The liberal media bias is a myth.

Great Debates
1

Here, http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=5439578#post5439578 , a post I started to respond to, then it turned into a thread OP.

Actually, there isn’t that much of one in reporting. There is in TV news an anti-fringe bias; & a tendency to place personality as important in choosing officials, while policy is seen as too debatable to have strong opinions on.

But where a “liberal bias” exists, it’s often not a bias toward the “loony left” but toward moderate conventional wisdom, toward being inoffensive to those in power, or just toward facts. So the fringes on both left & right see the media as biased against them, because (a) the fringe on both right & left has a seriously distorted view of political reality, & (b) the media try to be nice to everybody, including those who strongly disagree with one’s side, so this offends those who are sure they’re right.

There’s an piece in a recent Atlantic Monthly about this, as I recall.

Another aspect can be put this way: If 60% of the voting public believes that all Mexicans are agents of an alien power trying to subvert our country, or that blacks have no souls, but the best science says they’re wrong, any reporter who simply acknowledges the truth will be seen as playing to “the other side.” In actual history, Reaganomics, for example, was based on two false analyses: of where on the Laffer curve we were, & of how the rich would respond to a tax cut. It may have “increased prosperity,” but it demonstrably never produced the “rising tide to lift all boats” that it promised. But for Reaganites, tax cuts are categorically good, so to tell the truth about Reaganomics’ flaws is seen as an attack on their dogma, like telling a Catholic that he’s just eating a cracker after all. So many reporters, not being economically savvy, & chastened by angry supply-siders, will allow that maybe Reaganomics sort of worked. But the GOP side will then claim that there’s this horrible bias against “their” economics (as if science is subjective) when all that’s biased is the facts, which maybe got reported, 'cos they’re the facts.

Peter Jennings once said, as I recall, that of course you can’t really be totally impartial (at least on the inside, a reporter has his own beliefs)–but you try to be fair. Those who favor partisan reporting are kidding themselves if they think it’s going to be better than fair reporting. A schismatic media will simply turn to propaganda, & then nothing could be trusted.

2

When it comes to debating pundits, only right-wingers and centrists can get a seat in front of the camera; left-wingers are systematically frozen out, even on the “mainstream” networks like CNN. It’s been that way for decades. http://www.fair.org/extra/0409/not-a-leftist.html

3

I recommend you read Bernie Goldberg’s works Bias and Arrogance. Goldberg worked at CBS for twenty-some years. He writes and documents that your assertion is simply wrong. There is, in fact, a systematic bias towards American liberalism at CBS, NBC, ABC, and PBS. Or read the Media Research Organization, or Accuracy in Media for any number of examples of such bias.

Or simply consider the differing approach CBS took vis-a-vis the forged documents relating to Bush’s National Guard service and the Swift Boat Veterans. In one case, unhesitatingly overruling their own experts and publishing what turned out to be a major fraud. In the other, an approach skeptical to the point of dismissive.

American liberals are in a state of denial. I think it has reached the point of diminishing returns for you - nobody believes you that the media is fair-minded, and continued attempts to assert that they are simply lose you credibility.

Regards,
Shodan

4

From what I’ve read on this board in reaction to the BBC, “liberal bias” = “anyone who challenges the current orthodoxy”; i.e. it’s a charge levelled at any organization that attempts to present more than one viewpoint. Not restricted, by the way, to the Right. The Left accuses such news outlets of similar bias, for similar reasons.

5

I’ll bet PBS has a liberal bias… the conservatives don’t want it to exist in the first place. Wouldn’t make much sense for them to will themselves out of existence.

As far as the mainstream networks go… there isn’t any bias. You just don’t like hearing what they have to say.

6

I’ll see you and raise you:

The Republican Noise Machine: Right-Wing Media and How It Corrupts Democracy, by David Brock (Crown, 2004) (Brock used to work inside the right-wing media, so he knows what’ he’s talking about.)

What Liberal Media? The Truth About Bias and the News, by Eric Alterman (Basic Books, 2003)

Media Matters for America, http://mediamatters.org/

Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting, http://www.fair.org/

7

Hey Shodan, just so I’m clear, who are the “you” liberals?

I think the meme of liberal media bias is overplayed and has been hyped into a shibboleth for some on the right.

Does that make me a liberal?

8

Yes. It also thus makes you a threat to the security of our nation.

9

And that right there is what’s wrong with American journalism.

Reporters shouldn’t give a rat’s ass about being “fair”–their only concern should be being objective. Being fair and bipartisan is NOT the same thing as being objective.

10

But the point of the Jennings observation (if it is his) is that objectivity is impossible – we’re human, we have our viewpoint, and it will always color what we see and how we report it – so you strive for the best you can do.

Or are you saying that outside the USA journalists are held to an objective standard? If so, how is it defined and measured?

11

From Eric Alterman’s “The Liberal Media” column in The Nation, September 20, 2004 – http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040920&s=alterman:

12

My point is that one can be “fair” without being “objective.” “Fair” is a very generic term; it can encompass objectivity, but it also encompasses treating all sides equally. I think American journalists have the “treating all sides equally” part down pat–even the so-called liberal news sources (e.g., the New York Times) commonly simply report what politicians say (especially during campaigns) either verbatim or with very little commentary, and make it a point to give equal coverage to both parties. This is fair, but it’s rarely objective: frequently one of the parties is spewing crap, and an objective source would either not print the crap at all or would only report the crap within the context of a story that was explaining why the crap was crap.

On preview, see BrainGlutton’s Daily Show quote for funnier and clearer explanation. :stuck_out_tongue:

13

So when **Brutus ** is named managing editor at the New York Times, you want him be objective in pointing out which sides he sees as as spewing crap? Just checking.

14

I expect the editor of a newspaper to either not print unsubstantiated claims, or to accompany them with heavy disclaimers attesting to that fact. If someone says something that is false or misleading, I expect them to explain why it’s false and misleading. I don’t expect them to simply print it verbatim and then print the opposing viewpoint.

15

The media is not liberal, the media is just plain stupid.

16

FYI, ARE not liberal, ARE just plain stupid. “Media” is a plural.

17

“Liberal media bias” is easily seen by conservatives, “vast right-wing conspiracies” are easily seen by liberals.

I believe it is a function of what sticks in your ear. An attitude that agrees with your perceptions is much less likely to be noticed than an implication that you disagree with strongly.

As a committed centrist, I don’t like much of what any news outlet spews…

18

I’ll start saying “the media are stupid” just as soon as I start saying “the data are wrong.” :rolleyes:

19

Well said. Someone demonstrated this to me in a silly way: Put your fingertip on the end of your nose. When you look at it with both eyes, the finger appears in the middle. When you look with the left eye only, the finger is on the far-right. With the right eye only, the finger is on the far-left.

Another important aspect of this debate is the definition of the media. Is it just news: newspapers, TV news, radio news? Or does it include entertainment: TV shows, radio talk shows? Does it include movies? Video games? Advertisements? Internet? Pop music? Some of these components do seem to have a bias one way or the other and therefore it is possible to define the media to show bias in either direction.

I don’t think an individual can casually identify a bias and I don’t think it is meaningful to declare a media bias without defining media.

20

I see what you’re trying to say, and I think I agree with you – I would prefer reasoned analysis of the factual basis of information, rather than simply equal time for each side’s partisan hacks.

But objectivity, to me, means a state of analysis uninfluenced by personal prejudice, which is extremely hard to get to if not impossible. One of the things that gets a fair amount of discussion time in social science classes is “can we truly be objective observers of human behavior?” to which the answer is usually “no, we bring our life experiences and prejudices with us, we just need to figure out how to discount them.” This is what I inferred from the Jennings quote with the reference to being “fair and impartial.” Sadly, I think your interpretation is closer.

And I agree with you that the Daily Show had it nailed.