It should go like this: Some people use the term “liberal” to mean X, where X=“anything to the left of Trent Lott.” The term “liberal” actually means Y, where Y=“a particular political philosophy whose tenets have been defined over the course of decades.” X and Y are unequal; which definition wins out, that which is perceived to be true by a portion of the population despite its inutility (and lack of recognition of a centrism, or middle ground), or that which is historically accurate and still useful in a modern context to delineate a specific extant ideology?
Look, do I acknowledge that the media are biased in favor of “anything to the left of Trent Lott?” Sure, why not. But you’ve yet to point out to me which beliefs the media tend to hold which are leftward of the general population. As the link from which Kimstu quoted demonstrated, members of the Washington-based media tend to be more conservative in their political attitudes than yer Average American ™. How is this demonstrating a “liberal” bias, semantics or no?
We are going round in circles. Earlier you said “people believe there’s a liberal media because they equate liberalism with Bill Clinton” & “Democratic-leaning media, possibly”. Now you’re talking about “anything to the left of Trent Lott”.
One last try.
The media, on the whole, lean more in the direction of positions typically associated with the Democratic Party than do the American people on the whole. While this is not true with every issue, it is true to a large enough extent that a significantly larger percentage of journalists will vote Democratic than the percentage of the general electorate that votes Democratic.
The media’s coverage is, to some extent, influenced by their own personal leanings (and,I believe, those of the larger journalistic culture).
Therefore, the media is biased in the direction of those positions typically associated with the Democratic Party.
1 and 3 I agree with Izzy. Although with a qualification. The media leans towards the Big Business side of the Democratic Party. This is the side that tend to be more conservative than the Left Wing of the Republican party. Also when it comes down to it, they will support the Government over any specific political party.
2 I disagree with. The news is influenced by program directors, and editors, and owners, far more than it is by individual reporters.
Yup, round & round. There’s that tiny distinction between “people believe” and “some people believe.” There’s also a distinction between “there is a liberal media” and “some people believe there is a liberal media.” I don’t disagree with the latter statement in either sentence, and I think you’ve done an admirable job explaining the reasons that some people believe what they believe–namely, as I said, because they equate liberalism with Bill Clinton (which is inaccurate), because they view globalization as irrelevant to popular ideology (which is incorrect), and because they tend not to consider the ramifications of profit-driven corporations owning our networks and newspapers (which is uninformed). I used the generalization, ‘some people think liberalism is anything to the left of Trent Lott’ because some people do think that. Some people think that any kind of government regulation is equivalent to socialism, too, but that doesn’t make it so. My point is that when defining terms, you can’t go by what “some people” think. And as liberalism is defined (not as it is perceived, but as it is defined), ours is not a liberal media.
There are a bunch of objections that I can raise (and have raised) here. The media, according to the survey that has been cited, do not lean more in the direction of Democratic positions than the public as a whole. And even if a disproportionate amount of journalists vote Democratic (which isn’t the same thing), journalists do not shape the content of the national media. I’m sorry, they don’t. I can give you case after case of stories being reconfigured or dictated according to the direction of the editor or the managing corporation–the Monsanto case in Florida, for one. Editors and boards of directors and CEOs have far more say over the shape of the news than do stringers or beat writers–hell, sometimes sources have more say than stringers and beat writers; read Mark Hertsgaard’s On Bended Knee. And the editors, directors, executives, and establishment sources tend overwhelmingly to be more conservative than the public at large.
That’s fine, but what’s this “larger journalistic culture”? Again, I can give you case after case of self-censorship, where a reporter didn’t pursue a story because he knew his bosses wouldn’t go for it. In my judgment, the journalistic culture is one in which the interests of the journalistic institutions, and sometimes of journalism itself, are perpetuated, and in which profit is sought and the status quo maintained. Not too many radical revolutionaries out there in the journalist ranks–didn’t you read the links I provided about the IMF coverage?
Also, you’ve got to define your pronouns. When you say the media’s coverage is influenced by “their” leanings, who do you mean? I’d guess you mean journalists, while I’d think the statement more accurate if referring to the editorial boards and the managing companies.
And this simply doesn’t follow–not even getting into the question of what counts as ‘bias’–for the reasons I’ve listed above.
“The Liberal Media” are not a myth… but they’re not what they used to be.
When conservatives first started railing against the “liberal media,” they were really referring to a relatively small group of outlets: The three major networks, the major urban daily newspapers (NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Boston Globe, etc.) and the major news weeklies (Time, Newsweek). All of those outlets WERE, clearly, liberal. And they held a virtual monopoly on news and political expression. It’s not surprising that conservatives were outraged.
Today? Well, the aforementioned news media are STILL as left-wing as ever, but there are so many MORE media available, those outlets aren’t nearly as powerful as they used to be. Talk radio, for example, was virtually non-existent in the 1970s, but it’s a major force for conservatism today. Rupert Murdoch has become a major force in U.S. broadcasting, and has generally pushed a conservative agenda through his Fox stations.
So, while liberals STILL dominate the outlets they dominated twenty-plus years ago, conservatives now have a host of alternatives. So, I no longer see much point to right-wing griping about the liberal media.
If you want PROOF of the left-wing bias that has long dominated the major networks and the major newspapers, just consider how the press has treated two particular political issues.
No matter they feel about abortion, MOST people will agree that the issue of parental notification when teens have abortion is a complicated one. Survceys show that even people who support abortion rights overwhelmingly support parental notification. I’m also aware that people who oppose parental notification can offer some genuine horror stories to explain themselves. Either way, can we all agree that this is a difficult issue on which VERY Reasonable people disagree? Good. So… when COngress debated a bill reqiring parental notification, what did EVERY major media outlet call the bill?
THE SQUEAL RULE!!!
Does that sound like intelligent, thoughtful, moderate, unbiased reporting? Or does that sound like left-wing editorializing? It should be OBVIOUS that only biased, left-wing reporters would use such a term when covering this story.
There has long been a lot of disagreement as to whether a defense system to protect the USA from nuclear missile attacks is a) feasible, b) a good idea, and c) worth the possible expense. Again, there are intelligent reasonable people on all sides of this issue: highly qualified techies who think it can be done, and brilliant techies who think it’s impossible. There are respected diplomats who think it would be wonderful, and others who think that, even if it worked, it would be an unnecessary provocation to Russia and China. Still other people disagree over how much such a system will cost, and whether it’s worth the investment. Again, a complicated issue on which intelligent, reasonable people disagree.
So… when the media began covering the idea, did they call it “High Frontier” (as its original proponents, like Daniel Graham did)? Or did they call it “SDI” (a perfectly reasonable, simple name)? OF COURSE NOT! From the start, they called it “Star Wars,” as a way of ridiculing the whole concept, and suggesting it was one of senile ROnald Reagan’s Buck Rodgersesque fantasies.
Again, that’s NOT reporting- it’s left-wing editorializing.
As I said earlier, conservatives now have many other outlets for news, so there’s no longer any burning need to keep bashing the liberals in the press. But I’d LOVE to see a lefty try to defend the obvious editorializing that went on with regard to “Star Wars” and “The Squeal Rule.” PLEASE try to explain that kind of journalism, without regard to the liberalism of the reporters involved.
astorian: Care to provide cites on the liberal nature of The Washington Post, The New York Times, and the major networks? Failing that, care to provide us with your definition of liberalism, and why these media outlets are supposedly bastions of left-wing thought? Specifically, what positions do these newspapers and networks champion that are further to the left than the political proclivities of yer Average American ™? Finally, did you read any of the links that have been provided? If so, could you explain how your contention about the “left-wing” news media is consistent with the information given in those articles? Thanks.
Sorry, I posted as you were posting. And I think you’ve got to do better than that, especially in light of the information that’s been provided. Star Wars is hardly a derogatory term, and I’d actually be interested if you could trace its specific genesis with regard to SDI. What’s more, I’ll suggest again Hertsgaard’s book On Bended Knee, which might challenge some of your preconceptions about a supposedly liberal, adversarial press during Reagan’s tenure. And abortion? That’s always a hard one, and I’ll grant you that the national news media, Fox News Channel excepted, seem more pro-choice than pro-life. I tend to chalk that one up to the secular media, personally, but that might not be the case. Plus, do you have evidence that the media as a whole are any more pro-choice than the rest of America? Don’t forget the survey Kimstu and I cited, which displayed the tendency of the national news media to be more conservative than the public on many important issues…
There are a couple of problems with your analogy here. First is the factual problem. As I recall, Perot’s presence was significant enough to prevent Clinton from having a majority of the votes. Next is the consideration that Bill Clinton was not necessarily running against someone as far from the perfect center as he was. Also, people base their votes at least somewhat on the person, rather than solely the issues involved.
Personally, the media strikes me as having the viewpoint like that of the former hippie. They like to support liberal causes, but have given up trying to fight the system, gotten their hair cut, and hold respectable day jobs. I would suspect that a very large group of baby boomers who read editorials and such hold similar views. Perhaps even the executive types in charge of the paper. Not all corporate executives are conservatives.
Of course, for me, the media is the Boston Globe, which certainly has a liberal bias. Actual survey question from a senatorial race “Which candidate do you think will better support a woman’s right to chose?”
Yup, there are certainly papers with a liberal bent to their editorial sections: The Boston Globe, The Los Angeles Times, The Minneapolis Star-Tribune, The Madison Capital-Times…that’s about it, as far as major papers go. The New York Times and The Washington Post can no longer be described accurately as tending liberal, if indeed they ever could. They’re corporatist centrist and, along with the conservative Wall Street Journal (surely no one’s going to argue with that!), are the most influential papers out there by far. And don’t even talk about the networks, or PBS…
If you’re biased, then you have no business calling yourself a liberal. The whole idea behind liberalism is to be unbiased. My definition of ‘liberal’ is simply a willingness to re-evaluate prevailing assumtions. It’s not the same as left-wing. If left-wing ideas become established, then a good liberal should challenge them. You can apply this to Russia, where the liberals were further to the right than the conservtives, who were, of course, left-wing communists. “Political correctness” also isn’t liberal, it’s a new kind of left-wing conservativism. It wields power based on established assumptions about race and gender that deserve to be re-evaluated.
No. Again, we should define liberal/conservative according to how you approach issues, not what position you take. If you mean left-wing, well, if the mainstream of the Democratic Party is moving closer to the center, it doesn’t mean we should move the definition of left-wing to keep up with them. It means the Democrats are leaving the left behind (somewhat). (The Republicans are pretty much digging in their heels on the right, though not according to Pat Buchannan).
The thing is that according to society, liberal = left wing and conservative = right wing. These are commonly used terms. When you hear someone telling you to “apply the dressing liberally” in a recipe, you can tell from the context that they do not mean for you to be open minded when doing so. Likewise, when you hear the term “liberal bias” you should be able to tell that the speaker is using liberal to mean “left wing”.
[somewhat belatedly] To Mr Zambesi and others, a thousand apologies for creating confusion.
I did NOT mean that those who listen to and call into talk radio are “losers” in the sense of “deadshits”. I meant that they tend to be those who are losing from current changes.
My post was supposed to read:
that newspapers primarily present opinion about authority to the public, which tends to be critical of current standards in order to be newsworthy;
whereas talk radio tends to be about the public’s problems with the day-to-day performance of authority. Callers tend to display a yearning for a more traditional order, since change inevitably creates concentrations of people who are aware that they lose, whereas the beneficiaries of policy tend either to be more dispersed or strategically less willing to acknowledge themselves as beneficiaries.
Well, then I think the OP’s claims pretty much stand. To substantiate the claim that the media on the whole shows a liberal bias requires us to equate “liberal” with “corresponding to the current platform of the Democratic party”, which as other posters have pointed out is something of a stretch. (It also makes the term rather meaningless historically; that is, what would have been called a “liberal” back in the sixties and what you call a “liberal=Democrat” now stand for very different things.) It also overlooks the fact that this modern “centrism” seems actually to be a ways to the right of how most average Americans™ look at major issues like healthcare, taxation, and corporate power.
Anybody else get the feeling that this combination of trends (socially liberal, economically conservative) seems to slant not so much pro-left or pro-right as pro-rich? Liberal on individual freedoms, abortion, and religion, as the more cosmopolitan upper classes often tend to be; pro-gun-control and tough on crime generally; and pro-capitalist and laissez-faire on fiscal issues. Man, anybody would think that these papers are being run by rich people.
Once upon a time in the city of fools, Chelm (A fabled city of fools, in Yiddish folklore), the town elders were vexed by a problem. Day in, day out, the rich were eating better then the poor. Specifically, the rich got to eat meat, while the poor ate beans. What could be done?
A meeting was called, and the problem was discussed at length. For hours and hours, the wise men of Chelm debated the issue, until a solution was reached.
And thus was inscribed in the book of laws of Chelm, that “By the decree of the wise elders of Chelm, from now on meat is to be called beans, and beans called meat”. And fairness and equality prevailed.
Kimstu - I wholeheartedly agree with your closing remarks (for what it’s worth from across the pond). What’s happening in the US is important to Europe in this regard because the States often foreshadows socio-political trends here so forgive my intrusion in this domestic debate.
The key for me is that the trend away from the centre – and further still from Liberalism – has come (on this occasion) at a time when the first world economies have enjoyed, historically speaking, unsurpassed sustained economic growth. This, at least for us, would be a new and worrying combined effect because, traditionally, Liberalism blossoms when people feel good and economically more secure.
IMHO, there is no doubt that the gulf between the disenfranchised/underclass/poor has been - and is continuing to - grow Stateside. Any statistics from prison numbers, to health care cover to social provision levels underscore this, for me.
I only hope the absence of a left of centre party (in the US) that would, in Europe, act as a counterweight cum alternative (to drag things back from the drift right) is the primary reason. What seems to be happening to you would not be viewed as ‘progress’ here (‘progres’ being an ‘inclusive’ concept).
Margaeret Hilda Thatcher (at least as Republican as Bedtime for Bonzo) once famously remarked “There is no such thing as society” - for a democrat, Clinton appears to be doing one hell of a job of carrying the Thatcherite torch.
“How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.” --usu. attributed to Abraham Lincoln
So do you have any evidence that the media are more generally liberal than the rest of the United States population, or are ya just gonna keep insisting that “liberal” equals "Democratic,’ or what?
Kimstu’s point is a good one: It’s pretty well established that the more education a person has, the more they’re likely to be liberal on social issues and conservative on fiscal issues. Not surprisingly, those journalists and editors with pull in the national news media are very well educated, and wealthier than the average American, to boot. Is it really any surprise that a national press corps comprised of fairly well-to-do reporters answering to wealthy editors answering to staggeringly rich CEOs present a perspective which is targeted to and shaped around the interests of the affluent? And where’s the liberalism in that? In the typical stances to health care reform, unions, globalization, fiscal policy?
In this country, when a company lays off 3,000 people, their stock prices go up. That’s an event for which there can be at least two interpretations: “Company A puts 3,000 people out of work,” or “Company A’s stock soars after cutbacks.” In this, our liberal media, which one of those interpretations do you think usually prevails?
Gadarene, have you even been reading Izzy’s posts?
He has conceded that perhaps liberal doesn’t equal Democratic, and said that a true statement would be that “The media is biased in favor of the Democratic Party” rather than “The media is biased toward liberalism.”
OK can anyone disagree with this? The media is biased towards the wealthy conservative wing of the Democratic Party. Likewise it tends to show bias towards the wealthy pro-big business wings of the republican party. There are some small exceptions, (the SF examiner tends to lean towards right-wing populist). But, on a whole this trend stands. It exists because the media is a large business and is of course biased towards itself.
