The Rightward/Leftward Leaning Media

[rgreenm90]

Which way do you feel the media leans and why? Personally I think we have a pretty conservative media, but because its been that way for so long, any signs of liberalism are automatically interpreted by conservatives as part of a grand scheme by liberals to hijack the American mind.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally I think we have a pretty conservative media, but because its been that way for so long, any signs of liberalism are automatically interpreted by conservatives as part of a grand scheme by liberals to hijack the American mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

How old are you? I'm interested in this because of your statement that the media has been conservative for "so long". I want to know what you consider "so long".

[rgreenm90]

Hard to say, exactly. Definitely after Vietnam, and definitely before Reagan. So somewhere in there. But I would like to note the irrelevance my age has to the historical conservatism of the media.

[jaxmike]

I think that there is no way that any logical person in the US can actually think that the media (fox news excluded) leans any way but left. its so liberal, in fact, that they aren't even trying to hide their bias anymore. what with CBS airing (obviously) forged documents. to the smiles on the faces of the network news men when the exit polls showed kerry ahead, these smiles quickly turned to scowls as the REAL votes came in. no, its clear that the "old" media in the US is VERY liberal. listen to the words they use when talking about people. you will see a decided different tone when they talk about people from the different parties.

[arabie]

Sure, the majority of media sources are more liberal. This is even more true outside america. However, you should never have a problem if you stick to the most trusted name in news, CNN.

[Chris Alger]

You're correct that the purported liberal bias in the mainstream media is a silly hoax. But the media aren't "conservative" in the Reagan or even George W sense. The mainstream press is more like the "news and opinion division" of the advertising industry. It has learned that it works most profitably and smoothly if it tends to defer to other powerful institutions and public sentiments. There are a couple of points worth remembering:

1. The news has to be basically accurate. Important people and institutions rely on the media, especially the business press. As a result, the media have to report raw data with a fair degree of accuracy. For a variety of reasons (and not because of any tacit agreement or conspiracy), analysis and opinion are more openly supportive of the status quo and deferential to authorities. This is especially true of TV. Mainstream print and TV commentators are overwhelmingly dominated by the right, and tend to include viewpoints that are much farther to the right than their libral counterparts.

2. In one sense, reporters are more liberal than most folks. Compared to most Americans, reporters are better educated, better paid and have a greater personal and professional stake in the hierarchy. They therefore reflect many of the leanings of their class (realtively liberal on social issues like abortion and gun control, relative conservative and economic issues and foreign policy). What's interesting, however, is that reporters find themselves under all sorts of pressures to temper their sentiments and language when it comes to social issues. They navigate economic issues, however, with more powerful institutional winds behind their sails. If, for example, you ask more typical people what they think about the deficit, telecommunications deregulations or the WTO, you'll find they don't much care. For reporters, however, these things are pretty important and the official position on them is the one worth adopting.

For more details, read Eric Alterman's recent book.

[BettyBoopAA]

Quote of the day "You're correct that the purported liberal bias in the mainstream media is a silly hoax"

What Planet do you live on? The liberal bias is the media is a silly topic not worthy of debate because the liberal bias shows up in every aspect of the news. what is covered, what is not covered, what questions are asked, what questions are not asked but anyone who doesn't see the liberal bias is deaf, dumb and blind.
I'm in Boston for Thanksgiving and I'm reading the Boston Globe, no liberal bias there.
I think you need to stop hitting the snooze button and WAKE UP, watch an interview on tv.

[John Feeney]

From what I've seen, the empirical data on the topic don't support your view. (I've discussed it in more detail in another post today and one a couple of weeks ago.)

[Chris Alger]

"I'm in Boston for Thanksgiving and I'm reading the Boston Globe...."

A famously liberal paper in the most liberal state in the country. This is the sort of silly thing people have to say when to advance this silly hoax. Much like the CBS National Guard documents. Obviously, it shows how that the national media are biased throughout, something only a dunce could fail to appreciate, etc.

If the term "liberal bias" has any coherent meaning, then it can be defined with respect to stories about major topics which are covered by a broad cross-section of the media. Then someone could easily survey enough random reports about a particular topic to provide evidence about whether the media tend to unreasonably limit themselves to tendentious sources or slant the facts unfairly.

Like this, from a FAIR study in the late 1990's:

To see who informs major network news discussions of Social Security reform, FAIR searched the Lexis/Nexis database for ABC, NBC and CBS evening news stories on the subject between January 1, 1998 and February 1, 1999. We identified all sources who appeared and spoke on screen, and classified them by whom they represented and what positions they took on privatization of Social Security.

The results reveal strong representation by the usual players in the debate--government officials and advocates of stock-market investment--while senior-citizen groups and those with misgivings about privatization were virtually invisible. No representative of organized labor appeared over the entire 13-month period.

While "people on the street" constituted the largest source group (42 percent), mysteriously few of these people expressed anti-privatization opinions. Despite a poll taken by NBC itself, in which 41 percent of those questioned opposed any type of Social Security privatization (NBC Nightly News, 4/29/98), only three of the 56 "ordinary people" interviewed on the news shows had doubts about investing the program in stocks.

Overwhelmingly, interviewees distrusted the government's ability to manage their retirement money, and hailed what NBC called the "positive side of privatization, that you really do get more of your return back than what you put in." (NBC Nightly News, 4/6/98) Out of 38 total stories, two segments were entirely devoted to a retired county judge who had persuaded 2,000 of his colleagues to remove their money from Social Security and start a private retirement fund (NBC Nightly News, 1/28/99, CBS Evening News, 1/27/98).

The next largest percentage of sources (40 percent) were U.S. government representatives, including legislators and administration officials. Of government sources, President Bill Clinton and Fed chair Alan Greenspan--both proponents of privatization, though favoring different forms--made up a hefty 45 percent. Besides those two, politicians were uniformly in favor of some type of investment in stocks, differing only on how much of Social Security they wanted to invest and on their relative willingness to combine private investment with other measures, such as raising retirement age or trimming cost-of-living increases.

Advocacy groups, which mostly focused on "standing up for the 20-something generation" (CBS Evening News, 12/5/98), provided 7 percent of sources. Pro-privatization Gen-X groups Third Millenium and Economic Security 2000 dominated this category, appearing X times. AARP representatives appeared in news stories only twice, but not as significant counterweights to the 20-somethings; rather, AARP's criticism of plans to raise retirement age echoed the reasoning of some pro-privatizers, who consider stock market investment the best alternative.

Think tanks and "experts"--economists, authors and professors--made up 11 percent of sources. While this group commented directly on privatization only three times (all pro), their statements were uniformly pessimistic about the future of Social Security. Of think tanks, the conservative Cato Institute was the most often represented, claiming four out of seven total cites. Brookings Institution, the Employee Benefit Research Center and the Council for a Responsible Federal Budget received one cite each.

Overall, out of the total 132 sources, a mere three took critical positions on privatization of Social Security. Twice, looking for someone to criticize Clinton?s privatization program, the networks turned to Alan Greenspan, who is in favor of privatization but thinks the Clinton plan has too much government involvement.

On an issue that could so easily put taxpayer money at major corporations' disposal, the narrow range of opinion given voice by major network news suggests that the corporate-owned media might have a stake in the issue too.