The Myth (or truth) of Liberal Media Bias

Remove all ads!

We've all heard complaints about the "Liberal Media" and how they distort the news to suit their own agenda. I've always found this assertion funny for a number of reasons.

1) The only people I've ever heard whining about the Liberal media bias are people like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly...basically, all of Fox news; National Review Online, Shralp (just kidding), and some of the more hard-right conservative senators and congressmen; none of whom really, IMO, have any right to accuse anyone of bias.

2) Those who claim this, by and large, cite shaky evidence and quotes taken out of context, blown up for flare. For example, Ann Coulter is always raving about Katie Couric being a Liberal nutcase because she commented during the 2000 election that "Florida has just fallen to George W. Bush," something that can be construed in different ways by different people. She also wrote a whole chapter in her book asserting that NBC news called Ronald Reagan an "airhead," even though they were quoting the author of a book they were introducing on the Today show and only said it once.

3) There's no definitive evidence that supports this claim of a Liberal bias, at least none that I've seen. In fact, most studies I've seen actually point out that Republicans, and especially George W. Bush post 9/11, have statistically higher numbers of favorable stories in the press. Apparantly, far-right conservatives have forgotten the immense amount of negative press Clinton received which, if the media is so left-leaning, wouldn't have seen near as much coverage bashing their (according to conservatives) "hero." The man was absolutely shredded in the press on everything from Monica to Whitewater. IMO, the press follows the best story, not the ideology.

4) Everywhere, the loudest voices in the media right now are those of the right. Talk radio is dominated by far right, conservative talkers. Rush, Hannity, Glen Beck, Michael Savage, etc. I can't think of a single liberal-leaning syndicated radio talk show host. And while many on that side claim that mainstay news channels, like CNN, are notoriously liberal, FOX News seems to make no bones about being far right. To be honest, I've watched CNN all my life. In all fairness, my political conciousness only goes back about 4 years (before then, all I cared about were large breasts), but never in my at least weekly viewing of CNN have I ever seen a news story and felt they were being unfair or biased. Same with NBC News, etc. FOX on the other hand...

Let me put it this way. Ever heard the old saying, "If you have to tell somebody you're important, then you're not?" Same goes with FOX. If you have to tell people you're "fair and balanced™" and remind viewers at every commercial break that "You're watching FOX News, the network America trusts for fair and balanced views," are you really fair or balanced? Especially when your network is flooded with people who've made names for themselves by being the standard bearers of the far right?

--------

This is my own personal assessment, more or less, of the bias in the American mainstream media. IMO, I don't see an overwhelming bias per say, but there is a much heavier right-wing influence than anything. I'd like to hear any thoughts on the subject, including evidence either way.

 

59% of the nation's newspapers endorsed George Bush, which is 10% higher than the percentage of people who actually voted for the guy.

Take the time to read: "Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right" by Al Franken. It's an excellent read...Pity he didn't wait 'til the Limbaugh drug fiasco to publish it.

Speaking of which, anyone know why Limbaugh has suddenly got a bee in his bonnet about fourth amendment privacy protection? Anyone? Bueller? Anyone?

 

I've read it. Aside from it being pants-wetting funny, it was quite an eye opener. I don't take it all as Bible, but he makes some excellent points. I really look forward to his talk-radio career getting off the ground, although I probably won't ever hear it. I live in Texas, on of the right-wingyest states, as I'm sure you know. Oh well - there's always web stream.

 

During the CLinton years, all his scandals were quickly published, printed and put up on the nightly news. On Fox, CNN, CNBC, all of the extra 'News' shows are akin to Bill O'Riley(SP sorry) while the more liberal shows, like Donahue tanked. If there was a liberal bias then most stations/networks would be pushing the left and liberalism. Studies show that for a newspaper to be sucessfull thier editorial department must have equal time for both sides,left and right. Bigger newspapers like the NY Time just happen to be in an area and culture that is more liberal and left than other papers. They just get more heat for having a 'bias' because they have a higher profile than, lets say, the Murfresbrough Times. 'Nuff said.

 

Abstracting from the realia of US media of which I know practically nothing, let me please convince you of the error of your ways and refute three of your points on purely logical basis:

1. News stories are meant to be unbiased. So is media in general, but there exceptions: media actually meant to be biased and aimed at a certain audience. However, when an institution claims to be unbiased, then its quality of being biased or not is independent from bias or lack thereof in the critics who claim the institution actually is biased, contrary to publically made assertions. Therefore, it is not required of you to be unbiased to claim that someone else is not.

2. Whatever quote used to refute someone's points, will be considered out of context by that person, and most certainly blown up for flare. Part of propagating bias in media is making it ambiguous and letting people read between the verses. Inevitably, interpretations will differ and the official interpretation is bound to be in a shape similar to "we didn't say that, it's only what you think we said".

3. There can be no definitive proof or disproof of bias, as bias lies outside of proof/disproof logical categories. What's more, no partial proof against someone's claims will ever be considered enough proof by the target person.

But how it is in US, I don't know Here, in Poland, mass-media suck. Mostly libs and some "socialists" who are amongst the richest folks of this country.

 

I just watched some of a panel discussion with Al Franken, Laura Ingriham (sp?), Tucker Carlson, and ... somebody else the other day on CSPAN. The topic was just this subject.

According to the polling stated there, and iirc, roughly 60% of Americans think the media tends to have a "liberal bias." They also trotted out the recent Andy Rooney quote (60 Minutes) where he says essentially that he is biased, so are others (I think he points out Dan Rathers but not sure) and that the media needs to be more careful of their reporting. It could be that they're all just wrong. Instead, I think there is another explanation -

I think I've said elsewhere here that personally, I don't think the left/right political dichotomy is either very helpful or accurate. So, with that in mind, I found an old article that corresponds to SOME of my views (Danger, it is biased: ):

http://www.free-market.net/spotlight/media/

@ DR: I think if Andy Rooney and Walter Cronkite along with most Americans seem to see a bias then I'm not sure it is "just" hard right people who see a potential bias. Now, you said the only people you heard complain were from the right bring two thoughts to mind - you just didn't hear Walter Cronkite for example and also, you rarely hear people complain about their own point of view being presented. If there is a "liberal" bias it should be unsurprising that Barbra Streisand isn't up in arms over it.

I think your second paragraph is also partly addressed by the "admissions" of the likes of Walter Cronkite and Andy Rooney.

I'm surprised you can't think of a single syndicated liberal talk show host. Al Franken just signed up for example. Alan Combs (sp?) is another example I have listened to. And someone snide would probably say, "NPR" (which I listen to at work every day).

Personally though, I don't think there is a "liberal" bias in large part because I don't think the left/right dichotomy is accurate.

I also don't have a problem with bias so long as people are up front with it. I don't care if Dan Rather goes to a DNC fundraiser as a potential donor but I would hope he would drop the pretense of being an entirely neutral party. For perhaps this reason I don't perceive bias in the media as as big a deal as some others. We forget that it was really just a short time ago when people had only three t.v. news choices and a handful of newspaper choices. Now, the choices are much broader.

And perhaps more importantly, the public has become much more aware. I know people complain about Fox not being "fair and balanced" because, apparrently, Fox isn't ( I say apparently because I've probably seen about 1 hour of Fox in total since it started). However, it seems to me that everyone recognizes that Fox is a conservative news source. Likewise, people now realize Dan Rather has his leanings as does Peter Jenning et al.

The biggest thing I notice though is that there are a lot of complaints about the "liberal" media by people who are "conservative" and a lot of complaints about "conservative" media by a lot who are "liberal". Seems to me that people notice the point of views that they don't agree with and complain about them.

 

@ Laches

Very good points on all fronts. Exactly the type of back and forth I was looking for in this thread. I do take issue with this though...

Al Franken is just now signing with a radio network that is being created to combat the dominance of conservative talk radio. He isn't on right now. So when I can't think of anybody, I mean well established syndicated hosts who've made a name for themselves, even if not on a national level.

Calling Alan Colmes a liberal is like calling McDonald's food edible. While technically true, it lacks substance, quality, and isn't good for you. Many think McDonald's food tastes like cardboard, and the same comparison has been made about Alan Colmes for years. As far as I'm concerned, he doesn't count. Especially when compared to Hannity, whom he is absolutely no match for. And that's exactly how Hannity likes it.

As for NPR...their shows, definitely. Their news, I'd say definitely not. I love NPR and listen every day. But some of their other shows are clearly liberal. Like Fresh Aire Weekend, for example. The host, Terry Gross, is a major liberal. A week apart, she had Al Franken and Bill O'Reilly on her show, both to promote their new books. In Al Franken's interview, she joked with him, let him get his points across, he pretty much led the interview. It was funny and interesting. When she interviewed O'Reilly, she did nothing but make him answer for things he's said that she felt were hypocritical, citing what seemed like a few dozen quotes followed by a "But later you said...". I think O'Reilly is a douchebag, but in this case I thought she was being very unfair. It was pretty bad. He ended up getting pissed off and leaving the interview, but not before he got her to admit that she pretty much gave Franken a free ride and was giving him the 3rd degree.

Kinda stupid on her part. There's more than one way to skin a hack, I just wish she hadn't made it so obvious.

I realize that liberals won't be the ones complaining about a liberal bias. What I was trying to point out when I used Hannity, etc. as an example of exactly the wrong people who get to complain about bias is because you never hear any "moderates" or indipendants complaining about it. No one impartial or not directly effected reputation wise (like Hannity, etc.) by the accusation of a media bias has spoken up about it. And I don't think it's too far off the mark to think Liberals would complain about a Liberal bias if they thought there was one, because even some conservatives complain that FOX goes too far.

 

Laches, you make some good points, and you can be forgiven for your Colmes remark since you don't watch Fox News all that much...honestly, Colmes is to the Washington Generals as Hannity is to the Harlem Globetrotters.

 

Looking at it from abroad I really cant say much about bias on national matters. On international matters I see a lot of bias though, atleast from my perspective. Everything the US do seems to be supported and reported in a positive light by the American media. Uncomfortable questions are sometimes asked but only when something really serious is going on and even then the questions tend to be very mild. The media seem to be very patriotic in its coverage. I cant really say whether the case is the same here, but I atleast imagine that I see a lot more critical stance towards our leaders here from the media. However, as has been said earlier, one doesnt really notice a bias which "favours" oneself.

 

Hmmm, my familiarity with Alan (apparently) Colmes comes from hearing him on the radio about...gosh, has it been 9 years ago? Time flies.

Anyways, whether he is a smart/accomplished/persuasive voice on the radio is a distinct question from whether he is a "liberal" voice on the radio. You guys seem to be saying he is a dolt. But you aren't saying he isn't a "liberal", just that he is a "liberal" dolt.

I think likewise someone could complain that Limbaugh is a dolt too. Clearly though he is a "conservative" voice on the radio. Almost OT, who is Michael Savage? I ask because on another forum I was on I remember people talking about a very smart and somewhat scary host that was rising in "conservative" radio somewhere in the northeast. I'm wondering if Savage was the guy they were referencing. If it is, they were saying Rush is a dolt and thus while he had a legion of followers he wasn't nearly as "dangerous" (since it is a "liberal" forum where they were discussing this) as the other guy who was actually bloody smart.

Anyways, my bigger point was in line with what joacqin said in that I suspect he means largely war news. I actually think the pro-war coverage isn't a bi-product of bias so much as it is a reaction to looking back at the Vietnam war and the way things were handled there.

However, the big point I wanted to make is that "liberal" and "conservative" are in many ways meaningless. I am accused here of being a "conservative" or closet Republican from time to time. At work I'm accused (jokingly) by one partner where I work of being one of "you Democrats" on an almost daily basis. The reason is that the left/right political compass doesn't work and people tend to remember when someone disagrees with them, and label them accordingly, rather than when they do agree with them.

So, I think the quoted article may be right in that the media isn't "liberal" but that doesn't make the media "conservative" either. And at the same time, it doesn't mean that the media isn't typically "liberal" on certain issues and "conservative" on other issues.

 

Well, as the most right-wing person here, all I have to say is - if the media has a liberal bias, tough. There are plenty of outlets for rightists and leftists to compete to be most "fair and balanced" - books! movies! TV! magazines! newspapers! blogs! SP posts! spam! etc.! America isn't some banana republic with a single government mouthpiece.

If someone says that Program A is biased, it's probably because they're comparing it to Program B with Ideology C and use that as the baseline standard. Would I be a rightist today if I hadn't read X, Y, and Z? Of course not - but why should I pretend that X, Y, and Z should serve as the fair-and-balanced baseline?

Sure, there's bias in the media. Reporters are human beings! But Americans have no excuse for griping about bias when we have so many alternative sources of information.

 

Actually, I saw the same program as Laches, and the someone else he left out was Eric Alterman. Anyone who is familiar with Opinion/Slate will know him as the one behind the regular liberal column "Altercation" and author of the controversial, but well thought of book: What Liberal Media?

He is an excellent writer/debater, as is Franken, and IMHO, they both cleaned up the place with Tucker and company, (a conservative who I happen to think highly of) during the debate. BTW, the debate was on what the media is like now, not twenty years ago, when Cronkite was on. Here is a link:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3449870/

As for Alan Colmes, he is too much of a gentleman and doesn't stand much chance against someone who gets as down and dirty as his neocon counterpart on FOX. But then why else would an entire station devoted to the regime and its party have him on? Now if the "liberal media" only had its own major cable station....

[ January 22, 2004, 02:10: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

The liberal media bias was IMO the greatest wiz trick the republicans played on the democrats. First it told them that every coin has two sides, which is pretty much true, and that media have a political slant even when they are mainstream. That led to a relativism: Critique on the administration is biased, because it is in the interest of the opposition to hurt the president. Therefor it isn't credible because there is a degree of self interest in critique on the government. Sounds nice and innocent.

Like in retaliation the myth of media bias allows the right media to be as biased as they like. ... "The liberals are biased too I tell ya! My ranting and raving here is just a counterweight!" ... As a result of that discussions have been devalued to an exchange of points of views which are equal, of course, on FOX some views are more equal. No right, no wrong - plain relativism. So when someone suggests, like Perle and Frum frequently do, to attack some 5 more countries (and kill some 200.000 people in the process of transforming the world) that's not *insane*, *crazy* or *evil*, just a legitimate if yet, well, immoderate, point of view ...

The myth of liberal media bias has a function: When arguments no longer count, that allows to lead discussions based on emotions and gut feeling. That's why people seemingly don't take offence on Bush's actions overseas and on the way to war - it appealed to their urge to kick some arabs butt after 911. It happened to be Saddam's.

Saddam was in the way of some geostrategistical dreamweavers and the US was in butt-kicking mood. That's what I call bad luck. And Bush's rising approval ratings after the capture indicate that it indeed feels good for the majority of Americans.

And appeal to gut feeling all over the place: Pic's of Saddam on show, like in old rome where the defeated enemy leader was tared through the streets in triumph for the roman people - the only thing still lacking to complete the analogy is a public execution on capitol hill.

 

The "liberal media bias" is a flat out lie. An act of propaganda that got it's full head of steam during the Clinton smear campaign of 92- now. BTW, I never voted for Clinton(actually voted libertarian both in 92 and 96) before anyone gets the idea I am "defending my boy".

I was working as a janitor in 92-93, cleaning office buidlings for lawyers and Chamber of Commerce types downtown. Use to have some pretty interesting conversations with the conservatives who were working late. As I never came out and said "I'm a liberal"(instead I just kind of asked questions and probably came off as a potential recruit to the right-wing fold to those guys) to anyone. It was almost a sort of "Republican Like Me" type experiment in that, the more these guys got to trusting me, the more the words "n***er" and "mud people" were tossed about.

One day this guy I used to chat with regularly while emptying the waste cans around his office hands me this Christian Coalition newsletter thing to read(why? I am not sure.) and on my break I did. Within was this detailed plan of action outlined wherein conservatives were urged to "fly below radar". If speaking to the media use words like "liberal" as if they were synonymous with sodomy or sin itself. Constantly repeat the charge that the media is unfairly biased towards criminal-coddling liberals.
The key to the plan seemed to be borrowing from Adolph's "If you repeat a lie often enough..." bit.

I did not think much about any of it at the time but I paid close attention during those years of prosperity known as "The Clinton era". Even at a time when the country was enjoying an economic turnaround unlike it had ever known previously...a time when we had little right to be complaining about much, it seemed that on every channel, at every hour and in every newspaper, there was some new charge being thrown at Bill Clinton. Also there was this increasing trend of conservatives publicly calling others "liberals" as if being a liberal meant being a communist spy or a a NAMBLA sympathizer or somesuch and eventually I noticed democrats starting to deny these charges("I am no liberal!!") as if they were defending themselves against accusations of selling classified info' to Iraq.
Most of the stuff thrown at Clinton(Whitewater etc.) turned out to be all bogus and cost us some 75 million plus in tax dollars but you just KNEW that they would get SOMETHING to stick eventually(as would happen with ANY president I think) and we got to hear about Clinton's zipper for years in the so-called "liberal media".

Around the time that the "liberal media bias" sales pitch was at the height of it's furor, I decided I would try and find out who these liberally biased voices were...you know, the ones who were ignoring CLinton's affair with Lewinski to rehash the Iran-Contra fiasco or what have you.
I mean I was made keenly aware of Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, O'reilly, and some three dozen other personalities who regularly hatcheted Clinton and/or liberals in general but did not dare to do any such job on prominent conservatives like Reagan...but where were these liberal voices?
I found a guy named Tom Leykus(spelling?) who seemed kind of liberal for a bit then just decided he would rather talk about getting laid.
I found a guy named Alan Colmes who I was told was a liberal but he never seemed to really espouse any liberal views(he would half-heartedly seek permisson to disagree with his partner Sean Hannity every once in a while but at least on the Hannity and Colmes show he would stick to introducing guests pretty much.
Note: Colmes is not a "dolt" or an "idiot" he is just not very liberal...he's not very..ANYTHING!
A wet towel that Hannity likes to snap every once in an while.

I'm still looking. I know about NPR but I am also aware of just how little influence they exert over America(let's face it, as unpopular as Limbaugh is now he STILL eclipses NPR...BY HIMSELF!)

I kind of agree with Laches that the more important bias in the media is not liberal or conservative but rather their RATINGS BIAS.
The conservative position has always been easier to get across to the average American. All in the Family would never have been such a hit if the average conservative American at that time were aware that Archie Bunker was intended to poke fun at them. The show was a hit because a lot of people thought "Finally! Someone who speaks for ME!". Try building a popular sitcom around liberal ideas that don't involve parading gays around at their most cliche'. Much more difficult to sell and if you do sell it, FOX NEWS will do a report/protest about it every two hours until it is cancelled(usually preceded by a spike in the ratings from people tuning in to see what has O'reilly so up in arms).

 

Forgive me, Laches, if you thought I was taking a pot shot at you. I wasn't. I just enjoy every possible opportunity to point out what a knob Colmes is.

 

Oh, there is no need to apologize. I hadn't even considered there might've been something offensive posted. And piss on you if there had been. Kum-Ba-Ya...

 

Quite interesting RuneQuester. Another interesting example is the UN. - which I frequently heared and read about her, usually from the US right, referred to as the "failed UN". Neocon outlets and OpEds virtually hammered out that message.

The "failed UN" talk on the one hand appeals to the very much fringe American UN paranoia wing (afraid of New World Order, black helicopters and world government, and especially the infamous UN troops stationed all over the US (... see, the UN disguises as fed gvt SWAT teams, the ATF is essentially the UN because world gvt starts with disarming the population ... you didn't know I bet )), in a milder form people who fear the UN would take US sovereignty away (besides: how should she with the US a permanent member ?) and on the other hand: For the neocons it's great to tell people the UN has failed because once they swallowed that they don't mind when you don't go consulting her. It's a classical coalition of utility.

While the neocons want the 'freedom of movement' a global hegemon needs (outside the limiting boundaries of international law manifested in the UN charter), the UN paranoia wing is genuinely afraid of them. The UN is evil, unilateralism is the cure!

There are more examples, take the christian right: The christian right gives the people in the Bush administration real political muscle, a pretty strong grassroots movement as well as a strong PR, even when they support, say the neocons, for totally different reasons.

I very much doubt the neocons share the christian right's views, it's only that they are useful. The neocons are way too intelligent to believe in such a nonsense. They also very well understand the nature and structure of the UN.

Have a look at the christian zionists such as Pat Robertson who are, with the neocons, against a palestinian state:
-The neocons think that a palestinian state has to go because peace in the middle east can only be achieved by peace through strength, and for that Israel needs as much Lebensraum as it can get (yes, I'm nasty and I simplify for the sake of argument).
-The christian right, in their " I love armageddon" wing reads the bible in a way that they consider the existence of Israel is a necessity for the second coming - and that meddling in there would be against the will of THE LORD. IIRC Pat Robertson once interpreted Rabin's death that way - he had to die because a palestinian state was against the will of THE LORD (so he's not only dead but probably burns in hell too). Sure.
Again, a coalition of utility ... but that's getting us

The christian right, as well as the republican party both have the democrats as an opponent.
-For a hardcore christian right warrior democratic liberal issues like "gay marriage" must turn the stomach, not to mention the issue of "abortion". The association of liberal + sodomy + pervert for them isn't denouncing but honest and natural.
-A more secular republican, while he might think of the Christian Right as fringe, but sure accepts that support - the enemy of my enemy is my friend ...

Tow groups, different interests and incompatible agendas, but a limited goal. But then, as long as gets you in or keeps you in the white house - it's as good a deal as any other ...

I think RuneQuester made a very good point: That the "liberal media bias" is a myth, the result of a long-year PR campaign, and was created by creating associations, on an emotional level. And that technique is quite effective - as you pointed out with your "liberal" example: Repetition is a great learning technique - tv commercials work that way.
So, in my above post I only referred to the effects, misinterpreting the cause.

EDIT: Had to rearrange it because of some ... embarassing copy-paste errors ...

[ January 23, 2004, 17:31: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Here's anothter example of the so-called "liberal" media in action:

http://www.moveon.org/news/2278.html

 

I was looking for something else and came across this:

There was also the following which sparked an idea:

Here is the chat:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23185-2004Jan16.html

Kurtz responded to the charge that WaPo had never endorsed a Republican by saying they hadn't endorsed either candidate in 1988 and had endorsed Republicans at the lower level. Reading between the lines, I think this means they've endorsed the Dems for every Pres election except one and they've never endorsed a Republican for Pres. The question sparked is, I wonder who the various news sources have endorsed for the Presidential election over the last, say, 30-40 years. It would be interesting to know.

This is an interesting article about who various folks in the media are making contributions to:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26386-2004Jan17.html

Largely ignored in the thread so far is the print media. Is there a leaning of, say, The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, USA Today? Those are the biggest heavy hitters that come to mind. Following those you've got the AJC etc. of course.

 

Yes, that is a good point. Kurtz's meager comments were feeble at best, and more of an apology than anything else. As for the print media, we have not started on The New York Post and the Washington Times yet. I'm not certain but I'm pretty sure that the hometown paper here endorsed Bush also, (the Houston Chronicle) but I'm not completely certain. I enjoy telling their minions who either call or come to the door that I won't take their paper because they endorse too many Republicans. Their standard response is: "What about the coupons?"

[ January 24, 2004, 03:39: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]