Commie media

Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist.

Apparently, if you want centrist media, go with The News Hour, Aaron Brown, and Good Morning America.

Commies: CBS’ Evening News, The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

Fascists: Fox News’ “Special Report With Brit Hume” and The Washington Times.

Overall, the media leans left. Stu was right all along.

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “Commie media

  1. I’m no economist or political scientist, but I’m not sure that their method– at least as described int he article– is particularly valid. I’ll just have to wait and see how it’s received by the readers of the journal…

    Like

  2. Thanks for the affirmation, Ronan. Not surprised. Prima facie it just makes sense. An overwhelming percentage of journalists are themselves self-identified liberals and registered democrats. I don’t care how hard they’re trying to be objective, the average journalist simply is not detaching his/herself from his/her political beliefs. The result: media tilts left.This study–conducted, it should be noted, by two of the top schools of journalism in the country–only verifies some fairly logical assumptions.

    Like

  3. The idea that we have a “liberal Media” is a farce.To any well-travelled westerner, it must seem clear that our press is the most cowed, most dominated by corporate priorities (i.e. stock prices, entertainment), slowest to investigate and challenge authority, and most easily intimidated of any major western nation. What we consider liberal is conservative by most overseas measures. There is a dynamic that I would not disagree with. That (real working) journalists are generally more socially conscious, less prone to government and mass culture manipulation, more inquisitive and tolerant, better educated and well read, more well travelled, and more exposed to brutal social realities than the average American. Thus, the dictionary definition of liberal may well apply.# Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.# Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

    Like

  4. <>What we consider liberal is conservative by most overseas measures.<>That’s spot on, Brian.You know, this is all irrelevant anyway. OK, the NYT is “liberal.” But who reads it in the “heartland”? The mainstream news media can be as liberal as it wants, but Joe Ordinary isn’t getting his opinions there. Nope, it’s from Rush, or from his mates in the bar who’ve been listening to Rush.

    Like

  5. In Oklahoma, the main paper of record is the <>Daily Oklahoman<>. It almost pathetically biased towards the far right, both on its editorial page and in its news. Thus, Joe Oklahoman is going to get much more anti-Clinton/Gore/Kerry crap (and more Bush-walks-on-water BS) than he’d ever get in reverse reading the NY Times, etc.

    Like

  6. Well, I could accept Brian’s offhand assertion that the notion of “liberal media” is a “farce” or I could accept the methodologically grounded findings of two leading academics at top institutions in their field.I am an avid (perhaps rabid?) sampler of media. I read everything from the New Republic to the National Review. While I lived in Europe (six of the last ten years) I paid close attention to European media. I find it to be, on general, more prone to sensationalism, less responsible, and more heavily politicized than American media. As for Lancer’s point on the Daily Oklahoman… sorry, I just don’t think it’s important what the local favorite says. The locals know what to expect from the local rag and no one else cares. The real question for me is–among the institutions that claim to be delivering “news” and not editorial content, is there an observable tilt in one direction or the other? My own observations and plenty of empirical evidence suggests that there is.

    Like

  7. And since I took shots at both Brian and Lancer in the last post, let me swing one at Ronan–it doesn’t matter what Rush Limbaugh says. That’s got nothing to do with “media bias” because everyone knows exactly what he is–a partisan conservative hack. You can take it or leave it, it’s all advertised up front. Same with Al Franken. That’s not bias.But when Dan Rather or Peter Jennings gives you their stern, grandfatherly, “you know I’d never lie to you” look, you are supposed to believe that they’re telling you things as they are, not as they want you to see them. But the average consumer of news is too trusting or addled to notice the subtle choices of framing, of inclusion or exclusion that point to bias. Fox News does it (sometimes shamefully) in one direction. But 18 of 21 institutions reviewed in the findings above do it the other direction.

    Like

  8. I had a chance to read the actual < HREF="http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.pdf" REL="nofollow">paper<>. I have to say, it’s <>very<> unconvincing. The methodology is to take the “times that a media outlet cites various think tanks and other policy groups” and to compare them to the times such groups are cited by members of Congress in speeches given on the floor.Thus, since the <>New York Times<> cites, say, the American Enterprise Institute, as frequently as Joe Lieberman, and since Joe Liberman is to the left of center, the <>Times<> must also be left of center.To be honest, I don’t know how one could determine the bias of a medium or media outlet. <>But this ain’t it<>!

    Like

  9. Deja vu, guys:< HREF="http://headlife.blogspot.com/archives/2004_10_01_headlife_archive.html" REL="nofollow">We’ve already had this conversations (scroll down)<>.How about a hiatus on Iraq and the Media…. We need something about, um, good egg nog recipes or something.

    Like

Comments are closed.