Liberal Bias in the Media

[BSmith1068]

Please discuss the perceived notion of a liberal bias in today's media.

(redirecting a discussion that started in another thread that is not about liberal bias in the media...)

Spoiler posts in other thread :

Two things conservatives believe in without quibbles: Gravity and the liberal bias of the mainstream media.

Therefore, I grieve for the loss of Breitbart even as I acknowledge his over the top style.

Can you prove this "liberal bias" actually exists

Funny. No one has ever been able to find that so called "liberal bias". Where is it?

The obscurity of the liberal bias is evidence of the liberal bias.

The "obscurity of equates to evidence of" argument is often proof enough for any sort of conspiracy garbage.

The heads of the major US newspapers are all liberal, as are the heads of the major US tv stations...
This isn't hidden, at all... nor is it really a problem, as there are offsets (radio is mainly conservative, etc)...

Can you actually prove this

Like

With evidence?

It was

like

said openly by the heads of these organizations...


It's no secret.

Call me crazy, but I thought Fox News was conservative, and they seem to have awesome ratings compared to their 24-hour news network competitors (like CNN, which is just covered in failsauce).

So Fox is not a major TV station and Fox News is not part of the mainstream media ?

Because Rupert Murdoch, Michael Eisner and Jack Welch are all well known liberals.

And yes, I'm aware the latter two are not in charge of their respective companies anymore, but the allegations of liberal bias in the media go a lot farther back than the last 10 years and their less well known replacements are hardly beacons of liberalism anyways.

If you want to actually make a point on the media being liberal, it's not that difficult. Look at Hollywood. It's not just the actors and artists who are liberal. It's often the directors, producers, and talent agents as well.

They are of course renegades that fight against the oppression of public opinion by liberal media, and work on a tiny budget without getting their talking points directly from the Republicans. I'm almost certain that's the case.

I did misspeak a bit, this was before Foxnews came out, so it is a bit old... but the facts remain.

Anyhow, one TV news channel doesn't untilt the situation when several others are the other way... I just should have clarified this better.

EDIT: In newsprint, you do also have the WSJ, but it doesn't undo NYT, WP, BG, LAT, CST, etc...

Being a liberal doesn't mean one's reporting is liberal. Merely having a right-leaning op-ed section in the Wall Street Journal doesn't make the paper's reporting right-leaning.

Thanks for breaking that down for us.

Well it's an important point most people miss. Liberals will complain incessantly about Fox News but the examples of bias given are almost exclusively editorial, which are supposed to be biased. The same is true of the so-called liberal media. Ted Turner might be a flaming liberal, but CNN is not an extension of his political beliefs.

If you want to claim media is biased, I want to know exactly what you mean. Is the reporting slanted? Or is the choice of what is reported slanted (a far more insidious form of bias)? If you chose a third option like, "the owners" or point to an editorial section, I know I can dismiss your opinion as it's based on very shaky grounds.

Still waiting for actual evidence of a "Liberal bias"

I shall continue to wait

Pick up the following papers, and, from a typical american perspective (which is to the right of much of the world), they will be considered to have a liberal slant...
NY Times, Boston Globe, Chicago Sun Tribune, LA Times, Washington Post, USA Today...

The following are generally a bit more to the right...
Washington Times, NY Post, Wall Street Journal

Not just based on the editorial page, but on the overall... just like people consider Foxnews to be right wing, which it clearly is, and MSNBC is left wing...

I honestly tire of arguing over mundane points such as, prove it is a liberal paper... so, I'm going to bow out of it. Feel free to disagree with my sentiment, I am but one person with one point of view.

You still haven't proven how they are liberal, you're just making assertions

I guess you'll just have to keep waiting... so sorry to disappoint you. I just said I'm not going to spend the time "proving" a mindset...

Why can't you back your position up with actual evidence?

Because you can google it just as fast as I can... and I don't feel like spending the time to prove something that, to me, is completely obvious, to you...

Keep badgering me though, that should work.

Yeah, I get it... I just don't care.

I refer to Brooke Gladstone's excellent book on the matter of bias in the media, types of bias, etc.

Many people object to how Fox News reports its editorial opinions on one program, and then on an official news program report on the controversy caused by their editorial programs. The Daily Show had a good skit on it a few months ago.


EDIT: Sorry BSmith1068, crosspost.

 

[useless]

Yeah, I get it... I just don't care.

You care enough to defend it... but not enough to provide the evidence needed to do so?

 

[Core Imposter]

To dissect this look not at the arguments and conclusions but the premise that is normally proffered.

For one example during the debt ceiling fight the premise was offered that a failure to raise the ceiling or the mere political combat over it would lead to increased borrowing costs, a crisis or catastrope.

This sets the argument up to go against the conservative position.

In fact the premise was false. Despite a downgrade by a ratings agency borrowing cost went down, not up.

To prove the bias ask yourself whose interest the premise favors. In this case the premise clearly favors the liberal position of ever more spending and borrowing.

You see this over and over again on virtually the entire spectrum of issues. A false premise is offered such that the conservative perspective is always presented as the extreme view, regardless of facts. Its a vast left wing conspiracty (of common liberal interest).

 

[kochman]

You care enough to defend it... but not enough to provide the evidence needed to do so?

I'm honestly just getting a kick at how far you're willing to take this... by all means, keep going.
I be on the road in a bit though, so I may not be responding to several posts immediately.

 

[History_Buff]

Reality has a liberal bias.

 

[KMRblue1027]

Reality has a liberal bias.

Gah you beat me to it

 

[madviking]

Missing white liberal syndrome.

 

[Commodore]

I won't claim that there is or isn't a liberal bias in the media, but I will say the claim that there is a bias is pretty dubious. The entire argument seems to be based mostly on speculation without any real supporting evidence.

While I do not claim to support one side or the other in the debate, I would tend to favor the "there is no bias" argument until more solid evidence is provided to prove otherwise. This is based simply on the idea that the burden of proof always falls with the accuser, and in this matter the accusers have not met that burden.

 

[amadeus]

It's an illiberal bias. When was the last time a reporter suggested people be left to handle their own affairs rather than having the government come in and step on them?*

A new computer virus? Why doesn't the government stop it?
Janet Jackson's nipple on TV? Why doesn't the FCC revoke their broadcasting license?
Payday loans charging high interest rates? Why doesn't the government cap the rates?
Japanese cars outselling GM? Why doesn't the government put on a tariff?

*John Stossel doesn't count.

 

[Commodore]

It's an illiberal bias. When was the last time a reporter suggested people be left to handle their own affairs rather than having the government come in and step on them?*

A new computer virus? Why doesn't the government stop it?
Janet Jackson's nipple on TV? Why doesn't the FCC revoke their broadcasting license?
Payday loans charging high interest rates? Why doesn't the government cap the rates?
Japanese cars outselling GM? Why doesn't the government put on a tariff?

*John Stossel doesn't count.

I think reporting like that just stems from the fact that the media loves to criticize the government, and not from any kind of political bias.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

Reality has a liberal bias.

That really wasn't helpful.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

That really wasn't helpful.

Pot / kettle theory invoked

 

[Ice_Tyrant]

But Fox news has no liberal bias, and that's like, the juggernaut of 24/7 news channels and such. Or at least I always got that impression anyway.

 

[Cutlass]

You would have to show that the press routinely misrepresents news stories in such a way as to lead to a liberal conclusion. Clearly that does not happen. So the liberal bias thing is crap.

 

[warpus]

The idea that media needs to have a liberal or conservative bias is beyond stupid. I'm exposed to the media every single day.. where is this bias?

If anything the major American news networks have bias - which they shouldn't.. but they are more about news entertainment than reporting the news.

 

[classical_hero]

Everyone has a bias and most people don't see any bias because the bias presented agrees with their bias, so they don't see any bias at all. The quote that "Reality has a liberal bias" shows bias right there.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

The idea that media needs to have a liberal or conservative bias is beyond stupid. I'm exposed to the media every single day.. where is this bias?

If anything the major American news networks have bias - which they shouldn't.. but they are more about news entertainment than reporting the news.

Agreed . I would suggest that in the "free world" the overwhelming cause of media bias is simply due to the media outlet in question perceiving there to be a dollar in it . Take Fox News for example . My guess is that Rupert Murdoch has come to the strategic decision that he is filling a void in the market and can get rich by doing so . I doubt he is sitting around the table with the Stonecutters before determining the stations direction .

Even this may seem odious to some , but it's preferable IMHO to some of the alternatives readily witnessed in the media of "less free" societies

 

[Earthling]

There's one particular sort of bias that has taken off at a ridiculous rate in recent times and shows no signs of slowing down. The concept of presenting "both sides" of an issue and artificially altering the presentation of arguments to make them appear equal is common, with the idea that the reader would decide what opinions to accept. Yes, one could say this sort of "opinion-based" as opposed to fact-based journalism is possibly more common among media of certain political stripes, and likewise look into the causes and who is responsible for this sort of thing, but it's not even necessary to directly go there.

As a not really political example, everyone has seen headlines in modern media that are something like:

"Is science right about the calories in your diet? We'll argue yes and no!"

In the past, many people had the experience that this sort of tabloid-like media had not spread so far to traditional/presitigious/mainstream media outlets.

In a small subset of issues, this particular bias in the way of writing and presenting information naturally leads to an impression of liberal-in-the-political-sense bias. It does the same and sometimes a bit more on purpose for a possibly larger subset of issues where a conservative political opinion is supposedly presented.

"Should children be raised in traditional families or hippie communes!?"
"Do the Gospels contradict the science of climate change!?"

In reality, this is more of a bias towards sensationalism and a lack of objectivity. That bias is everywhere (in American media) and I do think it is a serious problem.

The other thing is that even the most uniformed or inattentive people are able to spot this bias in at least a few cases, particularly if something is presented which contradicts their own understanding. This provides a bit of an effect of confirmation bias, when a person sees an example of this bias on a political issue they might judge liberal or conservative and then remember that in the future, thinking "this media is often biased."

At the same time a lot of media is extremely defensive of the status quo rarely report anything novel or cutting edge. A focus on entertainment news is part of that as it takes up time avoiding any sort of political or controversial issue. Even leaving aside anything in science or technology, that's why you still get a media buzz when something "big" comes up like, "for the first time, this in depth documentary on something in the Middle East" when in reality people should be annoyed that regular newspapers and mainstream publications aren't doing more objective journalism in the first place

 

[Crezth]

I'm honestly just getting a kick at how far you're willing to take this... by all means, keep going.
I be on the road in a bit though, so I may not be responding to several posts immediately.

Muahahaha! Kochman the puppet master!

Come along, useless! Dance! Dance!

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

You would have to show that the press routinely misrepresents news stories in such a way as to lead to a liberal conclusion. Clearly that does not happen. So the liberal bias thing is crap.

Not necessarily. You don't have to say "BUSH BAD OBAMA GOOD" in the article to be biased. You wouldn't even have to lie.

There can be bias in what you choose to report or not report. For example, if high gas prices got more attention in 2008 than in 2012, that could be liberal bias. (Don't know if that's the case, but if it is, it would be bias.)

There can be bias in word choices, like if you refer to a conservative group as "right wing" and a liberal group as "activist" or "watchdog". Switch those and you'd have a conservative bias.

There can be bias in the focus of the coverage. We keep hearing about the falling unemployment rate but not so much about the labor force participation rate. I also remember hearing how bad the economy really was several years ago when the "official" unemployment rate was in the 5-6% range.

I've seen a few "news" articles that claimed Obamacare was the achievement progressives had been seeking since Teddy Roosevelt...now that might be a bad example because it's an out and out lie, but it's still favoring one side over the other.

Left/right isn't the only bias. There's a huge racial bias in national news coverage--missing people only matter if they're young white women. If you got all of your information from your local news, you'd think all black people were violent felons.