Right, because if you’re anti-abortion you must be a provincial rube. :rolleyes: **
Read the memo – Carroll lays out exactly what he thinks was wrong with this piece. From slapping a pejorative “so-called” in front of the counseling requirement to derisively noting the non-scientific background of a legislator to the banishment of favorable scientific sources to the back of the article, Carroll makes a strong case for bias in that piece. If those specific citations aren’t sufficient evidence for you, I’m not sure what is.
Furthermore, as an editor, Carroll sees enough of that kind of writing at the Times to warrant a memo to the entire editing staff, rather than just bringing it up with the article of the piece in question. **
Did you read the memo? Caroll indicates that a professor of biology and endocrinology who believed the link was credible was quoted – but not until the end of the article, and then for his political views rather than his basis for believing in the purported link. Whatever the merits for suggesting such a link exists might be, surely the quoted expert knows more than the reporter. Shouldn’t the reporter at least report the scientific argument in favor of such a link?
So what? The memo is indicative of the kinds of things conservatives complain about when they talk about bias. Pick up any major daily newspaper or weekly news magazine or watch network news coverage and the types of things the memo describes appear.
I don’t think there is an extreme bias of the kind some conservatives imply. But I do think that coverage of the issues is filtered in subtle ways through a liberal lens at major media outlets. Mostly it shows up as a muffled disdain for the conservative argument – the “so-called” perjorative, the application of the “right wing” label to conservative arguments without calling the other side “left wing,” the disparagement of credentials in places where it is irrelevant, etc, etc, etc.
I’m not sure how you reach that conclusion. The editor is basically saying “look, here are some examples of how we can reduce the bias in our articles.” He isn’t calling for articles favoring the conservative side – he’s calling for making the articles more politically neutral.
In fact, one of the things he calls for is suggested in your prior, now-retracted post: when quoting scientific experts, get their opinion on the science and leave their politics out of it. Carroll points out that scientists who claim no link between abortion and breast cancer were quoted on the scientific merits of that position, while the sole scientist who believed such a link exists was not given the same courtesy – he was instead quoted on his political views.
"Apparently the scientific argument for the anti-abortion side is so absurd that we don’t need to waste our readers’ time with it.
I suppose we really can’t make an informed opinion without reading the article in question. But from what the editor states in the letter, it appears that the pro-choice/pro-life argument wasn’t an issue that was raised. The article was about whether or not a link existed between abortion and cancer. The only flavoring he suggests is that the author used the phrase “So-called” councilling. If the article is intended to bring to light that the scientific consensus is that there is no causal link, then it seems legitimate to bring in to subtly question the purpose, usefulness, or motivation of continued “councilling” on potential risks that don’t really exist.
I think the editor would be prudent to caution his writers to include differing scientific opinion if they exist. But instead his suggestion is to include a differing social view. (anti-abortion side)
His words. This seems out of context with the article.
I think a lot of it is perspective. If you are somewhere to the right of Hitler then yeah, you will see the media as having a liberal bias. But if you have an accurate and correct world view, as of course I do, you will see them for the right wing corporate whores that they are.
No, it wasn’t. The article was about a Texas law that, if passed, would require women to be informed about the (disputed) risk of breast cancer stemming from abortion. The science is part of the article, yes, but it is also about abortion politics. **
The article is not an op-ed piece, which is THE WHOLE FREAKIN’ POINT. It is supposed to be straight reporting; the author shows his bias when he slaps the pejorative “so-called” in front of proposals he dislikes.
The intent of the article is to supposed to be to detail the debate over the Texas bill, including both sides of the argument. In a straight reporting piece, the author should not disparage either side.**
I seriously question your reading comprehension skills.
The point of the line you quote is that there is no time in the article given to the scientific arguments used by the anti-abortion side. What Carroll is saying is basically “look, this article totally and completely dismisses the anti-abortion side, which is an odd thing to do in a article ostensibly about the abortion debate. Our paper should treat both sides of that debate fairly.” Carroll isn’t suggesting that the article should be written to favor the anti-abortion side; he’s saying that the article should be written to favor neither side.
That means not using perjoratives before anti-abortion proposals. That means when quoting a scientific expert relied on by the anti-abortion side, quoting the basis for his opinion rather than (or, at the very least, in addition to) his political views. It simply means being fair, giving both sides equal time.
Well, remember that the European media tend to be more to the left than their American counterparts, so what we’d consider liberal here would be centrist or even conservative there. So there is no liberal bias in the U.S. media.*
*The above, as one of the Great Rebuttals not yet seen in this media bias thread, is reproduced as a public service and to promote healthful exercise involving the extra-ocular muscles, i.e. eye-rolling.
Oh, bullcrap. The Center may be the Holy Grail or Unified Field Theory of politics, but the idea can be approached. You seem to be saying “everyone’s an extremist” in order to justify your own extremism.
[quote]
But, we can put our own views aside and debate whether the media tend to be to the left of the general populace.
[quote]
But if the general population is more biased to the right than the media is to the left then the problem isn’t with the media. I don’t accept that the goal posts should be moved along with the views of the masses (plus, the aggregate views of Americans can be compared with the rest of the World). If I could argue that a top tax rate of, say, 25% represents the Center, that would remain the case regardless of how many people want it lower (especially given that so many are biased in wanting more money for themselves).
The media are frequently called “elite”, but that isn’t a bad thing. The dictionary defines “elite” as “the best or most skilled members of a given social group”.
Lucwarm:
Without naming any names, how would you characterize the quality of being “ultra-liberal”?
I was proposing to define “media bias” in an non-subjective way. If one’s definition of media is bias is whether one disagrees with them, then there’s no way to have a debate. I’ll say left-wing media is biased. You’ll say right-wing media is biased.
My post included some hyperbole for the sake of humor. I don’t actually match my views to Attila the Hun.
I don’t really see how your question is relevant, but I’ll give it a crack:
A person who very regularly sides with the liberal position on a wide range of issues and who (apparently) favors large changes in current policy towards more liberal policy with respect to many of such issues.
The longer I lurk on the fringes of these ideological mud throwing matches the more I am persuaded that there are a lot of people who do not have enough useful work to do. I am also persuaded that much of what is going on in this and other threads is a stubborn and willful refusal to recognize reality. We suffer from a surplus of information and a serious deficiency in critical thinking.
Of course the press and broadcast news and commentary are biased. How can they be anything else? The stuff is produced by people with biases who are answerable to people with biases and produced for the consumption of people with biases. The trick is to try to sort out the stuff that is worth paying attention to and the stuff that isn’t. It is sort of pointless to run around screaming that the world is not sufficiently perfect for your delicate sensibilities.
Before we start seeing villainies in everything that is not to our liking, remember that incompetence, sloth, over work, and deadlines have a lot to do with what you get as current affairs information. That and huge and well funded establishments that exist solely to get some items into the news and to keep others out.
A little independent thinking and critical analysis on the part of the consumer would help a lot.
This is a perfect example of the attitude that makes it so hard for some people to acknowledge the liberal bias. Since liberalism has a monopoly on the truth, when a reporter presents a story with a liberal bias, they’re not biased, they’re telling the truth.
If they were to examine stories from mainstream media outlets objectively, they would see that there is a fairly consistant undercurrent of liberal bias in the way issues are presented. That’s not to say that there aren’t exceptions, such as Fox News, or that this is some kind of monalithic liberal conspiracy. It’s just that journalists, as a group, tend to be of the liberal persuasion, and this affects the way in which they report stories.
Journalists should strive to not let their personal opinions affect their reporting. That’s all that’s being said when someone complains about media bias. It goes equally for reporters who have a conservative bias. There just happen to be a lot fewer of them.
So an ultra-liberal is a person who has a liberal view point about a lot of stuff? An ultra-liberal is someone who is consistently liberal? An ultra-liberal is some one who thinks liberal programs ought to be put into effect, as opposed to someone who is content to just talk about it?
In that case is a liberal a person who has a liberal view point toward only a few things but who otherwise is right down the line with Pat Buchanan or doesn’t thing they ought to be put into effect?
Umm, I said that an ultra-liberal favors “large” changes (as opposed to small changes).
But in any event, I don’t really see the point of debating semantics with you.
Another poster asked me to define the term “ultra-liberal” and I took a crack at it. If you have a better definition, feel free to offer it.
My point is very simple. Many American media sources have a tendency to refer to folks like Jesse Helms as “ultra-conservative” more frequently than they refer to folks like Teddy Kennedy as “ultra-liberal.”
Thus providing evidence of liberal media bias that is objective; that is easy to measure and verify; and that cannot be dismissed as anecdotal.
Honestly, I don’t see how quibbling over the meaning of “ultra-liberal” or “ultra-conservative” affects my basic point. But feel free to explain.
And others would refer to Senator Helms as “a reactionary fossil, inextricably bogged in the Cold War and turn of the century social conventions,” and to Senator Kennedy as “a leading liberal with a secure electorate.” If you are going to draw the center that far to the conservative you make everyone more progressive than Dick Armey a flaming liberal.
For what little it may be worth, I see the “liberal biased” label applied to any news source that tries to do a fair and balanced job of reportage—to suggest that there may be more than one version of a story seem to be anathema in some circles, and even worse if comparable coverage is given to the competing interests.
I say again, critical thinking is the key. Where did you all get the idea that all information ought to come packaged as The Weekly Reader? Where did you get the idea that you ought to be able to receive information on contentious matters on a spoon like so much Pabulum?
lucwarm-One measure of media bias that has been pointed out is the tendency to describe conservative politicians as “far right” or “ultra-conservative” much more frequently than liberal politicians are described as “far left” or “ultra-liberal”
If you want to talk about left-wing bias, that’s a whole 'nuther ball game. Leftism is support for policies designed to remedy percieved past inequities.
For example on the subject of race:
Color blindness = liberal (also Centrist; they’re not exclusive).
Affirmative-action = Left wing
Racism = conservative
It’s mildly ironic that the (near) Right is more liberal than the left on this set of issues.
I’ve also gone on record in saying that political correctness is a new kind of Left-wing conservatism.
