There was an article in this Sunday's chronicle that I thought I would post it here for those who've engaged in this discussion with me before. I've admitted I've had a hard time proving my belief that the media has a liberal bias. This article helps out a little...it touches on what I've talked about before. How headlines and leads into stories can be written in such a way that they drive the reader to a result that is somewhat less than objective. Again...I'm not talking about editorial writers...of course there are conservative editorials in the major papers. I'm talking about the way the news stories are presented. Evidence of Liberal Media? NY Times provides it -- Charles Krauthammer When the subject of liberal bias in the media is brought up, particularly during an election campaign, journalists tend to roll their eyes and groan "there you go again" at this recrudescence of an old right-wing shibboleth. This pose, while convenient, was shaken by a famous Roper poll of 139 Washington bureau chiefs and correspondents. It found that in 1992 they had voted 89% for Bill Clinton, 7% for George Bush. Regular Americans had voted Clinton over Bush, 43% to 38%. The country went marginally for Clinton; the journalists went for him 13 to 1. In other words, for every 7 Bush voters among the American people, there were eight Clinton voters. But for every seven Bush voters in the Washington media, there were 89 for Clinton. Margins of victory that lopsided are rarely seen this side of Syria. Party registration numbers were just as impressively lopsided: 50% Democrat, 4% Republican. The standard response is that these affiliations or predirections do not influence coverage. For some journalists with super-human control, I'm sure that is true. Most journalists, alas, are not superhuman. Which is why the bias issue keeps recurring. It was most recently raised by Washinton Post media critic Howard Kurtz. His report was admirably evenhanded, but one has to be impressed when so fair-minded and well-regarded an analyst as Charles Cook observes that last month's press coverage has been larded with pro-Gore ideological bias: "It was not a pretty sight." Indeed the most notorious example occurred in the NY Times. It has been widely cited for its astonishing editorial decision to put on the front page a 2 week old story about the "RATS" commercial. On the other hand, the Times relegated Gore's concotion about mother-in-law, arthritis medicine, and his dog to page A18. And even that story opens, "The Republicans continued a sharp assault yesterday on Vice President Al Gore." This is no isolated case. Here are the Times' Gore/Bush front page headlines of the first two weeks of September 9/1 -- "Bush Approves New Attack Ad Mocking Gore; Democrats say GOP Has Turned Negative. 9/2 -- "Bush Defends Ad that Assails Gore; Governor Maintains He's Only Engaging in Self-Defense" 9/4 -- "Bush Adapts and Goes On the Attack" "A Confident Gore Sets Off on Grand Tour" "Bush Puts Forth Alternative Plan for 3 TV Debates" 9/5 -- "TV Networks Jilted by Bush; Won't Take Part in 2 Debates" 9/6 -- "Bush Spells Out Major Overhaul in Medicare Plan" 9/7 -- "Gore offers vision of better times for middle class"; "GOP Leaders Fret at Lapses in Bush's Race 9/8 -- "Bush Planning to See Voters,And to Be Seen" 9/9 -- "A Populist Pitch Helps Gore Woo Back His Party's Base" 9/11 -- "Gore Takes Tough Stand on Violent Entertainment" 9/12 -- "Democrats See, and Smell, Rats in GOP Ad" 9/13 -- "Poll Shows Gore Overcoming Voter Concern on Likability" 9/14 -- "Bush Tax Cut Loses Appeal for Republicans In Congress" It would take a mollusk to miss the pattern. Particularly striking is the front-page echo of the substance of a Gore charge (the RATS ad) vs. the front-page portrayal of the "negativity" of Bush's charges. The attack ad was in part about Gore's prevariations over his Buddhist Temple fund raising. The Times' disapproval of it - the ad, not the fundraising - was not subtle. It ran an accompanying captioned front-page picture. "The ad combines television images of Mr. Gore with scornful diaglogue and a not yet operational Web address," read the Times' scornful caption. Why is this important? Because the Times front page is the epicenter of the media echo chamber. It is the primary text for those who compose the evening news on the three networks. The night that the Times put the RATS commercial on page one, the story, -- dormant for 15 days since first revealed on Fox News Network -- ran on the evening news on all three networks. What are the odds? The Times does not determine election results. If it did, we'd be looking back fondly on the Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis administrations. But because it both reflects and affects general media coverage of campaigns, it matters. It tilts the playing field. This year the angle is particularly steep. ------------------
Sign me up. If a middle-of-the-road, unbiased newspaper like the Houston Chronicle prints it, then it must be true! The Chronicle's editorial page isn't worth wrapping fish in, let alone reading. If it weren't for the sports page, I wouldn't be a subscriber! ------------------ I am the b*stard son of LHutz. Huh? Right!
Believe that "the media" is biased if you want to. (What is the qualification for media? Is it just TV, newspapers, radio? Does the internet count? Is this BBS, or clutchcity.net, media?) But this survey doesn't prove it. Basically, if you believe the results, it shows that the print media in DC are mostly Democrats (so is DC itself, by the way, if you look at voting patterns). And, maybe the NY Times is liberal (a notion that I agree with!, but a 2 week sampling of headlines doesn't prove anything by itself). But don't hold up this and say, "Here's my proof! They're out to get us!" You just look silly. ------------------
Rocketman Tex -- just for you edification...Charles Krauthammer is a Pulitzer Prize -winning syndicated columnist based in Washinton, DC. This is not a Houston columnist. Nice try, though. ------------------
Sam -- thanks for your opinion on how I look...but I'm not holding this up to say this is the defining moment in the argument..I'm merely posting it as some evidence. It's not the case-in-chief! I've had a conversation running with a few individuals here for a while about this...this was just another post in a long line. ------------------
I never said that Krauthammer was based in Houston. The Chronicle rag, however, did choose to print it. If Mr. Krauthammer denied that the "Liberal Media" existed, do you think the Chronicle would have printed it? I doubt it. ------------------ I am the b*stard son of LHutz. Huh? Right!
Max, You're welcome! I've been around this board (and its predecessor) and I've read your conversations. You've got rational, well-thought arguments (most of the time) and I commend you on your ability to express yourself. But I just wanted to let you know how whack it is for you and the distinguished Mr Krauthammer to jump at this "study" like it actually meant something. Carry on with your crusade! I'd love to hear some real proof of media bias if it exists. Until then, color me unconvinced. ------------------
One way to see media biased(one way or another) is grab a stop watch during the nightly news of whatever network you wish. Time the amount of airtime Gore gets and time the amount of airtime Bush gets and see which has more. The results may be a bit surprising. Although this may not be a true scientific method, it will show if that particular newscast wants more info broadcast from one over the other. Normally when I do this Gore gets about 2-3 times more airtime than Bush. Does this mean that the media is biased, maybe not. Why not have both guys on the same amount to be fair? ------------------ Houston Rockets Forever!! In Rudy We Trust
Dennis, I was curious about your exact question last week but I came across an msnbc article detailing how Bush was keeping himself out of the limelight on purpose. He was going about his typical stump speeches and not introducing new themes (until Gore gave him the chance such as w/ the Oil reserve stuff last week). Also he no longer gives the travelling press corps a morning briefing b/c of the word thing last week. The press corps has apparently been bored and dredged up issues they normally wouldn't have paid attention to (the dog and the 'subliminable' thing). Gore and Bush could always expose themselves to criticism by going in front of adversarial audiences (i.e. not Oprah, not Regis, not Dave) but they're both shrewd & p******. I understand the commission having to set up a set %age w/ which to control the debates (i.e. you and I probably shouldn't have a platform) but it still makes me angry. ------------------ "Everyone I know has a big but... come on Simone, let's talk about your but."
Is it just me, or did anyone else have to break out the dictionary on this one as well? MadMax, obviously "Hooked on Phonics" worked for you!
rascal, Krauthammer wrote that, not Mad Max (unless they are the same person). Surprising that the Chronicle would print such "hard" words. Not keeping with the 8th grade reading level. ------------------ Talking to a dead hare about art
Newspapers are dumb. Hee hee, don't I sound smart? Seriously, when was the last time a reporter got kicked off a paper because of "right-wing" elemnts in a story? This happpens all the time for supposed "left wing" causes (environment, animal rights, corporate welfare, military protest, etc). Also, the amount of censorship is rediculous. There have been studies where they take an international story from the NYT and compare it to the same story that was printed in England (maybe the Manchester Guardian, others). Not only are the American versions about 40-50% shorter (we Americans are too stupid to read articles that are longer than one column), but they leave out a lot of details that are seen as too anti status quo, or anti big bizzzzzness, etc. The media is not controlled by liberal writers or reporters, it is controlled by the boards and, more importantly, advertising. This goes way beyond the idiots Bush/Gore. ------------------ Talking to a dead hare about art
I had a professor at UH who studied the bias of newspapers across the nation for 5 years (from like 1985 through 1990) and he determined that the bias that is mentioned either to the left or right was inaccurate. He found after reading news stories from a couple hundred papers and noting specific elements of the story that would lean in one direction or the other AND which stories were selected for publication in specific papers (as well as op ed pieces) that while some papers (including the Chron interestingly enough) tended to lean to the right and others (including the NY Times - what a shock) tended to lean to the left, the sum total ended in a essentially no bias either way. The professor was an ass but the study was pretty fascinating. ------------------ Save Our Rockets and Comets SaveOurRockets.com
Jeff, Clearly, your professor was a biased centricist. ------------------ Talking to a dead hare about art
MadMax, I have a simple question. How do you define the word "liberal"? ------------------ Who would've thought Don Nelson would pass up Olumide Oyedeji not once, not twice, but thrice?
Anything left of Pat Robertson. ------------------ Cheerleaders are just dancers who've gone r****ded. visit www.swirve.com
Puedlfor -- I really don't want to get into defining the semantics..I think most people know what I mean. Just generally those that lean more towards the "left" rather than the "right" on most issues. Now I suppose the next post will be to have me define "left" and "right"!!! ------------------
MadMax : I don't think its merely semantics, I think it goes to the heart of the argument, for how can we discuss if there is a "liberal" media, if we disagree on the definition of the word "liberal". For example, I don't belive that "Liberal" and "democrat" are interchangeable and in fact I will maintain that neither Al Gore nor Bill Clinton are liberals. Thus, I would say that the argument that Al Gore recieves preferential treatment is not a means to prove liberal bias in the media. ------------------ Who would've thought Don Nelson would pass up Olumide Oyedeji not once, not twice, but thrice?
I'm speechless, so I have to use sign language! 95, you da rocketMAN! ------------------ I am the b*stard son of LHutz. Huh? Right!
If you've read Al Gore's book I find it hard to believe you wouldn't find him to be liberal. I guess it all depends on perspective. And if that's the case then we really can't have many discussions here at all. That reminds me of Jeff talking about how there's not any right or wrong...it's all from the perspective of the person doing the action. That sounds great in a bubble or a classroom, but you can't very well live in a society like that. As for the definition. You've stumped me. I guess to keep it simple I'm talking about simple classical liberalism vs. classical conservatism. Again...those have to be defined. We could keep doing this forever! But I guess the best distinction could be found in the debates. It's based on a how willing you are to allow the expanse of government to solve society's problems. At least that's how I see it. That may be overly simplistic...but for the purposes of any discussion here, I think it's expedient (did i spell that right??). ------------------
