"Media Matters"; by Jamison Foser
A Tale of Two Studies
Two new studies released this week examine the news media, in quite different ways and with vastly different efficacy. The Center for American Progress and Free Press teamed up to release The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio, and MSNBC posted a report about political contributions made by journalists.
Conservative media critics, eager as always to discuss what is in the hearts and minds of journalists rather than what is actually in newspapers and on television, have seized on MSNBC's list of 144 journalists who "made campaign contributions from 2004 through the first quarter of 2007."
Matt Drudge hyped the article with his lead headline: "THE GREAT DIVIDE: REPORTERS GIVE DEMS MONEY OVER REPUBLICANS 9 TO 1!" On Fox & Friends, hosts Steve Doocy and Gretchen Carlson agreed that the study shows a "media bias in the country" and that it also showed there isn't one at Fox News:
DOOCY: And so what it comes down to ultimately is, you think there's a media bias in the country? Just look at the statistics from the FEC itself. And people -- reporters gave to Democrats nine times more often than the reporters would give to the GOP.
CARLSON: Yeah, but you know what I got out of the story, Steve? Was that actually coming home right here to Fox News Channel, I liked the fact that they did this report and showed that people who work here at Fox gave to Democrats. Because so often, we are accused of only being a Republican or conservative news channel.
DOOCY: It just goes to show you.
CARLSON: Fair and balanced.
DOOCY: Absolutely. Fair and balanced.
Any study that Fox News uses to demonstrate that it is "fair and balanced" probably has a flaw or two.
For starters, MSNBC found fewer than 150 journalists who have made political contributions. There were more than 116,000 working journalists in America as of 2002. The 144 who made contributions not only constitute a tiny fraction of American journalists, they cannot be considered a representative sample of the whole. Indeed, we know that they are un-representative of all journalists: They made reported campaign contributions, and their colleagues did not.
Furthermore, 144 journalists may be a tiny number, but it is also a grossly inflated one. As Matthew Yglesias noted:
This effort at ginning up controversy by revealing political contributions made by employees of media organizations seems fundamentally misguided. For one thing, no effort is being made to see if the people named have any ability to impact coverage of national politics. They have, for example, a former copy editor here at The Atlantic on their list, but what nefarious influence is she supposed to have had on the magazine's coverage?
Indeed, if you look at MSNBC's list, you won't find Tim Russert or Bob Woodward or Maureen Dowd. You won't see many contributions from reporters for CNN or The New York Times or The Washington Post or ABC News. But you will find sports copy editors for the New Hampshire Union Leader and the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, a sports statistician for The Boston Globe, sports columnists for the South Florida Sun-Sentinel and the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, and a sports editor for the San Jose Mercury News. Who dares even to imagine the liberal claptrap that must seep into coverage of the Fort Worth Flyers basketball games?
Yglesias also noted that, while Democrats may have enjoyed the occasional $250 contribution from a few copy editors, the media sector funnels far more money to Republicans via PACs:
I can tell you that in 2006, GE's PAC gave $807,282 to Republicans and just $474,118 to Democrats. In 2004 there was a similar division of funds, in 2002 "only" 60 percent of it went to the GOP. Indeed, as you can see here essentially every PAC in the media sector backed the GOP over the Democrats.
But the real problem with drawing conclusions about the media based on MSNBC's list is that it tells us next to nothing about the content of the news we read and watch and listen to.
Even if you believe that a contribution from a sports copy editor to a congressional candidate proves that more journalists are liberals than conservatives, it doesn't follow that news reports reflect a liberal bias. Indeed, as longtime journalist and Building Red America author Tom Edsall has explained, decades of attacks from conservatives have had the effect of turning even journalists who may personally be liberals into "unwilling, and often unknowing" conduits for conservative misinformation:
The conservative movement has been very effective attacking the media (broadcast and print) for its liberal biases. The refusal of the media to disclose and discuss the ideological leanings of reporters and editors, and the broader claim of objectivity, has made the press overly anxious, and inclined to lean over backwards not to offend critics from the right. In many respects, the campaign against the media has been more than a victory: it has turned the press into an unwilling, and often unknowing, ally of the right.
Every day, Media Matters documents examples of news reports that contain flaws that advance a conservative agenda or undermine progressive causes. In most cases, we neither know nor care whether the reporters, editors, and producers involved are conservatives, liberals, anarchists, or royalists. We focus on specific flaws in the content of their reports, not on trying to ascertain their intent.
The reason for this approach was recently illustrated when MSNBC's Chris Matthews hosted a Republican presidential debate. Pointing to Matthews' long-ago work on behalf of Democratic politicians, conservative media critics and others suggested that Matthews might not give the Republicans a fair shake or that Matthews' moderating of a Republican debate was the equivalent of a Fox News personality hosting a Democratic debate.
On Fox News, for example, Dick Morris said of Matthews, "[T]his former staffer to Tip O'Neill decided to gut Rudy Giuliani, because he's the one that can most likely beat the Republicans." (In context, it is clear that Morris misspoke and meant to say that Giuliani is the Republican most likely to defeat a Democrat in the general election.) Similarly, CNN Reliable Sources host Howard Kurtz asked, "Republicans were willing to participate in an MSNBC debate with a guy who used to work for Jimmy Carter and Tip O'Neill. Should Democrats be refusing to debate on Fox News?"
But while Matthews worked for Democrats Carter and O'Neill nearly 30 years ago, his on-air comments about Democrats and Republicans in recent years certainly don't reflect a liberal bias. Instead, Matthews routinely gushes over Republicans and trashes Democrats, as Media Matters has routinely demonstrated. And how did he handle the GOP debate itself? His first question was, "Mayor Giuliani, how do we get back to Ronald Reagan's morning in America?" Later, he again invoked Reagan to ask John McCain how he would "restore that kind of unity of purpose" Reagan purportedly brought to Americans. Eventually, Matthews got around to asking a group of Republican presidential candidates if they thought it would be a good thing if one of their Democratic opponents was elected president. And he asked them what taxes they'd like to cut -- without asking how they would compensate for the reduced revenue. As we explained at the time, this was in stark contrast to his colleague Brian Williams' handling of a Democratic debate, in which he asked the candidates how they would pay for their proposals -- but didn't bother asking for details of the proposals themselves. Taken as a whole, MSNBC's handling of the Democratic and Republican debates could hardly have gone better for the GOP. Yet some observers couldn't get over the fact that Chris Matthews worked for Jimmy Carter 30 years ago.
Looking at the content of news reports rather than at TV hosts' long-ago jobs, or at the political contributions of a few sports columnists and copy editors among the nation's 100,000 working journalists, reveals far more useful information about the media's coverage of politics and policy.
In addition to the daily examples of specific instances of conservative misinformation in news reports that we post on our website, several recent studies have painted a picture of a media playing field that tilts strongly to the right:
- Media Matters and the Campaign for America's Future released a study demonstrating that media figures routinely describe America as a conservative nation despite overwhelming public polling data to the contrary.
- Media coverage of religion and public policy greatly favors conservatives, according to Left Behind, a Media Matters study of the frequency with which news reports quote or mention religious leaders. Media Matters found that conservative religious leaders are quoted or mentioned in news stories nearly three times as often as are progressive religious leaders.
- Media Matters studies have shown that the Sunday political talk-show guest lists favor conservatives and Republicans over progressives and Democrats -- and that the disparity cannot be attributed to Republican control of the White House.
- And the new report by the Center for American Progress and Free Press found that "91 percent of the total weekday talk radio programming is conservative, and 9 percent is progressive." And that disparity isn't limited to small-town radio in areas that lean conservative: In the top 10 radio markets, "76 percent of the programming ... is conservative and 24 percent is progressive."
And what kind of rhetoric do those conservative radio talkers favor? This week alone:
- Conservative radio host Michael Graham, appearing on fellow conservative radio host Glenn Beck's CNN Headline News television show, said he would have liked to see the Clintons be murdered during their spoof of the final episode of The Sopranos. Graham has previously said of Hillary Clinton, "I wanted to bludgeon her with a tire iron." Beck, too, favors bloodthirsty rhetoric: He once fantasized on his radio show about "choking the life out" of Michael Moore, saying, "I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. No, I think I could." (This, incidentally, came before CNN decided to hire him. Talking about killing liberals doesn't get you kicked off the radio -- it gets you a television show on CNN.)
- Guest-hosting for Rush Limbaugh, Mark Belling described same-sex couples' decision to have children as "pure selfishness."
- Michael Savage claimed that the Massachusetts state legislature killed a proposed a referendum on banning same-sex marriage because the "gay mafia bought the votes ... like cheap tricks in a gay bathhouse." Last week, Savage said "I think it's child abuse" for a gay parent to raise a child. That was no slip of the tongue; Savage said the same thing in February: "I want to puke when I hear about a woman married to a woman raising children because, frankly, I think that it's child abuse to do that to children without their permission." And in March: "The idea of two women who are so-called married raising children, I think it's child abuse." In 2003, Savage told a caller, whom he described as a "sodomite," that he "should only get AIDS and die, you pig. How's that? Why don't you see if you can sue me, you pig. You got nothing better than to put me down, you piece of garbage. You have got nothing to do today, go eat a sausage and choke on it."
Michael Savage isn't on MSNBC's list of journalists who make political contributions. Neither is Rush Limbaugh, Mark Belling, Glenn Beck, or Michael Graham. But what if they did? Should we care more if they wrote $250 checks to the Republican National Committee than that they routinely use their radio shows to make hateful comments?
Of course not. It's the content of the news that matters, not the personal beliefs and preferences of journalists.
the "news" is determined from the top down. the networks are owned by giant corporations interested in the bottom line.
Mefirst,
You are right on with what you say......
One particular sentence within a paragragh peaked my interest though......
"On Fox & Friends, hosts Steve Doocy and Gretchen Carlson agreed that the study shows a "media bias in the country" and that it also showed there isn't one at Fox News:"
So if Fox Noise is saying that 'reporters' give money 9 to 1 to Dems....... are they not then admitting that they themselves are not reporters since appearantly they don't give money?
Or is there simply a 'liberal' bias in the media if reporters give to Dems 9 to 1 as opposed to Republicans?
There is ample survey material available to establish the political leanings of the rank-and-file members of the traditional media, and how this compares to the general US population. This survey clearly shows a massive political disconnect between members of the media and the genral adult population, the media being significantly more liberal.
This page reveals that the credibility of local news broadcasts amongst mainstream America has plummetted about 35% over the last 20 years.
And this study shows that the credibility of Fox News has been increasing compared to that of CNN amongst the genral population.
This harris poll says that more Americans think the meida is left biased than right biased, and by a wide margin.
"In 1994, the Gannett Foundation (now known as the Freedom Forum) commissioned a new survey of Washington reporters and editors to determine their political persuasions, and once more the numbers were remarkable. When asked their political affiliation, 50% declared themselves Democrats, only 4% Republican. Asked their ideological persuasions, 61% called themselves liberal, an insignificant 2%, conservative. When asked whom they had voted for in ’92, 89% said Clinton, Bush got a miserable 7%."
There is a mountain of data, much of it collected by respected pollsters that demonstrate conclusively there is media bias and that bias is liberal. You second stringers, Foser included, of so full of BS it is pathetic.
Real journalists are interested in finding the truth. The Limbaughs and Roger Aileses of the world are political hacks pushing a fearful, close-minded, simplistic view of the world as all good versus evil. They are pitiable, pathetic people who are slaves to their sorry ideology. Liberal means free -- free to search for the truth and to think and believe what logic and the facts lead you to. Why should anyone be surprised that real journalists are liberals?
All the persons you mention are EDITORIALISTS. In fact, this thread as initiated by Foser focuses on AM talk radio, which is largely editorial content and SAYS that it is editorial content. All of Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage, etc. say very clearly upfront their programs are OPINON programs, editorials.
Hannity & Colmes are a little different. Alan Colmes is a Liberal with liberal opinons, but even that program is editorial since both its hosts are argueing from political convictions.
None of these persons are journalists. Journalists purport to present a balanced and factual view of events, which very clearly the mainstream media including its journalists do not do, instead injecting their own [overwhelmingly liberal] bias into the news.
The references provided in my original post crush the argument that Media in general and journalism in particular is conservative biased in America. Foser, by focusing on Talk Radio, the single segment of public discourse in America that actually IS preponderantly conservative in content, presents a distorted and indefensible argument that there is conservative bias in media as a whole. The facts totally destroy that argument .
"In 1994, the Gannett Foundation (now known as the Freedom Forum) commissioned a new survey of Washington reporters and editors to determine their political persuasions, and once more the numbers were remarkable. When asked their political affiliation, 50% declared themselves Democrats, only 4% Republican. Asked their ideological persuasions, 61% called themselves liberal, an insignificant 2%, conservative. When asked whom they had voted for in ’92, 89% said Clinton, Bush got a miserable 7%."
Gee, how telling - and relevant. What were GHB's popularity ratings in 91? I'm really sure this was a balanced scientific study - and it deals with the 92 election - only 15 years ago.
Guess I missed the part of the study that detailed the contributions of their bosses. You know, the guys who edit the news and control the content; who write the paychecks and decide who gets hired and fired. I know that everybody who works for a right wing boss feels perfectly free to speak up about his leftist political views all the time.
This idea that "the inmates control the asylum," that the talent in news broadcasts is free to express liberal viewpoints whenever they feel like it is clever sockpuppet spin, but totally divergent from observable fact.
It was a good ruse for a while, and we'll be hearing it for a time yet as there are still a few gullible fools who believe it. So what? The "liberal media bias" is a lie and always has been. I can understand why they they say it on Fox; who do you think you're gonna fool on this site?
A reporters political convictions do not make them automatically biased. Yet another self-fulfilling right wing prophecy.
The presentation of these studies is biased in itself!
"However, conservatives did not perceive every outlet as biased against them. Not surprisingly, only the Fox News Channel and Rush Limbaugh's radio program were seen by conservatives as not being biased against their views, while a majority of liberals found both to be biased. Conversely, Newsweek, The Daily Show, CNN, 60 Minutes, The Washington Post, and The New York Times were perceived as having a bias by conservatives, while liberals did not find these outlets to be biased. Although these results are consistent with previous research, this study though added that on two outlets, CNN and Fox News, a majority of political moderates disagreed they were biased against their beliefs; this suggests that to an "impartial observer," these were the most objective outlets tested. "
So, because more conservatives perceive a bias, it therefore must be true. What profound methodology!
There is a mountain of data, much of it collected by respected pollsters that demonstrate conclusively there is media bias and that bias is liberal. - NL207
You should link to some of that data.I won't rehash what's already been covered in the last few days here about the specious findings of this study. The statistics you posted have nothing to do with media bias, only the dumbing down of the American general public.
I'd think that, were the "media" so biased toward "liberals" (whatever they are), that whoever it is complaining of that "liberal media", would want a return of the Fairness Doctrine, most particularly that part of it that calls for "equal time"...
Isn't that the solution to the problem of this "liberal media", bring back the FCC's Fairness Doctrine, and "equal time" in the political content of broadcasting, making for a mandated "fair and balanced media"...
Wouldn't that please "conservatives" (whatever they are)?
"There is a mountain of data, much of it collected by respected pollsters that demonstrate conclusively there is media bias and that bias is liberal. You second stringers, Foser included, of so full of BS it is pathetic. "
"Perceived bias...Conservatives justify their belief that a liberal media bias exists by arguing that journalists are liberal, and that their ideology affects how journalists cover the news. For example, a survey in 1992 showed that 89% of Washington, DC, journalists voted for President Clinton in the 1992 Presidential election."-AIM
"News Reporting is Perceived as Biased, though Less Agreement on Whether it is Liberal or Conservative Bias"-HArris Interactive
Perceptions are faulty at best. None of these studies address actual examples of bias, just opinions. Focusing on political affiliation ignores the content of news reporting. A better reflection of bias would be a study of the prominence of right-wing framing in media vs. left-wing framing in media.
Content follows conviction.
Do you not think that Dan Rather would not have desroyed his career with those phony Bush guard documents if he were not prejudiced that their content was accurate?
Content follows conviction? Like the content of Bush’s conservative convictions?
He wasnt PREJUDICED that they were accurate THEY WERE ACCURATE. They sent copies to the White House which didnt deny a word of it and they contacted the woman who wrote Killians memos and she said that while she didnt write THOSE memos she wrote memos like them and they were accurate. The memos cant be verified so Dan deserves criticism for sloppy journalism not going with originals but making that leap to claim he never had any reason to believe the CONTENT is flat out wrong.
As usual, we appear to share a point of view. Rather was right, but sloppy. The Right is lying - again.
Is that what you said?
"This page reveals that the credibility of local news broadcasts amongst mainstream America has plummetted about 35% over the last 20 years. "
Because broadcast media has become so much more right-wing in the last 20 years - as it certainly has.
"And this study shows that the credibility of Fox News has been increasing compared to that of CNN amongst the genral population."
Because since Turner sold CNN, it has become a copycat of Fox and lost it's more mainstream audience without taking anyone away from Fox's right-wing programming.
"This harris poll says that more Americans think the meida is left biased than right biased, and by a wide margin."
Perhaps because right-wing media has been telling them that for the last 35 years.
If I had to judge from the mainstream media, I would believe that "liberalism" was a belief in big government and gay marriage with abortion and perhaps some aid to the poor at the expense of the middle class. I would believe this despite the fact that I have never heard a single liberal state this as the ideology of liberalism. Why does the mainstream media tell me this? Because it's right-wing.
More rhetoric.
Support your baseless claim that coverage is more conservative today than 20 years ago.
Another empty argument from another empty liberal devoid of supporting data. >FLUSH<
And YOUR claim that Rather had no reason to believe the contents of those memos other than his prejudice is supported by WHAT? Another conservative with an empty head playing the pot while calling the kettle black
I'm just waiting for more Americans to perceive that evolution is incorrect, so that right wingers can finally show conclusive proof that the theory of evolution is wrong.
I have to call bulls---, on this one. First, you're presenting numbers out of context, and we're supposed to believe you? Secondly, there is absolutely no way the numbers could be that skewed. Nothing but hyperbolic bulls---. I will give you one possibility, though, if your numbers are even close to correct it would prove the ability of the progressive mind to write intelligently, and process information. Not even Bill Buckley would claim you as a conservative.
I will call this one. I presented a well referenced argument that the state of bias in the media is something far different from what Foser presents in this thread.
And what do you present in your repsonse? Rhetoric, unsubstantiated by any supporting data. That says it all. >FLUSH<
NL. you referenced nothing to back up your point, only to support, in your mind, what you already believe.
Not even worthy of a flush, that's reserved for a substantial pile of sh*t.
Will you flush a quote from William Kristol?
I admit it, the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures
NL:
Perhaps you could explain something to me.
The "MEDIA" are all part of a "market", selling ads and seeking audience. IF what you say is true, and there is an overwhelming LIBERAL BIAS in the media ... networks, newspapers, cable ... how does THE MARKET explain this?
Is it that the public DEMANDS a "Liberal" product, and so the media delivers? Supply and demand?
If it's just "a market" for bias in the news, are you telling us that MOST of America is Liberal, and demands Liberal products, and the delivery of Liberal Bias in the news assures news agencies of audience, and therefore ratings, profits, and continued success?
Wouldn't it also follow that promoting the most popular message ... liberal ... would have the effect of creating MORE "consumers" as a market share, by chipping away at "the competition" ... that being Republicans and conservatives?
And, if all this is just market driven, isn't it INEVITABLE that the most popular constituency, LIBERALS, would be serviced by the industry, catered to, and promoted AS A PURELY SELFISH INTEREST OF THE BUSINESSES WHO USE NEWS AS A PRODUCT?
Why would it be that having a Liberal Bias in the news is not just giving the nation what it wants, in a clear example of market forces working to deliver to a demand?
And if Liberals are far and away the largest MARKET in America (and have been for over a half century), why should anybody CARE what a Republican or conservative wants or has to say?
I mean, SURE, "niche" markets will be serviced by specialty products ... like SKOAL for dippers, WHIPS for bondage whippers, little plastic pouches to organize coupons for clippers ... but these are very small markets relative to the total population, and can be serviced by small attention on the margins (i.e. rightwing hate radio bloviators).
So, my question to you is, MARKET-wise, what is your problem? If Liberals RULE, isn't that the natural way of things? Are you upset just being a NICHE market, too small to ever impact majority thought?
Ah, the implications of the argument - certainly I hadn't seen them coming! Thanks for expositing!
I bet Michael Savage makes contributions to the Nazi Party. Good job this week by MMFA.
No, but he has contributed money to the defense of Marines who allegedly committed war crimes in Hamdania, Iraq.
Imagine that! Giving money to defend marines who are being railroaded because the media would rather believe statements made by the enemy.
I'll bet Foser donates to the KKK along with Byrd. That keeps his priorities in the spotlight.
Sure they are being raliroaded because of lies of the enemy (so then the average Iraqi family is now our enemy?). I guess thats why at least ONE of those Marines has already plead GUILTY
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/01/18/news/top_stories/1_00_030_17_07.txt
CAMP PENDLETON ---- A 25-year-old Marine corporal pleaded guilty to murder this morning in the shooting death of a retired Iraqi police officer last year, becoming the first of eight men charged in the case to plead guilty to the homicide charge.Cpl. Trent Thomas' plea was entered through his civilian attorney, Victor Kelly.
Thomas also pleaded guilty to conspiracy, larceny, housebreaking, kidnapping, assault and making a false official statement. In addition, the St. Louis native pleaded guilty to assault in an April 10 incident in the same Iraqi village of Hamdania where the homicide took place.
So where do you get the drugs that make you so deluuuusional?
The guilt of one makes all guilty? Your logic is typical liberalism mixed with appropriate shame. Liberalism is truly a mental disorder...keep up the good work proving it!
Please tell me that even YOU are not that stupid your claim was that the Marines are being railroaded because the media would rather believe statements made by the enemy.
Except its hard to even CLAIM that is true when FIVE of them have pled guilty?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/18/iraq/main2372202.shtml
Thomas was the fifth member from an eight-man squad to plead guilty in the case, in which seven Marines and a Navy corpsman were accused of kidnapping 52-year-old Hashim Ibrahim Awad and shooting him to death on April 26, 2006. Three junior Marines and the sailor pleaded guilty earlier to reduced charges as part of plea deal that require them to testify about the incident. Thomas was the first to plead guilty to a murder charge.
The only thing being proven here is that you are so incredibly stupid that your inability to accomplish the task of higher brain function leaves you incapable of even RECOGNIZING it. So you mistake it for a mental disorder actually its a proper functioning brain which unfortunatly for YOU is something you dont have. Galactic level stupidity is your karma. Good luck with it.
The media has nothing top do with Marines being investigated, charged, tried or convicted of crimes.
The Marines in question have been charged by their superior officers, themselves Marines, who felt that the charges were warranted after an investigation by the Marine Corps.
"THE GREAT DIVIDE: REPORTERS GIVE DEMS MONEY OVER REPUBLICANS 9 TO 1!"
If this is true, then why do almost 100% of all reporters still filter the news through right wing talking points?
Something doesn't add up here.
If this is true, then why do almost 100% of all reporters still filter the news through right wing talking points?
You mean like mmfa does? Every article they right is filtered through right wing talking points. I haven't seen an original idea from mmfa in the entire time I've been here. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out they HAVE to use right wing talking points, because left wing talking points are about how to knit or garden or get into a blue dress. That isn't newsworthy. But, what IS newsworthy is how right wingers support protecting our border from an illegal invasion and protecting our citizens from a deadly enemy. Neither of which the left seems interested in.
What is newsworthy is the way the right wants to get as many Americans as they possibly can killed. They LOVE to see Americans DIE. A characterization with at least as much validity as the tripe you just spewed out. Your hatred and stupidity are awe inspiring your connection to reality not so much.
Prove to me that the right-wing wants to protect America from a huge influx of aliens who work illegally in America. Show me the mass right-wing movement to prosecute businesses that illegally hire undocumented workers.
You can't, because the right-wing has been doing everything it can to ignore that issue - because the Republican Party wants to depress wages by getting as many illegal workers into the country as possible.
If the Republican party wanted to get as many illegal workers into the country as possible, the republicans in th Congress would support among other things a blanket amnesty for all the illegals presently IN the country. They would further do nothing to reinforce the boder patrol nor would they have voted to erect a barrier along the border.
On the other hand, the mainstream Democrats all support an amnesty and none of them want to build that wall. Examine the senate vote on this subject. Look who the 'nay' votes are. 15 Dems including Durbin. Fiengold. Cantwell. Dodd. Kennedy. Lautenberg. Sarbanes Obama. The sole non-Dem was Jeffords! He is an I.
Are you so weak minded that you cannot even discover which side of this issue the mainstreams of the two major parties are on?
This is actually an issue that crosses party lines. I have liberal friends that are very supportive of the sort of immigration reform that would make many conservatives happy. Maybe not the racists like Boortz but build a wall protect the borders, send them all home. Also many corporate conservatives want to maintain the inflow of cheap labor. So once again this isnt quite so simple as Dems this way GOP that way.
NL:
The border is a problem, a physical problem and a political problem.
Political problems bring political solutions which SOLVE physical problems. What happens is, MAJORITY vote determines LAW, and the LAW brings about action. It's simple.
So, the GOP had TOTAL CONTROL of the Government for six solid years. GOP majorities in both House and Senate (and guys like Lieberman to vote along with them), GW Bush and Cheney in the White House, and a judiciary packed with GOP sycophants top to bottom.
Whatever in the world the GOP wanted to do, they COULD do, because the opposition didn't have the votes to stop them. The President would sign whatever LAW they sent along.
So, if the Border is a problem, the GOP would have SOLVED that problem early in their six years of Total Power.
Bottom line, if you're pissed off about the border, why are you HERE, railing against Progressives and Liberals? Your real ENEMY is the enemy within, YOUR OWN PEOPLE, the GOPers who had the golden opportunity to do whatever in the hell they wanted, and did NOTHING about the borders.
It's OK to feel utterly BETRAYED by the Republicans, but frankly, your whining is getting very annoying. Tell THEM, not us.
[Oh my GOD! I wonder if it's possible that Rightwingers who post here and who populate the Rightwing sites like the Free Republic ... if they might actually claim, if polled, that the GOP CONGRESS of the last six years had a "LIBERAL BIAS" ... just like the press?I mean, to reach their outrage of being VICTIMIZED by bias from all quarters, might it be that a GOP Majority, NOT delivering policies that the rightwingers demand ... smaller government, closed borders ... would be added to the list of groups with a Liberal Bias?The methodology of the rightwingers in railing against those who disagree with them couldn't help but include total GOP control as well.Poor Rightwingers. The Dems are against them, the PRESS is against them, and now the GOP is against them en masse! WOW. Talk about a siege mentality.Of course, we'd have to POLL these rightwingers to see if, in fact, EVERYBODY is against them, but do the poll companies have a list specialized enough to contact a thousand malcontents in their basements and bunkers, keyboards dusted orange from excessive cheese-puff consumption? Perhaps if the poll were a mail-in job, with the forms sent out in boxes of Clearacil? Or Viagra?]
The siege mentality is a fnny way to look at it, but it just doesn't jibe with the conservative mindse. At least not when they consider their own.
It's much easier and allows them to keep voting Republican in good conscience if they can just convince themselves, and others that, the failures of their leaders flows from the belief that their leaders simply were not true conservatives.
Not so fast, NL.
Republican elites (i.e. corporate America) like the status quo.
Lots of illicit workers with no official status and no minimum wages/benefits; the functional equivalent of indentured servitude.
Meanwhile, the hate "furriners" jingoism that permeates your base is (on this question) ) naturally allied with good "liberal" values like minimum wage and all the other elements of a legal workforce.
That's why this issue is a divisive "pooper" for your "party".
Ordinary working and middle class Republicans who are being disadvantaged by illegal immigration are starting to see through the lies put out by their "leadership".
AUTOPSYCHIC:
Nobody can doubt that Rightwing influence in the Media ... talk radio, Fox News ... has been ON THE RISE for about ten years.
Nobody can doubt ALSO that the Republican's claim to POWER has reached an all-time LOW, with Americans almost universally rejecting the leadership of Bush and GOPers in Congress.
My question to YOU is, do you think there's a direct inverse relationship to the fact that the more that is HEARD from the rightwing, the more the public REJECTS those who seek public office by touting rightwing ideology?
It would be a shame if the best way to promote rightwingers into office would be for the rightwingers to just SHUT UP. LOL The more you guys open your mouths, the more you lose ground. What a quandry!
My question to YOU is, do you think there's a direct inverse relationship to the fact that the more that is HEARD from the rightwing, the more the public REJECTS those who seek public office by touting rightwing ideology?
And to think the left is trying to STOP right wing radio! But, to answer your question...I don't know if there is an inverse relationship, but I'll trust you know and what you say is correct. Using that premise, WHY IN THE WORLD is the left trying to control what the right says?!? If that inverse relationship is truley present, as you claim, then the left should let even more right wingers speak.
Perhaps the left isn't as smart as you give them credit for being. You see a trend that shows the GOP becoming less popular as right wing radio becomes more popular and your idea of "fixing" that is to give right wing radio less power. What are you trying to do, get the GOP voted into the house, senate and white house again?
Ha ha hha hahah haha ha! Classic! How long did it take you to think that one up, tex??
AUTOPSYCHIC:
Your "hahaha" reminded me of Dwight Frye in his classic "Dracula" performance.
In any event, as a PARTISAN, I think it's GREAT that the Rightwing has purchased control of so much media, radio, cable TV shows, and publishing. I believe strongly that the more Ann Coulter talks, the more Beck babbles, and the more Limbaugh pontificates, the more it erodes any support for Republicans.
But as an AMERICAN, I believe our democracy is best served by having an INFORMED electorate, able to hear ALL sides of every issue. Even though Rightwing domination/near monopoly of so many media venues HARMS the GOP's prospects, this does not change the basic principle.
So, I favor the PRINCIPLE of not having EITHER side dominate the "message" sent out over our airwaves. If allowing Progressives and Liberals as much access to the airwaves as Rightwingers and Conservatives results in less animosity towards the right ... so be it.
FAIRNESS is the correct position ... even if it helps protect Republicans from their "cheerleaders".
I agree with Foser. My first thought when I heard about this report was that the right would try to use it's findings as "proof" of the so-called Liberal bias. I also considered that a reporter's admission of supporting Dem candidates did not necessarily result in biased "reporting". One interesting point I heard made today is that the average reporter has to answer to an Editor, a Chief Editor, a Publisher, a CEO, et al. He is NOT going to be able to slant his coverage in a way that is not acceptable to his bosses. Who are his bosses? The ones who are giving big contributions to the GOP, that's who. But none of that matters. The right-wing blowhards now have a new weapon they can bring out to bludgeon lefties. It doesn't matter whether it is truly indicative of a left-wing bias. As long as they can make it sound that way, it's good enough for them.
Thenks MMFA, for pointing out the glaring inadequacies in this survey. The next time I read some Liberal claptrap in the sports section, I'll know to take it with a grain of salt.
I fail to understand how the media always ends up being the story, not the actual story itself. Could it be a distraction tactic, intended to lull American viewers, listeners, and readers into paying no attention to the real news?
So long as a journalist reports a story that is fully researched and without bias, I could care less about their ideology. This is nothing more than "water-cooler" gossip that is none of anyone's business to begin with.
The media is not supposed to be the story, the actual story is.
It seems like an industry filled with narcissistic personalities who can't resist making the story about themselves. I don't think it's as much an intentional distraction strategy as it is an irresistable urge to stare into the reflecting pool and report back with what they've seen.
To compare it to another narcissistic industry, it reminds me of how Premiere Magazine altered film journalism in the '90s. While magazines like Film Comment, Sight & Sound and Cahiers du Cinema were writing serious film criticism, Premiere headlined weekend grosses as if everyone should care. They tried to mainstream all this industry insider business that nobody but industry people had any stake in. And they ended up eating their own tail.
Fox News is essentially doing the same thing. They spend ridiculous amounts of time talking about Fox News instead of just reporting the real news.
Interesting from a couple points of veiw. The use of media studies, hard figures, and an excellent exposition. The argument that liberal reporters produce liberal news has been sucessfully exploited before. Hard work by MSNBC to make it appear that we're still in the grip of those liberal traitors occuping and lurking in news rooms every where.
It's important to note that Fox, which is calling itself fair and balanced, employed relatives of George W. Bush during the 2000 election and never pulled Carl Cameron from campaign reporting when his wife was a campaign worker for George W. Bush. That matters a lot more than where Chris Matthews worked 30 years ago.
Good item, I had heard some of the details earlier regarding the small unreliable sample, positions of the donors that had no bearing on reporting, etc.
This sort of thing works, though. Just in the last day or so of this "study" coming out, more than one poster has come to this site to demonstrate that they ate the whole thing.
This is off topic but good...
"This situation may be paradoxical, but it is also universal. For decades Americans have experienced a populist uprising that only benefits the people it is supposed to be targeting. In Kansas we merely see an extreme version of this mysterious situation. The angry workers, mighty in their numbers, are marching irresistibly against the arrogant. They are shaking their fists at the sons of privilege. They are laughing at the dainty affectations of the Leawood toffs. They are massing at the gates of Mission Hills, hoisting the black flag, and while the millionaires tremble in their mansions, they are bellowing out their terrifying demands. "We are here," they scream, "to cut your taxes.""
Thomas Frank - "What's the Matter with Kansas?"
This was a very valuable paragraph that I'll keep handy for future reference.
Media Matters documents examples of news reports that contain flaws that advance a conservative agenda or undermine progressive causes. In most cases, we neither know nor care whether the reporters, editors, and producers involved are conservatives, liberals, anarchists, or royalists. We focus on specific flaws in the content of their reports, not on trying to ascertain their intent.
The next anyone says "why is this here", use this paragraph.
Once again, it seems that you folks get it wrong.
Foser takes the story and ran with it once again in the wrong direction. He drops his usual bait for the people with BDS to chime in. As usual the real issue is obfuscated. The real issue is that journalists are biased toward the left. Hello, hasn't anyone watched the regular news since the seventies or since the Clinton Admin? Dah. Why is it that FOX News beats everyone in the ratings combined? Why is it that newspapers across the country are folding up? It's not because of a conservative bias, it's because The Liberal/Socialist agenda does not resonate amongst clear thinking people.
You can hate conservative talk radio all you want, you can hate FOX News. They are Market Driven. Thus the beauty of Capitalism. R.I.P. Air/Err Amerika.
This is what some folks believe when they do not take the time to research the talking heads primarily on the cable news shows. Chris Matthews is a Clinton hater from way back, and I don't say this with any intent other than get the TRUTH to the readers. Fox is nothing but a distortation outlet that feeds on the folks that cannot understand fact from fiction. I enjoy watching Fox and it not very hard to see how they slant almost every story they report.
Was it the medias liberal bias that made them lockstep supporters of the runup to the war us liberals opposed? Subjected us to two years of 24/7 coverage of Clintons sex scandals when poll after poll said the people didnt care? Your canard is a myth. Fox also does NOT beat all others they are still dwarfed in the ratings by the networks and newspapers are folding because of the competitio of the internet. Ya got nothin. The media is NOT liberally biased and not all the repititions of this myth that you wingnuts can dredge up will magically make it true.
Actually, the Internet is far from the only reason newspapers are doing less well than they used to. I know many people who've cancelled their subscriptions out of pique with the right-wing slant of the content. My father, who never used a computer, cancelled his subscription of decades to the Washington Post because he became disgusted with it's increasingly rightward tilt and the tedious gossipy nature of its political reporting.
The metropolitan Washington, DC area, like New York, is a liberal market, yet the leading papers in those cities, the WaPo and the NYT, have been swinging to the right for three decades. You don't need the Internet to explain why readers are less willing to fork over their bucks for those papers.
AB-FAB:
Thank you for your status report from market driven bubble world.
ab-fab, is "BDS" Bush Derangement Syndrome?Because using that term signals that you're a dittohead, abbreviating lets everyone know that you're a lazy or very long-term dittohead.
And establishing yourself as a Rush Zombie makes it difficult for others to take anything you write after that seriously.
Fortunately, there was nothing there, unless you're gathering all of that left-wing media bias data for another post.
I had no idea that there are no conservatives on the radio.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113455/
Radio:
(D) Air America and CBS Radio, Betsy Rosenberg-Zimmerman, environment talk show host and environment reporter. Click for details.
(D) National Public Radio, Corey Flintoff, newscaster. Click for details.
(D) National Public Radio, Michelle Trudeau, correspondent. Click for details.
(D) NPR affiliate in Washington, WAMU, Susan Goodman, reporter. Click for details.
(D) WWJ News Radio, Detroit, Vickie B. Thomas, reporter. Click for details.
Has anyone considered that a large group of well educated people whose job it is to know what is going on in politics votes overwhelmingly democratic because of what they KNOW about Republicans and not due to some inherent bias?
Right, Solon. I htink I posted the other day, in response to one of the righty posters who swallowed the faulty logic of this study, that journalists,as compared to the general population, are more educated, well traveled, in touch with world events and prone to critical thinking.
Doesn't sound like the GOP base to me.
It's all about ownership and ratings. The huge multi-media corporations that control what is broadcast have a bias towards their own self-interest, which is to see that they can rake in the most money. GE is a defense contractor that benefits from military spending and (unfortunately) war.
The bias today is that more and more pundits are on the air; more "reporters" willing to obsess on trivia, and less and less real journalists who try to get at the truth. This does not further democracy.
Great job Foser, I was thinking I can't wait to see MMFA's analysis of this story when I saw it on MSNBC.com. The question that I have is where do Ailes and Murdoch of Fox or Parsons of Time Warner fall on this list of contributions? I'm sure there are many media executives and newspaper owners and publishers who have given much larger sums of money to conservatives. Everyone seems to forget that they are the guys who write the checks for all of these journalists. As with any job journalists know who butters their bread.
David
Why on earth would Roger Ailes (or for that matter the heads of any of the other networks) ever have to write a check to the RNC when they give them billions of dollars worth of advertising for free?
My radio name is Jonathan Sands. I have a show in the Clearwater Florida area, and I'm here to tell you that there is a thirst for progressive radio even in the midst of a conservative area, such as this. I have had callers tell me how happy they were to find my show on the dial, while trying to avoid the conservative claptrap being pushed through their car speakers. I love what I do, and hope to advance to the point of it being a paying career. I have a question, to which maybe someone out there, might have the answer. Where is the nurture, for someone like myself? I have tried to get feedback, from any number of media outlets, and personalities. Nada! I'm not looking for something for nothing. I'm just looking for some guidance and the possibility of advancing to another level. I feel, and have been told by many, that my skills are evident, if not raw. If the Progressive message is to gain traction it has to be more pervasive. I'm looking for help, so this is what I'm going to do. My show is called,"Liberal's Not A 4 Letter Word". It streams at (www.tantalki1340.com), Mon-Fri, 2-3 PM. I invite listeners to come and check me out, and if I cut the mustard, I ask for your help in advancing my name to others. I truly want to make a difference , in this world.
Jonathan Sands
johnie2xs@yahoo.com
Big order Johnie2. Other than the the three compies, whom I'm sure your aware of. Your options may have to be discovered or rediscovered. A union in Alaska bought a radio station to have a progressive radio option. Populist support can be very tricky. Groups of people have resources and options. They have problems.
Good luck.
Thom Hartmann has some great advice. He says you need to network with progressive businesses to drum up advertising for your own show. That's what he does and he brings lots of his own sponsors with him wherever he is, which is why many stations carry him.
You can start by going to local businesses and ask if they would advertise on your show. You should also go to progressive events (such as Take Back America, Yearly Kos, etc.) and Democratic events and collect the calling cards of anyone who owns a business, talk to them about advertising with you.
Then you have something to sell to any station or network you try to hustle your show to - automatic sponsorship.
Correrction on web address
(www.tantalk1340.com) johnie2xs
JOHNIE:
We had a poster recently who claimed to be a radio producer. He gave some guidance as to what you can do to gain AIRTIME.
The one thing you must know is that the Liberal "message" is perceived to be anti-business and anti-corporation. Having any concerns about "the market" or free trade is talk that the corporations will simply not fund. You cannot dare to criticize a business, OR a business-friendly politician, and expect a sponsor to fund your work.
ONLY if your message is one of support and praise, EXCLUSIVELY, for corporations like Haliburton and politicians like Bush, will the corporations who sponsor radio shows have any inclination to fund you.
So there you have it, from a radio producer himself: If you want a job in talk radio, you cannot be Liberal, and you MUST be friendly towards and protective of corporate interests.
Other than that, you have complete freedom of speech on the nation's airwaves. Good luck!
I posted on another thread that the myth of the "Liberal Media" is based on lies that have been repeated over and over again for many years. I don't listen to talk radio, but watch and listen to the cable news/talk shows and the only one that I've found to be liberal/progressive is countdown with Keith Olbermann in that he presents the stories covered in a funny and pretty accurate manner.
Another typical Foser mislead. He states as an example of media sector funneling money to Republicans via PACS -- "GE's PAC gave $807,282 to Republicans and just $474,118 to Democrats." Then he goes on to provide a link showing "every PAC in the media sector backed the GOP over the Democrats." Click on the link--NO GE listed! Gee, maybe that is because GE is NOT mostly a media business! Then why use them as your first reference? Because for Foser, the end justifies the means. Get a proofreader. He quotes Yglesias "This effort at ginning up controversy by revealing political contributions made by employees of media organizations seems fundamentally misguided." Then why quote the link to opensecrets.org which shows PAC payments by some EMPLOYEE PACS (e.g. Walt Disney)!
Blather. Foser writes absolute blather.
No YOU write complete blather. GE might not be PRIMARILY a media corporation but they own a whole lot of media
http://www.thinkandask.com/news/mediagiants.html
they own General Electric holds 80 pecent share of NBC Universal with 14 televsion centers (9 of which are in the top 10 market share) and 14 Spanish language television stations, (8 of which are in the top 10 market share)
So they are a MAJOR media player, if you THOUGHT you had a point you were mistaken
No one could contribute more to Democrats than the value of what Tim Russert has delivered to the Republican Party.
In 2000, he called Florida for Bush although he knew that it was a false call - thus tilting the bias of the entire mainstream media to the idea that Bush had won the state.
He has never since wavered in his support for Republican memes and condemnation of Democrats. Not that this is a surprise, given his previous obssession with Clinton's sex life.
Of course, no one is more obssessed with the Clintons' sex life than Chris Matthews, who spends half his time talking about it and the rest rhopsidizing about how wonderful and manly Republicans are.
I can pitch a story to an editor, but the editor has to want to take it, and often I've been told up front that they can't take the story because higher-ups don't want that perspective in their paper.
People get fired for not doing what the bosses want. Journalists got fired for wondering in public where George Bush was on 9/11. Phil Donahue got fired for opposing the invasion of Iraq.
I haven't heard of any journalists or on-air presenters who got fired from major media organizations for pushing GOP talking points.
It doesn't matter how you vote if you can't say what you think in your articles or presentations. I'll know the media is liberal when they start reporting union issues and healthcare honestly, when they acknowledge that "big government" is not a "belief" of liberalism, and when they start demanding to know why these criminals in the administration are not being impeached for their contiuous law-breaking.
I won't hold my breath for that.
it was two columnists at different newspapers, as i remember, who were outright fired for saying that bush ran and hid on 9-11.
and robert scheer, the longtime liberal columnist at the los angeles times, was fired in nov. 2005. he was very critical of bush.
MEFIRST:
Bush DID NOT run and hide on 9/11. I specifically remember he gave a public announcement from Barksdale AFB in Louisiana, before being suttled away to Idaho or somewhere safer.
In an interview with a German reporter, Dubya put it explicitly, "I mean, I was trying to get out of harm's way!" That's not a "cut and run", that's a strategery to elicit misunderestimation.
Barry Bonds better watch out! Jamison Foser is after the home-run crown, and adds yet another here. This is the best "it doesn't mean what you think it means" on this whole "librul media" mess.
Oh - and Barry . . . Jamison is doing it sans steroids, if that matters . . .
"But while Matthews worked for Democrats Carter and O'Neill nearly 30 years ago, his on-air comments about Democrats and Republicans in recent years certainly don't reflect a liberal bias. Instead, Matthews routinely gushes over Republicans and trashes Democrats, as Media Matters has routinely demonstrated."
That's the biggest load of crap I have ever seen. Has MMFA even watched Matthews? Just this week Matthews suggested that Scooter Libby be put on the front lines (sic) in Iraq. MMFA considers that gushing over a Republican?
I guess Soros' money can buy even the most ridicolous claims.
I consider saying Bush is like Atticus Finch and shines with a kind of sunny nobility as more than gushing over a Republican and tipping over into some weird delusional state completely bereft of reality. Kind of like your claims about Soros money which is a VERY weak attempt to derail the topic
Kevin1007:
It is difficult, or rather senseless, to argue with you when you just parrot what the right wing says, without backup, without original research, and without reason. The dreaded Soros -- actually, a good man -- supports MMFA only in Bill O'Reilly's wet dreams. He contributes nothing to this site, directly or indirectly, says MMFA. When you can show that to be inaccurate, and not just repeat the droolings of Bill O, then tell us.
By the way, if MMFA did receive money from Soros, it would be nothing to be ashamed of. The Washington Times is owned by a crazy Korean man who claims to be the second coming of Jesus, and he's been losing money at it for years. Now, that's something to be ashamed of.
So Matthews calls for a fair sentence for a traitor and that makes him liberal? Kevin1007, you're a stupid man if that's all you can come up with. Matthews has been on the Clintons' cases for years, and never misses an opportunity to lick the balls of a loser like Fred Thompson or Rudy (I never saw a camera I could avoid) JulieAnnie. Libby should get 30 years, along with Cheney and Bush, but the Rightwing media won't let America know what is really going on. and you, Kevin, are their favorite kind of victim, willing to suck them off and swallow the whole load. And why aren't you on the front lines, coward?
And I thought the love was gone.
Kevin1007,
Let's look at your last paragraph again.
"That's the biggest load of crap I have ever seen. Has MMFA even watched Matthews? Just this week Matthews suggested that Scooter Libby be put on the front lines (sic) in Iraq. MMFA considers that gushing over a Republican? "
Have you ever read any of MMFAs reports on Mathews? Do they claim he NEVER says anything mean about Republicans? No. One minute Mathews is bashing a Republican, the next he is bashing a democrat and glorifying a Republican. Clearly, in the Conservative world, the minute someone leans Liberal, they are Liberal for life. You're used to people like Hannity and Limbaugh who are NEVER off message.
With Matthews, maybe it's just buyer's remorse, since he admits he VOTED FOR BUSH in 2000, that liberal commie. I don't think Tweety's a hard-and-fast right-winger by any means, but he's quite enamored of several right-wing talking points and anti-Democratic frames and will constantly push them. He's certainly no Democratic shill (if he is, the Dems better get their money back pronto and sue him for misrepresentation). And it's been a good 20+ years since he was actively working for Democrats. Reagan was once an FDR-loving New Dealer before he ran as the conservatives' icon. David Horowitz was a leftist radical in his student days. People do change, you know.
As for bashing Bush, good Lord, the man has approval ratings in the 20s! That means three-fourths of the population is not exactly in his corner these days. That's a large percentage of the population to be "deranged." For Matthews to continue to be a knee-jerk Bush booster, wouldn't that make him an elitist, outside mainstream American opinion, like some of the commenters on this site, apparently?
A CHALLENGE to all the Foser bashers on this thread:
Address Foser's main point by explaining how a study of only 144 journalists, some of whom are copy editors and sports writers, has anything to do with the actual news presentation. How does a sports writer contributing to a Democrat influence "the media's" coverage as a whole? Please explain why that study is worth a second of our time? Why do Conservatives focus more on what obscure journalists do with their money than on what actually is appearing in the media?
MMFA documents what is actually being said in the media and that is the true test of how "biased" the media is. As has been pointed out numerous times, NBC can have numerous "Liberal" journalists on staff. However, if their bosses are determining what the final content of the news is, then their "bias" isn't a factor.
Furthermore, explain why it is supposedly no big deal that people like Limbaugh, Hannity and Savage, are able to freely editorialize over our radio waves while Progressives are basically shut out? Where is the medium for Liberals to freely editorialize to such an audience? How does it not impact public debate when Sean Hannity gets 15 hours a week on hundreds of radio stations across the country to control a radio show where he chooses the topics and the talking points which ALWAYS favors whatever the GOP message du jour is and yet no Liberal enjoys such a luxury? Somehow we're supposed to believe Conservatives are at a disadvantage when over 90% of the political talk radio shows out there are Conservative propaganda shows?
For one thing, the sample, though being a small percentage, certainly raises eyebrows. One reason that several of the people cited by Foser weren't contributors may be that it's against company policy. Although that didn't seem to stand in the way of the Times' "ethics" man. At least this sample included all contributors found (as opposed to, say, a study that handpicked a whopping 20 religious spokespeople, after removing the most prominent liberal personalities, and somehow was able to conclude that the media was biased towards religious conservatives by a precise numeric factor).
The fact that "some of them" are sports editors and copy editors does little, if anything, to refute the overall point, which is of ALL the journalists found to have made contributions, the overwhelming number supported the liberal/Democratic side. You ask how can a sports editor's ideology affect the media's coverage as a whole? Sports editors and copy editors find ways to work their politics into stories like everyone else. Remember the Limbaugh/ESPN story? The Augusta National story? Title IX? The need to celebrate the first member of (group) to do (whatever)? If you're saying you've never read politics on the sports (or arts) pages, you either don't read those sections at all or you're lying. Copy editors? They're the ones who make final word choices, layout choices, and often write headlines, captions, etc. You don't think a headline or caption can indicate bias? That's just naive.
If you think the sample's too small, not representative, not accurate, etc., here's YOUR challenge: cite proof by an unbiased source that shows otherwise. No, MMFA's own "studies" don't count. Neither does the Alterman tactic of dismissing the whole issue simply because corporations own the media (just like the movie industry somehow can't be liberal because they're owned by corporations too). Prove that ALL content generated by journalists goes through an altering process to produce a conservative bias, and not that many corporations have a fairly hands-off view of the business or don't have time/resources/interest to micromanage, especially given the deadlines involved.
And as to your comparison of talk radio vs. journalists, for the jillionth time your side is lumping together fact-based (or what is supposed to be fact-based) journalism with opinion or editorializing. Rush doesn't hide his bias, nor does Hannity, or the yahoos at Air America for that matter. The problem comes when people present biased information as non-biased or objective information. It's at this point that someone here inevitably brings up Fox News' "fair and balanced" slogan, as if its use somehow counterbalances and excuses all liberal media bias. It doesn't. Fox's slogan is simply a poke in the mainstream media's eye, and a funny one at that.
I love how the MMFA regulars are trying to cover all bases here. Thus, the study is not accurate, but if it is, it only covers sports and copy editors, and it has no real effect on the news, but if it does, it just means that journalists are smarter and thus liberal. Nevermind that the people responsible for making their jobs possible must be those stupid conservatives.
You obviously only read to score points for your "team," as anyone who read the article and the postings would agree that a very good case is presented that the two studies are not equivalent, and that the journalists who donate are not a representative sample. It's all about ownership anyway as has been pointed out.
And then there is the obvious bias of cable "news" which we can all watch for ourselves. The drumbeat for war with glitzy graphics. The dearth of real coverage, the obsession with "horse-race."
Figures don't lie, but liars figure.
If as you say The problem comes when people present biased information as non-biased or objective information. NOTHING in this study is evidence that is happening. So they give money to Democrats it is a nonsequitur to then claim that is evidence that they present biased evidence in a non biased fashion. I do not claim the media has a liberal or conservative bias I see the dynamic to be a bit more complicated than that. I notice that we havent talked about advertising here. You do not buy a newspaper really. Since most of a newspapers revenue comes from advertising the newpaper in effect sells YOU to them. In fact since virtually ALL media revenue comes from advertising it seems evident that the most likely bias would be toward the business community that pays the bills. Obviously the biggest newsstory the past few years was the runup to the war with Iraq and the most committed propagandist couldnt possibly claim the media towed the liberal line on that issue. I think to understand media bias we need to leave the too simple left/right divide behind. It is easy enough to find liberal bias on social issues and conservative bias on economic and foriegn policy issues. This study cannot however be presented as evidence of a liberal bias that presents biased information as non biased information that was an unsupported leap
Amazingly enough, Solon, I agree with many points that you raise. The bias in the media is more complicated than just left/right. An example I would add is the journalist's desire to produce a career-making story. I have no doubt that if a liberal journalist could make a name for himself by uncovering a scandal involving a liberal politician, he would set aside ideology. Another bias often, but not always, mixed with ideological bias is urban bias.
However, it strikes me as odd that evidence that many journalists are liberal is, to you, a "non sequitur" regarding biased product, but the fact that advertising pays the bills makes it "seem evident" to you that news would have a business bias. While there are always certain exceptions, such as direct attacks on a company or product, advertisers pay for eyeballs, regardless of how they get there. If a company, such as News Corp, can attract advertiser dollars by running a show that trashes FOX and corporate America in general, such as the Simpsons, they will do so. Similarly, watch Fox News for a couple of hours, and you're bound to see Progressive Ins. commercials.
This study cannot be presented as proof of biased journalism, but it certainly can be presented as evidence. It's not a huge logical leap to deduce that people with a bias, when given the opportunity, will infuse this bias into their work. Of course, some journalists believe that they are so well-trained they can shut off their bias like a spigot and become instantly objective. Usually not, any more than a liberal History prof can usually hide his or her bias. It doesn't mean it can't be done, but people like to get their opinion out. Also, when some people believe that the truth itself has a liberal bias (as sarcastically mentioned by Colbert), such people may genuinely believe they have no bias.
Riddle me this:
If showing that a reporter or journalist has a certain political belief or donates to a certain party AUTOMATICALLY proves their REPORTING is biased (as Conservatives seem to claim) then why are these same Conservatives, with a straight face, trying to claim that the political leanings of Fox News personalities doesn't effect their coverage? Somehow Conservative journalists and reporters can be "Fair and Balanced", but any Liberal journalist is iautomatically "Biased".
Fox News is a double whammy: A talent roster stocked with Conservatives, and bosses who are also Conservative.
Fox news does lean right...OK...I get it....I know it....I accept it.
TEST TIME EVERYONE!
If you go to "the news hole" Keith Olbermanns blog and type the following.
George Bush and Dick Cheney suck. I hate both of them. Scooter Libby is a convicted criminal. And Gozo broke the law by firing rich lawyers.
Your post will appear.
HOWEVER.
If a story by MSNBC on Bill and Hillery Clinton is posted and you write say this...
I remember when Bill Clinton was impeached but I do not remember when Hillery was dealing with the Whitewater Issue. I can also say that when the entire staff at the travel office were fired it made the papers. But these were all seperate issues and had nothing to do with the impeachment procedings,
The moderator will FLUSH your post.
Here is a short list of words that are not to be posted on MSNBC's blog.
Paula, Monica, Juanita, Whitewater, impeachment (regarding Clinton), disbarment (regarding Clinton) fraudulent stock trade, blue dress, Sandy Burglar, heck think up your own and give it a try.....it fun to run test like these.
so even if you were writing a defense of clinton, but used those words, your post would be discarded automatically? sure you're not just making things up again?
TWEAK: What TOPIC are you responding to, where "travel office" or "Sandy Burglar (sic)" would make a valid point for you?
See, a lot of sites are bombarded with posters who make a career of simply repeating discredited and rebutted SMEARS as if that makes a point. It's off topic, irrelevant, and WRONG besides. Yet some posters know nothing else to do in order to try to promote the rightwing.
So, I have no doubt your "TEST" would produce a post that would be removed ... AND SHOULD BE REMOVED, because it would have NO VALUE to the discussion.
Now, if you find a site that will LEAVE such posts intact, you have found a like-thinking rightwing hate&smear site, which makes its bones by rehashing every failed "Clinton Scandal" every day. THAT site would be suspect as to every topic ON it, because it will have shown it's rightwing smear credentials, and demonstrated that it is SUBSTANCE FREE.
Your "test" is a test ONLY of the integrity and quality of a site. As such, I believe you that your Clinton Impeachment rehashes are regularly deleted as being of no current interest, importance, or veracity.
So, what was your POINT again?
REDSAHX:
Mostly, the Rightwingers will ADMIT that FOX is strongly rightwing biased (which give LIE to their "fair and balanced" claim, of course), but also claim that the "balance" is against ALL THE REST OF THE MEDIA.
The REAL conundrum comes about with their discussions of the REASON for FOX's supposed gain in popularity. "It's MARKET forces. There is a DEMAND for such biased rightwing reporting!" they say.
But if true, wouldn't this then mean that if there's an overwhelming Liberal Bias in the REST of the Media, that this would reflect a large majority demand for a Liberal product?
Their argument would have us believe that ONLY FOX NEWS is subject to market forces, while the REST of media is an EXCEPTION to the laws of supply and demand. That the "overwhelming Liberal Bias" of the media violates market forces, by giving the public what the DO NOT WANT.
One day, a rightwinger will explain how it is that FOX is the only one following MARKET rules, and its popularity is a bona-fide indication of consumer popularity in the market, while all that vast Liberal Media is operating in stark contradiction to the rules of supply and demand.
HINT: They just CLAIM it, they can't EXPLAIN it. LOL
"But if true, wouldn't this then mean that if there's an overwhelming Liberal Bias in the REST of the Media, that this would reflect a large majority demand for a Liberal product?"
No. The majority demand is for objective news. It's just that what they get is biased news, and often they don't know the difference, don't have time to care, or are able to comb through the liberal BS to elicit the factual news of the day. An average news consumer may watch the Big 3 networks or read the major city paper because it's the only decent alternative.
Now, for those who don't mind, or even want, news or opinion/commentary that has a slant, the market has indeed chosen a winner. It's not even close. Not only that, but as more people discover that their current news source isn't as objective as they thought, they begin to look elsewhere. The Internet is a great place for a quick view of just-the-facts reporting. Big 3 network ratings are down. Newspaper circulation is way down (with some exceptions, like the WSJ).
Keep denying those mysterious market forces, Tex.
EXEC:
OK, let's see. The MARKET is for "objective" news. Popularity of Media outlets prior to rightwing talk radio and FOX news was an invalid guide to ACTUAL market preference, because all "bias" was overlooked, not noticed, or ignored ... in order to try to glean the "real news".
So NOW, we have FOX NEWS, which has gained a share of the market. In the last presidential election night coverage, FOX had about 8 million watchers, while the other cable and network stations garnered 54 million.
SO, when given the CHOICE, only ONE out of SIX viewers went to FOX for their election night news (arguably the most politically relevant day and night to gauge viewer preference).
CONCLUSION? Are you saying that five out of six are still fooled by the bias, and turn to news OTHER than FOX out of pure ignorance? Or are you saying FOX is biased, but only one in six is interested in rightwing bias in their news coverage? Or are you saying that FOX is OBJECTIVE, and only one in six have discovered that the objectivity they desire in their news reporting can ONLY be found at FOX? The other five are still filtering the BIAS out of the "Liberal Media" in order to be left with "just the news"?
You reject out of hand that news OTHER than FOX (and talk radio) could be objective, and thus attract the audience for objective reporting; folks watch DESPITE the leftwing spin, or so you say.
You are unclear as to whether FOX's audience finds objectivity there, or if they prefer a rightwing spin, and find THAT at FOX.
Your assertion, then, is that five of six consumers of news are FOOLS, and only one sixth of the news viewers are smart enough to get it right and watch FOX.
To believe this, one must accept that MARKET FORCES have been set aside, because consumers of news are just too stupid to know what they want and where to find it. In truth, you assert that the laws of Supply and Demand, and "Market Forces" simply do not apply to the commodity of news. News is exempted from "brand preference", because people are stupid.
If that's REALLY your presentation, then you have lost a major segment of your Rightwing Ideology, because rightwing economics DEPENDS on market forces being always correct, infallible, and reliable. Without your market forces arguments, you have nothing with which to promote your ideology.
Any way your argument takes us is fine by me. Either you demonstrate rightwing "media" to be hugely unpopular, or you abandon a staunch belief in market forces. Works for me.
You like to present false dichotomies and straw men, don't you, Tex? The market has room for lots of alternatives, beyond those you apparently can consider.
"CONCLUSION? Are you saying that five out of six are still fooled by the bias, and turn to news OTHER than FOX out of pure ignorance?" Some are fooled, some don't care, some genuinely believe that the left-wing version of events is more palatable, some prefer certain news personalities (esp. on election night, that's why they hire ringers), some don't even get cable. See, lots of possibilities!
"Or are you saying FOX is biased, but only one in six is interested in rightwing bias in their news coverage?" See above. It's not either/or.
"Or are you saying that FOX is OBJECTIVE, and only one in six have discovered that the objectivity they desire in their news reporting can ONLY be found at FOX?" Keep jumping to conclusions, Tex. Some people know that they will get info or views on Fox that they won't get anywhere else, even if they disagree with them. On election night, there are likely many channel-flippers for just this reason.
"The other five are still filtering the BIAS out of the "Liberal Media" in order to be left with "just the news"?" Some yes, some no. It's a large pie.
"You reject out of hand that news OTHER than FOX (and talk radio) could be objective, and thus attract the audience for objective reporting; folks watch DESPITE the leftwing spin, or so you say." Do you really need anyone else for this discussion, or are you content to keep making up my arguments for me? I never stated that FOX was objective, and I certainly never stated that talk radio was objective. Go back and read my post again. What I stated was that, if one knows that they want slanted news, the market shows that they overwhelmingly prefer news slanted to the right versus news slanted to the left. Especially on election night, though, everyone is on their best behavior. That's why you see conservatives on panels for the Big 3 and the other cable shows on election night, to attract an audience that otherwise would abandon them for FOX.
"Your assertion, then, is that five of six consumers of news are FOOLS, and only one sixth of the news viewers are smart enough to get it right and watch FOX...To believe this, one must accept that MARKET FORCES have been set aside, because consumers of news are just too stupid to know what they want and where to find it." Or accept that the market is fragmented. Some call this "demographics".
"In truth, you assert that the laws of Supply and Demand, and "Market Forces" simply do not apply to the commodity of news. News is exempted from "brand preference", because people are stupid." In truth, you should read more carefully. The market is working just fine. A news consumer can watch, say, ABC News to get the headlines of the day, with a little liberal spin, read the NYTimes to get more in-depth analysis, with a little more liberal spin, and then turn to FOX, Rush, Drudge, etc. to get the news or views that were omitted from ABC and NYTimes due to "editorial discretion" or "space limitations". You can have it both ways. However, the market has shown that people do not want to hear or watch non-stop bi___ing about how miserable their country/life is. Those that are interested in that instead turn to left-wing Web sites.
Tex, find my other post, run the test and then you will see why all the hubub about bias. MSNBC is by far the worst.
TWEAK:
I responded to your proposed "test", and agreed with you that internet sites which have integrity and standards will routinely delete posts which are off topic, which are spam or trolling, and which seek to repeat discredited SMEARS merely to generate hatred, and never to advance the relevant discussion.
On the other hand, you could try to post RELEVANT comments that advance the discussion, instead of bringing up failed scandals of years ago. Just a thought.
On multiple occasions, I've heard Matthews brag on Hardball that he voted for George W. Bush--a really remarkable breach of even the most rudimentary journalistic pretentions of "objectivity"--yet I've never heard anyone use that tidbit to rebut the "he worked for Tip O'Neill" talking point. No one who voted for lost-the-popular-vote George without embarassment or apology (twice I presume) can plausibly be called a Democrat.
The past 24 or so hours clearly shows how Fox News has manipulated this story for their own purposes. For those of you that don't know about how these shows are put together--There is a script, much like a move, with the reporters reading what they say.--Many, if not most, have to be approved by higher ups in the chain.
I checked my junk mail and found one from AIM and read it. Talk about distortation, this one takes the cake. Adding what was not said or seen on Meet the Press, and taking parts of what was actually said and seen out. My e-mail provider was 100% accurate in considering this as junk.