'Liberal Media Bias' (in US).

[magellan01]

@erislover

Are you saying that in order to not be biased, journalists can’t be democrats?

Not to answer for What the … !!!, but let’s say that all subsets of journalists have equal incidences of being fair, biased, and everything in between. Then Group L (journalists who are, in fact, liberal) and Group C (journalists who are, intact, conservative) would have roughly equal incidences of fair journalism and biased journalism. But if one group makes up, say 75% of all journalists, then the news as a whole will have a bias in that direction. Correct?

[magellan01]

@saoirse

And of course someone has to come in and provide the conservatives with a tu quoque. You know we lost that election, right? In 2001, several different organizations conducted a recount, and Bush won. Had the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, the decision would have been made by the Florida legislature, and Bush would have won the state just like Rutherford Hayes did.

Thanks you for replying with this. Amazingly, some people just can’t let go of it. It’s like a religious belief, or the guy who knows, just knows, that he has to buy a lottery ticket because this is the week!

[GIGObuster]

@magellan01

Not to answer for What the … !!!, but let’s say that all subsets of journalists have equal incidences of being fair, biased, and everything in between. Then Group L (journalists who are, in fact, liberal) and Group C (journalists who are, intact, conservative) would have roughly equal incidences of fair journalism and biased journalism. But if one group makes up, say 75% of all journalists, then the news as a whole will have a bias in that direction. Correct?

No, as the evidence shows, even if democrat they can also be of the conservative type and anyone that does bother to tell the whole truth or gives weight to subjects that the powerful do not support is bound to not have many eyeballs pointed at their direction or revenue before long.

One has to remember what J.David Stern the owner of the New York Post in 1936 said:

“What do you want me to do, take a quixotic stand, print the truth about everything including bad medicine, impure food and crooked stock market offerings, and lose all my advertising contracts and go out of business- or make compromises with all the evil elements and continue to publish the best liberal newspaper possible under these compromising circumstances?”

[Czarcasm]

@magellan01

Not to answer for What the … !!!, but let’s say that all subsets of journalists have equal incidences of being fair, biased, and everything in between. Then Group L (journalists who are, in fact, liberal) and Group C (journalists who are, intact, conservative) would have roughly equal incidences of fair journalism and biased journalism. But if one group makes up, say 75% of all journalists, then the news as a whole will have a bias in that direction. Correct?

Is this some sort of Universal Law of Absolute Equality that forces all political persuasions to be no more and no less biased than all other political persuasions?
Sounds too improbable to me.

[saoirse]

@magellan01

Thanks you for replying with this. Amazingly, some people just can’t let go of it. It’s like a religious belief, or the guy who knows, just knows, that he has to buy a lottery ticket because this is the week!

You’re welcome. Now about the 1960 election:

303-27 is…

a) >269
b) <269
c) LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS!!!

[BrainGlutton]

@magellan01

Not to answer for What the … !!!, but let’s say that all subsets of journalists have equal incidences of being fair, biased, and everything in between. Then Group L (journalists who are, in fact, liberal) and Group C (journalists who are, intact, conservative) would have roughly equal incidences of fair journalism and biased journalism. But if one group makes up, say 75% of all journalists, then the news as a whole will have a bias in that direction. Correct?

Incorrect. See post #12.

However, scholars Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman claim the logic in of some of these conclusions is flawed. They state that comparing the media product to the voting record of the journalists is akin to thinking auto-factory workers design the cars they help produce. Indeed, they claim that the media owners and news makers are the ones with an agenda, and they assert that this agenda is subordinated to corporate interests that they view as often leaning right.[23]

[magellan01]

@Czarcasm

Is this some sort of Universal Law of Absolute Equality that forces all political persuasions to be no more and no less biased than all other political persuasions?
Sounds too improbable to me.

I was trying to be generous.

[magellan01]

@saoirse

You’re welcome. Now about the 1960 election:

303-27 is…

a) >269
b) <269
c) LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS!!!

Sorry, not following you.

[magellan01]

@BrainGlutton

Incorrect. See post #12.

Incorrect. I think, because it has so little to do with what I wrote and the point being made.

[GIGObuster]

And no, I did not imagine the conservative bent of the “democrat” reporters.

http://www.fair.org/articles/liberal-media.html

For years, conservatives have painted a picture of the Washington press corps as a group of liberal crusaders bent on bashing corporations, bloating government and socializing health care.

This caricature is utterly deflated by a new survey of journalists. It turns out that on a wide range of economic issues, Washington journalists are more conservative-- not more “liberal”–than the general public.

In a related question, Croteau asked journalists to prioritize economic issues for the President and Congress, including a proposal to “require that employers provide health insurance to employees.” Only 32 percent of journalists chose that as one of the top few federal priorities-- compared to 47 percent of the public.

To the extent that such findings are surprising, maybe it’s because we’ve been dazed by the daily howls of “liberal” media that come-- it’s worth noting-- from right-wing pundits, talk hosts and columnists whose voices dominate the self same media.

After all, many national journalists have prospered while hitched to giant corporations. And unlike much of the public, they rarely worry about health coverage.

Nor do these journalists worry much about today’s economy. A nationwide Gallup Poll in March found that 34 percent of the public rated economic conditions as “only fair” or “poor,” while just 5 percent of Croteau’s journalists shared that assessment. But then most of the journalists who filled out questionnaires declared annual household incomes of over $100,000 and almost a third declared incomes over $150,000. The median U.S. household income is roughly $36,000.

While earlier surveys have asked journalists about their views on social/cultural issues like abortion or gay rights (views often more liberal than the public), Croteau’s may be the first to focus on economics. Far from a pack of leftists, the survey illuminates a conservative journalistic elite out of touch with average Americans.

“Raise taxes on the wealthy”? That’s quite popular with the public. Not so with the well-to-do media professionals who filled out questionnaires.

“Reform entitlements”? Journalists want to slow Social Security and Medicare. In contrast, the public is more concerned with protecting entitlements against cuts.

“Free trade”? While the American public is more negative than positive in assessing the impact of the NAFTA trade deal on the U.S., only 8 percent of the surveyed journalists judged NAFTA’s impact as negative; 65 percent judged it positive.

It’s too bad for Bill Clinton, the GOP leadership and corporate lobbyists that these journalists aren’t the ones in Congress voting on whether the White House will get “fast track” authority to negotiate new trade deals. The survey shows that journalists would pass it in a landslide-- 71 percent to 10 percent. Recent polls indicate the public is more in accord with Congressional Democrats, opposing fast track by upwards of 2-to-1.

[Czarcasm]

@magellan01

I was trying to be generous.

No, you were repeating a convenient meme used to wave away those who point out errors in judgement. There’s no way in hell it could possibly be true unless we were robots controlled from the outside-it is practically impossible for two sides to be exactly the same unless they are both controlled by the same entity. Simple logic dictates that one side is better or worse than the other, if only by comparison.

[BrainGlutton]

@magellan01

Incorrect. I think, because it has so little to do with what I wrote and the point being made.

Your point was that a predominantly Democrat media labor force will produce liberal bias in the news product, and it has everything to do with that.

[erislover]

@magellan01

Not to answer for What the … !!!, but let’s say that all subsets of journalists have equal incidences of being fair, biased, and everything in between. Then Group L (journalists who are, in fact, liberal) and Group C (journalists who are, intact, conservative) would have roughly equal incidences of fair journalism and biased journalism. But if one group makes up, say 75% of all journalists, then the news as a whole will have a bias in that direction. Correct?

Interesting hypothesis. And I agree with that conclusion given those assumptions.

How about this one: that viewers are biased, it not being their job to try to be fair about anything they perceive, and they are unable to recognize a lack of bias because of it. And if you believe that viewers can set aside their biases well enough to detect bias, then there is no reason to suppose that journalists can’t set aside their biases to do their job.

[BrainGlutton]

@Czarcasm

. . . -it is practically impossible for two sides to be exactly the same unless they are both controlled by the same entity. Simple logic dictates that one side is better or worse than the other, if only by comparison.

No, simple logic dicates that one side will be different from the other, that is all.

[Czarcasm]

@BrainGlutton

No, simple logic dicates that one side will be different from the other, that is all.

Correction gladly accepted.

[Jasper_Kent]

Okay, I’m admittedly late to this discussion but I have to throw in my $.02 worth. Sorry if I say something that’s already been said. I may have skimmed over some of the comments.

Newspapers vary a lot from city to city and within a city, so I won’t comment on them.

If I am being objective, I will have to admit that TV news in the 1960’s and 1970’s had a slight liberal bias. I think it’s been more and more balanced since then, with the obvious exception of Faux News. They are totally right-wing to the point of distortions and outright lies. The other networks may look liberal by comparison, but that’s hardly fair since Fox only qualifies as “news” in name. If you say you get your news from Fox, then I’ll say I get mine from The Daily Show.

Local talk radio has been overwhelmingly conservative since the 1980’s.

Fair enough?
If not, why not?

[magellan01]

@GIGObuster

And no, I did not imagine the conservative bent of the “democrat” reporters.

http://www.fair.org/articles/liberal-media.html

But it does seem you imagined that that article negates my point. At best, it talks about liberal journalists possibly being more conservative than the general populace in some areas, like economics. And if you control for income, I wouldn’t be surprised if even that went away.

But I do thank you for the laugh of offering an article by ex-ACLU lawyer, Jeff Cohen. But I can see how you might have been misled. After all, he did start something with the word “Fairness” in the name.

[GIGObuster]

@magellan01

But it does seem you imagined that that article negates my point. At best, it talks about liberal journalists possibly being more conservative than the general populace in some areas, like economics. And if you control for income, I wouldn’t be surprised if even that went away.

But I do thank you for the laugh of offering an article by ex-ACLU lawyer, Jeff Cohen. But I can see how you might have been misled. After all, he did start something with the word “Fairness” in the name.

And of course the laugh is on you for demonstrating to all how you reach for a logical fallacy as an attempt to dismiss it.

[What_the]

@Ludovic

In this country we have what’s called a “secret ballot”, in which whom you vote for is not revealed. Last time I checked the rule was applicable to journalists as well as any other profession.

I’m not demanding that anyone reveal their vote am I? I’m not even demanding that any of you honestly answer the question.

BTW…I’m past the whole liberal bias thing. Biased in favor of Democrats and against Republicans or Conservatives is enough.

[magellan01]

@GIGObuster

And of course the laugh is on you for demonstrating to all how you reach for a logical fallacy as an attempt to dismiss it.

Oh really, Mr. You Have To Be Careful About Biased Cites? Why this is a rich as a malted Easter egg with a chocolate shell an inch thick stuck inside a giant marshmallow bunny—with frosting!

And of course you ignored the the reasoning I gave prior to giving your Cohen site the backhanded dismissal it deserves. I can’t tell you how shocked I am, Mr. You Have To Be Careful About Biased Cites.

GOLD! Comedy Friggin Gold.