That damn liberal Media

LMAO, that is funny.

From where those folks are standing, they are all correct.

Since 80% of the national press covering Washington D.C. said they are registered Democrats, the "center" of the political spectrum will be from their vantage point.

 

This is a perfect example of the combination of extremes in the media - on the one hand, the liberal writers, on the other hand, the conservative editors and publishers.

Remember that writers don't CHOOSE their own stories. They are given stories to cover by editors, publishers and even advertisers who are notoriously conservative. It is a very wierd world.

 

If you guys want to continue to be snidely dismissive of liberal media bias, that's fine. As I mentioned in another thread, most if not all of the liberals on this BBS refuse to consider the possibility based on the source of the criticism-- the claim of liberal media bias can be safely and quickly dismissed because of the political persuasion of the critics, as though a fireman can't be trusted to point out a burning building because he has a vested interest in putting out fires.

I find it funny that such a belief is mostly confined to the backslapping cadre of liberals on this BBS:

In 1997, the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) retained the Lou Harris Organization to poll 3,000 people about their attitudes toward the press.

CMPA reported: "Majorities of all major groups in the population, including 70 percent of self-described liberals, now see a ‘fair amount’ or ‘great deal’ of bias in the news... (among) self-described liberals... 41 percent see the media as liberal, compared to only 22 percent who find the news to be conservative".

Source: Media Research Center

You don't have to accept the premise, but I for one would appreciate it if you'd quit with the juvenile sarcasm towards it. Fine, you don't like it or agree with it. You're in a distinct minority, so you can spare the rest of us the weary cynicism of condescension.

Read this article and tell me you think it accurately reports the issue in its entirety. Since you're going to go into it with blinders on, I'll even give you a hint: one side of the story is not presented at all.

 

I also want to say that I apologize if that post comes off as overly venemous. This is an issue I've put a lot of study into, one where I believe the facts clearly vindicate my position. I obviously take it a little too personally, which I think also stems from covering the same ground with the same people repeatedly.

 

you know what i like?

i like it when you guys use big words...

it makes me smile

 

I like it when girls smile.

 

Brian,

I didn't read the other thread. And I don't want to come off as snide here. But the vast majority of college professors and other educators tend to be liberal also. In fact, I would venture that aside from people who work in business or economics, most professions which require higher education would show the same liberal slant. Lawyers and doctors are a good example, and with the major parties' positions on tort reform and the HMO situation, that will remain so for a good while.

While I completely accept conservative positions as valid and, in some very rare cases agree with them, I think most educated people have a liberal bias, except where it comes to education in dealing with money and business.

Frankly I don't have too much of a problem with fiscal conservatives. I'm not one, and I don't agree with them, but I don't have a problem with them. I don't believe in supply side economics or trickle down economics (and I think the aftermath of the Reagan years supports my problem with these theories), but they are thoughtful arguments. I just think they're regressive and I'm more inclined to worry about poor folk than people with money.

On social issues I've got no problem at all with a liberal bias, as I think that's reflective of where the country's at right now.

As for the political parties themselves, I disagree that Dems get more favorable coverage than Repubs. The 2000 election was an example of lowered expectations resulting in a bias for Bush. As long as he didn't eat his tie in the debates, he was said to have held his own. I think the media, which is as you say made up largely of liberals, is sensitive to this subject and sometimes even overcompensates in order to appear fair. Bush v. Gore was a great example. One guy's not too bright and the other guy's annoying, so they call it an even contest.

I think it's also telling that Washington D.C. is overwhelmingly liberal. I know how much conservatives like to disdain the inside the Beltway crowd. But there's something to the fact that people who find themselves closest to politics (whether by covering them or living near them) largely identify as liberals. It's the same in our state capitol, interestingly. There was a shift in political affiliation there when all the young, moneyed dot commers hit Austin -- but that just supports my theory that educated people tend toward liberalism except when they have money and their money's at stake.

 

Brian -- How am I supposed to trust your Media Research Center source when I go to their page and find a big ad for Ann Coulter crying, "Discover the unbelievable depths of liberal disonesty!"?

Fair and balanced? Maybe not.

 

I posted in another thread that the biggest bias in media isn't liberal or conservative, it's corporate. They could care less where your politics lie as long as they lie in the middle of a big pile of cash. I know plenty of people (Mrs JB included) who work for these organizations and are pressured, on a daily basis, by the ad department and editors to run stories on advertisers or to take out language that might offend potential advertisers.

As a result, we get biased coverage, but not in the same way you describe.

Besides, watch the news. Exactly how much news is there that actually covers political issues? The vast majority of news coverage (outside of political shows) is dominated by human interest, product info (i.e. medical news) and other news (weather, sports, etc).

Even the national news is becoming less and less about in-depth reporting of political issues and is increasingly doing disaster coverage and ambulance chasing.

 

Mrs. JB,

First, your posts are great. But you don't need me to tell you that.

On your sig:

I'll go out on a limb and idealistically say that most people of either party are not bigots. Even so, of those people who ARE bigots, the vast majority would identify with conservative philosophy. Unless you're speaking of ideological bigots. I'll admit that many liberals are indeed bigoted toward conservatives.

My point is that while being conservative does not in any way make someone a bigot, most bigots are conservatives. In fairness, communists or socialists are more likely to identify with liberal philosophy. For me though, even when it comes to the redheaded stepchildren of our major parties, I'd take socialism over bigotry any day.

 

Great point, Jeff. Reminds me of how General Electric and other major corporations give max donations to the candidates from both parties. They don't care who wins, they just want them in their pocket.

But your take on news coverage of politics lately takes me to another subject. Post 9-11 coverage is heavily weighted in favor of the current administration. It is only recently okay for anyone to criticize anything the administration does (whether in the media or on Capitol Hill) without being labeled unpatriotic.

 

Out of the hundreds of physicians I know on a personal level, I can't recall a single one of them who fell on the liberal side of the political spectrum.

As for media bias, I've seen it sneak in from time to time myself. Most of the time, I suspect the people doing the story didn't even realize it.

Just the other day, I saw a TV news story talking about corporate reforms and bills before Congress dealing with that subject. The reporter's voice over actually said "Even Republicans have joined in" on the efforts to curtail business fraud, etc. Now, is that a bias slipping through? Some would say yes. The reporter appeared to be expressing an opinion that this is so bad that even corporate lackey Republicans are joining in on the charge (and the tone of the voice over made a difference, too).

I doubt the reporter meant it that way, though. So while that could be an example cited by us Republicans as an example of media bias, it's one of those things that's in the eye of the beholder.

A more clear-cut example, though, was when I sat in on a budget meeting at the Amarillo Globe-News. Dan Quayle was in town that day for speech, so naturally, the placement of the Dan Quayle story came up. One editor flat out said there was no way they were putting a picture of Dan Quayle on the front page of the paper and proceeded to say bad things about him. And lo and behold when the paper came out, there was a picture of a squirrel (a feature picture that didn't go with any story on the front page) and the Quayle visit was not even above the fold on the front page.

So, is that media bias? It certainly appears that the editor allowed her personal views to dictate coverage, or at least placement. The story was not featured as prominently as it may have deserved because of personal biases.

And those types of things can slip into stories or even in to what stories get covered. Good editors counteract some of that, though the pressure of getting the paper out can lead to some corners being cut from time to time. I've even personally known of reporters who have gone out of their way to get conservative opinions or to cover issues more usually associated with conservatives because they don't want to be accused of having a liberal bias. And sometimes that has led to a temporary conservative bias.

And yes, there can be tremendous pressure from advertisers or the business department or circulation department. And I think that's getting worse. The wall that used to separate the editorial side from the business side is falling.

But back to the original point about press bias. I still think a lot of the "problem" is reader perception. Like my original example. That could be bias or it might not be. It really does depend on how you look at it.

Another example that has nothing to do with politics. I took a media ethics course a few years back. One day in class, we were talking about an article the campus paper had published that day about Dustin Camp (the man convicted of running over and killing a punk during a fight in Amarillo. Despite being convicted of manslaughter, he was not given any jail time. It was a very divisive issue in Amarillo). One young lady chimed in and said she didn't like the story because the lede referred to Camp as having been convicted of manslaughter. "That makes him look guilty", she said. The professor replied that he was, in fact, guilty. That was merely a fact. He was convicted of the crime, therefore he's guilty of it in the eyes of the law. She saw it differently, though. She read those same words and saw an opinion - a judgement being made about Dustin Camp.

 

This is from a good philosophy website.

Here, I shall offer a list and detailed discussion of the most common errors to avoid – also known as Logical Fallacies. As the term implies, a fallacy is a mistake or error and a Logical Fallacy is an error in logic. These faux pas are not always obvious, but can instead be masked in swirls of powerful emotions that turn a fallacy into an appealing – but erroneous – argument.

The first of these, the one I consider most important, as its use is anathema to the free exchange of ideas, is the Ad Hominem. Latin meaning "to the man," it refers to a tactic not unlike shooting the messenger, whereby one attacks the opponent personally instead of addressing the opponent’s argument. For instance, "who cares what that fat loudmouth Rush Limbaugh thinks, anyway?"

 

Mr. Paige brings up an obvious point. News coverage is biased towards the political ideology of the reporter. This is unavoidable. We all view the "political center" from our perspective, and since most reporters are Democrats, then the news will be slanted toward their ideology. I don't know why this is so hard for a minority of people to accept.

 

mrpaige,

It's no secret that the Republican party has fiercely resisted corporate regulation over the years, in the interest of maintaining free enterprise. I don't think any Republican would be offended to hear he/she was against corporate reform. They would simply tell you why they were against it. With the various scandals lately, they can no longer do that. That's why they're joining in on the reforms and stiffened penalties. Same with liberals and the military budget, post 9/11. Big stories come up once in a while which necessarily knock even the most strident ideologue away from even their most deeply held convictions.

On doctors, I was speaking specifically of the HMO issue, on which they are with the Democrats. They also have a lot of money so, on tax issues, they're with the Republicans.

 

tba - thanks for the opinion, but I don't consider a "skeptics" website to be philosophical. I think there can often be a great deal of validity in looking at a message's source in order to determine its objectiveness. This is especially true in the world of politics, when there is a spin on everything.

 

Well, as a card-carrying member of the 'backslapping cadre' (come *on*, dude! I hardly think we lefties have a monopoly on smug political superiority complexes on this board), I'd just like to say that you can do as much web factoid-culling as you like and call it 'a lot of study', but Jeff is the one who's hit the nail on the head here. This stuff is all corporate. It's only tangentially political.

 

Sorry Mrs. JB, you should read the content of that website before you dismiss it as being biased.

That website puts forward arguments that are well researched and supported with direct quotes. Read about how Larry Klayman was portrayed by the press when he was suing Clinton, and how Larry Klaymen is portrayed now that he is suing Cheney- it is laughable.