Liberal Media Bias

Remove all ads!

Offshoot from the primaries thread. Conservatives seem convinced that it exists, though moderates and liberals say there's no evidence to suggest it and plenty to say the media actually leans to the right. Which sources are moderate, lean, biased or completely in the tank for one side or the other? As always, reasoned arguments and supporting evidence are appreciated.

Go.

 

To quote from my other thread:

Dan Rather was quite obvious about his personal beliefs. All news programs attack. They all go after the sensational story. To label a network as liberal because they attack a conservative member of congress that is soliciting sex in a men's room... well... all the networks flashed that one. Even Fox.

My opinions are simply based on the overall feel I have while watching the news, bulletins, special programming, and noting the times that certain topics air.

To determine the bend of a network you need to look at the overall way they report the different issues. How are the issues fundamental to conservatives presented on the air versus how the issues that strike at the core of liberals are presented. You can point to any one or two programs on nearly all networks that cater to extremes -- that does not mean the network itself follows suit. Going after good ratings is different than pursuing an agenda.

Specific examples? I don't watch TV enough to give concrete examples and I typically avoid the heated political shows. Nothing is more depressing than to see the guy with the loudest mike win EVERY DAMN ARGUMENT. Except perhaps seeing a nice and concerned celebrity (or citizen) be made fool of for the sake of ratings.

 

From out an outside perspective all the news medias seem staunchly conservative. At least when it comes to foreign policy. They seem to serve more of a cheering role than a critical.

 

You have GOT to be joking. NBC, ABC and CNN are left wing?!
Let's not even go anywhere near you comment about Fox being "the closest thing to moderate".
Come on. CNN and ABC are right to center-right. And Fox is so much in the extreme right that they are off-scale. MSNBC is the closest thing to a "center" that I can think of, because for every Keith Olbermann there is a Chris Matthews. There is no such thing as "left-wing media" in the US. This is just something some of the far right nutters (Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Pat Robertson and their ilk) like to throw at anyone who disagrees with them because they consider it to be the worst insult you can have.

 

Wait, if CNN is left-wing, who are its left-wing commentators? One of the main ones I can think of, Glenn Beck, is definitely quite conservative. ABC I don't know much about, tbh.

+1 . If I see a seriously left-leaning US media I'll let you know. Right now there are, at most, left-leaning shows - although with the current crop of right-wing politicians, that does not mean much. Seriously, you don't have to be a Democrat sympathizer to go against Bush - I can think of at least 3 good reasons conservatives would be against him.

You may notice that I avoid the term "liberal" - it has a somewhat different meaning in Anglo-Saxon and Continental European political cultures, although I suppose here almost everyone uses it in the former.

 

It has always made me laugh that liberals do not see the bias of the major networks. They don't see it, because their biases are being broadcast and therefore it must be correct. This also holds true for conservatives. Conservatives consider Fox balanced because what they are reporting "rings" true to them and offsets the liberal bias of the other networks. To them that "balances" the equation. This of course drives liberals crazy as they are working off of a different definition of balance.

I will give a very simple example. The major networks never report "good news" about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is always about scandals, setbacks, death counts, innocents, etc. You will never find anything positive about the war. Fox on the other hand, doesn't touch any of those subjects and instead focuses on the victories, the success of the surge, the building of schools, the creating of rapport with children etc. Conservatives see the major networks as traitors and liberals see Fox as propaganda.

In all honesty, all of the networks have their bias. It is just dishonest to not see your particular brand of bias and "laugh" that it doesn't exist.

 

Wouldn't liberals benefit from a liberally biased media? Wouldn't a liberally biased media have gone easy on the Clinton administration when he got his blow job and hard on the Bush administration when he lied about Iraq? Wouldn't a liberal media have de-bunked the completely made up story about Al Gore saying he invented the internet* and run with the story about GW Bush skipping out on his Guard duty instead of burying it until after he was elected? Wouldn't a liberal media have questioned the Iraq war? This liberal media conservatives love to talk about simply doesn't exist.

According to FAIR, on issues like corporate power, trade, Social Security, Medicare, health care or taxes, journalists actually lean more to the right then the general public. The minority of journalists who do not identify with the center (most journalists are centrist in their political orientation) are more likely to identify with the right when it comes to economic issues and to identify with the left when it comes to social issues.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2447

* When asked about his proudest senatorial accomplishment, Mr Gore actually said that he was most proud of "taking the initiative in creating the internet". In other words, he was proud of funding it. This deliberate misquotation was repeated again and again in the "liberal" media, parroted without question, and as far as I can tell, no retractions were ever issued.

 

Thank you for proving my point.

As a conservative I see things differently.

In regards to the Clinton and Bush coverage, I actually think the coverage has been fairly equal. The news is never going to have good things to say about a sitting president. It just doesn't work that way. However, I think the bad taste in your mouth (pun intended) in regards to Clinton is because his coverage was tabloid instead of political. If he didn't spend 8 years embroiled in sex scandals his coverage would have seemed better to you. I'm positive of it.

As to the war, please go back and read my post. You will find nothing positive in any major newspaper of network about the war. You will find "portraits of courage" about anti-war protests and protestors. Now you may feel that it is too little too late, but it is there.

I will have to do a search on your claim about members of the media, for I seem to recall that I have read that an overwhelming number of reporters identify themselves as Democrats.

 

Follow my link above. I updated my post.

 

I actually think this one is more representative My intrepretation is that the media is getting more conservative than it has in the past, but I believe a large part of that is skewed because of the creation of "Fox News". I would love to see a breakdown by network.

 

Snook, one fundamental difference you'll find with the FAIR survey is that instead of asking reporters if they feel they lean to the right or to the left, the FAIR survey actually asked what they thought about the individual issues themselves, one by one. Thinking you lean to the left or the right doesn't make it so. Asking how they feel about NAFTA, de-regulation, and medicare is going to get you a much more accurate result. A journalist who "identifies with the left" but is in favor of free trade agreements, making cuts to the welfare system, opposes health care reform, and is in favor of de-regulation isn't a liberal. At most, he's moderate.

 

@TGS:

I've seen a fair bit of negative coverage of Iraq, certainly. However, I've seen quite a bit of support for the Surge, despite middling results, and stunning willingness to take WH or Republican talking points for granted. You say you don't see anything positive, but I've heard more than a few mentions of "progress," development, etc even when I'm not sure exactly how much progress or development there is. Sure, there's the odd negative report, but mainly because of the old rule that bad news makes great news - not because the media's partisan bias (iirc the Black Hawk incident in Somalia was reported with equal glee). Internal affairs are similarly reported with little, if any, bias towards the "liberal" side. I've seen statements such as tax cuts improving federal income, "socialized" medicine being worse than what the US currently has or unemployed being blamed for their problems not just not challenged, but not even qualified. Taking an inherently conservative statement as a given doesn't look all that liberal to me. Especially when there are a fair number of conservative teachings that might also oppose current politics - such as the classical conservative trend that Ron Paul was/is? running on.

Moreover, the media seems disinterested in pushing for progress on the one issue that does matter about the whole Iraq thing: progress against Al-Queda and Bin Laden, not substituting warlord X by warlord Y. If 7 years ago someone had told me that after an event like 9/11, the US would spend as little effort into tracking the organization and individual responsible for it, I'd laugh in their face. The so-called liberal media in American has wolfed down a WH talking point that, to me, seems obscene: that a pseudo-civil war in Iraq is a substitute for acting against the radical movement that attacked the US, and several other countries before or after. That the war in Iraq is stand-in for actual progress in that issue, especially as it has done so much to bolster support for the radicals - from the increasing price of oil and the boost in finance for Islamic extremists that that has entailed to the PR boosts they got from heavy-handed operations like Falluja or symbols like Gitmo - is imo an insulting idea. And yet the so-called "liberal" media doesn't even seem bothered by it. Which, imo, means it's either not liberal to begin with or so clueless that it doesn't matter if they considered themselves Trotskyites.

Of course, no one likes it when the media don't report news the way s/he sees them. Still, I'd say the US media is far from the unthinking "liberal" machine I've heard it being described as.

 

Drew: I must admit I find the article you referenced amusing. What reporter does not feel they are being "fair" and "centered"? Nearly every reporter believes they are unbiased. But it's not true. A survey polling various news people will always get a "centered" response -- especially if they are only evaluating their own organization. To me, it just appears there are more honest 'right-wing' reporters.

I also would not consider 141 respondents as being very statistically accurate.

Even TGS's reference was based on the perception of the individuals questioned. I would consider myself a moderate -- more towards center than to the right. I am certain there are several who would disagree with me on that. But that is what I would list in a survey. Very few people believe they are extremists.

 

The article I referenced asked, point by point, how they felt about different economic and social issues. They didn't determine that most reporters (like most Americans) lean to the center by asking "hey, do you lean to the center?" They asked questions about NAFTA, the economy, etc. In other words, they determined that most of their respondents lean to the center by looking at their views on the issues, themselves.

 

Liberal bias in the media? Have those who complain about it, actually read the Bill of Rights? Oh, yes. They usually skip the first one and go straight to the Second Amendemt. But there really are 9 other amendments to the Bill of Rights. Really. I've seen them. I believe there is something about free speech and freedom of the press. I don't recall the Constitution saying anything about the notion that you have to be a conservative or a liberal to print something in the press. But maybe I have missed something that the Founding Brothers intended - something like, "you can't be a newsperson if you are a liberal or a Democrat." Did I miss that part of the document?

There are plenty of conservatives in the media. In fact, the media is crawling with them. But the accusation of "liberals" in the media, reminds me of the old, "Commie in the closet," charge of McCarthyism. Or this: "We won't rest until the media is completely full up with conservatives, and they tell us only what we want to hear." Won't that be nice?

 

@Chandos

Please come off of the ledge, you have too much to live for . Please show me where anyone said that having a bias was unconstitutional or a violation of free speech. While I believe that bias is unavoidable, I take offense when liberals fail to notice their bias and only notice conservative bias. To me that is hypocritical and shameful. I also haven't seen any posters call for a "liberal test" and the firing of anyone who is so designated.

@Montresor

I know you used the wink symbol, but you are absolutely correct. Murdoch was a genius for creating Fox News. Recent history has shown the U.S. to basically be 50/50 between conservatives and liberals. Fox is the sole television network that broadcasts to 50% of the population. The others (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, etc.) are fighting to split up the remaining 50%. That is the reason that Fox wins the ratings battle.

In addition talk radio is primarily conservative. Air America was an attempt at liberal talk radio that failed miserably. Does anybody think that Rush is without bias? The truly honest thing is that he admits it.

 

Actually, they did ask nearly exactly that, from your reference:

There were 24 questions asked that can in no way be conclusive to determine the political bend of the individual. This is poor use of statistics to back up the author's beliefs. There can be no realistic conclusions drawn from such a mediocre study (except to ask for more funding to actually get meaningful results).

I don't really care that there is bias in the media. That people are deluding themselves to think the media is presenting a neutral position is unfortunate. The freedom of speech goes beyond the media -- I, for one, have spent a large portion of my life defending the rights of citizens. People (including the media) can and will say whatever they want, spin it however they want, and even lie when they want.

Accuracy in the media is a different issue entirely -- especially when it come to relaying scientific information (the media really sucks at reporting technical stuff).

 

One: That's because liberals don't care about propaganda.
Two: We have our liberal entertainment with the "Daily Show" and the "Colbert Report."
Three: Liberals don't listen to the radio.

Rush is a comedian and an entertainer; that does not qualify him as a "news source" in the strict sense, as say, FOX, MSNBC or CNN; certainly, no more than one can regard Jon Stewart as a genuine source for "news"

TGS - I'll come down "off the ledge," if you will take the Constitution more seriously.

Well, each person is entitled to his/her own opinion of what is "hypocritical and shameful." Perhaps you should take your own advice and "come on down off the ledge as too."

 

Chandos, don't forget the Rolling Stone Magazine. That's our other big liberal propaganda machine. God knows it's one of the few liberal media sources that actually tells me what I want to hear as a liberal.