What is the origin of the canard that CNN is "liberal"?

[modernhamlet]

@El Zagna

From the Harborwolf/Shodan site we get this:

The Wall Street Journal is the most *liberal * news outlet!? While I rarely read the WSJ, everything I hear is that they are one of the most conservative outlets. Somebody has some 'splaining to do.

Also from this cite:
The only Internet journalist put through the ringer, Matt Drudge and his popular “DrudgeReport,” was just left-of-center, with a rating of 60.4.

You’re kidding me, right?

Are Worldthreats.com copies of NewsMax articles that discuss a clearly broken study really considered legitimate citations?

Here’s the actual study: http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm

Here’s one person ripping its methodology apart: http://media.eriposte.com/2-9.htm=

This study and subsequent links should never been used in a citation again. At least if the author wants to be taken seriously.

[Shodan]

Maybe we could agree in advance on what kind of evidence can be considered?

For example, I expect most people would agree to consider as evidence the fact that political contributions from the parent company of Fox News go to Republicans over Democrats by almost two to one (38% go to Democrats, 62% to Republicans). Pretty much what you would expect from a right-wing company, right?

OK, now consider that political contributions from the parent company of CNN (AOL Time Warner) swing almost exactly the opposite way - 36% Republican, 63% Democrat). Cite.

Would you all consider this evidence that CNN swings left to the same degree that Fox swings right? Or can we agree that, based on this evidence, that there is no indication that either news outlet is biased to any measurable degree?

I really think we need to get this kind of thing clear before we begin.
[ul][li]What do you consider “liberal”? If you are going to start by presuming that everyone to the right of the Swedish Socialist Party (or whatever) is “conservative”, fine, then CNN is “conservative” and the only “liberal” media outlet in America is Mother Jones magazine .[/li][li]What kind of evidence will be considered, and what will be dismissed out of hand? I have had this discussion a few times before ( ) and there is always some moron who chimes on every damn cite with “that documented instance of biased coverage came from a conservative site, and so it doesn’t even need to be addressed”. [/li][li]Are we talking news only, or commentary?[/ul][/li]
Regards,
Shodan

[El_Zagna]

@guinnog

I **deplore **the lazy American tendency to denote **everything **in the world as ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’.

The world just ain’t that simple folks.

Thanks for bringing that up, guinnog. Putting aside all the hyperbole, the mainstream media - from Fox to CNN, from the NY Times to the NY Post - is quite balanced.

Let’s say we were to plot some kind liberal/conservative scale for the American population as a whole and compare that to the scores of the mainstream media as a whole. My guess is that you would find the mean points of those two curves almost identical, but the standard deviations to be drastically different. In other words, whatever bias you will find in the media will be tiny compared to the huge range of political philosophies of the population in general.

[El_Zagna]

@Shodan

Would you all consider this evidence that CNN swings left to the same degree that Fox swings right? Or can we agree that, based on this evidence, that there is no indication that either news outlet is biased to any measurable degree?

From this evidence, I don’t think you can conclude much of anything with respect to actual bias. The best you can say is that CNN might have a stronger *inclination * to have a liberal bias and Fox a conservative bias, but that doesn’t mean that those inclinations are realized.

I believe that for the most part journalists at the level of CBS, CNN, Fox and the like take their professional ethics seriously and make every effort to present unbiased news.

[modernhamlet]

@Shodan

Maybe we could agree in advance on what kind of evidence can be considered?

For example, I expect most people would agree to consider as evidence the fact that political contributions from the parent company of Fox News go to Republicans over Democrats by almost two to one (38% go to Democrats, 62% to Republicans). Pretty much what you would expect from a right-wing company, right?

OK, now consider that political contributions from the parent company of CNN (AOL Time Warner) swing almost exactly the opposite way - 36% Republican, 63% Democrat). Cite.

Would you all consider this evidence that CNN swings left to the same degree that Fox swings right? Or can we agree that, based on this evidence, that there is no indication that either news outlet is biased to any measurable degree?

I don’t know, Shodan. Since we’re discussing bias in the content of these news sources, unless there is a demonstrated collelation between political money given by the parent company of a news network and the news that is produced, then those facts aren’t useful. I’ll certainly grant you that such information is interesting, but it’s hard to say it addresses the question of news bias without opening up a whole different can of worms. Why not look at the actual content, which is what is being questioned here?

I really think we need to get this kind of thing clear before we begin.

Yes, absolutely.

[quote]
[li]What do you consider “liberal”? If you are going to start by presuming that everyone to the right of the Swedish Socialist Party (or whatever) is “conservative”, fine, then CNN is “conservative” and the only “liberal” media outlet in America is Mother Jones magazine .[/li][/quote]

This is, as far as I’m concerned, the fundamental question in the debate. There needs to be a clean, unbiased, “based-on-accepted-theory” methodology for choosing the natural midpoint in the debate. This is an exceedingly difficult task when many, if not all, of the major issues aren’t one variable issues. Frankly, I’m not even sure this debate is terribly useful, as it only serves to shove opinions into one of two camps and effectively ignores the authoritarian/libertarian axis.

[quote]
[li]What kind of evidence will be considered, and what will be dismissed out of hand? I have had this discussion a few times before ( ) and there is always some moron who chimes on every damn cite with “that documented instance of biased coverage came from a conservative site, and so it doesn’t even need to be addressed”.[/li][/quote]

Same as above. We need objective criteria. The basis of that criteria has to include the following concept: There is a fundamental difference between stating in neutral language what the two sides of a story said/did and using language that clearly implies preference for one side over the other. Simply citing a liberal or conservative think tank cannot make a news source biased. It’s how they cite that matters.

[quote]
[li]Are we talking news only, or commentary?[/li][/quote]

Any good media bias study would have to include an analysis of how well a particular media keeps their news and editorial sections differentiated.

Also, what percentage of a source’s coverage is news vs. commentary?

[Liberal]

CNN seems quite left-leaning to me, and I’m not conservative.

[El_Zagna]

@Liberal

CNN seems quite left-leaning to me, and I’m not conservative.

How so? I’ve watched a lot of CNN in my time and recently I’ve watched a lot of Fox, and, with respect to their news, neither one strikes me as biased one way or the other. I do find Fox to have a bit on the “if it bleeds it leads” mentality, but I don’t see this as conservative or liberel.

[Shodan]

@El Zagna

From this evidence, I don’t think you can conclude much of anything with respect to actual bias. The best you can say is that CNN might have a stronger *inclination * to have a liberal bias and Fox a conservative bias, but that doesn’t mean that those inclinations are realized.

I think that’s a fair conclusion based on the evidence to date.

I posted it to forestall an argument I have heard in the past, which is that new media in America are biased towards the conservative side because they are owned by large companies, all of which are headed by white males interested in preserving the status quo. It is sort of like the FAIR study that said the media in the US is biased towards the right, because they only interview white males in positions of power.

The other interesting thing I often observe in discussions of this sort goes back to the point Kiros made about observers finding that those outlets that agree with them are un-biased, and all the others are objective. I expect that many or most of the right-wingers on the SDMB will readily admit that Fox News tilts rightward. But a much smaller number of the lefties hereabouts will admit to any left-wing bias in any other mainstream media outlet at all. Read the OP again:

I begin with the assumption that the Big Three and CNN are really serious, unbiased journalistic institutions and that Fox is definitely biased to the right.

So, according to the OP, only one of the media listed are out of contention as a “serious” institution - the one perceived as conservative. So you have two (and only two) possible positions - serious and unbiased, or conservative.

Almost by definition, the only bias perceptible seems to be right-wing bias. Funny, that.

Regards,
Shodan

[Harborwolf]

@Shodan

Maybe we could agree in advance on what kind of evidence can be considered?

For example, I expect most people would agree to consider as evidence the fact that political contributions from the parent company of Fox News go to Republicans over Democrats by almost two to one (38% go to Democrats, 62% to Republicans). Pretty much what you would expect from a right-wing company, right?

OK, now consider that political contributions from the parent company of CNN (AOL Time Warner) swing almost exactly the opposite way - 36% Republican, 63% Democrat). Cite.

Would you all consider this evidence that CNN swings left to the same degree that Fox swings right? Or can we agree that, based on this evidence, that there is no indication that either news outlet is biased to any measurable degree?

I’m gonna go with number two here. Unless we have evidence that those doing the donations have near tyrannical control over their media outlets, the political donations are meaningless.

[QUOTE]
I really think we need to get this kind of thing clear before we begin.
[ul][li]What do you consider “liberal”? If you are going to start by presuming that everyone to the right of the Swedish Socialist Party (or whatever) is “conservative”, fine, then CNN is “conservative” and the only “liberal” media outlet in America is Mother Jones magazine .[/li][/QUOTE]

Let’s stick by standard american partisanshipnessosity. As I understand it, the differences between our standard two parties is kind of small, speaking internationally.

[QUOTE]
[li]What kind of evidence will be considered, and what will be dismissed out of hand? I have had this discussion a few times before ( ) and there is always some moron who chimes on every damn cite with “that documented instance of biased coverage came from a conservative site, and so it doesn’t even need to be addressed”. [/li][/QUOTE]

Personally, I’m up for just about anything except anecdotal. Any sort of personal views on content is going to be run through our own political filters: liberals find fox biased and cnn fine, conservatives love fox news and hate cnn, etc.

[QUOTE]
[li]Are we talking news only, or commentary?[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]

News please. Arguing over commentary is silly since they wear their politics on their sleeves, though I suppose an exception could be made for number of commentators of a certain political stripe (majority left/right).

[guinnog]

@Harborwolf

As I understand it, the differences between our standard two parties is kind of small, speaking internationally.

Yep. That is how I see it too. I am glad I don’t have to decide which coiffured suit to vote for every four years. Ah, but it is getting more and more like that here too.

[Shodan]

@Harborwolf

News please. Arguing over commentary is silly since they wear their politics on their sleeves, though I suppose an exception could be made for number of commentators of a certain political stripe (majority left/right).

Fair enough. Did you note that all the examples in the OP on how conservative CNN used to be came from the orientation of their political commentators?

Regards,
Shodan

[Martin_Hyde]

@guinnog

How odd. Why should opposing or criticising the war be seen as necessarily being a ‘liberal opinion’? I can think of several conservatives who opposed it. And a whole lot more now that it has proved to be such a disaster!

Is this just a curious Americanism? Or were you being over-simplistic a tad?

Because a quick litmus test for news organizations here in America is stance on the Iraq war.

If you’ve got money to bet then you’d be smart to bet anti-war organizations = liberal and pro-war = conservative.

Are there individuals that break this rule? Yes, many.

Like I said, this whole issue is one where all we can really do to discuss it introduce anectdotal evidence, voice opinions, and make sweeping generalizations.

[Martin_Hyde]

@Harborwolf

Actually, in any one of the various threads on this topic there are numerous cites of studies done on media bias. Why not do a bit of research, put the studies up, and we can discuss their worth. Maybe will even get a bit more than screams of “biased source” this time around.

For example, here, is a cite provided by Shodan in the last thread mentioned in the OP. I may not agree with the conclusions or the methods used, but it’s more to chew on than anecdotal evidence.

Because virtually all the “studies” on bias are released by biased institutions! I mean, this is an issue where quantifying things doesn’t do a lot to help analyze the issue. It will generate “liberal/conservative” numerical ‘scores’ but said scores are wholly worthless analytically speaking.

[Martin_Hyde]

@guinnog

Perhaps this should go in the Pit. But let’s try.

I **deplore **the lazy American tendency to denote **everything **in the world as ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’.

The world just ain’t that simple folks. These may be reasonable terms to use in a political debate, but as soon as you get into anything interesting, you do yourself an injustice if you try to judge things in these simplistic terms.

And from where I am standing, nearly all of your politics and politicians come across as very right-wing, FWIW.

And I deplore the lazy British attitude that government should be a giant piggybank for the worthless masses to stick their filthy hands in.

But I digress.

I said from the get go this isn’t the best thread topic because to really look at it you have to just break down and make a lot of generalizations.

Liberal/Conservative don’t cover everything, plus both terms have different meanings for different people. But when you have a “consensus” understanding of what a conservative is then you can make certain blanket statements using the consensus-terms. It’s not the most accurate thing in the world but we can’t analyze every person issue-by-issue, every organization issue-by-issue et cetera, so sometimes it’s useful to label them based on what they are “weighted” towards.

[guinnog]

@Martin Hyde

we can’t analyze every person issue-by-issue, every organization issue-by-issue et cetera,

Speak for yourself!

@Martin Hyde

so sometimes it’s useful to label them based on what they are “weighted” towards.

How is it useful?

[El_Zagna]

@Martin Hyde

And I deplore the lazy British attitude that government should be a giant piggybank for the worthless masses to stick their filthy hands in.

What the hell was that all about?

[Harborwolf]

@Martin Hyde

Because virtually all the “studies” on bias are released by biased institutions! I mean, this is an issue where quantifying things doesn’t do a lot to help analyze the issue. It will generate “liberal/conservative” numerical ‘scores’ but said scores are wholly worthless analytically speaking.

Better to post the study and find out if it has flaws then to just assume that all are flawed. The discussions are far more interesting that way. There may be something of value in even the worst cite.

Unless it’s a fox news cite. It’s common knowledge that anything from them is crap.

[BrainGlutton]

@spoke-

Ted Turner has always been a Democrat, as far as I can tell. He certainly donates heavily to Democratic politicians, and has since the late 70s. I’ve never heard him called “right-wing” by anybody. I’d like to know how Brock’s source for that conclusion.

Well, here’s the characterization at greater length (“the Rupert Murdoch of his day” was my phrase, not Brock’s):

Though Ted Turner is best known now for his concerns about the environment and the proliferation of nuclear weapons, his financial support of the United Nations, and his marriage to Jane Fonda, all of that had yet to come. In 1980, when he started CNN and had more control over programming than he would years later, the press described Turner as a staunch free marketeer and an active supporter of the 1964 Goldwater presidential campaign. Newsweek called him a “sort of right-wing Ralph Nader” who accused a “bunch of pinkos” at the networks of "precipitating everything from a decline in the work ethic to a rise in the crime rate.

Turner appeared to do nothing to slant the news reporting, and CNN’s brand was built on quality news, not politics or ideology. Yet whether he saw only a potential marketing opportunity or was speaking out of conviction, in the early years of CNN, Turner parroted the language of the right wing in describing CNN’s mission as providing more “balance” than could be found on the networks – an implicit charge of liberal bias. CNN, he said, would give both sides “fair and equal treatment.” CNN’s decision that people like Phyllis Schlafly represented the “other side” of liberalism shifted the whole debate radically rigthward.

He then recounts the background of Jesse Helms’ Tobacco Radio Network; Helms’ formation in 1984 of Fairness in Media, an organization with the express goal of taking over CBS; and a conservative campaign (secretly bankroled by Richard Mellon Scaife and the Smith Richardson and John M. Olin foundations) to sue CBS for libelling General Westmoreland.

At this juncture, Ted Turner entered the picture. When he founded CNN, Turner provided a point of entry for the right wing; now, he pandered to it to win political and financial backing for a grand design in which his Turner Broadcasting System would take over one of the major broadcast networks.

In 1984, Turner spoke to the National Conservative Foundation, the Reagan-era group, later activated by Terry Dolan of NCPAC, to campaign against the “liberal media.” Turner said:

Those networks need to be gotten into the hands of people who care about this country, and I’m going to keep trying to figure out a way to do it. They know what they’re doing, and I’ve criticized them time and again. In my opinion, the greatest enemy America has ever had, posing the greatest threat to our way of life, are the three television networks and the people who run them . . .

If we are going to survive, those networks have got to change hands. They’ve got to be intimidated into straightening up their act and putting on programming that is not against all the things that make this society strong.

<snip>

Within a few months, Turner launched a hostile bid for CBS, promising to bring "pro-family, pro-America type programming to the network. In pursuing CBS, Turner contacted the Helms group, Fairness in Media, for assistance. . . . William Simon, the wealthy junk bond king and an architect of the right-wing message machine, was said to have agreed to back Turner with $50 million.

The takeover battle turned nasty on both sides. In rejecting Turner’s bid, mostly on financial grounds, the CBS board noted, “In light of a number of pejorative statements by Mr. Turner about various minority, religious, and ethnic groups, we believe that TBS’s acquisition of CBS would undermine the CBS network’s present broad acceptance by the public.” According to a report in the New York Times, the “pejorative” comments included a statement by Turner that he disliked a particular sports agent because “he wears a full-length fur coat and is a Jew”; a suggestion that the unrelated issues of black unemployment and how to deploy the MX missile could be solved by having “blacks carry missiles from silo to silo just as the Egyptians carried rocks during the building of the pyramids”; and a proposal to “build an iron curtain” along the borders of Texas, California, New Mexico, and Arizona to separate them from Mexico, lest Mexicans residing in those states try to “take them back.”

[BrainGlutton]

@Martin Hyde

I’ve come to read many of your posts on this forum. In America you’re what is considered radically lefist.

I am, perhaps. David Brock emphatically is not.

@Martin Hyde

You probably found Bill Clinton to be conservative, or maybe not.

Economically conservative, at any rate.

@Martin Hyde

But the fact is “society in general” found Bill Clinton to be a left-leaning moderate.

Hard to believe. Cite?

@Martin Hyde

Many Republicans have boycotted the CNN show Crossfire, for example, because they felt like the bias of the hosts was strong enough that they didn’t feel comfortable in appearing on the show.

News to me. Cite?

@Martin Hyde

Another example is Aaron Brown analyzed the war in Iraq for CNN for sometime, and just about every analysis he made boiled down to how the war was wrong and illegal. Now, that’s a fine opinion but it’s a liberal opinion . . .

No it isn’t, Martin. Just ask Pat Buchanan.

[BrainGlutton]

@Martin Hyde

But if any of you remember CNN’s coverage of the war they were the most critical voice during the invasion, constantly lamenting the fact that our troops were stuck in a “quagmire.” Many CNN commentators were extremely critical of the Bush administration, and were constantly highlighting aspects of the issue that looked unfavorably to Bush.

They were reporting the news, but many felt that what was actually going on militarily > important than Bush’s approval ratings.

And the military events were what CNN was reporting. What is your point?