View Full Version : Is the liberal media really liberal?
I had a conversation with one of my more conservative friends about Lehman Brothers/Repo 105 story that ran on 60 minutes recently. He warned me about believing what I saw and that he always checked 4 or 5 news sources, which I don't believe for a second. I got the sense that he automatically dismissed the story because it was part of the "liberal media", with the liberal media being everything except Fox News.
Now, generally, I think I can tell when the news leans one way or the other. For example, I think most of the time Fox News sticks to the facts. The discussion/analysis part seems obviously conservative but at least I can tell that. Obviously, MSNBC seems to be a little on the liberal side but other news sources to me seen relatively moderate, such as CNN, which seemingly don't take a position either way.
This got me thinking if the media has changed or if the labels we have put on the media have changed. Obviously, to me, both have changed. You have Fox News which is obliviously conservative while it seems everything else is labeled liberal. The implication by conservatives is that that there is a liberal media conspiracy operating here. Or on the flip side, is there a conspiracy to label all news as liberal if it is not overtly conservative?
Going back to the 60 minutes piece on Lehman Brothers, can it be liberal simply by the amount of attention they paid to the topic? If Fox spends 15 seconds reporting it while 60 minutes spends 15 minutes, could that make CBS/60 minutes liberal? But then you have to ask, how can a story about Lehman Brothers be liberal. I guess it could if you take the angle that reminding us of the financial meltdown from 2008 and that the conclusion is more government is needed to prevent it from happening again. And since more government equals big government, then its obviously liberal. What do you think? When someone talks about the "liberal media", do you think they mean everything except Fox News?
Yes, when I hear the phrase "liberal media" , I assume that the person using it means everything but Fox. I also assume they don't read or listen to anything that might challenge their firmly held convictions. I may be wrong.
Researchers at UCLA did an interesting study (http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx)on this topic a few years ago. According to their findings, yes, the media overall is liberal, although not as liberal as some conservatives might believe. By the same token, conservative leaning media is not as conservative as liberals may think.
Personally, I believe Fox News stands out to many partisans exactly because their slight tilt to the right is so diametrically opposed to those on the left who delude themselves into believing they are the center.
ApatheticNoMore
5-23-12, 1:59pm
First answer: NO!
Second more involved answer: the terms themselves (the term "liberal" for instance) are so slippery, that it quickly becomes a conversation about nothing. I mean really, you can't do a decent analysis with these terms. Is Obama "liberal"? I have no clue. And if people are using "liberal" to merely mean pro-Obama bias, shrug, maybe.
There are lot of concerns that the media does not cover. I mean be honest, is the media doing climate change justice, and really reporting what is going on there in the world now? What about other environmental issues? Is climate change "liberal?", are environmental issues "liberal"? Ha, according to a Fox news viewer maybe, but really they just are, they are embraced more by people who consider themselves on the left. Partly because they inevitably form a critique of business as usual, and they may well require government involvement as a solution (although P.S. current government is not doing a good job), but meh they just are.
What is the media position toward wars? In my opinion they tend to have a pro-war bias and mostly report the case for wars. Is that "liberal". I don't think so, but meh it doesn't fall so neatly along ideological lines.
Does the media blackout things like NDAA? Oh absolutely and CNN was the worst offender
(aweful). Is the media baised against someone like Ron Paul. Yea I think so, but how can you call this liberal when their bias against Paul shows while covering the REPUBLICAN primaries (with Obama nowhere in the picture in these stories).
And let's take an issue that could really fall into a liberal/non-liberal stance? What is the media's stance on economic matters? Considering there are almost no economic issues that are even really part of our current politics hard to say. At best you are left debating it's stance on tax cuts (which it's likely fine on) and Obamacare. Is it radical leftist and does it cover things outside of the current political climate? Oh course not, how often do you see a radical leftist on t.v.? Who owns the media? Does it mostly breakdown into 5 mega-corporations? Do you really think 5 oligopoly corporations are going to be radical leftist in their stance? Why, really, why? But pro-Obama, well whatever .....
Maybe some people think the media is liberal on social issues. Ha, they associate it with Hollywood (considering it's mostly the exact same companies that's legit), and liberal on those issues it may be as part of it's culture.
Going back to the 60 minutes piece on Lehman Brothers, can it be liberal simply by the amount of attention they paid to the topic? If Fox spends 15 seconds reporting it while 60 minutes spends 15 minutes, could that make CBS/60 minutes liberal?
yea, IMO it's an important story
But then you have to ask, how can a story about Lehman Brothers be liberal. I guess it could if you take the angle that reminding us of the financial meltdown from 2008 and that the conclusion is more government is needed to prevent it from happening again.
How much money has Lehman respectively given to each political party? I dont' know, I'm asking. Generally both parties are bought pretty heavily by Wall Street (the Dems often even more so). We may indeed need more financial regulation, is it going to happen? 4 years since the financial crisis, has Glass Stegal been reinstated? Why not?
I think the mainstream media is a very poor source of information for what is going on in the world, that's what I think. As a small part of one's information diet it may be ok. Really the media probably merely cares about maintaining the status quo as suits it. And for that purpose either party probably does just as much good (and the balance is perfect). Really that is the rational position if all you care about is maintaining the status quo because it benefits you. You just dont' want any wild and crazy people or movements out there.
Researchers at UCLA did an interesting study (http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx)on this topic a few years ago. According to their findings, yes, the media overall is liberal, although not as liberal as some conservatives might believe. By the same token, conservative leaning media is not as conservative as liberals may think.
Actually, Wikipedia here talks about it quite a bit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States . What it overall states is that the composition of the media outlets are predominately democratic and therefore "that journalists' coverage of controversial issues reflected their own attitudes, and the predominance of political liberals in newsrooms therefore pushed news coverage in a liberal direction. They presented this tilt as a mostly unconscious process of like-minded individuals projecting their shared assumptions onto their interpretations of reality."
I guess I have to agree.
ApatheticNoMore
5-23-12, 3:05pm
Do the journalists themselves choose the issues they get to cover? I mean you can slip bias into a story about anything if you are crafting the words (and I have to tell you CNN's headlines about W after 8 years of the guy were hilarious - and obviously biased).
But nontheless choosing which issues to cover would be pretty central to bias IMO, is that decision made by the journalists themselves? I guess you can debate till the cows come home whether the media favored Obama or McCain in a debate (and even make a persuasive case), but I'm really equally interested in what is covered and what is not.
...But nontheless choosing which issues to cover would be pretty central to bias IMO, is that decision made by the journalists themselves? I guess you can debate till the cows come home whether the media favored Obama or McCain in a debate (and even make a persuasive case), but I'm really equally interested in what is covered and what is not.
As of today, the major networks have expended exactly 19 seconds (CBS I believe) to the 40 some lawsuits filed by Catholic organizations against the HHS mandate that they provide free contraception to employees. The details of the individual suits don't seem to coincide with the current administration's 'War on Women' meme.
I'd provide a link, but they're few and far between and when you do find one, it's usually just partisan enough to stop readers from exploring. Although for the purposes of your question, I'd say there was some bias from the top down in ignoring the largest lawsuit dealing with religous freedom in my lifetime.
I love the embedded message that the American public is presumed to be unable to engage in critical thinking and analysis.
And yet....
http://www.gallup.com/poll/149624/majority-continue-distrust-media-perceive-bias.aspx
http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/whkadyt7gkgpfoxx2iaepw.gif
It's almost like news by its very nature can be liberal leaning. Anything that uncovers a scandal or tragedy, be it corporate scandal, tainted meat, airline crash, or frogs with 3 eyes would by its nature be a call for better or more government over-site.
Gardenarian
5-23-12, 3:59pm
And Gallup is considered quite conservative.
I try to just get the facts and avoid the story. The one thing I know is true about the media is that they are trying to make money. I'm not buying.
As of today, the major networks have expended exactly 19 seconds (CBS I believe) to the 40 some lawsuits filed by Catholic organizations against the HHS mandate that they provide free contraception to employees. The details of the individual suits don't seem to coincide with the current administration's 'War on Women' meme.
Do we know if Fox News' coverage was anymore or less extensive? They are one of the major networks. If Fox didn't cover it, then the implication is they are bias as well or it just wasn't important enough. Of course, you shouldn't probably draw a conclusion from just a single situation.
First answer: NO!
How much money has Lehman respectively given to each political party? I dont' know, I'm asking. Generally both parties are bought pretty heavily by Wall Street (the Dems often even more so). We may indeed need more financial regulation, is it going to happen? 4 years since the financial crisis, has Glass Stegal been reinstated? Why not?
My perception is the Republicans are doing everything they can to block Dodd-Frank implementation. Stories like Lehman/Repo 105 which remind people of the 2008 meltdown could sway voters attitudes toward the funding and appoints related to Dodd-Frank. Frontline recently did 4 hours over 2 weeks recounting the financial meltdown and what has happened since this. It could be argued that the amount of attention, even if accurately reported, creates a liberal bias.
I love the embedded message that the American public is presumed to be unable to engage in critical thinking and analysis.
It depends - people are also susceptible to the gigo law. How well does critical thinking and analysis work if the input data is corrupted or skewed?
I think the media is the liberal media - when that sells better. And is not the liberal media when that sells better. If one is to presume a for-profit business like the media is pushing agenda over profits, one would need to suspect all for-profit businesses of possibly pushing agenda over profits. Which is a bit too paranoid for me. Profit motive, I think, makes more sense.
Not that you can't push an agenda and make a profit from it (Fox News and MSNBC being examples) - but I think the priority is profit.
My perception is the Republicans are doing everything they can to block Dodd-Frank implementation. Stories like Lehman/Repo 105 which remind people of the 2008 meltdown could sway voters attitudes toward the funding and appoints related to Dodd-Frank. Frontline recently did 4 hours over 2 weeks recounting the financial meltdown and what has happened since this. It could be argued that the amount of attention, even if accurately reported, creates a liberal bias.
+1
Often anything said that does not fall in line with dogma is deemed "biased".
ApatheticNoMore
5-24-12, 2:12am
It depends - people are also susceptible to the gigo law. How well does critical thinking and analysis work if the input data is corrupted or skewed?
Certainly. Bad data was all over the place regarding deciding to go to war with Iraq for instance. But also .... the quality of critical thinking and analysis out there on display in much of the media itself is often a horribly poor example to follow.
I think the media is the liberal media - when that sells better. And is not the liberal media when that sells better. If one is to presume a for-profit business like the media is pushing agenda over profits, one would need to suspect all for-profit businesses of possibly pushing agenda over profits. Which is a bit too paranoid for me. Profit motive, I think, makes more sense.
But what if pursuing profits leads to having to have a certain bias, and it's not just due to the end customer's preference? What if in order for a journalist to maintain access to politicians they need to never ask them tough questions, but only pitch softballs? Then it leads to only discussing what politicians want to be discussed. What about biases that are not entirely conscious? (due to one's environment etc.) Journalist bias has been discussed what about management unconscious bias? And what if being owned by Disney or Time Warner means there is a corporate interest in not covering say SOPA/PIPA? (because they make their profits on IP) Is that conspiracy? Can't it just be communicated all down the chain not to cover these things without a word even being said?
Now I also suspect that sometimes the media may actually be told (or more subtly communicated to) by the government not to cover certain things (NDAA maybe), but I'll admit that is crossing into the territory of conspiracy proper! And while it is not at all inconsistent with the current government (it has a non-zero probabilty!), I can't prove it (and if it was provable it would be anticlimatic :( Just another dreadful fact in a dreadful lineup).
There is proposed bill now for state department propaganda to be released for Americans (Smith-Mundt Modernization). It's potentially like Citizens United in that it opens up floodgates. It's like was their lobbying and corruption and buying votes before Citizens United? Well yes but ..... take that to the power of 10. So never even mind if the media may or may not already be propagandistic, may already repeat what it hears from Washington etc. etc.. This is going to release such a flood of propaganda that it's going to be hard to tell truth from falsehood anymore period on any matters involving the military. It's propaganda created with our own tax dollars used against us (and our capacity to make sense of the world). That's why it's bad on the face of it. It's also bad in consequences IMO, it will lead to more war propaganda (yea that's a problem if you prefer peace and are against these wars), but also I don't think on the basis of many things that are happening (including increased military involvement domestically, including the government pursuing anti-civil liberties policies etc.) this propaganda is going to be any good for civil liberties at all! When I speculate on likely future directions of things I get called conspiratorial though. Well ... just trying to extrapolate, it's a guess of course (all predictions of the future are).
Critical thinking and so on to combat this? Yes, but maybe at a certain point the deluge of sewage gets so great that good people just stop fighting the sewage (as in: ok I'm just going to go with the flow of the sewage now).
I don't think the media is the end of the road or in any way independent when it comes to deciding what information to disseminate and how to go about it. IMO the media as a whole is a tool that can be manipulated to present the desired slant. I think both politicians/the government and corporate entities work to use it in this way. Not that they exactly write the stories, but if a corporation happens to suffer a negative event the resulting story can be an all out expose' or it can be buried on page 10. If that corporation happens to write significant checks to a particular media outlet I think the chances the story will be glossed over increase exponentially. Likewise, and as ANM stated, access to politicians can be directed and limited to those outlets that tend to tread lightly and/or present the official in a favorable light. For example, the President has made multiple appearances on "The View", but very few, if any, on any of the myriad Fox programs (not that I blame him). Many who oppose the President and regularly appear on Fox would probably rather skip The View. Long story short, any given media outlet will simply have whatever bias it is told to have.
ApatheticNoMore
5-24-12, 12:03pm
Yea good point that I forgot: advertising revenue and how it baises (if you get more money from advertising than subscriptions ..... of course you do still need readers/viewers or the advertising itself becomes worthless, so you seek a bland compromise?). And the advertisers don't have to say "don't cover this", no conspiracy necessary, for a company to know on which side it's bread is buttered. And it's entirely consistent with the profit motive. And it is bias.
Generally, cable news is extremely biased.
Fox--blind conservatism
MSNBC--bleeding heart liberal
CNN--left-leaning but close to the center
Talk radio--usually extremely conservative--sometimes rabid in their conservatism
ABC, NBC, CBS are all left of center but close to the center.
PBS--slightly left but tries to be unbiased.
This might be slightly off topic.
Regardless of whether they are liberal or conservative, it is shocking to me how the media seems to have lost the ability to spell and to construct sentences correctly. Whether it is FOX, CNN, or MSNBC, their employees (editors) all need to take some remedial grammar and spelling courses. The only publication I have seen that consistently constructs sentences and spells correctly is the Wall St. Journal.
Sorry, it is a pet peeve of mine. It makes me uncomfortable to be reminded that our society really is dumbing down, if the national media cannot get it right.
One summer when I was on vacation in Vermont a really great media education organization called ACME (which I'm not sure is even still functioning) presented a film on media that was truly eye-opening (wish I could remember the name). ALL media is basically owned by just a couple (I think 5) major corporations. There is very little independent media--on TV airwaves anyway. Doesn't matter if you're FOX or MSNBC or CNN, you have corporate interests at the core, which limits the diversity of information we get and the quality of it, too. FOX and MSNBC are cartoon caricatures of journalism as far as I'm concerned.
There is very little independent media--on TV airwaves anyway. .
The only time I watch TV news anymore is when I am stuck in an airport. I still get a newspaper in the morning out of habit, but sometimes ignore even that for my iPad.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.