Dean, this is a pretty dishonest statment! To state over and over again that something exists when the evidence provided is refuted isn't fair at all.
No, not at all. I think I have shown and proven my case. You may not agree or like it, but there are many that do agree, and they are intellectual scholars, not rednecks.
You can cite all sorts of studies, not like the methodology, etc, but when it comes to a line item to how the news is presented and the opinions of the editors, it does have a "liberal", "left" bias. Corporate ownership notwithstanding.
sagascend wrote:
The second reason is because I have seen no compelling data to demonstrate this bias.
Wow, I do, almost everyday, just by following the news. All I need to do for me (as well as many others) is to look and read, or watch and observe and draw my own conclusions. You have drawn yours, and I have drwan mine. Don't need no data or studies to confirm this. (purposely stated that way)
sagascend wrote:
If you are not even willing to QUALIFY this blanket statement and continue to repeat it wholesale without even bothering to define it or take a critical look at it, I think that is extremely intellectually dishonest.
No intellectual dishonesty on my part. I'm sure I do not come across as "intellectual" because of my views, but I think I have stated my case very well of evidence of liberal media bias. Tim Russert even acknowledged that there is a liberal bias in the media. I know he does not represent all liberals, but he was one. I thought I posted it, but did not. Let me try to find it.
So let me sum this up: The research doesn't matter. You won't take a critical look at the data that I present and ask questions. Only your opinion matters. There's no interest in the facts and developing a new understanding of whatever bias may be occurring and looking for research that has addressed critiques and improved or been refined, only in cataloging opinions in support of your own and trying to insinuate that your political views are what make you anti-intellectual (directed at me, I guess).
All I can say is that isn't the problem, but if those the standards you're using in this discussion then there's no point at all in having it.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1434 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Mon 15 Sep 2008 20:05 Post subject:
sagascend wrote:
So let me sum this up: The research doesn't matter. You won't take a critical look at the data that I present and ask questions. Only your opinion matters. There's no interest in the facts and developing a new understanding of whatever bias may be occurring and looking for research that has addressed critiques and improved or been refined, only in cataloging opinions in support of your own and trying to insinuate that your political views are what make you anti-intellectual (directed at me, I guess).
All I can say is that isn't the problem, but if those the standards you're using in this discussion then there's no point at all in having it.
So what are we researching, perspectives and opinions? I have come to my conclusions over the course of about 10 years or so. I have read several books and many articles, well researched I might add, so that I can make an educated deduction about how the traditional media reports the news. This is my view and I am stcking to it as you will stick to yours. I have enough data and facts to back up how I think and how I came to my conclusion. Basically we can go back and forth on this all day long, you'll have your thoughts and I will have mine and neither will change.
So let me sum this up: The research doesn't matter. You won't take a critical look at the data that I present and ask questions. Only your opinion matters. There's no interest in the facts and developing a new understanding of whatever bias may be occurring and looking for research that has addressed critiques and improved or been refined, only in cataloging opinions in support of your own and trying to insinuate that your political views are what make you anti-intellectual (directed at me, I guess).
All I can say is that isn't the problem, but if those the standards you're using in this discussion then there's no point at all in having it.
So what are we researching, perspectives and opinions? I have come to my conclusions over the course of about 10 years or so. I have read several books and many articles, well researched I might add, so that I can make an educated deduction to how the traditional media reports the news. This is my view and I am stcking to it as you will stick to yours. I have enough data and facts to back up how I think and how I came to my conclusion.
I was not researching opinions per se. They are a dime a dozen, especially among pundits and journalists. I have been looking for perspectives that are interested in the data and take a critical eye towards studies that draw premature conclusions. I am so interested in this topic that I am going to try and find more academic research on media bias(if anyone is doing it).
If you think there is nothing new that you can learn and no information that will change your pre-conceived notions, and it sounds that is the case, there is no point. I DO think there is more that I can learn and years of reading and doing independent research do not matter because I may have strongly held beliefs based on years of gathering information, but new facts can and have changed them. I am not a media studies expert but I do know enough to know that a charge of categorical bias in one direction or another, forever and ever AMEN, is not a fair assessment of available data on media markets and content (which we haven't even looked at).
If that is your opinion, it is not one that you hold in a vacuum by any means. Many people share your beliefs. But isn't it the case that it should not be stated as a fact and it should not be categorically applied all media of any kind (alternative, traditional or whatever) without some kind of qualification in your language or presentation of the type of evidence that backs up this sweeping claim?
I hear conservatives say all the time that the country is right leaning. If so, why would consumers of the media accept and support products that do not reflect their reality?
Maya, what you brought up here is the key to the conversation we've been having about the media. Think about your question, then remember that there are PLENTY of Americans who believe the majority of media outlets (including home town papers - didn't you see that wiki page with googobs of home town paper endorsements for Clinton and Obama?) are biased against conservative views and are clearly left-leaning. If leaning is in the eye of the beholder, then I see a vast left-leaning bias based on my view and you see some right-leaning bias based on your view. So, if, as you have heard some conservatives say, the country is right-leaning, then this explains why most people will claim that the media is left-leaning. I hope all that made sense. There is a report I posted recently in your media bias evidence thread that directly answers the question you have posed.
The results from this study suggests that conservatives do in fact perceive more bias than liberals, and conservatives and liberals perceive opposing news outlets to be biased against their views. The results also show that on the whole, liberals are generally happy with the media, which may explain why conservatives are more likely to perceive a media bias.
With liberals being happy with the media, and because conservatives perceive a general media bias, the study suggests that the media in fact are liberal. This study did not prove the existence of bias in the media, but it does suggest that a bias does exist because perception is reality. Liberals and conservatives did perceive bias, and that perception of bias leads to the reality of bias, which depending on the outlet can be either liberal or conservative.
The other key to what you asked is that viewers/listeners ARE turning away from the media that has a left-bias and toward media that they see as more "fair and balanced" or possibly right-biased. There's a reason conservative talk radio has been very popular for so long. It's because the people with those views did not have any other outlets. Here are two more excerpts from that report:
Quote:
Perception of bias is associated with the perception of accuracy and credibility, and a decrease in a news sources' credibility renders that source less useful; as perceived credibility declines, conceivably, so does the audience. Since 2002, only the Fox News Channel has seen a growth in viewership, mainly from a growing Republican audience, while other news and cable outlets have seen their audience share go flat if not decline. Most notable is CNN, whose credibility rating among Republicans dropped from 33% in 2000 to 26% in 2004, and the percentage of people watching CNN dropped from 35% of the U.S. population in 1993, to 22% in 2004.
Quote:
Although these results do not prove that any of the media outlets named hold a particular leaning or are biased in any way, the results do suggest that conservative and liberal individuals perceive certain news outlets to be biased against their views, while other outlets are either less biased or in agreement with their views. This could suggest that conservatives and liberals perceive opposing news outlets as biased against their beliefs because their views of reality do not correspond to the views presented by the media outlets.
This study offers a response to the media's own defense of, "We must be doing a good job if we're getting it from both sides." The problem is that the media are not getting it from both sides; they are getting it from one side.
Liberals, on the whole, are pretty happy with the media, especially the mainstream media. Meanwhile, this study shows that being a conservative significantly led to a greater perception of media bias, and as credibility declines, so too does the audience.
So as long as conservatives continue to perceive a liberal bias in the mainstream media, conservatives will seek out other news outlets for their news and information which will lead to an ever decreasing audience for the mainstream media that espouse beliefs contrary to the audience.
Oh, and in regard to why you hear conservatives say that we are a right leaning country...if a picture is worth a thousand words, then here are two thousand.
Maya, what you brought up here is the key to the conversation we've been having about the media. Think about your question, then remember that there are PLENTY of Americans who believe the majority of media outlets (including home town papers - didn't you see that wiki page with googobs of home town paper endorsements for Clinton and Obama?) are biased against conservative views and are clearly left-leaning.
Regardless of what many Americans believe, there are hard facts that contradict the assertion that home town newspapers endorse liberals more than conservatives.
Tell me how many newspapers endorsed Bush vs. Gore:
This study looked at non-Presidential endorsements and does not support the finding that most newspapers endorse liberal candidates. In fact, the findings of several studies cited by the authors indicated the exact opposite: That Republican presidential candidates receive more newspaper endorsements.
This study found, as did the previous, that incumbents of both parties receive more endorsements. It all found that newspaper endorsements shifted from mostly Republican to balanced bipartisan endorsements:
This is why it is important to consider research that analyzes media content in a way that tries to be objective and comprehensive. You can't just post random endorsements from newspapers you perceive as left-leaning or right-leaning and make a valid conclusion. You can't just repeat what a left-leaning or right-leaning journalist has to say.
Do you have any studies that have found that more newspapers endorse Democrats/liberals than they endorse Republicans/conservatives?
Other wrote:
If leaning is in the eye of the beholder, then I see a vast left-leaning bias based on my view and you see some right-leaning bias based on your view.
No - I think you conclude this simply because you are conservative and inclined to see liberal bias no matter what is really there. My view is that bias in the media is not one-directional (liberal OR conservative) in a highly fragmented and corporate-owned media. I believe that the media make an concerted effort to present "two sides" of an issue regardless of the personal political orientation of journalists because that is their official professional duty. IF and WHEN there is bias in the media, I think it is bizarre to point the finger at one or ten newspapers you perceive as biased and ignore the radio shows, newspapers and tv media that are also biased...but perhaps towards your point of view and therefore "unbiased?"
Do some research on liberal critics of the media. You might be surprised by what they perceive. They seem unware that the media sources they critique are slanted in their favor.
Other wrote:
So, if, as you have heard some conservatives say, the country is right-leaning, then this explains why most people will claim that the media is left-leaning. I hope all that made sense. There is a report I posted recently in your media bias evidence thread that directly answers the question you have posed.
Yes, I read it. Now this conclusion is priceless:
AIM wrote:
In the end, however, because conservatives were more critical of the media both in general and in response to specific outlets, the results seem most consistent with the claim that a liberal political bias exists in the mainstream news media.
So, let's say this in other words: Because conservatives complain louder, the bias they complain about is real. Seriously? Come on. They could have tried a LITTLE harder than that.
There is also an issue with their definition of bias:
AIM wrote:
Bias is defined in one study as a "perceived attribute of a news source whereby the individual news source, or the group the news source represents, has a clear vested interest in a cause or action relative to maintaining or changing the status quo… (and) a biased journalistic perspective, then, would mean only one side, not two or more sides, of an issue is presented."
Huh? Isn't it entirely possible to present two or more sides of an issues and STILL be biased? Of course it is. So this conclusion is faulty. These researchers, unfortunately, did not do any content analysis. I would be the first to say that yes, it also seems clear to me that conservatives perceive more media bias than most liberals if we are talking about, say, CNN or the NYT. But the inverse is true of Fox News and the WSJ. The key findings tell me nothing about content but they tell me a lot things about perceptions. You can't say that bias exists because people say it does with any credibility, but that is exactly what the study's authored concluded.
Contrast this with an approach that does not have a partisan/ideological agenda towards the content under scrutiny:
Quote:
Bias in the news media
Is the news media biased toward liberals? Yes. Is the news media biased toward conservatives? Yes. These questions and answers are uninteresting because it is possible to find evidence--anecdotal and otherwise--to "prove" media bias of one stripe or another. Far more interesting and instructive is studying the inherent, or structural, biases of journalism as a professional practice--especially as mediated through television. I use the word "bias" here to challenge its current use by partisan critics. A more accepted, and perhaps more accurate, term would be "frame." These are some of the professional frames that structure what journalists can see and how they can present what they see.
Commercial bias: The news media are money-making businesses. As such, they must deliver a good product to their customers to make a profit. The customers of the news media are advertisers. The most important product the news media delivers to its customers are readers or viewers. Good is defined in numbers and quality of readers or viewers. The news media are biased toward conflict (re: bad news and narrative biases below) because conflict draws readers and viewers. Harmony is boring.
Temporal bias: The news media are biased toward the immediate. News is what's new and fresh. To be immediate and fresh, the news must be ever-changing even when there is little news to cover.
Visual bias: Television (and, increasingly, newspapers) is biased toward visual depictions of news. Television is nothing without pictures. Legitimate news that has no visual angle is likely to get little attention. Much of what is important in politics--policy--cannot be photographed.
Bad news bias: Good news is boring (and probably does not photograph well, either). This bias makes the world look like a more dangerous place than it really is. Plus, this bias makes politicians look far more crooked than they really are.
Narrative bias: The news media cover the news in terms of "stories" that must have a beginning, middle, and end--in other words, a plot with antagonists and protagonists. Much of what happens in our world, however, is ambiguous. The news media apply a narrative structure to ambiguous events suggesting that these events are easily understood and have clear cause-and-effect relationships. Good storytelling requires drama, and so this bias often leads journalists to add, or seek out, drama for the sake of drama. Controversy creates drama. Journalists often seek out the opinions of competing experts or officials in order to present conflict between two sides of an issue (sometimes referred to as the authority-disorder bias). Lastly, narrative bias leads many journalists to create, and then hang on to, master narratives--set story lines with set characters who act in set ways. Once a master narrative has been set, it is very difficult to get journalists to see that their narrative is simply one way, and not necessarily the correct or best way, of viewing people and events.
Status Quo bias: The news media believe "the system works." During the "fiasco in Florida," recall that the news media were compelled to remind us that the Constitution was safe, the process was working, and all would be well. The mainstream news media never question the structure of the political system. The American way is the only way, politically and socially. In fact, the American way is news. The press spends vast amounts of time in unquestioning coverage of the process of political campaigns (but less so on the process of governance). This bias ensures that alternate points of view about how government might run and what government might do are effectively ignored.
Fairness bias: No, this is not an oxymoron. Ethical journalistic practice demands that reporters and editors be fair. In the news product this bias manifests as a contention between/among political actors (also re: narrative bias above). Whenever one faction or politician does something or says something newsworthy, the press is compelled by this bias to get a reaction from an opposing camp. This creates the illusion that the game of politics is always contentious and never cooperative. This bias can also create situations in which one faction appears to be attacked by the press. For example, politician A announces some positive accomplishment followed by the press seeking a negative comment from politician B. The point is not to disparage politician A but to be fair to politician B. When politician A is a conservative, this practice appears to be liberal bias.
Expediency bias: Journalism is a competitive, deadline-driven profession. Reporters compete among themselves for prime space or air time. News organizations compete for market share and reader/viewer attention. And the 24-hour news cycle--driven by the immediacy of television and the internet--creates a situation in which the job of competing never comes to a rest. Add financial pressures to this mix--the general desire of media groups for profit margins that exceed what's "normal" in many other industries--and you create a bias toward information that can be obtained quickly, easily, and inexpensively. Need an expert/official quote (status quo bias) to balance (fairness bias) a story (narrative bias)? Who can you get on the phone fast? Who is always ready with a quote and always willing to speak (i.e. say what you need them to say to balance the story)? Who sent a press release recently? Much of deadline decision making comes down to gathering information that is readily available from sources that are well known.
Glory bias: Journalists, especially television reporters, often assert themselves into the stories they cover. This happens most often in terms of proximity, i.e. to the locus of unfolding events or within the orbit of powerful political and civic actors. This bias helps journalists establish and maintain a cultural identity as knowledgeable insiders (although many journalists reject the notion that follows from this--that they are players in the game and not merely observers). The glory bias shows itself in particularly obnoxious ways in television journalism. News promos with stirring music and heroic pictures of individual reporters create the aura of omnipresence and omnipotence. I ascribe the use of the satellite phone to this bias. Note how often it's used in situations in which a normal video feed should be no problem to establish, e.g. a report from Tokyo I saw recently on CNN. The jerky pictures and fuzzy sound of the satellite phone create a romantic image of foreign adventure
.
This structural bias theory is not about proving or disproving political bias, it is about explaining/defining biases that can be examined through further study. To me, this approach is more objective in that it is non-partisan and skeptical (towards the media), and it is more credible because it accepts the reality that media bias simply exists.
The idea that "bias exists because I perceive it and some people agree with me" is about as valid as the theory of cultural relativism. Lucky, scientists don't have to accept this and can actually draw conclusions based on observable phenomena that exist outside of people's heads:
Quote:
Content analysis is a tricky thing – a lot depends on how one selects and evaluates the content – but some of the analysis of journalists' work actually tells a positive story. In a study of the A sections and section fronts of three agenda-setting newspapers – the Washington Post, New York Times and Los Angeles Times – researchers at Bowling Green State University in Ohio found a remarkable degree of balance.
Despite frequent complaints that the media have been unfair (particularly from the Clinton camp), Clinton and Obama received roughly equal number of "positive" and "negative" headlines from the three papers during the period studied (from Labor Day through the Super Tuesday primaries in early February). About 35 percent of the headlines for Obama were positive and 27 percent were negative. Clinton received 31 percent positive and 31 percent negative. The balance of stories was judged to be either mixed (with positive and negative elements) or neutral.
Just as important, perhaps, is that Clinton's coverage wasn't "gendered" in the traditional way. That is, it didn't emphasize her clothing and appearance, something that candidates such as Patricia Schroeder and Elizabeth Dole faced in earlier campaigns. This may reflect the fact that Clinton is one of the best-known women in the world, with a long history in the spotlight. Nevertheless, the coverage tended to focus on her campaign and policy questions, the study found.
TV coverage may be a different story, acknowledges Melissa K. Miller, one of the study's two principal investigators, but that was beyond her scope. "I think when you systematically study press coverage in this manner, in which you're looking at hundreds if not thousands of headlines, it may give a different impression than a person sitting down in front of the TV for the evening news."
A similar analysis of the Chicago Tribune in March by the paper's public editor, Timothy J. McNulty, found that Obama was cited first in 93 front-page stories in the past year, compared with 80 for Clinton and 39 for McCain. Obama also led in front-page photographs (40), compared with Clinton (34) and McCain (21). A clear bias for Obama? Not exactly. "Those who see a disparity in coverage of Republicans versus Democrats are, of course, absolutely correct," McNulty wrote. "Much more space has been devoted to the ongoing struggle between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama than to McCain because the decision regarding the Republican presidential nominee seems settled."
The point is that the actual content has to be analyzed, not 'perceptions' of content, not anecdotal samples of content, not journalists' opinions about the content.
Other wrote:
Oh, and in regard to why you hear conservatives say that we are a right leaning country...if a picture is worth a thousand words, then here are two thousand.
I think it's very interesting that you assume that I don't believe that the US is currently slightly right of center (and undeniably trending left ever since those liberal radical Deists got going in 1776). That map is probably going to be a lot bluer in 50 years if the Democrats are still more liberal overall than Republicans.
I counted around 165 for Bush and 100 for Gore in that first link you posted and I skimmed the results of the other two studies. So, I stand corrected. Apparently, hometown newspapers tend to reflect the right-leaning nature of the majority of their customers. This only strengthens the position that the U.S. is right-leaning. It does not negate the reality of a left-leaning mainstream media. I posted several studies on that topic in the thread where you asked for such studies.
I didn’t assume anything about your beliefs. You said “I hear conservatives say all the time that the country is right leaning.” I was merely showing why they might say that.
Apparently, hometown newspapers tend to reflect the right-leaning nature of the majority of their customers. This only strengthens the position that the U.S. is right-leaning. It does not negate the reality of a left-leaning mainstream media.
Other - If hometown newspapers are not "mainstream media" I don't know what is! People outside of major metropolitan areas seem to rely on their own local news media for information.
My whole objective in these discussions, by the way, is not to prove that "the media" are not biased. I am trying to offer an alternative, backed up with peer-reviewed studies (and theory/raw data in some cases), to the popular notion that "the media" ONLY have a left wing bias. The fact are not supporting this assertion as stated.
There are questions to ask that would shed light on left-leaning media bias, which exists, but in order to have any credibility they have to defer to reality, which can't be that "the media" have a liberal bias when the majority of media consumers are apparently right-leaning, when there are "mainstream media" outlets that appear to be right-leaning or even far right-wing.
Other - The problem I see is not that you perceive left-leaning bias, but that you assert that (all) "the mainstream media" have it. To me what invalidates the assertion is the scope in an undefined mass without taking a look at the content produced more objectively. Why not look for the specific ways in which the bias might appear instead of assuming that the entire industry of hundreds of thousands (and a few corporate owners) has one agenda?
We would never stand for someone insisting that all White people are racist, that all Blacks are criminals or that all mixed folks have psychological issues just because of what their personal opinions are. Even if these opinions are shared by many, many people, even if they say it over and over again. We would come at these folks with guns blazing, and rightly so.
There may be valid reasons for the opinions we all hold, the perspectives we all have, but this site requires higher standards for discourse.
Lastly, I appreciate the dialogue we've been having! I've learned a lot.
sagascend, I never opined, nor do I hold the belief, that ALL of the mainstream media has a left-leaning bias. I'm not sure what I said that gave you that impression, especially since I pointed out that Fox News is typically seen as right-leaning. Plus, I posted at least two studies, in the "evidence" thread that dealt with media bias in both directions. As a scientist, I hardly ever say "never" or "always", "none" or "all". Notice, I didn't even say I never say those things.
Hi ,I'm new here, after reading this thread I would wonder if measuring the political leanings of the masses by studying th endorsements of local newspapers is a great Idea. I personally grew up in a small town that was majority African American and decidedly democrat so much so that even republican voters living in the county (Warren County, NC) registered democrat since almost all local elected officials were democrats and it allows them a say in the election. However our primary local paper is decidedly conservative because the who own and operate the local paper are conservative. It would seem to me that in many cases the local papers especially in rural and poor areas are biased towards the views of those who can afford to own them rather than reflecting the views of the native population.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1434 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Sat 20 Sep 2008 19:15 Post subject:
CJT2009 wrote:
Hi ,I'm new here, after reading this thread I would wonder if measuring the political leanings of the masses by studying th endorsements of local newspapers is a great Idea. I personally grew up in a small town that was majority African American and decidedly democrat so much so that even republican voters living in the county (Warren County, NC) registered democrat since almost all local elected officials were democrats and it allows them a say in the election. However our primary local paper is decidedly conservative because the who own and operate the local paper are conservative. It would seem to me that in many cases the local papers especially in rural and poor areas are biased towards the views of those who can afford to own them rather than reflecting the views of the native population.
Welcome abroad!!! If you come across any endoresments, by all means, post them in the appropriate sticky. I don't care if it's a hometown paper, weekly, monthly, or a national paper.
Hi ,I'm new here, after reading this thread I would wonder if measuring the political leanings of the masses by studying th endorsements of local newspapers is a great Idea. I personally grew up in a small town that was majority African American and decidedly democrat so much so that even republican voters living in the county (Warren County, NC) registered democrat since almost all local elected officials were democrats and it allows them a say in the election. However our primary local paper is decidedly conservative because the who own and operate the local paper are conservative. It would seem to me that in many cases the local papers especially in rural and poor areas are biased towards the views of those who can afford to own them rather than reflecting the views of the native population.
I don't think that's the question though. I think the question is "do local papers demonstrate an alleged liberal bias?" The answer is clearly "NO" if one looks at the endorsement record of local papers over decades.
What you are saying actually resonates with me because I have maintained that media owners have much more influence over content in outlets that they own. It makes total sense to me that conservative owners of a newspaper/tv station/cable news channel would have an influence on the agenda, which is why I am highly skeptical of a categorically liberal bias in the media. This notion just doesn't hold up to scrutiny, but it remains a favorite assertion of conservative media critics.
sagascend, I never opined, nor do I hold the belief, that ALL of the mainstream media has a left-leaning bias. I'm not sure what I said that gave you that impression, especially since I pointed out that Fox News is typically seen as right-leaning. Plus, I posted at least two studies, in the "evidence" thread that dealt with media bias in both directions. As a scientist, I hardly ever say "never" or "always", "none" or "all". Notice, I didn't even say I never say those things.
What gave me the impression is your definition of "mainstream media" that excludes the media that could be called right-leaning or conservative (like talk radio or local newspapers). Fox News, in your definition, would be excluded because it is not a network news channel. Not sure that you opined on the AP or Wall Street Journal, which are thought to be centrist-right in perspective. The AP actually provide many of the stories reported on by the network and cable news outlets as well as newspapers.
Nonetheless, if I misunderstood your position I apologize.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
As a scientist, I hardly ever say "never" or "always", "none" or "all". Notice, I didn't even say I 