How is the American Media Biased to the Left?

[Sultan Bhargash]

But ejday is talking about A SPECIFIC INSTANCE. He admits it doesn't happen all the time (instead trickling down thru management), the Welch thing DID happen.*

Your standards of proof are real problematic - you want 36 reporters to weigh in on something that would cost them their jobs?

Wassupwitdat?




*I mean I think it did happen because ejday said so and sounds like something that could happen.

 

[ejday]

Happy to weigh in.

Originally posted by Sultan Bhargash
2. For every rush, there is not a rosie. And while the right wing commentators are almost universally ugly (you don't get wealthy rolling around with chicks), darn it, why are the left wing always cheezy folk like rosie or barbara streisand?

Barbra... oy. Dunno. If it makes you feel any better, catch James Carville on CNN's Crossfire.
I'll admit Rush vs. Rosie seems to go in cycles depending on who is popular at the time. During most of the 90's, Rush was the right's icon, but he was a rarity. In the last two years, I've seen more righties tip the scale the other way (Like the O'Reilly Embarassment).
I hate to say it, but it's all catering to the demographics. That's the way people have been leaning lately, so they want to hear educated opinions to back up the gut feelings they voted on. They want to hear the conventional wisdom fed back to them in some way that makes sense (aka. the prevailing propaganda). The media gives them what they want to hear, then sells commercials for Tums.

Originally posted by Sultan Bhargash
3. ...I did kind of suspect that the reporters have some distaste for some of the things they have to do.

Don't we all?

Originally posted by Sultan Bhargash
4. You keep saying "leans to the left" i in your thread, but what is it that is left leaning, exactly? I don't see much environmentalism, I no longer see much "consumer reporting" on things gone amuck, I don't see ANY attempt to demonstrate peaceful initiatives. Eye candy? You mean babes are left wing? Hot babes?

All the above, though it may have become so mainstream that you don't notice it anymore.* It's not daring, not counterculture, not even anti-establishment since we have the EPA, the FDA and the USDA ready to go on camera at the smallest issue -- but people expect it and we deliver. KNBC runs stories on spills, clean-ups, etc. We do the consumer reporting a lot, too (makes great panic television: "Why your kids' clothes may be killing them! Tonight at 11!"). And we do report on peace demonstrations simply because it's news.
I remember covering the Palestinian march on the Wilshire Federal Building a few months back, then the Jewish countermarch the day after. The biggest news: they both remained peaceful. The common point: raising awareness of social agendas (even if we tried not to forward one ourselves). We're not exclusive, either. Anytime one station does something, you can be sure the others will be following two or three days later. It's a herd mentality that I cannot begin to ... argh. Just thinking about it p!sses me off (because we wind up changing perfectly good formats because some a-hole at ABC decided a blue theme would translate into better "authority" on the air. Idiot. ...sorry. Rant over.).

The eye candy isn't that noble, though (and yes, it is the babes). A lot of it comes in the advertising, and frankly, sex sells. A lot more of it comes in the who's-sleeping-with-who story lines, from primetime (Friends) to daytime (Days of Our Lives). What would've shocked censors fifteen years ago is standard fare today.

Originally posted by Sultan Bhargash
5. The big deal about it: just pausing to take the nation's temperature...

Excellent analogy, but you give them too much credit. They aimed for the ears and stuck it up the nose.

*From way up there... what was once noteworthy has become common. Kinda like the way "alternative music" once meant something. Social evolution, I guess.

 

[ejday]

Originally posted by Greadius
Did he mean it as a joke or something?
And how did they know what he was thinking?

You're assuming he was actually thinking at the time. I think it was a Jack Welch temporary-stupidity blunder somewhere on the order of "I can get divorced without paying much alimony." Don't listen to me, though, go see what Rep. Waxman had to say about it.

Originally posted by Greadius
Are you implying this happens frequently or rarely?

Can't say. Isn't once more than enough?

Originally posted by Greadius
I just have a hard time believing reporters keep their mouth shut about anything, specifically if they've been slighted. Isn't there an outlet for this stuff, or does journalism have a blacklist they're afraid of?

Blacklisting is such a harsh word.
...There are outlets but they tend to attract the cranks.

Originally posted by Greadius
Interesting... so you're implying the corporate ownership balances out the leftness of the Joe Reporter... Sounds good to me... and about right.

Yeah, it pretty much balances out.

Originally posted by Greadius
Though I still question some of the analysis and stories... just can't swallow the whole subliminal editing and Welsh edict thing.

Check out the Waxman links. Do a google search for more if you need another perspective on Welch.
...As for the subliminal thing? It's not like it's an organized effort, it just happens because human beings are in a position to make decisions and they do. Subconscious editorializing happens all the time and news is no different. I wouldn't want to say that I've done it myself, but...

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

Well thanks again, alot, ejday. That really gives me a lot of perspective on the media.

I will take your word for it...

 

[Franklyn]

The left is striking back in the form of Eric Alterman's new book, which will come out early next year. (More here if you're interested.)

Can't wait to see the response from the right. I'm sure it will be as heated if not moreso than the left's reaction to Bernard Goldberg's "Bias."

ejday's example rings true to me. At the newspaper I work for, our publisher is involved in a lot of different civic arenas, all of which get coverage. Which puts the reporters in a tight spot -- are we covering things because the publisher is involved, or because they're newsworthy? For the most part, things we cover where the publisher is involved seem to be worth covering, and he's been really good about not trying to steer coverage one way or another. Still, the *appearance* of potential bias bothers a lot of people here, though not enough that we're going home and kicking our pets.

Remember, newspapers historically have had a ton of obvious bias. You notice how some papers are named the "Democrat" or "Republican"? They were political party organs way back when, and they made no attempt to hide that bias in their editorial pages or in their news coverage. Newspapers, too, often existed to advance the financial or interests of their owners. The LA Times, for instance, was a piece of crap newspaper for a long time because the Chandler family (which was pretty conservative, even in those days) used the paper to go after its enemies rather than to do any real journalism. It's harder to find those sort of overt examples these days. I won't say they don't exist, but they're usually called out when they do happen because it's the usually the exception to the rule.

@ ejday, what do you do there for the station? Reporter? Producer?

 

[ejday]

Originally posted by Franklyn
@ ejday, what do you do there for the station? Reporter? Producer?

"Broadcast Engineer," if that means much to you. On the most regular basis, I do graphics and chyron, and that's how I know about the art "tweaking." I've also done audio, video (studio camera), field camera, master control, tape, technical direction (TD) and Direction (at my last, non-DGA station). I'm one of the technical guys.

I toyed with writing for a while (produced one special interest piece for a weather guy back in Albuquerque), but the politics of the newsroom would've sucked the joy out of it. FBOW, I'm not a "yes" man.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by ejday
You're assuming he was actually thinking at the time. I think it was a Jack Welch temporary-stupidity blunder somewhere on the order of "I can get divorced without paying much alimony." Don't listen to me, though, go see what had to say about it.

They had to say nothing.
So nobody actually heard Welsh say it is talking, and its just a rumor?
Except there might be a private video-tape...?
Okay... watch me not get excited.

Originally posted by ejday
Can't say. Isn't once more than enough?

Enough to do what? Partisan controls? Freak out?

Originally posted by ejday
...As for the subliminal thing? It's not like it's an organized effort, it just happens because human beings are in a position to make decisions and they do. Subconscious editorializing happens all the time and news is no different. I wouldn't want to say that I've done it myself, but...

I'm not a big fan of the subconscious as an excuse for things happening... like a concerted effort below our perceptive radars to skew our political demeanors?
I don't think such notions have much respect amongst the psychological community that actually deals with the subconscious, so I don't see why it'd rally support from partisan media hunters.

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

Greadius I have never seen you be as obviously wrong as you are in this particular thread.

Franklyn, that book will meet with the same whitewashing the Repubs are using on the democrats to try and push the Geheimisch Security bill thru:

If it criticizes republicans it is just being political. Just a little game being played by ninnies. That is how they paint sensible opposition and apparently lotsa folks are buying it because the media talks about it that way:

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A BILL that would remove the need for legal checks and balances with wiretaps and warrants - not just for suspected terrorists but for EVERY American citizen.

So when I turn on CNN how is it presented? Democrats stand up for privacy and civil rights? Nope. Debate over the homeland security bill? Nope.

What I heard was "The Democrats are holding up the homeland security bill over what Senate republicans call 'political issues'"

WHAT THE HELL KIND OF NEWS IS THAT? And never do they explain just what the bill will do, it is up to William Safire to put it in writing for those that can read (see my "Big Brother just got Bigger Thread" to learn just what rights are being trashed by this bill which the Dems are just "whining about").

 

[ejday]

Originally posted by Greadius
Okay... watch me not get excited.

I'm watching. You're not doing much. Saaaaay, you're pretty good at that!
It's not enough to fire up any "boycott NBC" parties, especially now that Welch is history, but it's enough circumstantial evidence to say "hey, it does happen."

Originally posted by Greadius
Enough to do what? Partisan controls? Freak out?

I don't think this is a situation where much can be done, and considering the draconian measures it would take (NBC crying foul on First Amendment rights, former NBC bodies unjustly littering the unemployment line after they testified under oath), there's not much we should do... outside of simply being aware that it happens and knowing how to take our news sources with a grain of salt.

Originally posted by Greadius
I'm not a big fan of the subconscious as an excuse for things happening... like a concerted effort below our perceptive radars to skew our political demeanors?

Funny you should put in the sleep emotion, you must've glossed over the part where I said: it's not a concerted (or at least coordinated) effort. There is no "vast left-wing conspiracy," it's just a side-effect of the average personality that works in that job. Again, it's nothing to get up in arms about, it's just good to be conscious of it so you can skew your perspective back to neutrality.

Frankly, I'm not a big "fan" of subconscious excuses either. I believe people should make informed decisions, especially when voting, but how many people really study the ballot: the measures and the candidates, and take their notes with them into the booth? You do, I'm certain; you're very thoughtful and not easily influenced (profoundly stubborn, maybe? ), but unfortunately, how many people out there are as thoughtful about the issues as you are? I can't put a number on it, but I'd guess not that many. That means a great percentage is voting by gut -- the residual feelings left over from the last smear commercial they were exposed to...

Originally posted by Greadius
I'm not a big fan of the subconscious as an excuse for things happening... <i know I'm repeating here, but it leads logically to: > I don't think such notions have much respect amongst the psychological community that actually deals with the subconscious, so I don't see why it'd rally support from partisan media hunters.

Actually, from what I understand of modern psychology, the subconscious has a great deal of influence on the conscious mind -- which could easily be it's own fascinating OT thread -- but I want to stay focused here. The influence to the left is miniscule, but it adds up. That's not going to do partisan media hunters much good because they're looking for vast, X-Files-quality conspiracies when the only thing that is there is the leanings of a particularly-placed segement of the population. You can't "blame" them any more than you can blame democrats for being liberal. Not to mention, at least for the righties fearing lefty influence, the only way the partisan media hunters could change the final product is to get in touch with their inner artists and become creative professionals (and probably get "corrupted" in the process... ).

Post Script: while subliminal effects through the television medium has been debated, its potential is recognized and regulated (banned) by the FCC. Whether effective or not on a case-by-case basis, the attempts alone were enough classify the practice as a form of deceptive advertising.

 

[Jim The Hick]

Sultan, et al

Just ask Bernard Goldman, or watch your network news. Lefties always say, "no its not!" but if you are agreeing with your news all the time it does tend to seem unbiased.

Also, last night Chris Mathews, on Hardball, introduced his next guest as "The Great Hillary Clinton". What has Hillary ever done that was so great?? Seriously. Not divorce her cheating hubby or was it becoming a laughingstock over healthcare reform?

And a good one from Phil Donahue. He was talking with Andy Rooney last night. And this topic came up.

Phil: "I dont' understand why people think the media is left biased. I mean, I'm pro-choice, anti-gun, and for standardized healthcare...along with almost all of the people I hang out with"

Andy: "Uh, Phil, that makes you and all your friends 'from the left'"

Phil: [incredulous] REALLY? I thought those were more centrist positions {paraphrase, cuz I don't remember exactly what he said}

Now, those examples are all from CNN, the formerly most popular network on cable. Network TV news is also left, trust me. Fox News leans right, and I think you can understand its overwhelming popularity because its really the ONLY network people can watch besides C-SPAN that doesn't lean, or fall over, left.

random thought: Why are people and things, either left-LEANING or right-wing radicals? doesn't that seem like a double-standard?

Somebody mentioned AM radio. It is the liberal "left" Democratic bleeding heart, whatever you want to call it, bias that have driven people to AM radio. The conservative idea was underserviced, and AM radio fills a need.

Final Note: There is a reason people see Bill O'reilly as conservative. His personal beliefs more closely follow conservatism than liberalism. But I think you have to give the guy credit for never giving anyone a pass just because of their party affiliation. I love the mean bastard because he doesn't let anyone come onto his program and spew nonsense. And you gotta love how much he despises Jesse Jackson.

P.S. Sultan, tune to CNN and MSNBC!

 

[God]

Chris Matthews is kind of in the middle but he has become more republican over the years. Some years back he was liberal but now he's in entire support of Bush and the war. Still in the middle but beginning to lean towards the right.

And he has to say "the great Hillary Clinton". He invited her to the show, he can't go call her something else.

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

Jim the Hick it is CNN I was talking about. I am not agreeing with my news, almost ever, but finding it too right wing.

 

[onejayhawk]

In 1985 St Louis played Kansas City in the World Series. Since my family was spread from east Missouri to central Kansas at that time, the demographics cut us in half. As a rabid Royals fan I was incensed at the bias toward the Cardinals. I could think of a dozen reasons for it: a more "Eastern" city, better media outlets, plain old fashioed bias. Tha Christmas I got an earful from my cousins who roundly deplored the obvious bias toward KC throughout the series.

Point is, we are more biased than the media. If you approach it scientifically, there is a measurable effect, but it is not huge. Not, for example, like the tilt of the late 1960's and early 1970's that ended the Viet Nam war and brought down Nixon. Those hotsots are senior editors now, and young turks have to find different ground, because that is where the herd feeds.

Ownership may in fact play a part. CNN and MSNBC have liberal ownership and are generally more liberal.

Sultan, if you think the media on Television, try WBAP Dallas for a while. You can skip Rush, its the local guys I'm talking about. This is a 50,000 watt, clear channel station, 820 AM. You should pick it up at night. One of the reasons that TV media is liberal is that the conservatives have hit the radio.

J

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

J- just drove from Virginia to New Orleans- you don't have to tell me the radio is conservative!!! I think I heard Fearless Leader 2 giving a program!!!!

I would agree though that we the viewers see bias against us. Your sports analogy was great and opened my eyes a bit, because I always used to feel bias against my Philadelphia Eagles but having watched the game with fans of their opponents I see it cuts both ways.

The bottom line is this though; you have your Rush Limbaugh, if you are conservative, and the O'Reilly factor (and darn near all of Faux News programming). I would love to see a dedicatedly liberal tv network... wait, I guess HBO?

 

[onejayhawk]

Originally posted by Sultan Bhargash
I would agree though that we the viewers see bias against us. Your sports analogy was great and opened my eyes a bit, because I always used to feel bias against my Philadelphia Eagles but having watched the game with fans of their opponents I see it cuts both ways.

Chefs RULE!

The bottom line is this though; you have your Rush Limbaugh, if you are conservative, and the O'Reilly factor (and darn near all of Faux News programming). I would love to see a dedicatedly liberal tv network... wait, I guess HBO?

The bottom line is that it doesnt sell. End of story. Partly because, IMO, there is more coverage of the liberal mouthpieces. The storm over Augusta National, home of the Masters, not allowing women. No conservation agenda gets that kind of airtime. NOW, NAACP, Sierra, to name a few are so much more reported than their conservative counterparts, that the names are not even known.

BTW he's not MY Rush. I think he's very good at money stuff, but not the political and definitely not science. Great debater though. He will kill you with facts. O Reilly bores me. Hannety and Combs is better.

One question. What is your opinion of Washington Week and PBS coverage generally?

J

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

Chefs rule? I don't know if it was an accident or you were referring to the snickers commercial joke? (the guy paints the endzone "Chefs" and the guy says "who are the Chefs"? Not going anywhere for awhile... try a snickers...)

PBS and NPR are probably the more left leaning of coverages- which of course to my lefty persona only means they are more "fact oriented" (!) Still even there I have seen a shift towards more balance and in some places unmistakable bias to the right.

Part of this is indeed the times- it is hard, I guess impossible, to tell a nation that was just smacked in the jaw that they can't kick someone else in the crotch...

...some of it is business oriented. Lots of liberals bought into the stock market in the 90s and so now stock coverage is part and parcel of all news reporting.

I guess I am being pacified in this thread. It is no longer a major issue for me and I am willing to agree with Greadius that we "see the bias against us" much more easily than that for us...

Just don't include "the liberal media" unqualified in future rants!

 

[Dr. Dr. Doktor]

Can anyone here tell me if Lou Dobbs of CNN Money Line is rightist or leftist, or maybe centrist? From reading your discussion it seems that the media on your side of the pond - especially the radio - is fairly rightist, however since I only get CNN I am not sure. I don't know, but i have this nagging suspicion that he would be considered leftist in your country. Am i right?

We also get 60 minutes broadcast locally. There was a piece on the state of education by Morley Schaefer where he downloaded a phoney assignment from a site called Schoolsucks.com. Funnily enough - to me - he choose a paper called 'Vietnam and the American Empire in Crisis.' So this makes him leftist or what? Or is he just beeing provocative?

 

[ejday]

Originally posted by Sultan Bhargash
(the guy paints the endzone "Chefs" and the guy says "who are the Chefs"? Not going anywhere for awhile... try a snickers...)

"Great Googly-Moogly" actually became one of our office chants for a while...