August 15, 2005
Why the media has a liberal bias
It is not because most reporters are liberal. It is because the mental structures of reporting give even a conservative a liberal slant. Why?
Most people understand the world through stories. We all carry various stories and assumptions around with us in our heads. We need them to simplify confusing reality. When we get new information, we try to jam it into the preexisting structures of the stories. The trouble is many of the common stories are outdated or misleading. How?
We understand events better if humans are involved or if we can personify impersonal forces. People do this all the time with animals and forces of nature. Journalists are people too and they have trouble accepting that a modern free market economy is determined by impersonal forces or more precisely by an aggregate of decisonmakers. The the wisdom of crowds is almost always better than the wisdom of experts, but it is certainly less satisfying not to have individuals to praise or blame. We look for villains and heroes but sometimes there really aren't any of either type. The "heartless" firm that lays off workers often has few alternative. The boss, like King Canute, can order the tide not to rise, but his feet will still get wet.
Speaking of villains and heroes, we like stories where the underdog wins. This happens rarely in real life. That is sort of the definition of an underdog. Beyond that, underdogs often deserve to lose because they are less prepared, less intelligent or just plain lazy. Again it speaks to the definition of being an underdog, but goes against the dominant story frame, where the deserving underdog goes up against the big oppressor. The journalistic credo to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable is often unjustified by facts. But journalists like everyone else, have mental models to organize facts. Often unconsciously, they find what they expect.
The biggest reason why the stories are wrong is that they don't take sufficient account of risk and random chance. Many things happen for no particular reason and no plans work out exactly as envisioned. Yet the stories we believe lead us to another conclusion. Even people directly involved fool themselves with ex-post-facto certainty. Ask the winner of any sporting event. He tells you that he was always certain that he would win and that his plan would work. He is telling the truth. But if the wind had shifted a little and changed the outcome of that game winning field goal, the other guy would be telling you the same thing with just as much conviction.
So how does this make journalism liberal? The personification of impersonal decisions plays into the hands of big government advocates with the paradigm that political leaders and their experts guide the economy with some precision. The same idea makes the businessperson look craven. If he would just be willing to give up "excess" profits, prices would be lower and everyone would have a job. If it were only so easy. Finally the lack of understanding of the risk and randomness in life opens us to "experts", whose self interest is to identify horrible problems and advise bigger and more comprehensive government solutions (with lots of jobs for experts) to remedy them. Sometimes the best advice is just to leave it alone and wait, but nobody ever hired an expert to tell them that.
The fact is that we have a lot more government than we need and we ask it to solve problems that it can't solve because our stories tell us we need someone to run things that run better by themselves.
I like. Less governement is a must. Just wait til someone accuses you of supporting anarchy, as they usually do me.
Posted by: Ryler Triskel at August 15, 2005 01:23 AMGreat analysis. Here are a couple more twists on this roll. Their is an implicit storytellers’ assumption that ‘bad things happen because bad people make them so’.
The storytelling paradigm is also necessary as a narrative device. Media stories are mainly written for people who don’t have the time, resources or interest to dig into the facts for themselves. The storyteller paradigm is thus the quickest and most economical route for getting the info across. As most media stories tend to snowball (ie with the media reporting on what other media say) it is not difficult for the storyteller approach to take on a life of it’s own and to be seen as ‘the truth’
Posted by: Tim Gillin at August 15, 2005 01:34 AMJack,
From the wisdom of crowds;
” Why is it that you can buy a screw anywhere in the world and it will fit a bolt bought ten-thousand miles away?”
I hate to burst this guys bubble with the obvious.
Screws and bolts don’t go together, nuts and bolts do.
And then there is that whole standard v metric thing.
I am I crazy, or is this an advertisment for Home Depot.
Sorry Jack, ain’t going for it. Crowds (mobs), carry virtually no wisdom along with them.
Individuals are bright, introspective, and often have ideas that border on true genius.
Crowds are stupid, paranoid, herd animals that will turn on you in a heart beat.
Is it just me but has Faux News turned into Access Hollywood overnight?
Posted by: Rocky at August 15, 2005 02:23 AMJack,
I understand your paradigm, but disagree with it. I’ve taken some low level journalism courses and looked into higher level journalism courses and must say that it is taught with a liberal mindset, as are most things taught in college. You seem to be looking at the “human condition” as the cause, but the cause is more immediate.
Journalists are trained to be nosey. They’re trained to place blame. They’re trained to find saleable news, which tends to be bad. And they’re trained to take the facts and spin them to be as saleable as possible, even if adding the “bad” facts together really doesn’t amount to something catastrophic, they are supposed to make it seem like it does. Journalism, at least here in America, is about exaggeration. So, whether you’re arguing from a liberal or conservative mindset, you’re going to blow it out of proportion.
Add on to that the fact that the liberal mindset permeates our universities, it’s really no wonder that a liberal bias sneaks into the work of conservative minded journalists.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 15, 2005 02:55 AMRocky,
I don’t get the reference to Home Depot, but I’m not familiar with their ads.
Otherwise, crowds and mobs aren’t synonymous. All mobs are crowds, but not all crowds are mobs. A mob is a type of crowd, particularly a disorderly and/or violent one.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 15, 2005 03:03 AMStephanie,
“I don’t get the reference to Home Depot, but I’m not familiar with their ads.”
It was a joke refering to the screw/bolt thing.
You are right, crowds are not nescessarily mobs, but there is a very fine line that separates them, and one spark is all you need.
BTW, I should have given credit to to Tommy Lee Jones in “Men In Black” for the crowd line.
Posted by: Rocky at August 15, 2005 03:12 AMStephanie,
I have worked around crowds at concerts and such for the last 15 years. It doesn’t take much to make an otherwise friendly crowd unruly.
“Add on to that the fact that the liberal mindset permeates our universities”
isn’t that a good thing? open to new ideas and new philosophies?
no?
i really loved my college experience. i was exposed to new ways of looking at things, which allowed me to make up my own mind….
why is that a bad thing? i don’t think any professor should push an agenda on any student, much like i don’t think a priest/pastor should push politics from the pulpit,
but can we stop blaming universities for everything…you are basically saying the only right people are the stupid ones.
Posted by: views at August 15, 2005 03:21 AMviews,
What? The liberal mindset is not the only one that is open to new ideas and new philosophies. Political spin in schooling is a bad thing no matter who’s doing it, though unavoidable in our current cultural climate.
I loved my college experience as well. Except for the part where some of my fellow students couldn’t take anything I said seriously because I was “only a highschool student.” That irked me.
While I don’t claim to be always right, and feel anyone who does has major psychological issues to deal with, you cannot legitimately call me stupid. Nor can you legitimately claim I was suggesting people should be stupid. Where in the world did you get that?
Posted by: Stephanie at August 15, 2005 03:39 AMRocky,
Not to belittle your experience, but isn’t a crowd at a concert already closer to being a mob than usual. I mean, people at a mall can be a crowd, but their intentions are not nearly as united as the crowd at a concert.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 15, 2005 03:52 AMStephanie,
“I mean, people at a mall can be a crowd, but their intentions are not nearly as united as the crowd at a concert.”
Just yell fire and see what happens.
views,
Why is self-education, using the public library, somehow less valid than paying thousands of dollars so you have the priviledge of learning through professors’ slanted view of the world?
Posted by: Stephanie at August 15, 2005 04:04 AMRocky,
I get your point, but rational people can make up a crowd, whereas a mob, by definition, is not acting rationally. Besides, yelling fire in such a situation is against the law.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 15, 2005 04:06 AMStephanie,
“Why is self-education, using the public library, somehow less valid than paying thousands of dollars so you have the priviledge of learning through professors’ slanted view of the world?”
It’s the piece of paper that counts. It could be a difference of tens of thousands of dollars in salary.
Posted by: Rocky at August 15, 2005 04:08 AMAh yes. Liberal Bias in the Media. That ranks up there with being UnAmerican, Al Queda Sympathizer and Girlie-Man in the word codes Republicans use to discredit their enemies.
I wonder where the Liberal Bias went when Clinton was being hounded?
Where did Liberal Bias go during the run up to the Iraq War?
You only bring this Liberal Bias crap in response to the WAPO Article and Frank Rich Column in the NYT. Instead of responding to their claims, you paint them as “Liberal Biased” thus avoiding any discussion on the validity of their claims.
Posted by: Aldous at August 15, 2005 04:14 AMRocky,
If the piece of paper means so much, why are there so many people with degrees working at near-minnimum wage jobs who are unable to pay back their student loans? Why are there people who have no degree who are still better “educated” then many of those who do? Way too many people give way too much credence to little pieces of paper, IMO. But, hey, I guess that’s just because I’m stupid and don’t have one.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 15, 2005 04:14 AMAldous,
“I wonder where the Liberal Bias went when Clinton was being hounded?
Where did Liberal Bias go during the run up to the Iraq War?”
Did you see my bit about journalists being trained to find the saleable “bad” and exaggerate it?
Posted by: Stephanie at August 15, 2005 04:17 AMStephanie,
“Besides, yelling fire in such a situation is against the law.”
You missed the point. Anything can set off the reaction that I am talking about. People get into fights in traffic, in crowded parking lots, at sales.
Jack’s point is about the collective intelligence of the crowd, as oppossed to that of the individual.
I see crowds of people whether they are in the mall, or at a ball game, or at a concert, as a dumb herd. In a panic situation, while there may be an individual that may take charge, it’s every man for himself, and people will get hurt. Yet, when you talk to an individual of that crowd, under normal circumstances, they are, more often than not, quite bright.
Stephanie,
“Why are there people who have no degree who are still better “educated” then many of those who do? Way too many people give way too much credence to little pieces of paper, IMO. But, hey, I guess that’s just because I’m stupid and don’t have one.”
There is no accounting for common sense. Someone with a degree in basket weaving deserves to work at 7-11.
Hey, I’ve only got a GED.
Rocky,
So, can I assume you swear off political rallies? I get your point and disagree with Jack’s premise. I started off with disagreeing w/ Jack’s premise. However, the idea that any crowd is a dumb herd is just as false as assuming a vast crowd is something of genius proportions.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 15, 2005 04:29 AMRocky,
You can get a degree in basket weaving? Philosophy was always the main one I hear about.
Joke: What’s the most common question a philosophy graduate will ask? “Do you want fries with that?”
Posted by: Stephanie at August 15, 2005 04:33 AMStephanie,
I have a friend with a masters in toxic waste disposal, a ba in biology, and a ba in computer science.
She sells real estate.
Some people can’t handle the stress of the corporate world that we live in.
A philosophy degree and $3.00 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
Posted by: Rocky at August 15, 2005 04:40 AMStephanie:
Philosophy Graduates make very good writers, lawyers and Analysts.
Philosophy is a good secondary degree. Add it to journalism or pol sci or history and you get a superior graduate.
I, myself, hold degrees in Mathematics. Mathematics helps me write superior Computer Programs and System Analysis. I bet it never occured to you that Math and Computers were related, eh?
Posted by: Aldous at August 15, 2005 04:42 AMRocky,
:-) Funny! Unfortunately, we’ve digressed far from the topic at hand and sleep is necessary for sanity, or so I’m told. I have 4 hours and 20 minutes before my “tomorrow” starts, so…good night.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 15, 2005 04:46 AMAldous,
“Philosophy Graduates make very good writers, lawyers and Analysts.”
Weren’t these the folks (along with telephone sanitizers), sent off their planet in the “Hitchhikers Guide to The Galaxy”? After which everyone died from a virus contracted from a dirty phone.
Posted by: Rocky at August 15, 2005 04:50 AMAldous,
Please don’t insult my intelligence. I’ve had quite enough of that for one day.
Philosophy makes an excellent secondary degree or a double major. It’s great if you don’t intend to use your Bachelors degree for your career, either because a degree itself is all you need or you are going for a Master’s degree or beyond. I appreciate the study of philosophy, but a philosophy degree by itself is not very marketable or useful in a competitive environment.
“I bet it never occured to you that Math and Computers were related, eh?” What? You mean code has something to do with numbers? Wow!!! Please, I’ve written my own programs before, so don’t patronize me.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 15, 2005 04:56 AMMatel,
You are looking for a way to justify your thesis, and cannot. You and many others in the Republican party are so caught up in the alleged “liberal” media, that you will serach for any and all explanations to support your convictions, but fail time and time again. Why? Two reasons:
1. Clearly, not all of the MSM is “liberal,” even for neo-con rubes like yourself who adamantly state otherwise. Fox news is liberal? Hannity is liberal? O’Reilly? Limbaugh? Sorry, but the media is too large and too populated with INDIVIDUALS to label the whole shebang as liberal.
2. The media is supposed to repport on the truth (if its reporters don’t go by the name of Judith Miller). Ironically, it is the truth that this lame-duck administration and its sycophantic followers can’t stand. So when the MSM reports on Iraqi casualties, trade deficits, a pork-laden Highway Bill, etc., Republicans label the MSM as liberal. Give me a break. Start smelling what you’re shoveling, and maybe this country won’t keep raciing to the bottom.
Posted by: Mig Swando at August 15, 2005 12:08 PMLet me make it even simpler than Mig does.
There are two easy to understand reasons for liberal bias.
1. Educated, informed, reasonably bright middle class workers (i.e. journalists) are not impressed with the conservative leaders, their issues, and their tactics.
2. The bias claim is a widespread and longstanding strategy intended to both pull the media to the right and to lay a foundation to respond to criticisms of conservative policies that sometimes happen to be unpalatable to mainstream citizens.
MIG,
You’re the typical all-accepting ignoramous the mass media seeks to create. You basically prove Matel’s point by using such cliche buzz terms like “neo-con rube” (a term recently popularized by the liberal media), “lame-duck administration”, “pork-laden”, “syncophantic followers”, and “racing to the bottom”. Hannity, Limbaugh, O’Reilly and Fox are one in the same; I guess you forgot to mention the other media networks and the George Soros gang. Get your head out of the clouds and face the reality that the media IS liberal, George Bush is not and never has been an “evil” man, much to the annoyance of the liberal media. And if you’d like to make a point, start pulling from your own mind and not moveon.org, slate.com, and the LA Times.
Bait the hook, and the morons will bite. In this case, Billy B. You, sir, make my exact point that there some in the media who are liberal and others conservative — particularly with your reference to “the other media networks and the George Soros gang,” which is NOT the entire MSM (as your own admission that Hannity, Limbaugh, et. al. are one & the same; i.e., CONSERVATIVE.) Idiot.
Oh, and I just love you thinking that I called our failure of a president “evil.” Read my first point again, anus-boy, and you will see no such reference. Now, if you had accussed me of calling Bush recklesss, arrogant, stupid, a FAILURE, and completely out of touch with the bulk of the American people he allegedly serves, then yes — I am guilty as charged. Can you understand the difference? Or are you too much of blind party loyalist to understand that a President who has never vetoed a spending bill is less than economically brilliant? McSchwamp gets it. Lemmings like you never will.
Posted by: Mig Swando at August 15, 2005 02:12 PMBilly B,
The media are no more, and no less, biased than the rest of us. The media is about money. None of the networks would be around if there wasn’t a buck it for them.
Why do you think that all of the major networks (including Faux) have changed their formats?
The media are telling us what they think we want to hear, because that’s where the money is.
BTW, Hannity, Limbaugh, et al are editorialists, not journalists. They get paid for their opinion.
I don’t want to hear someones opinion of the news, I just want the news.
Posted by: Rocky at August 15, 2005 02:22 PMIndividuals are bright, introspective, and often have ideas that border on true genius.
Crowds are stupid, paranoid, herd animals that will turn on you in a heart beat.
And it’s the stupid and paranoid herd of animals that the media tries (with alot of success) play to.
Posted by: Ron Brown at August 15, 2005 02:31 PMRon Brown,
“And it’s the stupid and paranoid herd of animals that the media tries (with alot of success) play to.
I suppose that you are including all media, and the internet with that statement.
Posted by: Rocky at August 15, 2005 03:25 PMIt never ceases to amaze me how some people must by their own choice use derogatory words to explain themselves. I do not want the world to be like me. I do have some principles that are worth emulating, though.
On liberal bias.
Liberal bias has been around for a considerable time. It is usually made up of academians who regard those who choose not to pursue high education to be to ignorant to understand what is going on in the world. So the academians put on the elitist face and take the attitude that they know more and know how and this is the absolute truth because they say it is so. Their is no room for tolerance in the elitist world. They will cram the news, laws, and public policy down everybody throat and say take it whether you like it or not. The liberal bias in Washington is probably best personified by Sen. Chuck Shumer (D-New World). The liberal bias in the news is so entrenched and so pervasive it is as if the liberal media is the only media.
Aldous
I would leave you out!! Anybody can do ones and zeroes. Mathematics is an honorable profession. I congradulate you for pursuing it. But, the world is not made up of Republican boogie men and Democratic saints. Their are people in both parties that are good and some are evil. Too bad you can’t sit down with San Fran Nan and get some real inside stuff. She is a scarry lady and she helps make law that affects you and me. Enough of that.
tom,
“So the academians put on the elitist face and take the attitude that they know more and know how and this is the absolute truth because they say it is so. Their is no room for tolerance in the elitist world.”
This is not a contest for the hearts and minds of the American people. Please give us credit for at least a modicum of intelligence.
“The liberal bias in the news is so entrenched and so pervasive it is as if the liberal media is the only media.”
This is such crap.
The right makes broad and sweeping statements like this that serve only to further their own agenda and cloak in the guise that it is what’s nescessary for this countries survival, and with that they are no better than what they say they are fighting.
If the “liberal” media are so pervasive and all encompassing, why do so many people in this country belive that Iraq had something to do with Sept 11th, or that things are fine and dandy with the war on terrorism?
Mig and Ms
You miss the point entirely. It is not about liberal bias in reporting about any particular individuals or policies. And it is not about individuals trying to keep to a particular line. It is not about them attacking any politicians. It is about the dominant paradigms in how news stories are formulated. “Neo-con rubes” like me understand such concepts and can differentiate the messengers from the messages. I can prepare a reading list for you all to get you up to speed on systems and decision theory. You can disagree with my premises and their consequences, but you should at least attack the right things. Interestingly, you employed one of the usual paradigms in your attack. That is probably why you got the target wrong. Thanks for giving me something else to think about.
Others
Some people don’t seem to like the idea that groups (or markets) make better decisions than individuals for the most part, but this is nearly a tautology. The market not only does a great job of coming up with new ideas, it also quickly can reject those that don’t work out and move down more productive avenues.
This is not the same as collective decisions (which don’t work). The market system has outperformed every other one tried so far. It may be counter intuitive that ordinary people can make better decisions than experts. The trick is in their number and diversity. A group of a diverse, informed but non-experts brings with it a lot of knowledge and insights. No individual, no matter how expert, can match this general knowledge. The experts have a function. Their opinions might weigh more heavily than those of others. But you can’t leave it to the experts. This is something that many educated people don’t want to hear – journalists among them. They keep on looking for the small group of people that runs everything, but none exists.
I would add one more opinion about why journalists sometimes have a liberal bias (in this case, I mean anti-business, not anti Bush). It is only my observation, and I invite disagreement.
Journalism is rare among professional degrees in that it has no significant math requirement and relatively few requirements in general. Many people study journalism after being rejected by good MBA programs. Hell hath no fury like journalist scorned.
Being ‘politically correct’ plays a large role too. If you are not you will get booted off air.
Posted by: Mike T. at August 15, 2005 06:18 PMBILLY B & Mig Swando,
Please be mindful of our motto here at WatchBlog: “Critique the Message, Not the Messenger”.
Name calling detracts from the useful exchange of ideas. Whether it is “ignoramus”, “moron”, or “idiot”, branding other posters is not what we do here.
I’m visiting from the blue column with an equal opportunity warning.
Posted by: Walker at August 15, 2005 06:20 PMJack,
“Some people don’t seem to like the idea that groups (or markets) make better decisions than individuals for the most part, but this is nearly a tautology. … This is not the same as collective decisions (which don’t work).”
This makes what you’re trying to say a little more clear, but not much. Please break this down. Remember, the majority of us have not read the book and a book review doesn’t quite cut it (You do know that reviewers generally get sweet perks to write sweet reviews, don’t you?).
BTW, have you seen the movie Big with Tom Hanks? There’s an excellent scene in there that demonstrates the “experts aren’t always right” thing.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 15, 2005 06:51 PM“Liberal bias” in the news media is a myth perpetuated by the right wing in order to intimidate the mainstream media. This widely held myth is evidence that if the same thing is repeated often enough, people will believe it, regardless of whether or not it?s true. And the very fact that the mainstream media reports this kind of stuff reveals just how intimidated they’ve become.
First of all, this is one of those “when did you stop beating your wife” issues. If the press responds, the right screams that it’s evidence of the press admitting to having a liberal bias. If the press refuses to respond, it can also be taken as evidence that they’re biased. There is no way the press can win.
Then there’s the lack of significant empirical evidence of bias. Most of the complaints of bias are based on something like “Why didn?t they report on [insert topic here]? It’s really important”, or “Why did they report [insert topic here]? It’s isn’t really news”, and stuff like that. That isn’t proof of anything other than the fact that the press doesn’t share your. And that is not the same thing at all. Remember, just because someone isn’t biased in your favor doesn’t mean that they’re biased against you. I challenge you folks on the right to prove that this isn’t a myth. I’ve personally looked at several studies and have yet to find any the conclusively proves anything, other than the fact that people are willing to pay for a lot of studies.
Political belief in this country forms a more or less bell-shaped curve, with a few people at the left and right extremes, and the majority in the middle. As a natural result, extremists at either end of the political spectrum have a perceptual problem. The further they are from the center, the greater the number of people to their left (or right). For example, to someone on the extreme right of the political spectrum, almost everyone else will seem “liberal.” So, from the point of view of the extreme right wing, the majority of Americans (and the majority of American news coverage) will seem to be “liberal”. In other words, “liberal bias” is at least partly a result of the perceptions of those towards the extreme right end of the political spectrum. Those on the left end of the spectrum complain that the media is too conservative, but this doesn’t often get reported.
Then there’s the question of why the right only complains about “liberal” bias. Why is it that nobody on the right decries bias in general? They never mention Fox News, for example. I’m therefore forced to conclude that the right LIKES biased news - they WANT biased news. They just want to make sure that the news is biased in their favor, and they’ve concluded that if the news media isn’t biased in their favor, it must therefore be biased against them. Good journalists strive to remain neutral, but in the paranoid black and white world of the extreme right, being neutral is a bad thing. If you aren’t a right wing fellow traveler, then you?re the enemy. President Bush said, “You’re either with us, or you?re with the terrorists.”
IMO, this is just another meaningless right-wing rant.
I don’t accept the premise that the media is particularly “liberal” these days, but I do think that jack’s thesis is worthwhile. The example of underdog stories is telling. Sometimes these are “liberal” in tone (the story of the oppressed person up against the greedy and oppressive business, for example); sometimes they’re quite “conservative” (the story of the little guy with guts and ideas who started a business by mortgaging his house and wound eating the lunch of the big-business competitor). What’s interesting is that they are narratives that, at least in the U.S., appeal to our cultural mythologies. It’s a subject worth pursuing if you’re interested in journalistic theory.
But the whole “collective wisdom” part of the theory, if it fits jack’s thesis at all, has generally been misunderstood by the readers here. James Surowiecki, the author of The Wisdom of Crowds, specifies that collective decision-making isn’t always good. It only works for some kinds of decisions and only under specific decisions.
That is, the members of the group need to have diverse opinions and their own private stock of info or insight. Second, they can’t be influenced by one another - they need to think independently. Third, they need to be decentralized (though able to get information from their region), and fourth there has to be a method for taking all the opinions and aggregating them all into collective wisdom.
Sometimes free markets make good decisions but only in terms of answering specific kinds questions. They’re good at predicting how much corn will be available on the market in October, or how many jelly beans in a jar, but they’re lousy at figuring out if an Enron accountant is getting criminally creative. For the latter, trust your local investigative journalist, whatever her political leanings.
Posted by: Reed Sanders at August 15, 2005 07:44 PMMatel:
Even though Republicans are completely in charge, they never cease to complain about all the liberals.
You can say that journalists have a liberal mindset, but what does this mean? How do you define a liberal? Never mind stories. What do you think a liberal stands for?
I think a liberal tries to help the non-elite and the non-rich in their battles with the elite and rich. This is why it is ridiculous to call liberals elite.
With regards to journalists, some are liberal and some are not. Would you call Coulter and O’Reilly liberals? But regardles of their orientation, journalists work for big corporations, most of whom are conservative. This means that most of the time the media spouts the conservative line.
I read The Wisdom of Crowds and I agree with most of the points it makes. I also have a good background in systems theory. But what do these things have to do with the price of fish?
We have people in Congress and the Whitehouse who are supposed to make decisions that would help all the people. Regardless of what the fancy conservative philosophy says, current Bush conservatives produce orders and laws that help primarily the rich and elite.
Any journalist worth his salt should show the public how our dear leaders are screwing the rest of us. This does not make them liberals. It makes them good citizens. Unfortunately, this does not happen often.
Posted by: Paul Siegel at August 15, 2005 07:48 PMElliottBay,
“Good journalists strive to remain neutral”
No, good journalists strive to slant their work the way their bosses want them to, thus retaining their jobs. If you don’t know that, then you are obviously not familiar with what it takes to be a successful journalist and shouldn’t pose as “someone who knows.” The choice the journalist makes is who they are willing to work for, not whether they slant their work. See, some bosses want and get an extremely conservative slant. Some bosses want and get an extremely liberal slant. Most bosses want a much more subtle slant that tends to be more liberal, but is not exclusively so.
“Why is it that nobody on the right decries bias in general?”
You ask, I’ll answer. As a conservative, I believe that news mediums should not use an extreme slant of any kind without out making it blatantly obvious that that is what they’re doing. This would “clean up” our news media, bring the majority of news stories closer to the facts, and still allow those who insist on an extreme slant to retain their freedoms of speech with only a requirement similiar to a “truth in advertisement” clause. Are you satisfied now?
Posted by: Stephanie at August 15, 2005 08:23 PMI recently read the “Wisdom of Crowds” so that was fresh in my mind, but it just confirmed a very long observation of how markets work better than anything else. Do they work always, no. But they work better than any of the alternatives.
The market detected the Enron disaster before the authorities did. Remember the chronology. The price dropped in 2000 before the authorities moved on it.
I will say again that government has an important role in setting the general rules, prosecuting fraud and enforcing contractual relationships. Enron was violating these minimal standards for several years. (BTW – I just need to point out that the fraud happened during the Clinton Administration and the prosecution happened during the Bush Administration.) The other important fact is that Enron’s whole business was based on arbitrage using government regulations.
Jack,
“Enron was violating these minimal standards for several years. (BTW – I just need to point out that the fraud happened during the Clinton Administration and the prosecution happened during the Bush Administration.)”
Couldn’t we say that the deregulation that happened during the eighties allowed the fraud in the first place.
Posted by: Rocky at August 15, 2005 11:17 PMJack-
The advantage of a free market is that the market is not designed and run using the experience, wisdom, and knowledge of a few experts, but instead many.
But it has it’s limits. In the case of Enron, it started deceiving investors from the point the company started its rise from being merely a pipeline country, and kicked into high gear the minute they converted to mark to market accounting. They immediately started hiding the real costs of the enterprise, taking market forces out of commission until the crime was discovered. This is the main flaw of the market: it depends on what people know, and it’s not always enough to be an involved investor, because people will hide the truth about what they’ve done until later.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 15, 2005 11:22 PMRocky
Deregulation allowed the fraud. I guess that statement is correct, but that sure sounds like someone not taking responsibility for their own actions. The criminal could still do the same thing if deregulation did not occur.
tom,
It seems to me that corruption, without regulations to keep it in check, expands logrythmically, and those that scream the loudest against the regulations, are those that should be scrutinized the most.
These folks have the most to lose if they are caught.
The only reason that Ken Lay and his ilk got caught is that everything went into the crapper.
Had it not, where would we be today?
Posted by: Rocky at August 16, 2005 12:36 AMRocky,
“It seems to me that corruption, without regulations to keep it in check, expands logrythmically, and those that scream the loudest against the regulations, are those that should be scrutinized the most.”
Would that statement also apply to those screaming against having to show a valid ID to vote?
Posted by: Beagle at August 16, 2005 06:51 AMWhen I saw this article I was excited! Finally! I’ll see some proof of the liberal media bias that I’m always hearing about! Now, after reading, I’m convinced that with zero citations, zero quotes, zero statistics, zero ANYTHING, the only thing you’ll accomplish with this high school paper some numb nuts published as an “article”, is convince those who believe in the liberal media bias that they were right all along. And in fairness, also convince people who believe in a conservative media bias, that the author of this article has successfully self-fellatiated himself all over the internet.
Thanks for inviting us over to watch, but maybe next time, you’ll concentrate on substance rather than pleasing yourself.
Posted by: Sarah Cynthia Sylvia Stout at August 16, 2005 08:21 AMPretty good comments but my take is that this is just a “ME” society. Take all I can get from the government and blame people that work to make a living for me not getting all I want given to me. What liberals want has been shown to be a disaster in most countries - socialism. About the liberal bias - have you ever noticed in countries that are socialistic - journalism is the first to be under the control of the government?
Posted by: Charlene Mann at August 16, 2005 09:14 AMLOL! sarah, that’s the same problem I have with the majority of posts on this side: Long on opinion and short on facts.
Posted by: American Pundit at August 16, 2005 09:26 AMI do have to give Jack credit, though. He did once try to defend President Bush’s environmental record. That takes balls. :)
I always point out that this is an opinion column. If you want facts that are fair and balanced, go to Fox News.
There are lots of studies that indicate the journalists are biased in the liberal direction. We have all seen them and disputed them. My note was re structural reasons why this might be the case. That is, I am not blaming anyone.
You don’t need me to list studies. I googled “journalist vote Kerry and study” and came up with 200,000 citations. Or try “liberal media and study” and you will get 5,820,000 in 0.39 seconds.
That most journalists vote Democratic is well established. I don’t think that is the only reason they tend to report with a liberal slant. And I don’t think most of them are trying to be biased. The nature of the reporting mindset is also responsible.
BTW – I don’t have a particular problem with this, since there are many sources of information. I listen to NPR every morning. I just compensate a little for the left bias. It is like shooting a gun that is a little off. Once you get used to it, you can compensate and still hit the target.
AP, you posted;
“I do have to give Jack credit, though. He did once try to defend President Bush’s environmental record. That takes balls. :)”
Why did you think that President Bush walks with that “swagger”?
Oops, you meant Jack?
I’ll betcha Jack also has a well deserved swagger, as he walks his new timberland propertys. (grin)
Media bias has more to do with what isn’t reported , than what is reported.
Anyone can selectivly report only the news that favors the beliefs of the reporter, it may be true, but if its only one side, its a half truth.
Thats what everyone got when all the news came from the “alphabet” channels for so many years.
Things are changing now with cable news and the internet. If a story interests you, you can check the opinions from both sides.
Its a natural thing to present the better points of an ajenda you’re trying to sell.
If you sell Fords for a living, you likely wont point out the things about Chevys that might be better.
However, news reporters should report news, not sell an ajenda.
If you report in the news that a redneck in a pick-em truck killed 3 people in a toyta, and then go on to bash suv’s and why they should be banned, without explaining that the toyota ran the redlight, you told the truth, kinda?
Posted by: Beagle at August 16, 2005 10:41 AMOops. Sorry. I didn’t mean to interupt you before you were done.
“You don’t need me to list studies…”
I just want to point out that this “journalist” wants everyone else to go out and find the facts for themselves. Thanks for the research tips! Christ, even Andy Rooney at least pretends to be academic.
Your diploma doesn’t happen to have a picture of Al Roker in the corner, does it?
Posted by: Sarah Cynthia Sylvia Stout at August 16, 2005 10:48 AMOk, Sarah. We critique the message, not the messenger around here. Please abide by the rule.
That most journalists vote Democratic is well established.
Maybe they know more than the average joe about what’s going on in politics? :)
In any case, while your hit totals are impressive, they don’t actually tell us anything about the conclusion of any studies that may or may not be included in the search results.
Sarah,
When fishing, you may get more bites in a lake, if trolling, a chat room might serve your purpose better.
Posted by: Beagle at August 16, 2005 11:00 AMAP (and Sarah)
Thanks for the help, but I am neither a journalist nor an academic, nor do I intend to be, so Sarah has a point.
I really don’t understand what you are looking for. I just offered a possible explanation why journalists would be liberal. I didn’t do market research on this and did not claim it. I didn’t feel it necessary to cite research, because it is so readily available. I am stating my opinion in a column of opinions. This is kind of like the “tastes great/less filling” debate - not the kind of thing that can be proven to the satisfaction of anyone who doesn’t agree, so if I actually took the time to imbed some of the thousands of links that purport to show that journalists are liberal, would that make you believe it was true?
I gather information from various sources. My criteria for judging are whether it is useful and/or entertaining. Long ago, I found that the most useful information came from the business press, probably because people bet money on its accuracy. It also tends to be “conservative”. By accurate, I just mean whether or not you could make reasonably sound predictions and decisions based on what you read or saw. I found the worst were leftist publications such as “The Nation,” “the Progressive” or “Mother Jones”, since there was little in them that you could use except to complain about the system. It was completely useless to read these things, so I just gave up. Maybe they have improved in the last ten years. I just don’t know.
Other publications depend on who is doing the talking and even slanted reporting can be useful. When I listen to Nina Totenberg on NPR or read Dana Milbank in the “Post” I have learned that the facts they present are probably accurate, but I have to adjust for how they are assembled. Once I do that, the information becomes useful.
Personally, I have gotten along pretty well for about twenty years – planning my career, investing my money and determining where I will travel - assuming and adjusting for a liberal bias in the media. I won’t say this is scientific, but it is useful for me to move most of what I hear a couple of degrees to the right. It works for me and so it is true for me. The academics and the journalists can tell me why I am wrong.
Stephanie,
You said “journalists strive to slant their work the way their bosses want them to”, which is a very interesting point, for two reasons:
Everyone,
Just because a majority of journalists voted for Kerry does NOT mean that they wrote biased articles. You need to show a correlation between those two items.
Ron Brown,
“And it’s the stupid and paranoid herd of animals that the media tries (with alot of success) play to.
I suppose that you are including all media, and the internet with that statement.
Posted by: Rocky at August 15, 2005 03:25 PM
Yes! I don’t care what network you turn on it’s all aimed at those that will be gullable enough to believe anything, and get all worked up over it. The internet news aint much better.
ElliottBay,
“it’s in direct opposition to my experience in journalism classes at college”
Well, then your teachers did you a great disservice. Being a saleable writer depends on many things, one of which is how well you are able to slant your piece to the audience you are targetting.
“we were taught to stick to the facts”
As Beagle said, slanted reporting isn’t about lying, it’s about choosing your facts “wisely” and then drawing the conclusions from those facts that you wish to share with your audience.
“those bosses (editors and publishers) you referred to are conservatives”
Not always. Here are some examples of what I’m talking about.
Quoted from the 2005 Writer’s Market:
The American Spectator
“American Spectator has attempted to balance the Left’s domination of the media by debunking its perceived wisdom and advancing alternative ideas through spirited writing, insightful essays, humor and, most recently, through well-researched investigative articles that have themselves become news.”
“We prefer articles in which the facts speak for themselves and shy away from editorial and first person commentary.”
The Progressive
“Primarily interested in articles that interpret, from a progressive point of view, domestic and world affairs.”
Washington Monthly
“We are a neo-liberal publication with a long history and specific views—please read our magazine before submitting.”
“We also like original work showing that the government is or is not doing something important.”
That’s just a sampling. If you really want to know what angle a particular publication takes, get your hands on their Writer’s Guidelines. They are very telling.
There were more liberally slanted publications in this market guide (Writer’s Market) than there were conservative, by quite a bit in fact. 7 liberal mags, 2 conservative mags, 3 unknown (or non-partisan), 1 foreign. That isn’t proof in and of itself, because this isn’t a list of all trade journals (the medium I’m comparing) with politics & world affairs as it’s main topic in the United States and may just represent Writer’s Digest’s bias, but it an interesting sampling that seems to support the theory that there is a legitimate liberal bias in the media.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 16, 2005 03:29 PM“where the Liberal Bias went when Clinton was being hounded”????? you have GOT to be kidding.. hmmm the press REALLY hounded him huh? That is why HE stayed in office after commiting a F-E-L-O-N-Y and Newt and other republicans resigned over affairs… open your eyes… and if I hear ONE more person mention that the media was gung ho over us going to war in the first place I’ll scream… ummm… I believe the phrase is “what have you done for me lately???” Let me ask you.. when is the last time you heard about the reconstruction in Iraq and all the good that is being done or how comitted the troops are???
Posted by: Sgt Scott T. McCann USMC at August 16, 2005 04:36 PMSgt Scott T. McCann USMC,
Bravo!
And thank you for your service to this great nation!!!
Posted by: Stephanie at August 16, 2005 05:09 PMBeagle,
“Would that statement also apply to those screaming against having to show a valid ID to vote?”
You betcha!
Posted by: Rocky at August 16, 2005 05:10 PMStephanie,
Just because the wrong wing has come to believe its own myth about “the liberal press” doesn’t make it true. Neither do the voting records of a few reporters. You have cited no evidence to back you up. As an example of bias, you cite three OPINION publications, which are supposed to be biased. That’s not proof of anything, other than how selective your search was.
Everyone,
The wrong wing is constantly whining that “the liberal press” distorts the news (see the Sgt Scott T. McCann USMC post) and doesn’t give them a fair shake. Although the crocodile tears are impressive, the wrong wing never backs up the accusation with empirical evidence of biased news coverage. Instead of proof, we get anecdotes about how one particular story didn’t get the coverage the wrong wing wanted it to have, or how another story was given more coverage than the wrong wing thought it should have. The only thing this kind of complaint proves is that the press isn’t biased in the wrong wing’s favor, and that isn’t proof that the press is biased against the wrong wing. it may be proof that the wrong wing is paranoid, however.
So I challenge the members of the wrong wing to do more than talk the talk. I challenge the members of the wrong wing to walk the walk and, for once, try to prove that “liberal bias” isn’t just a myth. I realize that “liberal bias” is a wrong wing sacred cow, but I have yet to see any significant evidence that it’s true.
It’s time to bury this sacred cow, even though the wrong wing may find that udderly disgusting.
Posted by: ElliottBay at August 16, 2005 05:38 PMSgt. Scott,
“Let me ask you.. when is the last time you heard about the reconstruction in Iraq and all the good that is being done or how comitted the troops are???”
Can we assume that with all it’s bluster that Faux News has a liberal bias as well?
I haven’t seen anything from them about the reconstrucion either. I would think that a network that considers itself “fair and balanced” would be filled with these heartwarming stories, about how the electricity and water supplies are up and working 24/7. That you could walk down the streets of Bagdhad with impunity.
I mean no disrespect, but where are they?
I don’t doubt your commitment, I don’t think that anyone here does.
So, what exactly is your point?
Posted by: Rocky at August 16, 2005 05:54 PMElliottBay,
Define media for me, because I don’t think we’re working off the same definition. While you’re at it, define journalist. I gave three examples that are in the media. These three examples all want free-lance journalists to submit material to them. How are these examples (and the list I added at the end) not applicable in showing how there is more liberal bias, in that small segment, than there is conservative bias? I know it is a small segment, but it suggests a broader pattern. How does it not show that journalists are required by their bosses to slant their work?
Look back at my post. You’ll see that I demonstrated that all the publications listed didn’t demand a bias out-right.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 16, 2005 05:57 PMRocky,
A lot of people claim to know what the troops are saying, what they think and what they feel. However, aside from being short on men and short on supplies, I think “what the troops…” is a misnomer in and of itself. The troops are not a single entity that feels one way or the other. They are each individuals and some of those individuals do support the war, they do feel they are doing more good than harm, and they do feel Bush is leading them reasonably well.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 16, 2005 06:02 PMStephanie,
“A lot of people claim to know what the troops are saying, what they think and what they feel.”
I didn’t write that line, the sarge did.
Posted by: Rocky at August 16, 2005 06:13 PMThanks Sgt McCann for your service. Most of us still appreciate it.
The majority of the media is biased. Whether you can see it or not is up to you. We don’t have to “prove” anything to you. The American people see it as what it is.
Posted by: tomd at August 16, 2005 06:34 PMStephanie-
My apologies if I wasn’t as clear as I should have been. Since the wrong wing complains about biased news coverage, I was limiting my comments to the news media - those print and/or broadcast outlets that profess to provide news content. Examples of print news media would include Time Magazine, The New York Times, The Washington Times, The Seattle Times, The New Orleans Times-Picayune, etc. It would NOT include opinion and commentary publications like the ones you mentioned. Broadcast news media would include ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, MSNBC, CNBC, CNN, etc.
Since I was limiting my comments to the news media, I offer the following definition of “Journalist” from Google: “Someone who works in the news gathering business, such as a photographer, editor or reporter.”
Does that help?
Tomd-
So if I were to claim that the Republican Party is full of Nazis and racists, and then say that I don’t have to prove it because it’s so obvious, would you accept that? Of course you wouldn’t, because it isn’t true. You’d challenge me to offer proof. And that’s exactly what I’m doing - challenging you folks to offer proof.
Tomd said:
Thanks Sgt McCann for your service. Most of us still appreciate it.
Correction. All of us still appreciate it.
Posted by: ElliottBay at August 16, 2005 07:22 PM“Tomd-
So if I were to claim that the Republican Party is full of Nazis and racists, and then say that I don’t have to prove it because it’s so obvious, would you accept that?” About as much as you accept anything a conservitive on here says.
“Tomd said:
Thanks Sgt McCann for your service. Most of us still appreciate it.
Correction. All of us still appreciate it.
Posted by: ElliottBay at August 16, 2005 07:22 PM”
ElliottBay, I said what I meant. Unfortunately, I believe there are some on here who DON’T appreciate his service.
Sgt Scott T. McCann USMC
Thankyou for serving our country.
I currently have 2 nephews in Iraq, and I get the same thing from them.
They wish the media would start reporting on the positive things and not dwell on only the bad.
Sgt Scott T. McCann
Tell your fellow GIs I said thanks for their service too.
Rocky,
“I didn’t write that line, the sarge did.”
I know that. However, you were countering it as if it wasn’t true. It is true, for some of the soldiers, but not all of them. T’was all I was saying.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 16, 2005 10:27 PMElliottBay,
“Does that help?”
No, because those magazines I mentioned do report news, they just are more obvious about their slants. That’s my point!
Posted by: Stephanie at August 16, 2005 10:32 PMSteph,
“I know that. However, you were countering it as if it wasn’t true. It is true, for some of the soldiers, but not all of them. T’was all I was saying.”
That wasn’t my intention at all.
My point was that the “Great Bastion of Conservitism”, the “Fair and Balanced”, Faux News, with Hannity, O’Riley, et al, isn’t saying anything about this.
To paint the main stream media as biased because they aren’t reporting on the good that is being done in Iraq is ludicrous, because no one else is either.
I also said;
“I don’t doubt your commitment, I don’t think that anyone here does.”
Posted by: Rocky at August 17, 2005 02:50 AMRocky,
I’m sorry. I misunderstood your intent. However, “no one else is either” isn’t true either. I’ve read several stories, direct from the mouths of returned soldiers, about the good they’ve accomplished and how proud they were in my local paper. I’ve only read a few that indicated where the soldiers were disappointed with how things are going. From what I’ve read of the Gazette, they try real hard to present both sides of the arguements. They are accused of having both a liberal or a conservative bias by consumers depending on the consumer’s world view, but really they’re fairly balanced. Considering that, the fact that the returned soldiers show that they are primarily satisfied, with the main exceptions being the lack of supplies and men, I find it hard to hear a few examples of either type being used as “what they troops think.”
Posted by: Stephanie at August 17, 2005 03:41 AMStephanie,
“I’ve read several stories, direct from the mouths of returned soldiers, about the good they’ve accomplished and how proud they were in my local paper.”
I don’t know if they deliver your local paper in Phoenix, I have nothing to base that opinion on.
:)
Rocky,
:-) No, I’m sure they don’t. The Janesville/Beloit area is the tenth biggest metropolitan area in Wisconsin, but is only Wisconsin afterall. I’ll see if I can find you an applicable link. It’s been awhile since I could afford a subscription, so the stories I’m recalling are doubtlessly old.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 17, 2005 03:49 AMRocky,
I’ll give you one of each. Not quite what I hoped for, but most of the links I found didn’t work.
Injured, but eager to go back.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 17, 2005 04:05 AMStephanie,
Thanks for the links, but they are not to my point.
There have been plenty of human interest stories about returning servicemen and women wanting to serve in Iraq. I don’t see any bias in the media about this.
My point was about the rebuilding of Iraq.
Are we, or aren’t we being successfull rebuilding the infrastructure?
There can’t be a liberal bias about this information because no one is reporting it.
Rocky,
Grafton’s quite a ways from Janesville. I’m about 45 minutes from Illinois.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 17, 2005 04:15 AMRocky,
Gotcha. Okay, now I’ll try again, but many of the links haven’t been able to connect, so even if it’s on there doesn’t mean I’ll be able to link it.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 17, 2005 04:17 AMSorry Rocky, there were two links that mentioned Iraq reconstruction, but neither would connect.
This is all I can show you, and it’s not favorable.
“Retired officer talks on terrorism, why he opposed war in Iraq …… with too few troops and no plans for the aftermath or reconstruction, Zinni said. … Iraq’s future: “The elections are the start of something important, but it is … “
The other one is too vague to be sure if it even relates.
“Fund-raising for Milton House project continues | The Janesville …… is consuming construction material at record levels; the US housing market is booming, and there is extensive reconstruction to be done in Iraq.” With the … “
Posted by: Stephanie at August 17, 2005 04:25 AMRocky,
G’night. It’s been fun as always.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 17, 2005 04:39 AMTell your fellow GIs I said thanks for their service too.
Ditto. And pass it along to the firefighters, police officers, garbage colletors, mail carriers, electrical linemen, and the cable guy. I appreciate their service, too.
Stephanie,
Sorry, but that doesn’t answer my point. The magazines you referenced are all primarily commentary publications who only put in news that backs them up, and they all state that up front. Furthermore, a sampling of three magazines does NOT prove that the media in general has a liberal bias, which is after all the title of this thread.
In the past in this column, I’ve seen wrong wing rants about CBS, the evil Dan Rather, NBC, Walter Cronkite, CNN, Newsweek, The New York Times and several other news organizations. The picture that the wrong wing paints is that the ENTIRE NEWS MEDIA HAS A LIBERAL BIAS. It’s become a wrong wing mantra. This thread starts out with the assumption that the media is biased, but NEVER PROVES IT.
So my question for all you wrong wingers is why do you repeat things that aren’t true?
The most common term for people who say things that aren’t true is “liar.” But I think it’s a good case of cognitive dissonance. The hatemonger radio people that you folks love so much make this claim (and isn’t it ironic that the hundreds of hatemonger radio hosts are in fact using the mass media to try to discredit the mass media) and you can’t bring yourselves to disbelieve them, so you have to believe what they say, even if it isn’t true. After all, if Rush (“it was the drugs talking”) Limbaugh says it, it must be true.
ElliottBay,
I certainly hope all that wasn’t directed at me, because if it was you’re WAY off base.
I rarely watch television. I don’t even have cable. We get two t.v. stations that only go on for Saturday morning cartoons. The only exceptions are for major events, like the Presedential elections.
I do listen to the radio, primarily for music. Once in a while I catch the news, but since it’s a country music station it’s only short sound bites. Unless, of course, something major is going on, like a dangerous storm or 9/11. Then it becomes primarily news, because the radio station I listen to takes it’s responsibility very seriously.
I don’t listen to any of the people you’re talking about and calling “hatemongers” (as if all the Bush-bashers aren’t hatemongers, too). The one time I heard Rush Limbaugh speak he sounded like an a-hole.
Omigosh, if I don’t watch t.v. and I don’t listen to the news radio shows, how do I get my information? I read!!! A lot. There is bias everywhere you look. I see it, because I read it in a lot of places. To get to the truth you have to read various stories from a variety of reporters about the same subject. It’s tedious, it’s wrong, but it’s necessary. I don’t need a study to tell me there’s bias in the media (just like I don’t need Hillary Clinton’s study to tell me violent video games are bad for my kids), I see it.
As for your precious New York Times and other nationally distributed news papers, they do have a strong bias. I wouldn’t call it liberal or conservative at all. I call it Metropolitan! It’s driven by all those powerful people who’s world views just can’t seem to get past the concrete and skyscrapers that surround them every day. I find it absolutely hilarious when such people try to tell me what is good for the environment, as if they can’t see that people like themselves with lifestyles such as theirs is part of the PROBLEM!!!
I would love to see a down-home news paper get national distribution. I think it would be shocking for some of those big city dwellers to discover what it is that we’re concerned about! But it’s not going to happen. Those powerful people couldn’t care less about us, just so long as they get our votes and/or our money, whichever it is that they’re after.
“This thread starts out with the assumption that the media is biased, but NEVER PROVES IT.”
I don’t have to assume, and I don’t have to prove, I already know. With my examples I was merely giving evidence that reporters are told to slant their work or they won’t get printed! The fact that you refuse to see that indicates how blind you are to facts, and how useless it would be to prove anything to you.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 17, 2005 01:57 PMStephanie,
Only the first paragraph was aimed at you.
I think there is, and should be, a distinction between news and commentary. I have no problem with commentary and editorials being “biased” - after all, they’re supposed to be opinion pieces. If you’re saying that writers of commentary and editorials deliberately slant their writing, then I agree.
But when people start claiming that news reporting in general has a liberal bias then I’m asking for proof.
Posted by: ElliottBay at August 17, 2005 02:31 PMElliottBay,
See, here’s the rub. Finding the proof you require takes time. Specically, my time. I don’t need the proof. I’ve seen too many studies to find them trustworthy, because bias goes into studies just like everything else. So, say I were to go through all the trouble, taking up my own time, to find this “proof” that you require. You’re not going to believe me anyway. So, what’s the point?
I copied portions of the Writer’s Market onto the internet to demonstrate bias. I did not claim that it was proof the entire media was liberally bias, because that claim is ridiculous on so many different points that it’s worthless…I recognize and admit the fact readily, and from the start. However, what I did write (including the statistics, not merely the three excerpts) indicated a tendancy towards the liberal mindset.
Yet, you CANNOT admit that fact. You just look at the excerpts and claim they are “not proof of anything” which is an inaccurate assesment and missed the point entirely. I cannot legally list the whole section of “Politics & World Affairs” that would demonstrate the trend I’m suggesting, because that would infringe on copyright laws. The only reason I do not feel the least bit guilty for copying what I did is because I did credit the source and I did not give you enough information to submit to these magazines. I cannot give you a link to this section in the Writer’s Market, because they’re selling this information! If you want to see for yourself, go borrow the book from the library. I’ll even give you the page numbers.
The point is, “proof” of the kind that could possibly be available, is biased from the out-set. It wouldn’t convince you of anything, just like you citing a different study that disproves what the study I would cite just proved wouldn’t convince me. The problem with real proof, is that humans are so completely conditioned by bias that it’s difficult to truly prove anything. Not even science does that, they have theories until those theories are disproven by somebody who is smarter and more intuitive in that field of study. 100% totally convincing proof is not available to the human race, sorry.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 17, 2005 04:28 PMIf you don’t see a bias in your news medium, it is only because you agree with the way they lean.
If you do see a bias then you probably lean the other way.
Liberals hate FOX News and see it as biased.
Republicans see the other stations as biased.
The media is biased. How much and which side they favor depends on which way you lean.
Proof? Simple. Just add up how many stations you consider news and how many you consider “wrong wing” rags.
There are also sites like this:
http://www.thethoughtpolice.org/MediaBias.html
I guess they don’t have anything better to do so they look at how journalist voted, which side their stories favor etc…
Kind of interesting stuff.
Stephanie,
When you say that the claim that
the entire media was liberally bias … is ridiculous on so many different points that it’s worthlessI agree with you 100%.
kctim,
The fact is that there is no proven correlation between journalists’ voting records and bias in their articles, and the study you cited didn’t address that at all. In fact, the Pew Charitable Trust studied the 2000 presidential election and discovered that “the liberal press” was much harder on Gore than on Bush. In that same election, 138 newspapers endorsed and 52 endorsed Gore. How is that evidence of liberal bias?
Did you actually read that study you referenced? It was flawed in so many ways as to render it unreliable. Here’s one of several critiques.
Your unsupported stament that “the media is biased” is not supported by the facts.
Posted by: ElliottBay at August 17, 2005 07:42 PMElliottBay,
I said….”You’re not going to believe me anyway.”
kctim gave you an example.
You said…”Did you actually read that study you referenced? It was flawed in so many ways as to render it unreliable.”
Oooh, I like it when people prove me right.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 17, 2005 10:05 PMElliottBay,
This (“the entire media was liberally bias … is ridiculous on so many different points that it’s worthless”) doesn’t mean there isn’t a significant liberal bias in the media, but we already know you won’t admit that.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 17, 2005 10:07 PMEB
I was only trying to show that there are sites out there where people have used different formulas and stuff to come to a conclusion.
I wasn’t saying it was gospel but that there are studies out there if you care to be openminded and see both sides of an issue.
I stand by what I said. Bias is in the eyes of who sees it.
Bias seen by you, is not seen as bias by others.
Bias seen by others, is not seen as bias by you.
I really don’t care about media bias.
Television has a definete liberal bias and radio has a definete conservative bias.
All to keep us divided and blind.
Stepahnie,
You have proved that you’re “right” … of center.
kctim,
I think you would agree with me that Matt Drudge is a conservative. Yet the study that you cited claims he’s a liberal, and that the ACLU is conservative. I’d say that shows how reliable the study is.
I’m sorry I tried to confuse you two with the facts.
Posted by: ElliottBay at August 18, 2005 01:09 PMFact: Neither you nor I know 100% if Drudge is a conservative or liberal.
Fact: His website has stories that cover both ends of the spectrum.
Fact: I didn’t cite anything. I gave a website, said there were others like it and said it was kind of interesting.
Fact: You whine about there being no such thing as a liberal bias and require proof, but yet you cannot offer any proof there isn’t.
Somebody only see’s a bias when they do not agree with the message. THAT is what I said.
Don’t worry about confusing me with what YOU call facts. I WILL take the time to see if they truely are facts before I speak of them.
You should do the same, especially when they come from the left.
ElliottBay,
Do you deny that I predicted the exact reaction you gave?
I have not denied that I am a conservative, that just seems to mean something different to you than it does to me.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 18, 2005 05:45 PMHere’s something to look at. Any opinions on this.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 18, 2005 05:59 PMHi All, Me Again,
Tell me, When Carl Bernstein & Bob Woodward broke the Watergate story all those years ago. You remember that’s the one that Disgraced The GOP and the Presidency for years to come. all those nasty trials and such. Didn’t impeachment proceedings start on Tricky Dickie only to be voted down at the last minute By a Democrat hmm seems bipartisan politics were alive and well then only some 30 odd years ago, what’s Happened since? Oh back to my original question, when Carl Bernstein & Bob Woodward broke the Watergate story all those years ago. Were they doing it because they were: A)conservative, B)liberal, Or C) Because they discovered a crime and in the interest of Justice Told the American Public of the facts as they unfolded before the nation.
Which was it?
Just Passin Gas,
As Always,
Wayne
kctim,
You said Neither you nor I know 100% if Drudge is a conservative or liberal. Matt Drudge told The Miami New Times, “I am a conservative.” Is that factual enough for you?
I don’t need to offer any proof that the media isn’t biased, because I’m not the one making the accusation here, my friend. It’s the wrong wing that’s accusing the press of biased news coverage, not me. All I’m asking for is some sort of objective proof. Aside from the flawed study that you mentioned earlier, there hasn’t been anything offered, other that “you’re too blind to see it.” And that doesn’t prove anything other than you disagree with me.
When you say
Somebody only see’s a bias when they do not agree with the message.I agree with you completely. But just because someone disagrees with the message doesn’t mean that the message itself is biased. There is always the possibility that it’s the reader’s (or viewer’s, or listener’s) bias, not that of the press. That’s what I’ve been saying all along - namely, complaints about “liberal bias” in the news media are REALLY evidence of bias by the wrong wing.
Stephanie,
Golberg is a self-identified neocon who in that book compared CBS with the Mafia.
Goldberg used the same logic as many other neocons when making his claim - namely that because most journalists are “liberals”, their coverage is biased. Aside from the fact that the study he used as the basis for his claim was almost 20 years old, Goldberg failed to mention that journalists don’t control the placement of their articles, or (for the most part) the content. That job belongs to the editors and publishers. And a study by “Editor and Publisher” magazine revealed that editors and publishers are much more conservative than journalists.
One of Goldberg’s other accusations was that the “liberal press” was not reporting on latch-key kids for fear of alienating the women’s movement, but a Lexis-Nexis search showed 11 stories on CNN, 11 on CBS, 3 on NBC, and 10 on ABC. And that doesn’t count the print media.
What opinions do you have on this book? It also diputes the myth of the “liberal media.”
Posted by: ElliottBay at August 18, 2005 07:10 PMElliottBay,
Actually I was talking about the review, not the book. I haven’t read either of these books, so cannot comment on the books themselves. However, I’m a little more likely to trust the person in the news media speaking against the news media and getting kicked out for it, then the person in the news media who lauds the innocence of the news media. It’s must be the underdog-loving liberal in me, though.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 18, 2005 07:57 PMSgt Scott T. McCann USMC:
Yes President Clinton Lied. He lied before you, me, and the whole World. I dare any MAN, let alone the President of the United States to admit having betrayed his Spouse on World Wide Television. First off Where in this country is committing Perjury in a CIVIL SUIT, (Though admitedly a Class E Feloney) ever Prosecuted? All I am saying is if you are going to hold Clinton to a higher standard than Bush and his cronies be prepared for the fallout. Just remember this, “Emporer George II” and his crew of Stooges, have put you and your fellow Marines lives at risk for the foreseable future. Don’t try blaming the drawdown On the Clinton Administration either. The big exodus of troops was put in place by Daddy Bush, Uncle Rummy, And Tricky Dickie Cheney after the first Gulf war Some 13+ years ago. If you don’t think Our President lies to you, me and the rest of the nation, ask yourself the following questions. Where are the WMD’s, Where’s Osama? When you can tell me that after reflecting on the issue, That we have not been lied to, I’ll vote GOP, in the upcoming election.
Still believe that you haven’t been lied to? BTW..as long as we are on the subject…Did any one die because of Clinton’s lies, Last time I checked Bushco had cost us a bunch for his lies, approaching 2000, deceits, and misleading info. But what do I know,
I am only a Moderate leaning liberal Democrat.
Wayne C.
SFC, USA
Retired
“Did any one die because of Clinton’s lies”
Yes.
Posted by: kctim at August 19, 2005 09:24 AMEB
The Drudge bit goes completely with what I said though.
We all have different meanings of what a lib or con are.
What you or I see as conservative could be different than what he see’s it as.
That is what leads people to different interpretations of what is a bias and makes it almost impossible to prove to somebody with a different view of the situation.
“complaints about “liberal bias” in the news media are REALLY evidence of bias by the wrong wing”
That is only because you do not agree with the rights message and see a bias.
The press is only human and they do project their bias onto the people.
How they deliver their message is determined by their own personal bias, intentional or not.
Stephanie,
One correction: Goldberg wasn’t “kicked out”. He was allowed to continue working at CBS until he reached retirement age.
Posted by: ElliottBay at August 19, 2005 12:06 PMI’ve asked here repeatedly for any believable evidence that the news media has a liberal bias. Since you folks are the ones making the claim, I assume you’d be able to back up your accusation with facts, but all I’ve gotten so far is
If this was a formal debate, the claim of “liberal bias” in the news media would have been disproved. This is just another meaninless wrong wing rant. To paraphrase the Bard, it’ just a lotta bull, signifying nothing.
Posted by: ElliottBay at August 19, 2005 01:48 PMElliottBay,
“a claim that the existence of two liberal commentary (not news) publications proved that the media is biased”
No, that wasn’t what was said at all. Your prejudice against the argument is causing your own bias to interfer with the argument.
“a “sour grapes” book from a self-identified neocon who uses bad logic and old studies.”
1) liberals defend “sour grapes” all the time, i.e. their own “sour grapes” over losing the last two elections.
2) just because he’s a “self-identified neocon” doesn’t discredit him, depite your insistence on the contrary
3) He may not have been kicked out, but he sure as hell was pressured to shut up, if the reviewer is at all accurate
“Goldberg recounts how he was publicly cast as a radical conservative and privately ostracized, despite almost thirty years of experience at CBS. He is not gentle in expressing his opinion of what was said and those who said it, but he never allows his book to degenerate into a personal attack on former colleagues.”
4) you have not established either “bad logic” or “old studies” and how does “old” mean irrelevant anyway
So, back to what I said earlier, “proving” anything to you is pointless, because you won’t accept any proof, because you are already prejudiced against the argument. Thus, bias is a very real factor in all of our lives!
Posted by: Stephanie at August 19, 2005 02:46 PMStephanie-
As I’ve said before, I have no issue with “bias” in commentary publications such as The Nation or its countless conservative equivalents. Commentary publications like those identify themselves as having bias. You’ve already pointed that out, and I’ve agreed with you. Commentary and opinion publications like them DO NOT portray themselves as news publications. Do I agree that some of these commentary publications have a liberal bias? Yes. I have not disputed that.
But that isn’t what the wrong wing complains about. The wrong wing continually complains that THE MEDIA is biased. The title of THIS THREAD is “the media”. That implies the ENTIRE media. Not some of it. All of it. And I think you and I agree that such a broad statement is unsupportable and ridiculous. But that’s what the wrong wing continues to say. Kctim said in this thread that television has a liberal bias.
Look, I’ve been very interested in this topic ever since Spiro Agnew talked about it. I was a Republican at the time - I thought he was probably right. Since then, I’ve looked at a lot of studies, trying very hard to find out if the charge is true. And the majority of studies that I’ve seen have been unable to prove anything. So I changed my mind.
Regarding the Goldberg book:
So, if there’s no evidence that a writer’s political views are linked to bias, if the writers aren’t more liberal than the general public anyway, if the editors and publishers (the ones who control the actual content of the news) are more conservative than the writers, and if no study of the media has yet proven liberal bias, why does the wrong wing keep saying it?
Posted by: Elliottbay at August 19, 2005 04:02 PMStephanie,
As I’ve already said, I don’t care about commentary and opinion publications like The Nation and its countless wrong wing counterparts, because they all admit up front that they’re biased, and don’t profess to be news sources. Do some of the commentary magazines have a liberal slant? You bet. Are other commentary publications slanted to the right? Yep. Does this prove that the media in general has a liberal slant? No way. Am I starting to sound like a Donald Rumsfield press briefing? Yes, except that I don’t claim to know where in Iraq the WMD are located. ;-)
Furthermore, commentary magazines aren’t what the wrong wing complains about. They complain about “the media” in general. Not some of the media. The topic of THIS VERY THREAD is “Why THE MEDIA has a liberal bias” (my emphasis). You’ve already said that the complaint that the ENTIRE media has a liberal balance is ridiculous. And on that point, you and I agree.
Regarding the Goldberg book. My problem with the book isn’t that Golberg is a self-identified neo-con, although I suspect that his political beliefs give him an axe to grind. My problems with the book are:
1. Goldberg uses an old (1980’s era) study of the voting habits of reporters to “prove” his case. There have been other studies done since then (I saw one from 1998) that indicate that reporters really aren’t any more liberal than the general public.
2. Goldberg uses faulty logic (if reporters are liberal, their articles must therefore be liberal). That logic completely ignores the fact that editors and publishers, who are the ones with the power over what makes it into the paper or onto the air and the form that it takes, are much more conservative than reporters.
3. Among other things, Goldberg’s book referred to a couple of CBS producers as “Rather’s bitches”. Is that a personal attack? I’ll leave that up to you.
4. Bush won the elections. I’ve never said otherwise. So why are you bringing that up?
ElliottBay,
We’re going around in circles here. I have better things to debate on elsewhere, so by matter of default, you win this one. Are you satisfied?
Posted by: Stephanie at August 19, 2005 08:05 PM
