« Bill Kristol: Why Bush will be a Winner | Main | Another New Low for Ted Rall »

Why the Media are Liberally Biased

Noel Sheppard at NewsBusters has a post about a book written by a former BBC producer that provides a lot of insight into why the media are so liberally biased. Granted, the piece is about the BBC, but what makes the BBC so liberal is also what makes American media so liberal. If you want to know what drives the liberals in today's media, read Noel's post.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/22587.

Comments (39)

If I had their addresses, f... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

If I had their addresses, for Christmas I'd be sorely tempted to send Leeward and the rest of his Blue buddies copies of that thar book.

Along with Reading Comprehe... (Below threshold)
marc:

Along with Reading Comprehension for Dummies?

If we went to a large busin... (Below threshold)
Brad:

If we went to a large business and found the workers all white we would presume the owners to be bigots. We would probably not blame the workers for being white.

And what is the point you'r... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

And what is the point you're so desperately trying to make, Brad?

Whatever the point, its pro... (Below threshold)

Whatever the point, its probably irrelevant.

Brad is a Freshman m... (Below threshold)


Brad is a Freshman majoring in remedial WizBlue Studies, Special Education Emphasis.

Brad,
Welcome!Say hello to Mom and Dad!


http://wizbangblue.com/

What Sir Antony Jay terms "... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

What Sir Antony Jay terms "media liberalism" is based on a number of factors including the believe they are "part of the intellectual élite" combined with naivete, ignorance, and arrogance. Their ideology is "based not on observation and deduction but on faith and doctrine."

Sir Antony Jay says "We ignored the whole truth, namely that modern Western civilisation stands on four pillars, and elected governments is only one of them. Equally important is the rule of law. The other two are economic: the right to own private property and the right to buy and sell your property, goods, services and labour. (Freedom of speech, worship, and association derive from them; with an elected government and the rule of law a nation can choose how much it wants of each). We never got this far with our analysis. The two economic freedoms led straight to the heresy of free enterprise capitalism - and yet without them any meaningful freedom is impossible."

An important part was not in the excerpt of the book. That is, does Sir Antony Jay have any ideas on how to correct the bias of media liberalism?

I wouldn't exactly classify... (Below threshold)

I wouldn't exactly classify the media as "liberal" in nature, this seems another oversimplifaction by some "conservatives" as many Republicans still exist in the media, but few take hard right positions on issues. Look at the personalities on business channels such as MSNBC for example. Overwelmingly they are Republican, but few take hard positions on issues for example.

Members of the media are just better informed than much of the public and reflect that access to more facts.

I wouldn't exactly... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
I wouldn't exactly classify the media as "liberal" in nature, this seems another oversimplifaction by some "conservatives"...

It's what Sir Antony Jay terms "media liberalism". Follow the link and read the excerpts rather than blaming conservatives. Note that ignorance is one of the characteristics Sir Antony Jay cites in his attempt to classify media liberalism.

PaulH:Members of ... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

PaulH:
Members of the media are just better informed than much of the public and reflect that access to more facts.

PaulH it's apparent that you didn't bother to read the piece on which you're commenting.

from the piece..
It was an ideology based not on observation and deduction but on faith and doctrine. We were rather weak on facts and figures

Wow. Paul you are simply in... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Wow. Paul you are simply incredible. You proved the point of the post. The "journalists" have access to the facts but it is they who decide along with their editor what "facts" make it on air or in print. Secondly to say they are "better informed" proves what we say about the "elite MSM". If the media was not leaning liberal, how can you explain the huge growth of Fox News, Talk Radio and other right leaning media? If you are a liberal or left leaning, how come you are so comfortable with the MSM, CNN, MSNBC and most newspapers? I know and most here know. Do you? ww

WildWillie, I have to hones... (Below threshold)

WildWillie, I have to honestly admit that any president or even member of Congress has more access to facts and information than you or me, yet we both have opinions. But everyone has an opinion based on what information they have at hand.

You may see more into the better access to facts of journalists than I personally do however. I seem to assume far less than you do on this matter, personally, where I believe this better access to facts creates an educated balance where the world is neither black or white but really a shade of grey to the responsible journalist.

Also most journalists write a news feature from the details that are known at hand, while your commentary often seems reverse engineered where your political ideology dictates how you will interpret the details, WildWillie. This is one area of obvious difference that I notice.

Because you are strongly driven by your own ideology, WildWillie, does not mean that the average serious journalist also compromises their journalism in the same way to color their journalism with an ideology stamp unless written for a special market such as THE NATION on the left, or NATIONAL REVIEW on the right.

In psychology they call such a view "projection" when you expect that others will use reason and logic in a same way identical to yourself. What makes you a individual is your own personality, and you cannot really assume that others will use logic or reason in the very same way as yourself.

For me understanding how others use logic or reason seems to be my biggest interest in reading other blogs than the two I write for. Ideology is far less important to me. I doesn't bother me at all that others use reason or logic in different ways than me. But I do often see some predictable patterns of logic and reason in some though, including reverse engineering around ideology by a few here and elsewhere whose opinions are written with their ideology as the starting point, rather the new facts involved. At any rate the very best to you, WildWillie. I respect your opinions, even if I do not always follow your reasoning or logic, or agree with your conclusions.

Paul, a vast majority of jo... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Paul, a vast majority of journalists are registered and vote democratic. They do view facts through their own prism. They are HUMAN after all. I am not projecting (thanks for being condescending to me by explaining it)my belief, I see, read and hear it daily. By your logic, Keith Oberman, Chris Matthews, George Stephenopolous, Walter Chronkite, Dan Rather only reported or report the straight news, all the facts with no adjectives, it is only me that is projecting my belief that they are biased. Come on Paul, be more honest then that. Why is the right leaning media growing so fast? Why does the NY Times reveal classified secrets that may damage GW but also hurt our fight on terror? Why does Newsweek lie and say our soldiers flushed a Koran down the toilet? Why does the media report the right hated the immigration bill because we are racists? The list of examples go on and they are just the recent ones. How about if I ask you to give me ONE MSM story that put GW in a positive light in just the last year. Just one. Tick, tick, tick...ww

Members of the media are... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

Members of the media are just better informed than much of the public and reflect that access to more facts.

Now that's funny.
Whenever people give me a hard time about calling today's 'journalists' "ignorant, stupid and lazy" I ask them, "Have you ever read a newspaper story about some subject you really know well?"
If they say "Yes.", I then ask, "How many errors were in that story."
You can see them swell up in indignation as they go off on litany of uncorrected mistakes and facts in the story that were wrong.
"Why should that be any different from a story where you aren't as familiar with the subject matter?"

Remember, they're not just biased, they're lazy, stupid and ignorant.

I have a book comming calle... (Below threshold)
spurwing plover:

I have a book comming called THE 100 PEOPLE WHO ARE SCREWING UP AMERICA its all about liberals in HOLLYWOOD,WASHINGTON D.C. and elsewhere

Boy, the point of this post... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

Boy, the point of this post just flew right over Hooson's head, didn't it?

As a life-long liberal CCG,... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

As a life-long liberal CCG, I think I can explain.
He was trying to riff off of the "reality has a liberal slant" deal.
You know, the one that all us liberals use to make ourselves feel superior.

"Because you are strongly d... (Below threshold)
RobLACal.:

"Because you are strongly driven by your own ideology, WildWillie, does not mean that the average serious journalist also compromises their journalism....."

Oh shut up will you Paul. Democrats are the most dishonest and disingenuous people around.

"Remember, they're not just biased, they're lazy, stupid and ignorant."

Posted by Veeshir

I totally agree with this and have stated this myself dozens ot times.

"THE 100 PEOPLE WHO ARE SCREWING UP AMERICA its all about liberals in HOLLYWOOD,WASHINGTON D.C. and elsewhere"

Posted by spurwing plover

I also agree with Spurwing however I word it a little different that seems to send of few here in a tizzy. Democrat leadership, their partners in the Media and Immoral idiots in Liberal Hollywood make up the THREE RING CIRCUS aka THE PARTY OF PERPETUAL FRAUD.

So tell me Paul , what is my IDEOLOGY being registered democratic nearly 20 years. Why is it that I clearly see what has become of the democrat party? A party of criminal frauds and their accomplices (Media/Liberal Hollywood)who carry their water.

What freedoms are you Liberal/Communists going to take away from the children next?
They can't even give each other a "HIGH FIVE" for crying out loud.

This whole article, of cour... (Below threshold)
jim:

This whole article, of course, presumes the existence of a liberal bias in the Media in the first place. Which many conservatives take as an article of faith - but which I remind you is not at all proven.

I personally think the clear pro-Iraq-Invasion stance of nearly every single newspaper, network and other major media outlet in the run-up to the Iraq invasion, is a strong counter-argument to this "liberal bias" theory.

As for the political ideology of reporters being presumed liberal or Democrat, that is less relevant than the political bias of their bosses, the editors; and even less important than the ideology of those who hire the editors - the owners. Who as wealthy people, tend to be the most conservative in the media business.

But what's really important is the political bias of the **customers**. Which in most newspapers and TV Networks is not the audience - it's the ***advertisers***.

The TV Network news are not selling anything to you - they are selling **your attention** to major companies so they can run commercials. So, automatically, anything that would piss off those companies and the people who run them is quite unlikely to be shown. That's just a real-world effect of the reality of business.

Jim, you got links to those... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

Jim, you got links to those pro-invasion stories? Cause I sure don't remember seeing any.

I wanna see the stories from the NY Times, the LA Times, the Boston Globe, USA Today, as well as ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, PBS, and NPR.

Well, C-G-C; that's kind of... (Below threshold)
jim:

Well, C-G-C; that's kind of masters-thesis assignment you're handing out there. So pardon me if I approach it piecemeal.

NY Times:
Read just about anything by Judith Miller.

The Times also later had this to say:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq_media_coverage

"After the invasion, the editors of the New York Times apologized for its coverage of Hussein's alleged weapons programs, acknowledging that "we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims (related to Iraqi weapons programs) as new evidence emerged -- or failed to emerge."[7]"

CNN also broadcast a faux "press conference" that was scripted. We know it was scripted, because Bush actually said it was scripted. IF you didn't hear about this already, you can read about it here:

http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/03/03/07_scripted.html
So, consider every news agency that attended and didn't report on that blatant literal stenography for the Bush administration, to be displaying a conservative bias. Including CNN - who scrubbed out the clear statement by Bush when they displayed the written transcript of the press conference.

For other specific examples of all the individual news places you mention, that'll take more time. It's more of a masters' thesis, really. Not that I'm not up to it; just long for one post. I'll keep posting 'em.

For other

Jim, Jim, Jimmy, where do I... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Jim, Jim, Jimmy, where do I start. First of all, you started your accusations with "I think" which you certainly do not do. Secondly, France, Italy, England, Spain, the UN and the lefts favorite CIA not to mention Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Boxer and Durbin are all on record as saying Iraq had WMD. That is right. If you take a minute to read that line again, you may get it. Now if all the politicians acrossed the board and all the intelligience agencies in the world and the media's beloved UN all stated there are WMD's, why would the press or more importantly, how can the press prove otherwise? They cannot. So, your comment not only lacks credibility but is on it's face stupid. So your lame attempt to show the media has a CONSERVATIVE bias falls flat. You lefties and your problem with historical facts amaze me. Do you think no one will remember? Now go play and let the adults continue. Thanks. ww

jim, all you're proving is ... (Below threshold)

jim, all you're proving is that the media and the Democrats are in tune with each other. They were for the war before they were against it. I'd be interested to know who influenced who first. I'd say it was the media who first influenced the Dems. It took the Dems just a hair longer to mimic the "BUSH LIED!" mantra. The Dem politicians, who had the intelligence reports in their very hands, didn't have a problem with it until the media told them they'd been fooled. From that point on, one has simply fed off the other. The media carries their water for them now that they have them right where they want them. Let's also consider that the media's most prominent figures have always been unabashedly liberal; Duranty, Cronkite, Rather, just to name a few.

Numerous studies have been done on liberal bias in the media. Interestingly, the one's who counter that supposition with their own studies are avowed liberals themselves or are media members citing only a small percentage of media outlets that everyone admits leans right giving the impression that they are more numerous than they are in reality, but those who do studies and invariably come to the conclusion that, overall, the media is liberally biased are largely independent groups.

One has only to read comments in any blog to get an idea of bias and how they wouldn't know it if bit them in the patootie. Liberals, almost without exception point to only one television outlet, Fox news, and a few websites as their proof that the media isn't liberal.

If it weren't for the ... (Below threshold)
RobLACal.:

If it weren't for the Media being left wing/democrat/liberal biased , Democrats would not get elected. Right MACACA?

Jim, Jim, Jimmy, where d... (Below threshold)
jim:

Jim, Jim, Jimmy, where do I start. First of all, you started your accusations with "I think" which you certainly do not do.

Well, clearly you start with an insult. At which point I respond, nyah nyah nyah. I know you are but what am I.


Secondly, France, Italy, England, Spain, the UN and the lefts favorite CIA not to mention Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Boxer and Durbin are all on record as saying Iraq had WMD.

a) Go find the quotes saying that each of the nations you mention, are ****certain**** that Saddam had WMD ***in 2003***, which is when we invaded - and when it was clear that Saddam ***didn't*** have WMD. Because that's what the weapons inspectors were telling all of us - and what the media outside of the US responded to.

You understand that, right?

Now if all the politicians acrossed the board and all the intelligience agencies in the world and the media's beloved UN all stated there are WMD's, why would the press or more importantly, how can the press prove otherwise?

By, oh I don't know, actually:

a) looking at reality and reporting it?
b) actually asking questions?
c) noting the reality of what the weapons inspectors and the IAEA were really saying?

They cannot.

Uh-huh.

ww, please explain why the rest of the world's media was able to do these very simple things, but our US media was not.

jim, all you're proving ... (Below threshold)
jim:

jim, all you're proving is that the media and the Democrats are in tune with each other.

Oh, really?

Which explains how the media goes after Democrats, exactly how?

Which explains how the Bush administration's clear and obvious spin re: Iraq's WMD and Colin Powell's UN speech, exactly how?

Which explains how the Bush administration could actually have a fake press conference where Bush actually says the words "This is scripted", exactly how?

Let's also consider that the media's most prominent figures have always been unabashedly liberal; Duranty, Cronkite, Rather, just to name a few.

Well, tell you what: I actually haven't heard of Duranty. So you can take him off your "most prominent figures" list.

Second, I'm talking about news coverage and not figureheads. The 'Today Show' carried water. The allegedly liberal CNN and Wolf Blitzer carried water.

Every single major media news show covered Bush's faux press conference, and not one mentioned his "this is scripted" slip.

Every single major media news show covered Powell's speech before the UN, and not one took it apart as it obviously and clearly should have been.

Numerous studies have been done on liberal bias in the media.

Uh-huh. And numerous studies have been done on conservative bias in the media.

Interestingly, the one's who counter that supposition with their own studies are avowed liberals themselves or are media members

And interestingly, the one's who say that the media is biased liberally are avowed conservatives or are media members.

But they of course can't be biased. Only those who disagree with you can be biased. Can you see how that works?

Liberals, almost without exception point to only one television outlet, Fox news, and a few websites as their proof that the media isn't liberal.

Um, except for me, right here, on the posts here on this very page.


Sorry, Rob. I couldn't hear... (Below threshold)
jim:

Sorry, Rob. I couldn't hear you because CNN was playing Howard Dean's scream too loud.

Hm, the first serious Democratic primary candidate to stand up and criticize Bush's Iraq invasion, gets taken down by the "liberal" media. And when they can't hang him with anything he said, they go with one single incident where he screamed into a mike and looked corny, and blast it over the airwaves until it's what everybody remembers.

Why would such liberals as the liberal media do that to a liberal media darling like Howard Dean?

Gee, it could mean that the media actually isn't operating from a liberal bias.

Jim, I stand by my comment ... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Jim, I stand by my comment to you. You can try to back track, spin or whatever it is you do in your own mind, but for those who know how to put the time in prospective, they know. You are just a political hack with the inability to objectively reason things that go contrary to your parties line. Oh yeah! Another fact you might want to deny; Howard Dean did not self destruct because of the scream. Again, try to find the real reason. I am not going to help you this time. Now, go color and let the adults have some time. ww

Jim, I stand by my comme... (Below threshold)
jim:

Jim, I stand by my comment to you.

Hey, that's your right not to respond to any of my counter-arguments.

Let's just be real here, and recognize that you're refusing to answer them.

...for those who know how to put the time in prospective, they know. You are just a political hack with the inability to objectively reason things that go contrary to your parties line.

Then that should make me quite easy to refute with facts, shouldn't it?

I invite you to go ahead and prove me wrong with facts.

Now, go color and let the adults have some time. ww

Adults use reason.

Adults use reason.</... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

Adults use reason.

Uh huh. I especially enjoyed your 'logic' when stating "the media played Howard Dean screaming like a 'pro' wrestler, therefore the media is not Liberal". The term for what you're doing is reasoning.

Cool, Mike. Then I'm sure y... (Below threshold)
jim:

Cool, Mike. Then I'm sure you can prove how that and my many other examples already given are all wrong.

Oh, that's rich. Duranty s... (Below threshold)

Oh, that's rich. Duranty should come off the prominent figures list because "jim" hasn't heard of him.

The rest of your counter points, jim, are weak in nature and amount to no more than your nyah nyah defense.

Oyster, for this 'Duranty' ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Oyster, for this 'Duranty' to be such a "prominent example of liberals in liberal news media", and for me to have never heard of him, kind of indicates he isn't prominent, don't you think?

For my other examples, since my arguments are so weak you should have no problem disproving them. How about it?

Thanks for proving the inte... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

Thanks for proving the intellectual vacuity of your argument, Jim. Three points:

1) Claiming that it's too hard is a lefty cop-out. You can't cite examples of pro-invasion stories because they don't exist!

2) Using Wikipedia as a source always subjects you to ridicule. I coule easily go in and edit the article you linked to say "Jim is a liberal moron." Would you accept it as Gospel then?

3) It's C-C-G. Not C-G-C. If you can't even get that right, I have to doubt your intellectual capacity. I don't call you Jmi, do I?

Oops, spelling error in abo... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

Oops, spelling error in above message... it's "could," not "coule."

My apologies.

Members of the med... (Below threshold)
Members of the media are just better informed than much of the public and reflect that access to more facts.

by Paul Hooson

That has to be the biggest groaner I've ever read on Wizbang.

Can't remember many times in my life I've read so much B.S. packed into so few words.

1) Claiming that it's to... (Below threshold)
jim:

1) Claiming that it's too hard is a lefty cop-out. You can't cite examples of pro-invasion stories because they don't exist!

Uh, note I already mentioned the NY Times' Judith Miller, and the universal so-called-liberal-media's not even mentioning that Bush's faux press conference was scripted.

Those are examples.

Feel free to attempt to disprove them.

I coule easily go in and edit the [Wikipedia] article you linked to say "Jim is a liberal moron." Would you accept it as Gospel then?

No. Of course your insult is an opinion - but let's say you put in "Jim is the original and sole writer of 'The Godfather Pt. II'. I would cite another source, say from IMDB.com or Francis Ford Coppola directly, that refutes whatever you put into the Wikipedia article.

So, if you think what I cited from the Wikipedia article is wrong **in any way**, just go and look it up in a contrary source, and show that source.

That's not too hard to do, right?

And finally, as you had to throw in an insult there, too, I'm tempted to keep calling you cgc to annoy you. But I'll switch to ccg, fine. For the record, it wouldn't bother me terribly if you typed my name Jmi.

So, you want me to prove a ... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

So, you want me to prove a negative, that there weren't any stories printed? You know damned good and well that's a logical impossibility, that's why you're telling me to do it.

So, I challenge you to prove that they do exist by citing them.

Of course, since this thread is about to drop off the front page, you never will. Chalk up another win by default for the right side of the aisle.

CCG, ****I've already cite... (Below threshold)
jim:

CCG, ****I've already cited some examples****.

As I said in my previous post, I've already cited some examples.

These are of the NY Times, and CNN, and all the media who were present at Bush's faux press conference that he even ***admitted*** was scripted.

As I said in my previous post, and now say again - why don't you start with disproving those?

And by the way, your statement that I want you to prove a negative, is not in anything I've said. That is 100% you.

So, as they have for the past few comments, my examples stand before you.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy