|
 |
August 05, 2003 LIBERAL MEDIA?....Is the press biased? That's a blogosphere favorite, so this study by Michael Tomasky ought to get a lot of attention (Howard Kurtz has a summary here). Tomasky studied the editorial pages of two liberal papers (the New York Times and Washington Post) and two conservative papers (the Wall Street Journal and Washington Times) and compared the way they treated ten "roughly comparable" events in the Clinton and Bush administrations. Tomasky's basic conclusion is that the conservative editorial pages were far more partisan than the liberal ones:
This result really doesn't surprise me, especially in the case of the Wall Street Journal, which has an attack mentality that's simply unmatched among major American newspapers. Their schooyard tone and appalling level of intellectual dishonesty is unique and, unfortunately, probably quite influential. A lot of businessmen don't read any opinion pages except the WSJ's, and I've long suspected that the Journal is responsible for a considerable part of the general hardening and sense of entitlement that corporate executives demonstrate these days. In another sense, however, I have a hard time taking Tomasky's study seriously. It's not that there's any problem with his methodology, it's just that I don't think it addresses the real issue that conservatives claim to have with the media: not political bias, and not editorial page bias, but the default assumption of socially liberal values in the news columns. Eric Alterman was honest enough to address that issue in What Liberal Media?, and his conclusion was, basically, that conservatives probably had a point. Not as big a point as they complain about, but a point nonetheless. Now, needless to say, social bias in news stories is so subtle that it's probably impossible for any study to ever draw any firm conclusions about it. But even so, I think that's the primary point of contention, so while Tomasky's study is interesting it doesn't really address the core issue of media bias. That, I think, will probably continue to remain happily in the realm of fact-free ranting. Posted by Kevin Drum at August 5, 2003 04:33 PM | TrackBackComments
This study utterly misses the point. The question about liberal vs. conservative bias does not arise because of editorial stances. Editorial pages are the proper forum for expressing specific views with whatever preconceptions/worldviews that may underly them. The issue of bias arises in the journalism pages. That's the complaint. Whether the NYT or Washington Times fairly and accurately reports an event or whether their reporting emphasizes/omits/tailors information so as to serve a specific editorial agenda. The complaint is not that editorial views are slanted, without such slanting, they'd be nearly worthless. Joe Lellyveld, Paul Gigot etc, go rant to your heart's content. The complaint is when the editorial view leaks into the news reporting, whether intentionally or inadvertantly. BTW, the ongoing conflicts between the editorial and journalistic staffs of the WSJ make it a wonderful daily read. Posted by: spc67 at August 5, 2003 04:52 PM | PERMALINKOne of the problems about media bias is interpretation. When you reach the Kausian levels of sublime idiocy, where liberal bias is liberal bias and conservative bias is liberal bias, masked, you eventually come to the point where every article could declare Joe McCarthy the patron saint of Good Stuff, and you'd still have to worry about the insidious liberalism of the press, because the New York Times had a misprint where his name was spelled Joe McCarty. Posted by: jesse at August 5, 2003 04:52 PM | PERMALINKWhether the NYT or Washington Times fairly and accurately reports an event or whether their reporting emphasizes/omits/tailors information so as to serve a specific editorial agenda. -- Neither one does on a far-too-frequent basis, and neither of their problems are liberal bias. Posted by: jesse at August 5, 2003 04:53 PM | PERMALINKMichael Tomasky??? Why not just have Paul Krugman do the study? Gee, you think Ann COulter would come up with the opposite result? Posted by: Al at August 5, 2003 05:03 PM | PERMALINKAnyway, the situation isn't necessarily symmetric to begin with, since Bush isn't just the opposite of Clinton. It could be that the liberal and conservative papers were equally partisan, but Clinton was a more centrist president than Bush, so naturally the liberal papers would be less favorably disposed toward him than the conservative ones toward Bush. Really, ultimately all these studies of media bias run up against this problem of calibration. What is the center? What is unbias? Also, sampling: are the NYT and the Washington Post together a fair sample of liberal papers, or is the choice of them instead of, say, the Nation and the Village Voice a case of assuming what they set out to prove? If the argument is that right-wingnut papers are more major papers than left-wingnut ones, then isn't that more a statement about what sells than about how the media are biased? The only thing I know for sure is that the media are all biased against the views of whoever happens to be complaining about media bias at the time. I just came off reading yet another rant about how the plutocrats have used to media to poison my mind to keep Chomsky from getting any traction. Posted by: Matt McIrvin at August 5, 2003 05:03 PM | PERMALINKCouldn't one say that there is a problem with Tomasky's methodology, in the choice of papers being compared? Fair enough, but speaking as a liberal, this study compares two
actual newspapers, the Times and the Post, with the WSJ which certainly
is a newspaper in its news, but not in its op-eds, and the Washington
Times, which is an organ of Sun Myung Moon's. The author's sample field
is simply not fair to conservatives. Al: I suspect that Tomasky did a decent job even though he's a liberal. I wouldn't dismiss the study because of that. Matt: I agree. I didn't want to make my post overly long by adding that, but the fact that Clinton was more centrist than Bush probably accounts for some of the difference. Poop: I think the choice of papers was quite reasonable. The point was not to pick the most partisan papers, but to compare the partisanship of the most influential papers. On that score, I think Tomasky made the right choices. Posted by: Kevin Drum at August 5, 2003 05:16 PM | PERMALINKI wonder how Howie squares this with last week's Newspapers Are Mean To Conservatives column? I did think it was interesting that he put the Washington Post forward as a liberal paper which would be expected to support Clinton. I wonder what paper he reads. Posted by: julia at August 5, 2003 05:19 PM | PERMALINKWith so many critics, I hate to upset the equilibrium by whacking
this pinata from the right. (And yes, Editorial page bias is not the
issue). However, the Kurtz summary did nothing for my confidence. The
issues he picked for comparison: (2) Janet Reno's first year versus Ashcroft's first year. Waco versus what? And yes, she got some good press for Waco initially, but I don't remember her first year as a triumph. So, Tomasky delivers a flawed attempt to answer the wrong question. Sounds like just another post at my blog (which is free!). Posted by: Tom Maguire at August 5, 2003 05:21 PM | PERMALINKAI/Al (not sure what your name is) - you demonstrate the issues of symmetry perfectly. Comparing Coulter to Krugman is like comparing the crash of the Hindenberg to your car getting dinged by a shopping cart. Posted by: jesse at August 5, 2003 05:26 PM | PERMALINKIn another sense, however, I have a hard time taking Tomasky's study seriously. It's not that there's any problem with his methodology, it's just that I don't think it addresses the real issue that conservatives claim to have with the media: not political bias, and not editorial page bias, but the default assumption of socially liberal values in the news columns. Wow- It is just so nice to read someone actually say that and acknowledge it. I still a great deal of the bias in the media is due to the ignorance of the reporters involved combined with a healthy dose of sheer laziness. If we accept that the majority of reporters are more liberal personally and tend to vote for Democrats, I don't think they INTENTIONALLY write news stories that are biased, but should a story come up with multiple angles, they will latch on to the one they know the best, or they distort the viewpoint of the opposition because they are too lazy to explore it and understand it. That nehavior stems from laziness and a lack of intellectual curiousity, not necessarily partisan motivations, yet the end result can often be the same. Posted by: John Cole at August 5, 2003 05:36 PM | PERMALINKwould that be so even though their bosses, who promote them and give them raises, are overwhelmingly Bush supporters? (2/1 in the last election). How noble of the reporters to be the only profession in society that doesn't let advancement to the highly-paid ranks of an underpaid profession affect their judgment. Posted by: julia at August 5, 2003 05:46 PM | PERMALINKMy take: the bias leftward in the news pages, via beat reporters, is on social issues only, virtually never economic, and is, in any case, extremely mild. As demonstrated by Tomasky, the leftward tilt even on overtly leftward-tilting editorial pages is mild, diluted by typical guilty-liberal attempts to be "balanced." The rightward tilt of overtly right-tilting editorial pages (and, one might add, tv networks) is not mild. It is aggrieved, and virulent, and unrelenting, in a constant political knife fight with absolutely no quarter offered to perceived enemies. So, liberals get two milds, and conservatives get two extremes. I'll leave it to readers to speculate on which works best in our current intellectual/political culture. Posted by: Realish at August 5, 2003 06:30 PM | PERMALINK"A lot of businessmen don't read any opinion pages except the WSJ's". This statement requires emplical justification. The the causation is tenuas in the sentence that follows --the Journal could be reflecting Wall Street, not shaping it's views. Posted by: Damien Smith at August 5, 2003 07:03 PM | PERMALINKRealish--you're right, lets talk about TV... This is perhaps an obvious point, but newspapers are not really the best place to look for bias. Bias in Television news is far more common, and far more influential. Can any of those claiming a liberal media bias stand there with a straight face and say that this is the case with television news? The point that news reporting and opinion pages are generally separated in newspapers is a good one (spc67), but I fear that this is not the case on television. Is "Scarborough Country" a news program or an opinion forum? What about that elfin-looking dude on Fox News (if someone could help me with his name, id appreciate it. he looks just like the elf king from lord of the rings)? The lines are more than a little blurred. And please don't tell me that no one takes Fox News seriously. The only place there is anything like a true liberal media bias is on the Lifetime network... Posted by: kokblok at August 5, 2003 08:49 PM | PERMALINKThe other thing that's worth noting about the study is that 9/11 changed things for a while. It would not surprise me at all to find that the liberal papers went a little easier on Bush, even on unrelated issues, than they otherwise would have. Unfortunately, that's durn near impossible to prove. I wonder why they didn't compare, say, Clinton to Reagan? Or Clinton to Bush I? Posted by: PaulB at August 5, 2003 08:56 PM | PERMALINKI have a hard time making sense of a discussion like this because I'm utterly confused about the definition of "conservative" these days. If Bush/Cheney/Rove are conservatives, then the term has been so radically altered from its traditional meaning that I don't even know how to begin to respond to Tomasky's work. Posted by: peter jung at August 5, 2003 09:15 PM | PERMALINKThe phrase "media bias" has, for me, shifted meaning a bit since I started working on my latest gig, which involves a lot of digging around in late 19th/ early 20th century newspapers. This is a NYTimes editorial from July 27, 1894: Miss Ida B. Wells, a mulatress who has been "stumping" the British Islands to set forth the brutality of Southern white men and the unchastity and untruthfulness of Southern white women, has just returned to these shores. On the same day on which an interview with her was reported it was also reported that a negro had made an assault upon a white woman for purposes of lust and plunder, not in Texas or Mississippi, but in the heart of the City of New-York. The wretch is probably safe from lynching here, which is to the credit of the civilization of New-York. Thus far he seems to have escaped the clutch of the law. But the circumstances of his fiendish crime may serve to convince the mulatress missionary that the promulgation in New-York just now of her theory of negro outrages is, to say the least of it, inappropriate. I have no idea if anyone reading this even knows who Ida B. Wells was, but I'm reasonably certain that we all agree on these notions: * The term "mulatress missionary" is gratuitously insulting. * One unspecified assault is not equivalent to, and does not justify, a series of socially sanctioned murders. (Wells was an anti-lynching crusader.) * The following sentence — "The wretch is probably safe from lynching here, which is to the credit of the civilization of New-York." — is not an emphatic statement in opposition to lynching, which is what one would expect. Clearly, these universal agreements were not in place in 1894. I think that's what we're all wrangling with, trying to find the universal agreements, the default settings for our culture — what's okay, and what's just not done. Yes, of course, media, culture, memes — whatever — it's all much more diffused and pervasive (kinda like WMDs) than it was in 1894. But c'mon — would the NYTimes print that editoral today? Can you think of any mainstream outlet that would? Again, I'm not imputing any latent racism to our wingnut friends. I'm hoping that others might see from this small sample what I'm learning: the specifics change, and the scale expands, but the argument is the same. Posted by: jupiter at August 5, 2003 09:47 PM | PERMALINKMy take is that the liberal bent, such as it may be, of the reporters as people (as opposed to reporters as reporters), means that they bend over too much in favor of the Right. In other words, they will quickly question, in a news story, the spin of, say, Clinton, but they will report the stuff that Bush says as if it were fact, or even sensible. Thus in trying to be "fair" to Bush, they actually give him more of a pass than they would Clinton. But then, I'm biased. Posted by: craigie at August 5, 2003 11:15 PM | PERMALINKFor a more in depth report, the Council for Excellence in Government did a study on media for the last twenty years, documenting every aspect of government in the media. The findings were that for every president since Reagan, the percentage of good and bad press was fairly consistent. The study encompassed print media as well as television. If you're interested, I've posted a copy of the report here. Posted by: The Voice at August 5, 2003 11:32 PM | PERMALINKStudies have shown that 30% of liberal blogs will state uncritically that the media is liberal, while 95% of conservative blogs make this statement. Conversely, only 50% of liberal blogs say the media is conservative, compared to only 2% of conservative blogs. Perhaps there is an insidious socially liberal stance in the media; this, still, isn't the point. What matters is the simple political bias shown in the 'hard news' pages, and the simple truth is that in the last decade, there has been an inarguably pro-Republican-politician bias in these columns. Perhaps this is all post-9/11 Bush beatification, but even if it is, does this make it any less true? Posted by: neil at August 5, 2003 11:52 PM | PERMALINK*Yawn* I'm tired of talking about this subject....the fact that conservatives think the media is liberal and liberals think the media is conservative indicates to me that the media ends up being pretty non-ideological, taken altogether. Yes, there's obvious bias with some people, but give me a break. It's like a pro sports games, where both sides are complaining about the refs. Posted by: nota bene at August 6, 2003 12:13 AM | PERMALINKThe term "mulatress missionary" is gratuitously insulting. For 1894? I'd say that's charmingly direct. She's a missionary who happens to be a female mulatto; if you were a late 19th century journalist (with the Spanish-American War right around the corner) how would you describe her? Posted by: Anarch at August 6, 2003 12:29 AM | PERMALINK*Yawn* I'm tired of talking about this subject....the fact that conservatives think the media is liberal and liberals think the media is conservative indicates to me that the media ends up being pretty non-ideological, taken altogether. This is an utterly unwarrated conclusion. And, in fact, it's wrong. Don't fall prey to the pressure to be "balanced" at the expense of the facts, nota bene. Don't mistrust the evidence of your senses and the evidence of your intellect in favor of being a cynical faux-'grown-up'. Racism is not equally represented on both sides of the aisle. Nor is extremism. Nor are dirty, precendent-breaking political tricks. Michael Moore is not the equivalent of Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh. Nor is Bill Moyers. Nor is Noam Chomsky. And bias is not evenly spread in the media. There is a mild socially-liberal bias among reporters, but it is swamped by the overt, extreme conservative bias of the majority of high-visibility pundits, radio hosts, and tv news anchors. "Balance" is lazy. And not only that, the pressure for "balance" favors the side that plays dirty. Let's shoot for "truth" instead. Posted by: Realish at August 6, 2003 12:34 AM | PERMALINKLiberal government rests on technocracy - the idea of a professional core of comptence and honesty which is required to engage in policy. The pervasive lies coming from the government on basic statistics show that yes, "liberal" bias is a thing of the past, and we are now in a state where disinformation, and not information, is the basic currency of how policy is enacted. Raise your hand if you think this will work for any length of time. Posted by: Stirling Newberry at August 6, 2003 03:55 AM | PERMALINKMichael Moore is not the equivalent of Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh. Nor is Bill Moyers. Nor is Noam Chomsky. You are right. Noam Chomsky is far worse than any of those characters, having spread more vicious lies about America and Israel than anyone else I can think of- He deserves a special mention all his own. Michael Moore, whose Oscar documentary was a work of fiction, appears to be following his lead. BTW- not only are these pair odious, but there is a lot of foreign consumption of these two- the same can not be said of Coulter and Limbaugh. Furthermore, I don't know ONE person who takes Ann Coulter seriously. Posted by: John Cole at August 6, 2003 05:05 AM | PERMALINKhow about Phyllis Schlafly? here's the column: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/phyllisschlafly/ps20030804.shtml thanks to jesse I loved the statistics about political blogs. My own survey has shown that 68% of right-wing blogs are written by pod aliens, whereas 92% of left-wings blogs are written by candidates for sanctification. Admittedly I haven't told you my criteria. Posted by: John Isbell at August 6, 2003 06:15 AM | PERMALINKWhat tv news anchor is to the right, Realish? BTW, pundits are supposed to be biased (that's sorta their job, to give their opinion) & radio hosts don't hide their bias behind the 'nonpartisan' label. Posted by: RW at August 6, 2003 06:20 AM | PERMALINKJohn Cole- Federal judge and conservative author Richard Posner takes Ann Coulter seriously. He named her one of the top 100 Public Intellectuals in 2001. As you are no doubt aware, Posner is one of the high priests of the Right- and you wonder why we have trouble taking you guys seriously? Posted by: peter jung at August 6, 2003 06:22 AM | PERMALINKRegarding media bias, it's worth noting that progressives are the
ones who most vigorously make the case against further media
consolidation. I wonder how much percieved "liberal bias" in the news part of the press stems from the business practices of not alienating the customer base especially when considering social issues. For example, I would think that a social conservative would consider a story that treated an event involving a gay person or a gay issue as a "straight" news story without making an issue of the person's gayness, or without including an obligatory (to those on the right) viewpoint from someone condemning homosexuality as liberal bias, or even "advancing" the "gay agenda". Yet, if the paper is in an area with a sizeable gay population, the newspaper, as a business, would have no business reason to alienate a part of its customer base - so the percieved "bias" of not going along with knee-jerk ritual right wing condemnation isn't about "liberal bias" but is a business reason because the right wing agenda tends to be quite exclusionary - which is bad for any media business wishing to maximize its patronage. To me, it seems that a decent part of the right wing agenda IS exclusionary and dependent on keeping certain groups of people marginalized. Is the fact then, that media outlets which depend partly on the business of these same people so and refuse to go along with this overt marginalization examples of "liberal bias" - or just a refusal to pander to "conservative bias"? Posted by: Andy at August 6, 2003 06:47 AM | PERMALINK"Noam Chomsky is far worse than any of those characters, having spread more vicious lies about America and Israel than anyone else I can think of- He deserves a special mention all his own. " ROTFALMAO!!!!! Posted by: David Ehrenstein at August 6, 2003 07:21 AM | PERMALINK"which news anchor is to the right?"- RW C'mon, now... I think some of the posters have a good point, though, which is that
we must separate out social, national security, and economic issues in
order to understand where bias lies. In fact, we'd do well to separate
each issue. As a conservative who mildly believes in the liberal bias of the media (while strongly disbelieving in the possibility of an unbiased media) I have to say these results don't surprise me a bit. I actually read all four papers regularly, and have subscriptions to the two Washington papers. The WaTimes is in a league of its own; it makes absolutely no attempt to be anything other than a hard-right paper. Its editorial page does criticize the current administration, but always from the right. The WSJ editorial page has a more intelligent, but almost equally partisan viewpoint. It has one token liberal op/ed writer. From the right, the NYTimes editorial page looks like the mirror image of the WSJ. It writes very well, but universally from the left. It was extremely critical of the Clinton administration, but almost always from the left. It has zero credibility with conservatives, much like I expect the WaTimes and the WSJ have with the left. I believe the WaPost is by far the best political paper in the country, and has the best and most interesting op/ed pages. They have a wide variety of writers, possibly weighted right, as the editorials are weighted left. I'd be interested in a comparison of just the NYTimes and the WSJ. Does anyone here read Lying In Ponds? She attempts to make the same judgements of editorial writers, though she doesn't include the WaTimes writers. Not surprisingly, she rates Ann Coulter as the most partisan writer, followed closely by Scheer and Krugman. The writers she rates break down pretty evenly left and right. Interestingly, though, theose who are critical of Republicans are significantly more so than those who are critical of Democrats (Coulter 53, Scheer 79 are the top of each list). Posted by: MattJ at August 6, 2003 07:44 AM | PERMALINKC'mon, now... 2)anyone on Fox News Which ones? Anarch — >>The term "mulatress missionary" is gratuitously insulting. >For 1894? I'd say that's charmingly direct. She's a missionary who happens to be a female mulatto; if you were a late 19th century journalist (with the Spanish-American War right around the corner) how would you describe her? I think it was meant as an insult, since it's doubly inaccurate: Wells was neither a mulatto nor a religious missionary. But insult or honest mistake, you're right in one sense: the language clearly was considered acceptable. That's what's changed. No editorial in a contemporary mainstream publication would ever use the phrase "mulattress missionary" (however accurate) — and not out of sissy PC self-censorship. We've all agreed that it's offensive and its use discredits the speaker. We've moved on to new arguments over what is and is not offensive, and why. Posted by: jupiter at August 6, 2003 08:21 AM | PERMALINKFace facts. The media is locked in the vise-like grip of a "Conservative"mindset. There has been a cleverly-orchestrated, lavishly-funded campaign over the past decade to outlaw Liberal thought. You read me right -- OUTLAW it. Next to no one will identify themselves as a Liberal today. And those that are given the "Liberal" label by the Reactionary powers-that-be are invariably Center-Right, like Bill Clinton. That's right, folks -- BILL CLINTON ISN'T A LIBERAL! Naturally by saying that most of you think I'm certifiable. So be it. Posted by: David Ehrenstein at August 6, 2003 09:30 AM | PERMALINKI'm not going to take the time to examine the bios of the newscasters RW mentions except to say that anybody that thinks that David Asman is anything other than a hard right wing shill has deep seated problems perceiving reality. Asman was an editorial writer for WSJ for 12 years before becoming their editorial features editor. He was at that job for 5 years or so before Roger Ailes lured him away to his present job. And there seems to be a consensus here that the WSJ's editorials during that time were the always coming from the right and often coulteresque in their dishonesty. Posted by: Zelig at August 6, 2003 09:39 AM | PERMALINKMattJ writes: From the right, the NYTimes editorial page looks like the mirror image of the WSJ. But the conclusion of Tomasky's study is that that impression is incorrect. The New York Times is much more likely to criticize the Democrats than the Wall Street Journal is to critize Republicans. The NYT is similarly much more likely to praise Republicans than the WSJ is to praise Democrats. They aren't mirror images of each other. Posted by: Daryl McCullough at August 6, 2003 10:31 AM | PERMALINKThx, Zelig. However, a bio on folks past - considering that the Washington bureau chief for NBC and the chief political analyst for ABC are both former Dem staffers - is probably not what Realish had in mind. Otherwise, it hurts the premise - much more so when one considers that a network newscast on a bad night will have around 5 times as many viewers as FNCCNNMSNBC combined. OT, I'm amazed that so many people analyze editorial pages and pundit shows as a way to disprove 'bias'. It's sorta like choosing a HS basketball team to use as evidence that the people attending the school really aren't all that short. There are plenty of resources out there for news analysis, left & right. Make up your own decision. Of course, if you disagree with me, you're wrong. :) Posted by: RW at August 6, 2003 10:56 AM | PERMALINKI wouldn't want to defend everything Chomsky has ever said, but when he accuses the US and Israel of committing atrocities and lying about it, he's usually right. On the subject of media bias, I think you see the bias you'd expect from people who are well educated secular affluent types who hobnob with the politicians they write about. They're usually liberal on issues involving sex, centrist or even conservative on taxing and spending, and generally do their best to sound "patriotic" on foreign policy issues, which means they're apt to downplay American wrongdoing (as Chomsky and many others have demonstrated). They're not jingoistic enough to suit the conservatives, however, so they still get labelled as "leftwing". Posted by: Donald Johnson at August 6, 2003 11:38 AM | PERMALINKThe whole "Yellowcakegate" scandal is a perfect example of how "conservative bias" has replaced "liberal bias" in the mass media. Bush told his lies about Iraqi uranium in January, but the story didn't break until Wilson himself published the op-ed in the NYT. If the press is so hell-bent on busting Bush's balls, wouldn't they have brought up the lies in the preceding 6 months? Of course not, because their owners wanted the increased ratings of a war, so they acted in an overtly conservative manner, protecting Bush's lies until a 3rd party (Wilson) blew the lid off the whole circle-jerk. This story is proof-positive that the conservative bias in the media isn't in what they cover, it's what they don't cover. Posted by: Ras_Nesta at August 6, 2003 11:50 AM | PERMALINKI keep hearing about how all these reporters are socially liberal but fiscally conservative, but I'll be damned if I can recall the last time any network news show did a story on how social spending is too large, tax rates were too high or that charities should be the first option instead of gov't. Not that it hasn't happened, but I just can't recall any between 'fiscally conservative' reporters tell me about Bush's "huge" or "massive" tax cuts, which may lead to "slashes" in social spending. Posted by: RW at August 6, 2003 11:52 AM | PERMALINKRW-- Of course, my deeper problem with the conservative news anchors is not that they are "biased"--it's that they are wrong. Posted by: kokblok at August 6, 2003 12:03 PM | PERMALINKkokblok (great name), I think that your vision of a strict division between "opinion" and "news" on television today is what is flawed. Well, when someone says "news anchor", I pretty much assume they mean news anchor & not opinion show host. Scarborough isn't a news show, it's an opinion show & Cavuto has stated that he's a host & a commentator. He even has a segment with the word "commentary" highlighted when he gives his POV (something missing on too many shows, IMO). Now, pls don't mistake me for shilling - I think Fox leans to the right & you're quite correct, the hosts are also on the right. But, as long as they're up front about it (like Donahue) I have no problem. They're analysis/opinion/commentary segments designed to discuss the latest. The folks who tell us what happened as part of the news is what concerns me, although I don't think it's anywhere near as bad as it used to be. BTW, adding up all the time comes out in favor of the nets as well. The evening news shows, shows like Nightline, 20/20, Primetime, etc, all dwarf the cable channels. The thing is, if the nets DID present a balanced view, there'd be no Fox taking from their audience, IMO. There'd be no need. Posted by: RW at August 6, 2003 12:20 PM | PERMALINKRW-- "I can't recall any 'fiscally conservative' reporters tell me about Bush's 'huge' and 'massive' tax cuts, etc."----RW, I dont know what this part of your post is supposed to mean...please clarify... Posted by: kokblok at August 6, 2003 12:23 PM | PERMALINKHmmm, the fact that news media organizations are unwilling to hammer Bush on rapidly expanding government makes them 'conservative'. Fascinating. I suppose that if Bush became ardently pro-choice on abortion and the news media refused to attack him on that basis you would also use that as proof that the media is 'conservative'? Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at August 6, 2003 12:32 PM | PERMALINKSebastian Holsclaw-- Actually, that was my pathetic attempt at sarcasm. I typed: but I just can't recall any between 'fiscally conservative' reporters tell me about Bush's "huge" or "massive" tax cuts, which may lead to "slashes" in social spending. What I meant to type: but I just can't recall any between the 'fiscally conservative' reporters telling me about Bush's "huge" or "massive" tax cuts, which may lead to "slashes" in social spending. I recall numerous reports about the 'huge' tax cuts, but none pertaining to the validity of them or that they may be too small. but it seems to me like the excessive, day-to-day attention paid
to the stock market as an indicator of national economic well-being is
peoples' exhibit A. RW-- Is the stock market really that important to be the only piece of economic news many people are aware of? What about the constant cheerleading about 'consumer confidence'? "Buy more crap, or else you're a bad citizen for hurting the markets!" The bears and bulls are a bit of a fetish, won't you agree? Especially in an era of trans-national capitalism... I don't think you adressed the "Fleecing of America" phenomenon (tax-payer as victim) or the frivoulous tort urban legends. Posted by: kokblok at August 6, 2003 01:39 PM | PERMALINKThe critical issue is bias in the news sections of newspapers. The NYT has a habit of leading stories on economics or Iraq with consistantly negative opening paragraphs and headlines. The WaPo is much less biased in news columns. The WSJ has unbiased news columns and the reporters often disagree with the editorial pages. I don't read the Wash Times. Turn of the century newspapers were wildly biased compared to the present (except perhaps Krugman and Scheer) and so the whole question has little practical imapct. Posted by: Mike Kennedy at August 6, 2003 04:44 PM | PERMALINKHave you been following the Washington Post's series about the Democratic presidential candidates? They start, or at least they have so far, with the candidate ranting and raving with veins bulging in their foreheads because they're so animated by their uncontrollable rage about Bush. Oddly, although he's rather well-known for both petulance and tantrum throwing, there has been no similar article about the Republican candidate. As a matter of fact, we 'saw' him leading the nation forcefully in the wake of the attacks on the WTC, from a plane which later turned out to have non-functioning communications equipment. I don't think the Washington Post is a great example of liberal media bias. Posted by: julia at August 6, 2003 06:26 PM | PERMALINKWait a minute, now. When the Post and the Times criticized Clinton, did they criticize him because he was too moderate and not liberal enough? I don't remember it that way. Where do we get the idea that the Times and the Post are all that liberal? Much more tiresome than the continual complaints about press bias from one side or the other, is the cliche that "since both sides are complaining things must be about OK, and besides, who can say really?" Couldn't we at least declare that response to be the most obvious generic answer, so that people no longer are able to present it as the result of their deep thinking on the subject? Posted by: zizka at August 6, 2003 08:04 PM | PERMALINKbut I think I am competent enough to co-opt Coulter's old
arguement about why conservative bias is A-OK in the news..."Well, it's
because that's what people want to see!" And so it is with liberal bias
in sitcoms and movies... I don't think you adressed the "Fleecing of America" phenomenon (tax-payer as victim) or the frivoulous tort urban legends. And I don't watch enough to comment on tort stuff. Is anyone going to honestly say that Rather/Jennings/Brokaw or their newscasts are on the right? Posted by: Ricky at August 7, 2003 04:13 AM | PERMALINKDaryl McCullough writes: But the conclusion of Tomasky's study is that that impression is incorrect. The New York Times is much more likely to criticize the Democrats than the Wall Street Journal is to critize Republicans. The NYT is similarly much more likely to praise Republicans than the WSJ is to praise Democrats. They aren't mirror images of each other. After reading your post, I went and read the paper rather than Kurtz's summary. One thing that jumped out at me was that I had a very different idea of 'partisan' than did Tomasky; I view partisan as liberal/conservative, where Tomasky viewed it as Democrat/Republican. I wonder how much of the disconnect between liberals and conservatives on media bias has to do with this? When the NYTimes criticized Clinton from the left for his welfare reform decision, for example, Tomasky viewed that as principled and non-partisan; I don't believe most conservatives view it that way. I would agree completely with the premise that the WSJ is a much more Republican paper than the NYTimes is a Democratic one; my comments had to do with the liberal/conservative tilt of the two. After reading the summary of the paper, I see nothing to contradict that view. I'd also agree that the WSJ and WaTimes editorial pages were much more abusive and disrespectful of Clinton than the NYTimes has been of Bush, and I believe that has probably been true in general of these papers for as long as I'e been reading them. Posted by: MattJ at August 7, 2003 09:14 AM | PERMALINKmattj: interesting point, though I'd say "same difference".(provided
we can agree all four paper are within one standard deviation of the
centre). *Suppose Bush's policy was moderate. He should be criticised from the right then, shouldn't he? Posted by: markus at August 7, 2003 01:42 PM | PERMALINKWell, Ricky, "Is anyone going to honestly say that Rather/Brokaw/Jennings or their newscasts are to the right?" --Ricky To that, I can only reply with...(a paraphrase) "He (Bush) is my president...he can tell me which way to march and I'll be the first in line" markus writes: interesting point, though I'd say "same difference".(provided we can agree all four paper are within one standard deviation of the centre) First, I would disagree that all four papers are relatively the same distance from the center; I would argue that the WaTimes is significantly further than any of the others. It is also a much less read, or influential, paper than the rest. However, in reading this thread and thinking about what you wrote, I realize that, even though the WaTimes and WSJ are closer ideologically to me than the NYTimes or the WaPost, the only editorial page of the four that I really respect is the WaPost. The other three seem to have no interest in presenting opposing arguments intelligently; I read them to read the liberal party line (in the case of the NYTimes) and the Republican/conservative party line (in the case of the WaTimes and WSJ). Tomasky's paper is interesting, and has made me consciously evaluate these newspapers in ways I don't normally, but in no way convinces me that the NYTimes editorial page is anything but partisan. Anyway, don't you think that 'less partisan than the Washington Times!' is an embarrassingly low standard to meet? :) Posted by: MattJ at August 8, 2003 01:35 PM | PERMALINKre MattJ: well according to the study the NYT is a less partisan than the WSJ (you said so too, above), but I'll agree we really can't be sure of that (I will however violently oppose any reading which states that the WSJ is less partisan than the NYT). I'll agree that "less partisan than the WT is an embarrassingly low
standard to meet", but I'd say the embarrassment is on the WT. "William M. Cooper" wrote: .... I think that even if you don't find as much as a online casinos | casino bonus | casino directory | high roller casinos | casinos Posted by: doi at May 23, 2004 12:48 PM | PERMALINKYou have a pretty nice blog. English is not my native language but it was please to read your site. From Russia with love :)Sincerely yours.. http://arthritis-symptoms.bcure.com/ Girlie Flashers - Girls Are Nuts - Hot Farm Girls - Latinas Cherry - Lesbo Express - Mr 13 Inch - Nasty Blondies - Natural Bush Girls - Nude Celebs Revue - Office Girl Sex - Old Babes Home - Petite Lust - Slutty Wrestlers - Posted by: Free xxx galleries at June 21, 2004 11:21 PM | PERMALINKallrealitypass
http://www.lesbianrmnipples.com/animalsexfreepics/animalsexfreepics/index.html animalsexfreepics animalsexfreepics index html http://www.lesbianrmnipples.com/animalsexfreepics/index.html animalsexfreepics index html http://www.lesbianrmnipples.com/animalfetish.html animalfetish html http://www.lesbianrmnipples.com/sex-with-pig.html sex with pig html http://www.lesbianrmnipples.com/dog-sex-pixs/index.html dog sex pixs index html http://www.lesbianrmnipples.com/pic-s-free-beastality-sex-picture-animal-beastiality.html pic s free beastality sex picture animal beastiality html http://www.lesbianrmnipples.com/stories&bestiality/sex-animale.html stories bestiality sex animale html http://www.lesbianrmnipples.com/animal-video/index.html animal video index html http://www.lesbianrmnipples.com/bestiality-free-thumbs-sadboy-s-beastiality-sex-donkey.html bestiality free thumbs sadboy s beastiality sex donkey html http://www.lesbianrmnipples.com/dog-fucking-women.html dog fucking women html http://www.lesbianrmnipples.com/bestiality-art.html bestiality art html http://www.lesbianrmnipples.com/zoofilia-sexo.html zoofilia sexo html http://www.lesbianrmnipples.com/petsex-video/stories&bestiality.html petsex video stories bestiality html http://www.lesbianrmnipples.com/downloads-video-screensaver-movie-free-xxx.html downloads video screensaver movie free xxx html http://www.lesbianrmnipples.com/hardcore-sex/index.html hardcore sex index html http://www.lesbianrmnipples.com/animal-sex-pics/pics.html animal sex pics pics html Posted by: Free Farmsex Pics at August 5, 2004 01:38 AM | PERMALINKBest XXX Sites - 672 check out the hot blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here you can play blackjack online all you want! So everyone ~SMURKLE~ Posted by: blackjack at August 22, 2004 10:42 PM | PERMALINK3822 Herie http://blaja.web-cialis.com is online for all your black jack needs. We also have your blackjack needs met as well ;-) Posted by: blackjack at August 24, 2004 07:26 PM | PERMALINK4879 check out http://texhold.levitra-i.com for texas hold em online action boodrow Posted by: online texas hold em at August 26, 2004 06:49 PM | PERMALINK |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 
|
||||
