'Liberal Media Bias' (in US).

I was wondering if there really is liberal media bias in the dominant US medias. I know that is what the, well, to be blunt, conservatives say. Has any definitive study been done on the matter?

I know I starting thinking about it recently when I saw this and this Wikipedia article. (The last one also has a counterargument that follows.)

My personal belief, FWIW, is No. US media is controlled by corporations. So why would it be “liberal”? Oh, sure some of anchors might feel that with all their power and influence, it is their responsiblity to be fair. And maybe it gives them a feeling of social justice too, who knows. And yes, there are those occassions when they say things like “gay bashing is wrong”, which I guess may seem out-of-the-mainstream to some conservatives. But the whole institution liberal? I don’t think so.

What do the rest of you think:)?

Well, you see, the way this works is that newspapers and TV stations are owned or controlled, of course, by rich people. But EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE RICH PEOPLE finds himself mysteriously unable to control the content of his media–no matter what the boss decrees or how often he fires the pesky liberal writers and editors, they keep returning, like cockroaches. No rich boss has ever found a way to sneak a staffer with moderate or conservative views onto any media he owns, so this travesty continues unabated to this day. It’s a mystery.

Modern conservatives swear that the New York Times is a bastion of the liberal media. The New York Times is second only to the Wall Street Journal in their coverage of business and financial markets. Their editorial page basically never sides with a union during a strike. And conservatives insist that it is scarily liberal. Hilarious.

Furthermore, the reporters at the Times are some of the biggest panderers to today’s conservative and super-sensitive disposition. If the Republicans said the earth was flat, the New York Times would report, “Opinions on the shape of the earth differ…” A good example is their treatment of the filibuster. They routinely mangle history and the constitution by referring to the “60 votes required for passage” in the Senate. No. Sixty votes have been required to bring a bill up to vote only recently, and almost entirely due to Republican pressures. Even 5 years ago cloture votes weren’t as routine as they are now.

And check out conservative websites devoted to media criticism. They critique bias which translated means, “Our feeling were hurt”. The liberal Media Matters for America, in contrast, documents conservatives who consistently screw up their facts, make claims that are both highly dubious and moreover wholly unsubstantiated and, yes, reveal bigotry. The nature of the critique from the 2 sides is very different.
But I welcome wild eyed claims about big liberal media conspiracies. They reveal the derangement of the speaker and their qualifications for serious discussion.

Wasn’t there a study done in the early 90’s showing that about 92% of media types voted for Clinton?

Now that doesn’t prove bias since all good journalists can put their personal feelings aside and report right down the middle…right?

It’s kind of funny that no study like that has appeared since…that I’m aware of.

I’ve watched two enjoyable documentaries espousing the opposite effect - Manufacturing Consent and Orwell Rolls in His Grave. They discussed studies such as the following too.

Still kind of mystified about the exact meaning of the term ‘Liberal’ in american parlance.

But is Clinton considered a Democrat or a Liberal or are all democrats liberals?

I thought liberals were supposed to be even more radical than democrats.

Yes, it has been studied, many, many times. Some arehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias#Scholarly_treatment_of_media_bias_in_the_United_States_and_United_Kingdom"] here. Whether or not such studies are “definitive” is in the eyes of the beholder. The consensus of most is that yes, there is some element of bias, and yes, it is liberal.

My own sense it that, as the Kuypers study found, there is a “narrow range of liberal beliefs” that are favored. If you’re a strong progressive, to you it looks like the media are to your right, because they are. But they are still to the left of the mainstream.

The perception of liberal media bias by conservatives appears to be rooted in oversensitivity to criticism. A media outlet may be completely balanced, doling out criticism to conservatives and liberals alike, but conservatives only see the shit being flicked their way, so that outlet is labelled “biased”. Anyone criticizing conservatives is biased. I am reminded of that scene from Catch-22:

There may some correlation between ability to construct a sentence and ability to view the world with some semblence of rationality operating here, as well. (Sez the professional writer and resident radical.) IOW, what you’re asking about concerns the de-centering of the political spectrum by right-wing lunatics, so that accepting stuff and nonsense becomes a litmus test–anyone who dares question some of their most sacred truths (Laffer Curve, inferiority of blacks, Obamacare=hardcore Soviet policies, etc.) is labelled a left-wing lunatic. Thus, a perfectly neutral, moderate journalist gets tarred as being a left-wing extremist. Q.E.D.

A very biased study itself, as I understand. It canvassed practically none of the conservative media, ignored a lot of large media, and included a very large number of small-town and small-city newspapers, thereby giving them as much clout as major outlets.
Eric Alterman wrote his book What Liberal Media? in 2003 as a counterblast to accusations of liberal bias in books such as Bernard Goldberg’s Bias. He talks about that study at some length:

http://www.thenation.com/article/what-liberal-media

Also you have to consider confirmation bias - if you’re a conservative of a particular dogmatic variety (or pandering to such) you will view media coverage thusly:

Conservative things/people shown in a good light: Truth
Liberal things/people shown in a good light: Liberal bias
Conservative things/people shown in a bad light: Liberal bias
Liberal things/people shown in a bad light: Truth

Liberals are of course subject to the same, although IME liberals are less likely to automatically assume that liberal things/people being shown in a bad light is down to conservative bias. Liberals can be so insecure like that. :wink:

Here’s what Wikipedia has to say on it, by the way:

Bricker came up with an informative thread on how the SDMB in particular can deny something as obvious as the MSM’s liberal bias. But yes, it has been studied.

Most of the discussion on the topic on the SDMB boils down to the fact that the SDMB is so far to the left that the MSM looks conservative to them. Add a good big dose of selective perception, a smidgen of special pleading, frost with denial, and mix well. Serves about half the SDMB.

Regards,
Shodan

The above statement is definitely explained by the below one.

I have not found most of these studies particularly convincing. I don’t have a ton of time at the moment, but I’ll see if any of these linked are what I’m thinking of (or if I can find it on my own again), but the one study that came close to making an interesting case used a very curious metric to establish that the media had a liberal bias. It decided that the makeup of congress and its voting record would be “mainstream.” It found a number of publications to be quite liberal, including some traditional bastions of republitypes. I thought it was a metric I could get behind, because it sounded reasonably objective and repeatable. The only problem was that journalists are broadly responsible for covering issues around the whole world, and most of the world we want to hear about on the news is either going to be very liberal compared to us or a hellhole. Then it is no surprise that the media would show bias: they’d have to, if they’re doing their job correctly. I mean, why don’t we say that the media is fair, but the american population is rabidly right-wing? (Some do, some do.)

So, yeah, not really impressed. Most of the other metrics I’ve heard of smell to me of bible codes more than science.

It may be the one Shodan linked to, which mentions (for example) that the CBS Evening News and New York Times both scored approximately the same number of Fonda units (or whatever unit of measure they used) as Sen. Joe Lieberman, who’s apparently considered quite the lefty liberal…(?)

So yes, I think skepticism is warranted, although it is nice that at least one study exists that “liberal media” Cassandras can point to as evidence.

“Liberal” in American politico speak is used to characterize a candidate as:
[ul]
[li]Favoring the rights of criminals over their victims[/li][li]Soft on crime in general[/li][li]Pandering to women, gays and minorities (who are trying to steal your jobs)[/li][li]Favoring socialist policies (typically taxing hard working people to pay for meth toting 3rd generation welfare cases)[/li][li]Anti-business [/li][li]Probably uses drugs[/li][li]Generally flakey, niave and just fucking weird.[/li][/ul]

OTOH, “Conservative” is used to characterize someone as:
[ul]
[li]Gun nut[/li][li]Fascist[/li][li]Misogynist, homophbbic and racist (basically antinonwhitemaleist)[/li][li]Ruthlessly capitalist[/li][li]Religious fanatic[/li][li]Generally speaking, stupid, uneducated and just fucking dumb[/li][/ul]

You forgot ‘atheist’.

Yep, that’s the one. Thanks to Shodan and Vinyl Turnip.

Most rich owners of corporations are more focused on making money than on imposing their policial views on their organizations. In the case of media entities, most top notch journalists are very resistant to owners interfering with the journalistic process, and an attempt by the owners to do this will alienate the professionals and undermine the success of the organization.

This is especially so because most media bias is very subtle, and can’t be interfered with other than by heavyhanded micromanaging.

Mystery solved.