Posted on 09/17/2002 3:56:39 AM PDT by kattracks
(CNSNews.com) - In a new book that will be released later this month, a Dartmouth College professor claims the news media ignore far-left, moderate and conservative viewpoints in favor of a "narrow brand of liberal bias."
Author Jim A. Kuypers, a senior lecturer at the Ivy League college, said he had no political agenda when conducting his research of nearly 700 newspaper articles from 116 publications. He called the results of his study surprising and warned of the consequences on American society.
"I didn't set out to look for a particular type of bias and I took steps to ensure I didn't impose my preconceptions," Kuypers said. "What I found was a narrow brand of liberal bias with the mainstream media."
The book, "Press Bias and Politics: How the Media Frame Controversial Issues," is a compilation of Kuypers' research on six prominent speeches between 1995 and 2000. He first obtained copies of the speeches and then compared their objectives with their coverage in the news media.
"I did not honestly believe the level of bias and misrepresentation would be as deep and terrible as it was," he said.
Kuypers analyzed two speeches by then-President Clinton on race and human rights, comments U.S. Sen. Trent Lott made on homosexuality, remarks by Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan at the Million Man March, a speech condemning homosexuality by former football star Reggie White and an Alabama state senator's remarks on the Confederate flag.
As part of his findings, Kuypers said liberal opinions from editorials and news analyses often found their way into straightforward news reports. He speculated that the culture of news organizations was partly to blame.
The head of a media watchdog group, Accuracy in Media, agreed with Kuypers' findings.
"I've seen no difference and no great change in the last decade or last two decades," chairman Reed Irvine said. "The journalists -- the people who are editing and writing for papers -- are still overwhelmingly liberal."
Irvine has been studying the news media since the 1970s. He said the press continues to display liberal characteristics just as it did 30 years ago.
In fact, he said that bias is probably more expansive today, citing the rise in coverage of race and homosexuality -- the two issues that were the primary focus of Kuypers' study.
But Steve Rendall, a senior analyst for Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting, another media watchdog group, said the press has done a poor job covering many social issues, including race and homosexuality.
Rendall cited a study conducted by his organization that showed reporters in the nation's capital lean to the right when covering many issues.
"When it comes to foreign policy and the economy, the U.S. media have a long way to go before they reach a standard of fairness and accuracy," he said. "On issues such as race and homosexuality, there may have been some progress in recent years, but we would say they have a long way to go on those issues as well."
Mainstream journalists routinely ignore or do a mediocre job covering issues such as consumer rights, environmental matters and topics related to the poor and minorities, Rendall said.
"The right-wing and conservative movements are well represented and the center is well represented," he said. "What's not well represented are progressive movements."
Kuypers said he anticipates criticism, but defended his methods. He said they are clearly outlined in the book and allow readers to conduct their own analysis if they wish.
"I just don't give examples of what I think is bias," he said. "I outlined how I was going to look for bias in such a way that others can do this as well."
The only thing readers might disagree with is his conclusion, Kuypers said. He ends the book by issuing a warning that biased reporting could endanger democracy by presenting only a narrow viewpoint.
"I'm scared for the state of democracy in this country in terms of how the press interacts," Kuypers said. "They are, in my opinion, an anti-democratic institution because they stifle alternative voices and paint an incredibly inaccurate picture of issues and ideas."
E-mail a news tip to Robert B. Bluey.
Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.
Great Debate#9
... opinions skew their professional writing. Nuzzo pointed out that a 1995 Freedom
Forum survey showed 89 percent of the media voted for Bill Clinton while the ...
Break up Microsoft?...Then how about the media "Big Six"? [ ...
... Why? They're usually wrong. 92% voted for Clinton. Libertarians, by contrast,
much enjoy being Right. You may (continue to?) derive your understanding of ...
But Steve Rendall, a senior analyst for Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting, another media watchdog group, said the press has done a poor job covering many social issues, including race and homosexuality.
Rendall cited a study conducted by his organization that showed reporters in the nation's capital lean to the right when covering many issues.
When you are standing on the left field foul line, everybody looks like they are playing in right field.
Excellent point - that coupled with the sorry state of American public education - can only spell trouble ahead!
Ed Asner's tribe.
I don't buy it. The Media definately doesn't ignore far left and moderate viewpoints. The Media only ignores conservative viewpoints. That much is evidenced by the issues that the Media pushes on an on-going basis. Issues like Gay Rights, Gun Control, and Radical Environmentalism that are the hallmark of the far left!
Just to be clear, this organization, Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting, which is stated here to be a media watchdog group, features books by Noam Chomsky on its website.
Go to their website to see how fair and accurate they are.
Also note how old their articles are. It appears to be a website and not much more. How nice of the author of this piece to have gotten a couple quotes from them, just to be fair...
"I'm scared for the state of democracy in this country in terms of how the press interacts," Kuypers said. "They are, in my opinion, an anti-democratic institution because they stifle alternative voices and paint an incredibly inaccurate picture of issues and ideas."
The First Amendment provides that the newspapers and magazines and books are not to be jusdged on "fairness and accuracy" by the government but by we-the-people individually. And considering that the editorial page as a repository of explicit opinion did not even exist when the First Amendment was ratified, it would be ridulous to argue that putting opinion on the front page is some kind of infraction of the Constitution.The Constitutional problem of journalism lies strictly, IMHO, in government-licensed--in clear evasion of the First Amendment--Broadcast Journalism. By licensing communication in the airwaves, the government takes on the role of censor of those it does not license to broadcast. It is that which makes some citizens more equal than others in political speech.
The Internet is the poor man's soap box, with global reach. The newspapers, granted, have great influence and are politically homogeneous--but that is not de jure but de facto. Outlaw broadcasting of politics, root and branch (political ads, who would actually miss them? Broadcast journalism as well. That would hit talk radio as well but then--what is talk radio but "equal time" vs broadcast journalism?).
They have the newspapers, and we have the internet. Let the Internet and the newspapers duke it out. That's the only principled approach.
The book, "Press Bias and Politics: How the Media Frame Controversial Issues," is a compilation of Kuypers' research on six prominent speeches between 1995 and 2000. He first obtained copies of the speeches and then compared their objectives with their coverage in the news media.
"I did not honestly believe the level of bias and misrepresentation would be as deep and terrible as it was," he said.
Anyone who actually approaches the subject with an open mind will come to the conclusion above. This explains why the Internet belongs to conservatives and Libertarians.You can make a liberal web site, and you can put on a liberal talk show host--but in either formant the arrogance of socialism gets exposed to too many penetrating questions, so you can't draw an audience with either.
What's Singapore Yank's new handle?
Were the references, perhaps, to "left wing freedom fighters" in Saddam Hussein's Iraq?
It's easy to spot, even when it's a conservative. Trouble is, it's almost never a conservative bias. But with the best reporters, you can't ever tell.
Whomever could they have been referring to?
Would make for an entertaining parlor game. Who might the mainstream media label "left wing"? And why...?
Author Jim A. Kuypers, a senior lecturer at the Ivy League college, . . .
This guy better join Pariahs 'R' Us. He's definitely slipped off the tenure track, and he'll henceforth be treated with the same deference that NOW shows to Phyllis Schlafly.
I'm surprised he gave the FAIRies a voice in his study. Any media outlet that's not to the left of Mao is NOT properly covering the news in their simple minds. As someone mentioned earlier, they are waaaaay out in left field. The simpleton he quoted from FAIR offered NO support for his lame proffer of "conservative" bias. Try as they will, we all know they has very little to work with.
I am honor bound to agree with his assessment of the dangers of a group of Utopian social engineers in the mainstream media. Their reach and influence cannot be understated. Something like 50 Million+ Americans get their "news" from the three major networks on a more or less regular basis. The same place that sponsors will spend million$ for 30 second and 1 minute spots. To me, THAT speaks volumes about the influence of especially network teevee. Viewers are subjected to hours of progressive drivel that can't help but seep into the psyche, and produce a skewed understanding, er, misunderstanding of the world. Bottom line of course is, enough of these people vote WITHOUT benefit of accurate information, that our elections are also skewed.
Well, done preaching to the choir ; )
BTW, didn't I hear where Jeff Cohen left FAIRy and moved to MSNBC? Another RAT infesting the nest over there is NOT a good indicator of their "unbiased" approach.
FGS
I'm surprised he gave the FAIRies a voice in his study. Any media outlet that's not to the left of Mao is NOT properly covering the news in their simple minds. As someone mentioned earlier, they are waaaaay out in left field. The simpleton he quoted from FAIR offered NO support for his lame proffer of "conservative" bias. Try as they will, we all know they has very little to work with.
I am honor bound to agree with his assessment of the dangers of a group of Utopian social engineers in the mainstream media. Their reach and influence cannot be understated. Something like 50 Million+ Americans get their "news" from the three major networks on a more or less regular basis. The same place that sponsors will spend million$ for 30 second and 1 minute spots. To me, THAT speaks volumes about the influence of especially network teevee. Viewers are subjected to hours of progressive drivel that can't help but seep into the psyche, and produce a skewed understanding, er, misunderstanding of the world. Bottom line of course is, enough of these people vote WITHOUT benefit of accurate information, that our elections are also skewed.
Well, done preaching to the choir ; )
BTW, didn't I hear where Jeff Cohen left FAIRy and moved to MSNBC? Another RAT infesting the nest over there is NOT a good indicator of their "unbiased" approach.
FGS
FGS
I, for one, refuse to swaller this until corroborative studies have been made.
I CANNOT bring myself to believe that OUR MEDIA holds ANY kind of bias, especially a liberal leftist one.
[dwoibeedwoibeedwoibeedwoibeedwoibee]
(That's me dwoibing my finger across my lips.)
Now it really IS time for a shot or three...
Some people do. EVERY study, essay, or research piece that adds documentation to what WE already know adds another nail in the coffin of the media dim bulbs. So, what are you doing to inform the great unwashed of the media's bias?
I sure hope he didn't get any federal grants to complete this study.
I hope he did. This message needs the widest possible dissemination regardless of how it's funded. How much is the truth worth?
FGS
FGS
Hey, ya'll check this out !! Perfect for campaign speeches......
"In a new book that will be released later this month, a Dartmouth College professor claims the news media ignore far-left, moderate and conservative viewpoints in favor of a 'narrow brand of liberal bias."
Where to start?
The first sentence of the first paragraph tells everyone *why* this was published, to begin with.
Be that as it may, & curiously enough, the last sentence of the first paragraph also tells (the discriminating reader) why they should go no further with this bilge.
Why am I so *hard* on the good professor?
I take great exception to the man's findings that the Lamestream favors a, "narrow brand of liberal bias" for starters.
*Narrow* he says??
HA!!
Perhaps the view is the result of the good professor wearing some narrow, rose-colored glasses while conducting the "research" producing this absurd conclusion.
Always remember what the Loveable Fuzzball has said about the Lamestream media, today:
"Miss catching ABC Tonight? Turn to NBC. Miss NBC's news, Turn to CBS. Miss CBS' broadcast, turn to CNN..."
~& I *do* believe Maja Rushie has applied this little axiom to the print media, too??
That my dear frind, is NOT a "narrow *brand* of Liberal bias."
That, "IS" a Liberal-Socialist domination.
"Author Jim A. Kuypers, a senior lecturer at the Ivy League college, said he had no political agenda when conducting his research of nearly 700 newspaper articles from 116 publications."
Baloney.
Could say, "Beware of Greeks bearing gifts," "Fool me once your fault, fool me twice YOUR fault" but, you get the idea.
This guy has an *agenda* like anyone else; and, in this case?
It'd be SELLING HIS LOUSY BOOK to people like you & I on the right.
"He called the results of his study surprising and warned of the consequences on American society."
Do ya think; huh, do ya, *professor*?
"'I didn't set out to look for a particular type of bias and I took steps to ensure I didn't impose my preconceptions,' Kuypers said. 'What I found was a narrow brand of liberal bias with the mainstream media.'"
"Professors" say a lot of things; in fact, *professors* are paid rather well for doing little more than blabbering ad nauseum; REGARDLESS, the facts [read: RESULTANT OUTCOME(s)] that're right in front of their (usually long) noses.
"The book, 'Press Bias and Politics: How the Media Frame Controversial Issues,'"...
Is rediculous, redundent & gawdawful simplistic in that he's telling us what we already know; &, then imagines we'd now pay for to hear this from him?
This guy's been talking (waaayyy too much) to his buddies in the Dartmouth's School of Business & Marketing, it's plain to see.
They've apparently told the *good* professor he could generate *himself* some coin with this bullcocka to augment whateverinthehell they're paying him now (to "teach") by "playing to the right."
"'I did not honestly believe the level of bias and misrepresentation would be as deep and terrible as it was,' he said.
>doink!<
Welcome to the future, *Professor*.
"Kuypers analyzed two speeches by then-President Clinton on race and human rights, comments U.S. Sen. Trent Lott made on homosexuality, remarks by Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan at the Million Man March, a speech condemning homosexuality by former football star Reggie White and an Alabama state senator's remarks on the Confederate flag."
Let's review a condensed version of *how* our Liberal-Socialist quisling media friends approached these speeches, OK?
I'll simply use the topic of the speech next to the person's name & ideological affiliation giving the speech, to deduce the real *message*, OK?
William Jefferson Blythe Clinton -- Liberal 'Rat -- Race & Human Rights -- *Good*
US Sen Trent Lott -- 'Pubbie -- Homosexuality -- Homophobe
Louis Farrakhan -- *Enlightened* -- FREEDOM -- *Good*
Reggie White -- Minister of God -- Oppression -- *Bad*
'Bama State Sen -- Confederate Flag -- RACIST! -- *bad*
There're ten thousand more examples; but, why bother.
Looks like the *good* professor isn't aware of who sits on the editorial boards of the nation's majors starting with the worst of 'em all, The New York Slimes.
Well, we do, eh?
It's what the [read: our] fighting's all about, huh.
"As part of his findings, Kuypers said liberal opinions from editorials and news analyses often found their way into straightforward news reports. He speculated that the culture of news organizations was partly to blame."
Huh. This guy's *speculating*, is he?
This Liberal-Socialist manipulation just wandered in off the streets & onto the front pages??
Is that right?
Guess I'll have to go out on the limb here & do some translating 'lest someone miss this subtle attempt to slide some real *ThinkSpeak* past us??
"The culture of *news* organizations" = "Liberal-Socialist."
"The head of a media watchdog group, Accuracy in Media, agreed with Kuypers' findings."
What the hell was AIM gonna say?
"'I've seen no difference and no great change in the last decade or last two decades,' chairman Reed Irvine said. 'The journalists -- the people who are editing and writing for papers -- are still overwhelmingly liberal.'"
Now, when Reed Irving writes a book we'll have some red meat & not Kuyper's awful tasting print-laxative.
"Irvine has been studying the news media since the 1970s. He said the press continues to display liberal characteristics just as it did 30 years ago."
Does *Proffessor* Kuyper know about the provenance of the media he claims to have, "researched," is the question. < /sarc>
"In fact, he said that bias is probably more expansive today, citing the rise in coverage of race and homosexuality -- the two issues that were the primary focus of Kuypers' study."
Yup; nevermind Kuyper's ignoring the blatant Anti-American & America-hating crap we've had to endure over the past decade.
Odd this *professor* focused (restricted?) his "research" on those two areas, alone.
~Just coincidental, I'm sure.
"But Steve Rendall, a senior analyst for Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting, another media watchdog group, said the press has done a poor job covering many social issues, including race and homosexuality."
Rendall cited a study conducted by his organization that showed reporters in the nation's capital lean to the right when covering many issues."
HA!!
Should the Rendall miscreant join the ranks of the *good* professor insofar as writing a book on the topic?
Safe to say it's be one to skip; IF, this clown can make a statement as patently absurd as that.
Which, he does.
"'The right-wing and conservative movements are well represented and the center is well represented,' he said. 'What's not well represented are progressive movements.'"
Well represented??
Talk Radio??
Get a life, *professor*.
BTW: "Progressive" means Liberal-Socialist and everyone (by now) knows that much, imbecile.
Ms Rendall?
How about speaking plain english because you come off sounding like a real coward, pedestrian-grade Liberal-Socialist hack.
"Kuypers said he anticipates criticism, but defended his methods. He said they are clearly outlined in the book and allow readers to conduct their own analysis if they wish."
The *good* professor should be extremely pleased, then.
I for one, wouldn't dream of disappointing this guy.
"'I just don't give examples of what I think is bias,' he said. 'I outlined how I was going to look for bias in such a way that others can do this as well.'"
Bless your pointed little head, comrade.
"The only thing readers might disagree with is his conclusion, Kuypers said. He ends the book by issuing a warning that biased reporting could endanger democracy by presenting only a narrow viewpoint."
It's *not* a "narrow viewpoint," professor!!
The Liberal-Socialist's POV is the ONLY viewpoint.
"I'm scared for the state of democracy in this country in terms of how the press interacts,' Kuypers said. 'They are, in my opinion, an anti-democratic institution because they stifle alternative voices and paint an incredibly inaccurate picture of issues and ideas."
Anti-democratic, sure; but, according to you?
The *threat's* a, "narrow one."
...& you, professor, narrow minded in the extreme.
"I don't buy it. The Media definately doesn't ignore far left and moderate viewpoints."
Depends upon how you define "far left"...in the Higher Education lexicon, "far left" most likely includes Absolute Socialism wherein private property rights/ownership are abolished altogether, all income is the central bureaucracy's to distribute as they see fit, etc. ...while that may be the Lib'rals ultimate goal, liberals believe on getting there incrementally, so the "liberal viewpoint" is simply growing the Federal Leviathan to some point just to the Left of the status quo. Then, when that is established as the status quo, liberals argue for something incrementally just to the Left of that, and so on and so on!!
It's the boiled frog theory and the Vast, LeftWing Medyuh Whore'd ignores those viewpoints wherein proponents of Absolute Socialism advocate their views becuz it would startle the Sheeple outta their apathy.
As for ignoring "moderate viewpoints," there ain't no moderate position on anything...they're just spineless Lib'rals who are ashamed to admit that they are in favor of an ever-expanding Federal Leviathan!!
FReegards...MUD
FReegards...MUD
I get a hangover just looking at that...LOL!!
FReegards...MUD
Bingo...give that man a cee-gar!!
FReegards...MUD
They do look most potent, don't they?
HA!!
In a word this acadamian clown's angle can be summized: "Brill's Content," eh?
Didn't work then & it won't work now.
I'm afraid this one's gonna be "teaching" for a very, long time until he learns HOW to conduct a honest, UNbias research project.
Which assumes he's hell-bent on writing another book; so, he can retire to get the hell away from the "Mecca" of Liberal-Socialism, Dartmouth, he's now stuck at for the rest of his working life? :o)
...& you will be sending a *box* of cee-gars soon enough, my friend. ;^)
Now...pretend that this prof's sincere and see what you think about the analysis (in #44) of why he feels the "Far Left" is not properly represented in the Vast, LeftWing Medyuh Whore'd.
FReegards...MUD
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.