Doc Savage Fan
Lifer
- Nov 30, 2006
- 15,456
- 389
- 121
Thanks for the response...however, on what basis (other than personal opinion) do you disagree with the studies cited? Were they flawed in some way?
As I've always said the media is far more corporate then liberal. There are tons of examples of the media being "conservatively" biased. If you look at the run up to the war, opinions that favored the government and war were OVERWHELMINGLY shown. If you look at the different scandals between Clinton and Bush, if you are being reasonable the warrantless wiretapping controversy is at least as impeachable as the Monica Lewinsky scandal, yet it has probably received about 10% of the media coverage.
This isn't because the media is trying to promote an agenda, they just want viewers. They figured that pro war reporting was where the viewers were at before the invasion just the same as they realized that Republican bashing was where the country was at before the 2006 election. The news media does have an ideology, but it's not left or right. It's money.
This isn't because the media is trying to promote an agenda, they just want viewers. They figured that pro war reporting was where the viewers were at before the invasion just the same as they realized that Republican bashing was where the country was at before the 2006 election. The news media does have an ideology, but it's not left or right. It's money.
More personal opinion than anything else.
I think that any study on bias is inherently biased in and of itself. What is truly bias comes down to individual definitions of bias. Also, as noted by others (I think you as well), what is NOT reported is a form of bias.
I lean pretty heavily towards the liberal side of the spectrum when it comes to social issues (I'm a live and let live kinda guy on most issues) but I am decidedly towards the conservative when it comes to fiscal/economic issues. I see bias in the reporting of social issues in both directions depending on which source I am seeing at that moment. I will occasionally watch FNC and I enjoy listening to your namesake on the ride home even though I think he is pretty whacked out on some positions that he holds and pretty dead on balls accurate on others.
When it comes to the economic reporting, it's almost always slanted right.
eits
Lifer
so, you're complaining that there aren't enough delusional journalists? i don't follow...
is it that you think that as soon as someone decides that they want to report what goes on in the world, they suddenly become bleeding heart liberals? and somehow they're at fault for seeing, doing, and knowing things that you'll never have a chance to and reporting it?
why don't you cry a little more about the "liberal media"... it makes too much sense.
"
they don't explain the world the way that it is in my head... they're bad!"get real... maybe it's just that many of the journalists in the field lean left because the world is the way it is and it's not black and white like it is to you delusional righties.
:roll:
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
RightisWrong also touched on something important. Bias is extremely difficult to measure in terms of positive/negative coverage like that anyway. Before the 2006 elections by almost anyone's estimate the policies the Republicans were supporting were failing. Of course there was more negative coverage of them, they were mired in corruption scandals and saddled with an incredibly unpopular war. Would 50/50 positive negative coverage be indicative of reality? I don't think so. Was the media biased against Clinton for showing more negative coverage then positive during the Lewinsky scandal? I don't think so either.
One thing that people tend to forget when looking at media 'bias' is that on most things in reality, one side IS on the losing end and it's not bias to report it that way.
One thing that people tend to forget when looking at media 'bias' is that on most things in reality, one side IS on the losing end and it's not bias to report it that way.
Doc Savage Fan
Lifer
- Nov 30, 2006
- 15,456
- 389
- 121
I agree...but that doesn't negate the validity of the studies if that's what you're trying to imply.
Doc Savage Fan
Lifer
- Nov 30, 2006
- 15,456
- 389
- 121
Look...the facts are the facts...the studies clearly refute your personal opinion. Sure...anyone can point to specific events that shed a negative light on Dems...but overall the media is liberally biased. If you choose to ignore that...well hey...that's your perogative.
BTW, Mike Savage is not my namesake...Doc Savage was a science detective in the pulps published in the 30's and 40's. For the record, I can't stand listening to Mike Savage or conservative talk radio in general.
I don't think it's anywhere close to clear. If you look at that study done by Harvard it is on one period in one election cycle. The Democratic slate has the first black man ever to have a serious chance at winning the presidency and the first woman ever to have a serious chance. The woman is part of one of the most powerful families in American politics, and the black guy happens to be exceptionally articulate and media savvy. On the Republican side you have only one candidate who arouses much interest at all in people and that's Giuliani. To state that the media is biased for devoting more coverage to candidates that both you and I know the public finds more interesting is not a fair comparison. (for good or for ill... hell, just check out the number of Hillary and Obama threads on here vs. Giuliani)
The other studies mentioned at the end of that article mostly revolve around voting trends of journalists. If you honestly think that journalists write stories based on their partisan identification, then the profession is useless anyway and there's no point to reading news at all. (you may in fact hold this viewpoint). In addition, while the much ballyhooed report that all media outlets but FOX news were "left of center" is technically correct, if you read the study they admit that really all news organizations (with the exception of FOX if I remember right) are located between the average Democratic member of congress and the average Republican. Which means that more then anything else they are in the center... ie. largely unbiased.
As I mentioned before, there are plenty of cases (*cough* Run up to the Iraq War, economic issues *cough*) where the media leans heavily to the right. In short, it would be silly to think that all news organizations could somehow exist without some sort of bias, because they always rely on incomplete information and have to take someone's word for it. While some bias is certain to exist, I see no evidence that it is systemic or serious enough to really demand some sort of action, or to act as an explanation for enduring political trends. Because of that, I think the whole "liberal media" thing is way overblown.
First....sorry for the wrong on the name.
Back on topic. Answer a question for me and maybe we can understand each other's mindset regarding what bias actually is.
When Larry Craig, Jeff Gannon, Mark Foley, Rudy Guilliani, etc, got caught with their pants down (or trying to anyway) and those stories are reported in the media...is that a case of the media being biased or the media reporting on newsworthy stories that just happen to be negative towards the Republican party?
Likewise, when Gore "won" the Nobel and they reported on it, were they being biased or reporting what they thought was a newsworthy story (former VP winning Nobel)?
As I stated earlier. Biased is nearly impossible to measure because what might be biased to one person is newsworthy to another and vice versa. That isn't to say that their aren't clear examples of this that occur...but it is much harder to quantify than by a simple summation of +/- news reports. Context matters and a lot of times, the context for bias does not exist but it is still counted because of content.
Doc Savage Fan
Lifer
- Nov 30, 2006
- 15,456
- 389
- 121
The article references numerous studies over the course of decades that show a decidedly liberal media bias. As I said to RightIsWrong...anyone can point to specific events over the years that shed a negative light on Dems...but overall the studies all show that the media has a substantial liberal bias that is apparently cultural to the profession.
If you have contradictory evidence from a credible source...this is the time to present it. Otherwise it's all just partisan rhetoric and conjecture that doesn't mean squat. Show me the money!
Atomic Playboy
Lifer
- Feb 6, 2007
- 16,432
- 1
- 81
This whole "liberal media" nonsense started back in the 1990s, or even earlier, after a poll of AP journalists found that most reported themselves as liberal-leaning in their views. The right jumped all over this and decried the liberal bias that obviously must permeate the media, since most of the journalists identify as liberals. There are two problems here however:
First, this assumes that people who identify as liberals are inherently unable to remain neutral in the context of their job (in this case, reporting the news). This is patently absurd. If this were the case, you'd have to have people with absolutely zero interest in politics to cover the news to avoid any bias, and even then everyone is going to have something they are biased against. No one is perfect enough to claim no bias. It's how much personal bias is allowed to enter these reporters' work that will ultimately determine whether there is a liberal bias in the media or not (and that is almost entirely dependant on personal constraint; implying that liberals have no personal constraint and are inherently unable to take a neutral view of things is retarded). But this point is almost immediately nullified by point two:
A later poll showed that, despite most journalists leaning left, the majority of publishers leaned right. Ultimately, it is the publishers who are responsible for the content published, whether through what stories they choose to publish or how they decide to edit them. A left leaning journalist may turn in a left leaning story that is edited by a right leaning editor to appease a right leaning publisher and ends up a shadow of what the original journalist wrote. While weeding out bias is certainly an admirable goal, if the final say is generally given to right leaning publishers, why on Earth would you think that we are seeing a liberal bias in the media? If anything, by people on the right occupying the higher power positions, we would expect a conservative bias.
I think it's funny that the people perpetuating the myth of the liberal media are the same people who are fans of Doc Savage, one of the most rabidly conservative voices in media. To far right wingers, the media does have a liberal bias, if only because the neutral position that the media aims for is significantly left of where these viewers see themselves. They are unwilling to admit that they are further right than most people, and insist on believing that the (silent) majority of the country feels as they do. For these people, yes, there is a liberal bias in the media, and pretty much everywhere else in our society. For most people, the media is trying to have the widest appeal possible in an attempt to get as much money as possible, and consequently ends up pretty much in the middle.
First, this assumes that people who identify as liberals are inherently unable to remain neutral in the context of their job (in this case, reporting the news). This is patently absurd. If this were the case, you'd have to have people with absolutely zero interest in politics to cover the news to avoid any bias, and even then everyone is going to have something they are biased against. No one is perfect enough to claim no bias. It's how much personal bias is allowed to enter these reporters' work that will ultimately determine whether there is a liberal bias in the media or not (and that is almost entirely dependant on personal constraint; implying that liberals have no personal constraint and are inherently unable to take a neutral view of things is retarded). But this point is almost immediately nullified by point two:
A later poll showed that, despite most journalists leaning left, the majority of publishers leaned right. Ultimately, it is the publishers who are responsible for the content published, whether through what stories they choose to publish or how they decide to edit them. A left leaning journalist may turn in a left leaning story that is edited by a right leaning editor to appease a right leaning publisher and ends up a shadow of what the original journalist wrote. While weeding out bias is certainly an admirable goal, if the final say is generally given to right leaning publishers, why on Earth would you think that we are seeing a liberal bias in the media? If anything, by people on the right occupying the higher power positions, we would expect a conservative bias.
I think it's funny that the people perpetuating the myth of the liberal media are the same people who are fans of Doc Savage, one of the most rabidly conservative voices in media. To far right wingers, the media does have a liberal bias, if only because the neutral position that the media aims for is significantly left of where these viewers see themselves. They are unwilling to admit that they are further right than most people, and insist on believing that the (silent) majority of the country feels as they do. For these people, yes, there is a liberal bias in the media, and pretty much everywhere else in our society. For most people, the media is trying to have the widest appeal possible in an attempt to get as much money as possible, and consequently ends up pretty much in the middle.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
It is. For one thing, it begs the question, what's the middle? What's "fair and balanced?"
For example, on the simple 2 dimensional scale, I tend to be somewhat to the right on economic issues (though not quite as far as some would make me out to be, I'm a capitalist, but I believe strongly in charity and simple "safety nets") yet I am pretty far to the left on social/civil liberty issues (moreso even than most of the people here who consider themselves lefties). Does that make me a moderate? A lot of people here would disagree, let me tell ya.
Is there supposed to be some kind of outrage about calling the biggest prick of a president in US history a monkey?
Doc Savage Fan
Lifer
- Nov 30, 2006
- 15,456
- 389
- 121
Look Red...I have opinions just like you have opinions...and I thought these forums were designed for that purpose. I do my best to be intellectually honest, objective and make every attempt to keep people focused on discussing the topic at hand. So...let me get this straight...you say that I'm a "Right Wing loon"...please tell me...who is trying to antagonize whom?
Personal attacks from a Moderator...now isn't that special? :roll:
The studies referenced in the article target specific time periods that have been problematic for Republicans:
-January through May (although the last four years would suffice)
-1968 election --Nobody ever considered Nixon a likeable person
-1984 election --looks like there just wasn't much to say about Mondale period
-studies about journalists tending to be liberal are not very useful for determining bias
the fact that republicans got lots of negative press is not indicative that the fact that its actualy consiously or unconciously implanting a bias into the news. Personally, considering the circumstances i was suprised the media had so much positive to say about republicans last cycle.
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
This is a fact...media bias is real! It's very telling that we have so many Libs here that can't see that...it appears that they can only see conseravative media bias and nothing else. They're so steeped into their ideology that they willfilly turn a blind eye to the obvious (regardless of how many studies you show them) and rationalize anything that conflicts with their extremist world view. How sad is that?
you realize that must of the 'liberals' on here are actually libertarians, right? An ideology that has tended to side with conservatives until about 5 years ago.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 385
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter