Bias in the News Media

Last week the WSJ published an excellent study of the pejorative use of the word "conservative" in the New York Times and Washington Post. Now, does anti-liberal bias exist in conservative media? of course it does, but rarely on the news pages. The WSJ, the only truly national conservative paper, confines its biases to its opinion pages, where they belong.

It's also worth noting that on media watchdog lyinginpods.com's Total Partisianship Index, 4 of the top 5 columnists are liberals, and two of those write for the Times. Indeed, Frank Rich's weekly screed against all thing Bush appears in the Arts & Liesure section each Sunday. I can't say there's ever anything artful in it, however,

http://lyinginponds.com/

Total Partisanship Index
1 Ann Coulter 78
2 Paul Krugman 75
3 Molly Ivins 69
4 Robert Scheer 69
5 Frank Rich 61

--
WATCHING THE NEWS
Spot the Difference
Why are newspapers so liberal in labeling "conservatives"?

BY DAVID W. BRADY AND JONATHAN MA
Sunday, November 16, 2003 12:01 a.m.

The release of former CBS reporter Bernard Goldberg's book, "Bias," first prompted our examination of the degree to which the news media deviate from objective coverage. Mr. Goldberg wrote of how during Bill Clinton's impeachment trial, Peter Jennings consistently labeled Republican loyalists as "conservatives" or "very determined conservatives." Meanwhile, the ABC News anchor did not refer to Democratic loyalists as "liberals," treating Mr. Clinton's allies, instead, as mainstream lawmakers. So we asked ourselves, was the media's tendency to label particular senators isolated to the Clinton impeachment trial? Or is there a more pernicious generality? After a study of New York Times and Washington Post articles published between 1990 and 2002, we conclude that the problem is endemic.

We examined every Times and Post article that contained references to a senator. Specifically, we set out to reveal the treatment of the 10 most liberal and 10 most conservative senators from each congressional session. We used the Poole-Rosenthal ratings--developed by the University of Houston's Keith Poole to illustrate a senator's ideological extremity--to determine which senators to study. Using a reliable news database, we deployed a constant search term to uncover when news writers labeled senators conservative or liberal. For five successive congressional sessions during this time period, we documented when Times and Post reporters directly labeled Republican loyalists "conservatives" and Democratic loyalists "liberals" in their news stories. (We excluded editorials.)

The first finding of our study is consistent with the results found for media stories on institutions such as corporations, Congress or universities, namely, that most of the time the story is straightforward--as in "Senators X, Y, and Z visited the European Parliament." However, when there were policy issues at stake we found that conservative senators earn "conservative" labels from Times reporters more often than liberal senators receive "liberal" labels. For instance, during the 102nd Congress, the Times labeled liberal senators as "liberal" in 3.87% of the stories in which they were mentioned. In contrast, the 10 most conservative senators were identified as "conservative" in 9.03% of the stories in which they were mentioned, nearly three times the rate for liberal senators. Over the course of six congressional sessions, the labeling of conservative senators in the Washington Post and New York Times occurred at a rate of two, three, four and even five times as often as that of liberal senators (see chart). It appears clear that the news media assume that conservative ideology needs to be identified more often than liberal ideology does.

The disparity in reporting was not limited to numbers. Times reporters often inject comments that present liberals in a more favorable light than conservatives. For instance, during the 102nd Congress, Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa was described in Times stories as "a kindred liberal Democrat from Iowa," a "respected Midwestern liberal" and "a good old-fashioned liberal." Fellow Democrat Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts received neutral, if not benign, identification: "a liberal spokesman" and "the party's old-school liberal."

In contrast, Times reporters presented conservative senators as belligerent and extreme. During the 102nd Congress, Sen. Jesse Helms was labeled as "the most unyielding conservative," "the unyielding conservative Republican," "the contentious conservative" and "the Republican arch-conservative." During this time period, Times reporters made a point to specifically identify Sen. Malcolm Wallop of Wyoming and Sen. Robert C. Smith of New Hampshire as "very conservative," and Sen. Don Nickles of Oklahoma as "one of the most conservative elected officials in America."

We have detected a pattern of editorialized commentary throughout the decade. Liberal senators were granted near-immunity from any disparaging remarks regarding their ideological position: Sen. Harkin is "a liberal intellectual"; Sen. Barbara Boxer of California is "a reliably outspoken liberal"; Sen. Paul Simon of Illinois is "a respected Midwestern liberal"; Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York is "difficult to categorize politically"; Sen. Kennedy is "a liberal icon" and "liberal abortion rights stalwart"; and Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg of New Jersey is a man whose "politics are liberal to moderate."

While references to liberal senators in the Times evoke a brave defense of the liberal platform (key words: icon and stalwart), the newspaper portrays conservatives as cantankerous lawmakers seeking to push their agenda down America's throat. Descriptions of conservative senators include "unyielding," "hard-line" and "firebrand." A taste of Times quotes on conservatives during the period of 1990-2000: Sen. Nickles is "a fierce conservative" and "a rock-ribbed conservative"; Sen. Helms is "perhaps the most tenacious and quarrelsome conservative in the Senate, and with his "right-wing isolationist ideology" he is the "best-known mischief maker." Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona is "a Republican hard-liner"; Sen. Smith is "a granite-hard Republican conservative"; Sen. Gramm takes "aggressively conservative stands" and has "touched on many red-meat conservative topics," as "the highly partisan conservative Texan"; Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas is "hard-core conservative," "considerably more conservative . . . less pragmatic," "hard-line conservative . . . one of Newt Gingrich's foot soldiers" and "a hard-charging conservative"; Sen. Tim Hutchinson of Arkansas is "a staunch conservative"; and Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho is "an arch-conservative."

This labeling pattern was not limited to the Times. Liberal and conservative senators also received different treatment from the Washington Post. Distinctly liberal senators were described as bipartisan lawmakers and iconic leaders of a noble cause. In the 107th Congress, Sen. Paul Sarbanes of Maryland was described as "one of the more liberal senators but [with] a record of working with Republicans." Sen. Harkin was bathed in bipartisan light: "a prairie populist with a generally liberal record, although he's made a few detours to more conservative positions demanded by his Iowa constituents." Of Carol Moseley Braun of Illinois, the Post said: "Though a liberal at heart, she is more pragmatic than ideological." Other liberals were lionized or cast in soft focus: "Sen. Kennedy is a hero to liberals and a major irritant to conservatives, plus an old-style liberal appeal to conscience"; Sen. Paul Wellstone of Minnesota "was one of the few unabashed liberals left on Capitol Hill and an ebullient liberal"; Sen. Moynihan was "a liberal public intellectual."

In contrast, the Post portrayed conservative senators unflatteringly. Republican loyalists were often labeled as hostile and out of the mainstream. In the 107th Congress, Sens. Gramm and Nickles were dismissed as a "conservative Texan" and "conservative Oklahoman" respectively. Post reporters regarded Sen. Smith as an "idiosyncratic conservative," "militantly conservative" and "a conservative man in a conservative suit from the conservative state of New Hampshire." Other Republicans were characterized as antagonists: Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma is "a hard-line GOP conservative"; Sen. Kyl is "a combative conservative"; Sen. Helms is "a cantankerous, deeply conservative chairman," "a Clinton-bashing conservative," "the crusty senator from North Carolina," "the longtime keeper of the conservative flame" and "a conservative curmudgeon."

Our preliminary results for other papers--USA Today, the San Diego Union-Tribune, the Los Angeles Times--reveal similar patterns to those described above. The major exception is The Wall Street Journal, and even there the labeling of conservatives to liberals is a little less than 2 to 1. The effect of these findings on senators' re-election, fund raising and careers is little understood, but the relationship is complicated. However, one can conclude fairly from this survey that conservative senators, consistently portrayed as spoilers, are ill-served by the political reporting in two of the leading general-interest newspapers of the United States. Liberals, on the other hand, get a free pass. If this is not bias, pray what is?

Mr. Brady is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a professor of political science at Stanford, where Mr. Ma is a senior in economics.

Copyright © 2003 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 

yeah, the frank rich thing is ine of my personal bete noirs. there so little space given over to arts journalism in the paper anyway, that to devote such a highly visible space to someone who writes only tagentially about the arts, never mind his political orientation, really pisses me off.

RR, my point i starting the thread, is not to argue over who's really conservative/liberal/etc., but to call attention to the way arguably the to most respected, or rather visible, newspapers in the country, continually editorialize on their news pages. It's this tryp of "opinionjournalism" masquerading as objective journalism, that gave rise to the likes of Fox News. When conservatives, neo or paleo, complain about liberal media bias, we're not making it up, and this study provides the stats to prove it.

 

I agree that the issue is more complicated than just the use of labels. but if labels are meaningless, why use them in the first place? it only serves to reinforce the impression that you're not objective. now, i enjoy opinionjournalism as much as the next guy, particularly the sort that caters to my own narrow worldview, but i prefer my news unadulterated. i can devine for myself whether someone is "hardline, "extreme" or "die-hard." including the labels suggests that the paper has to do my thinking for me, and insults my intelligence.

Great piece in the economist this week on Paul Krugman (and the place i found the lyinginponds.com link). I won't reprin the whole thing here, but it's definitely worth reading:
http://www.economist.com/people/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2208841

if the link requires a subscription let me know and i'll go ahead and post the text.

 

the study was done outside the auspices of the journal. they just printed the results as an oped, not as a "news" tem.