The slant is a reaction to what the market demands, of course!
Why?
I recall Will on TV when the Iran-Contra scandal broke, asserting the president is “not a prime minister” and must be shielded from certain knowledge about what his administration is doing. That was the day he lost his last shred of credibility, and so long ago it was, now!
Well, that was the point of my post. All the righties and right-center folks on the Dope are blithely maintaining a liberal bias currently exists in the media, without offering anything in the way of support for their opinions other than thin air. I was asking for cites.
Well, because liberals don’t have a monopoly on the truth. Plus, from a business standpoint, it’s smart to do so.
I think that if a newspaper is really committed to helping the public become more informed, then they really are obligated to make editorials a point/counterpoint discussion, rather than only showing one side of a debate. I don’t think I can make an intelligent or well-reasoned conclusion about something until I understand both sides (or all sides, as the case may be).
Should a newspaper be obligated to print a viewpoint that it believes to be untrue and against the good of the nation? Should it have been ethically compelled to have printed the viewpoints of the Klan during the 1950s? What about the opinions of other extremist groups? Are they to be included?
I think a newspaper should print what appears to be the truth and let us sort it out for ourselves. They shouldn’t make an effort to slant anything one way or the other.
I am very much a liberal, but God bless William Buckley. He is golden!
Did you see the cite a few message of above, to a peer reviewed study that shows that liberal bias does exist, and not just a little bit?
In case you missed it, here it is again: A Measure of Media Bias - Quarterly Journal of Economics
Well, we are talking about issue-based opinions. I don’t think it’s incumbent on anyone to just let the Klan have some column space to encourage racism, but if the issue was civil rights, I think it would be wise to allow each side to try to defend their viewpoint. Sometimes giving someone the such a platform is what highlights the weakness of their position.
What appears to be the truth to whom? And what is there to sort out if you don’t hear both sides?
We are talking about the Op/Ed page. By definition, opinions are slanted.
I would suggest that an editorial board ought to be open to partisan opinion pieces, and by their works ye shall know them. But not necessarily of point/counter basis. This approach has its strengths, but sometimes an opinion on an issue is best given in a larger framework than specific argument allows. When a Republican is arguing for legislation denying puppies to orphans, the larger context is crucial.
Now that Sam Stone has provided a peer-reviewed cite, you can provide one in return for your assertion.
But that is part of the reason why the MSM are so upset by the rise of media with alternative views.
If you have a de facto monopoly on the major news outlets, you can maintain the idea that there is no credible alternative viewpoint to your own. Sometimes, presenting a weak opinion allows the other side to cut its own throat with obvious nonsense. More often, the other side has some real substance to its ideas. Then you are faced with the messy and inconclusive task of defending your point of view - and even finding out sometimes that you are wrong.
You see it fairly often on the SDMB. If a view point is presented that goes against the general thinking, some of the Usual Suspects are bound to post something like “there’s no debate here - everyone stop posting to this thread, dammit!” and then try desperately to change the subject or throw out some red herrings.
It underlies a lot of the drive towards making Supreme Court decisions the basis for policy, rather than legislation. It is much easier to get a sympathetic judge to find in your favor than to convince a few hundred legislators, let alone 51% of the populace.
One of the great powers of the national media is that of setting the agenda. If you can determine what the debate is about, you are a good long way towards prevailing. Letting someone else bring up points or subjects you would rather leave alone makes things a lot less easy.
Regards,
Shodan
You are right, and often times it IS the side with the weaker argument who doesn’t want to be refuted. In Zoe’s example, my reaction was, “well, why NOT show that point of view, since it is obviously wrong?” In a case where it’s a little more ambiguous what the “truth” is (if there really is such a thing), then it’s even more important to give both sides a chance to make their case. Otherwise, the public isn’t really being informed.
No comment. 
Oh, I think that this is absolutely true.
That’s true, and because of this, I have always believed that journalists should try to stay out of politics as much as possible. Unfortunately, the concept of an objective news media seems to be one of a bygone day.
People here have accused me from time to time of getting “talking points” from conservative radio, but the truth is, I don’t listen to it much. The reason I don’t is because of exactly this issue. Rush Limbaugh, for example, doesn’t seem to like getting callers who disagree with him…he only wants those who will back him up. I think this is lame, and makes it look as though conservatives can’t defend their POV. One guy I do like is Michael Medved…he actually encourages people who disagree with him to call, and sometimes his arguments aren’t that convincing when he is talking to them. I like him because he’s not afraid of that.
We live in a capitalist, democratic republic.
In a capitalistic system, providing the product that is most desired is rewarded with success.
In a democracy, the prevailing majority opinion is the opinion upon which all governmental decisions should be made.
If, as the most ardent of conservatives proclaim to be an obvious fact, the news providers of the most successful media are obviously overwhelmingly liberal, in deference to the most cherished principles of democracy, should not the government be so as well?
It only makes sense.
Tris
That would only make sense if everyone had a choice of paper in their town (or, in the case of television media, say the nightly news, if there was a show that was an obvious exception in terms of political slant), and if people always chose which paper to read or which news to watch based solely on its political slant.
I agree that newspapers should not publish what they know to by untrue, but what is “good for the nation” is often a matter of opinion and how one defines “good”.
Depends. Sometimes they can hang themselves on their own rope. But one needn’t dismiss all viewpoints simply because a few extremists exist.
Well, that’s what they try to do in the news section. Are you saying there should be no editorial pages at all? I won’t necessarily argue with that position, but I don’t think that’s what people are talking about.
Can you elaborate? It’s unclear to me how Buckley fits into the above discussion.