I made a little joke in Bobby's thread, and felt that I was about to cause a disrailment, so I thought I'd pursue the matter here. Is the media liberal? In what way? I've always found this complaint an interesting one by people that consider themselves conservative. It raises many questions, such as: 1.) Foremost, what are the responsibilities of an unbiased media? 2.) In what ways has the media not lived up to those responsibilities? I first remember this complaint back in the mid 1980s (I'm only 27, so I don't remember too much before puberty ). The people that made this complaint always confused me, because I never understood what they felt that 'an unbiased' media should report. I'd like to consider myself unbiased on this topic. This, however, is my perspective on the matter: People that have more information tend to make better decisions. Ooooohhhhh, that's such a political statement, huh? Well, add another premise and conservatives get very angry: People w/ higher level degrees tend to be Democrats. Why do they get angry? Because people w/ higher level degrees usually know how to construct a stronger argument than those that are less educated... or those that work too much to pay attention to recent events because they've been better informed(and damn, my mom sure does like COPS and When Animals Attack ). I realize that this is inflammatory, but keep in mind the differences in the parties in the 1980s and early 90s (when this complaint was actually thrown out by conservatives; nowadays it's too difficult to distinguish the parties... fiscally conservative democrat, socially liberal republican, blah blah). For those that take it for granted that the media is 'liberal', think of this non-political example: All Utah Jazz fans that I know, wonder why NBC 'hates' the Jazz because their correspondents always highlight the 'flopping', etc. I also found it interesting a few years ago in the playoffs that some of my friends wondered why NBC didn't point out 'every Dream travel' when the local station always 'had the guts' to do so. Is NBC biased against the Jazz? Why would they be? Does NBC love the Rockets and Dream's travelling? Why would they? ------------------ I've posted so much that what I say must be true. The latest on Maurice Taylor [This message has been edited by Achebe (edited August 17, 2000).]
I've been around the media a very long time. My father and his brother and sister were all journalists and my wife and I were both journalism majors. I have found that, no matter what people think about the media, there are two rules that rarely fail: The writers are almost always liberal. The editors and publishers are almost always conservative. Maybe this is or isn't a check and balance, but it is difficult to remain biased about everything. Most writers do their best and most editors and publishers do what they have to. It isn't a perfect system but, for all the problems and complaints, it has helped to weed out some serious problems. The biggest problem with the media does not come from journalists, however, but from broadcast media. As they become increasingly sensational to garner ratings, they go out and look for problems many times where they don't exist. The internet came along with very good timing because much of the news on the net has less filtering than the photogenic, watered-down broadcast news does. It is, like everything else, a work in progress. ------------------ Save Our Rockets and Comets SaveOurRockets.com
I think you might mean that people with "the highest" level degrees tend to be Democrats. I would bet that on the average, people who vote Republican have a higher level of educational attainment than those who vote Democratic. That's not really something that is important to me, I just think it might be a fact. On the other hand, I would say that those who have been in school the absolute longest (grad students) are probably more Democratic than Republican. Hopefully you can see what I'm trying to distinguish between. I think the media is definitely liberal though. I guess the first thing that comes to mind is television. All the shows seem to be either about sex or violence, or both (for the most part). The West Wing, a show I really like, is blatantly liberal. There are several sitcoms that feature one or more homosexuals in a starring role (this isn't a problem for me personally, Will & Grace and Ellen are two of my favorite shows), while only what, 5% of the population is homosexual. Ally McBeal is a prime-time show that has shown two women kissing (great episode, by the way). Didn't Dawson's Creek show two guys kissing? This kind of stuff doesn't bother me, but if I had kids I'd definitely be concerned. Also, I'm not a homophobe, I've got several gay friends. Just trying to point out where I see the media as being liberal. ------------------ Metal Sludge [This message has been edited by TheFreak (edited August 17, 2000).]
I wouldn't neccessarily classify the Houston Chronicle as a "liberal media" newspaper. I believe there is both "liberal" and "conservative" media in this country. It just depends on what you read, listen to on the radio and watch on television. Hopefully the two extremes balance each other out. ------------------ Bring It!!
I can tell you without doubt that I've read study after study that those with higher education and higher earning potential are overwhelmingly Republican. Republicans are far more likley to own computers and vote on internet polls as well (something to watch for when you're reading how polls are conducted). As for the media. Someone mentioned that there are conservative and liberal media people and that you should tune into whichever one you like. This is true, as long as you have the Fox News Network. This is a fairly conservative station. But if anyone of you doesn't see the obvious bias in Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw or Dan Rather you're blind. It's laughable and the Fox News Network has cashed in on this, attracting a certain segment of the public who has grown tired of it. The Clinton News Network (CNN) is no better than ABC, CBS or NBC. Keep in mind...these are networks that literally chose to cover more of the Democratic Convention than the Republican Convention. Not exactly fair time. The media during the Clinton impeachment was absurd. One of my closest friends from law school is perhaps the most liberal person I've ever met..he laughs all the time about how biased the media is in his favor. It's a tool in his belt as a liberal. If you're not sure about who the media supports, check out the list of campaign donors. Certainly the Hollywood media is all over the Democrats. It's not the talk shows that bother me. Chris Matthews on Hardball does a good job playing the middle despite the fact he served in the Carter administration. It's when Peter Jennings makes a comment while delivering a news story that is clearly biased that bothers me. ------------------
MadMax: TheFreak pointed out that I misspoke, correctly. The term that I should have used was 'highest'. PhDs and people w/ Masters (no not people w/ degrees from the University of Phoenix or whatever that overnight MBA place is ). Besides, I was talking about the differences in the parties back in the 80s and early 90s. I didn't know that people still make this claim. LOL. Uhhhh... switch back to the FM station, pardner. You may have seen more coverage on commentated shows, b/c everyone expected Gore to crash and burn. It was his responsibility to make himself more attractive. The 'could he live up to it' bill, i.e. Game 5 with the Lakers/Kings on Friday. That stuff is sensationalism, that's not what I'm talking about. In what way was it absurd? Because it was on the tele all of the time? Because it was on every NPR show all of the time, on the cover of every newspaper in the US? I found that annoying too. After 3 months, I *sniff sniff* started listening to JazzTalk. I actually find the joke 'Clinton News Network' asinine. That's why I asked the aforementioned questions: Obviously with commercial ratings, some media outlets have targeted the 'mad' audiences with their hiring of Sean Hannity, Geraldo, etc. CNN also has a commentated show called CrossFire... both sides are represented. I hope that viewers can differentiate between what a commentator says and what a reporter says. I rarely watch non-cable news, so I'm unaware of Peter Jennings or Dan Rather's habits (although I remember something about Dan Rather crying for a week when Reagan was shot... weird, I must have been 8 or 9). I have watched Tom Brokaw lately on MSNBC, and he seems totally professional. Chris Matthews is also a commentator, but it's not his style to act the part of a character (which makes him easier to watch because there's rarely any yelling). But I digress, I'm not talking about all of these silly commentated shows... I'm talking about newspapers, NPR, the core News shows of CNN (not the commentated) or MSNBC, or the primary news shows of the big three networks. Those mediums, it seems, obviously just report the facts that occur. There's no liberalism in discussing the new grand jury investigation, or that stupid sub. Those are just facts. Wait, maybe I need to back up... where do most people get their news? ------------------ I've posted so much that what I say must be true. The latest on Maurice Taylor
I realized this when I reread theFreak's post and saw that he highlighted sex & violence on tv shows. I was focused primarily on the news media. That's a good point, though... I'll have to inform my mother that she's a liberal since she takes so much interest in the liberal use of sex & violence in all of her sensationalist FOX tv shows (j/k ). From CNN and NPR I learned that the issue wasn't a sexual one, but that his lying wasn't perjury because it was immaterial to the Paula Jones case... I'm sorry that viewers are twisting the facts, but it sounds as if your liberal friends are misrepresenting the news media. I'm a moderate, I try not to glorify in my political ideology and 'hear what I want to hear'. As far as the commentator setup, Rush has his own show, William F. Buckley has his own show, Geraldo has his own show... those are the only extremes that I see. Geraldo begs the question to answer everything liberal, as does Rush/Buckley for the conservative side. I'm not sure how the entire news media though is comprised of Rush/Buckley & Geraldo (I'm sure there's some other liberal commentator, but that's besides the point). Turn to CNN Headline News right now, and tell me what spins that you're hearing. Catch All Things Considered today, and tell me what spins that you hear. It's News. Nothing else. ------------------ I've posted so much that what I say must be true. The latest on Maurice Taylor
Rush is not on one of the major networks!!! that's my point...yes he has his own show, but it's on AM radio. He has lots to say, though you may disagree with him, but there is no way in hell the media would ever let him host a show like Geraldo's. That is my point exactly! ------------------
Rush had a TV show that was totally unwatchable garbage. He's got a good radio voice but is horrible on-camera. AM radio is still part of "the media" and is overwhelmingly conservative. Look at "Dr" Laura. She has millions of listeners and is as conservative as you can get. She has a TV show in the works too. [This message has been edited by outlaw (edited August 18, 2000).]
Again..we have to define what media is..but if you're talking about major media coverage, AM radio hardly qualifies!! I'm talking about the big 3 plus the major cable news outlets. This is where the majority of Americans get their news. ------------------
I still don't see what Rather/Jennings/Brokaw have said to convince you the Big 3 nets are so liberal. If you could provide an example or two perhaps? What about David Brinkley's on-air meltdown bashing Clinton? And since you brought up Crossfire, there are 2 conservatives to 1 liberal on that show. [This message has been edited by outlaw (edited August 18, 2000).]
I guess I'll weigh in on this one. 1) The Houston Chronicle is a Hearst syndicate newspaper. The Hearst syndicate is quite conservative. When you combine conservative management with left-leaning writers, you end up with a relatively balanced production. Editorially speaking, the Chronicle does a good job of maintaining balance. It's a guarantee that every other week, the lead editorial in the Sunday Outlook section will make my blood boil. All you have to do is read Jane Ely, Cragg Hines, and Clay Robison to see that balance exemplified; Ely is in my opinion right-leaning, Hines is moderate, and Robison's writing leads me to believe he harbors a secret fantasy of being a tart White House intern. Total leftie shill. 2) Kagy, are you telling me you read the Houston Chronicle even though you live in Austin? (I get that one a lot). Yes. The Chronicle is the best paper in Texas, while the Austin American-Statesman is the most ridiculously biased, poorly-written, poorly-edited, and just plain awful publication I've read since my last visit to our old domain name. 3) The national news media leans left. This is not conservative paranoia; as the saying goes, "You're not paranoid if they're really out to get you." If you have the stomach... ...you should check this out. The media is far more likely to label a Republican as 'partisan' or refer to their ideology as 'out of touch with the mainstream'. Candidates and elected officials are questioned from the left far more than they are from the right. Very interesting stuff. Now, having said that, a certain Admin journalist friend of mine has pointed out that most reporters are thinking, sensible people. The bias is not so much an intentional attempt to assist the Democrats as it is a manifestation of the media's incredulity that people don't see things their way. There are exceptions. Bryant Gumbel is a sniveling, prejudiced piece of ****. ------------------ Is it ironic to say you've sworn off swearing? [This message has been edited by BrianKagy (edited August 18, 2000).]
Most biased, based on commentary: most of the CNN commentators, Peter Jennings (but he's a Canadian socialist anyway), Dan Rather, George Stepanapolus, some lady named Marianne or something like that who writes columns for the Chronicle. Middle of the road (some times left, sometimes right): Sam (Bad Toupee) Donaldson, Tom Brokaw. Least biased ( or at least best balanced): Fox News, Bill O'Reilley, the Capitol Gang, Jane Ely. ------------------ "Who Wants To Be A Rocket?" - and probably a millionaire as well. The off-season will be interesting!
Rush has a much larger voice than Geraldo's. Geraldo had a talk show on tv that was nonpolitical, his political show is hidden away on MSNBC (I think) at some hour after HardBall. I wouldn't say that he commands a major show, at all. Again, that's not the point. Extremities in the media are like extremities in politics, isolated and easy to point out. Show me ways in which the major news sources are biased. You tell me that if I'm a liberal that I won't be able to see these things. Well point the damn things out. If I'm going to convince you of one of my claims I'll use reasoning, not just go with unquestioned rhetoric. Do you guys use this same, oh so incredible reasoning to deduce who the best candidate is for being the President? There are facts and issues to pay attention to people. Hopefully you can question your own party's ideology w/o glazing over. Oop-yeah there it is... oop-oop there it is. Mmmmm... sparklers. ------------------ I've posted so much that what I say must be true. The latest on Maurice Taylor
BK, That's an interesting study.... but Nexis searches seem to be rather empty. This seems silly, but 'extreme left' doesn't seem to have the poetry of the phrase 'extreme right' (maybe just because I'm right handed, I don't know ). Also, the extreme right to me insinuates one thing --- the Christian right. How diverse is the 'extreme right'? Aren't they all gun toting, bible thumpers? Meanwhile, the extreme left is ultra diverse... you have homosexuals, gay rights activists, animal extremists and every other group within 2 miles of a College or University. I would imagine most Nexis searches would be impossible to replicate b/c of PC terminology. Hell, that's half the nutshell there, how do you say 'homosexual extremist'... that seems silly. LOL. ------------------ I've posted so much that what I say must be true. The latest on Maurice Taylor
If you tend to have a liberal political viewpoint, it might be harder to see...all I can tell you is that even most of my liberal friends think it's funny how liberal the media is. As for convention coverage...they covered MORE of the democratic convention than the republcan convention. I'm sorry, but that's not equal time. This was a choice they made...after the Republican convention, CBS in particular made an announcement that they would absolutely cover more of the Democratic convention than they did the Republican convention. I find that sick. The Houston Chronicle is a great example of a biased media source...take for instance this whole Rockets thing. The Chronicle has already come out and said that they support a new arena (as do I!). It's in the supporters best interests to make people believe that if we don't build this arena, the team is as good as gone. That is highly questionable to me, but it's a great tactic. To further that effort, the Chronicle refused to run stories on the inabilities of these other cities to put together a legitimate deal. It took quotes from the Rockets downplaying Louisville's effort for the Chronicle to even run an editorial pointing this out. As New Orleans, Baltimore and St. Louis were mentioned early and often as potential relocation sites, no story was ever run outlining as each of these cities fell out of the chase. Clearly they weren't telling the whole story. And if you read the Chronicle during the refernendum for Enron Field you know what I'm talking about...it had all the integrity of the Pravda. At some point it becomes less than just reporting facts when these stories are so slanted. It's so prevalent that I'm having a hard time finding key examples...forgive my inability!!! But listen to the adjectives they use to describe Republicans on the major network news shows. And then listen to the tone they use in describing the Democrats. I think you need to define media...media is everything from radio to TV to film as far as I'm concerned. How many real conservative news shows are there?? It's a concious decison of CNN and MSNBC to not have one conservative talk show host. How can you not see that??? Until Fox News, unless I'm forgetting something, I can't think of one major host of a news show that defined himself as conservative, unless he were also countered by a liberal in a "Crossfire" type setup. ABC is the only Sunday morning show to even have one self-proclaimed conservative on, George Will. But conservatives are never given front running jobs on their own shows in major TV news...save Fox News. Bill O'Reilly is pretty damn conservative, though he tries to say he's moderate. As for impeachment coverage...Clinton saved himself with the media. The media depicted conservatives as in the wrong for thinking that a president should be removed when he lies under oath...all the talking heads could talk about was the sexual aspect. This is why you still hear people today talking about "you shouldn't be removed from office for cheating on your wife." Yeah, no crap buddy!! But how about lying under oath?? But let's not do that debate here...if it has to be done again at all! ------------------
According to Time: "A study of campaign coverage by the independent Project for Excellence in Journalism found that more than three-quarters of Gore stories focused on negative themes-that Gore is scandal tainted and that he lies and exaggerates-while only 14% looked at his competence and experience." I guess Gore is just too moderate for journalists. I'm sure I'll now hear that Time is too liberal and it can't be trusted. ------------------ "I'll drop kick those f*ckin' dogs if they come anywhere near me." visit www.swirve.com
