I have brought up the issue of liberal media bias in a few topics here, with some interesting discussion. I just read an article in the New York Times and thought I would bring it up in the context of election coverage.

Requires registration - Finding Biases on the Bus



Please note - the above article is based on an UNSCIENTIFIC survey. However, there have been many other surveys, notably the Pew study, that show journalists consistently say that they are more liberal than the american public. Lots of info can be found here at the MRC, where it's noted that:

My aside - The 1984 case is fantastic - a 49 state landslide and not one White House correspondent would admit to voting for Reagan.

Another example of the press 'rooting' for a nominee may be found in how the nominee is presented in the press. Here are links to three covers of Time Magazine (can't post a fourth as the Republican Convention hasn't happened yet) that show the new nominee following a convention. Gore / Lieberman and Edwards / Kerry are full-color and quite literally GLOWING, with a positive headline
Gore / Leiberman 2000 - Chutzpah!
Kerry / Edwards 2004 - The Contenders - with honarable mention to Newsweek with "The Sunshine Boys"
By contrast, the 2000 Bush/Cheney nomination is shown with a black and white photo, showing GW Bush, dad and brother Jeb, with a headline 'Inside the Bush Dynasty' that could be a bit sinister depending on how you look at it. Inside the Bush Dynasty

But carlito, you say, what the heck does that prove? To which I answer, if you were the candidate, would you prefer a) a full-color photo with you and your running mate, with your names clearly listed, or b) a black-and-white photo that shows a profile of you, father and brother, with only inset mention of running-mate's last name? One looks like a campaign ad, one looks like an exposé on your 'dynasty.' To be even more clear - Al Gore is part of a 'dynasty' too, but it didn't make the cover of Time after the DNC. It's subtle.

Anyway, I could go on and on with liberal media bias, as could many from both sides of the argument. So, let's focus on election coverage.

Given that the journalists covering the election have stated that they are pulling for Kerry, and historically have voted overwhelmingly democrat, can they objectively cover this election? Are they doing so thus far? Worse / better than previous years?

But acording to Journalism.org, Gore received significantly more negative campaign coverage than Bush.


Which can be an answer to your question that even though journalists may vote democrat it does not impair their ability to cover the election objectively.

Actually, I remember reading numerous articles on Al's family when he was running for President. He's not running this year, so why have an article on his family?

And if we had a survey that showed that intelligent people favored Kerry over Bush would you say that there was an "intellectual bias" favoring Kerry? Just curious.

Anyway, to your questions:

Given that the journalists covering the election have stated that they are pulling for Kerry, and historically have voted overwhelmingly democrat, can they objectively cover this election? Are they doing so thus far? Worse / better than previous years?

So are you asking if we should just do away with all media coverage or just White House media coverage? Or if we should give more journalists a lobotomy so that they support Bush?

As we discussed in other threads, it's not the journalist whose bias you need to worry about. It's the journalist, their editors, their managing editors, their publishers, and the owners of the media outlets. Each can affect the bias of a story, of the pictures included with the story, of the pull-outs, captions, and headlines. A pretty long list of folks with bias. Any one of those biases could sway votes.

It's the way it's always been. The electorate is just more willing to have their own (strongly held) opinions this year, so that makes Republicans nervous that they won't be able to manipulate the "undecideds" and independents as much as they planned using diversionary tactics like gay marriage, flag burning amendments, etc. Boo hoo.

The fact that there are some color photos of the Democratic Convention really proves nothing until the Republican Convention is over. So what if there are some color photos of Democrats? Theres plenty of color photos of Bush throughout the last four years, does that mean there is no 'liberal bias' in the media?

As for journalists voting Democrat, yet again, I dont see this as proof that there is a liberal bias in the media. Cant they vote for whoever they want without the populace pointing it out everytime they want to point out a 'liberal' bias? Why arent we looking at the votes of doctors and saying they have a bias, or construction workers? Because it doesnt really matter, and neither should it for journalists.

According to the Columbia Journalism Review, there is alot more conservative spin going on throughout this campaign: http://www.campaigndesk.org/

The Gore / Bush Time cover comparison was from the year 2000, when both were nominated. I was making a specific comparison in the Time that broke the week after each convention ended.

kimpossible, your example is of talking heads and news analysis. Surely, no one expects Marc Racicot to be unbiased. I'm talking about journalists. The ones who appear on your TV set and give you information, not analysis. The ones who write the articles that are analyzed later.

Like the journalists at the Seattle Timeswho quote Jim McDermott as saying that "Bush wants to reinstate the draft" but omit the fact that Jim McDermott is sponsoring legislation to reinstate the draft.

Or the journalists at Reuterswho remind us that that Bush is accused of being AWOL but John Kerry is a 'decorated war veteran' - right from the DNC talking points.

Or the journalists at the New York Times who kindly remind us that the Republicans have 'spent months impugning John Kerry's patriotism.' but don't ever seem to offer one example of this.

Well, how about Tom DeLay beginning virtually every speech with the phrase "Good afternoon, or, as John Kerry might say: “Bonjour!” Isn't it a very subtle insinuation that Kerry has interests of France in heart, not of USA?

That is pretty funny. Thanks for pointing it out.

Given that the journalists covering the election have stated that they are pulling for Kerry, and historically have voted overwhelmingly democrat, can they objectively cover this election? Are they doing so thus far? Worse / better than previous years?

I'm sorry, but this liberal media bias thing is just tired. Reporters tend to vote liberal. That hasn't been news for quite some time. Are these reporters capable of reporting the news in spite of it? Sure. I have a preference for certain technologies and platforms. Does that mean as an architect I'm incapable of presenting alternate technologies objectively?

Can reporters objectively cover an election? Can we make a general answer stick? Attempting to generalize in an affair such as this is ulitmately a lesson in futility. Looking back at the 2000 Election coverage you will find that Bush actually had the edge in positive media coverage.


I'm firmly convinced the GOP's long stated position of liberal media bias is nothing more than "working the officials' because they assume if a reporter is voting for Kerry he is incapable of reporting fairly on their candidate. By constantly pandering about this urban legend they hope to 'keep the media honest'.

It will be impossible to make an accurate assessment of this until the election is over. For now, I have some faith that the largesse of our media has enough journalistic integrity to report the news fairly.

Doc

Given that the journalists covering the election have stated that they are pulling for Kerry, and historically have voted overwhelmingly democrat, can they objectively cover this election? Are they doing so thus far? Worse / better than previous years?

Yes, I think they can be objective.

More than anything else, I think that this is because I think that the very idea of unbiased news journalism is a liberal concept, certainly in journalistic terms, if not in editorial terms, and certainly in broadcasting.

Conservatives in the media tend to believe that journalistic or editorial bias do not matter, since the news consumer can always go somewhere else to get their news if they don't like the particular flavour of a particular outlet. This holds as long as there are broadly even sources of news, but when there is a predominantly conservative ownership or a leaning, as there is in, say, news radio in the US (or in press journalism in the UK), the consumers' choices become limited and the media overall can be said to be biased.

As an aside, I still find it incredible that anyone in the USA can think that they have a liberal media - utterly incredible. You don't. Your news media is not remotely liberal. There are liberal stations and liberal presenters, but the overall bias is overwhelmingly conservative, not liberal.

Google search:
"Bush lied" 83,200 hits
"Berger stole" 2020 hits
"Sandy Berger" & "lied" 12,200 hits
"Clinton lied" 15,400 hits
"Clinton didn't inhale" 573 hits
"Cheney" & "Haliburton" 18,900 hits
"Clinton" & "Whitewater 147,000 hits
"Bill Clinton" & "Whitewater" 36,900
"George Bush" & "lied" 105,000 hits


With the exception of the Clinton and Whitewater hit (which would be slplit between Hilary and Bill, anyone who still think there is a conservative media bias should get their facts straight. This isn't a scientific study, but it begins to illustrate a point. 15,400 hits for Clinton lied. Consider he had 2 terms in office, went through Whitewater, went through the pot smoking thing, and went through the Lewinsky scandle. Bush, in less than one full term, over one issue has generated 4 times as many accusations of lying. This is especially telling when the evidence supports the concept that Bush actually told the truth while Clinton has admitted he really did lie about the lewinsky tryst. In fact, there were more hits regarding Cheney and Halibuton than for Clinton lied. There is a clear statist bias at the expense of individualist philosophy.

You're right, it's not a scientific survey. It fails for more than that reason though.

First of all, WHY should we exclude the Whitewater hit?

Secondly, there is a HUGE substantive difference between lying about inhaling pot or marital infidelity and questions around issues of National Security, Government corruption, etc. HUGE. As such, people are going to be more vocal.

Third, the internet grows at a huge pace with every year. The proliferation of online news is going to naturally slant towards more recent.

Given these three facts I find your 'survey' completely useless.

I prefer Linux over Windows. Therefore, I cannot write code for Windows? Or, the code I write for Windows will be inherently more buggy than the code I write for Linux?

If I were to prefer cats over dogs, would my discussions about pet owners be inherently biased towards the cat owners? Would I consider dog owners to be inferior in some way?

I am not a vegetarian. Therefore, am I unable to appreciate a plate of food containing no meat?

How could you forget the Republican's No. 1 gaffe, ibelsd?

Google search:
Clinton + Monica 500,000 hits
Clinton + impeach 56,100 htis

Were you being biased by omission? I'm hurt! BTW, more recent news will have more hits.


You really ought to devote a thread to statists ASAP.

Are they [objectively covering this election] thus far?

I watched The Capital Gang's coverage of the DNC convention. Mark Shields was predictably supportive of most everything going on. Robert Novak was noticeably absent. There was a new face in the circle, ominously biased towards Republicans. Democrats couldn't get much of anything right and they mostly delivered cynical speeches for cynical reasons. As annoying as this new face came off some times his skepticism kept things in perspective. I want to see him again at the RNC convention.

Objectively? Objective is as subjective wants.

ibelsd, I don't necessarily think that is a valid assessment for comparison for a few reasons:
1. During Clinton's first term and to a certain extent his second term the internet was not accessible to your average every day user. Papers didn't print their information online. The number of users online increased greatly as the internet age was ushered in during Clinton's second term

2. Many of the hits you find today are due to personal sites and weblogs, a phenomenon you wouldn't have found 6 years ago when Clinton was president. It is incredibly easy to get whatever message you'd like to on the web these days. Therefore, a large majority of the "hits" you counted are due to people with personal agendas publishing content online, not the "liberal" media.

In addition to the other points already made:
1. Did you only search US domain names? The internet is now a global phenomenon, so any results from Google are not a measure of bias in the US media.
2. The internet is one medium. What about radio, television, newspapers, magazines, books, cinema, WAP, etc. etc.?
3. From your own published figures, there are 207,100 stories about Republican politicians or appointees, and 214,093 stories about Democrat politicians or appointees. Even without reading them all to find out which ones with "Bush/Clinton" and "lied" also contain the words "did not" or "wrongly accused", this is hardly evidence that the internet is biased against Republicans, US or not.
4. Assuming that both Bush and Clinton lied, which liar is worse, and more deserving of media coverage/condemnation?
One did so under oath, to prevent a sexual affair from becoming public. Nobody died.
Bush lied without being under oath (except the oath of office which both men took). Several hundred service personnel, and tens of thousands of Iraqis, many of whom were innocent civilians (sorry, "collateral damage") have died, with many more maimed and scarred. I know which lie I think is more reprehensible.

As with virtually any occupation, those involved will put part of themselves into what they do, so it would be difficult to write an article without any bias at all. If journalists want their articles printed, the articles must be approved by the editor, who answers to the publisher, who answers to the owner. "Just the facts, ma'am," was a good line on Dragnet, but it is not used that often in journalism. Part of news coverage is detailing what the people involved think of what is going on.

Having said that, it seems that the press gets along much better with Presidents who are not secretive (as with Nixon), or who hold few news conferences and are cranky or dismissive with journalists who ask difficult questions (Dubya). JFK had a wonderful relationship with the press. Reagan would either pretend not to hear or didn't hear questions from the press, but he knew enough to throw them a bone from time to time. Clinton was not intimidated by the press, and he managed (most of the time) to answer their questions in a savvy way (except, "I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky").

The more a President is open and accessible to the press corps, the less need for statements by highly placed officials who do not want to be named.

The Presidents who establish rapport with the members of the fourth estate generally fare better in the papers. For whatever reason, the current administration is not as forthcoming and tends to view the press as complicit in the desire of the Left to discredit them. So some responsibility for negative press should be borne by the Bush administration.

Actually, this is a great point. How many software developers do you know that have Windows stickers on their cars? How many Apple / Linux? Personally, I've never seen a Windows sticker on a VW bug, but seen lots for apple or linux.

I'll just bet that when you or logophage are presenting alternate platforms, you DO present a bias away from Windows. I'm not a techie, but those I know are huge anti-Gates/anti-Windows types. Honestly, you wouldn't give the other system the benefit of the doubt if you had a choice?
-------


Again, this is analysis. Not news. News is what you get at 6PM on local TV, or in your local morning paper, or runs on AP or Reuters wires. News.

Journalists / editors / copwriters make choices about what stories to run, how to write them, whether to refer to a Senator as 'hardline' or 'mainstream' or whether to refer to someone's pandering to their base when they do something along party lines. I'm not talking about Air America or Michael Moore or George Stefanopolis. I'm talking about Katie Couric, Ted Koppel and most of the daily newspapers and wire services. (Just an aside - I'm certainly not talking about Google hits )

This is simplifying the issue a little bit. When covering an election there is a competition, one will win, so it would be a little bit harder to be truly objective when you have a personal preference in the outcome.

Better analogy: A fan of a sports team covering a game where his/her team is involved. Now it is not so clear if s/he may be objective.
What about a teacher teaching his/her child?
How about a coach coaching her/her child?

You might actually find some people that go too far one way or the other. Staying truly objective is impossible, and we can only talk about relative objectivity.

Also, Julian wrote:


Liberal vs. Conservative, left vs. right, these are all relative terms. You have to see it in context of the average US belief. Anything to the right of the average is conservative, anything to the left of the average is liberal. If the media is to the left of the average, you could claim the media has a liberal bias.

It so happens that Europe's average is to the left of the US average, so even though it might appear that we have a liberal bias in the US, it will feel like a conservative bias from your standpoint.

Given that the journalists covering the election have stated that they are pulling for Kerry, and historically have voted overwhelmingly democrat, can they objectively cover this election? Are they doing so thus far? Worse / better than previous years?

It is impossible to be truly objective even if you are only partially concerned with politics. Fox is definitely not objective, NY Times is definitely not objective, so it would be up to each individual to appropriately weight each station to get a objective news source.

All very good points everyone. Certainly my 15 second experiment using a Google search engine is not conclusive and I thought about forgoing the whole thing, but 15 seconds of my time is worth 15 seconds of my time, so I reported what I did. I tried to be objective, but let's face it, I am biased. No denying that. Hopefully, I was also up front about it. I think the only thing I took issue with was the comment about Bush's "lie" versus Clinton's lie. Interestingly, while only one man has been proven to be a liar, one "lie" was way overplayed.

My premise of using this as a guage on media bias went something along the lines of:
People tend to repeat what they hear or see.
People tend to get this information from the news (radio, internet, tv, print)
The more it gets spread through the internet is a guage (albeit not a precise one) of the amount it is being reported/repeated in the news and by the media.

In any case, if there is a debate about the statist/individualist media, my effort is to make it an objective one as much as possible. The anecdotes and statements of feeling are nice, but tend to cloud rather than inform. The obvious rebutal is my own shoddy experiment which may be terribly misleading in and of itself. For that I appologize. It was an attempt, albeit a poor one, and one for which I assume responsibility.

No, I don't. The bias I present is for the customer based on technology investments (as guiding principles) they've already made and the respective merits that each platform has to offer. Ask me what's under the covers in my home office and that's a different discussion. Which proves my point exactly. Journalists are no different. There are certainly some that refuse to put the kool-aid down and they typically don't last long in the industry.

The facts show that coverage overall doesn't indicate a bias either way. The examples provided are hasty generalizations in the face of the more comprehensive studies that have been performed regarding prior campaigns.

Doc

We just had the pleasure of attending a Kerry rally in Grand Rapids today. The lines were four abreast, and most of us estimated it as about a mile long. After we had moved the first half mile, the line was longer than when we arrived. Estimates of crowd size ranged from 12,000 - 20,000. It was noted that it was the largest political rally West Michigan had ever seen. George Bush drew a crowd of 4200 a few days ago in Grand Rapids. What we all noted standing in line was that Grand Rapids is the home of the state's Republican chairman, and of the Gerald Ford Museum. Jerry Ford never accepted campaign contributions as a Congressman; there is no need when you never have an opponent who can gather enough signatures to get his name on a primary ballot. We thought the reason the lines were going so slow was a lack of organization. From the police, we learned that they had to extend the perimeter to handle the crowd.

So what was the press covering? Notable was the TV crew questioning all 12 protesters on the perimeter. A reporter stopped me on the way out, introduced himself as a conservative political reporter for a newspaper, and wanted to know what was lacking in Kerry's speech. I have a hard time speaking to people, so I introduced him to Paladin Elspeth. He left us with a business card, and we decided to invite him to join America's Debate.

Are reporters biased? They're human, as are their editors, etc. Of course they're biased, and some of them are even willing to express that bias.

Does the press as a whole have a liberal bias? No, of course not. I would compare news sources to restaurants; if you look hard enough, you can find what you want. I sometimes express my frustration while waiting in line at Burger King. "Yes," I will mutter to myself, "you can get it your way at Burger King; but if you want a Big Mac, Curly Fries, or Peking Duck, it's easier to find another restaurant than to argue with the voice in the box." I read two newspapers daily, watch the news as PE flips from one channel to another, read what is being said here, and I couldn't pretend to notice what bias any of these sources have. All of them hope to write that sentence that hooks you into finishing the article. Traditionally, the hook should be in the first sentence or two, and it should be set by the end of the first paragraph. A few days ago, a local columnist who is notably hard to read left the hook for the last sentence of his weekly column. In the next day's paper, they ran a story on page two to let those of us who had read the entire know that his girlfriend had also read the entire column, and that she had said yes to his proposal.

My apologies. I could've sworn you said
in your initial post.

Sure, The Capitol Gang's presence at the DNC convention was analytical—if you want to be generous. When Robert Novak, who's an AP member, writes columns on CNN or shows up for Crossfire; or Dan Rather, another AP member, journalist in his own right, and flaming liberal (so I'm told) who covered the convention for CBS reports for duty at the Evening News the following week, do you think they go through some Press Corps sanitation process by which they shake off all trace of bias? They can tone it down but you know where each one stands. News can come in the form of a live feed, prerecorded segment, or text as hyperactive documents including news columnists that decide "what stories to run, how to write them," and how to address politicians and policies. One form is not more valid than the other. It's news, I say.

Here are a few stats I tracked down. In the 2004 election cycle, the Republican candidates garnered 62% of the overall contributions from the TV/Radio industry to the Democrats' 38%. Go to the following URL for the chart.

opensecrets.org

In the Newspaper/Publishing industry, contributions ran 70/30 in favor of democrats

opensecrets.org


So: newspapers are democrat-leaning, and tv and radio are republican-leaning. Not too surprising. I realize that this is hardly an in-depth and comprehensive analysis of the political bias in American media, but I do think it points to the fact that there is little, if any, liberal bias, on an institutional basis. I would submit that whether or not your local cub reporter voted for Nader is probably less important than who the media outlet he works for donated thousands (or millions) to...

you asked:
Are you saying that giving an analysis doesnt count as journalism? I like how when I offer up proof, you change the meaning of the question. But, Ill try to find something that works with this new definition.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/30/opinion/30krugman.html
(you have to sign up)

According to Paul Krugman:


also from campaigndesk.org







As richard Metzger said: "If there were actually were one [liberal bias], then we wouldnt be hearing about it."

Let's see --

Kerry is pro-war and occupation
pro-Israel
and anti-gay marriage rights.

Looks to me like Kerry is a centrist at best.

My conclusion to the stats of reporters prefering Kerry is that most reporters are closer to being moderates and Bush is too extreme for most of them. It kimd of makes sense because most news reporters who don't work for Murdock are trying to be balanced and look at all sides of a story.

If reporters were overwhelming liberal, the Green Party would be getting a lot more mainstream attention than they currently are IMHO.

Really? Are you sure? Is there hard evidence for that assertion, or do you have that impression from your (right-leaning) broadcast media?

Honestly, I think you might be somewhat correct, but not as much as you think. The political right in the US is certainly a little to the right of the mainstream right in Europe. As is the political left - well, the Democratic Party, at any rate. For me, the big missing in US politics is an organised and coherent party on the political Left.

It would be easy to say "if there were votes in it, there would be one", but in a system where many millions of dollars are needed to stand for state or national office; where most of the potential donors are rich individuals or corporations who would stand to lose if left-wing policies were ever implemented; where the broadcast media, upon which the majority of people rely for their news, is biased to the right; where turnouts rarely rise much above 60% (and who knows how the other 40% would vote - maybe they don't vote because they are all lefties and don't feel represented by anyone - you don't know, and neither do I)...? It is even easier to say that such a system is structurally biased against the political left.

I am not at all convinced that the political centre is very differently positioned in Europe, or at least the UK, but the political spectrum seems dramatically skewed to the right in the USA. I think part of the disservice done to Americans by their right-leaning broadcast media is, that, as well as making Americans think that the average American is more right-leaning than is the case, they make everyone think that Europe is more left-leaning than they really are. This is, I think, part of a domestic US broadcast agenda to make leftwing ideas seem more "foreign" and therefore "unAmerican".

Maybe parts of Europe (let's all remember are, even today, still talking about 30+ individual nation states, not one big one like the USA) are structurally biased to the left, but then Austria is in Europe and I don't remember any openly neo-Nazi politicians holding national office in the USA as Jorg Haider did in Austria.

But this all really boils down to one news report I saw in Boston (yes, liberal Boston). A local news anchor I saw while on my March 2003 vacation there during the run up to the Gulf War made some glib, time-filling comment about the protestors being un-American, how they should be ashamed of themselves, etc. I don't remember the details because I had to go into the basement to look for my dropped jaw.

News presenters in the UK are simply not allowed to express opinions of any complexion, so the fact he had done so was shocking enough to me - the political positioning wasn't important. He was still broadcasting the following day, so clearly this wasn't seen as an issue. This, coupled with the relentless right-wing slant the whole news media I saw, read or (especially) heard presented on the protestors. Any journalist attempting objectivity would have spoken to some of them to find out why they were so opposed to the war, but none did. They were uniformly reported as a problem, a source of unrest, or a danger.

I don't claim to have read or seen everything said or written while I was there, but I do know that the vast majority of media coverage was hostile, while the people themselves were evenly split - even some of the veterans who I spoke to at Gettysburg National Cemetary were sympathetic to the demonstrators outside, though they didn't support their methods.

In summary - I am not convinced that the actual political spectrum of ordinary people is dramatically different in the USA from that in Europe, the USA is more leftwing that most Americans (or Europeans) imagine, and Europe is more to the right than most Americans think.

I am convinced that the American news media does not accurately reflect the opinions of its audience, and is instead skewed to the right. Precisely how far to the right is open to debate, but I still fail to see how, overall, anyone can deny that such a bias exists, or is instead a leftward bias.

As has been said before, if it really was biased to the left, would the media itself allow rightwingers to use it to tell everyone how left wing it is?

Sorry for being so narrow - just when I look on liberal watchdog websites like Mediamatters.org, they whine on and on about what Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh said, which is of course opinion. Similarly, Capital Gang or McLaughlin Group would be 'not news' in my book. As you rightly point out, analysis in the NY Times would be 'news' I guess. Let's see what they say on the issue.

NT Times Link - Requires Registration



As for the other specifics raised, since John Kerry is affecting a fake everyman accent, saying huntin' and fishin' and saying that he's for the common man, if I were a reporter, I may menion the fact that the Heinz/Kerry's are zillionaires, but that's just me. The inconsistency of saying "tax the rich" is shown when Kerry shill Ben Affleck was asked about it over the weekend.
Affleck - I'm no martyr

Given that the journalists covering the election have stated that they are pulling for Kerry, and historically have voted overwhelmingly democrat, can they objectively cover this election? Are they doing so thus far? Worse / better than previous years?
Like Curmudgeon says, this whole “liberal media” myth is so old and tired. No matter how much evidence a person will offer to refute the myth, the dogged right will continue to insist that those awful “liberals” control our media. A lot has been made of the talking heads on TV’s personal political affiliations. It is the worst kind of assumption to believe that the talking head’s affiliation has anything to do with what the parent company plops in front of him/her to read. Let’s assume for argument’s sake that the LA Philharmonic orchestra is liberal. Let’s say you’re a Republican musician (OK, a stretch, but it’s possible); does that automatically make the LA Philharmonic orchestra a conservative organization? Of course not. Personal political beliefs do not automatically or necessarily reflect the beliefs of the company the person works for. That’s silly and simplistic.

Whether an individual reporter says he’s “pulling” for Kerry, it has absolutely nothing to do with how his employer (the paper, TV station, magazine, whatever) will cover the election. Reporters will report what they see/hear, editors will mold it to the parent company's liking and the public will draw whatever liberal/conservative references from it depending on their OWN personal bias.

As for this hoary old saw about the “liberal media”, consider the following: People for the American Way Foundation has identified 800 right wing organizations and 300 individuals who are influential in spreading the right wing ideology.

For the third year in a row, conservative or right-leaning think tanks in 1997 provided more than half of major media's think tank citations, according to FAIR's third annual survey of major newspaper and broadcast media citations in the Nexis computer database. Think tanks of the right provided 53 percent of citations, while progressive or left-leaning think tanks received just 16 percent of total citations. FAIR

(the tables don't copy well into AD-see link provided above)

This was in 1996-7, and things have certainly NOT gotten any less conservative since then!

And why would you feel inclined to do that Carlito? Would you be trying to generate some kind of political animosity for Kerry because he is rich? Have you forgotten that President Bush, his entire family, Dick Cheny and the majority of his cabinet and advisors are millionaires several times over?

The media doesn't attack Bush for being wealthy, they allow him to come off as the common man helping out average folks. The Tax Returns tell an interesting story. So, why doesn't the media press Bush on this obvious political ploy and remind him that he is very wealthy too?

Could it be because the media does not have a liberal bias?

Julian,
I do understand that there is more than one country in Europe, and I know that there are countries that are more right leaning than others.



Dramatically different, probably not, depends on what you mean by dramatically. Is there a difference, yes, is it significant, yes. A few examples:
1. Death penalty - majority support in the US (not 100%, but about 60/40 - I think it is around 40/60 in Europe)
2. National universal health care - embraced in Europe, but maybe 50/50 in the US.
3. Welfare programs - certainly more embraced in Europe.
4. Religion - embraced in the US, not as much in Europe (keep in mind that I am from northern Europe)

Ultimately, the media is a reflection of the people living in the country, not the other way around. (The media has power, but not that much power, more people watch the Simpsons than the news )
That the people working in the media is slightly more liberal than the mean is understandable and logical.
1. They all went to college. Colleges and college towns tends to have a left leaning.
2. They all studied journalism, which is typically one of the more left leaning majors. (right wingers tend to hang around the business school)
Is the media left biased because of that? I don't know. Are they 100% objective, of course not. Do they try to be, probably most do, but some do not, and they do nothing to hide it.


I am going to claim that I do know that the 40% that don't vote are not all lefties. And I am pretty sure you have a pretty good idea that it is not the case either. (If that was the case the Democrats would be all over them like flies on ...) The 40% that don't vote, do it for pretty much one reason, they don't care. Why they don't care is another question, but part of it will be what you mentioned about not identifying with a party, but that is far from saying that all those are left wingers. Some, but not all.

BTW, just for fun. If 40% of the US population that is eligible to vote all united to create a left leaning party, and everyone donated $1 each year to the party, you would have about 400M to spend on a presidential campaign - not to shabby.



I personally have not claimed that the media is biased in one way or another, I just pointed out that to the average European the media in the US will appear to be right biased. You claimed that the media is on the average to the right of the average American. I don't think so, and all the studies I have seen can't conclude there is a bias one way or another (For the complete study go to www.fox.com ). Do we have some channels/newspapers to the right of the average, certainly, but we also have some that are to the left of the average. Assuming that the average is in the center, pretty much right in between the republican party and the democratic party, which there is plenty of evidence that supports.

I like how you put that. So would the Socialist Party USA. Or, all of the truly liberal groups in the United States.

I think the Conservative groups have done a great job of defining "liberal" as "anything not Conservative". Just because one is in the center, doesn't mean he is a liberal. Not supporting the Iraq War does not put you on the far-left-wild-eyed team either. True liberals should be enraged that the entire Democratic Party is being lumped in with them. In fact, now that I think about it--it's kinda hard to think of many prominent "true" liberals....maybe Michael Moore or Ted K...



And the reporters do! We are all aware of the financial state of the Heinz/Kerry's...no media bias there. And Kerry is handy with a shotgun...aparrently he got the vast majority (like 21/25 or something) when he went trap shooting. Well, Dick Cheney had to hunt penned pheasant.

What I think a lot of American's don't know is where George W. Bush is really from, and how much money is family has....they also don't know that he is the only one in the family with that fake, little Texas "twang".

I have seen a couple of threads here and elsewhere where people make the case that the American media isn't left of center in comparison to our Euro friends. That is probably the case, but let's remember, this country, unlike those in Europe has no history as a country subjugated by a king or despot. To them, their liberalism appears very much like freedom. To most in the U.S., that type of liberalism is seen akin to totalitarianism. When compared to the actual opinions of most U.S. citizens, the media portrays a view that is far to the left. I think the danger is when the credibility of the news is lost because instead of reporting information, the news increasingly reports information tied into a particular ideology which is increasingly further left of public opinion. By Euro and Green Party standards, the news is probably still pretty conservative. The sane and rational still left among us certainly realize what is occuring in the news or lack thereof.

ibelsd, I didn't realize that you had sole position of rationality. I don't know what is more disturbing; your lack of understanding regarding regarding people from other states; or of your fellow Americans.



Ok, lets try and tease this out a bit. I see a contradiction here. You are implying that some sort of past subjugation leaves societies with a weakened appreciation of democracy. Now, since people have no concrete connection to those that lived before them, how can you quantify this subjugation? If it's the history of government is the connection that weakens the contemporary then you've contradicted yourself because France (as well as other governments in Europe) for example has a democratic government tradition that dates almost as far back as America's.

If the historical connection refers to a more general social memory, then America is no different than any other country; the 13 colonies were all under the yoke of George the Third (amongst others).

So which is it? Either way you are wrong.

Of course your complete failure to understand the left-right dynamics at home or abroad stems once again from your bizarre conception of reality where it is possible to have completely objective understandings of inherently subjective concepts.



Utter absurdity. Can you prove that editorializing is increasing, or that it was at some point not an element of news reporting? I know you don't like to rely on actual proof, but here would be a good opportunity. The fact remains that the "news media" has ALWAYS had a heavy editorial element; which removes one element from your equation. Now, the second part of that quote does make some sense. In general American politics have been moving right for about 25-30 years, and perhaps the news hasn't responded as quickly.

Well, the fact remains that I see no evidence that the news is inherently-left wing. What I do see is a news media that develops an understanding of the world largely from their exposure to it; and that understanding colours their editorial presentation.

Actually, what I am implying is that people from Europe have a different perspective of democracy and freedom. Relative to their history, Europeans are enjoying greater amounts of freedom than they have in the past. Relative to our history, I am not sure the same could be said of Americans (black Americans excepted). It seems facism and socialism both played predominate roles in Europe within the last 100 years. I don't recall such a movement rising to power in America. What people will except is relative to the misery/prosperity they have experienced prior.

Oh. I didn't know that. I thought we fought the Revolutionary War against the British. Must've missed something in history class.



I think I see what you're trying to say. Following the Second World War, Europe began to read social equality into their definition of democracy--something the Continent was forced to do considering the poverty and death left by the wake. This eventually led to more 'liberal' and 'left-leaning' thinking, as well as European integration.

Do you think that Bush isnt trying to affect an "everyman" accent?! With that drawl and his mangling of proper English...Why isnt it being pointed out that hes a millionaire, either? Why isnt there the implication that his policies mean nothing because he's not catering to the average American citizen?

And using ONE Ben Affleck quote, all of sudden makes everyone inconsistent? Nice. Now I guess all those who support "tax the rich" policies must all be lying. Because Affleck speaks for everyone.

[quote=njs6,Aug 5 2004, 03:10 PM] [/QUOTE]
Oh. I didn't know that. I thought we fought the Revolutionary War against the British. Must've missed something in history class.


[quote]Actually, what I am implying is that people from Europe have a different perspective of democracy and freedom. Relative to their history, Europeans are enjoying greater amounts of freedom than they have in the past. Relative to our history, I am not sure the same could be said of Americans (black Americans excepted). It seems facism and socialism both played predominate roles in Europe within the last 100 years. I don't recall such a movement rising to power in America. What people will except is relative to the misery/prosperity they have experienced prior. [/quote]

I think I see what you're trying to say. Following the Second World War, Europe began to read social equality into their definition of democracy--something the Continent was forced to do considering the poverty and death left by the wake. This eventually led to more 'liberal' and 'left-leaning' thinking, as well as European integration. [/quote]
Ok, we fought the revolutionary war once the king of England attempted to exert his influence on a region he had previously left to its own devices. That is the closest we have come to a king. Since that time, we have been ruled through a relatively stable government that has been democratically elected. We have never experienced the rule of a Hitler, Mussolini, or Stalin. So, when Germany considers the meaning of freedom, a little socialism still feels pretty free. National health care, while causing great friction here, is no problem for a country like France who has endured kings, queens and guillotines. If the state become a little overbearing in its demand to take care of its citizens, comparatively speaking, it is a welcome change. "Remember the time when your grandfather was forced to work 12 hours a day in a sweat shop to produce for the Nazi war machine?" A German woman may question her own mother. Demanding that everyone pays taxes for cradle to grave care definitely tops that experience. We haven't experienced anything even close to that kind of misery here in America. As a result, our tolerance for government interferene is much lower than that of our Euro neighbors. Our history is built from capitalism not feudalism. So, when we read the papers, liberal media probably looks very different here than from the liberal media in Europe. It doesn't make it any better for those of us who have chosen not to accept liberal ideology.

I think I would be correct in saying that I am probably one of the Europeans who has been saying on these boards most vocally that the US media is not liberally but conservatviely biased.

You are making the case that my standpoint, and my perception of the centre, is further to the left than for most Americans, and therefore the newspapers appear to me to be rightwing, when in fact they are objectively either centre or left-leaning.

First off, there are no objective standpoints here. Your objectivity is my subjectivity, and vice versa. If this type of relativity makes me a statist, then I humbly suggest that it's your worldview that need revision and not mine.

Second, nowhere in my criticisms of the "the US media is leftwing" have I mentioned newspapers. My claims have been that the broadcast media in the US - specifically TV and Radio news coverage - are in fact right-leaning, and not left-leaning as they are typically characterised on the political right.

On newspapers, I actually agree with you. Unlike Europe, serious newspapers in the USA have typically not taken on a tabloid format or populist agenda, and so remain heavyweight in both size and style. This limits their appeal to the more intellectual segments of US society, which are in general somewhat more liberal than the general populace anyway. By targeting this segment, the newspapers will be more liberal than the mainstream of the USA, because their audience is also more liberal than the mainstream.

The relationship is quite close in print media, because it is a very simple choice not to buy a newspaper at all and use broadcast media as a news source. The cost is not as directly attributable - you don't have to feed coins into a slot before you can watch Fox or CNN the way you do with a newspaper. In effect, newspapers have become a niche market, rather than a mass market.

Broadcast news coverage and comment, on the other hand, has taken a more populist route, especially on network channels. This draws them to the mainstream, which immediately makes them more right-leaning than the press. That's fair enough. But it is my contention that, somewhere along the line, broadcast news media have moved significantly to the right of the American people.

I can only compare this with the UK. While I consider myself European in comparison to America, I do not have a strong sense of where the French or Germans are compared to Britain in such matters (certainly not as strong as you claim to have). I know that on political litmus tests such as support for CP or the Iraq War, British public opinion and American public opinion are very similar indeed, and that French or German views diverge with us both. From this, and from my several visits to the USA, and from my friendships with ex-pat and stationed US citizens here in the UK, it is my strong perception that the political centres of the US and UK are not significantly different, despite the obvious differences in top-line political discourse and implementation (tax rates, attitudes to public provision).

For example, it is my opinion that the British would not now agree to the implementation of our welfare state (in the main, our social security and public health provisions) if we did not already have them. We support them because we like them and appreciate what they deliver in return for the increased taxes we pay to support them. We are not so liberal that we would want to adopt them on principle - as I say, I don't think that the British are siginificantly more liberal than the Americans, taken as a whole. Our support is fundamentally one of pragmatism, not principle.

(Personally, I AM a liberal and WOULD support them in principle if they didn't exist, but I recognise that I am out of step with most Britons. )

All of that, then, is at the root of my surprise that a people (the Americans) that is very similar indeed in political outlook to my own, should both have a broadcast media that is considerably to the right of their centre (as I perceive it) and that is simultaneously and noisily seen to be considerably to the left of their centre by many on the political right (such as yourself).

At root, it seems to me that there is a misconception of precisely where the political centre actually is in America. Given that the American Right consistently overestimates how left-wing Europeans are, and my experience leads me to believe that mainstream America is less rightwing than the impression I get from your media, I cannot help but think that the American Right also makes the assumption that right-wing-ness is in fact the American mainstream, and that American liberals have compoouneded this by spectacularly failing to assert their case on a national platform.

I will gloss over your grasp of European social and political history for now.

Ignoring your last comment, we agree and disagree at the same time. Talk radio is probably the lone media source that consistently provides a conservative viewpoint. Research on the U.S. media has shown that on television and in written print, the media is more liberal than the American mainstream. This may be still right of the mainsteam to the Euro, but (for reasons which we can disagree on), it is like comparing apples and oranges. The reason AM radio (think about it now -- AM RADIO) is a popular place to listen to conservative views to be expressed, is because it is almost an underground movement. You cannot read about it in the major newspapers or get these ideas on most television stations (FOX news excepted). Fox news really only came about recently, in the last 15 years. Before that, there was solely AM radio. I flip through channels and got bombarded with liberal hosts, viewpoints, and opinions until I get to Fox News. Otherwise, I turn off the television and listen to the radio. You note that most intellectuals are left leaning. I imagine you have some sort of evidence for this? I would say most intellectuals unable to translate their brain matter into something productive go into teaching and share their leftist views with young, impressionable minds. I would imagine, though, we will have to agree to disagree.

In terms of the objectiveness of the media's bias, there is an objective truth whether eiither of us recognize it or not.

ibelsd, in the course of participating in these discussions you are going to have to understand that you will have no credibility whatsoever if you base your entire body of posts on your own speculation. Here we expect people to provide sources or foundational material a fairly regular basis. In fact, it's in the Rules.



This objective truth line is tiresome. The sun is a giant nuclear furnace. That is an objective truth: the position of a subject does not effect the understanding of it.

The media is conservative. That is a SUBJECTIVE truth. Since the very word conservative is amorphous, and the spectrum of political thought is by it's very nature dependent on the subjective position of the person observing it; then the media cannot be OBJECTIVELY described.

I will say this once, right now: If you are here to tell everyone else that you are right and they are wrong; then you are in the WRONG PLACE. Here at America's Debate we don't just launch arguments at one another, we debate. In other words, we share our opinions, and consider those of the people we debate with. Without that consideration the debate is worthless, and quickly settles into useless polemics.



It seems odd that you would suggest someone find evidence for something when you yourself steadfastly refuse to provide any in your posts. Was Julian's observation right? Yes. But you cannot make a statement like "Research on the U.S. media has shown that on television and in written print, the media is more liberal than the American mainstream." without any reference to said research, and then demand evidence from him. That is remarkably poor form. For the record you are both right, but surely someone who is capable of an 'objective' position understands that rules should be applied universally.



This is an insult to everyone who is left of your particular SUBJECT position, as well as the teaching profession. Blanket generalizations don't do anything to aid your credibility; nor does slander.

Ok, now let's compare your butchery of my response to the response in its entirety:

Entire statement:
You note that most intellectuals are left leaning. I imagine you have some sort of evidence for this? I would say most intellectuals unable to translate their brain matter into something productive go into teaching and share their leftist views with young, impressionable minds. I would imagine, though, we will have to agree to disagree.


The part you quoted:
I would say most intellectuals unable to translate their brain matter into something productive go into teaching and share their leftist views with young, impressionable minds.

______
When you read the entire statement, it has a somewhat different flavor to it. In the manner you provided, it appeared I was simply insulting and demanded some sort of evidence to prove his opinion. In the entire statement, you can see the demand for evidence, was more of a glib remark that simply highlighted our differences of opinion. This was wrapped up in the final sentence where I noted that we would have to agree to disagree.

Some people love to take an entire statement, and then break it up into little quotes and attempt a debate by going through the statement sentence by sentence. You may as well debate me for the meaning of each and every word. Such a tactic completely loses any sort of reference or context that the sentence was a piece of. I am a little surprised someone listed as a moderator would use such a low-brow tactic, particularly one who is has accused me of being polemic.

ibelsd, I presented the sentence as I understood it, nothing more and nothing less. If I misrepresented your words I apologize. That does little to adress the fact that you have objectively failed to prove your position. Quit engaging in logical evasion and adress the points that have been raised for you.

Your understanding of Europe (and other foreign states) has been questioned, as has your ridiculous application of objectivism to every argument you participate as a way to validate your unsupported statements. Your response has been "I recognize the objective truth, therefore I am right." If this truth is so objective providing a proof should be very easy, nay completely effortless. We await your doing so.

Simply ignoring the opinions or statements of other posters will get this debate nowhere.

What proof do you have that the media has a liberal bias? So far all you have really said is that it is left of you; which makes for a poor objective position.

This is honestly getting frustrating. Joe, you cannot keep quoting me for things you have implied I said. It is particularly frustrating, when your implications are erroneous. When I responded to Julian it was through a mutual dialogue. He made a point, I explained what I agreed and disagreed with, and I explained why. Somehow, though, you have decided to attack me personally and interpret my behavior as aggressive. This is your problem Joe, not mine. I simply don't appreciate being misquoted and even worse, having my quotes used in a manner contrary to their meaning. To all else in this room, I appoligize. Just a bit of suggestion Joe. Stop cutting and pasting tiny little blocks of things people say and then arguing their meaning as though those statements stood alone without any context. Nothing could be more polemic than that.