Thread Rating:
03-01-2012, 12:55 AM
Quote:The conservative critique of the news media rests on two general propositions: (1) journalists' views are to the left of the public, and (2) journalists frame news content in a way that accentuates these left perspectives. Previous research has revealed persuasive evidence against the latter claim, but the validity of the former claim has often been taken for granted. This research project examined the supposed left orientation of media personnel by surveying Washington-based journalists who cover national politics and/or economic policy at US outlets.
The findings include:
On select issues from corporate power and trade to Social Security and Medicare to health care and taxes, journalists are actually more conservative than the general public.
Journalists are mostly centrist in their political orientation.
The minority of journalists who do not identify with the "center" are more likely to identify with the "right" when it comes to economic issues and to identify with the "left" when it comes to social issues.
Journalists report that "business-oriented news outlets" and "major daily newspapers" provide the highest quality coverage of economic policy issues, while "broadcast network TV news" and "cable news services" provide the worst.
I. INTRODUCTION
The idea that the mainstream media have a "liberal bias" has long been conventional wisdom. At various times, public figures from Richard Nixon to Newt Gingrich have all taken refuge in the claim that the "liberal" media were out to get them. A legion of conservative talk show hosts, pundits and media-watch groups pound away at the idea that the media exhibit an inherently "liberal" tilt. But the assertion is based on remarkably little evidence and is repeatedly made in the face of contradictory facts.
In particular, the conservative critique of the news media rests on two general propositions: (1) journalists' views are to the left of the public, and (2) journalists frame news content in a way that accentuates these left perspectives. Researchers and analysts have discovered persuasive evidence against the latter claim. Content analyses of the news media have, at a minimum, shown the absence of any such systematic liberal/left tilt; some studies have found a remarkably predictable press usually reflecting the narrow range of views of those in positions of power, as well as a spectrum of expert opinion that tilts toward the right.
But even some progressives have been willing to cede to conservatives the first point: that journalists' views are to the left of the public. Professionals in general, they observe, often have "liberal" leanings on social issues and there is no reason to expect journalists to be any different. However, they have also argued convincingly that the norms of "objective journalism" and the powerful corporate interests which own and sponsor the news media ensure that news content never strays too far, for too long, from protecting the status quo. You don't understand the corporate ideology of General Motors by studying the personal beliefs of the assembly-line workers, the argument goes. Ideological orientation is introduced and enforced by those high in the organizational hierarchy who have the power to hire and fire, to reward and punish. Working journalists, despite their sometimes high visibility, usually do not call the shots in the nation's media corporations. (The documentary "Fear and Favor in the Newsroom" provides vivid illustrations of this situation.) Consequently, the private views of individual journalists often matter little.
Such an analysis of organizational dynamics is fundamental to understanding the news process. It, indeed, is a crucial argument that kicks the legs out from the conservative critique and gets at the more fundamental structural elements that set the news agenda. Still, this approach begs the question: are journalists really to the left of the public? This element of the conservative critique has not been adequately addressed; it's one reason why the "liberal media" charge gets repeated without serious scrutiny.
The small amount of current data on this issue may be due, in part, to journalist's resistance to answering surveys lest results somehow compromise their professional stance of objective "neutral" observers. This presents a challenge for researchers. Still, despite the methodological hurdles, this question is an interesting one and this report describes the results of one effort to examine this essential underpinning of the "liberal media" claim.
More: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2447
![[-]](https://bluegrassrivals.com/forum/images/lifestyle/collapse.png)
03-01-2012, 02:01 AM
If you need proof, turn your tv on to a any news station other than Fox.
03-01-2012, 07:43 AM
So a left wing fringe web site publishes a study showing that says the media is actually biased to the right because of corporate ownership. The fact that more than 80 percent of journalists vote for Democratic presidential candidates pretty much demonstrates the stupidity of FAIR and the people who put any credence in its opinions.
03-01-2012, 09:18 AM
Hoot Gibson Wrote:So a left wing fringe web site publishes a study showing that says the media is actually biased to the right because of corporate ownership. The fact that more than 80 percent of journalists vote for Democratic presidential candidates pretty much demonstrates the stupidity of FAIR and the people who put any credence in its opinions.Left wing fringe site because Hoot says so?
Where do you get this figure? I would love to see a link. Are you making up numbers, Hoot?
03-01-2012, 10:59 AM
Peter Hart
Activism Director and and Co-producer of CounterSpin.
Steve Rendall
Senior Media Analyst and Co-producer of CounterSpin.
Janine Jackson
Program Director and Co-producer of CounterSpin.
Jim Naureckas
Extra! Magazine Editor Julie Hollar
Managing Editor of Extra! Magazine
You may want to research these people to see how unbias they really are.
Activism Director and and Co-producer of CounterSpin.
Steve Rendall
Senior Media Analyst and Co-producer of CounterSpin.
Janine Jackson
Program Director and Co-producer of CounterSpin.
Jim Naureckas
Extra! Magazine Editor Julie Hollar
Managing Editor of Extra! Magazine
You may want to research these people to see how unbias they really are.
03-01-2012, 11:30 AM
nky Wrote:Peter HartA couple of them are left. A couple of them have written articles downgrading democrats, and other "liberal" media sources.
Activism Director and and Co-producer of CounterSpin.
Steve Rendall
Senior Media Analyst and Co-producer of CounterSpin.
Janine Jackson
Program Director and Co-producer of CounterSpin.
Jim Naureckas
Extra! Magazine Editor Julie Hollar
Managing Editor of Extra! Magazine
You may want to research these people to see how unbias they really are.
03-01-2012, 04:35 PM
TheRealVille Wrote:Left wing fringe site because Hoot says so?
Where do you get this figure? I would love to see a link. Are you making up numbers, Hoot?
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washing...-news-bias
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
03-01-2012, 05:04 PM
Forgive me for jumping in here EXCEPT---The liberal bias of the mainstream media tilts so far left that any outlets not in that political lane, like the Drudge Report and Fox News Channel, look far more conservative than they really are, according to a UCLA professor's new book out next month. END EXCERPT This is a pretty good article in that the facts of the case are discussed without the usual bias. I've seen more than one reference going as high as 93%-7% pro liberal voting practices by main stream media types. On a side note, I'm real happy you chose to start this thread, it's one of my 'soap box issues'.
I have long maintained that the liberal media gives credibility to the absurd assertions of the Democratic propaganda machine. Thereby taking their earned position perfectly in the definition of totalitarianism---Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a political system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible. Totalitarian regimes stay in political power through an all-encompassing propaganda campaign, which is disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, a single party that is often marked by political repression, personality cultism, control over the economy, regulation and restriction of speech, mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror.
The practice of attacking the Republicans, or any conservative movement such as the Tea Party, by Democrats (seemngly seething with contempt) has become a 24/7--365 endeavour, thanks to the main stream media and the 3-hour news loop. The criticisms and mocking have become an endless barrage of no holds barred, attacks on the credibility and judgement of Rebublican leadership of state and federal government. Would I actually even have to point out the obvious here? According to the Dems, no Republican is fit for service, they're out of touch, old fashioned, wild eyed right wing religious zealots that are trying to turn America into a Theocracy, to hear them tell it. The truth is that America has functioned for lo these past 236 years with such distinction that we will never be surpassed by any other nation before or after. Only the Johnny Come Latelies, trying to totally redefine America in their image have a problem with this truly great nation. In a word, REBELLION
I have long maintained that the liberal media gives credibility to the absurd assertions of the Democratic propaganda machine. Thereby taking their earned position perfectly in the definition of totalitarianism---Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a political system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible. Totalitarian regimes stay in political power through an all-encompassing propaganda campaign, which is disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, a single party that is often marked by political repression, personality cultism, control over the economy, regulation and restriction of speech, mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror.
The practice of attacking the Republicans, or any conservative movement such as the Tea Party, by Democrats (seemngly seething with contempt) has become a 24/7--365 endeavour, thanks to the main stream media and the 3-hour news loop. The criticisms and mocking have become an endless barrage of no holds barred, attacks on the credibility and judgement of Rebublican leadership of state and federal government. Would I actually even have to point out the obvious here? According to the Dems, no Republican is fit for service, they're out of touch, old fashioned, wild eyed right wing religious zealots that are trying to turn America into a Theocracy, to hear them tell it. The truth is that America has functioned for lo these past 236 years with such distinction that we will never be surpassed by any other nation before or after. Only the Johnny Come Latelies, trying to totally redefine America in their image have a problem with this truly great nation. In a word, REBELLION
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
03-01-2012, 05:41 PM
http://archive.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp
This is from a period before the war between liberals and conservatives got nuclear.
This is from a period before the war between liberals and conservatives got nuclear.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
03-01-2012, 06:57 PM
As we all know, all media is liberal, except for FOX. 
nicker:
nicker:
03-01-2012, 07:13 PM
TheRealVille Wrote:As we all know, all media is liberal, except for FOX.
You're a big stickler for Links, and sources. Surely you're not trying to say a prof from the epicenter of liberal rationale, UCLA, on the West Coast, the birthplace of modern liberalism, is just another Bible Belt conservative are you?
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
03-01-2012, 07:30 PM
TheRealThing Wrote:[url]http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washingtonThanks for saving me the time searching for a link, TRT. As for TRV's suggestion that FAIR is not a kooky left wing site, I encourage everybody to take a look at it for themselves. FAIR attacks the New York Times from the left. but RV thinks that its study proving that the media has a right wing bias is legitimate. Surprise, surprise, surprise!
03-01-2012, 07:30 PM
TheRealThing Wrote:You're a big stickler for Links, and sources. Surely you're not trying to say a prof from the epicenter of liberal rationale, UCLA, on the West Coast, the birthplace of modern liberalism, is just another Bible Belt conservative are you?Nope!
03-01-2012, 07:33 PM
Hoot Gibson Wrote:Thanks for saving me the time searching for a link, TRT. As for TRV's suggestion that FAIR is not a kooky left wing site, I encourage everybody to take a look at it for themselves. FAIR attacks the New York Times from the left. but RV thinks that its study proving that the media has a right wing bias is legitimate. Surprise, surprise, surprise!Do you see anything I typed in my OP that says I had an inclination either way? Dusty needs to come in the politics forum and give you all a lesson on threads, and how they work. I never said anything, one way or the other.
03-01-2012, 07:46 PM
TheRealVille Wrote:Do you see anything I typed in my OP that says I had an inclination either way? Dusty needs to come in the politics forum and give you all a lesson on threads, and how they work. I never said anything, one way or the other.The way threads work in political forums is that the person that starts the thread posts a link, takes a position, and then defends that position. You, on the other hand, post crap from left wing sites and then try to pretend that you have taken no position on the points made in the material that you posted.
Come on, RV, grow a pair and take some ownership of what you post. If you agree with the premise, be man enough to say so. Ditto if you disagree with an article. That is the way everybody else on this particular forum operates. Apparently they get it.
Do you agree with FAIR's contention that the mainstream media has a right wing bias or not? (If you have not yet read the article that you posted, now would be a good time to do so.)
03-01-2012, 07:48 PM
Hoot Gibson Wrote:The way threads work in political forums is that the person that starts the thread posts a link, takes a position, and then defends that position. You, on the other hand, post crap from left wing sites and then try to pretend that you have taken no position on the points made in the material that you posted.Like Dusty used to say, "I just posted the link, do what you will with it." If you don't like reading it, or anything I post, just ignore it.
Come on, RV, grow a pair and take some ownership of what you post. If you agree with the premise, be man enough to say so. Ditto if you disagree with an article. That is the way everybody else on this particular forum operates. Apparently they get it.
Do you agree with FAIR's contention that the mainstream media has a right wing bias or not?
03-01-2012, 07:50 PM
TheRealVille Wrote:Like Dusty used to say, "I just posted the link, do what you will with it." If you don't like reading it, ignore it.If you are unwilling to defend the left wing crap that you post, nobody else is going to do it. :lmao:
03-01-2012, 07:55 PM
Hoot Gibson Wrote:If you are unwilling to defend the left wing crap that you post, nobody else is going to do it. :lmao:I got you posting in the thread, didn't I? Like I have said before, I own you.
nicker:
03-01-2012, 08:02 PM
TheRealVille Wrote:I got you posting in the thread, didn't I? Like I have said before, I own you.Yeah, posting ridiculous garbage like this and then being afraid to defend it certainly makes you look like a genius. But this is my last post on the topic. An article has to have some hint of legitimacy to warrant any of my time. Most of your's don't - but this one is among your worst. What's next Daily Kos diaries?
03-01-2012, 08:06 PM
Hoot Gibson Wrote:Yeah, posting ridiculous garbage like this and then being afraid to defend it certainly makes you look like a genius. But this is my last post on the topic. An article has to have some hint of legitimacy to warrant any of my time. Most of your's don't - but this one is among your worst. What's next Daily Kos diaries?How much time did I get this round?
03-02-2012, 01:09 AM
I think CNN is the best mainstream news network in the world. I don't see how anyone could say they're liberal...some of their people who have their own shows might be a tiny bit, but you can hardly ever see any bias either way, right or left.
Fox News on the other hand, is a joke. I lol every time I see their "Fair and Balanced" slogan...their news chicks and guys don't even make an effort to hide their bias. I'm a Republican, but if you're going to say you're "fair and balanced", actually be that instead of thinking you are just because you have a democrat in every debate. That's just standard procedure.
MSNBC is the same way, just on the other side. Never watch them, they're ridiculous.
Only reason I ever watch Fox News is because of their women, and for the news if CNN is on a show or something.
Fox News on the other hand, is a joke. I lol every time I see their "Fair and Balanced" slogan...their news chicks and guys don't even make an effort to hide their bias. I'm a Republican, but if you're going to say you're "fair and balanced", actually be that instead of thinking you are just because you have a democrat in every debate. That's just standard procedure.
MSNBC is the same way, just on the other side. Never watch them, they're ridiculous.
Only reason I ever watch Fox News is because of their women, and for the news if CNN is on a show or something.
.
03-02-2012, 01:48 AM
Fox is bad.
But MSNBC with that man child Rachel Maddow and speed pill taker Ed is quite disgusting sometimes.
But MSNBC with that man child Rachel Maddow and speed pill taker Ed is quite disgusting sometimes.
03-02-2012, 05:47 AM
^
no doubt.
I sure do like that Erin Burnett chick on CNN though, she is fine....
I can see why MSNBC hired Maddow though.
It goes for everything liberalist stand for seeing as to how shes gay.
no doubt.
I sure do like that Erin Burnett chick on CNN though, she is fine....
I can see why MSNBC hired Maddow though.
It goes for everything liberalist stand for seeing as to how shes gay.
03-02-2012, 10:21 AM
Hoot Gibson Wrote:The way threads work in political forums is that the person that starts the thread posts a link, takes a position, and then defends that position. You, on the other hand, post crap from left wing sites and then try to pretend that you have taken no position on the points made in the material that you posted.No, posting a link doesn't mean you are taking a position on said link, it is just promoting discussion.
Come on, RV, grow a pair and take some ownership of what you post. If you agree with the premise, be man enough to say so. Ditto if you disagree with an article. That is the way everybody else on this particular forum operates. Apparently they get it.
Do you agree with FAIR's contention that the mainstream media has a right wing bias or not? (If you have not yet read the article that you posted, now would be a good time to do so.)
03-02-2012, 05:33 PM
LOL RIUTG, I love how we're discussing the hotness of media women right in the middle of this heated conversation, lol...
But yeah, Erin Burnett is awesome. The one blonde chick on Fox News from around 12-3 is smokin' as well. I don't even need to describe Robin Meade...she's actually so hot she has haters on her hotness...just crazy.
But yeah, Erin Burnett is awesome. The one blonde chick on Fox News from around 12-3 is smokin' as well. I don't even need to describe Robin Meade...she's actually so hot she has haters on her hotness...just crazy.
.
03-02-2012, 07:49 PM
TheRealVille Wrote:No, posting a link doesn't mean you are taking a position on said link, it is just promoting discussion.I never said it does. What I said that you should have the guts to tell the rest of us your opinion on the article in the opening post. Lively debate is what makes or breaks forums like this one. Without it, we might as well just go Google the day's news.
03-02-2012, 07:56 PM
vundy33 Wrote:^^lol yeah really man..it's like MSNBC makes an effort to hire the ugliest women possible. Ugh.It takes money to hire beautiful journalists with law degrees. MSNBC's ratings are so bad, they are lucky to be able to hire a person as handsome as Maddow.
03-03-2012, 04:28 PM
The problem is the "media excuse" is being used by Conservatives like the "race" card has been used by liberals. It is getting overused in making excused that suit individuals for their own specific needs.
03-03-2012, 05:11 PM
OrangenowBlue Wrote:The problem is the "media excuse" is being used by Conservatives like the "race" card has been used by liberals. It is getting overused in making excused that suit individuals for their own specific needs.So do you agree with the contention of the article that RV posted that the mainstream media leans to the right because it is owned by corporations?
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
