Conservative/Liberal Media

[-Demosthenes-]

I remember thinking how liberal the media was a long time ago, because I saw liberal ideas expressed all the time on TV. But then I decided to look for both liberal and conservative ideas on TV, and I found both! I was a little surprised, but more confused. I admit I didn't watch much news, but other tv programs seem mixed, or just change over time leaning one way and then the other. Some programs seemed to have multiple examples of both sides of the political spectrum all in the same half hour. This isn't something that I can look up on the Internet, each side points their finger at the other, and I can't decide for myself. What do you think?

[Pangloss]

Are we talking about news or entertainment programs? Either way is cool, I just want to be clear.

[john5746]

Yes, journalism has joined other media in the dumbing down trend. Talk radio and talk shows started the trend. Many people think ALL news is slanted one way or the other, so they watch THEIR side of things. They place PBS as far left as Limbaugh is right.

 

Then you have shows like Crossfire, Hardball, Hannity and Combs, etc. where you have people "interviewed" by a biased person. They try to make every issue a black and white opinion, so they can slam the other side and pull in the viewers. It is harder to draw emotion to complex ideas and issues.

 

That is why politics in general has become so vitrolic. Most political races, issues, etc become an "us against them" deal. Emotion trumps intellect anytime.

 

As mentioned in other posts, we should strive to be congenial in our arguments, but this also requires being congenial in listening to arguments. If you look to be offended by a differing opinion, it will most surely happen.

[-Demosthenes-]

Are we talking about news or entertainment programs? Either way is cool, I just want to be clear.

Oh, both. I can't decide about entertainment, and I don't watch enough news to decide (I think).

[ecoli]

That is why politics in general has become so vitrolic. Most political races, issues, etc become an "us against them" deal. Emotion trumps intellect anytime.

 

I agree with you that it's talk show hosts that probably started this trend. Fat, rich, greasy talk show hosts, of all sides of the spectrum are more interested in bashing the other side then disussing their opinions - as can be evidenced by Michael Savage's new book, "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder."

[Mokele]

From what I understand it, all media has a single, undeniable slant: the position that puts the most money in their bank account. In conservative areas, papers and such tend to be conservative-biased, with liberal-biased papers marketing to that niche, and vice versa in liberal areas.

 

If you tell people what they want to hear, and promise you'll keep doing so, people will listen to the intervening adverts and thereby make you money.

 

Mokele

[padren]

I think to a large degree, the media leans to whomever holds the whitehouse. I noticed a huge shift in CNN pretty much the day GW was sworn in. I think the media is worried most about the demographics and panders as much as politicans do, and then they treat their political guests like rock stars with kids gloves so they want to come back on their show.

 

Then some news channels, actively seek to cut out a specific wedge of loyal viewership by supporting a specific world view that appeals to a specific demographic.

So far I haven't noticed any liberal ones, but for me liberal means that things like universal healthcare and seperation of church and state are non-issues that should have been solid ages ago.

[bascule]

I remember thinking how liberal the media was a long time ago, because I saw liberal ideas expressed all the time on TV.

 

One of my biggest pet peeves is people who use "media" synonymously with teevee.

 

The teevee is a mediUM, singular. Yes, liberals dominate it, I'd agree! However if the teevee is your only justification for the "liberal media," you'd be doing us all a favor by calling the teevee the liberal mediUM.

 

I no longer watch the teevee, and still I see an entire rainbow of varied political views and biases depending on who's in charge of content distribution for the particular media channel I happen to be attuned to at a given time.

 

Anyway, if you have a problem with a liberal bias on the teevee, my suggestion is to stop watching it and dedicate the time you otherwise would've wasted to reading books or expressing yourself creatively. It's what I've done and it's had an enormous positive impact on my life.

[bascule]

Then you have shows like Crossfire' date=' Hardball, Hannity and Combs, etc. where you have people "interviewed" by a biased person. They try to make every issue a black and white opinion, so they can slam the other side and pull in the viewers. It is harder to draw emotion to complex ideas and issues.

 

That is why politics in general has become so vitrolic. Most political races, issues, etc become an "us against them" deal. Emotion trumps intellect anytime.[/quote']

 

Hence Jon Stewart's plea to Crossfire to "stop hurting America"

 

Damn effective, too...

[Pangloss]

Well put, bascule.

 

FWIW, I do watch TV (when I have time), but I totally agree that it's important not to let it color your perceptions.

[Jim]

The NYTs was idiotic in timing the NSA story to cloud the election in Iraq. They got what they wanted but were transparant in their motivations. This is an order that was issued in 2002 and the four presidential speeches were obviously designed to culminate on election day. I don't think it can be honestly argued that they didn't have an agenda.

 

I don't see this as sinister - everyone has an agenda. I just prefer people who are honest about it.

[bascule]

I don't see this as sinister - everyone has an agenda. I just prefer people who are honest about it.

 

How about those "Fair and Balanced" people at FOX News?

[sarge]

According to this study, Fox is centrist......

 

 

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player05.html?121905/views_hume_121905&Special_Report_Grapevine&Brit%20Hume%27s%20Grapevine&acc&Opinion&-1&new

 

If this link doesn't work for you, this is what was reported:

Now some fresh pickings from the Political Grapevine:

 

The majority of mainstream media tilts to the left... that according to a revised study by UCLA, set for publication next week. Among the findings: The Wall Street Journal, despite its conservative opinion pages, is the most liberal outlet, followed by CBS' Evening News, The New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times.

 

In fact, of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 of them scored left-of-center. Programs ranked among the most centrist news shows include The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer and ABC's Good Morning America.

 

The study examines U.S. media coverage over the last 10 years, comparing individual news outlets with individual lawmakers. Lawmakers were scored on the basis of votes and speeches, while media organizations were scored on their references to think tanks and policy groups.

 

I see that the printed version does not report Fox as being centrist as the video does. I guess it is a case of modesty.

[Sisyphus]

while media organizations were scored on their references to think tanks and policy groups.

 

What does this mean, and how does it reflect political bias?

[Pangloss]

The NYTs was idiotic in timing the NSA story to cloud the election in Iraq. They got what they wanted but were transparant in their motivations. This is an order that was issued in 2002 and the four presidential speeches were obviously designed to culminate on election day. I don't think it can be honestly argued that they didn't have an agenda.

 

I don't see this as sinister - everyone has an agenda. I just prefer people who are honest about it.

 

Actually as I understand it the general consensus amongst observers is that the timing was due to a leak by Senate Democrats trying to quash the cloture vote on the Patriot Act.

 

For what it's worth.

[bascule]

The majority of mainstream media tilts to the left... that according to a revised study by UCLA, set for publication next week.

 

"A revised study"? How about a peer-reviewed study? Whose name is on it? (some nebulous faculty member of UCLA, clearly)

 

That's not a source, sorry...

 

In fact, of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 of them scored left-of-center.

 

What defines "center"? What metric are they using to calculate the political bias of an entire news outlet?

 

Here's what the angsty liberals of FAIR have to say about our old pal Brit Hume:

 

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1072

 

Perhaps the most reliable method of gauging an outlet's perspective is to study its sources. If Fox News Channel is the bastion of balance that it claims to be, then its pool of guests should reflect a full spectrum of debate, from left to right, and neither major party should dominate over the other.

 

To test Fox's guest list, FAIR studied 19 weeks of Special Report with Brit Hume (1/1/01-5/11/01), which Fox calls its signature political news show looking specifically at the show's daily one-on-one newsmaker interviews conducted by the show's anchor. The interview segment is a central part of the newscast; Hume often uses his high-profile guests' comments as subject matter for the show's wrap-up panel discussion.

 

FAIR classified each guest by both political ideology and party affiliation. Only two ideological categories were used: conservative and non-conservative. Guests affiliated with openly conservative think tanks, magazines or advocacy groups, or who promote openly conservative views, were labeled as such. All other guests were grouped together in the non-conservative category, including centrists, liberals and progressives; non-political guests (e.g., Cheney's heart doctor); and "objective" journalists who do not avow any ideology. Republicans were not automatically counted as conservatives: Moderate Republicans like Christopher Shays, Christine Todd Whitman and David Gergen, for example, were classified as non-conservatives.

 

Sixty-one percent of guests were current or former Democratic or Republican government officials, political candidates, staffers or advisors. These guests were classified as either Democrats or Republicans. All others -- including conservatives with no official party connection, such as Jerry Falwell or David Horowitz -- were classified as non-partisan for the purposes of the study, along with bipartisan officials such as career diplomats.

 

The numbers show an overwhelming slant on Fox towards both Republicans and conservatives. Of the 56 partisan guests on Special Report between January and May, 50 were Republicans and six were Democrats -- a greater than 8 to 1 imbalance. In other words, 89 percent of guests with a party affiliation were Republicans.

 

On Special Report, 65 of the 92 guests (71 percent) were avowed conservatives--that is, conservatives outnumbered representatives of all other points of view, including non-political guests, by a factor of more than 2 to 1. While FAIR did not break down the non-conservative guests by ideology, there were few avowed liberals or progressives among the small non-conservative minority; instead, there was a heavy emphasis on centrist and center-right pundits (David Gergen, Norman Ornstein, Lou Dobbs) and politicians (Sen. John Breaux, Sen. Bob Graham, Rep. Christopher Shays).

 

As a comparison, FAIR also studied the one-on-one newsmaker interviews on CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports over the same time period, and found a modest but significant tilt towards Republicans, and a disproportionate minority of guests who were conservatives--but in both cases, there was far more balance than was found on Special Report.

 

Of Blitzer's 67 partisan guests, 38 were Republicans and 29 were Democrats -- a 57 percent to 43 percent split in favor of Republicans. Thirty-five out of 109 guests (32 percent) were avowed conservatives, with the remaining 68 percent divided up among the rest of the political spectrum, from center-right to left.

 

Only eight of Special Report's 92 guests during the study period were women, and only six were people of color -- making for a guest list that was 91 percent male and 93 percent white. Wolf Blitzer Reports was hardly a model of diversity either; its guests were 86 percent male and 93 percent white.

 

Special Report's guests who were women or people of color were strikingly homogenous in ideology. Seven of the show's eight female guests were either conservative or Republican, although women in general tend to be less conservative and more Democratic than men. Although African-Americans and Latinos show an even more pronounced progressive tilt, five of six people of color appearing on the show were either conservative or Republican; the sixth was an Iraqi opposition leader championed by congressional Republicans. (On Wolf Blitzer Reports, nine of 15 female guests were conservative or Republican; four out of five of the show's American guests who were people of color were non-conservative.)

 

The fact that the study included the beginning of a new Republican administration may excuse a slight tilt toward Republican guests. But at a time when the Senate had a 50/50 split and the White House was won with less than a plurality of the popular vote, Special Report's 50 Republicans to 6 Democrats reflects not news judgment, but partisan allegiance.

[sarge]

"A revised study"? How about a peer-reviewed study? Whose name is on it? (some nebulous faculty member of UCLA' date=' clearly)

 

That's not a source, sorry...

 

 

 

What defines "center"? What metric are they using to calculate the political bias of an entire news outlet?

 

Here's what the angsty liberals of FAIR have to say about our old pal Brit Hume:

 

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1072[/quote']

 

I am not making a claim on it one way or the other, I just posted it as a service to those who wanted an opinion on it.

 

Sorry if I touched a nerve.....

[bascule]

Sorry if I touched a nerve.....

 

Yeah, my

 

 

detector was going off

[sarge]

Speaking of bullshit meters, don't you think that FAIRs critique of FoxNews qualfies as a meter tripper?

 

After all, all they did was count the political affiliations and the left/right leanings of the guests to conclude that Fox was biased to the right, (which I happen to agree that they are) but with no labor being spent to examine the treatment that these guests got from their interviewers.

 

Are we to believe that at a time when both houses of congress and the WH are in the hands of the Republicans, a news channel wouldn't necessarily be a little more interested in interviewing Republicans than Democrats?

 

It isn't the guests that reveal the bias - it is the treatment of those guests that reveal the bias and as far as I can tell FAIR says nothing about that.

[bascule]

Speaking of bullshit meters, don't you think that FAIRs critique of FoxNews qualfies as a meter tripper?

 

Yes, that's why I qualified FAIR as a group of angsty liberals.

 

It isn't the guests that reveal the bias - it is the treatment of those guests that reveal the bias and as far as I can tell FAIR says nothing about that.

 

How about Hannity calling every liberal he has on his show "You people" then making gross generalizations about the extreme left and making every moderately left-leaning person try to answer for them?

[Sisyphus]

Or Bill O'Reilly not letting any liberals finish sentences. Or only taking mail that is either unqualified praise of himself or ridiculous liberal straw men...

[bascule]

Or Bill O'Reilly not letting any liberals finish sentences. Or only taking mail that is either unqualified praise of himself or ridiculous liberal straw men...

 

To be fair to O'Reilly he does seem to love the pithy and wit-filled backhanded liberal compliments. He'll let you zing him as long as you're complimenting him at the same time.

 

And he at least tries to maintain the illusion of impartiality in his "No Ideology Zone" (LOL), whereas Hannity is just an unabashed hater of everything liberal.

[sarge]

Yes' date=' that's why I qualified FAIR as a group of angsty liberals.

 

 

 

How about Hannity calling every liberal he has on his show "You people" then making gross generalizations about the extreme left and making every moderately left-leaning person try to answer for them?[/quote']

 

Oh, I thought we were talking about news hours, like Fox News, CBS evening News (ala Dan Rathergate) and such as those.

 

I don't think that Hannity and Combs would qualify as a news show any more that Crossfire, O'Riley or any of the other entertainment talk shows as they all play to their audience.

 

Probably the most balanced talk show that I am aware of is Tim Russert's Meet The Press. He seems willing to hold their feet to the fire, regardless of the party affiliation.

[Jim]

How about those "Fair and Balanced" people at FOX News?

 

I'll agree that NYT is on a par with Fox news.

[Phi for All]

I agree with Mokele. The news is a commodity that is bought and sold. Even when you find a news source that seems balanced to you, it's because they have found a marketing niche selling their service to you and people like you. You'll never know which stories have been spun either towards you to keep you listening or away from you for fear of losing you to a rival.

 

I also hate the thought of people exposed to one perspective of the news and no other. This would seem to promote "compound" mentality, where the only opinions you hear are those of the others in your compound. I don't think people should get their world perspective this way any more than I think it's healthy to live in a compound with only like-minded people.