Per Cube Jockey's request, I've started this monster back up...

Is the media biased?

If so, is it liberal or conservative?

If yes, prove it.

CP

I do not believe it is so clear anymore. I do not believe it is purposely bias in either direction. Fox started as an answer to CNN's liberal leanings, but is now just a tabloid network. CNN and MSNBC have made strides in having content aimed at more political spectrums. I do not believe people can be objective. Some form of bias exists in everything we do no matter how hard we try, it's just human nature.

There was the old statistic that 80% of journalists vote for Democrats that was taken in the 80's I believe, I'm not so sure it's quite so one sided today. Perhaps I am wrong.

I just do not believe that it is as sinister as those on the Right and Left claim.

The media are not singularly anything. Thank heavens, the media are plural and the media are various: both, neither, left, right, antagonist, apologist, partisan, non-partisan, fake, and real. And, sometimes, all these things in the same place and on the same day.

The only singular "bias" I believe that anyone can argue that a majority of the plural media have is toward money. What will sell is what is said, period. And we should be wary of this.

Is the media biased?

I chose the "Yes, it's biased toward corporations" answer. I think that when discussing this though we have to talk about the "mainstream media" because there are tons of smaller news organizations out there which I believe due truely hold themselves to the principles of journalism.

I have heard, but I'm not really old enough to remember, that there was a time when the media as a whole was truely interested in finding facts, upholding the principles of journalism, and serving as the "fourth estate". That may have never been true, I don't know, but the perception is there.

Today, I feel that we are dominated by a mainstream media with one allegiance - the dollar. There have been numerous instances where the quote "important" stories of the day have been completely glossed over because they won't sell whereas sensational stuff like "the runaway bride" or the "michael jackson trial" can dominate the media for days or weeks.

This website presents a graphical overview of the news in real time, larger articles represent more coverage. There have been times when I've looked at this and it is very telling.

A lot of people feel that the media is "liberal" and always gives liberals and democrats a pass on things. I completely reject that notion because there are plenty of examples to disprove it. What the media does is report the stories that sell, and the stories that the country wants to hear.

This argument most often comes from Republicans and Conservatives that complain about the media beating on Bush about various things. The funny thing is - they are actually doing their job! The media isn't supposed to play cheerleader for the President, Republican or Democrat, they are supposed to seek the truth behind the spin. That clearly wasn't happening in the run up to the Iraq war in my opinion, I'm just glad there is some of that going on now.

They don't call it the "news business" for nothing, in fact just look at who serves on the board of directors for all of the major media organizations - source.



Even if it is accurate it is completely irrelevant. A good journalist isn't supposed to let their political views get mixed in with their ability to report "news". Some channels are starting to pass off commentary as news *cough*FoxNews*cough* and that trend is particularly disturbing.

Everybody is biased to some degree, and news media is not exempt. The mainstream news media is definitely biased to the left and there are plenty of books and websites which cite credible studies and sources to expose it. Being biased is not necessarily wrong, it's pretending to be unbiased when in reality you are that wreaks of deception.

Here is one example of media bias:

The mainstream news media is quick to label organizations, groups, and politicians as conservative, but reluctant to do the same for liberals. The Media Research Center (MRC), which is conservative, found that the broadcast news media labels conservatives four to six times more often compared to liberals. The bias stems from the implication that when liberals are not labeled as such, the viewers should take them as independent moderates. In other words, liberal ideologies are portrayed as moderate and conservative ideologies are portrayed as extreme.

MRC gives a number of examples of this, here's two: link

And


This sort of thing is nothing new as I remember reading a similar study a few years ago that came up with the same conclusion.

Just something to think about.... But, have you considered that you aren't seeing the label "liberal" as often because the word has been demonized? Could the word "conservative" just be considered an appellation of commendation rather than anything else? So, quick to look for conspiracies when a simpler explanation will do...

I never said anything about conspiracies. Most mainstream reporters consider themselves "middle of the road" as Dan Rather calls himself. Most of these reporters agree with groups like NOW, AARP, NAACP, etc and consequently they are portrayed to be middle of the road organizations. Being biased is natural. But for media to pretend like they are not is denial and hurts their credibility.

As for demonized terminology, your argument ends up supporting the concept of a leftist news media. If media is avoiding the term liberal because it believes it has negative implications, as you say, then it is protecting leftist groups. Unbiased journalists are supposed to be clinical in their labeling of groups, not political.

Edited to add:

The problem with clinical journalism is that it doesn't sell as well as political journalism. The New York Times used to be called the Old Gray Lady because it was clinical and boring. I think someone mention earlier how money is a major factor these days in media bias, and I largely agree with that assessment.

How post-modern of you. "Facts" are just another form of bias. It is my opinion that 2+2=4, however clearly my bias demonstrates that this "fact" should be taken with a grain of salt, as it were.


This is a new one for me: the media protects its bias by not naming it. Yes, all those liberal media reports show their liberal bias by not showing their bias. Using this argument, you'll always get the answer you've predetermined is correct. The suggestion was to appreciate an alternative and simpler explanation; but, convoluted logic is certainly within your prerogative of belief.


Yep, money is a major factor. Sensational and shock "journalism" is in vogue. Opinion is reported as news.

That is a completely ridiculous and flawed argument and I'll tell you why. What claim to fame does Tucker Carlson have other than being a conservative commentator? Are you denying that is what he is? It is an accurate description.

Now when referring to Dee Dee Myers what is Couric going to say... Dee Dee Myers was liberal? No, we'd have no clue who she was and we wouldn't care that she was liberal. Couric introduced her as Clinton's Press Secretary because that is what she is, that is her job. She isn't Clinton's liberal Press Secretary, she is just his press secretary. Draw whatever conclusions about her you like based on who she is working for, but calling her a liberal in her title would not be appropriate.



Once again, same thing. USA Next is a conservative group, they don't hide that. If you go to their website please find me their "about" page telling me what they are - you won't find it because there isn't one. There is no clear label for them other than "conservative", they don't even stick to senior issues on their website deerjerkydave there is support the troops stuff and things about judicial nominations taking above the fold real estate.

The AARP is a "senior lobbying group", that is what they are and they do have an "about" page which says that. You might consider them "liberal" because of the side of issues they take, but they are fighting for what is in the best interests of the group they represent, seniors. They are not a partisan group other than their position on things within their mission - they aren't talking about ending the Iraq war on their web site, they aren't talking about the environment.

The information presented by the reporter was completely accurate. Just because you'd like that label associated to them to smear them doesn't mean it is appropriate.

Actually, not very convoluted at all. I had the exact same thought as deerjerkydave when you made this comment Logophage. Liberal means liberal. It is a useful adjective. No more demonized than the adjective "conservative", so why the hesitancy to label liberal groups as liberal? Unbiased reporting should be clinical in its labeling of groups.

All right, I'll spell out the alternative logic because I thought it was obvious. By naming something as "conservative", they are increasing their conservative viewership. Thus, the media is pandering to a conservative bias and not the opposite.

I think John Stewart of the Daily Show said it best (is he the only good news commentator on TV any more) - "Who is this media guy? Where does he live- apparently there is only one of him and he runs around badmouthing conservatives"-

There is no singular "media" and they don't get together in a big meeting every year to discuss what "liberal" is- that is why Rove gets away so well with what he does, because he realizes that the media is an amorphous dis-organized group, so they take some time to out a lie, after lie, after lie, and the stupid US public buys into those soundbites and then it is too late for anyone to do anything about it- to me, the best example is the swift boat liars club- they were obvious liars on the face of it, clearly connected to the GW regime at the highest levels, and Rove had done this before with McCain in SC. Had the media been one nice big liberal organization, then they would have jumped on this immediately, instead it took weeks, by that time the damage was done.

I am not always sure if journalists are so pro-liberal causes as they are anti-conservative sometimes- conservatives as a movement in America take thier info from Fox or Rush and treat is like gospel, never even trying to research for themselves any lack of truth in thier demagogues. This would drive someone that researches issues for a living nuts. - I am sure Wertz gets some of his animosity towards the right due to his job as a researcher-

The media is coporate sponsored, so therefore, corporately biased. There is only one thing a major news organization cares about in the end - "Are we making money"- and that is all at the end of day.

Is the media biased?

If so, is it liberal or conservative?

Lately the media hasn't really existed. Such non-stories as Scott Peterson, Terri Schiavo, the Pope's death, the new Pope, the royal wedding, the run-away-brided, Michael Jackson, Natalie Holloway, Tom Cruise and (hopefully) Billy Graham's last crusade* have dominated cable news.

*Note: I'm not wishing Graham ill, only that he retires.

How does one tag such stories either liberal or conservative? Nonsense, gossip and the picayune have no ideology.

Perhaps with Sandra Day O'Connor's retirement and the appointment of a replacement, CNN, MSNBC and that other 24-hour "news" outlet will start doing hard stories again.

BTW: I voted "other."

Is the media biased?
The media isn't biased, people are. The people who make blanket statements that the 'media' is liberal. The people who say that conservatives get marching orders from Fox. Equally ludicrous and equally wrong. The media is concerned with sensationalism and nothing else. They are not responsive to the publics wants or desires for news, and as a result they have become infotainment at best.
Any time a news broadcast leads with the Affleck-Garner marriage or gives us 24/7 coverage of celebrity trials or the latest missing pretty white girl of the month, it's not news, it's tripe.
Tripe will also define the method by people of using a supposed bias in the news to attack their political foes or cover up the shortcomings in their own party. That's the only bias worth mentioning.


If so, is it liberal or conservative?
Most media owners are conservative, most reporters are liberal....at least in the mainstream press, so I think there's somewhat of a balance. We'll get mostly stories that the owners want to broadcast, and we'll get linguistic interjections from the reporters. Anybody that gets news only from the MSM, whether Fox or the NYT is daft anyway in my opinion.

I voted other too, and here's why: It has become very easy to ignore news broadcasts in favor of Internet news sources from all around the world. This looks like an irreversable trend, and so broadcast news is becoming unimportant in how people form their opinions on events and issues.

I thought it was interesting that the 11-year-old grandkid is following her favorite band online, not through MTV or fan magazines. She downloads videos and MP3s, reads about the band online, gets all excited with her friends as they try to form a band themselves.

The world is becoming interactive, not reactive. Hopefully, this leads to proaction. Judge for yourself if something is spun whatever which way, and seek out the real deal.

So to all those media mogules out there trying to spin the same old way, I say get your retirement funds together. Or maybe get with it? Times, they are a-changing and quickly.

I'm sorry I don't have a lot of time here for a long, drawn out response; I will try and do some more research in a bit.

First, the study many people are throwing around about reporters voting democratic, is an incomplete reading of the study. Of course groups like the MRC want only to stick to the part where it showed who reporters tend to vote for. But actually the study showed that reporters tend to be more liberal than average regarding social issues, and more conservative than average regarding economic issues. If anything, they sound more libertarian than liberal.

Second, in response to the "conservatives are labeled more often" argument - that may be true, but that is mostly because conservatives are more often used as commentators or experts. Even NPR, the "bastion" of the so-called liberal media, tends to call on republicans and conservatives more than liberals/democrats for comment. Indeed, this has nothing to do with who is in power - the same held true when this was studied in 1993:


How public is public radio?

edited out section of something I may have taken out of context.

I highly recommend the book The Republican Noise Machine by David Brock. It is a very in-depth look at how the conservatives took a mostly objective and unbiased media and turned it into the snivelling pile of authority-appeasers we have today. I am being hyperbolic, of course. But the thing is, it wasn't a secret. You can read about what the people who orchestrated it intended. It's about the end of the fact and the beginning of the 'factoid.'

OK, now I will start counting the minutes until a rebuttal attacks my using FAIR as a source... I predict it will be soon. I am ready!

I just believe we are only told what they want us to see, or read etc

Yes, the media is definitely biased.

It's like the story of the 6 blind men who describe the elephant. Not one of them had the motivation to spin the truth. Instead, they each described the object before them based on their perspective of the facts.

In the same way, it is impossible to write a story without bias. Each author is going to present the facts the way they see the story.

Before I go on, I must first emphasize that a story with bias does not inherently mean there was a motivation for the bias. Certainly, a journalist could spin the facts to create a biased story, but a journalist could also write the facts without any motive for spin. That story would still be subject to the author's perspective.

A great example of bias in the media is the example of reporting the Iraqi elections. In terms of facts, many Iraqis showed up to vote in Iraq's first democrat election and there were several incidents of violence. A good reporter will try to paint what happened that day by presenting all the facts to the reader, but that reporter has no choice but to place more or less emphasis on those facts.

The more "liberal" news organizations (CBS, NY Times) presented the facts of that day by focusing much more heavily on the violence than the "conservative" news organizations (FOX, Wash Times).

So where did the truth lie? Was the accurate portrayal of the day emphasized by the successful elections? Or did it lie in the attempted violence of the insurgents?

The truth lies with the reader. The reader gathers the facts given by multiple authors and determines for himself/herself what actually occurred that day. An extremely liberal reader may believe that CBS and NY Times focused way too heavily on the success of the elections, and call those organizations too conservative. An extremely conservative reader may read FOX News and Washington Times and conclude that they focused way too heavily on the violence, and call them too liberal. Some of us may think one author or another accurately portrayed the facts of the day.

So what do readers think in general? Do they think that the media accurately portrays the facts of the day? Do they think that the media, in general, portrays the facts a little too liberally or conservatively?

According to Gallup Poll:

"Now thinking for a moment about the news media: In general, do you think the news media is too liberal, just about right, or too conservative?" Options rotated

Too Liberal - 48%

About Right - 33%

Too Conservative - 15%

No Opinion - 4%

My challenge isn't with the source so much as its methodology. I read the FAIR report and it's obvious that part of the problem is the definition of terms such as "centrist." For one thing, the FAIR report cites the Brookings Institute as by far NPR's No. 1-cited think tank, and lists it as being "centrist.” It also lists E.J. Dionne as a frequently-cited Brookings spokesman. I don't think most people who've read Dionne would classify him as "centrist."
Here is a more current study, updated June 16
In part it points out that Brookings is "the most influential Democratic think tank."

If one combines the Brookings citings with the other "left-leaning" think tanks, the FAIR report's conclusions begin to fall apart.
I posted some of this earlier on another site noting there was a more recent -- and very interesting -- Yale study on rating the media using think tank citings. An article in the Rocky Mountain News stated:

Unfortunately the Instapundit links to the story and the study no longer seem to work but they might be available elsewhere if anyone has LexisNexis...

It's important to note that the number of appearances -- the coin of the realm for "studies" such as FAIR’s -- isn't terribly important to me in deciding whether an outlet has a bias. By the appearance standard, Bill O'Reilly usually balances each conservative guest with a liberal, or vice versa, and few would call him centrist. Likewise, I've heard Diane Rehm grill Republicans like Mitt Romney while serving up softballs to a Democrat like Paul Wellstone. The FAIR study would consider that perfectly balanced.

Absolutely 4gold! Part of that issue is our tendency as journalists to see stories fitting into “templates.” Commentator John Leo pointed out this while comparing coverage of a gay teen’s murder in Wyoming by heterosexuals with coverage of the sex-murder of a straight boy by
two homosexuals in Arkansas:

ahem, "the media ARE definitely biased."

4gold makes a very important and very interesting point. there are different kinds of bias. it's impossible for us humans to be 100% objective. unobjectivity, even when unintentional, is a form of bias. but based on the way the question was first posed in this thread, however, I don't believe objectivity was part of the equation. but it should be. I took it to mean "bias" in terms of a political agenda. do the media have a political bias?



I think you're talking about two different things here. again, the ability for the reporter to be objective, and the degree to which a reporter or journalist may have a predetermined agenda, or "will to spin." these two things aren't necessarily always mutually exclusive, but they could be.



I don't give this poll any value whatsoever. If you were to ask these readers what a liberal or a conservative is, you'd receive a vast spectrum of different answers. If you were to ask these readers what the media were, likewise, you'd hear different things. these poll responses have to do with public taste, or perspective. the media are too liberal FOR THEM ... whomever "they" are, and whatever "liberal" means, and whatever it is that was meant by "media." could there have been a more useless poll question? a better question to gauge public taste would have been "Is Dan Rather's hair too long?" it's more specific. nothing there is left to the imagination.




Fontbleau, by your own reasoning, you are in the same class as FAIR. FAIR has implied that Rehm is balanced, but Rehm obviously isn't when she lobs softballs to Democrats. fontbleau has implied that O'Reilly is balanced, but O'Reilly obviously isn't when O'Reilly lobs softballs to righties. you're being biased when you talk about bias!

Hi 'ya, Nifty! You must have misread something. I was demonstrating that FAIR's use of "guest appearances" was a poor standard for judging lack of bias on a network. My point was that O'Reilly — who certainly is not balanced, just as Rehm is not balanced — could be painted as balanced if one only counted "guest appearances" as the standard of measurement.

That was one of the problems with FAIR's report. It's as silly as using absentee days as the only measurement of employee value.

uh, right, indeed i did.

You've given a good analysis of the study - I agree it has flaws. However, outside the realm of political talk-shows, there is something to the finding that when doing regular news broadcasts, the 'experts' or specialists most called on are conservative or Republican. This was true when Bill Clinton had a Democratic majority in Congress, and it is true today. This says more about how information and opinion are fed to the consumers than MRC's finding that a majority of reporters vote Democratic. Not only was MRC's reporting incomplete (the study showed that reporters tend to be more conservative than average on economic matters, and more liberal than average on social issues), but for mainstream media at least, I think that reporters' political ideologies are less and less important. News has become much less investigation and more simply reporting (or NOT reporting). We have these huge media companies that are owned by companies like GE who have specific interests outside of any so-called 'objective' news stories. Is it any wonder that the real softballs are being pitched to those sources which confirm the corporate, establishment line.

And in large part, the blame for this lies in the conservative camp. The news media have historically been an active participant in balancing and questioning authority. Real journalists should not merely report the news. They should be looking behind it, and questioning it. However, ever since the early seventies, there has been a definite and direct movement among conservatives to discredit such questioning and skepticism as liberally biased. We should take note that this is distinct from saying that the media have a Democratic bias - because Scaife and company knew very well that when it comes to national politics, the two parties are of a mind about foreign policies and the economic 'importance' of militarism and wealthy hegemony.

Chomsky and Herman make an excellent case for a mainstream media which defines a narrow range as the whole of the political spectrum, with the NYT as the left, and (to update it a bit) FNC as the right, in their work Manufacturing Consent. Chomsky goes even further with this theme in Propaganda and the Public Mind. Both are well worth checking into, whether or not you are the sort that might turn to Chomsky for political insight.

What I don't understand is how the myth of the "liberal media" survived the Clinton years. Bill Clinton made some bad mistakes, it's true. But he became more villified by the mainstream media than any president since Nixon. And that list includes Reagan, who with his Contra scandal violated international law AND the Constitution. In the year 1999 or 2000, how could anyone talk about a "liberal media" with a straight face? After David Brock revealed he had lied about Anita Hill and Bill Clinton, how could people still talk about a 'liberal media?'

But while the lynching of Clinton was exaggerated and got out of hand with falsities, at its core it represented what the media should be. The media's job should be to question. If the president says, "we must bomb Bin Laden," we should question it. We should be asking, 'is this an attempt to distract the people from Monica-gate?' When Bush tells us there are WsMD in Iraq, the media should question it. They should seek verification. The problem is, when they did it with Clinton, conservative 'pundits' were lauding their journalistic integrity; when they attempt to do it with Bush, they are part of a liberal conspiracy, perhaps even unAmerican.

Well, I do think that there's quite a bit of bias in journalist circles.... they're human, that's to be understood. Most of the "major" media personalities appear to be liberal, but of course that depends on the outlet they work for - and, ultimately, who pays their paychecks. Some are more liberal than others. Some are pretty conservative.

I remember reading something Cronkite wrote once, that it used to be easy to determine how objective you were - if you were taking fire from both sides, the chances were you were somewhere in the middle. Now, I see the Media as being much more often in the sights of conservatives than it is in the sights of liberals.... which in itself tells me something about its bias.

However, I don't think the bias in itself is necessarily a bad thing... as objectivity and human perception aren't easily compatable. Some try harder than others, granted.... but most fall far short. Bias is fine, I don't mind it, so long as they come by it honestly and don't pretend they don't have any. Of course they do -- Everyone does..... So get over it.

What bothers me about the media is the fact that they're largely incompetant - conservative, liberal, doesn't matter - and given their reach.... well, that's pretty scary. For a very long time, there's been no checks and balances to correct it - and that's been essentially the case since the proliferation of TV news in the 60s. Right now, for me, the major media (TV, radio, newspaper) serves no purpose other than to tell me that something is going on.... I then use multiple sources the Internet to fill in everything else, and try and get a picture of what it is.

The times, they are a-changin'.... that's where the fact-checkers and info-hounds of the Internet - and, more specifically, the blogosphere - are showing the promise of a more 'Balkanized' press.... where perhaps objectivity won't come from this journalist or that one, or one outlet or another - but ultimately come out of the perculated product taken from multiple sources.

this is an interesting point. but you have to realize that nowadays, liberals have their hands full with the current administration.

still, I constantly hear liberals lament the gawdawful job the media are doing. there's even a blog devoted to it: http://www.dailyhowler.com/

True, but I'm going to guess that this isn't merely an American phenomenon. In Canada, many conservatives lament many of the major media outlets for having a liberal or left-leaning bias... and we currently have a liberal, left-centre party in power. It might not be a great comparison, though.... but both Canada and the United States are quite similar in some regards, so it might have something to consider. I don't know - take it for what it's worth.

Anyway... even during the Clinton administration, I would guess that there were still more complaints from conservatives than liberals regarding the bias in the media....




Well, as I said, I think incompetance is a much larger problem in the media than bias is. Bias exists, and my feeling is that there's more liberal bias in the media than conservative bias, considering all the different outlets out there. It can't be helped.

But incompetance is rampant in journalism, and the media isn't accountable. They get it wrong far too often, but are slow and\or unwilling to correct themselves.

... I mean, ever notice that retractions in the paper are always printed in the smallest font, buried somewhere amongst the ads for Safeway's specials or somewhere that's less-than-noticeable?

knave, one of the things the daily howler does is document not only incompetence, but evidence that claims of "liberal media bias" are unsubstantiated. and he is constantly pointing out that liberals have no representation whatsoever on the cable news sunday shows.







A couple of y'all have now answered "yes." Is anyone willing to offer proof?

CJ, I do get the points you're making here...but if you don't think the bias DJD is describing isn't present, you're fooling yourself. How many times do you ever hear any of the three major network describe anyone as a liberal anything? I honestly can't think of one single time...yet they seem to label someone as conservative several times a day. You can nitpick specific examples all day long, but that doesn't change the reality of what DJD is saying. If you doubt this, then ask yourself this question: Why did Rush and Fox News gain such a following? The only answer is that the 'mainstream' media wasn't catering to the conservative market. Why didn't corresponding 'liberal' media spring up? Because they were already there.

First

We can all agree that this board is full of policy wonks and political junkies- and we can barely define our own versions of what a conservative or liberal is, and most conservatives on my "what is a conservative" thread have said GW is not a conservative- so, if folks that supposedly are a tad more informed through out hobby here can't come up with what a conservative or liberal is- how in the world can we label the media liberal or conservative, we can't even define what the mainstream media is- how can we make a pronouncement like that>

Again, as I posted previously, Hobbes, this proves the opposite of what you're saying. The reason "conservative" is used more often than "liberal" in media reports is because the media considers "conservative" to be a good thing (or at a minimum not a bad thing). Thus, saying the word more often makes their reports appear to have more authority. Now, if you could show that every time the word "conservative" were used it was also coupled with "evil", "vile" or "Sith-like", then I could buy your argument. Absent such evidence, I conclude that the media considers "conservative" to be a positive quality.

And to go one step further, let's assume that both "liberal" and "conservative" are considered positive qualities by the media. Because we see the term "conservative" more often, one must also conclude that conservative things are more popular and more positive than liberal things as far as the media is concerned.

In such a case, the larger conclusion to make is that the media has a conservative bias and not a liberal bias.

selective memory. I looked and found the following examples in just a few minutes.

"Can a Massachusetts liberal win in the South?"
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/face_031404.pdf

"Senator Hillary Clinton, a liberal Democrat"
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/face_051505.pdf

"Mrs. Clinton is far more liberal than her husband and possibly more corrupt."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/02/07/...ain157796.shtml

"the famously liberal city of Santa Cruz, California"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/04/...ain524389.shtml

"... in the capital of liberal America -- San Francisco"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/06/...ain539732.shtml

"Delegates are more liberal than their party"
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/politic...e_July2604.html

"Chris Smith of New Jersey, a liberal on many issues who is ardently..."
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=629028

"Dennis Kucinich had pointed words for fellow liberal Ralph Nader"
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/politic...e_July2304.html

"Party leaders in the Senate worry about a filibuster by liberal ... "
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/politic...Note_Nov19.html



can you prove it? others have made the same claim. no one is offering any proof.

Logophage...

An interesting point. However, rather than 'assume' that the media considers conservative a good thing...is their any evidence of that. Mor myself, I don't think it's so much that the major networks consider conservative a 'bad' thing, either. Rather, I think they're assuming its different, and therefore worthy of note (as demonstrated in Goldberg's book 'Bias'). Which explains both why you don't see them so often use the 'evil' adjectives, but also why they mention it so often. Basic question: considering that the vast majority of journalists are liberal...why would you be so quick to conclude that the media considers conservative a good thing?

I'm not sure if there is any absolute proof available about which way journalists lean on the political spectrum. I mean, we're talking about a matter of personal preference and choice - aside from the voter registrations and party declarations, I don't think there is a real, concrete means to determine journalists' politics. It's mostly conjecture.

Add to that, is the problem that asking them is a futile notion.... as the media scream very loudly about their "objectivity," and will often avoid the question of their own politics - at least publicly.

And I'll be the first to admit that my perception of bias in the media is based on my own personal observation and opinion....

Either way, I can only offer the opinions of people who actually work for media outlets, and you can take their statements with a grain of salt;

From an on-air debate between Evan Thomas, Newsweek Assistant Managing Editor, and Nina Totenberg of NPR, just this past week or so;




Or, perhaps, the Most Trusted Man in America would be a better source of opinion - this is the article which I referenced to before, it just took me a while to find it;




Don't know if that helps or not.

Probably not.

which way journalists lean is one question, and whether or not the media are biased is another. I agree it would be difficult to prove, however, many are quick to point out that the media seem to exhibit a profound liberal bias. I want to see the proof.

I was curious about the point about labelling mentioned earlier in the thread. so today, I went to a number of websites and did google races for the terms "liberal OR liberals" and "conservative OR conservatives." I calculated a percentage for each website, comparing the number of times each label was mentioned.

There doesn't seem to be any correlation between usage of these terms and political agenda.


...............liberal.conservative
whitehouse.gov.....28%......72%
c-span.org.........29%......71%
nytimes.com........32%......68%
cbsnews.com........33%......67%
cnn.com............37%......63%
abcnews.go.com.....38%......62%
latimes.com........39%......61%
foxnews.com........39%......61%
harpers.org........39%......61%
bushwatch.com......39%......61%
michaelmoore.com...40%......60%
washingtonpost.com.40%......60%
rightwingnews.com..41%......59%
msnbc.com..........41%......59%
prospect.org.......42%......58%
news.google.com....45%......55%
theonion.com.......47%......53%
nationalreview.com.50%......50%
americasdebate.com.50%......50%
freerepublic.com...51%......49%
frontpagemag.com...54%......46%
dailykos.com.......55%......45%
chomsky.info.......59%......41%
anncoulter.com.....67%......33%
rushlimbaugh.com...88%......12%
drudge.com.........90%......10%
howardzinn.org....100%.......0%

We've been going back and forth on whether media outlet X is liberal or conservative in this thread and many others. Isn't that pretty much a meaningless discussion? I bet no one here could even agree on the definition of what would constitute a "liberal" or "conservative" media outlet. I'm sure people could give examples, but they'd be hard pressed to define something that would fit everyone.

It seems to me that the terms are used in more of a pejorative sense. I don't like what that station has to say so they must be "liberal" or "conservative".

I'm not quick to conclude anything. I'm merely stating that argument of "conservative" vs. "liberal" word count is flawed as it proves either position. Similarly, even if you can prove that the "vast majority of journalists are liberal", you must then proceed to prove that it must be the case that reporting by these journalists consistently result in a liberal bias. I could see an argument of it working in the opposite direction too (like a teacher who's also a father being harsher on his child in the classroom to avoid the appearance of favoritism). Finally, I don't buy into this post-modernist view championed by those self-identifying as conservative that one's political leanings must influence one's ability to do proper journalism.

Just a quick side note about the 'labeling' study - this study excluded quotes from politicians, and counted all uses of the word 'conservative' as indicative of liberal bias. That means that a Republican Senator referring to someone as a 'rabid-liberal' does not get counted; a journalist saying that Bush is a 'compassionate conservative' gets counted as liberal bias.

Furthermore, this study is bogus because of the difference those two words have in our conventional wisdom. While Republicans are for the most part happy with being labeled conservative, and indeed referring to 'conservative proposals' is not villified, Democrats (thanks to decades of liberal-bashing by conservative 'pundits') shy from being thought of as 'liberal.' "Liberal" is a bad word in American politics today, which is a shame. But that aside, for that's not the issue here, it is unfair to use this study as indicative of anything at all - except to remind us that the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' have nowhere near an equal standing (sadly) in American politics.

National Newspapers endorsed Bush by a margin of 2 to 1 in the 2000 election. Gore was the subject of far more negative stories than Bush, as well.

Of the top 10 nationally syndicated columnists, only 2 can really be seen as liberals - and one of those, Art Buchwald, steers pretty much clear of partisan politics.

One thing I think is telling is this: have you ever noticed that if a news story depicts poor people engaging in a struggle for social justice in some arena, it will be labeled as evidence of liberal bias by the conservative media watch-dog groups? What does this really say about conservatives? That concern for the underclass is liberal and must be eliminated? Furthermore, there has been a direct and conscious effort on the part of conservatives (through various groups like Cato, Heritage, MRC, etc) not to provide a balance of opinion beside the news, but rather to shift the entire spectrum of media to the right. This is not a conspiracy, because it was never hidden. Most people just don't seem to care. Indeed, while conservatives in these groups have known for years that their (bogus) campaign was a success, that the mainstream media is no longer liberal in any way, they still know that it's good for business (read: agendas) to keep beating the drums of "liberal bias in the media! Liberal bias in the media!"

are you talking about my study? I didn't think it would prove anything. and you're right about the usages. Maybe Howard Zinn calls conservatives "oompa loompas" and that's why it would appear as a "zero"... who knows?

but just wait a second and look here:

I was curious why the NYT, CBS, CNN, ABC, and sure, even FOX News were all clumped together in the percentages chart.

Then I remembered a poll I discovered recently about political ideology.

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_po...dex.asp?PID=285

"When asked whether they are conservative, moderate or liberal, a 40% plurality self-identify as moderates, four points ahead of the 36% who self identify as conservatives. Only 19% self identify as liberals. For much of the last thirty years, these numbers have barely changed. Since 1978, the conservatives have never been lower than 34% and never higher than 38%. Moderates have varied only between 39% and 42% and liberals have varied only between 17% and 20%. It is hard to think of another set of attitudinal questions that have been so extraordinarily stable."

When you take 36 conservatives added to 19 liberals, you get 55. Convert these groups into a percentage, and you have 65% conservatives and 34% liberals. In other words, the New York Times, CNN, ABC and the LA Times are mentioning liberals and conservatives at just about the same ratio as they are found in nature.

Granted what is SAID about the liberals and conservatives is missing, and therefore the study is bogus when it comes to measuring "bias." However, I believe this blows the earlier claims about numbers of mentions out of the water. And I think that the study fairly indicates at least something here, about airtime, anyway.

Jeezus, I just think it's uncanny how the numbers match up. Coincidence? I report, you decide.

Several posters have made the excellent point that we can’t expect to quantify media bias when we can’t even fully define “conservative” or “liberal.”

Still — regarding calls to “prove” media bias — the words of former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart spring to mind: “I know it when I see it.”

First, I don’t think there’s a “scientific” way of measuring all the media. Measuring by how frequently they use the terms “conservative” or “liberal” makes as little sense as categorizing them by how many liberal and conservative speakers they use. Example: Bill O’Reilly, who usually has one liberal and one conservative guest (and then teams up to bash the liberal). By the “guest standard” he’s a centrist. And his rants about “liberals, liberals, liberals, liberals” would make him an obvious liberal to the word-counters.

The “think tank citation standard,” such as the one conducted by FAIR and cited by quarkhead, is a little better. It still fails, though, since it tries to label the Brookings Institute as neutral (which it isn’t). Such standards also fail to measure which think tank receives more attention or “the last word.”

I believe quarkhead was on the more accurate track.


While I agree that Reagan got off easy on Iran-Contra, I don’t think it compares well with Clinton-Lewinsky. Clinton’s lie to the American people as well as in his Paul Jones testimony was at odds with the blue dress, and the press had little choice how to proceed. On the other hand, when Reagan said “I can’t recall,” most of us figured it truly was a case of senility. Also, he had people like Ollie North to accept some of the blame; Clinton did not.

I suggest bias is more likely found by looking at how the smaller stories play, or how the same story plays in key outlets (no newspaper sets its national headlines according to Fox, but they do follow the NY Times, LA Times and Washington Post).

# Running numerous Page One articles listing allegations by Joe Wilson against the Bush Administration, but then tucking the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report that Wilson lied on page A6. http://www.thatliberalmedia.com/archives/002330.html

# "Is the New York Times a Liberal Newspaper? Of Course It Is." — Daniel Okrent, the Times "public editor" (aka their ombudsman) http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2004/0726.asp

# Former CNN news chief Jordan Eason’s refusal to cover Saddam’s cases of torture (something most liberals downplayed) but pushing the myth that U.S. troops were targeting journalists.

# The ABC pre-election memo by Marc Halperin to his staff, essentially stating, as one columnist put it, “Yes, our candidate may falsify now and then, but the other guy's falsity is at the center of his campaign.” http://www.townhall.com/columnists/paulgre...g20041022.shtml

# Associated Press and Knight-Ridder stories by Tom Hays, carrying false reports of Bush supporters booing Clinton when he had heart surgery. http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3765.html

# Here are other examples: timeswatch.org and http://www.gargaro.com/bias.html

Finally, I can cite my own experience working in newsrooms. Prevailing views are fairly liberal among reporters and editorial writers, although more centrist among news editors. Publishers tend to lean conservative but they don't usually have anything to do with the daily content.



This is the most inventive take I've ever heard on this topic , but I'm afraid it makes a fatal assumption. It assumes the only possible outcome, and thus reason, for identifying someone as a conservative is to gain popular support. Actually, as a journalist, I know that identifying someone as anything but unbiased immediately erodes their credibility — which is everything. Who would you rather believe? A former government official or a conservative? Someone from an institute with "Fairness" in its name, or someone with an obvious ax to grind?

This may not be the result of intentional bias, but the effect of labeling one guest as conservative and not labeling the other is to immediately create a credibility gap for the conservative.

Uh, thank you?

No, the proposal was part of an alternative argument to demonstrate that it is NOT clear than there is a liberal bias in the media. So far all the arguments use data which could be employed to argue the opposite tenet.


Even though anecdotes are insufficient, assuming that this argument is true, all this shows is that reporters have a credibility problem and not that they are biased. Perhaps, this is what the readership/viewership demands of its reports? Perhaps, this is a standard that the ownership hierarchy asks its employees to follow? There are many, many alternative explanations which must be accounted for before any conclusions can be drawn.


Hmm...this doesn't follow from your argument above. You were discussing the credibility problem for the interviewer and now you're arguing that this creates a credibility problem for the interviewee. This argument seems to imply that labels of any sort inherently decrease the credibility of the interviewee (even if that interviewee self-identifies as that label). I find this to be a dubious position to take.

hi fontbleau,
the media will always appear to have a liberal bias, to you. if you are coming from a rightish point of view, even the middle will appear to be over on the left. a very wise fellow once pointed out that it is all a matter of perspective. admittedly, if I have a left point of view, and a liberal bias exists, I will never see it, because it will seem agreeable, even "logical" to me.

I agree with Cube Jockey:



but, the thing is, if you and others are quick to claim that there is a definite media bias, I'd like to know why you think so. I haven't yet been convinced, at all.



um, mis-reading something? ... I never claimed measuring the frequency of usage of the terms "liberal" or "conservative" was evidence of media bias. It was a response to an earlier claim that "liberal" was rarely or never mentioned. I showed that it is, and not only that, but that the mainstream media mention the terms at an appropriate, realistic ratio. that's all.



This is a inappropriate comparison. Matters of state have always been newsworthy. The personal life problems of a president became newsworthy with Gary Hart and kicked in full-tilt during the Clinton presidency. these are evidence of a conservative bias, but will forevermore be commonplace. Consider a list of presidents that cheated on their wives. Even cheated on their wives while in office. during the 90's the various fair/unfair, biased and un-baised full-coverage media reported the whole thing.



Perhaps. I will go along with that.



I believe you are mixing sensationalism with political bias. Sensationalism sells. Corrections do not.

Does the NYT have a conservative bias?




Was Daniel talking about the editorial page? Or that a bunch of liberals work there? Of course, I would agree with those things, too. Did Okrent offer any proof, or did he just say it?



Another NYT writer has this to say:

"Let me tell you what I have learned since going to "The Times." I have an ideology. My ideology is conservatism. I have a belief system that leads to conclusions. One of the things I have learned coming to the Washington bureau of "The New York Times," where I know people a lot better, is they have an ideology, too. It's the craft of reporting. They actually care about it and they think of it as an ideology the way I didn't realize they did.

But they have a sense of how you should be a reporter and how you should be a fair reporter. And I'm actually struck by how they talk about that. They talk about that with the same passion that I talk about being conservative. So I have actually been sort of heartened since coming to the paper. They do have that sense. Now they may have different news judgments than you of how many pages -- how many stories about Abu Ghraib should be on the front page, but I think Abu Ghraib was a big story. It's defensible." - David Brooks, June 29, 2004



Don't forget this one: “I wish they had targeted the journalists” - Ann coulter

I have not read an actual transcript of Jordan's controversial comments, have you? I've only seen responses to it and commentary about it.

"The reason the word “targeted” came up at all is because I was responding to a comment by Congressman Franks, who said he believed the 63 journalists killed in Iraq were the victims of “collateral damage.” Since three of my CNN colleagues and many other journalists have been killed on purpose in Iraq, I disputed the “collateral damage” statement, saying, unfortunately, many journalists — not all — killed in Iraq were indeed targeted. When someone aims a gun at someone and pulls the trigger and then learns later the person fired at was actually a journalist, an apology is appropriate and is accepted, and I believe those apologies to be genuine. But such a killing is a tragic case of mistaken identity, not a case of “collateral damage.” That is the distinction I was trying to make even if I did not make it clearly at the time. Further, I have worked closely with the U.S. military for months in an effort to achieve a mutual goal: keeping journalists in Iraq safe and alive." - Eason Jordan

So, here we learn that colleagues of Jordan had been mistakenly shot, aimed at, accidently killed. Probably an emotional issue for him. I don't get the outrage. I do get it that every time anyone in the media that smells like a liberal utters anything that could be misconstrued as being against the troops, they immediately are targeted, and there's a great outrage, like a wave of near hysteria. fontbleau, I'm asking you to please resist the hysteria.

on April 11, 2003, Jordan wrote an editorial about Saddam's horrors. It sounds like rationalization for the invasion and relief that Saddam had been removed. is Jordan a, ... [gasp] ... Bush supporter?

"The News We Kept To Ourselves"
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/1599076.php



was the memo real? was it a forgery? It started on drudge. If so, the real examples of bias, may in reality, be the eagerness to repeat these exaggerated/unsubstantiated claims of bias.

I seem to remember Halperin praising the president's mention of relationships with foreign leaders and how much he had improved as a speaker, during the debates. But I guess it could have been taken as a slam or a pat on the back, depending on what you read into it.

you could make ABC (a huge network) look biased left or right with any of the following:
http://mediamatters.org/archives/search.html?topic=ABC

take your pick.



The AP can swing right with unsubstantiated claims, as well.

Unsubstantiated Drudge rumor echoed through the media
http://mediamatters.org/items/200405020004

AP article or White House press release?
http://mediamatters.org/items/200412220008



my educated guess is that these websites collect only the left-leaning things and call it evidence of "liberal bias." am I wrong?




I don't see this as evidence of anything. recall cube jockey's wise plea. Besides, what is a liberal? If I believe that government-funded social programs are good, is that going to make me run more stories about how badly the war in Iraq is going right now? in that case, the facts are biased.

the media are various, and huge. the media include websites, newspapers, television networks, radio programs, etc. it is possible to point to different writers, reporters and journalists, singling them out as biased and partisan. we should be doing that, if we are interested in truths, or in fair reporting. i respect and admire everyone at this website, as we are all news junkies. it is rational to say that a lot of people in the media are liberals, but it is not rational to claim that the mainstream media exhibits a profound "liberal bias." it has been repeated so often, a gazillion tired times. now Joe Public believes it to be true. let's talk about specifics. specifics that can be proven. undefined cliches have no weight and no credence. we should all be wary of bias, any bias. but it goes both ways. and I'd like to think that the media are more often fair, than not fair.

Joe Wilson coverage or Marc Helprin fabrications do not prove liberal media bias, anymore than Brit Hume’s or Bob Novak’s "prove" some other kind of bias.

The myth that the whole media are liberal or even mostly liberal-biased is nonsense.

edit: correction

logophage, I was never talking about the reporter's credibility; in the Tucker Carlson case it was about the implied credibility of the person advocating a position. So if the reporter/editor/outlet labels Carlson as a conservative ("partisan") but leaves the other with an appearance of neutrality, they've intentionally or unintentionally created a biased situation. Even if most of Couric's viewers think conservatives are good (questionable), they'd still be more skeptical of Carlson knowing that he has an agenda.

I'll simply repeat what I said in response to this earlier: