I have noticed that, amongst my more conservative brothers and sisters on this board, that there seems to be a fairly strong sentiment that the media is liberally biased. This is not something that a particular thread has brought up (so no real cite), but I do see it come up from time to time.
Now, my own impression is that the media is somewhat (perhaps a lot) conservatively biased. This is in part based on the fact that they are dependent on advertisement to survive (and so can be manipulated by the threat of ad dollars being pulled), in part based on my knowledge that they are for the most part owned by huge corporations (that tend to be if not conservative, at least hold value systems that are not 100% compatible with a liberal agenda), and in finally in part based just on the way that I see things covered.
So what say you folks, where does this idea come from that the media is liberal?
“Liberal media” is a convenient excuse for avoiding unpleasant truths – “Oh, that’s just a lie by the liberal media!” is nothing more than a crutch, used only when the item in question goes against the person’s worldview.
You’ll notice conservatives never talk about the “liberal media” whenever the news article mentions something they agree with.
“Coalition Forces Roll Into Baghdad Unimpeded” is greeted with cheers and high-fives.
“Four More Servicemen Killed In Post-War Iraq” is dismissed as Evil Liberal Media propaganda.
You were bashing december in another thread for comments like this, I would like you to cite where you pulled this little factoid from, sense, after all, this is in the GD.
Here’s one guy who blames the liberal media (well, along with the liberal elite establishment–at times he conflates the two) for an unpleasant experience.
Al Franken had something interesting to say in the Franken-O’Reilly bloodbath that went down on CSPAN 2 a couple of weeks ago.
He said that in his biased opinion, there is no such thing as a “liberal media,” but there is no doubt at all that there is a “right wing” media. Franken argues (and apparently this is one of the basic premises of his latest book, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them) that the bullshit kicked up by the right wing press is occasionally picked up by the mainstream press, and that actually colors the entire output of the American media with a politically motivated bias. But it’s not a liberal bias.
Now, I’m not sure I entirely agree with Franken, and even if I did he’s not what I would call an impartial or unassailable source, but I do have an excellent example for you, which can be found in my post in this thread. Let’s not discuss the issues at hand in that thread; rather, take it as an example of how the media is actually supporting the right wing by passing on erroneous news reports.
I’m actually rather pleased that the epithet “liberal” is quickly becoming synonymous with “willing to tell the truth you don’t want to hear.” Maybe someday, everyone with a shred of dignity will be begging to be tarred with the “liberal” brush.
FAIR, which critiques the media from a liberal perspective, did a study of the views of journalists as compared to the public at large. They found that the claim that journalists’ views are “left” of the publics is not true. They do tend to be left of the public on social issues (abortion, gay rights, …) but they tend to right of the general public on economic issues.
Of course, it is not clear how the views of journalists will translate into their reporting. But, with both the journalists and presumably their corporate bosses favoring a more right-wing, “free-market” economic system, one might suspect that reporting could be biased in this direction.
“You were bashing december in another thread for comments like this, I would like you to cite where you pulled this little factoid from, sense, after all, this is in the GD.”
Since this is GD maybe you can say whether you agree or disagree and your reasons. Or are you using your “Drive by cite request” card?
Re: making money. Never forget that newspapers/newscasts/pundits make money by selling the audience to advertisers not by selling subscriptions. So we don’t just have to worry about what the newspaper’s mother corporation wants but also what it’s corporate customers want. A “liberal media” is such a BS boogyman my eyes water.
for fun: The Daily Howler
(though this guy seems to quasi-equate “Democrats” with Liberal. I guess when you only have two parties…)
The people who are convinced that major media (i.e. in America) are biased toward left of center views in reporting do so based on their perceptions. These are occasionally flawed, but it is difficult to account for the pervasiveness of these views and the surge in alternative sources of news/opinion (talk radio, Fox News, Internet sources etc.) solely on the basis of conservatives being either 1) deluded, or 2) cynically promoting a lie.
I base my opinion on what I read and see.
This past week there was national coverage of a Pew Research Center poll on international attitudes toward the United States and a number of issues of worldwide concern. The major outlets in which I read this story (I didn’t sample Fox) played this story entirely from the standpoint of loss of respect abroad for the U.S., largely engendered by dislike for GWB’s policies. The N.Y. Times had a typical presentation (“World’s View of U.S. Sours After Iraq War, Poll Finds”), focusing on changes in views since a year ago.
However, when you look at Pew’s entire report (check out page 19), you find an aspect totally ignored by the Times and other major media - the fact that international favorable opinion of the U.S. has dramatically improved since we invaded Iraq, with increases in favorable opinion in a number of countries of 50-200% or more.
So the Times headline (“World’s View of U.S. Sours After Iraq War, Poll Finds”) is dead wrong. An accurate and balanced report on the Pew poll would have been headlined something like “World Opinion Looks More Favorably On The U.S. Since Invasion of Iraq”, perhaps with a notable subheading indicating that our standing still remains below recent historical levels. Instead, the Times (for example), which loathes Bush*, chose to spin the news to make Bush look as bad as possible.
People notice these things.
Now, the usual response to cites like this from liberals is to claim “Anecdotal!”, link to the FAIR website, and prattle about Corporate Media without any real idea of what that’s supposed to mean. These folk profess astonishment at the proliferation of alternative “news” sources and curse the proliferation of right-wing talk radio, without ever facing up to the fact that their own denial has visited these plagues on us.
*I have little use for Bush either, but I really dislike having others’ opinions spoon-fed to me in the guise of news.
Every election cycle, they publish analyses of the coverage. The Democratic Presidential candidates always get more positive coverage than the Republican. I remember the analysis of Geraldine Ferraro vs. George Bush as being about fourteen to one in Ferraro’s favor.
Bernard Goldberg, a news producer at CBS, wrote a long and extensively documented book about bias in the news. It basically ended his career. It’s an interesting work.
Denying that the mainstream media is biased towards liberalism is one of those things that makes liberals look silly. It is just too obvious to deny.
And, note that Goldberg is a liberal. Another book written by a liberal about a particular type of liberal media bias is Coloring the News: How Crusading for Diversity Has Corrupted American Journalism by William McGowan.
CarnalK, I have corresponded a fair amount with Bob Somerby (Daily Howler.) We get along, although our politics are pretty opposite. Somerby was Al Gore’s and Tommy Lee Jones’s roommate at Harvard.
Anyhow, Somerby is awfully liberal. His view of bias is colored by his POV.
“Since this is GD maybe you can say whether you agree or disagree and your reasons. Or are you using your “Drive by cite request” card?”
I’ve been a reader of this forum for quite some time, but have only registered recently. Ive always been hesitant to hop in on discussions here because it seems to me that there is alot of conservative bashing here. But I will hop in now and state my observation on the subject and maybe (probably not) I can escape un-flamed.
I’ve seen the reports and statistics that Shodan has posted previously. I personally think that the media has always been skewed over to the left, it is only the degree to which that varies. It is only until recently that I’ve heard people that lean to the left claim that the media is skewed to the right.
I honestly believe it is because the media is correcting itself and trying to present somewhat of a more “straight” coverage after all of the criticism and heat it has taken. Perhaps another factor to the increase of “right leading media claims” is the emergence of Fox News. Now that the conservatives have their own version of NBC/ABC/CBS News, they are being given more, how to put this, ammunition to fire that the other news stations would have previously not covered. Just my own personal observations without any factual backup whatsoever.
damn liberal foxnews. damn liberal Mike Savage. damn liberal Rush. damn liberal talk radio. Damn liberal WSJ opinon page. Damn liberal Worldnetdaily. Damn liberal Ann Coulter. damn liberal Drudgereport. Damn Media blackout on Clinton’s impeachment.
imagine conservative MRC saying people who don’t agree with them are liberal. Shocking!
That cite defines democrat as liberal and republican as conservative. by definition they are different, therefore the survey is meaningless. try again.
isn’t most of Bias just Goldberg ranting incoherantly at Dan Rather and providing no cites at all for his claims?
You have fialed to prove anything except conservatives are biased towards conservatives. Try again.
"CarnalK, I have corresponded a fair amount with Bob Somerby (Daily Howler.) We get along, although our politics are pretty opposite. Somerby was Al Gore’s and Tommy Lee Jones’s roommate at Harvard.
Anyhow, Somerby is awfully liberal. His view of bias is colored by his POV."
I wasn’t aware that you corresponded with him but I first read him from one of your links (which I much appreciated). His view may be coloured but he sure backs it up.(Today’s was brutal)
This sort of claim would actually have some basis for comparison if the survey you cited had not ended in 1976–not “the present.” That sort of tendency may continue to the present, but the reference makes no such claim (and ignores the fact that Reagan, Bush, and Bush have all been elected since that period when the period actually surveyed included only Nixon as a winning Republican candidate.
One may complain about FAIR being a “liberal” group, but their numbers are not currently 25+ years and three Republican presidents out of date.
to fire that the other news stations would have previously not covered. Just my own personal observations without any factual backup whatsoever.