What connotes a liberal bias?

[Bozo Erectus]

Bias is always in much sharper relief when you consider whats never discussed, as opposed to what is.

 

[Swiss Bezerker]

Media has a conservative bias, because, as bathsheeba pointed out, Big companies love tax brakes

 

[Evie]

ARGH. I wrote a long reply, and my computer ate it. Oh, well, summing up then :

1 - Headlines are there to sell, not inform.

The point of a headline is to grab reader's attentions (and, as a result, grab sales). And, due to human nature, the Bad News headline will almost always grab more attention than the Good News headline. "Study shows the government is doing mostly well" won't attract much attention ; "Study shows the government has a few bad apples" will.

Same goes for "New Iraqi govt formed" (Good News), and "Holes in Iraqi govt". The first doesn't really make you want to read more of the article ; the second do. This is simple capitalism at work : you get the headlines that sell copies. (and hence Reuters running the other title : THEY aren't trying to sell copies).

2 - Headlines are too short to be a comprehensive look at the topic.

...and as such, will almost ALWAYS give an appearance of bias. "New Iraqi govt" is biased too at a glance : biased toward the Bush government. It tells the people, "Hey, look, we've made progress!" and doesn't mention the fact that said progress is actually nowhere near as good as you'd think at a glance. There more often than not isn't enough place to have a headline that says "New Iraqi govt forms, but is full of holes!" (keeping in mind that there are other articles and headlines, not to mention ads, letters to the editor, opinion pieces, etc to fit in the paper, and that these, too, need a fair share of place).

Some newspapers (but not all) try to alleviate this by running more detailed summaries under the headline in smaller fonts, but again, that uses up space, which not all papers might afford.

3 - There's a reason we talk about "vocal minority"

And that reason is, it exists. Letter to the editor pages tend to reflect the letters the media get, NOT the result of the polls : that is, a magazine that gets 170 pro-Kerry letters, and 30 pro-Bush ones is NOT showing bias by releasing 17 and 3 : they're accurately representating what was sent to them.

And this is where vocal minority comes into play : the people who are UNHAPPY with a current situation (in this case, the Kerry-voters, since they lost the election) will always speak more loudly than those who are content with it. That's what "vocal minority" means. That's because the people who are content don't have anything to complain about (and thus, nothing to say in their letter really) ; those who are unhappy, on the other hand, will have a lot to put in their letters.

You can see the phenomenon right here on CFC, if you look at posts in the Civ IV forum from around November 2005 : view the "Do you like C-IV" polls first (and note that a crushing majority voted yes), then compare with the threads in existence (an overwhelming majority of "I don't like C-IV"/"C-IV won't work for me"/"The designer's head would look good on a spike"). That's a vocal minority at work.

4 - Good media SHOULD look biased

The trick is, this bias should be variable.. That's because the primary role of the media in a democracy is to inform people, and the one thing people in a democracy needs information about the most is the BAD things their leaders are up to.

The reasoning is simple, here. LEaders in a democracy have the fate of their people in their hand. If the leaders are screwing up in any way, form or shape, then the people really ought to know about it (whereas the governments are good enough about touting their own successes, so they don't really need help there), as THEY will pay the price of the screwing up in one way or another (for example : Bush screwing up internationally = Americans far less popular when they leave their country).

For that reason, if the democrats are in power, good media would likely appear to have some sort of republican leaning, and with republicans in power, good media would likely appear to have some sort of democrat leaning.

You take the power, you accept the inconveniences that go with it. And that includes watchdogs doing their job of jumping on you at the slightest mistake.

5 - Opinion pieces are, well, opinions.

And as such, of course they're going to be biased, and anyone who uses them as evidence of media bias (or who blindly follow what they says) really, really ought to get a reality check. Same goes for newspaper proclaiming for one candidate or the other in an election.

6 - A liberal editor does not make a liberal edition

Of course, liberal editor CAN result in liberal bias in the media, but one does not necessarily follow from the other : a person can have personal bias but be able to set them aside in the course of their work. Easily, even, if they bother trying at all. Thus, polls showing "more editors are liberals than conservatives" proves nil regarding liberal bias in the media.

---------

Now then, I wasn't nearly interested enough in American politics pre-9-11 (really, pre-me becoming involved on a few forum and their misc boards on the internet) to remember what reporting was like during the Clinton admin, so I can't proclaim most american media unbiased or biased (Fox is an exception, because of their spectacular failure of watchdog duty - they are far too complacent toward the administration. Simple as that).

 

[GeorgeOP]

To say that most news outlets aren't liberally biased is to also suggest that Fox News isn't conservatively biased. I don't think either intends on being biased, but when you have a group of journalists that are all of one political persuation making decisions those decisions tend to point to the politics of the editors. Most editors are liberal, most over at Fox are conservative. I have no doubt that most editors don't try to do it on purpose. But I keep hearing people complain that Fox news isn't real news because it's slanted a different direction from other sources.

Example: CNN's main story is "Marines likely killed innocent civilians" while Fox has "Murdur Charges? Marines probed for Iraqi deaths". Both statements are true, and both statements show the "biased" towards the story the author has. This doesn't diminish the story, or allow you to excuse it out of hand, but you should be allowed to question the meaning of the words.

 

[Evie]

Obviously - ANYONE who relinquish their right to think for themselves to anyone else (whether a journalist, political leader, or a religious prophet), and stop questioning what they're being told is surrendering his very humanity.

For that matter, anyone who doesn't question HIMSELF frequently is surrendering a large part of his humanity.

We're humans. ALL of us make mistakes. Good people question themselves and catch those mistakes early, maybe in time to correct them (or at least, to prepare for the unavoidable backlash). Others remain 100% sure of their way, never question - and get a bloody nose when the mistake comes back to hit them in the face.

 

[Shadylookin]

According to Fox News, it's any media outlet that isn't Fox News.

i'd say liberal bias is anything published that embelishes the truth just to spite the right bias. and vice versa.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

The easiest way for me to think of bias is with a money example: Image Team A working on a project X for years and always earning $50K profit. Team B states they can triple the profit to $150K. They get the job and make $100K profit.

Bias to Team A: "Team B fails to meet their profit goal by 33%, $50K short!"
Bias to Team B: "Team B doubles the profit for project X, a gain of $50K!"

Both are factually correct statements, but obviously leave the reader with different impressions.

Now an example that was used earlier was the formation of the new Iraqi gov't. Here is how I would consider bias in the US at the current time. It would have been the opposite during Bosnia since President Clinton started that one:

Neutral: New gov't formed in Iraq. (article talks about good and bad)
Liberal: New Iraqi gov't has holes. (focuses on bad)
Conservative: New Iraqi gov't signals turning point (focuses on good)
Also Neutral: Analysing someone else talking about the 'holes' or 'turning point'. I would consider it liberal or conservative to attack the other sides position without realizing they do have some points (unless of course they are so far off base that they don't, but that is rare.)

 

[Silent Spectre]

What about "Iraq's new gov't a good start, but still needs some work"?
That seems like it might be for both sides. On one hand, it states that there is positive progress, but on the other, it says that there are problems with it.

 

[Zardnaar]

The media here is sensationalist in regards to politics. They rip into both parties depending on whos in power at any one time. I have noticed that since 96 they have a huge influence on minor parties. In election year here-

1996- New Zealand first will be the knigmaker blah blah blah. NZ 1st gets alot of seats in parliment.

1999- The Greens are looking nice this year. Greens get elcetorate seat and over 5% of the vote.

Effectively they hyp up smaller parties at election time and rip into the current government of the day.
2002- United Future blah blah blah. United Future surges from 1% to over 5% in election results.

 

[Marla_Singer]

What about "Iraq's new gov't a good start, but still needs some work"?
That seems like it might be for both sides. On one hand, it states that there is positive progress, but on the other, it says that there are problems with it.

Knowing how strong are the disagreements, and the parties which have won recent elections in Iraq, saying "a good start, but still needs some work" seems very optimistic.

After 3 years of violence in Iraq, don't be surprised if media turns out skeptic. That skepticism is necessarily a bias, as any point of view is biased, but it's not because you're skeptic about the new Iraqi government that you have necessarily a political agenda.

 

[malclave]

If you refuse to acknowledge a source of information with a liberal bias regardless of how truthful it is, then isn't that intellectually dishonest?

Yes, exactly like people who just disregard anything from Fox news out of hand.

"Liberal (or conservative) bias" is difficult to define. It can take many forms, and sometimes the indicators can be subtle.

- Presenting only one side of a story.
- Emphasizing one side of a story and/or burying the opposing view deep within the story.
- Explicitly pointing out the politically-oriented credentials of sources opposed to the bias of the story, and/or glossing over or failing to mention at all the politically-oriented credentials of sources biased the same way.
- Not fact-checking stories that agree with bias.
- Using misleading language to spin a story so people make conclusions based on bias, not fact.
- Claiming that a time machine was invented to take a personal computer back a few decades to allow a military officer to write a memo in modern fonts ("Fake but Accurate"), in order to compromise an election.

There are other methods, of course.

One blatant example of a biased story (not a politically-based one, so the discussion stays civil <g>):

I remember a couple of decades ago ('84 or '85, I think), "60 Minutes" ran a story regarding the game "Dungeons and Dragons". For the "against" argument, they had representatives of B.A.D.D. (Bothered About Dungeons and Dragons), who had prepared for the interview. For the "for" argument, they had a game shop owner (who said D&D was good because many gamers use miniatures, and painting them enhances hand-eye coordination).

Now, if I didn't know anything about the subject to begin with, what am I likely to "conclude"? Exactly what the alleged journalists involved wanted me to conclude... that playing D&D is, if not necessarily evil, at least risky behavior.

Clearly, the people responsibe for the story had an agenda other than disseminating facts. That is bias. And, while I'm not saying that the piece should have been completely ignored, it is important to pay close attention to exactly what is being said, and by whom.

 

[amadeus]

I would HOPE that the media is liberal if its in this sense then...

That's asinine. Don't confuse the literal definition of the term "liberal" with the political designation.

Does it also investigate the political views of the owners of the media? Those who pay the bills and provide the funding?

nm, I know the answer.

Ted Turner? Katharine Graham?

As another poster has indicated, there's a difference between the political sense of "liberal" and the idea of "liberal" in the approach to information. Just as there's a difference between being a "Democrat" and a "democrat." But, such distinctions are not conventient for those who need to demonize the media.

I think you're almost feigning misunderstanding, because you're taking these definitions in a very literal sense. The question was very clear, so much so that any mush-brain leftist newspaper editors could understand it.

 

[North King]

It's all relative. You might notice all the conservatives whine about liberal bias all over the news, while liberals say much the opposite... I suspect it is fairly neutral with some stations leaning the one way and some the other, but it is far from the majority leaning liberally, and far from the majority leaning conservatively.

The majority leans any way that makes them money.

 

[The Yankee]

I wonder if anyone else has had enough of the knee-jerk reactions of attacking all media as liberal or conservative, pro-US, anti-US, pro-this, anit-that. The media outlets are not some grand monolith, certainly not anymore from their high point of concentration (at least in the TV world) of years past. Obviously, different outlets might cater to different tastes, sometimes deliberately so. It does no good to bash the liberal bias of all media if you only quote from the Free Republic, and vise versa with some obviously liberal/Democrat publication.

You can sidestep a lot of the bias by having multiple sources of information. Even if they're a majority in one kind of slant, you'll still hear different things from different outlets and can form a more complete picture.

Another problem is the proliferation of commentators. Not that this in itself is a bad thing. In fact, it's quite entertaining a lot of the time. However, one cannot simply quote from a commentator as Gospel. It may outline a belief or even present news with a slant, but by itself, it is no way a complete view.

Finally, there has been a lot of talk about headlines. I think it should be a priority for all of us to actually read the story. Maybe the New York Times does have a bias in its headlines...but so what? You'll still get information from the story anyway.

This does seem overblown to me, even though its true, in part.

 

[Neomega]

A liberal bias is defined as reporting the news in a way that advances the agenda of those on the left, mainly Democrats. The quickest example I can think of is a headline from my local newspaper last Sunday, reprinted from the NY Times, reporting on the new Iraqi government: "New Iraqi Government has Holes". In my opinion the news of the day was that Iraqis formed a government. The bias in the reporting was to say the government was somehow a disappointment meaning Iraq is not progressing, which is bad for President Bush and, hence, liberal.

But it DOES habve holes, huge ones! The two most important cabinet positions, Interior (police forces) and Oil ministries were left vacant.

Now, I know there are some polls out there saying this man has a 32% approval rating. But guys like us; we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in 'reality.' And reality has a well-known liberal bias. . . .

 

[malclave]

You can sidestep a lot of the bias by having multiple sources of information. Even if they're a majority in one kind of slant, you'll still hear different things from different outlets and can form a more complete picture.

Heck, I lean to the right (big surprise, right?), and I rarely pay any attention to Fox News . I'm afraid that getting my news from organizations leaning the same way will make me more likely to believe their spin. I'd rather get the news from people who I'm more likely to challenge, as feel I'm more likely to pay closer attention to the whole story, and not just the headline and lead-in.

 

[The Yankee]

True. But I do think people are not making the distinction between commentary (or conjecture) and facts. Even if I watch Fox News and the newsbabe of the hour mentions something that could be taken as a conservative (or anti-Democrat) bias in a story, I don't run away and hop on the Q train to go trash Fox News studios in Midtown. Same thing happens when some other person says something that seems to have a bias to the left or against Republicans.

The huge fight over immigration has highlighted a lot of it on both sides, when you watch the news over a couple of months. I know when Lou Dobbs is adding his commentary to a segment and I know when they're presenting some relevant facts...and this is with me leaning in his favor.

Point is, I don't think enough people are paying the attention needed when gathering information. Hence the fight over whether headlines are biased, yet they hardly ever touch into the stories below the headlines.

 

[aneeshm]

I would HOPE that the media is liberal if its in this sense then...

But the word "liberal" has come to mean leftist , so that is very definitely not the sense you meant .

 

[Tenochtitlan]

I know I'll get raked over the coals for this, but I recommand reading a copy of "And That's The Way It Isn't" by Brent Bozell. The book largely predates cable news services, so it gives you a more narrow picture of TV journalism in the late 1980s.

While the authors themselves are unabashedly conservative, the statistics in these pages are priceless in their utility, so far as understanding the bias of the "main stream media," typically meaning the largest outlets.

In survey after survey, it is shown time and time again that the vast majority of newspaper editors, TV personalities, etc. describe themselves as being liberal. There's no magic tricks here, it's just the nature of the business.

Even though the majority of journalists are liberal, the media today is more influenced by the interests of the corporation, regardless of whether it was liberal or conservative.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

What about "Iraq's new gov't a good start, but still needs some work"?
That seems like it might be for both sides. On one hand, it states that there is positive progress, but on the other, it says that there are problems with it.

In the US I think that would be politically neutral. In Europe I think that would be considered conservative and overly optimistic.

That also enters into what is fact vs what is bias. They aren't necessarily related and unlike my math example, opinions can enter into it.

Difference of fact
Liberal: Bush lied to start an unjust war with Iraq
Conservative: Bush relied on faulty intelligence to liberate Iraq
Well, one excludes the other, but both sides make the assumption their facts are correct.

Difference of opinion
Liberal: Illegal immigrants from Mexico are good for America
Conservative: Illegal immigrants from Mexico are bad for America
Well, some might call these facts, but I call it opinion as the advantages and disadvantages are very complex.