Skip to comments.How Biased Are the Media, Really? (Not much says WaPo; Free Republic mentioned)
Posted on 04/28/2012 6:13:59 AM PDT by kristinn
Charges of media bias have been flying like a bloody banner on the campaign trail. Newt Gingrich excoriated the elite media in a richly applauded moment during one of the Republican debates. Rick Santorum chewed out a New York Times reporter. Mitt Romney said this month that he faces an uphill battle against the press in the general election.
Meanwhile, just about every new poll of public sentiment shows that confidence in the news media has hit a new low. Seventy-seven percent of those surveyed by the Pew Research Center in the fall said the media tend to favor one side compared with 53 percent who said so in 1985.
But have the media really become more biased? Or is this a case of perception trumping reality?
In fact, theres little to suggest that over the past few decades news reporting has become more favorable to one party. Thats not to say researchers havent found bias in reporting. They have, but they dont agree that one side is consistently favored or that this favoritism has been growing like a pernicious weed.
So why the rise in the publics perception of media bias? A few possibilities:
l T he media landscape has changed.
Theres more media and more overtly partisan media outlets, too. The Internet has given rise to champions of the left Huffington Post, Daily Kos, etc. as well as more conservative organizations such as Drudge and Free Republic. This means your chance of running into news that seems biased has increased exponentially, elevating the impression that bias is pervasive throughout all parts of the media.
Theres a kind of self-fulfilling perception to it, said Robert Lichter, a pioneering media-bias researcher who heads the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
SF authors John Ringo and Tom Krattman at one point made note that, at the higher levels, the Left is not a conspiracy, it is a consensus.
A consensus that includes the elite of the RNC.
Really dark things were done with nary a murmur from the press. For example, J. Edgar Hoover hounded ace FBI agent Melvin Purvis out of the agency and then, afterward, continued to bug him and harass him until he committed suicide. That was the blackest thing Hoover ever did, and it was truly worthy of a jury. But the press never touched it.
Lyndon Johnson used Hoover to bug Barry Goldwater, including, it was said, Goldwater's campaign plane. The "take" was turned promptly to Johnson's "Five O'Clock Group" (his dirty-tricks team) who exploited the FBI's information. We heard about this after the election, but it never generated the indignation, much less the firestorm, that was ginned up for the hated Richard Nixon during Watergate. Incidentally, Nixon's intention in having the DNC offices wiretapped were comparatively modest: He wanted urgently to know of any indication that Sen. Edward Kennedy would enter the 1972 presidential race.
Ah, yes -- that's who I was trying to think of. Really sleazy little polemicist in journalist's clothing.
Time the award with the Pulitzer. For that matter all to often the award will go to the same person. When was the last time a Pulitzer was awarded to someone who did not advance the far left’s agenda?
There are many times where I’ve said that the true purpose of the Republican Party was to maintain a pretense that there was any actual opposition to the socialist agenda.
Nixon was barely a Republican, was pretty Democrat acting, yet the news media absolutely despised him. That cryptic property of the leftist media doesn't bode well at all for Mittens.
Can’t agree more with your post but my point was they aren’t trying to be biased on purpose it is they simply are not biased because to be biased you actually have to choose a liberal positon over a conservative one with full knowlegde
These people do not think outside of their bubble that any concepts are superior to theirs so they reject them out right....that’s not biased, that arrogance
I just watched a C-Span show this morning from the American Historical Association annual convention which had a panel discussing the nexus between journalism and history.
Not surprisingly, the entire panel was made up of professors who self-described themselves as “left, progressive, or socialist” and who criticized O’reilly’s book on Lincoln as ridicluous, Beck ridiculous, Gingrich ridiculous and FOX News as ridiculously biased. Apparently there are no voices on the conservative side which are worthy of consideration by the public, although past history shows that these views can mislead the public into error.
On the other hand, they agreed that journalism should serve to create a “moral, poetic and decent narrative” of history and events. In other words, current events and historical perspective must be creatively in the service of ... wait for it ...progressive ideas.
So, according to this theory, the ‘creative’ editing of the 991 Treyvon Martin tape is OK because it was an attempt to create a moral poetic and and decent narrative.
What we have here is a complete universe of closed minds. In the famous story about Pauline Kael of the NYT. “I don’t know how Nixon won. No one I know voted for him.”
“In fact, theres little to suggest that over the past few decades news reporting has become more favorable to one party.”
That’s because we have had persistent liberal media bias for decades.
Dan Rather and his crowd were biased against Republicans in the 1970s and 1980s. Nothing new.
“For the past few decades, the media has been in the tank for the Dems. We on the right just have the means to make that clear now.”
Yup. new media outlets (like Rush) and the internet has exposed their bias.
>>>In fact, theres little to suggest that over the past few decades news reporting has become more favorable to one party.<<<
Ah, yes, but lets take this little sentence apart word for word.
In fact, the writer is correct. Several decades ago the media was already solidly leftwing and favored politicians with that ideology. So the reporting has not become “more favorable” than it already was back in the day.
The writer is simply telling us that the media has been biased for a very long time, and it hasn’t changed.
And... I worked in the media for 20 years in little newspapers up and down the West Coast. The bias was extraordinary and expressed in so many ways that it would take a book to describe. Let’s just say that the ideological preferences of most reporters and editors is understated.
God help us.
The percentage of biased articles may not have changed much, but the level or degree of bias has, to the point where it's assumed that no one could seriously take the other side on the issues the paper cares about. A generation ago, it was assumed that argument was still necessary. Today they simply dismiss opposing viewpoints as ridiculous.
ABSOLUTE GARBAGE! From creating their own facts to leaving facts out, slanting articles and quoting unnamed sources the media from top to bottom is a despicable representation of factual information. With very few exceptions, there is no lower echelon of career opportunity than becoming part of this biased and purposeful herd that thinks America needs to be punished for holding to the values that allows for them to practice their cesspool trade.
". . . some key [events] exacerbated the national debate, fraying trust, and national cohesion just a little more each time . . . The two-party system that had governed America . . . begin to fall apart . . . interest in politics took the place of all other forms of news-related entertainment . . . politicians were the celebrities . . . [Politics/ideology] was becoming such a habit, the reactions so automatic, that [journalists] taking sides on every news story became inevitable." .. sound familiar? this is from for Love & Liberty by Robin Young and it's about 1857 America at the start of the administration of James Buchanan.
This term Obama wanted us to believe that he was a Lincoln and a Teddy Roosevelt (with a taunting of Reagan to rock and roil the Ship of State).. if the second term proves he's a Buchanan and the professionals (military and LEO) do not act Lord help us.
You forgot to add"...when Disco reigned supreme...".
Thank you Rush Limbaugh.
We are not worthy, we are not worthy, we are not worthy
To put a finer point on it DSD, Newsweek published the story on their website but shortly "spiked" it, but not before Drudge put the story on his website. It was because of this that many FReepers found FReerepublic via the link at Drudge, thank you very much.
How hard-working is the MSM? So hard-working that the FOLLOWING people have proven able to break MAJOR political scandals:
1. A former gift-shop clerk - Drudge
2. A former LA party boy - Breitbart
3. A freeper in his pajamas - Dan Rather TypewriterGate
4. A college guy who said Lucky Charms demeaned Irish - O’Keefe
5. A girl with a hot caboose and a mini skirt - O’Keefe’s girl buddy
THE ABOVE PEOPLE ARE DOING THE JOBS OF COLUMBIA J-SCHOOL GRADS
Yes it’s true that the Left no longer has a monopoly on media as they once did. But the network news still reach millions every night. And the NY Times and the AP still set a tone for print coverage. This all matters. If the roles were reversed and we had an incumbent Republican president right now, and everything else was the same, then he’d be polling much worse than Obama. This weak recovery would be treated as if we were still in a recession by the media.
And of course we also have pop culture bias. Again I can’t help but think that Obama wouldn’t have such a huge edge with younger Americans if not for the entertainment industry’s worship of him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.