Left-wing bias in the american media.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Wraith
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).

Here's your link of think tank guests.

Yes, FAIR has a left-wing bias, but they're very open about it and make no attempt what-so-ever to hide it. Even if you don't agree with their politics, you should read through their archives for an interesting critique of American media.

I'm surprised John Stossel has lasted this long...

Wraith

Me too, he's an absolutely horrible reporter who just makes up whatever facts he needs to support his argument.

Anyways, here's a political survey of journalists. Apparently I was wrong, most journalists identify themselves as centrists.

[chequita guevara]

Liberal? Media?
By John Chuckman

One the silliest expressions used in America is "liberal media." The word "liberal" itself has been so abused and twisted in the last few decades, you'd think the Ministry of Truth had decreed its meaning must be changed. "Liberal" has become a contemptuous epithet for opposition to economic liberty, Constitutional principles, and even religious expression.

This is a parody of the word. "Liberal" has to do with open-mindedness, dedication to principles of intellectual liberty, and a strong regard for human rights. Over the last two and a half centuries, expanding the franchise, achieving religious liberty, defending human rights, and concern for the environment were all liberal causes. Not a bad record, that.

How was this fine word reduced to shabbiness? The answer is through endless repetition of the parody in magazines, newspapers, and on television. That's not exactly prima facie evidence for liberal bias in the media.

Nothing has changed to erode the truth of that wonderful remark about freedom of the press existing for those who own one. In fact, with massively increased concentration in the ownership of American corporations, including the news business, the remark is more pertinent than ever.

Just reeling off the names of some major owners of America's press and broadcasting tells a story. Rupert Murdoch (Australian billionaire newspaper magnate), Disney Corporation, Dow-Jones, Tribune Corporation, Knight-Ridder, Hearst Corporation, and General Electric. In what possible sense are any of these liberal?

Even the New York Times, often regarded as the liberal paper in America, a paper whose very name causes sagebrush politicians to curl their lips in contempt, is actually a very cautious one, as befits the flagship publication of a multi-billion dollar enterprise.

The Times always defends the establishment. It becomes positively hot and bothered about supporting often-abusive institutions like the FBI over the rights of individuals, as in its hideous, long-term attack on Wen Ho Lee.

Where's the liberal bias? In pompous editorials that read like press releases for the American Imperium? In a slick magazine whose mostly-vapid stories float in a thick ooze of advertising for expensive clothes, perfumes, and furniture? In a letters column whose writers often use two lines to give their titles? Try finding a tough op-ed piece in the New York Times. They're as common as farts in a church service.

Ah, there's public broadcasting, isn't there? But America's public broadcasting is the most sanitized, politically correct that I'm aware of. Public television is hopelessly fluffy, featuring gorilla pictures narrated by authorities like Martin Sheen and puff-piece investigative reports.

Its evening news specializes in pseudo-debate, invariably with dependents of the two parties exchanging slogans. The program focuses on Beltway babble rather than investigation. Holders of think-tank sinecures are regular seat-fillers. American public radio, which does a better job than television, still lacks breadth of view, lacks bite, and, for the most part, contains precious little not found in mainstream media.

America's public-broadcast officials collapsed in a heap when Newt Gingrich and his band of Texas Visagoths attacked them about running a sandbox for yuppies, and they haven't recovered yet. Public broadcasting has lost much of its government financing over the years, and it lives under constant threat of losing more. After all, the party in power doesn't even pay its UN dues. What's support for public broadcasting compared to international-treaty obligations?

"Is Dan Rather a Republican? Peter Jennings? Tom Brokaw?" ask readers who think they have a definitive point, but the point they make is quite different to the one they think they're making.

Who cares what these gentlemen are as long as they do their jobs? What is it about the right-wing ("conservative" is really too gentle a word) that insists on knowing the details of one's political ties and bedroom habits? Isn't this a little like what you would expect in the old Soviet Union? And who has more influence on the overall character of a news organization, a paid news reader or the guys paying the bills? Anyone with a very good job doesn't have to be told not to seriously irritate the boss.

Reflect on events over some decades and ask yourself about the American press's "liberal" role in them. Did the press ever tell us what happened in the Gulf War? Has it given us much more than Pentagon press releases on Afghanistan? Does the gloss on the Middle East ever go beyond what you'd expect from the State Department?

Did the press ever reveal to the American people what a manipulative monster J. Edgar Hoover was? Did the press tell people, while he was destroying people's lives, that Joe McCarthy was a desperate drunk trying to revive a failing political career? Such questions are endless, and the answer to virtually all of them is "no."

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Tingkai
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.

The amount of coverage has gone down, but the quality of that coverage has gone up. I remember very well the coverage of the Viet Nam war and everything since. I never remember a military expert the likes of Trevor DePuy, Norman Swartzkopf or Admiral Crowe during those times. The coverage was left to journalists, who were not the sort of people to have any sort of understanding of the deeper issues. Even combat correspondents who had seen significant time at the front had very little idea about operations, doctrine, weapons or strategy, in other words the sorts of things the public needed to know in order to do their duty as informed citizens in a democracy.

This was not all the fault of journalists, the government was very secretive about these issues itself, and it wasn't until the post-Vietnam era that the government realized that it had a lot of work to do in order to solidify public support for even the most critical military spending or deployments.

Foreign correspondence of old also suffered. At first it was mainly a tool of U.S. cold war policy, explaining where the hell country X was, and why they needed American military and economic aid. After Vietnam the coverage was more sceptical, but not all that much deeper. There has been an improvement here too since the 1970s, though not nearly as significant as the improvement in the coverage of military affairs.

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

Well the figure is from DanS, but it sounds about right. Most Americans live in suburbs and smaller cities, with IIRC about 15% living in rural areas. Various definitions of these terms will change the numbers. Suburban America is whiter and more politically conservative than urban America, and rural America is whiter and more politically conservative (in some respects, though more populist) than suburban America.

Originally posted by Tingkai

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.

Yea, I'm not a big conspiracy believer about anything, and I agree here. It's more a blindness to the belief structure and ideas that one never or rarely comes into contact with, and wasn't raised with.

One of the reasons that bringing in the niche experts helped journalism was not just the fact that you had someone with experience and education writing or commenting on what they know, but the fact that this person was not a professional journalist. This brought another viewpoint to the table as well as very useful experience. Amusingly this is to some extent what Che is complaining about. The reason that so many right wing experts are on the news shows is because they offer viewpoints that you will rarely see from journalists. The fact that these viewpoints are a great deal more popular with the public than the typical whining one sees from the more mainstream liberals like People for the American Way, or the bizarre radical stuff from further afield is the reason why these more right wing think tank types are better represented than their left wing brothers.

The pack mentality is an absolute quality killer for journalism. You have 10 journalists waiting around for a press conference which is going to be spin city, and no one doing even the most basic research to deliver any useful facts. Not to mention the incredible rarity of an in depth report or revisiting or revising an older story. I realize that the larger packs are only sent after the larger type stories, but it's an impressive waste of resources nonetheless.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Tingkai
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."

It wasnt only that the segment presented critics of the flat tax without presenting supporters, the reporter referred to the flat tax as "wacky" among other things. To make judgements like this is not an objective reporter's job. I would be just as against a reporter who referred to a Gore tax plan in this way because its just not objective reporting.

If I have time I will post some of the book.

[Wraith]

--"Here's your link of think tank guests."

So they lump libertarians in with conservatives, and are largely running on European definitions of left/right? Ah.

It's also interesting to note the groups they didn't bother counting. The number of environmental groups that weren't even looked for, for instace, surely has a big influence on their results.

--"Me too, he's an absolutely horrible reporter who just makes up whatever facts he needs to support his argument."

The only accusations of this I've actually seen were the whole organic food debate thing, which wasn't even his fault (he does use researchers, after all, but can't possibly check their numbers himself).
Interesting that you bring this up, however, given the number of citations used in the mainstream press based on incorrect, skewed, and even admittedly falsified data (largely biased towards the left).

--"This is a parody of the word."

True enough, but it became such thanks to the Democratic party. Politicians (from both major parties) have long twisted the language in this country to their own ends.

--"Try finding a tough op-ed piece in the New York Times"

True enough. He should examine their other stories more carefully, though. It's not like the NYT is particularly subtle about it.

Wraith
"At my lemonade stand I used to give the first glass away free and charge five dollars for the second glass. The refill contained the antidote."
-- Emo Philips