# 'Liberal Media Bias' (in US). **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 4, 2012, 7:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-media-bias-in-us/617788 "2012-04-04T07:32:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![NDP](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ndp/32/55_2.png) [@NDP](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NDP)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-media-bias-in-us/617788/41 "2012-04-04T19:15:11Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > “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] Also, on matters of defense and international relations, a “Liberal” is stereotyped as someone who is: [ul] [li]Anti-military (in fact, _loathes_ the military and will spit on soldiers when given the chance)[/li][li]Anti-defense spending (would cut the defense budget back to just a few crossing guards on the Canadian and Mexican borders)[/li][li]Anti-Israel (and probably secretly anti-Semitic)[/li][li]Pro-Islamic militant[/li][li]Pro-Castro[/li][li]A “Blame America First” type[/li][/ul] A “Conservative”, in contrast, is stereotyped as someone who is: [ul] [li]Unquestionably pro-military (would give the Defense Department all that they want and much more even if it’s for weapons that are useless and obsolete)[/li][li]Pro-Israel (so much that he considers anyone who’s opinion on Israel differs even slightly from the right-wing of Likud’s as an anti-Semite or a self-hating Jew)[/li][li]Xenophobic (especially hates our so-called European “friends” since they’re all dirty decadent godless socialists)[/li][li]Belligerently hawkish (wants to invade any country that he thinks is looking at us funny)[/li][/ul] ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-media-bias-in-us/617788/42 "2012-04-04T19:15:13Z")
My original claim still stands. There are multi-billionaires capable of financing a newpaper or a TV station or network to spread their right-wing views. Why don’t they simply do that, until there is no bias in the news business anymore? The reason that there is a limited market for right-wing news outlets probably is that they would have a hard-time staffing such outlets competitively. These outlets would be derided internationally for hiring only right-wing gasbags, or for promulgating absurd editorial viewpoints, and would have a hard time gaining respectability. Much easier to bitch and moan about left-wing bias. ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-media-bias-in-us/617788/43 "2012-04-04T19:19:19Z")
> [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](#): > > My original claim still stands. There are multi-billionaires capable of financing a newpaper or a TV station or network to spread their right-wing views. Why don’t they simply do that, until there is no bias in the news business anymore? > > The reason that there is a limited market for right-wing news outlets probably is that they would have a hard-time staffing such outlets competitively. These outlets would be derided internationally for hiring only right-wing gasbags, or for promulgating absurd editorial viewpoints, and would have a hard time gaining respectability. > > Much easier to bitch and moan about left-wing bias. Or, it could be that these conservative capitalists don’t give a rat’s ass about what views are being spread, just as long as they sell newspapers and commercial time. Perhaps these hypothetical plutocrats are more interested in maintaining personal wealth and influence than with swaying the proles to their side. ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-media-bias-in-us/617788/44 "2012-04-04T19:21:17Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > Or, it could be that these conservative capitalists don’t give a rat’s ass about what views are being spread, just as long as they sell newspapers and commercial time. Perhaps these hypothetical plutocrats are more interested in maintaining personal wealth and influence than with swaying the proles to their side. But there’s an underserved market out there!! All these righties complaining about the quality of the news they’re presented with!!! It’s a gold mine, I tell you, a gold mine!!! ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-media-bias-in-us/617788/45 "2012-04-04T19:23:37Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > From the perspective of people who consider it a settled fact, it’s not bias. From the perspective of people who consider it subject to debate (even if they have their own opinion) it’s bias. And those people are wrong. > [@](#): > > A lot of die-hard close-minded liberals consider their liberal dogma to be settled fact. But a lot of other people don’t. From the latter perspective, whether the media presents a version of the world that adheres closer to the liberal worldview than that of the average American is of some interest. There are things that are settled fact. And if your ideology demands that those facts aren’t true that doesn’t mean your ideology deserves equal time. > [@](#): > > I’m not interested in arguing with die-hard close-minded liberals about this. If I see one around here, I’ll let you know. > [@](#): > > I am interested in pointing out to others what these DHCML mean when they deny that the media has a liberal bias. Again, I suspect that it’s a perception drawn from when the media grinds against the bits of conservative dogma that aren’t factual. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-media-bias-in-us/617788/46 "2012-04-04T19:24:38Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > There doesn’t seem to be any standard of evidence that the left will accept in order to see what they don’t want to see. Only because the arguments presented are really crappy. We already suspect at least 30% of the population will see media bias by virtue of the fact that even in a “fair and balanced media” people more than a standard deviation from the balancing point will see bias. You’re free, of course, to say that even if they’re so far from the center, they can still recognize it, and then I’m free to say, well, if they can recognize it, then so could journalists, and the fact that 90+% of them vote democrat or something doesn’t imply they’re incapable of fair reporting. It’s really interesting, in fact, how hard it is to make a good bias argument when you have to start from the position that everyone is biased. When I champion various relativisms, philosophically, I am often presented with just such a challenge. I have found ways to respond to each of the cases to my satisfaction. I have this recollection that you have a problem with positions that start out questioning everything. Maybe it doesn’t apply here? Well, let’s not drag in other threads out of the mud they’ve sunk in. We’ll just take the old canard at face value: if everyone’s biased, how can you be sure their claims of bias aren’t biased? If not everyone’s biased, then how do you know that it is the journalists that are? Why not economists, or engineers, or farmers, or who knows who? When does a professional consensus equal bias? > [@](#): > > Everyone else can see it - doesn’t count. Scholarly studies - doesn’t count. Insiders testifying as to bias - doesn’t count. Anecdotes and examples galore - nope, not there, doesn’t count, can’t hear you. They’re excellent descriptions of the human condition. Economic departments have a “right wing bias.” Farmers have a “interventionist bias.” Workers of whatever class is currently threatened by imports and/or immigration have a “protectionist bias.” It’s great chat around the table with a beer but the question isn’t just “are humans a bunch of prejudiced fucks” but “what is the alternative?” The link you provide gives some objective measure of a property it wants to call bias. OK. Let’s take it’s finding: there’s media bias. What’s the answer? > [@](#): > > _:shrugs:_ Yeah, I know that’s the answer. You don’t care if there’s bias because it distorts anything. You care if there’s bias you can ascribe to your political opponents because that’s your goal: staining the opponent. There’s no further aim than to smear shit. ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-media-bias-in-us/617788/47 "2012-04-04T19:32:31Z")
> [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](#): > > But there’s an underserved market out there!! All these righties complaining about the quality of the news they’re presented with!!! It’s a gold mine, I tell you, a gold mine!!! Every “conservative answer to the Main Stream Media” I have seen (and I haven’t paid much attention to any of them) spend too much time playing “Gotcha” with the MSM and not enough effort finding Conservative-friendly stories on their own. ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-media-bias-in-us/617788/48 "2012-04-04T19:32:48Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I’m not interested in arguing with die-hard close-minded liberals about this. Ah, irony. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-media-bias-in-us/617788/49 "2012-04-04T19:45:14Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > And those people are wrong. > > There are things that are settled fact. And if your ideology demands that those facts aren’t true that doesn’t mean your ideology deserves equal time. > > If I see one around here, I’ll let you know. > > Again, I suspect that it’s a perception drawn from when the media grinds against the bits of conservative dogma that aren’t factual. In case you needed an outside interpretation of whom exactly Fotheringay-Phipps was talking about, look no further, you found him in the mirror. ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-media-bias-in-us/617788/50 "2012-04-04T20:04:46Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > Every “conservative answer to the Main Stream Media” I have seen (and I haven’t paid much attention to any of them) spend too much time playing “Gotcha” with the MSM and not enough effort finding Conservative-friendly stories on their own. So what are you saying? That to hold right-wing views is equivalent to not understanding your best interests? I’ll go along with that. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-media-bias-in-us/617788/51 "2012-04-04T20:25:04Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > In case you needed an outside interpretation of whom exactly Fotheringay-Phipps was talking about, look no further, you found him in the mirror. So if someone reports a fact that conservatives choose not to believe that’s evidence of biased journalism. Got it. You do know that there are \*facts \*in the world, right? ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-media-bias-in-us/617788/52 "2012-04-04T20:28:04Z")
> [@Jim\_B](#): > > 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](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_media) and [this](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_media_bias#Claims_of_a_liberal_bias) Wikipedia article. (The last one also has a counterargument that follows.) > > My personal belief, FWIW, is _ **No** _. Read [Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News](http://www.amazon.com/Bias-Insider-Exposes-Media-Distort/dp/0060520841/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1333571172&sr=8-1) It’ll open your eyes. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-media-bias-in-us/617788/53 "2012-04-04T20:31:37Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > So if someone reports a fact that conservatives choose not to believe that’s evidence of biased journalism. Got it. > > You do know that there are \*facts \*in the world, right? Sure there are, they just aren’t highly touted as ‘news’. Facts aren’t biased to anyone, if it’s seen to be biased, then it might not be fact ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-media-bias-in-us/617788/54 "2012-04-04T20:32:41Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > You might want to read **Bricker** ’s thread. The SDMB did not seem to be able to come up with any way to demonstrate that FoxNews was biased but the MSM was not. > > Plus the fact that the success of FoxNews demonstrates my point. The existing MSM were biased to the left. The market for liberally-biased news and commentary, IOW, is well-served to the point of saturation. Along comes FoxNews, and it is an overwhelming success - because it found a largely untapped market. MSNBC comes along with about as much of a liberal agenda as Fox has a conservative one, and does not succeed nearly as much, and Air America goes even further in that direction and falls rather flat on its face. Actually, FOX isn’t all that conservative. They are moderate. The MSM, however, tilts so far left that FOX’s being in the middle looks like they are on the far right. ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-media-bias-in-us/617788/55 "2012-04-04T20:36:22Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > Actually, FOX isn’t all that conservative. They are moderate. The MSM, however, tilts so far left that FOX’s being in the middle looks like they are on the far right. This is one of the funniest (and saddest) posts I’ve read in quite some time. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-media-bias-in-us/617788/56 "2012-04-04T20:48:44Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > Sure there are, they just aren’t highly touted as ‘news’. > > Facts aren’t biased to anyone, if it’s seen to be biased, then it might not be fact I see. So evolution isn’t fact? Rising global climate temperatures (regardless of cause-let’s set anthropogenic aside as possible bias) aren’t fact? What you appear to be saying is that if ANYONE objects to a fact, it’s not a fact. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-media-bias-in-us/617788/57 "2012-04-04T21:04:04Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > Read [Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News](http://www.amazon.com/Bias-Insider-Exposes-Media-Distort/dp/0060520841/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1333571172&sr=8-1) > > It’ll open your eyes. Meh, Goldberg was already found in the previous discussions to be as reliable as a flat tire. > **[Liberal media](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Liberal_media)** > > The liberal media, sometimes known as the liberal-biased media or the "lamestream media" (per Sarah Palin) and derogatorily as the "jewish" liberal media, is what wingnuts call all news, entertainment, and information sources that do not perfectly... > [@](#): > > The book Bias by former CBS journalist Bernie Goldberg is commonly cited. However, much of Goldberg’s book relies on anecdotal evidence of his experience working with Dan Rather and other CBS journalists and contains some factual errors and unsubstantiated speculation.[5] The main problem with Goldberg’s book is that it collects a number of instances of bias but doesn’t attempt to illustrate a systematic bias using broad empirical measures. In fact, many of the instances he cites as “liberal bias” could be seen as conservative bias or simply lazy reporting. For example, he faults Tom Brokaw for not reporting on a jet engine failure because it was made by NBC’s parent company, General Electric. Numerous instances like this are cited throughout Herman and Chomsky as examples of conservative bias. Another unsupported claim Goldberg makes is that the media always identifies conservative political figures as conservative but doesn’t do the same for liberals (supposedly because they see liberal as the “mainstream”). He offers no statistics. Linguist Geoffrey Nunberg looked at the labeling of a number of political figures and found that liberals received partisan labels more than conservatives.[6] As Nunberg notes, the study was not comprehensive (it only looked at print newspapers), though it does offer more than baseless speculation. > > Goldberg also frequently argues that news network care more about ratings than accuracy (as if you needed someone to tell you that) and that coverage is often biased against the poor and minorities and in favor of white middle-class people. Again, one wonders why this should be construed as “liberal” bias. Perhaps Goldberg has a point about behind-the-scenes newsroom politics, but he fails to prove a systematic bias. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-media-bias-in-us/617788/58 "2012-04-04T21:07:59Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > Sure there are, they just aren’t highly touted as ‘news’. > > Facts aren’t biased to anyone, if it’s seen to be biased, then it might not be fact Like reports on new discoveries that once again show that Evolution or Global warming is true? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-media-bias-in-us/617788/59 "2012-04-04T21:13:58Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > Only because the arguments presented are really crappy. No, actually they are quite strong, which is why the same arguments are presented and accepted without question when it comes to things like FoxNews. But the same kinds and level of argumentation are waved away when they prove bias at NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, etc. > [@](#): > > Yeah, I know that’s the answer. You don’t care if there’s bias because it distorts anything. You care if there’s bias you can ascribe to your political opponents because that’s your goal: staining the opponent. There’s no further aim than to smear shit. No, actually I care very much about bias. The issue is that the left in general, and the SDMB in particular, is so far in denial on the topic that it’s not really a very good topic for discussion. When one side simply dismisses or ignores any evidence no matter what, you can’t really have a debate. You can’t debate a jerking knee. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-media-bias-in-us/617788/60 "2012-04-04T21:15:48Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > I see. So evolution isn’t fact? Rising global climate temperatures (regardless of cause-let’s set anthropogenic aside as possible bias) aren’t fact? > > What you appear to be saying is that if ANYONE objects to a fact, it’s not a fact. The fact that both of those happen are both pretty factual, however the derivations of either both lead into tenuous areas of ‘not fact’ which is, in fact, biased. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-media-bias-in-us/617788.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-media-bias-in-us/617788.md?page=4)