I see a lot of folks on here make mention of the 'liberal media' and how it skews the public discourse. I saw some numbers the other day on how Fox News has a larger rating that its next three competitors combined and not many people would hold Fox News up as an example of liberal media (by a long shot).

http://tvbythenumbers.com/category/ratings/cable-news

It also seems that conservative media has a strong hold on the radio medium in general with the likes of Rush and Co. NPR is out there but they seem to make an attempt to include both sides of many debates or have segments that air both sides of an issue. Air America seems to be, well, rather pathetic.

It seems to me that overall the media is more balanced than ever with the right making strong gains. That is good. However it also seems like the media is becoming polarized much like our politics. That is bad in my book.
I would much prefer that more media outlets offer a more reasonably balanced a view of the world What sources of media consistently give 'both sides'?

Fox News is a result of the perceived bias, I don't watch it much myself (or any tv news for that matter) but I know plenty of people that do. To them it is an alternative source - I can't blame them. Of course media is polarized, it has always been that way but for many years there wasn't a check on it. If CBS came out with a fraudulent story about a Presidential candidate in 1980, what resources were there to call them out on it? They do it in 2004, Dan Rather loses his job. I really doubt many people think Bill O'Reilly is fair or balanced, or Keith Olbermann for that matter (how that assclown still has a gig on NBC football is beyond me). Journalism has never been fair, they just pretended to be.

I really doubt many people think Bill O'Reilly is fair or balanced, or Keith Olbermann

Or Katie Couric, Brian Williams, and Diane Sawyer. Nobody should watch the news and expect anything but biased reporting. Everybody has an agenda.

Prescott wrote:

I really doubt many people think Bill O'Reilly is fair or balanced, or Keith Olbermann

Or Katie Couric, Brian Williams, and Diane Sawyer. Nobody should watch the news and expect anything but biased reporting. Everybody has an agenda.

I don't know though...maybe I was just stupid growing up but I always watched Peter Jennings growing up and I didn't even know what liberal or conservative was and he just seemed like a guy telling me what was going on in the world. Maybe Pete was a dirty commie pinko underneath but it just seemed unabashedly different in the way he reported than anything going on on the Cable News Networks. I don't remember thinking "Bill Clinton Good Newt Gingrich Bad"

BoatShoes wrote:

Prescott wrote:

I really doubt many people think Bill O'Reilly is fair or balanced, or Keith Olbermann

Or Katie Couric, Brian Williams, and Diane Sawyer. Nobody should watch the news and expect anything but biased reporting. Everybody has an agenda.

I don't know though...maybe I was just stupid growing up but I always watched Peter Jennings growing up and I didn't even know what liberal or conservative was and he just seemed like a guy telling me what was going on in the world. Maybe Pete was a dirty commie pinko underneath but it just seemed unabashedly different in the way he reported than anything going on on the Cable News Networks. I don't remember thinking "Bill Clinton Good Newt Gingrich Bad"

Pete was just about the worst of the lot.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1733

http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/petJer.htm

Prior to the advent of FNC/MSNBC and all there was were the Big 3 + CNN, no one knew any different.

"but I always watched Peter Jennings growing up "

You probably also watched, or at least was cognizant of, Dan Rather. Would you have thought as a young person growing up that the Texas Air Guard documents were pure fabrications if you watched the CBS news? Was that just something else going on in the world? Was it Peter Jennings that pointed out these lies? Not to my recollection, it was the check on these sources.

But even if we accept that Peter Jennings is a dirty commie rat...how are his political leanings, at least in the manner in which he reported of any consequence? Isn't that kind of like saying the guys who put the pieces together when manufacturing the car are the minds behind the product they put on the market? This doesn't make sense.

It makes much more sense in my view to blame the people at the top for what news they would put out. And, when you think of say the ABC/ESPN/Walt Disney multi-media conglomerate, why wouldn't we think corporate interests would reign above puppy dog and rainbow tree hugging liberal ones? What good would it do Mickey Mouse to own a news organization and have its editors fellating a president who wants to redistribute his wealth to Cartoon Characters of lesser prowess?

I think the difference is when you have one reporter talking about tingles on their body parts while referring to a political candidate, you have another reporter with tears in her eyes referring to a political candidate and so on and so on. Now, I'm pretty sure that their bosses aren't telling them to cry and express any sort of pseudo-erotic thoughts while "reporting", so I can't say that is their reason. It would seem to me that these reporters or announcers would certainly be sharing the same ideologies, political and otherwise, as their employers.
That is the sorts of things you see people comment on. Not to mention stating outright lies and purposeful misconceptions. The way I see it, ratings aside, is that the ratio of conservative to liberal media is a staggering, lopsided slope in favor of a liberal bent.

Agreed that everbody has some form of bias but I would like to think that some are prefessionals and let less of their bias shine through. Some interesting reading about Obamas ratings from various news sources across his first year.



“His quest to secure the 2016 Olympics for Chicago failed in spectacular fashion.” – Bret Baier, Oct 2

I can almost see those psuedo-erotic impulses in this fair and balanced reporter. To me this seems to be acceptable editorial language but if I am reading what the article implies correctly it was not an editorial.

But even then, isn't Bret Baier reading off of a teleprompter? He's not saying that off the cuff is he? Does anyone know?

If that's true, doesn't that statement fall on, not even the guy who wrote it, but the person who approved it and maybe even higher?

Like in the film Network, Frank Hackett played by Bob Duvall, a company man for the media conglomerate calls the shots for the news broadcast ultimately when he fires the news station's president and hands production over to Faye Dunaway's character. Howard Beale the news anchor was just a pawn in the game for ratings.

The American media has as much credibility as the German media during World War II. Hell, Obama might as well appoint Joseph Goebbels to his cabinet. And I'm not even talking about Democrat or Republican. Anything that expands the government or the monopolies that own the government, no matter which party it comes from, is portrayed favorably in the media.

I don't think it's as large as most people think. Just like I don't think Fox News, outside several of their not news shows (the ones they call "news commentary") are as conservative as people would think.

Television is one thing, how about newspapers, magazines, and Hollywood's movies and shows? Liberals dominate the daily interaction with people, and have done a great job of branding Fox News as ridiculous. Although, Sean Hannity does a pretty damn good job at making himself look bad quite often. I simply don't think liberals watch the news enough; if they sought correct information, they wouldn't be so liberal in the first place.

The question seems to be...What exactly is the "correct information"? If you agree with it, it becomes for you the "correct information". Isn't our country based on the right to decide for yourself? Having someone else telling you what the correct information is is sort of like Joe Namath telling you what kind of panty hose to wear.(remember those commercials?) I would prefer to decide for myself based on what I thought and not on what someone who may know even less than I do about a political topic told me was "the correct information".

sjmvsfscs08 wrote: Television is one thing, how about newspapers, magazines, and Hollywood's movies and shows? Liberals dominate the daily interaction with people, and have done a great job of branding Fox News as ridiculous. Although, Sean Hannity does a pretty damn good job at making himself look bad quite often. I simply don't think liberals watch the news enough; if they sought correct information, they wouldn't be so liberal in the first place.

Lol, that might be the most ridiculous thing i've ever read on here. Or are you joking? What is "correct information?"

Multiple examples from a conservative website:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal_bias

The mainstream media has a liberal bias because most journalists are liberals:

In a 2001 Kaiser Family Foundation study of media professionals, the ratio of self-identified liberals to conservatives was 4.2 to 1.[82]
In a 2004 Pew Research Center study of journalists and media executives, the ratio of self-identified liberals to conservatives was 4.9 to 1.[83]
In a 2005 University of Connecticut study of 300 journalists, the liberal-to-conservative ratio was 2.8 to 1.[84]
In a 2005 Annenberg Public Policy Center poll of nearly 700 journalists, the liberal-to-conservative ratio was 3.4 to 1.[85]
In a 2007 Pew Research Center study of journalists and news executives, the ratio was 4 liberals for each conservative[86]

sjmvsfscs08 wrote: Television is one thing, how about newspapers, magazines, and Hollywood's movies and shows? Liberals dominate the daily interaction with people, and have done a great job of branding Fox News as ridiculous. Although, Sean Hannity does a pretty damn good job at making himself look bad quite often. I simply don't think liberals watch the news enough; if they sought correct information, they wouldn't be so liberal in the first place.

Right.........


I actually see the media is balanced right now. On the one side, you have Fox, Drudge, radio, internet magazines, and on the left you have newspapers, equal tv news, small radio, and Hollywood yes-but its influence is minor.

The internet, the advent of Fox News and continued use of radio has allowed the conservatives to come even with the all the liberal media types out there.

As someone, Believer I think, stated, Fox has allowed people a choice now, and that choice has resulted in I think equal media now.

jhay78 wrote: Multiple examples from a conservative website:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal_bias

The mainstream media has a liberal bias because most journalists are liberals:

In a 2001 Kaiser Family Foundation study of media professionals, the ratio of self-identified liberals to conservatives was 4.2 to 1.[82]
In a 2004 Pew Research Center study of journalists and media executives, the ratio of self-identified liberals to conservatives was 4.9 to 1.[83]
In a 2005 University of Connecticut study of 300 journalists, the liberal-to-conservative ratio was 2.8 to 1.[84]
In a 2005 Annenberg Public Policy Center poll of nearly 700 journalists, the liberal-to-conservative ratio was 3.4 to 1.[85]
In a 2007 Pew Research Center study of journalists and news executives, the ratio was 4 liberals for each conservative[86]

Again, why would this mean anything?

I imagine a lot of quarterbacks adhere to the ideology that their team will win if they are allowed to throw the ball all over the field like Texas Tech...but they're not the ones calling the shots...they're just executing the plays the offensive coordinator calls.

When you're just the mouthpiece it doesn't matter what your views are. It didn't matter what Howard Beale thought about the world in Network, it mattered what the higher ups in the UBS corporation thought.

If NBC is owned by General Electric, why on Earth would General Electric shamelessly promote a dirty commie pinko like Barack Obama who's going to harm them with cap and trade and a redistribution of its wealth to poor lazy baby breeding welfare queens?

analogkid wrote: I see a lot of folks on here make mention of the 'liberal media' and how it skews the public discourse. I saw some numbers the other day on how Fox News has a larger rating that its next three competitors combined and not many people would hold Fox News up as an example of liberal media (by a long shot).

http://tvbythenumbers.com/category/ratings/cable-news

It also seems that conservative media has a strong hold on the radio medium in general with the likes of Rush and Co. NPR is out there but they seem to make an attempt to include both sides of many debates or have segments that air both sides of an issue. Air America seems to be, well, rather pathetic.

It seems to me that overall the media is more balanced than ever with the right making strong gains. That is good. However it also seems like the media is becoming polarized much like our politics. That is bad in my book.
I would much prefer that more media outlets offer a more reasonably balanced a view of the world What sources of media consistently give 'both sides'?

I have a feeling you're a young person. Such a naive post.

First of all, your first assertion is a bit misleading. Fox has a big lead on its competitors in CABLE news ratings. That's a big point. Take a look at the numbers for Fox and then put it against ABC, NBC and CBS on any evening. And yes, I'm saying those three have a distinctly liberal bias.

Your second assertion is equally misleading, if not downright wrong. Talk radio is NOT journalism. It is not manned by journalists; it is manned by ENTERTAINERS.

Same goes for anyone on Fox (or MSNBC) who doesn't actually anchor a NEWS program. Those folks are not and never should be confused with someone who is supposed to be objective when reporting the news. They are commentators.

While the "right" has made some strides where actual media is concerned, it still FAR lags behind left-leaning sites. Take an honest look at who is in which column.

On the right: Fox News

On the left: ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, NPR, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, the Associated Press and Reuters.

Doesn't seem as balanced as you tried to make it appear when you take out the non-journalists.

As for the polarization...it's always been there, my friend. There was just no outlet for conservatives to reach a national audience like there is today. And that's a very good thing.

If you want a balanced view from one source, I'm afraid you're out of luck -- although Pew (I think it was) did a study and showed that of all the networks who had panel discussions, Fox was the one who provided more balance than the others -- most of which didn't even bother to include a conservative in the discussion.

My best advice: read several newspapers and/or news sources like AP or Reuters every day, including opinion pieces. Then go to the op/ed pages of the Wall Street Journal, check out Newsbusters (a media site that tracks left-wing bias; they can get a bit over the top but do a mostly good job of calling out the obvious stuff); and then do a Google search on the top conservative web sites and pick a couple.

I'm guessing you won't do that if you're like most folks, though. We tend to seek out the voices that make us most comfortable.

Manhattan Buckeye wrote: "but I always watched Peter Jennings growing up "

You probably also watched, or at least was cognizant of, Dan Rather. Would you have thought as a young person growing up that the Texas Air Guard documents were pure fabrications if you watched the CBS news? Was that just something else going on in the world? Was it Peter Jennings that pointed out these lies? Not to my recollection, it was the check on these sources.

The mainstream media is the worst check and balance system for journalism. They simply don't call one another out as you would expect (competition and all that) when given the chance.

It's a pack mentality and a herd system in place. Factor in where most of these folks come from politically (almost all of them are left-leaning) and you understand why you rarely see liberal bias get called out by other media UNTIL THERE SIMPLY IS NO OTHER CHOICE.

I figured I better put that in there, because the media did criticize Rather on his little venture...but it came much, much later when the issue was long decided in everyone's mind.

Writerbuckeye wrote: I have a feeling you're a young person. Such a naive post.

My best advice: read several newspapers and/or news sources like AP or Reuters every day, including opinion pieces. Then go to the op/ed pages of the Wall Street Journal, check out Newsbusters (a media site that tracks left-wing bias; they can get a bit over the top but do a mostly good job of calling out the obvious stuff); and then do a Google search on the top conservative web sites and pick a couple.

I'm guessing you won't do that if you're like most folks, though. We tend to seek out the voices that make us most comfortable.

Young? I don't think so but it depends on who you are comparing against. Naive? Perhaps, although I prefer to to think that I find the shrillness of the polarized situation grating and would like to find a better situation.

I agree with your comment on seeking out comfortable voices and that would be the realm of NPR for me. I wish that I had the time to read several newspapers but as of this moment I currently consume NPR while driving in the car, CNN's website during my lunch, and a few articles from the Wall Street Journal (including the comment section). At first I found the conservative nature of the comment section in the Journal striking. But I still read it as I think that it helps lend balance.

I find this whole topic interesting. I have always felt that I have consumed news with an eye towards the facts and have paid very little attention to the underlying message of the delivery. But now I am starting to look at the wording and context of that message in a different light. How has that message influenced me?

I am also beginning to look into the studies of media bias. For instance, what leads you place the news organizations that you listed on the liberal bias list. Surely they are not all biased equally but can we quantify bias? What do these studies look like and what are their strengths and shortcomings. I will likely look through the Newsbusters site to supplement this.

Thanks for your thoughtful feedback.

Look up the UCLA study from several years ago. It did a pretty good job of outlining media bias (almost exclusively left leaning) in the major media outlets.

At the same time, cull through the Columbia Journalism Review studies on students in journalism who are liberal vs. conservative. I think they've done similar looks at working journalists, professors of journalism and other groups. It's all fascinating, and all lends strong credence to what I wrote.

I've spent a career in this field and know how it works. I've seen it go from moderately liberal to unabashedly liberal in many cases. Where reporters used to go to great lengths to hide their personal beliefs, you know see stuff all the time that lets you know exactly where these journalists stand on issues.

I don't care how good you are at being a journalist -- if you have strong enough opinions that you don't mind compromising your integrity by sharing openly, then you probably have about as much dedication to making sure stories have true balance.

The greatest change I've seen in 40 plus years of working in this arena was Obama's run for the presidency. In his primary, it was ridiculously obvious that the media wanted him to win over Clinton. Even she noticed it enough to complain about it -- which only got her mocked by the same media that was scamming the system against her.

Then when he had the nomination, I saw the media basically go "all in" to get him elected. Go back and look at the studies of story balance with the two candidates, and it almost universally shows Obama got a pass while McCain was grilled in the manner a presidential candidate should be.

Well, all this may not have gotten Obama elected (the anti Bush sentiment and Wall Street meltdown probably ensured that, anyway) but it sure didn't hurt. Since then, he has gotten, without question, the most favorable coverage of any president in his first year -- ever. Even the media acknowledge this, and they don't care.

When you have so-called journalists openly saying that their job is to "help" the president to be a success, you know journalism has left the building for good.

It's all there in the places I've pointed you to. Go out and do the research and you'll see what has been said here is the truth. Yes all those outlets lean left -- some more than others. And if you polled the staffs of those same outlets, you'd find they run at least 80 percent liberal to 20 percent conservative or, more likely, independent. True conservatives simply don't work much in media, because their views aren't welcome and it's an uncomfortable environment.

You can't expect a balanced media when those doing all the work basically come from the same, liberal mindset. The one they developed and had fostered in college.

Writerbuckeye wrote: Look up the UCLA study from several years ago. It did a pretty good job of outlining media bias (almost exclusively left leaning) in the major media outlets.

At the same time, cull through the Columbia Journalism Review studies on students in journalism who are liberal vs. conservative. I think they've done similar looks at working journalists, professors of journalism and other groups. It's all fascinating, and all lends strong credence to what I wrote.

I've spent a career in this field and know how it works. I've seen it go from moderately liberal to unabashedly liberal in many cases. Where reporters used to go to great lengths to hide their personal beliefs, you know see stuff all the time that lets you know exactly where these journalists stand on issues.

I don't care how good you are at being a journalist -- if you have strong enough opinions that you don't mind compromising your integrity by sharing openly, then you probably have about as much dedication to making sure stories have true balance.

The greatest change I've seen in 40 plus years of working in this arena was Obama's run for the presidency. In his primary, it was ridiculously obvious that the media wanted him to win over Clinton. Even she noticed it enough to complain about it -- which only got her mocked by the same media that was scamming the system against her.

Then when he had the nomination, I saw the media basically go "all in" to get him elected. Go back and look at the studies of story balance with the two candidates, and it almost universally shows Obama got a pass while McCain was grilled in the manner a presidential candidate should be.

Well, all this may not have gotten Obama elected (the anti Bush sentiment and Wall Street meltdown probably ensured that, anyway) but it sure didn't hurt. Since then, he has gotten, without question, the most favorable coverage of any president in his first year -- ever. Even the media acknowledge this, and they don't care.

When you have so-called journalists openly saying that their job is to "help" the president to be a success, you know journalism has left the building for good.

It's all there in the places I've pointed you to. Go out and do the research and you'll see what has been said here is the truth. Yes all those outlets lean left -- some more than others. And if you polled the staffs of those same outlets, you'd find they run at least 80 percent liberal to 20 percent conservative or, more likely, independent. True conservatives simply don't work much in media, because their views aren't welcome and it's an uncomfortable environment.

You can't expect a balanced media when those doing all the work basically come from the same, liberal mindset. The one they developed and had fostered in college.

Well although it appears BHO has gotten a better hand than recent presidents, this source that analogkid posted earlier doesn't seem to suggest it's as bad as you claim;

http://www.cmpa.com/media_room_press_1_25_10.html

How BHO has faired
54% of stories about him in the New York Times were Positive
53% of his coverage in the News Magazines has been positive
Only 46% of his coverage on the three Networks has been positive.
(More positive than past Commander in Chiefs but doesn't seem like a "slobbering love affair")
Only 22% of his coverage on Fox has been positive



But anyways, Most of what you're saying here is that most journalists are unabashedly liberal and therefore, no matter how ethical they are, the news they report will undoubtedly be slanted through their worldview, but how much of an effect can this really have if people more powerful than you are calling the shots.

Why Would General Electric which is a major player in electricity let it's News Division at NBC Universal, which it owns, run wild with liberal propaganda supporting a president who is secretly a socialist and wants to install policies like "Cap and Tax" which will harm them?

GE using its news division to get BHO elected would be harmful to their interests.

What could Brian Williams being a liberal do to stop the interests of his employer's Parent Company to maximize its profitability?

Why would Disney want ABC news to promote a candidate who's going to support raising taxes on the people who vacation at their parks?

Writer,

While the left has all those outlets, I think the ratings of Fox News and talk radio balances the two sides out. The NYT, Wapo, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN reach as many people as Fox and talk radio. That to me brings some sort of balance.

BoatShoes wrote:

Writerbuckeye wrote: Look up the UCLA study from several years ago. It did a pretty good job of outlining media bias (almost exclusively left leaning) in the major media outlets.

At the same time, cull through the Columbia Journalism Review studies on students in journalism who are liberal vs. conservative. I think they've done similar looks at working journalists, professors of journalism and other groups. It's all fascinating, and all lends strong credence to what I wrote.

I've spent a career in this field and know how it works. I've seen it go from moderately liberal to unabashedly liberal in many cases. Where reporters used to go to great lengths to hide their personal beliefs, you know see stuff all the time that lets you know exactly where these journalists stand on issues.

I don't care how good you are at being a journalist -- if you have strong enough opinions that you don't mind compromising your integrity by sharing openly, then you probably have about as much dedication to making sure stories have true balance.

The greatest change I've seen in 40 plus years of working in this arena was Obama's run for the presidency. In his primary, it was ridiculously obvious that the media wanted him to win over Clinton. Even she noticed it enough to complain about it -- which only got her mocked by the same media that was scamming the system against her.

Then when he had the nomination, I saw the media basically go "all in" to get him elected. Go back and look at the studies of story balance with the two candidates, and it almost universally shows Obama got a pass while McCain was grilled in the manner a presidential candidate should be.

Well, all this may not have gotten Obama elected (the anti Bush sentiment and Wall Street meltdown probably ensured that, anyway) but it sure didn't hurt. Since then, he has gotten, without question, the most favorable coverage of any president in his first year -- ever. Even the media acknowledge this, and they don't care.

When you have so-called journalists openly saying that their job is to "help" the president to be a success, you know journalism has left the building for good.

It's all there in the places I've pointed you to. Go out and do the research and you'll see what has been said here is the truth. Yes all those outlets lean left -- some more than others. And if you polled the staffs of those same outlets, you'd find they run at least 80 percent liberal to 20 percent conservative or, more likely, independent. True conservatives simply don't work much in media, because their views aren't welcome and it's an uncomfortable environment.

You can't expect a balanced media when those doing all the work basically come from the same, liberal mindset. The one they developed and had fostered in college.

Well although it appears BHO has gotten a better hand than recent presidents, this source that analogkid posted earlier doesn't seem to suggest it's as bad as you claim;

http://www.cmpa.com/media_room_press_1_25_10.html

How BHO has faired
54% of stories about him in the New York Times were Positive
53% of his coverage in the News Magazines has been positive
Only 46% of his coverage on the three Networks has been positive.
(More positive than past Commander in Chiefs but doesn't seem like a "slobbering love affair")
Only 22% of his coverage on Fox has been positive



But anyways, Most of what you're saying here is that most journalists are unabashedly liberal and therefore, no matter how ethical they are, the news they report will undoubtedly be slanted through their worldview, but how much of an effect can this really have if people more powerful than you are calling the shots.

Why Would General Electric which is a major player in electricity let it's News Division at NBC Universal, which it owns, run wild with liberal propaganda supporting a president who is secretly a socialist and wants to install policies like "Cap and Tax" which will harm them?

GE using its news division to get BHO elected would be harmful to their interests.

What could Brian Williams being a liberal do to stop the interests of his employer's Parent Company to maximize its profitability?

Why would Disney want ABC news to promote a candidate who's going to support raising taxes on the people who vacation at their parks?

You need to do your research my friend. GE is HEAVILY invested at the corporate level in green technologies. If cap & trade goes through, it will be one of the corporate giants that rakes in monstrous profits.

Didn't you think it odd that of all the networks, NBC got the most exclusive (and first) in-depth and inside the white House series of interviews? It was ridiculously obvious what was going on.

As for The Mouse and CBS, most networks are pretty autonomous when it comes to news operations and corporate owners tend to leave them alone UNLESS the bottom line gets skewed. Then it becomes a matter of trimming rather than toning. Unless something really egregious happens (see the Dan Rather fiasco, which CBS was very slow to respond to) then the bigwigs will step in for fear the overall brand will be hurt.

The most powerful people in TV newsrooms are the story editors, not the anchors. These are the folks who put together what we see each night and in what order; and most importantly -- how the story is framed (which tells you where the real bias is coming from).