Political Bias in the Media

VRob - opinions are like clitorises - every cunt's got one - but without anything to back that up, its pretty inconsequential to me.

The point is that most of the news media from the US that I see does appear to have a right wing bias - but most right wingers will scream until they are blue in the face that the truth is in fact the opposite - why would that be the case?

I've established pretty well that many people beleive the media is biased so I don't need anyone to simply reitterate what I already know.
But as a Brit I don't get to see as much American news media as say, an American might, so I was hoping some light could be shed on WHY people beleive that there is a bias in either direction.

Faux News is pathetic as a news source. It is a joke, and only motive is spew propaganda favoring the Repub party..... and specifically this Bush/Cheney regime. I have neither the time, nor the energy, to explain this to someone who can't see this for themselves. In my opinion, if they watch the channel, and can't already see this, there is no hope for them.

CNN..... is the Clinton News Network. Sure there are a few hosts who attempt to be legit, but they get drowned out by the daily memo's.

MSNBC........ for the most part leans towards Obama. I'm an Obama supporter, and I can clearly see this.
 
We have two directions of bias, at least, to consider: left/right; libertarian/authoritarian.

But regardless, we need some way of separating fidelity to uncomplimentary fact from bias.

One way to do that might be to concentrate on physical errors - counterfactual stuff.

It's in the pattern of error that bias is most visible, because unlike factual reality error can be presumed evenly distributed among political stances in the absence of bias.

And error is most easily identified where it accumulates - in the audience, rather than in the presentations changing from day to day.

So we look to those who are most dependent on the major US media for their information, and we check for patterns in their counterfactual beliefs - especially in matters such as foreign countries or distant events, in which the dependency on the media for the facts is clear.

So, for example, if a bunch of people believe that the US Military found WMDs in Iraq as described by the proponents of the invasion, that is a counterfactual belief with essentially one source.

Or if they believe Saddam was behind 9/11.

If they believe that Mexican standards of living rose after NAFTA was implemented, that is another.

If they believe that Palestinian violence kills more Israeli children than Israeli violence kills Palestinian children every year.

If they believe that Obama went to a madrassa, was raised as a Muslim, took an oath of office on a Koran, etc.

And so forth. Things that can be easily checked.

I recall a survey stat from the 2004 election, in which a majority of W voters not only agreed more with Kerry's claimed stances on a few well-known issues, but attributed them to W and gave them as support for their vote.
 
Last edited:
The tragedy of Dan Rather was that what he reported was actually TRUE, but backed up with fake evidence.
Had he got the balls he would have offered a million bucks for anybody who could prove him wrong. It is possible that he was set up by smart Reps and by using double jeopardy, after that fiasco nobody wanted to touch the subject...
 
The way to do it is to do as the Canadians do. Or did. They had a survey in which they associated "Conservative" (their right wing party) and "Liberal" (centrist) with positive and negative language.

The only downside is that it might be biased by them actually being positive or negative, but there it is anyway.
 
I'd say there's a strong left-wing bias in the TV/cable news media, which was nearly 100% until Fox came along to give news from BOTH sides of view. The radio new media sources tend to be more of a mixture.

I think some people are confusing commentary for news. People like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hanity, Lou Dobbs, Bill O'Reily, etc... give biased commentary, not news reports in general.
 
Last edited:
You, my friend are completely clueless about the topic....

I'd say there's a strong left-wing bias in the TV/cable news media,

let me have a wild guess, you are American!

The radio new media sources tend to be more of a mixture.

Out of the top 20 political radio talkshows there is NONE on the left, and you call it a mixture. Clueless....
 
Out of the top 20 political radio talkshows there is NONE on the left, and you call it a mixture. Clueless....

This thread's about bias in the news media. Radio talkshows are more of commentary and opinions, not news updates....

Besides, the top 20 talkshows doesn't constitute all the hundreds of radio news media sites.
 
Besides, the top 20 talkshows doesn't constitute all the hundreds of radio news media sites.
They've been consolidating. There are many fewer independent media outlets for straight news now than even ten or fifteen years ago.

The internet doesn't quite cover the loss - most people don't get much news from it, and it doesn't have the repetition factor.
cluster said:
Show me an unbiased human and I'll show you a liar. You can't escape it.
That's no excuse for not answering to reason.

If you want to, you can take various online gauge evaluations of your own biases - IAT and the like.

Most of the righties I know dismiss those evaluations as biased somehow, though - just as they dismiss the political stance surveys that show them agreeing with Kucinich on many important issues. The giftie ha' gie us pow'r, but we'll turn awa' then.
cazzo said:
I'd say there's a strong left-wing bias in the TV/cable news media,
People dependent on the TV/cable news media for news have more right-biased factual errors built into their worldview than people who read newspapers and books.
 
This thread's about bias in the news media.

It is NOT! :)

The title says: Political bias in the media....

But if you want an answer in short, if 50% is neutral, objective, then the American media overall would be 65-70% to the RIGHT!
 
Here people, this quote will explain why major media outlets are NOT liberal:

"‘When Al Gore proposed launching a progressive TV network, a Fox News executive told Advertising Age (10/13/03): "The problem with being associated as liberal is that they wouldn't be going in a direction that advertisers are really interested in.... If you go out and say that you are a liberal network, you are cutting your potential audience, and certainly your potential advertising pool, right off the bat.”["

Interestingly, that's exactly what I said earlier. Here comes the juicy part:

"Furthermore “an internal memo from ABC Radio Networks to its affiliates reveals scores of powerful sponsors have a standing order that their commercials never be placed on syndicated Air America programming that airs on ABC affiliates…. The list, totaling 90 advertisers, includes some of largest and most well-known corporations advertising in the U.S.: Wal-Mart, GE, Exxon Mobil, Microsoft, Bank of America, Fed-Ex, Visa, Allstate, McDonald's, Sony and Johnson & Johnson. The U.S. Postal Service and the U.S. Navy are also listed as advertisers who don't want their commercials to air on Air America.”"

Furthermore:

"Their study concluded that a majority of journalists, although relatively liberal on social policies, were significantly to the right of the public on economic, labor, health care and foreign policy issues. ... analysts from the centrist Brookings Institution and conservative think thanks such as the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute are those most quoted in mainstream news accounts; liberal think tanks are often invisible. When it comes to sources, ‘liberal bias’ is nowhere to be found.”
 
Last edited:
the media bias is to the right and will continue to go that way because for years the right wingers in power have complained about the liberal media so every one has just bought into.
 
Here people, this quote will explain why major media outlets are NOT liberal:

"‘When Al Gore proposed launching a progressive TV network, a Fox News executive told Advertising Age (10/13/03): "The problem with being associated as liberal is that they wouldn't be going in a direction that advertisers are really interested in.... If you go out and say that you are a liberal network, you are cutting your potential audience, and certainly your potential advertising pool, right off the bat.”["

Interestingly, that's exactly what I said earlier. Here comes the juicy part:

"Furthermore “an internal memo from ABC Radio Networks to its affiliates reveals scores of powerful sponsors have a standing order that their commercials never be placed on syndicated Air America programming that airs on ABC affiliates…. The list, totaling 90 advertisers, includes some of largest and most well-known corporations advertising in the U.S.: Wal-Mart, GE, Exxon Mobil, Microsoft, Bank of America, Fed-Ex, Visa, Allstate, McDonald's, Sony and Johnson & Johnson. The U.S. Postal Service and the U.S. Navy are also listed as advertisers who don't want their commercials to air on Air America.”"

Furthermore:

"Their study concluded that a majority of journalists, although relatively liberal on social policies, were significantly to the right of the public on economic, labor, health care and foreign policy issues. ... analysts from the centrist Brookings Institution and conservative think thanks such as the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute are those most quoted in mainstream news accounts; liberal think tanks are often invisible. When it comes to sources, ‘liberal bias’ is nowhere to be found.”

Extremely well said Syzygys.
 
I'd say there's a strong left-wing bias in the TV/cable news media, which was nearly 100% until Fox came along to give news from BOTH sides of view. The radio new media sources tend to be more of a mixture.

I think some people are confusing commentary for news. People like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hanity, Lou Dobbs, Bill O'Reily, etc... give biased commentary, not news reports in general.

I'd say you must have some really fucked up extremist right wing view point to reach the conclusion that the us news media has a left wing bias.
 
Truth hurts, eh?

Cazzo said:

I'd say there's a strong left-wing bias in the TV/cable news media, which was nearly 100% until Fox came along to give news from BOTH sides of view.

Look, when you're the party of hatred and division, as the Republicans are, the party of war and unmitigated greed, the party of supremacism, and the party of clinging to obsolete traditions that only perpetuate injustice, the news is always going to sound grim and biased.

All this screaming paranoia about liberal news bias has done is create a demand in the marketplace for "reporting" that mitigates fraud and justifies hatred.

Oh, by the way, would you claim Richard Mellon Scaife was a liberal? You know, the billionaire owner and publisher of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review? You know, one of the central players in the 1990s anti-Clinton hysteria? The same guy who gave $2.4 million to The American Spectator?

According to President Bill Clinton's allies, he's the main money man behind a right-wing anti-Clinton conspiracy, attacking with his money. Former White House counsel Lanny Davis argues, "He's using it to destroy a president of the United States."

If it's a conspiracy, it's a pretty open one. Scaife's tax-exempt foundations disclose their grants on the Web. Among them: $2.4 million over several years to American Spectator to pay for anti-Clinton reporting, even a private eye to dig up dirt. And millions more went to other anti-Clinton groups.


(Jackson)

• • •​

The man whom Time magazine, in its latest issue, calls "the ultimate patron" of the Clinton haters has been identified by Salon and the New York Observer as a key funder of the $2.4 million Arkansas Project, a four-year effort organized through the American Spectator magazine to discredit the president. Scaife foundation money, as Salon has reported, has also allegedly been used to pay key Whitewater witness David Hale and to help bankroll Paula Jones' sexual harassment case against Clinton.

In fact, Scaife's part in the Clinton chronicles represents the second time that he has been a secretive major player in efforts to profoundly alter the course of politics and public policy in America. In the 1970s, his money fueled the "New Right" movement that sought to replace the perceived "liberal establishment" in Washington and the media with a new, conservative order.

"The victories we're celebrating today didn't begin last Tuesday," Heritage Foundation president Edwin Feulner Jr. told a meeting of supporters in 1994 just after the Republican sweep of the House of Representatives. "They started more than 20 years ago when Dick Scaife had the vision to see the need for a conservative intellectual movement in America. These organizations built the intellectual case that was necessary before political leaders like Newt Gingrich could translate their ideas into practical political alternatives."

Gingrich, who was also at the meeting, hailed Scaife as "a good friend and ally for a very long time."


(Rothmyer)]

Adam Curtis addressed the issue of The American Spectator and its Arkansas Project in his 2004 BBC documentary The Power of Nightmares:

NARRATOR: By the mid-nineties, politics in Washington was dominated by one issue: the moral character of the President of the United States. Behind this were an extraordinary barrage of allegations against Clinton that were obsessing the media. These included stories of sexual harassment, stories that Clinton and his wife were involved in Whitewater—a corrupt property deal—stories that they had murdered their close friend Vince Foster, and stories that Clinton was involved in smuggling drugs from a small airstrip in Arkansas. But none of these stories were true. All of them had been orchestrated by a young group of neoconservatives who were determined to destroy Clinton. The campaign was centered on a small right-wing magazine called The American Spectator, which had set up what was called "The Arkansas Project" to investigate Clinton's past life. The journalist at the center of this project was called David Brock. Since then, Brock has turned against the neoconservative movement. He now believes that the attacks on Clinton went too far, and corrupted conservative politics:

Q: Was Whitewater true.

BROCK: No. There was no, I mean, there was no criminal wrongdoing in Whitewater. Absolutely not. It was a land deal that the Clintons lost money on. It was a complete inversion of what happened.

Q: Was Vince Foster killed?

BROCK: No. He killed himself.

Q: Did the Clintons smuggle drugs?

BROCK: Absolutely not.

Q: Did those promoting these stories know that this was not true? That none of these stories were true?

BROCK: They did not care.

Q: Why not?

BROCK: Because they were having a devastating effect. So why stop? It was terrorism. Political terrorism.

Q: And you were one of the agents?

BROCK: Absolutely.


(The Power of Nightmares)

FOX News launched in October, 1996 and helped push the attacks against Clinton to a fever pitch. I'm curious if anyone can explain how or why a strong left-wing bias, or even properly neutral journalism, would help drive empty allegations to the point we reached.

You know, just as an example?
____________________

Notes:

Jackson, Brooks. "Who is Richard Mellon Scaife?" CNN.com. April 27, 1998. http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/04/27/scaife.profile/

Rothmyer, Karen. "The man behind the mask". Salon.com. April 7, 1998. http://www.salon.com/news/1998/04/07news.html

Curtis, Adam. "The Power of Nightmares, pt. 2". BBC 2. Aired October 20, 2004. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4602171665328041876
 
I think Tiassa is hinting at the way I see polical bias manifesting itself in the media.
The way I see it is not so much that there is a bias towards the number of pundits of a particular political viewpoint that a news show might invite in to discuss an issue, moreover it is in terms of setting the agenda for discussion in the first place.
So for example having commentators from both sides discussing how to deal with the threat of international terrorism may seem balanced - but American television refuses to pose the question of whether international terrorism is in fact a credible threat at all.
This is illustrated very nicely with Adam Curtis' experience with american TV networks when he discussed distribution of his internationally acclaimed documentary "The Power of Nightmares" (already linked by Tiassa) in the US:

Something extraordinary has happened to American TV since September 11. A head of the leading networks who had better remain nameless said to me that there was no way they could show it. He said, 'Who are you to say this?' and then he added, 'We would get slaughtered if we put this out.' When I was in New York I took a DVD to the head of documentaries at HBO. I still haven't heard from him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_of_nightmares#Airings_and_distribution

http://film.guardian.co.uk/cannes2005/story/0,15927,1481970,00.html

So the TV networks are effectively self-censoring themselves to conform with the accepted view of the current government.

There's a similar case here in the UK - we have poster and TV campaigns encouraging us to report welfare benefit cheats - people who work at the same time as claiming unemployment benefit - however a recent study by the inland revenue showed that businesses cheating on their VAT (sales tax) payments accounted not only for six times the defecit to the public purse that benefit fraud caused, and would also be cheaper to enforce.
On the rare occasions when someone is caught cheating on their taxes in this way, it is not treated as an imprisonable criminal offence (unlike cheating on welfare).
But that side of the argument is never brought up.

cost to tax payers of VAT cheats £12 billion
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3935605.stm

Cost to tax payers of benefit cheats £2 Billion:
http://www.barnsley.gov.uk/bguk/Economic_Finance/Benefit Fraud
 
Last edited:
Back
Top