeled CBS as having a liberal bias, this might be on point. Because I offer an alternative reasoning for the disapproval of that piece of crap from MoveOn.Org does not mean I’m making any statement with regard to bias, in fact, I think I fairly clearly suggested that the reasoning behind the decision has nothing to do with bias – in any direction – whatsoever.

They certain judge the content of ads. Just because someone sends a videotape and a check, there’s no guarantee that their spot will make it on air, especially not during the Super Bowl, where competition for the time is steep and the time is specifically limited. The very fact that the commercial was rejected points to the existence of some vetting system.

Clearly graphic sex or violence isn’t the only thing that could make an advertisment inappropriate to be aired at certain times.

Perhaps after all the crap that was slung their way after showing those stupid ads, CBS has revised its policy and has made the decision that political ads, particularly those coming from a specific and particularly partisan organization making a controversial claim with inflammatory rhetoric and/or imagery, will not air during the Super Bowl because they offend the audience and cause PR problems for the network. We don’t know. But those who support MoveOn.Org are more than happy to presume otherwise, acting very much as if there was some requirement on CBS’s part to show the ad simply because they had the bucks to buy the time.

46

Well, for one thing, the “media” did report. You can’t make them listen. The cites we Perfidious Liars [sup]TM[/sup] go grubbing for are from newspapers, etc. Stories about Bushiviks playing fast and loose with truth, when it came to questions of war.

Why don’t we have better candidates? Because we don’t deserve them. Voting citizens of the most powerful single nation in history…and half of us don’t pay any attention. I have a fairly high regard for Gov. Dean. He ain’t no Paul Wellstone, but then neither was Paul Wellstone. I think he will most likely lose, and if I’m right, throw himself whole-heartedly into the Kerry/Edwards campaign.

(At Kerry rallies, the cameras will pan across men of…prime maturity, dressed in fatigues. Vets. Vets for Kerry. And Karl Rove will wake up screaming, clutching his banky… …Ah! The sweetness of karma!)

47

From NOW’s own FAQ page:

Assuming NOW is not lying here, then calling them “non-partisan” seems to be accurate.

I was not familiar with the CWA, so I did a search and found them on the internet – the Concerned Women for America. While they don’t identify themselves right off as being aligned with any political party, it’s very obvious (via a visit to their “About CWA” and “Core issues” pages) that they are very pro-Christian, anti-abortion, pro-Roy Moore, anti-separation of church and state, and anti-United Nations(?!).

Do you seriously believe this is a *non-*partisan platform they’ve got here? You couldn’t find a group more stereotypically conservative Republican if you wrote one up for a sitcom skit. And quite frankly, if calling this group “conservative” is what passes for “proof” of media bias by Goldberg, then he’s an idiot.

48

Only a flaming liberal would write something like this.

People are biased. You must read the individual journalist.

Democrats: Brokaw, Rather, Jennings, the 60 Minutes staff and crew, etc…

Republicans: Hume, Will, Snow, not so much in the way of etc…

49

Well, what usually happens in that situation is the price goes up to the point where supply equals demand. Is CBS keeping the prices artificially low?

Is it tautology day here at the Straight Dope? Yes, clearly there is some sort of vetting. But, the whole question is whether it is a fair one or one that may tend to marginalize certain political views relative to others.

Well, if you can show me where CBS has admitted those ads were a mistake and explained this revised policy and how it applies fairly to everyone, then I will be a little less upset…although I may still question a policy that essentially elevates corporate selling-people-stuff speech above political speech of any sort. Somehow my view of what we get in return for giving CBS access to our airwaves includes some amount of political debate…even if it may not make people feel all happy and warm and fuzzy.

On the other hand, what MoveOn said is that CBS is running some sort of ads from the White House. Now, I don’t know their content or even their subject (e.g., whether they are more anti-drug ads or what) but it would be interesting to know and understand why these ads get run and MoveOn’s does not, n’est pas?

50

The two White House-sponsored ads that will be aired are indeed from the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. See here.

51

Here is a nice article in Salon on this MoveOn/CBS controversy. (You can get a day-pass to read it by going through one of their multi-screen ads.)

Here are some interesting points from that article:

I think the turning down of the anti-consumerist ad illustrates exactly the problem with the corporate-run media: There is not a level playing field here. They are explicitly favoring materialism over alternative (e.g., anti-materialist or environmental conservation) messages. For example, I am sure there will be plenty of ads for SUVs but I am also sure that they would never in a million years be willing to air those ads that Adrianna Huffington’s group produced, as take-offs on the drug ads, that make the connection between filling your big honkin’ SUV with gas and supporting terrorism.

On top of that, there is even some debate about how this no-advocacy policy is being enforced:

52

Why? Because they say so? Why don’t you look at their platform and the party affiliation of the candidates they typically endorse?

And yet, they claim to be non-partisan. Why do you not extend them the same courtesy you extend NOW? Alternatively, why do you not do the same kind of substantive evaluation of NOW that you did for the CWA?

Really, rjung, this post says more about your own blind partisanship than anything else.

53

Because NOW was willing to put themselves on the line and say “we are non-partisan,” while the CWA did not.

Now, if you’d like to make the argument that NOW is a bunch of liars who act in partisan ways when they claim they aren’t, you’re welcome to do so in a separate thread. But on the issue of whether the CWA is “unfairly labelled” as a conservative group, it seems to me that since they aren’t claiming anything one way or the other, it’s perfectly acceptable for a visitor to draw their own conclusions.

54

Of course, another point about the NOW, CWA thing is that one of these groups has high name recognition and most people could likely tell you where they fit in the political scheme of things; the other does not.

The reason that the conservatives have to resort to all these convoluted things like who gets labeled to try to show “liberal” bias (and then they still get it wrong, as the analysis of Goldberg’s book has shown) is that such bias basically does not exist.

Note that the liberal charges of media bias in the conservative direction involve real things…like manifestly incorrect facts or the media not reporting certain things (like Cheney’s lie) while harping to death on others with misleading or incomplete accounts (like Gore’s supposed exaggerations) or the media quoting from right-wing think-tanks much more than from left-wing ones.

55

Oh yeah…And that is also why the Media Research Center has to have a budget that is something like 5 or 10X more than FAIR’s (I forget the exact number) and yet still can’t come up with as compelling evidence of bias as FAIR can.

56

Of course there’s a liberal media. C’mere. I’ll show you.

Turn on your TV. Now change it to PBS. Oh, wait, it’s the McLaughlin Group. Christ, I’d rather spend a flight from Atlanta to Tokyo to the Colicky Baby Convention than spend a half-hour on a bus with this clown. Okay, now It’s Nature, then Nova, then Scientific American (I suppose that could be considered a liberal show, because they don’t give any airtime to Creationism). Oh, there it is! The sum total of the liberal media on TV! NOW, with Bill Moyers. The only news show, I should say. You might call Real Sex liberal, but most people (myself excluded) don’t watch it to be informed.

Of course, there’s more to the media than just television. Turn your radio on and tune in to NPR (if you live where you can actually pick it up). They’ve been covering the Democratic Primaries a lot lately, and they actually talk to people who really want George W. Bush out of the white house.

And let’s not forget the printed word. Freedom of the press, and all that jazz. Head out to the local newspaper stand (or gas station, if you live somewhere without actual newsstands). Ignore the Wall Street Journal. Disregard your local paper. What you’re looking for is probably over by the Thrifty Nickel. It’s typically about the shape of a standard supermarket tabloid, but a bit larger. It’ll also be free, and have a lot of local activities and restaurant reviews. Sandwiched between those and the copious ads will be some news articles of a decidedly liberal bent. They’ll probably also run This Modern World, the finest liberal cartoon this side of Bloom County. If you happen to be around St. Louis, this paper is the Riverfront Times. In Boise, it’s the Boise Weekly. And these newspapers are, invariably, free.

So, there you have it. A little bit of PBS, a good chunk of NPR, and a number of free newspapers. That’s the Liberal Media all these pundits have been pissing and moaning about. You see a threat to them from the Liberal Media? I sure don’t. But, don’t forget, they want it all.

57

So if the CWA had put a boilerplate “non-partisan” label on their website, you’d buy it? And you’d expect the rest of the media to buy it too? How charmingly naive.

It’s not so much that they’re a “bunch of liars” as it is they’re just using ordinary boilerplate. Most issue advocacy groups claim to be nonpartisan, even if in reality they identify quite strongly with one party or the other.

58

I’ve been listening to a alot of NPR lately, and I have to say that for what everyone admits is a clear example of liberal bias, they seem to have conservative commentators on all the time, and they speak intelligently, and are treated as intelligent, insightful people by the hosts. The only real exception is the Fresh Air lady, and she’s only been bad a few notable times (in the case of Bill O’Reily, it was pretty much just desserts: she gave him a tenth of the sort of unfair grilling he gives his liberal guests, but without the yelling, and he still couldn’t take it)

The funny thing is that these exact same commentators, on Fox, never get a chance to say anything really intelligent, never get a chance to lay out their principles or ideas, because that would take too much time away from mocking the fashion sense of Democrats. On NPR, they get to go in depth, and they get asked intelligent questions: even the critical ones are based on taking their views seriously rather than attacking them pointlessly.

So even though the hosts of most NPR shows are liberals, and the news is probably more often than not liberal slanted, it’s hard to see how the bias on NPR can be compared to the bias on Fox. It’s just not the same sort or level of bias.

59

Stossel is without much doubt at all, someone who basically gets to present his opinions as journalism, crafting a story to sell his point of view while presenting it as a balanced look at something. I think his complaints about liberal media are basically his defense for this behavior. But it’s hardly a good defense: even if the media was slanted to the left in the way he says, it hardly rises to the level of pure one-sided advocacy in the way his pieces do. Coupled with the reality that his facts are usually mangled or made up, and this is not a guy to trust for a balanced look at anything, including the issue of balance.

60

I’d give them the benefit of the doubt that they were non-partisan, until it was proven to me otherwise.

Again, if you want to argue that NOW isheavily partisan despite their claims of non-partisanship, you’re welcome to start a new thread on the topic. Otherwise this is just “They say they’re non-partisan, but I say they’re biased!” (similar to the same kind of unsubstantiated accusations that the ACLU gets)