Left-wing bias in the american media.

[Sikander]

Tingai,

You assume that all money is connected with the right wing, and that there could thus not be a left wing bias in American journalism. This is not the case. The Democrat party, which is the leftmost party in the two-party dominated U.S. system get's it's money from fewer sources and in larger amounts per donation than it's Republican counterpart. The reason is that it is connected financially to fewer but wealthier people. The Republican party by the way is the larger of the two for eight years.

You also want to use an international basis for what is a national debate. Take a look at my definition of bias in the post above yours. It involves people who are uniformly out of step (in the same direction) from the mainstream U.S. citizen. This will seem as biased as Pravda articles in the 1950s if you are one of the majority who feels that his view is not represented. Everyone expects that opinions will vary between different nations and cultures, but one tends to think that his own media would present a viewpoint which was more popular within it's own market.

[Imran Siddiqui]

As for journalist being liberal by nature, that's not really true. The corporate directors high senior media executives who come from the same background or believe in the same things. Those executives then hire editors who think along the same lines as they do. The editors then hire reporters who have similar beliefs.

You aren't listening to Sikander and Ming and DanS. These senior editors come from journalism schools (mostly) and most of the people that emerge from there are left leaning. They want to 'change the world', per say.

Finally, what an American considers liberal, many others would consider conservative. Consider medicare. Canadians and Europeans would consider this a basic right. Americans see it as a socialist threat to their way of life.

That is irrelevant. They are left wing in the American context and that is the context they are being discussed in. Simply because Europe is for national health care and journalists in the US seem to advocate that doesn't mean they are immediatly centrist. In the US context, where they report the news, they aren't.

[DanS]

Sikander: That was so well-reasoned that I'm going to have to disagree with you.

While we have every reason to question what we are receiving, it is silly to ask these institutions to change stripes and participate in a poltical quota system.

It doesn't matter if they represent a small slice of the electorate (which they don't--more like 35%, most of whom are urban), their voice was well-earned, or at least stolen fair-and-square. If the right wants its views heard by a wider audience, it's got to go out and build a solid journalistic tradition. Unfortunately, the conservative press is in the throes of narcisism that does little to upgrade its credibility to that wider audience. If you read the Washington Times at all, you know that they're going for that 10% conservative base.

[Roland]

As far as the US network news go, they are mostly odd. And what you try here is like sticking a political bias on a fashion magazine.

[Tingkai]

We're running into a problem of defining what is left. The Democrats are obviously to the left of the Republicans, but that doesn't mean they are left wingers. More like centrist (In Canada we would call them red Tories). Of course, that is my opinion. That was the point of my previous message about how Americans perceive the political left differently than Canadians or European. The term "left" is subjective and we need a common definition or we'll end up talking in circles.

The idea that most journalists want to change the world is a myth. Ambition is the common denominator, not a sense of idealism, at least for successful journalist. There are so many people trying to get too few jobs that idealist quickly get filtered out.

As for journalism schools producing left-leaning journalists, that simply is not the case. Nothing taught at j-schools would produce this political bent. The people I knew at j-school, and other grads I have met, have come from a variety of political backgrounds. They are not out of step with the mainstream, although they have problems relating to the working class (lower class, blue collar workers, whatever you want to call them).

Having said that I think there is some validity in Goldberg's theory if he is arguing that, as Sikander writes, "Journalists come from such a narrow spectrum of the population."

A journalism degree is now a basic requirement for most media jobs. That has eliminated an old segment of the media: people who have no post-secondary education, but who instead work their way up through the ranks. So the media is now solidly middle and upper class and the issues being reported upon are those that reflect the interests of these two classes.

I would, however, disagree with the idea that journalists "reside professionally with so many like-minded cronies." Journalists, by the nature of their jobs, often have contacts with a greater part of the population than most people. The political reporter will deal with politicians from different parties. The court reporter deals with prosecutors and defense counsel. General news reporter talk to everyone. Admitedly some beats are not so diverse (Police reporters tend to start think like cops after a while).


By the way, the link provided at the beginning of this thread does not provide any information about Goldberg's theory other than "The old argument that the networks and other `media elites' have a liberal bias is so blatantly true that it's hardly worth discussing anymore." In other words, we've told this lie enough times that we don't need to back it up with any flimsy proof.

[Khan Singh]

Squealing childishly and endlessly about other people freely expressing their opinions is either dim-witted or anti-democratic----take your choice.



So if I get mad about someone saying something about 'The Nazi's were right', that would mean I'm either dim-witted or anti-democratic, because I oppose a person freely expressing their opinion

But this is the whole point. You aren't refuting any arguments by making this claim, you aren't opposing any liberal ideas. You are instead complaining about people who you percieve as liberals expressing their ideas.

Nobody makes decisions based on their "bias". They make decisions based on what they think is right. Journalists do not wake up in the morning and say: "Hmmmm. How can I give that Enron piece a liberal slant?" Nor do they ask themselves "Is this story liberal enough? Should I play up the rich/poor angle more?" Instead they just write stories as well as they can, including the points they think relevent or interesting. If the resulting stories include a preponderance of certain types of ideas, then we must assume that journalists believe in them (or think that their audience will like them). And how can you complain about people writing things that they believe in?

You say that they should have to "advertise" themselves as having a bias? This is a ludicrous suggestion. First of all no one thinks they have a bias. They think they know the truth. Don't you?

Secondly, how in God's name are we supposed to enforce this ridiculous requirement? Are we going to grade the various media on a point system and allow only those who print a certain amount of conservative material to advertise themselves as centrist? Okay, then. Should the National Review be forced to print a certain amount of liberal material or else be forced to "advertise" itself as 'crypto-fascist'? Why not just set up a nice simple board of censorship that can tell media whether we are at war with Eurasia or not?

And check the bolded part. They can't complain? So you are now taking free speech away?

Clearly this means "can't justly complain". This should be obvious. Really Imran, you don't have to go to any trouble to provide me with evidence for my "dim-witted reactionaries" remark. Thanks, but I don't need the help.

Do you want your news to be what is most popular, or that which reports the facts?

I always want accurate reporting. Who doesn't? But there are a million stories in the naked city and I only have time to read three of them each day. Somebody has to select them for me. And that person pretty much has to be a journalist. If he doesn't do a good job of choosing interesting stories, or if I suspect he isn't covering the whole story, then I will look elsewhere. But I won't whine endlessly about him having a certain opinion.
--------------------------

Ultimately all I am doing here is pointing out the inherent contradiction in the right-wingers endless complaints that they are "discriminated" against by the evil liberal media. But let me state the dilemma plainly:

If there is, as right-wingers suggest, such a huge unfulfilled demand for conservative media, then why isn't National Review the most popular magazine in America? And if there isn't such demand, then why should the media cater to their unpopular opinions?

[Ming]

Originally posted by Khan Singh
If there is, as right-wingers suggest, such a huge unfulfilled demand for conservative media, then why isn't National Review the most popular magazine in America? And if there isn't such demand, then why should the media cater to their unpopular opinions?

But there was a big demand for more "conservative" media...
And Fox News Net was set up to answer that need. And as can be seen in the ratings, it is doing VERY well... with much of it's audience coming from CNN... people who weren't happy with the more liberal bent of CNN...

And as far as the National Review not being popular... many people haven't heard of it. If more people were exposed to it (those with VERY conservative leanings) then it would be more popular. But face it... none of the political journals... National Journal, Congressional Quarterly, New Repulic... have very large circulations...

[Khan Singh]

I never said that the conservatives' assertion was true. I merely posed a dilemma arising from their own contention. My argument works just as well either way. If there is a signifigant conservative press in the US then obviously the media is fairly balanced. So then what are conservatives complaining about? If, on the other hand, they are complaining about something that they know is false---- for tactical reasons---- then the ones who are complaining are villians and the ones who believe it are simpletons.

In fact I don't see any real reason to think that there is any signifigant bias in American media. The most popular newspaper in the US is the Wall Street Journal. NBC is the top rated news broadcast. Fox News is doing just fine. Where is this so-called media bias? The Nation? PBS?

[Zoid]

US media left wing? Compared to what? Nazi-Germany?

*climbes into his flameproof shelter*

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Caligastia

All I want is objective journalism.

There IS no objective journalism, everybody is biased in one way or another.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Balls.

[Caligastia]

I dont want a more conservative media, all I want is the facts. Goldberg has plenty of evidence in his book of liberal bias in the media, so if you want proof you will have to read it.

Nobody makes decisions based on their "bias". They make decisions based on what they think is right. Journalists do not wake up in the morning and say: "Hmmmm. How can I give that Enron piece a liberal slant?" Nor do they ask themselves "Is this story liberal enough? Should I play up the rich/poor angle more?" Instead they just write stories as well as they can, including the points they think relevent or interesting. If the resulting stories include a preponderance of certain types of ideas, then we must assume that journalists believe in them (or think that their audience will like them). And how can you complain about people writing things that they believe in?

It is not the function of a journalist to insert their opinion into the news, all they are there for is to keep the rest of us informed. Im not saying they intentionally slant the news, I think it just happens because the reporter doesnt make enough of an effort to be objective.

Distortion of facts is a big problem when those distorted facts are reported to a wide audience. Then everybody is misinformed.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Kamrat X


There IS no objective journalism, everybody is biased in one way or another.

There is objective journalism, just not enough of it. Just because everybody has some kind of bias does not mean they can never be objective.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Caligastia

There is objective journalism, just not enough of it. Just because everybody has some kind of bias does not mean they can never be objective.

Well, IMO the bias tends to stand in the way of objectivity.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Kamrat X


Well, IMO the bias tends to stand in the way of objectivity.

Sure it does, but only if you let it. Objectivity is not impossible.