Left-wing bias in the american media.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by 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.

Hey I'm a free market guy. I'm not asking anyone to do anything but sell me what I want. Let CBS have it's old and older demographic. I'm just saying that a lot of people would buy a viewpoint which they find closer to their own. You must have missed the point above where I mentioned that the news business has improved remarkedly since the 1970s, mainly by bringing in a lot of niche experts to bolster the extremely weak coverage previously given to the economy, military and foreign affairs etc. This has simultaneously improved the balance as well as the accuracy and general usefullness of television news especially.

I think the quality of news has improved in general as well as the balance. The success of Fox news shows that there is a market for something a little different than the urban viewpoint, which after all only constitutes 35% of the population, even if it's the 35% that dresses better.

Tingkai,

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).

Are you a professional journalist? One of my friends is, and I've known her since she edited our college newspaper. In fact we are from the same area, and her father was also a journalist. I've known her for 20 years now, and she has served as both a reporter and an editor, and with several papers. From what I hear from her, a lot of people consider journalists the enemy, and though journalists rub elbows regularly with those that they cover, there is always the tension of the subjects trying to spin the coverage they are getting, and the reporter trying to dig up some juicy news. There is a good deal of mutual suspicion which tends to work against a free exchange of ideas. The reporter is supposed to be objective, and it doesn't do their image any good to tell Jesse Helms what they really think of them, and in fact it can be quite detrimental to their ability to do their job. Their subjects are also on guard, and probably more so.

Thus many journalists tend to be lonely. Though they are around people all day, like cops, they tend to not be all that popular with the folks they tend to spend the most time with. They do however tend to be pretty chummy with one another. On a lot of beats they tend to be waiting for the same press conference to begin etc. Their shared experiences and tendency to have more similar backgrounds than a random couple of people who meet on the street make this process all the more easy. My friend knows a million reporters from all types of journalism, and knows them much better than the people she covers, and respects their opinions more because she trusts them. This is very natural, and also very clubby and closed. Thank God she could always come to me for the knee-jerk right wing viewpoint.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And how can you complain about people writing things that they believe in?

As said before, when the claim is they are being objective, then this is wrong and I will complain.

Tingkai, you might not think the Dems are left-wing, but in the US they are, and this discussion is focusing on the US spectrum.

As for bias, as has been said a lot of it is what they think it newsworthy. For example, this was deemed newsworthy, when I'm sure that a conservative group (such as CORE) defending Bush wouldn't (and really hasn't) been in the news.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Sikander
I mentioned that the news business has improved remarkedly since the 1970s, mainly by bringing in a lot of niche experts to bolster the extremely weak coverage previously given to the economy, military and foreign affairs etc. This has simultaneously improved the balance as well as the accuracy and general usefullness of television news especially.

I think you're right about coverage of business issues. This has grown significantly in the US, although there are major knowledge gaps among most business reporters.

Coverage of foreign affairs has decreased significantly since the 1970s, according to most studies I've ever seen. Coverage of the military has also decreased from the 1970s simply because the US is not involved in any major war.

Originally posted by Sikander
There is a market for something a little different than the urban viewpoint, which after all only constitutes 35% of the population, even if it's the 35% that dresses better.

What do you mean? Are you saying that 65 per cent of Americans live in rural areas?


Yes, I'm a journalist (whether I'm professional is a matter of opinion ).

There is a barrier between sources and journalists, for the reasons that you mention. However, we tend to be fairly social. I don't recall meeting many lonely journalists. We need to be social animals in order to make the necessary contacts. But my really good friends are journalists. We understand each other and can relate to one another. So I agree with what you're saying on that point.

However, reporters spend their days listening to what people have to say. We hear the right-wingers, the left-wingers, the moderates, the extremists and everything in between. I don't need to talk to the right-winger or the left-winger when I'm not working to find out what these people think. I hear what they say every day.

(And one of the reasons I come to Apolyton to spout off is because I have to remain objective on the job. I can't tell the business guy or labour dude that he is full of sh1t. I can't write in a story that these guys are idiots. So I do it here.)

Many of my journalist friends are very right wing, very few are left-wing and the majority are centre-right. That's simply because left-wingers rarely progress through corporate politics of the media world.

If people want to understand the media and its biases, forget about right-wing and left-wing conspiracy theories. The biggest problem is the herd mentality and the desire to get a story that no one else has. The thing that pisses off an editor is missing a story the competition has. The best way to get promoted is to get the stories no one else has.

Now think about how this motivation affects media coverage. Why did the US media go nuts about Gary Conduit (SP?). Because everyone else was doing the story. Why is the US media fawning over George Bush. Because everyone else is.

Why do we get so many stories that turn out to be false. Because every reporter is trying to scoop the competition. Far too many of them don't give a sh1t about the facts. They just want the story.

I hate to admit it, but the media basically has a mob-mentality.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I hate to admit it, but the media basically has a mob-mentality.

You mean like socialism? (sorry, had to)

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I hate to admit it, but the media basically has a mob-mentality.

You mean like socialism? (sorry, had to)

I was thinking more like facist pig dogs.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hey, you said it.. not me .

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
As for bias, as has been said a lot of it is what they think it newsworthy. For example, this was deemed newsworthy, when I'm sure that a conservative group (such as CORE) defending Bush wouldn't (and really hasn't) been in the news.

But that article is based on a report from a bipatisan commission, or at least that's what the article says. So it could hardly be called left-wing bias, unless you have info that this commission is full of bleeding heart liberals.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well:

the country was witnessing a "judicial assault on civil rights," partly under cover of the war against terrorism.

Doesn't sound like a statement that a Republican would agree too.

And I checked out their webpage... they are a bunch of wackos. They believe that people that say man should be studied like an animal are evil. They oppose Psychiatry in all forms and are a part of a watchdog group sponsered by the Church of Scientology

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Sure it does, but only if you let it. Objectivity is not impossible.

Well, I guess not, but there´s so few examples

[chequita guevara]

Question: how is it, that conservative corporations, which excercise editorial control, which run news stories past lawyer to ensure they don't expose themselves to any possible lawsuits, with multi-millionaire anchor people, who largely interview talking heads from conservative or centrist think tanks, manage to create in people the perception of a left-wing bias?

It is true, in a survey of Washington news correspondants, a majority labeled themselves as Democrats. But that can only be considered left-wing in the extremely rarified political culture of the United States, which has a right-wing, and slightly less right-wing.

On the other hand, a study by FAIR has shown that the vast majority of "guests" on the news are from conservative or centrists think tanks, PR firms, and politicians. A rather small minority are made up from liberal think tanks/politicians/etc., and virtually no guests from left-wing positions are interviewed.

One has to wonder then, where does this "left-wing bias" come from? Perhaps the minds of the right, who attack anything that is even slighly less right wing.

Almost all serious media criticism shows that the real problems of the media are: corporate ownership, identification with those in power, over-reliance on "official" news sources (with an attendent corwardace to run any stories which might offend those souces, and thus lose access to those sources), an unwillingness to run news which might offend sponsors, and a reliance on sensationalism over substance.

[JohnT]

Che, who else would own a network news division if not.... a network?



"Left-wing bias?" Not hardly... as I've discovered over the past few years what we Americans think as "leftist" is considered... well, a joke among real Lefties.

Though I do think there is an obvious pro-Democratic party bias. Example? The amount of coverage that the Enron meltdown has received from day 1 viz the amount of coverage the Global Crossing meltdown has received.

[Wraith]

--" manage to create in people the perception of a left-wing bias?"

Because there is one, European vs. US definition notwithstanding. The companies may be owned by conservatives, but as long as the company is making money and not being sued too often, they don't care about the particulars of what goes on screen or to print.
That's where the reporters biases come in. They choose the topics, the quotes, the interviews, etc. There is definitaly a bias here, and I don't understand where you're getting this overwhelming majority of conservative guests stuff (a link would be appreciated, but I do hope you realize FAIR isn't anywhere near unbiased themselves).
In any case, the bottom line is that people like Ted Turner don't micromanage their reporters. They've got much better things to do with their time, like golf and cocktail parties.

--"dentification with those in power, over-reliance on "official" news sources (with an attendent corwardace to run any stories which might offend those souces, and thus lose access to those sources), an unwillingness to run news which might offend sponsors, and a reliance on sensationalism over substance."

These I agree with. No matter whose definitions you use, the US media has a clear statist bias.
I'm surprised John Stossel has lasted this long...

Wraith
"I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator and name it after the IRS."
-Robert Bakker, paleontologist

[Saint Marcus]

In a European perspective, American media are quite right-wing.

Doesn't make them all bad though.

[Caligastia]

If could read some of the book you would know what I am talking about, but I cant be bothered typing it here so you will just have to buy it.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Caligastia
If could read some of the book you would know what I am talking about, but I cant be bothered typing it here so you will just have to buy it.

But before you buy the book, here's what people have to say:

http://www.arizonarepublic.com/viewpoints/articles/0120turn0120rendall.html

The authors of that article refer to the 1996 article posted by Caligastia. They write:
"The story was one-sided, giving no time to flat-tax supporters, but was it really proof of liberal bias? Consider the four flat-tax critics featured in the segment: House Speaker Newt Gingrich, an adviser to the senior President Bush, a former Nixon era IRS commissioner, and a tax expert.

"A single segment featuring mostly right-of-center sources criticizing one Republican's tax proposal is hardly smoking-gun evidence of a left-wing media tilt. Yet five years later the CBS flat-tax report is still Goldberg's "Exhibit A," the main evidence of liberal bias in his skimpy book."


I love this quote from CBS News President Andrew Heyward: "Bernie [Goldberg] asked to see me before the book was published and said he didn't want to be portrayed as a liar or a disgruntled employee. Therefore, I have no comment."

Here's a right wing view:

http://www.mediaresearch.org/columns/newscol/col20011206.html

"Goldberg tells how, when he proposed doing a news story on allegations of liberal bias, CBS News president Andrew Heyward said there was no news in that concept because all the networks tilt to the left but if Goldberg ever repeated that in public, he'd deny it."

A rather poor defence of the book from Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/12/3/215106.shtml

"The people who work there come from similar backgrounds. Many of them attended some of the best Ivy League schools. And there’s contempt for "white trash” out there. As one who grew up in a lower-middle-class family in the South Bronx, Goldberg resents it."

So, if they all come from similar backgrounds, and Goldberg was on of them, then I guess they all come from lower-middle class families.

I think I'll take a pass on this book until it gets into a local library. It appears to offer only anecdotes, and largely focuses on CBS.