Interesting post on the liberal media.

[dude1394]

What's funny here is how so many democrats think the media is just right, whereas anyone but a democrat disagrees. Since I'm pretty sure that democrats are liberal, then "just right" would probalby be liberal, no? That's why we much have the fairness doctrine to make sure tthat talk radio becomes "just right" as well. I really despise Waxman.


http://engram-backtalk.blogspot.com/...sh-we-had.html

As you can see, if you are a Democrat, news coverage feels just about right. And that's why Democrats argued for so long that the news is not biased. If you lean to the left, left-leaning news seems fair and balanced. If you are in the political middle, or if you lean to the right, the news media's liberal bias is quite evident. I imagine that a similar survey asking about Fox News in particular would show that Republicans find its coverage to be about right, whereas most Democrats would find it to be slanted in the conservative direction. But when it comes to the media as a whole, it's the other way around.

[Arne]

Maybe Republicans are just whiners, who knows?

[dude1394]

Yea that's it. As engram starts off his post.

The sky is blue. Here's proof:

[Mavdog]

maybe it is the constant claim by conservatives that the media is biased, thereby producing the foregone conclusion by conservatives that yes indeed it is biased?

iow, if the claim is continually made it becomes an accepted fact even if there is no true evidence that it is proven.

the whole issue is getting tired. I mean in another similar thread on this mb there is a mass media outlet, national review, claiming that mass media is biased against them.

sorta ironic, isn't it?

[Usually Lurkin]

yeah those republicans. What biased whiners they are. And the independents. well, really, everyone is wrong but the democrats, right? At least they think that liberal presentation is "just right"

[purplefrog]

Hmmmm..... 53% of the Independents think that the media is either just right or too conservative. I wonder what that means......

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by purplefrog

Hmmmm..... 53% of the Independents think that the media is either just right or too conservative. I wonder what that means......

?? That's a weird way to look at it.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by purplefrog

Hmmmm..... 53% of the Independents think that the media is either just right or too conservative. I wonder what that means......

Or you could see it as 71% of Independents think the media is either just right or too liberal. Kind of depends on how you are swaying the retoric.

[Mavdog]

interesting summary at the end of the gallup report:

"In short, while Republicans are highly likely to perceive the media as being biased toward the left, Democrats are much less likely to perceive the media as being biased toward the right. Whether or not this reflects reality (i.e., that the media are in reality more Democratic and more liberal in their orientation) is an open question not answerable by these data"

[Usually Lurkin]

yeah mavdog, and like is stated in the original post, it could very well be that Fox news is perfectly balanced (as you might guess republicans would claim) and liberals (who would complain of bias in FoxNews) are a bunch of whiners.

[purplefrog]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

Or you could see it as 71% of Independents think the media is either just right or too liberal. Kind of depends on how you are swaying the retoric.

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

?? That's a weird way to look at it.

Exactly my point. These data can be reasonably interpreted in a variety of ways, so I wouldn't read too much into the graph at all. The data certainly give no objective reason to believe the media as a whole is too liberal imo.

We tend to say that Olbermann is a moonbat, but O'Reilly is objective. Why? They both provide data on their respective shows to back up their points. Why do we believe in one, but not the other (other than the fact is probably impossible to believe in both at the same time without your head spinning around)? Why do some say they Michael Moore "gets to the bottom of the issue", while Rush Limbaugh is big fat idiot? Why? Why do we tend to believe that one source is more truthful than the other? Do we just take our opinions and then go out and find a source that supports it and then say, "see there you go, I'm right". Is there any objective truth or is it all just spin? I'm not trying to be critical of anyone, but rather I am genuinely perplexed. Is it "The MSM is too liberal" or is it more accuate to say "Fox News - fair and balanced? Give me a break". And we wonder why our country is so polarized, seems to me that we no longer have an objective source that most Americans believe is reliable and accurate. I find this very sad.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by purplefrog

Exactly my point. These data can be reasonably interpreted in a variety of ways, so I wouldn't read too much into the graph at all.

by "weird" I certainly did not mean "reasonably interpreted." Quite the opposite. I don't see any sense in grouping Independents with either republicans or democrats. That is a very unreasonable thing to do, and the only reason someone would do that is to argue a point that they know is not supported by a more honest look at the figure. I think this is the same point dalmations was making.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

maybe it is the constant claim by conservatives that the media is biased, thereby producing the foregone conclusion by conservatives that yes indeed it is biased?

More likely it's the facts that the vast majority of media is democrat (i.e. left) leaning as evidenced by their own dollars that they provide to candidates.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

by "weird" I certainly did not mean "reasonably interpreted." Quite the opposite. I don't see any sense in grouping Independents with either republicans or democrats. That is a very unreasonable thing to do, and the only reason someone would do that is to argue a point that they know is not supported by a more honest look at the figure. I think this is the same point dalmations was making.

interesting that you would call it "unreasonable", as it is the independents who typically decide elections.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

interesting that you would call it "unreasonable", as it is the independents who typically decide elections.

do you think it's reasonable to group them with republicans here?

[purplefrog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

by "weird" I certainly did not mean "reasonably interpreted." Quite the opposite. I don't see any sense in grouping Independents with either republicans or democrats. That is a very unreasonable thing to do, and the only reason someone would do that is to argue a point that they know is not supported by a more honest look at the figure. I think this is the same point dalmations was making.

I don't understand what you mean about me grouping them with Republicans or Democrats. The graph shows that within the group that calls themselves "Independent" 28% say the media is "just about right" and 25% say the media is too conservative. This has nothing to do with the Republicans' views or the Democrats' views, so I am not grouping Independents with Democrats or Republicans. I stand by my reasonable interpretation - 53% of the Independents say they media is just about right or too conservative. By my logic you can also say that 71% (as dalmations points out) of the Independents say it is either too liberal or just about right. Again, my point is that you can spin these figures anyway you like and that is, unfortunately, what too many so-called experts attempt to do. If I want to support the "liberal cause" then I use the 53% figure to support my case. If I am inclined toward the conservative mission then I use the 71%. These are just examples and, of course, you can take any figure you want from those graphs to make almost any point you want to make. Another example would be, "Wow, look at this - 25% of the Independents think the media is too conservative, whereas only 3% of the Republicans believe this to be true, now that's interesting." If I am misunderstanding your point, help me to better understand what your are driving at.

I concede the point that there is a trend towards the perception that the media is too liberal. However, it is not imo an overwhelming sense that this is the case if you look beyond the Republicans. In the end, we have to remember these are just perceptions and not anything objective. Perceptions can come from the fact that the mantra of conservative talking heads has been "the media is too liberal" or using the phrase "Liberal mainstream media" as if it is a fact. Are we brainwashed or is it really a fact? I would rather see objective data that speak to this issue rather than subjective perceptions. Maybe we should interpet the graph with the following: "The conservative mission of making people believe the media is part of the left-wing political machine has clearly been successful. This graph shows a trend towards Independents and Republicans believing that the media is too liberal. The constant barrage of making statements to this effect by conservative operatives has clearly taken its toll."

[purplefrog]

I think this approach has some merit in providing objective data to bias and the media. I would like to see something like this applied to ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, and Fox as well as to radio. Might well suggest the liberal bias really does exist. I would like to see those data if they are around somewhere. This is an important question that we should try to answer and I've gotta believe someone has investigated this objectively.
__________________________________________________ ______________

Lean Left? Lean Right? News Media May Take Their Cues From Customers
By AUSTAN GOOLSBEE

Published: December 7, 2006

When Matt Lauer declared on the “Today” show last week that NBC would start referring to the conflict in Iraq as a “civil war,” he inadvertently started his own civil war within the news media. Fox News refused to follow suit, saying that non-Iraqis were involved in the fighting, “and that makes it something different.” Accusations of partisanship arose all around. Yet newspapers around the country have been making decisions on this matter for months. The Los Angeles Times and The Christian Science Monitor have somewhat officially termed the conflict a civil war; The Washington Post has not.

Any politician will tell you that sometimes what we call things is the most political decision of all. Political consultants like Frank Luntz, a Republican, have become legendary for their way of spinning language to partisan advantage: ”death tax” instead of “estate tax,” “war on terror” instead of “war in Iraq.” But most people expect spin from politicians. When they perceive partisan slant in the news itself, they typically interpret it as evidence of underlying bias by reporters or media owners.

But one of the most interesting things coming out of research on the economics of the media industry has been the notion that media slant may simply reflect business rather than politics.

New research by two University of Chicago economists, Matthew Gentzkow and Jesse M. Shapiro, entitled “What Drives Media Slant? Evidence From U.S. Daily Newspapers” (www.nber.org/papers/w12707.pdf) compiles some compelling and altogether unusual data to answer the question.

Dr. Gentzkow and Dr. Shapiro started in the world of the political. They parsed the words of politicians — all the words — from the 2005 Congressional Record. They found the 1,000 most partisan phrases uttered in the year. They measured this by comparing how frequently a phrase was used by one side or the other.

In 2005, phrases like “death tax,” “illegal aliens,” “Terri Schiavo,” and “nuclear power” came mostly from Republicans. Phrases like “minimum wage,” “public broadcasting,” “middle class” and “oil companies” came mostly from Democrats. Using those phrases, the two economists made a simple index of partisanship that comported nicely with standard measures like a politician’s score on the Americans for Democratic Action ideological scale.

The study then analyzed 417 newspapers in the United States (accounting for some 70 percent of total newspaper circulation) as if they were politicians. The researchers measured, for example, all the times in articles about Social Security that a newspaper referred to “personal accounts” (Republican) or to “private accounts” (Democratic). Their measure of partisan slant came only from the news coverage. They did not include anything from the editorial page.

The index matched most popular perceptions of newspaper partisanship. Papers like The Washington Times or The Deseret Morning News of Salt Lake City used Republican phrases while papers like The San Francisco Chronicle and The Boston Globe used Democratic ones.

But more important, once the authors had this measure, they showed that the main driver of any slant was the newspaper’s audience, not bias by the newspaper’s owner.

A comparison of circulation data (per capita) to the ratio of Republican to Democratic campaign contributions by ZIP code showed that circulation was strongly related to whether the newspaper matched the readers’ own ideology.

Their measure indicates that The Los Angeles Times, for example, is a liberal paper. Its circulation suffers in Southern California ZIP codes where donations to Republicans are especially high.

The authors calculated the ideal partisan slant for each paper, if all it cared about was getting readers, and they found that it looked almost precisely like the one for the actual newspaper. As Dr. Shapiro put it in an interview, “The data suggest that newspapers are targeting their political slant to their customers’ demand and choosing the amount of slant that will maximize their sales.”

On one hand that sounds a little mercenary. On the other hand, there is certainly good news in the finding. If slant comes from customers, then the views of the owners and the reporters do not matter. We do not need to fear that some partisan billionaire will buy up newspapers and use them for propaganda.

Indeed, the study found that the views of the owner had no significant effect on the slant of the newspaper. The partisanship of corporate donations from the owner had no bearing on the slant of the news coverage in the paper. The slant of a newspaper group’s other newspapers had no bearing, either. The New York Times Company’s newspaper in Spartanburg, S.C., for example, had the same slant as other newspapers in South Carolina that the company did not own.

So although politicians from both sides tend to accuse the news media of partisanship and negativity, the data suggests that they ought to blame the public. The papers basically reflect what their readers want to hear.

No doubt, the battles over partisan language will continue. But to explain it, you need not try to find the inner politics of Matt Lauer, the ultimate ownership of the news media or even the facts on the ground in Iraq. A simpler approach would take a three-word phrase that never showed up on the partisan index: follow the money.

Austan Goolsbee is a professor of economics at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business. E-mail: goolsbee@nytimes.com.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by purplefrog

This has nothing to do with the Republicans' views or the Democrats' views, so I am not grouping Independents with Democrats or Republicans.

whoa. my bad for the confusion. I was reading one conflation and picturing another. You were conflating views, and for some reason, I was reading that you were conflating groups of people.

I stand by my reasonable interpretation - 53% of the Independents say they media is just about right or too conservative. By my logic you can also say that 71% (as dalmations points out) of the Independents say it is either too liberal or just about right.

Yeah, my criticism remains. Even with a corrected understanding of what you are saying, that's a weird way to look at it.

Again, my point is that you can spin these figures anyway you like and that is, unfortunately, what too many so-called experts attempt to do. If I want to support the "liberal cause" then I use the 53% figure to support my case.

This kind of agenda driven presentation of facts - purposefully selecting data is unreasonable. It's why we raise objections when someone else does it. I think you know that, right? That's why you are using the terms "unfortunately and "so-called" above, right?

It is true that in order to describe a figure, you have to focus on a subset of what the figure represents. But you can do that honestly. When you look at this figure honestly, and think up all the ways you can describe what you see, what conclusion do you come up with?

I concede the point that there is a trend towards the perception that the media is too liberal. However, it is not imo an overwhelming sense that this is the case if you look beyond the Republicans.

Thanks. Because you see this trend, wouldn't it be unreasonable to present some other view by careful selection of what you describe and what you ignore?

To respond to your imo, 43% of independents think the media is too liberal. That makes sense and is a useful statistic (and a more reasonable statement) because it does not mix together sets of opinions that we know are separate (ie, "too liberal" and "about right"). That number, 43%, is almost half of the people who are independent. That is, they are beyond Republicans. Furthermore, the parallel statistics that the statement selectively ignores (25% of Independents think the media to be too conservative) actually support the statement in comparison. If you look at this objectively, and balance every question you ask with an opposing question (what do Republicans think V. what do Democrats think? How many Republicans think the media is too conservative V. how many Democrats think the media is too liberal? How many Independents think the media is too liberal V. how many Independents think the media is too conservative? etc. the result is an overwhelming number of answers in the form of "more people think that the media is too liberal"

I would rather see objective data that speak to this issue rather than subjective perceptions.

What do you want to do, count up republican v. democrat political donations by media members? These data don't make a case by themselves, but they do support a greater argument.

[purplefrog]

As you can see, if you are a Democrat, news coverage feels just about right. And that's why Democrats argued for so long that the news is not biased. If you lean to the left, left-leaning news seems fair and balanced. If you are in the political middle, or if you lean to the right, the news media's liberal bias is quite evident. I imagine that a similar survey asking about Fox News in particular would show that Republicans find its coverage to be about right, whereas most Democrats would find it to be slanted in the conservative direction. But when it comes to the media as a whole, it's the other way around.

This interpretatation is what I object to. I do not agree with the statement - if you are in the political middle the news media's liberal bias is quite evident. 53% of the Independents do not think the media has a liberal bias so this is not an accurate statement. Also, the statement seems to imply that these data offer us something objective - "the liberal bias is quite evident". As I have already suggested, the data reflect a subjective perception and most certainly do not provide a true assessment of media bias.

I am not really trying to argue the point of whether or not there is a bias in the media. I don't know the answer to that question but I do think it is extremelly important to shed light on this issue. If voters are to make informed decsions during this next election cycle we need to be able to find a reliable and objective source of information. It is frustrating to hear arguments based on what seems to be a sound premise being countered with "well that information is from the MSM (or Fox News if you prefer) and therefore it can't be trusted." IMO, with this kind of reasoning you can argue anything you want because there is always "some other more reliable source" out there to help support your opinion. This is bad for America. I wonder if we are becoming (or maybe it is already here) a country where important decisions are being based more and more on gut feeling, philosophical/political idealogy, or religious beliefs and less and less on "FACT". It seems we don't even know if our policies work or fail because someone out there can spin the results in one direction or another and we seem all too willing to accept the spin that fits our pre-existing belief system. I find this unsettling because it lends itself to groupthink and poor decision-making.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by purplefrog

This interpretatation is what I object to. I do not agree with the statement - if you are in the political middle the news media's liberal bias is quite evident. .

hmm, if 43 v. 28 v. 23 were the outcome of a general election, we'd call the 43 a huge victory, wouldn't we? Anyway, if you are objecting to the statement (and I understand the argument, but I think the writers error is ambiguous phrasing, rather than content), I don't understand why you were defending statements like it as reasonable. It seems we are in agreement that to say "53% of the Independents do not think the media has a liberal bias" or "71% o fthe Independents do no think the media has a conservative bias" are phrases we'd rather not have to read through, right?

I think we are also in agreement that the relationship between the public and the media is not good for the US. I think historically, things have seemed better because there was an implicit trust in the media. People just believed whatever they heard, and just trusted the media to choose what was worth reporting or not. But just because Walter Cronkite said something was fact didn't make it true. That approach might've helped win a war or two, but how many forged documents made it through public scrutiny back in the day because there weren't any bloggers publishing their own fact checking? Or because media were afraid of losing power? How long would McCarthy have been able to run his show if you had 4 or 5 nerds in their pajamas with a big voice? Would the Gulf of Tonkin been more closely/more accurately scrutinized? People no longer trust the media so much, and I for one and happy that they are willing to say so. Heck, if some set of media organizations have trapped themselves in a corner of poor credibility, then that's their fault. Imbalanced and sensational coverage of everything from national politics to local race issues to celebrity justice will do that. We may or may not be in some sort of transition to "new media" but the loss of public faith in a centrally controlled media structure will be good, despite a few growing pains. Those "reliable sources" will become more and more noticeable.

[purplefrog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

hmm, if 43 v. 28 v. 23 were the outcome of a general election, we'd call the 43 a huge victory, wouldn't we?

I am not sure I would actually. What do you conclude from this huge victory? I would not conclude, for example, that Independents tend to think there is a liberal bias in the media (53% think otherwise). On the other hand, could you say more Independents think there is a liberal bias than Democrats? Absolutely. Could you say more Independents think the media has liberal bias as opposed to a conservative bias? Again, yes that is supported by the data imo.

Anyway, if you are objecting to the statement (and I understand the argument, but I think the writers error is ambiguous phrasing, rather than content), I don't understand why you were defending statements like it as reasonable. It seems we are in agreement that to say "53% of the Independents do not think the media has a liberal bias" or "71% o fthe Independents do no think the media has a conservative bias" are phrases we'd rather not have to read through, right?

I agree with your last statement in the above quote. My arguments were attempting (and not apparently succeeding) to demonstrate that if we take Engram's interpretation as valid, then there are a host of other interpretations that are just as valid. The end result being we can argue a lot of different things from the data he posted using his logic. I am not sure you are right in thinking that Engram simply mis-spoke. If you read the entire blog entry he strongly believes there is a liberal bias in the media and uses these data to support that claim. It's true that he gives a lot of other data to support his premise, but I have problems with his interpretations in general on this subject. For example, he provides a graph that shows various news outlets and how their language fits with political ideology. The conclusion is that the data clearly show the media has a liberal bias. However, if you look at the graph you see that most of the media analyzed used language that was a bit more conservative than that used by Senator Joe Lieberman and a bit more liberal than that used by former Senator John Breaux (LA). When I think of the claim that the media has a liberal bias I assume it is more on par with Teddy Kennedy (than Lieberman and Breaux). Also, the data seem to suggest the Wall Street Journal is the most liberal newspaper looked at (more liberal than MSM broadcast news) and that the Drudge report is on liberal side of the spectrum. To me this whole analysis is just plain odd and I really don't know what to make of it. So, I am still left unconvinced that we know for sure there is a media bias.

I think we are also in agreement that the relationship between the public and the media is not good for the US. I think historically, things have seemed better because there was an implicit trust in the media. People just believed whatever they heard, and just trusted the media to choose what was worth reporting or not. But just because Walter Cronkite said something was fact didn't make it true. That approach might've helped win a war or two, but how many forged documents made it through public scrutiny back in the day because there weren't any bloggers publishing their own fact checking? Or because media were afraid of losing power? How long would McCarthy have been able to run his show if you had 4 or 5 nerds in their pajamas with a big voice? Would the Gulf of Tonkin been more closely/more accurately scrutinized? People no longer trust the media so much, and I for one and happy that they are willing to say so. Heck, if some set of media organizations have trapped themselves in a corner of poor credibility, then that's their fault. Imbalanced and sensational coverage of everything from national politics to local race issues to celebrity justice will do that. We may or may not be in some sort of transition to "new media" but the loss of public faith in a centrally controlled media structure will be good, despite a few growing pains. Those "reliable sources" will become more and more noticeable.

I agree. However, there is a danger that we may become too critical of the media. Just because you are being critical doesn't mean you are being more accurate. I have no idea on how you determine the appropriate amount of criticsim because there is no consensus as to which news outlet is objective.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by dude1394

More likely it's the facts that the vast majority of media is democrat (i.e. left) leaning as evidenced by their own dollars that they provide to candidates.

Ok. but do you think that the constant (call it positing, whining, asertions, harping, complaining... whatever) by rightleaning politicians and media figures that the media is biased leftward has an impact on how their core audiences poll?

[Arne]

Interesting video on Fox News.

Former employees speak the truth.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

Ok. but do you think that the constant (call it positing, whining, asertions, harping, complaining... whatever) by rightleaning politicians and media figures that the media is biased leftward has an impact on how their core audiences poll?

Possibly...But if the majority of reporters give their money to democrats, then you can be pretty sure that their opinions are the opinions of democrats. You don't give you dollars to someone who you don't believe is the right choice.

So unless you believe that they can keep their biases out of their reporting (I do not, nor can right leaning folks ) then this one item leads me to believe it's biased to the left.

[Arne]

CNN and all the other (left-wing-communist, whatever you wanna call them) channels doesn't tell their people what to report about and how to report about, FOX does as the video clearly shows.

[dude1394]

Well I don't see a video. What does it show and is there some written data or just one guys opinion? We know that the NYTimes for example may/may not tell folks what to write but they sure have an agenda with their paper, they've acknowledged that with some of their front-page pushes. At least I believe they have acknowledged it. The Masters embrolio comes to mind.

Fox is a drop in the bucket compared to abc, cbs, nbc, etc.
When the majority of reporters are left-leaning there would be no need to "tell" them anything, they would just do it because their biases would push them that way.

[Arne]

Thought i had already put the link in my post...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3kI8LNTqNo&eurl

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Possibly...But if the majority of reporters give their money to democrats, then you can be pretty sure that their opinions are the opinions of democrats. You don't give you dollars to someone who you don't believe is the right choice.

So unless you believe that they can keep their biases out of their reporting (I do not, nor can right leaning folks ) then this one item leads me to believe it's biased to the left.

Well, there is that. There is no denying that the workers for the NY times prodominantly live in NYC (and the LA times, Washington Post, Boston Herald, etc.... all are in major cities) and the cities, mostly coastal cities lean left more than the middle/rural areas of the country. If they are just drawn from the random sample of those regions, they will lean left of center compared to the country on the whole.

BUT.... that is a far cry from the "vast liberal media conspiracy...." that many people decrying the MSM seem to border on. To the extent that that the above media liberal bias is true, it is also true for stockbrokers, banking executives, etc... who all mostly congregate in cities.

So is the whole media-liberal-bias really just a city versus non-city thing? (and coastal city, at that)

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

Well, there is that. There is no denying that the workers for the NY times prodominantly live in NYC (and the LA times, Washington Post, Boston Herald, etc.... all are in major cities) and the cities, mostly coastal cities lean left more than the middle/rural areas of the country. If they are just drawn from the random sample of those regions, they will lean left of center compared to the country on the whole.

BUT.... that is a far cry from the "vast liberal media conspiracy...." that many people decrying the MSM seem to border on. To the extent that that the above media liberal bias is true, it is also true for stockbrokers, banking executives, etc... who all mostly congregate in cities.

So is the whole media-liberal-bias really just a city versus non-city thing? (and coastal city, at that)

good points. I'd like to see political contribution data for stockbrokers and bankers in New York. That would go a very long way in letting us know what to do with the polls from media corporations. It may be a very short cry.

[Mavdog]

like this:
opensecrets.org