Does anyone really believe this particular shibboleth? My observation is that the mainstream media are a lot like the rest of the institutional status quo: a little to the right economically, smack dab in the center socially, pro-business, profit-driven, and dedicated to the perpetuation of their own existence. I’d further submit that what many conservatives will point to as a “liberal” media is evidence instead of a secular media, as coverage of most things is generally non-theistic. I’ve yet to see any compelling evidence that a disproportionate amount of mainstream television, newspaper, and magazine coverage is slanted to the left–and if you’d like to make the argument otherwise, you better come armed with more than The New York Times and The Washington Post, which are about as status quo centrist as you can get. (The Times on Ralph Nader’s candidacy: “A self-indulgent exercise that will distract voters from the clear-cut choice represented by the major party candidates.” snort) Anyway, thoughts?
I love when people say “the liberal media,” because it’s so obviously full of shit. With the hundreds of television outlets, thousands of print outlets and millions of internet outlets, the “media” cannot be classified in such easy definitions because it’s all different.
Some places have a liberal slant, yes, both other outlets have a decided conservative bias as well.
Kinda like people… Blanket statements about an entire group of people are probebly wrong, and a group of organizations is just as ludicrous, IMHO.
Yer pal,
Satan
I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Three months, two weeks, five days, 13 hours, 7 minutes and 51 seconds.
4421 cigarettes not smoked, saving $552.73.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 1 day, 8 hours, 25 minutes.
Gadarene,
There have been surveys of journalists which have found that most are liberals, who vote for Democratic candidates. It strains credibility to believe that human being are, as a group, capable of completely separating their own personal biases from their reporting.
The NY Times has consistently endorsed an overwhelming percentage of Democrats for public office for as long as I can remember. If you are claiming that their editorial page is not liberal, it is evident that you are yourself so far to the left that it is only natural that from your perspective the mainstream media will seem centrist.
In fact, it is my firm belief that the mainstream media is so biased to the left, not merely because of the individual biases of the individual reporters and editors, but because the atmosphere in the journalistic world is so skewed to the left that the left is seen as the middle, the center as the right, the right as the extremist right etc.
Radio talk shows are skewed to the right. I’m not sure why.
While there certainly are media outlets with decidedly conservative bents IzzyR is generally correct when the label is applied to ‘mainstream’ media (i.e. those pandering to everybody and not targeted at specific groups…major newspapers and tv news being the obvious biggies).
This makes sense if you think about it.
-
Media is a BIG fan of Freedom of Speach. While they’ll all (conservative and liberal) say they support Freedom of Speech generally conservatives are more restrictive in this regard (i.e. religious right and others wanting smut removed, South Park banned, flag burning made illegal, etc.). Freedom of Speech also allows them to write the dirt they want on a given subject. Anything approaching a restriction on this is anathema to them hence they generally sit strongly on the liberal “Say whatever you want” side of the fence.
-
The BIG media outlets, New York Times, USA Today, Nightline, etc., need to appeal to a broad audience. They can’t (actually don’t want to) target themselves at a narrow niche of the population. Generally bleeding heart liberal ideas are ‘feel good’ and sell more papers than restrictive conservative viewpoints. I’m making NO comment on the right or wrong of either side of it but the fact is a picture of a starving mother and her child pulls people in better than someone saying we need to cut welfare programs (regardless of whether such a cut is a ‘good’ thing or not).
As Gadarene said ultimately the media outlets are a business that as its own interests at heart first and foremost (however much they like to spout they are keepers of the public trust). In the end they’ll do whatever makes the most money and that more often than not means they take a liberal stance.
The mainstream media is seen as leftist because it asks questions. It challenges the established order, or it has nothing to print in the opinion columns.
Radio call-in programmes are “right-wing” because all change involves losers who wish to complain.
picmr
For evidence of one of these surveys, please refer to the 1999 book, Don’t Shoot the Messenger: How Growing Hatred of the Media Threatens Free Speech for All of Us, by Bruce Sanford, a media lawyer. In it, he refers to a recent survey of TV news reporters, anchors, and newspaper reporters and editors on their political leanings. A very, very small percentage identified themselves as “conservative” or “Republican.”
I’m with Gadarene - “secular” is too often interchanged with “liberal.”
Esprix
The media is definetely conservative. Every paper has a business section. How many have a labor section? While the NYTIMES suppors democrats, it supports the right wing of the democratic party, considering that the left wing isn’t that different from republicans, well you can understand. It’s very easy, if you’re caught up in the traditional two party world, to call the media liberal or conservative. The truth of the matter is that the media is controlled by big business and supports the ruling interests of our country.
When someone comes out with a story that challenges those interests in the least, the rest of the media gangs up and demonizes them. Take a look at what happened to the excellent Mercury News piece on the CIA. The NYTIMES, that “bastion of liberalism”, condemned them and took the cide of the CIA. Every major media outlet went on the offensive. It was disgusting.
Look at the fact that the Pentagon has agents in major news rooms. You don’t think that has an effect on the news we get?
In short, liberal or conservative, there isn’t a whole lotta difference. It’s all supporting the business and government interests of the US.
Mainstream media are socially somewhat liberal, but they tend to be economically quite conservative and pro-business: the New York Times may endorse Democratic candidates but you won’t catch them badmouthing globalization or most other business-friendly perspectives. Here’s a summary of what a Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) survey of journalists found:
Probably because those commie loving liberals think that printed ideas give them more legitemacy, while the right leaning fundies like to spout their poison from the nearest a soapbox.
Just slightly tangentially to this line of thought… I watched a news program last night about G.W. Bush’s youth campaign spin doctor. The guy was as slippery a character as I’ve ever seen. He was incapable of speaking by any other means than parables and slogans. The guy talked but never said anything. When viewing an add campaign that he designed to appeal to the technically astute MTV generation of voters, the reporter asked him how an almost random series of short images of high tech gear interlaced with images of Bush meant that GW was for technology (at no time did the ad show Bush talking about technology). His response was that the mere fact that GWB’s face is intermingled with the flashes of high tech images sends the message to the viewer. WTF? How stupid is that!.. and how stupid are the people who buy into this kind of crap!
Reminds me of a quote. It’s in an Alexander Cockburn book of mine that I don’t have access to right now. It’s called Washington Babylon, and although somewhat dated, it’s still quite good.
Anyway, he has a quote from the cheif editor of the Washington Post. She was speaking at a CIA ceremony or something. And said democracy works best when the media can work with the government to decide what to report and what to keep from the American public.
Sorry I can’t give the exact quote, if anyone else has it, feel free.
I’m with Noam Chomsky. Big Business owns the printing presses and FAIR is a think-tank.
Newsflash! There are an incredible amount of stupid people out there. And guess what? Their vote counts every bit as much as yours. A politician who ignores the stupid people, and fails to present himself in a manner that attracts such people will not be successful.
Izzy:
You mean this study? It’s the one that’s most often invoked, and it’s tripe. And while journalists may more often vote Democratic (though aren’t particularly liberal, as shown by this gasp actual survey of journalists), the editors, board of directors, and CEO of a news organization (or its parent corporation) are far more likely to be conservative: which of the two groups do you think has the most say over the shape and content of the news? It, um, “strains credibility to believe that human beings are, as a group, capable of completely separating their own personal biases from their” editing and business practices.
Oh, give me a break. Maybe you’re so far to the right that from your perspective the mainstream media seem liberal. Can’t we find some normative standard here? Here’s a smattering of the “liberal thought” served up on most editorial pages. Wow, unyielding support for free trade…yup, that’s pretty left-wing, all right. It was on The New York Times editorial page, by the way, that Tom Friedman said that anyone who questioned the sanctity of the IMF was an “economic quack” who “deserves the back of your hand.” What a pinko. And he’s the rule, rather than the exception.
It might interest you to know, too, that a survey was done which found that in the last five presidential elections, a majority of editorial pages actually endorsed the Republican candidate for president. And yes, this held true in '92 and '96.
No offense, man, but could you offer any, y’know, actual proof of this? The “liberal” issues which the media supposedly espouse in direct contravention to prevailing national opinion?
And on that note, Jeff_42: I think we should define our terms. What’s involved in taking a “liberal” stance? Being generally pro-choice? Yes, the media are generally pro-choice. Being generally pro-gun control? Yes, the media are generally pro-gun control. Being abstractly (but not practically) pro-environment? Yes, the media generally fits that, as well. What else? What about economic issues? What about issues that affect their advertising stable rather than their viewership? Wealth disparity, corporate malfeasance, free trade, globalization…interests entrenched in today’s institutions. I’d argue that these are more pertinent. You could make a strong case that the entertainment media are generally politically liberal, but the same emphatically cannot be said about the news, IMHO.
Oh, and if you believe that the media “generally sit strongly on the liberal ‘Say whatever you want’ side of the fence,” how do you reconcile the coverage of the IMF protests?
(Yes, I realize that all my sources are coming from FAIR. Do try to debate the claims on their merits, okay? If there are any factual errors in the links I’ve provided, I’ll be happy to append my argument accordingly. It demonstrates nothing, though, if y’all just say: “You’re getting this from a bunch of left-wing commies! Of course they don’t think the media are liberal enough!” I think that’s ad hominem, or a rough facsimile thereof.)
Hey, Kimstu! We posted the same link. 
I like the way you think, milady. (Which does nothing to diminish, btw, the virtual crush I’ve got on you. grin)
Just from my own experience, FWIW, at the newspaper for which I worked, I was the only registered Republican employee. All others were either independents of Democrats, with Dems grabbing the lion’s share.
IzzyR, I hereby award you the Dogbert Prize for Accuracy in Cynicism!
It seems to me, that if you objectively examine three media in particular, newspapers, television and radio, the political bent is not so clearcut.
While papers such as the NY Times and the Washington Post tend to slant to the left, papers with national circulation such as the Wall Street Journal and the Christian Science Monitor are decidedly conservative. Newspapers in smaller cities, I suspect, reflect the readership in that particular locale. The Columbus Dispatch (the only daily newspaper here) is quite conservative, reflecting the trend in this city and the surrounding area.
Television is a bit more difficult. While I agree that there was a time when anchors such as Dan Rather may have been easily dismissed as shills for the Democratic Party, I am not sure that that can be said any more. So much of the nightly news (which I rarely watch any more) seems to consist of so much human interest or disaster reporting and little substantial political reporting. When I was a kid I remember a periodic opinion or editorial done by one of the veteran reporters or anchors. Substance like that just doesn’t exist any more.
If you look at the talking heads that speak on Sunday morning things seem equally difficult. Cokie and Sam and Bob Schieffer tend to sway to the left, while Tony Snow and Tim Russert seem conservative to me. Similarly, Fox News on cable, the brainchild of the extremely conservative Rupert Murdoch, now competes with pinko Ted Turner’s CNN.
As even Izzy has pointed out, radio is extremely conservative, even reactionary if you ask me. I might tell you why I feel that’s the case, but I really don’t want to insult any Dr. Laura fans: Who knows when they’ll go over the edge?
Gadarene et al,
Basically it would appear that the liberal position is to deny the media’s liberal bias by
-
Deciding that being pro-business, or, more accurately, in favor of the interests of large multi-national corporations is the same as being conservative. Ergo, the media is not completely liberal.
-
The old guys at the top are conservative so it doesn’t make a difference what the guys at the bottom think.
Reply:
-
When I and others say that the media is liberal we are not referring to the issues of globalization etc. We are referring to issues like social issues, taxes, religion etc. If you insist on making these globalization issues part of the mix - okay, so they’re not “liberal”. But this is nothing but a semantic game.
-
The corporate control of the media is probably part of what prevents the NY Times from looking like The Village Voice. But I would think there’s little doubt that in day to day operations, the guys at the bottom have more influence on what stories to write and how to write them.
Gadarene
I actually think the one that I put forth was quite reasonable. I identify the Democratic Party as mainstream liberal and and the Republican Party as mainstream conservative. By this standard the NY Times is liberal. You, by contrast judged the NY Times by their opinion on Ralph Nadar, not a normative standard at all.
I believe this goes back alot further than that. (I think the Johnson-Goldwater race was an abberation). But this is because the smalltown press has traditionally been conservative. The combined readership and influence of these newspapers is far smaller than that of the fewer liberal papers who endorsed Democrats.
No. Just an opinion. Actually a firm belief. I thought you might like to know. I guess you did not.
I believe the most important and influential conservative media influence in this country is Readers Digest Magazine.
Just thought I’d throw it out there…