This is a long one. Some of you will no doubt be bored stiff by all this, and it's also an unabashed thread hijack, but the length was necessary in order to refute Hameru's points adequately. For those interested in this sort of thing - read on. For those not - sorry.
Hameru wrote: Conservative bias in the media
What the conservatives have to say
William Kristol and Pat Buchanon have both admited that liberal bias is either not strong, or is non existant altogether.
Appeal to authority. Don’t make your mind up based on what media figures tell you, Look at the arguments they advance to support their assertions, and look at the news coverage and judge for yourself. In any case Buchanan and Kristol
are not reporters. Their experiences in the media do not necessarily reflect the treatment of stories delivered as news features, as opposed to commentary.
Hameru wrote: Even openly liberal media isn't so liberal
Eric Alterman on the presence of conservatives in liberal establishments:
Unlike most of the publications named above, liberals, for some reason, feel compelled to include the views of the other guy on a regular basis in just the fashion that conservatives abhor…
Move over to the mainstream publications and broadcasts often labeled "liberal," and you see how ridiculous the notion of liberal dominance becomes. The liberal New York Times Op-Ed page features the work of…
Red Herring. Notice all these conservative voices which the media gives voice to are conservative commentators,
not reporters. These are not in the business of reporting the news objectively; they are arguing a side of the issue, and the papers feature columnists such as Molly Ivins, Bob Herbert, Tom Teepen, and others who argue the other side. There is a reason that all these people’s work goes into the opinion page of your paper, not the straight news. Look at the slant on the news stories, not the editorial pieces.
Hameru wrote: Personal bias of journalists
The claim that the U.S. has a "liberal media" began with a book called The Media Elite, by S. Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman and Linda Lichter. Their 1980 survey of journalists revealed that journalists were indeed much more liberal than the rest of America, a point which no one disputed. However, the authors then went on to make a second claim: that these liberal journalists inserted their own personal bias into the news. This second claim has not withstood academic scrutiny. (Click on the following link to see why.)
However, that debate is archaic today, because new studies show that today's journalists are more centrist than anything else. However, those who are not centrists identify themselves more frequently as conservatives on economic issues, and more frequently as liberals on social issues…
I disagree with that assertion. The leftward bias in the news media is blatant. Here is an example of what I mean:
The whole issue that prompted Bernard Goldberg to write an OpEd piece for The Wall Street Journal, and ultimately, his book about media bias, was a segment on The CBS Evening News. Not some Podunk local station or even a network political talk show, but the CBS Evening News; one of the big three networks. It doesn’t get any more mainstream than this. The piece aired on February 8th 1996, and was introduced by Dan Rather, Mr. Mainstream Media himself, and was done by CBS news correspondent Eric Engberg. It was about Steve Forbes, who was a candidate for president at the time, and his proposal for a flat tax to replace the current, complicated tax code. Enberg, in referring to Forbes’ proposal, called it a “scheme”, which is a word with pejorative connotations. He also referred to it as Forbes’ “economic elixir, good for everything that ails us”. Such language conjures images of shady snake oil salesmen selling patent medicine out of carnival wagons. That doesn’t sound like all that much so far, but Engberg interviewed three tax experts, all of whom opposed it. No fairness and balance there. It was not as if there were no prominent economists who might favor the idea, and could be interviewed to give the other side’s perspective. Milton Friedman and Merton Miller are both Nobel Laureates, and both work for the University of Chicago. Both favor the flat tax. Economists don’t get much more prominent or respected than these two. Another Nobel Laureate economist, James Buchanan of George Mason University favors the flat tax, as do Harvey Rosen of Princeton, Wm. Poole of Brown, and Robert Barro of Harvard. Somehow though, Eric Engberg failed to find any economists for his story who might support the flat tax.
The worst was saved for the end of the piece, however. When Engberg ended the segment, he decided to play David Letterman and do a “top ten” list on the flat tax. He ended the story by saying: “Forbes’s Number One Wackiest Flat-Tax Promise”, was the candidate’s belief that it would give parents “more time to spend with their children and each other”.
Wackiest?
Wackiest?!?
Now what the hell kind of word is that to be using in a mainstream, nightly news broadcast on a major network? This was not an opinion piece. It was reported as straight news. You know, the kind that’s supposed to be fair and balanced. Goldberg asks, can you imagine, in your wildest dreams, a liberal issue, such as, for example, Hillary Clinton’s health care plan, being described as “wacky” in the mainstream media. Of course not. That sort of thing doesn’t happen. But a conservative idea can be referred to with the most contemptuous dismissal, and still be aired on a network’s prime time news broadcast.
This is but one example. The book is full of others.
Hameru wrote: What caused journalists to shift over the last 15 years from liberal attitudes to centrist ones, even conservative ones on economic issues?
One answer, of course, is that the media's parent corporations began hiring less liberal journalists. But another answer has to be the exploding salaries of celebrity journalists. It is a common observation in political science that receiving a higher income tends to make a person more economically conservative.
It usually does, but by no means always. And on social issues, these high paid journalists advocate the liberal side of the issues almost unanimously.
Hameru wrote: The ironic thing is that Cokie Roberts is a Democrat, as are many of her colleagues. Again, this underscores the fact that inside the Beltway, a "liberal" is often no more than a moderate conservative.
Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi and company, cannot be called conservative by ANY stretch of the imagination. How do you stretch the word conservative to fit journalists who support and vote with these folks on just about every issue?
You see, this is the problem with the bias in the media. The ones who are guilty of it do not see it as biased. These people do not lock themselves in smoke-filled (or given the political incorrectness of tobacco these days, maybe that should be smoke free) rooms, pull out a crumpled up copy of The Liberal Agenda, and furtively conspire how to slant the news. They see themselves as middle of the road. Centrist. They think their views are just reasonable, that’s all. So it follows that intelligent, reasonable people must agree with them, obviously. They think a certain way on the issues, and almost everyone they associate with professionally and socially thinks this way. They are, in a sense, ivory tower intellectuals, and for the most part honestly don’t comprehend that their views are out of step with the average American’s.
In Bernard Goldberg’s book, he relates how he once asked Dan Rather, who has, in addition to his network anchorman job, written numerous OpEd pieces for the NY Times editorial page, just where he thought the NY Times editorial page was politically, Rather replied “middle of the road” with a perfectly straight face. He was sincere. He views a paper which consistently and constantly advocates the liberal side of every major issue, from abortion to gun control to welfare reform to tax cuts to education, you name it, as “middle of the road”. A paper which has not endorsed a Republican candidate for president since Dwight D. Eisenhower, fully half a century ago, is viewed by him as “middle of the road”.
Well, I’ve got news for you, when you invariably come down on one side of every issue, and when your staff and almost all their peers in their profession vote for one political party as a bloc, and when every survey shows you are out of step with the majority of the voters and the news reading public, YOU'RE NOT MIDDLE OF THE ROAD!
Hameru wrote:Conservative pundits dominate the media
Conservative pundits: Pat Buchanan, Fred Barnes, John McLaughlin, David Gergen, Robert Novak, William F. Buckley, Jr., George Will, William Safire, Cal Thomas, Jonathon Alter, Joe Klein, Robert J. Samuelson, James Kilpatrick, Rush Limbaugh, and hundreds of other conservative radio talk-show hosts.
Red herring. Once again, these are commentators,
not reporters. Their work appears on the editorial pages, not in the main news section of the paper. These people are called to
comment upon the news, not report it. They appear as guests on news programs, they don’t anchor them, and they don’t report from the field. Whatever these people may or may not think on issues is simply not indicative of how actual reporters report the news.
Hameru wrote:Rightwing think tank citations outnumber progressive/liberal citations
Another red herring. These are think tanks,
not news organizations. They are sometimes used as sources of information by the mainstream media; they are not the mainstream media. The Hoover Institution does not broadcast the nightly news report. The paper that lands on your doorstep every morning is not printed by the RAND Corporation.
Hameru wrote:The Clinton Factor
It cannot be seriously disputed that Clinton was assaulted by the media during his terms in office. The accusation of a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy was factual, as evidenced by the seemingly coordinated attacks on him by conservative individuals.
Vast Right Wing Conspiracy my ass. I grant you there were conservatives who really wanted him out of power, and tried their damnedest to bring it about. That does not make a “vast” conspiracy. No reporter ever went after Clinton and dug into his background with the kind of tenacity that Woodward and Bernstein, and Dan Rather also, went after Richard Nixon. This despite Whitewater; Monica Lewinsky and Paula Jones, and an actual, admitted instance of perjury (a felony!);Travelgate; Pardongate; the highly suspicious death of Vince Foster, and a whole host of other abuses and ethical lapses that would literally double the size of this post.
Hameru wrote:The Myth of the "liberal" media
Let's do a "what if" so I can make a point. I think it's a good one.
I think it's so good, I'd like to hear from anyone who disagrees.
What if a show like Dateline did a "hatchet job" on George W. Bush?
It wouldn't have to really be a hatchet job, but any honest appraisal of that idiot's
qualifications would prove he's a non-thinking rich man's boy - and that's all.
But what would happen if Dateline did an unflattering portrait of Bush?
I'll tell you what would happen:...
(edited for space – Perinquus)
OK, we're going to call the above "Exhibit A."
First time I’ve seen sheer speculation presented as though it were sold, courtroom-type evidence (exhibit A?). I also note that a preponderance of the names on that list belong to pundits and commentators, not news correspondents. You’ve even got talk radio hosts. Nobody, but
nobody considers talk radio to be a part of the mainstream media, how does their bias prove the media is biased also. And Ollie North?!? WTF?!? Who would use Ollie North as an example that the
mainstream media has a conservative bias? Since when did Oliver North get anywhere within shouting distance of being a mainstream media figure?
Hameru wrote:Now, everyone on that list has done at least a dozen hit pieces on Clinton.
My question is, Where is "Exhibit B?"
When those 38 people attack Clinton and his cock, who does the rebuttal?
Even you ditto-sheep have to admit that nobody on that list
has EVER defended a fabricated lie against the president.
There is no "Exhibit B," because there are so few liberal voices on television.
The closest you can get is Eleanor on McLaughlin or Geraldo, but there is barely
a liberal whisper on television, even though there are DOZENS of right-wing,
Smirk-apologist shows whose livelyhood is lying about liberals.
The reason liberal talk shows do not do well, either on TV or on radio, is always attributed by liberals to some conservative conspiracy, when the simple fact is they simple die of poor ratings. They don’t draw the audience. I’m afraid it’s as simple as that. Look at Donahue foundering in the ratings. There’s no conspiracy to drive him off the air;
there’s just nobody watching his show! Look at radio. Mario Cuomo had a talk radio show after he ceased to be governor of New York. He was cried up far and wide as the liberals’ answer to Rush Limbaugh. He was (and is) intelligent, articulate, well-informed, and in all respects seemed the ideal man for the job. When he tried to take his radio show to the national level, he bombed in the ratings.
Liberals don’t compete well in the free marketplace of ideas, because their values do not reflect those of average Americans. They dominate the mainstream media where most reporters are liberal, editors are liberal, and they control what goes on the air. But when it comes time to interact with the audience and the show is not scripted, they just don’t attract the viewers or listeners.
Hameru wrote:The Fairness Doctrine
The Fairness Doctrine was struck down during the Reagan years, allowing rightwing corporations to buy up the media. Amazingly, conservatives denounce the doctrine. The very fact that they do this gives credence to the idea that the media is conservative.
The Fairness Doctrine
The United States once had a law which attempted to balance viewpoints in radio and television: the Fairness Doctrine….
This speaks volumes about the true bias of the media. It also shows conservative media criticism to be highly incoherent. If the media were truly as liberal as they claim, they would jump at the chance to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, for it would give them a voice they didn't have before. The fact that they oppose it so vigorously proves that they know when they have a good thing, and don't want to give it up.
You’re kind of leaving out that it was a Supreme Court decision that had a lot to do with the end of the Fairness Doctrine. In 1984, the SC concluded that the doctrine "inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate". In 1984, the Court concluded that the scarcity rationale underlying the doctrine was flawed and that the doctrine was limiting the breadth of public debate (FCC v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364).
Also, liberals appear to support its absence as fully as conservatives. Mario Cuomo, liberal Democrat, said: “Precisely because radio and TV have become our principal sources of news and information, we should accord broadcasters the utmost freedom in order to insure a truly free press.”
Also, the Fairness Doctrine was intended to apply to editorials where two sides may be easily differentiated – you can have guest A, the prominent conservative versus guest B the prominent liberal. In cases like the Eric Engberg piece I mentioned, which is reported as straight news, and ostensibly takes no side (but it really does, it’s just more subtle, using loaded terminology and condescending tone) it’s harder to enforce.
). Everyone who I know who have been there say that the people are friendly and suchlike. I don't agree with quite a few of the US administrations actions and the US, as a whole, can sometimes come off as arrogant (much like the French 
).
