Media Bias Resolved

“I would like to continue our discussion about media bias. I would specifically like to address Phaedrus, violin, ET. Al. who told me to read WHAT LIBERAL MEDIA?

Background:
Our previous discussion was supposed to focus on the book BIAS by Bernard Goldberg. I stopped posting shortly after Phaedrus finally managed to read the book and express his opinion that he thought it was unsubstantiated. His answer was that I should read WHAT LIBERAL MEDIA? by Eric Alterman. Phaedrus created the impression that WHAT LIBERAL MEDIA? would provide proof to rebut the claim in BIAS (and in many other sources) that there is “liberal” bias in the media.

Keeping in mind that most of Phaedrus’ discussions include his asking for “proof” from those whose opinions with which he disagrees while providing none to back his points, I was finally able to find the time to read WHAT LIBERAL MEDIA? While at the library, I noticed a number of books on bias in the media, but it appeared as if WHAT LIBERAL MEDIA? was the only one with a rebuttal to the widely held belief that there is “liberal” bias in the media.

I have taken many notes and referenced them to page numbers in the book, but I will be most interested in what “proofs” Phaedrus believes are contained within WHAT LIBERAL MEDIA?


Let’s start our discussion with a short bio of both authors:

Bernard Goldberg is a registered Democrat, self-described “liberal”, and has never voted for a Republican President. He was an Emmy winning journalist with CBS News for twenty years. Goldberg’s contention is that there is bias towards the left in most of the media.

In his book, Bias, Goldberg sometimes comes across as a bitter man with an axe to grind. Let us also not forget that he wrote his first newspaper article about media bias before suffering the repercussions of his whistle blowing.


Eric Alterman is an opinion writer for The Nation, Mother Jones, Salon, and World Policy Journal. These publications do not even pretend to be “centrist”, or even “left-wing.” These are four “far-left” publications. He is a fellow at the Center for American Progress. This is a “far-left” think tank. Alterman’s contention is not only that most media bias is not “liberal”, but that the bias is mostly “conservative”.

Do you realize that reading Alterman’s point of view is similar to reading a book called What Racial Prejudice? written by a member of the KKK? If you have any doubts about this guy’s prejudice, read his columns at The Nation.

I have friends, farther to the left than I, who won’t even read The Nation and Mother Jones. By Alterman’s own admission, many of the writers for the publications he submits to are members of the Socialist and Communist parties. This guy appears to be so far to the left that anyone right of Molly Ivans is a “conservative” to him. These are marginalized, fringe publications, and What Liberal Media? is a far-left political opinion treatise. Alterman constantly talks about his “research” but most of his research appears to be quotes and statistics from “leftist” organizations and individuals. This guy has an axe to grind:

------

Excerpted from some of Eric Alterman’s articles in The Nation-

“Well, Bob Woodward has partially redeemed himself. His last book, Bush at War, read like a superhero comic book mistranslated from its original Serbo-Croatian. Everyone in the Bush Administration was portrayed as they might have wished: brave, steadfast, determined to protect America from evildoerdom, no matter the cost.”

“In July 2003 Bush deliberately misled the country with the words: "Did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is: absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in." He repeated this obvious falsehood in January alongside the Polish president.”

“Remember, this is a President who cannot even face the 9/11 Commission without Dick Cheney there to baby-sit him.”


Alterman is a man you trust for objective reporting?


Another interesting book that I picked up at the library is:
Press Bias and Politics, how media frame controversial issues by Jim A. Kuypers. Kuypers is Senior Lecturer and Director of the Office of Speech at Dartmouth College.

I picked it up because it looks like a textbook and didn’t make any statements about which view it was advocating. Imagine my total surprise when I got it home, thumbed through it, and on page 214 it says:

“The six case studies have demonstrated that the mainstream press shows a distinct bias against conservative ideas. Although the press does not embrace all liberal ideas, it is reliably anti-conservative.”

There are many such case studies, statistics, and verbatim quotes in this book. We can discuss all of these books.”

“There are literally dozens of points I would like to get into in this thread over the next week before I go to Germany, Arclite. I'll need to get the books together at home to make sure we're being true to what's printed. Good to see you back, and I look forward to exposing your prejudice for what it is.

"far left" Hhahaha!

Until tonight, then!”

“arclite stays out of sight and mind for a month or so,,,,


then just when you doze off....



wham, like a gun going off just over your head.



WTF are you doing reading those books? Bygod, you should be reading about college football.”

“I think the owners of the media outlets are actually conservative, and the majority of reporters lean liberal (probably because they see things first hand and recieve a street education on the matter).”

“Did you know that arclite’s picture is found next to the word ‘soporific’ in the dictionary?

What specifically do you take exception to in Alterman’s passage from ‘The Nation’?

From my perspective The Nation and salon are not “far-left”. Mother Jones is anti-corporatist but produces some fine investigative pieces. I guess you could call them far-left. I don’t read enough of World Policy Journal to have an opinion on their bias. I guess to someone who could find leftist bias in the WSJ and Washington Times these publications might prove that the media is overwhelmingly liberal.”

“Yeah, anything that's not conservative is "far left".

Eat my shorts.”

“Keeping in mind that most of Phaedrus’ discussions include his asking for “proof” from those whose opinions with which he disagrees while providing none to back his points

It seems I've taught Phaedrus well, but he has yet to pass the class "The Fine Art of Fabricating Scholarly but Ultimately Specious Logical Arguments".......”

“People showed up at my house for dinner last night. After work today, I'll try to get to this. If not, then this weekend sometime.

BTW, did Mutt just admit that his viewpoint on foreign policy and terror is ultimately specious? ;)”

“Before I begin, I’d like to first state what I believe the outcome of this discussion will be, if given a logical and fairly objective starting point.

There is bias in all news reporting, no matter how careful a journalist is to attempt to keep his bias from his work. There is bias from each of us as we consume said media and form our opinions. These are issues that will be forever debated and re-debated, and the overall slant of the media will never be agreed on for a number of reasons, the biggest of which is that we as consumers never consume the entire media. We read, watch, listen to and discuss a minute part of a huge multi-faceted entertainment and news industry based on our own beliefs and preferences. It is our responsibility as citizens of a free nation to understand this, filter the bias as best we can, and form our opinions based on our best understanding of the facts. A desire to have our opinions challenged also helps.

So here I’ll begin with Arclite’s post:

Keeping in mind that most of Phaedrus’ discussions include his asking for “proof” from those whose opinions with which he disagrees while providing none to back his points, I was finally able to find the time to read WHAT LIBERAL MEDIA? While at the library, I noticed a number of books on bias in the media, but it appeared as if WHAT LIBERAL MEDIA? was the only one with a rebuttal to the widely held belief that there is “liberal” bias in the media.

First, I’ll ignore the dig at me, since I’d like to keep this discussion on a fairly objective level. Next, I’d like to point out that, although the library you were in didn’t seem to have any other books on the subject, there are a number of others on media and bias. Big Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth by Joe Conason, is a polemic in much more the same style as Bias, IMO. This is a for instance, since I doubt it would be productive to list the various other books that deny conclusive evidence of an overall liberal bias to the media. I’m just pointing out that there are, in fact, a number of them.

I have taken many notes and referenced them to page numbers in the book, but I will be most interested in what “proofs” Phaedrus believes are contained within WHAT LIBERAL MEDIA?

That’s a big bite to take all at once, so first, I’ll point out that the last time we had this discussion, I stated in conclusion that while there may or may not be a right or left lean to the overall media, Golberg’s book did not prove one. I don’t think Alterman’s does either, but I think it points out the facts in a more comprehensive manner, and takes into account the fact that media is run as a money-making venture, which shapes its overall structure more significantly than individual bias. I also stated that Alterman gave a number of sources for his work, and Goldberg did not. You address this a little later, so we’ll get to more on it in a minute.

Eric Alterman is an opinion writer for The Nation, Mother Jones, Salon, and World Policy Journal. These publications do not even pretend to be “centrist”, or even “left-wing.” These are four “far-left” publications. He is a fellow at the Center for American Progress. This is a “far-left” think tank. Alterman’s contention is not only that most media bias is not “liberal”, but that the bias is mostly “conservative”.

Do you realize that reading Alterman’s point of view is similar to reading a book called What Racial Prejudice? written by a member of the KKK? If you have any doubts about this guy’s prejudice, read his columns at The Nation.

First of all, your labeling of the entities as “far left” in the above paragraph is your opinion, and not some discernable fact. We should agree up front that left, right, or centrist is almost entirely dependent on the reader’s initial viewpoint. I find The Nation to be stridently left-leaning, but Salon to be more moderately left-leaning. Also, from my point of view, the Center for American Progress is far more centrist than say the Project for a New American Century.
I also find your comparison to his bias to a member of the KKK to be specious. Whatever the case, we should agree to try to look past bias in both books to try to find the facts as best we can. We each get to have our own opinions, but facts are constant.

Alterman constantly talks about his “research” but most of his research appears to be quotes and statistics from “leftist” organizations and individuals.

Again, facts don’t change, so if he’s using research by an institution you consider left-leaning, you don’t get to discount it just because of the source. If there are some things you think are subject to interpretation, please bring them up and we’ll discuss them.

Alterman is a man you trust for objective reporting?

I trust no one for truly objective reporting.

The last book you mention is not one I’ve read. I’ll try to pick it up, but my reading list is pretty long right now.

I’m sure this discussion will continue, but in mini-conclusion, I think it’s possible to separate bias from reporting by understanding the overriding environment any specific news source is operating under. I would not trust Fox news, for instance, to give the most reliable information about a Rupert Murdoch tax scandal, just as I would not trust Salon to properly cover Bank of America’s new environmental protection rules. By reading a wide variety of viewpoints, however, I can determine the common areas, which allow me to weed out the bias and determine the facts.”

“Violin, you ignorant slut! What I specifically object to is the overall sarcastically nasty tone he uses. If Rush were using the same tone, I'll bet you'd scream bloody murder. If you don’t think that members of the Socialist and Communist Parties are far-left then you are so far out of mainstream thought as to be unredeemable. Most scholars deem Socialism and Communism to be at the far-left side of the spectrum while Fascism is at the far-right. That is accepted theory, but you apparently believe you know better? Lord, you are brilliant, my mistake.


Mutt, you’re a hoot!!!


Oh assuredly the discussion will continue, Phaedrus. Meanwhile:

Why is the media trying to create the impression that President Bush insisted there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11? Anyone who watched the special PBS report of Special Forces in Iraq (laqtis among them) knows that those troops found evidence of terrorist safe houses in Iraq. Sure there may have been terrorists in Iraq. Maybe they even got some help from the Iraqi government. But NOWHERE can I find that President Bush claimed to have evidence of a direct link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.


… a press conference with UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, which took place in the White House on 31 January 2003. Here's the key portion:

[Adam Boulton, Sky News (London):] One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?
THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.


Selling an Iraq-al Qaeda connection
Some critics blame TV news for making Baghdad new enemy
From Bruce Morton
CNN
Tuesday, March 11, 2003

Bottom line: U.S. officials claim there is evidence of an al Qaeda-Iraq connection -- but there is no "smoking gun."
(The Memory Hole) http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/no-saddam-qaeda.htm


Bush: No Proof of Saddam Role in 9-11

By Terence Hunt
The Associated Press
Wednesday 17 September 2003

WASHINGTON - President Bush said Wednesday there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 ? disputing an impression that critics say the administration tried to foster to justify the war against Iraq.
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties," the president said. But he also said, "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th."


The Associated Press
Thursday 17 June 2004-

…”Commission Chairman Thomas Kean, asked about Bush’s comments, said the panel did not dispute that there were contacts between Saddam’s government and al-Qaeda. But Kean, a former New Jersey governor, said the panel’s staff found “that there is no credible evidence that we can discover, after a long investigation, that Iraq and Saddam Hussein were in any way part of the attack on the United States.”
Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman, said, “I must say, I have trouble understanding the flap over this.” The commission’s position, he said, is that “we don’t have evidence of a cooperative relationship between Saddam Hussein’s government and these al-Qaeda operatives with regard to the attacks on the United States.”


The Associated Press
Sunday 20 June 2004-

— Thomas H. Kean, chairman of the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, reiterated Sunday that the inquiry turned up no evidence that Iraq or its former leader, Saddam Hussein, had taken part "in any way in attacks on the United States."
But Mr. Kean said that conclusion, made public last week, did not put the commission at odds with the Bush administration's contention that links existed between the terrorist group Al Qaeda and Iraq.


The Sept. 11 commission found “no collaborative evidence” between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein with regards to the attacks on the U.S. on 9/11. The media has repeatedly said that President Bush tried to create the impression of a link between terrorists and Saddam Hussein. There has been evidence of this association (see comments about PBS special above, among others) between Iraq and terrorists. The media has said that President Bush tried to create the impression of a link between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. There may be evidence of this but it is probably intelligence from questionable sources. Even I can figure that out from reading what Bush comments the media chooses to print. The media has repeatedly claimed that President Bush tried to create the impression of these links in order to further his own agenda. So why is the media trying create the impression that President Bush lied about a Saddam Hussein/9-11 connection he never claimed to have knowledge of? My local “liberal” NYT affiliated rag even had an editorial chastising the Bush administration for lying about a Saddam Hussein/9-11 connection. Nope, no media agenda here says Phaedrus.”

““…There is bias in all news reporting, no matter how careful a journalist is to attempt to keep his bias from his work. There is bias from each of us as we consume said media and form our opinions. These are issues that will be forever debated and re-debated, and the overall slant of the media will never be agreed on for a number of reasons…"

Phaedrus

If there is bias in reporting, as you admit, then it comes from an individual’s perspective:

American Association of Newspaper Editors (ASNE) in 1988 and 1997 surveys. The most recent American Association of Newspaper Editors (ASNE) study surveyed 1,037 newspaper reporters found 61 percent identified themselves as/leaning "liberal/Democratic" compared to only 15 percent who identified themselves as/leaning "conservative/Republican."

This supports the figures in Goldberg’s book Bias.

While these statistics show an amazing lack of diversity in the newsroom, Alterman dismisses this with a nifty little quote by David Broder (pg 1. WLM?), “There just isn’t enough ideology in the average reporter to fill a thimble.”

You have already said that you don’t agree with Broder’s view. I don’t agree with Broder’s view either. Broder’s view goes against all human nature. Shall we now dismiss one of Alterman’s points?



“Big Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth”

Phaedrus

Big Lies? Is this a comic for children? As with the tone in Alterman’s articles in The Nation, I am always suspicious of “I know you are but what am I” childish sounding name calling in what passes for serious literature. Do you want me to read that as well, or do you refuse to submit it as evidence?


“…but I think it points out the facts in a more comprehensive manner, and takes into account the fact that media is run as a money-making venture, which shapes its overall structure more significantly than individual bias.”

Phaedrus

One of Alterman’s main points is that media is big business. Big business is run by “rich people”. Rich people are “conservative.” On how many levels can we dissect the illogic of this argument? Kerry is worth more than Bush, so is Tim Robbins. Are these two more conservative than Bush? That logic falls apart quickly. Alterman also provides no proof that the news is being controlled by “conservatives.” The statistics prove the opposite.



“I also stated that Alterman gave a number of sources for his work, and Goldberg did not.”

Phaedrus
Goldberg gives many first person accounts. Considering he was actually part of the “establishment” media this gives him more first person opportunities than Alterman who represents the fringe media. What “experts” does Alterman reference? I’m afraid that your learning curve will be pretty slow if you continue to discount first person accounts.


“We should agree up front that left, right, or centrist is almost entirely dependent on the reader’s initial viewpoint.”

Phaedrus

I strongly disagree. We should use accepted social science boundaries. We should also use Democratic/Republican party positions (favoring abortion is not “centrist”). Your point of view confirms exactly what Goldberg was talking about: that “liberal” journalists believe that they have “centrist” views.


“Again, facts don’t change, so if he’s using research by an institution you consider left leaning, you don’t get to discount it just because of the source. If there are some things you think are subject to interpretation, please bring them up and we’ll discuss them.”

Phaedrus

I strongly agree. That is why I read the book. That is why I continue to read books that challenge my preconceived notions. We cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater. But I am asking YOU to tell me what arguments in Alterman’s book you find so persuasive.


I also trust no one for completely objective reporting. But a self avowed “liberal” who blows the whistle on “liberals” has more credibility with me than someone who admits to having an agenda (more on that later with accompanying page numbers.)”

“Well at least you've admitted to owning fascism. That's a start.”

“While these statistics show an amazing lack of diversity in the newsroom, Alterman dismisses this with a nifty little quote by David Broder (pg 1. WLM?), “There just isn’t enough ideology in the average reporter to fill a thimble.”

You have already said that you don’t agree with Broder’s view. I don’t agree with Broder’s view either. Broder’s view goes against all human nature. Shall we now dismiss one of Alterman’s points?


The point I believe he makes is that reporters, whatever their political leanings, are taught to attempt to remain objective in their reporting. Would you not agree that any reporting done by a reporter who sets out to be partisan in the beginning is less valuable? This is the relevent question, and the one I believe Alterman addresses here by pointing out that journalists are generally more interested in reporting the news than advancing their political agenda.

Big Lies? Is this a comic for children? As with the tone in Alterman’s articles in The Nation, I am always suspicious of “I know you are but what am I” childish sounding name calling in what passes for serious literature. Do you want me to read that as well, or do you refuse to submit it as evidence?

If you'll note, I was just pointing out that there are other books on the subject from the point of view you were saying was so underrepresented. I haven't read this book and don't plan to, simply because it seems like a book along the same lines as Bias.

One of Alterman’s main points is that media is big business. Big business is run by “rich people”. Rich people are “conservative.” On how many levels can we dissect the illogic of this argument? Kerry is worth more than Bush, so is Tim Robbins. Are these two more conservative than Bush? That logic falls apart quickly. Alterman also provides no proof that the news is being controlled by “conservatives.” The statistics prove the opposite.


I admit that Alterman's assertion in the book that the socioeconomic classes of elite journalists fall in line better with conservatism is specious. Individual political leanings are certainly influenced by more than money!

My point, however, is that he brought forward the money-making side of the news business. The overall goal of a news agency is to attract viewers and sell commercial space - this breeds bias, and creates an institutionalized blind spot that does not assign reporters to investigative reporting about corporate partners of the news outlet.

Goldberg gives many first person accounts. Considering he was actually part of the “establishment” media this gives him more first person opportunities than Alterman who represents the fringe media. What “experts” does Alterman reference? I’m afraid that your learning curve will be pretty slow if you continue to discount first person accounts.


First-person accounts are anecdotal evidence. They do not prove trends, overriding views or statistical averages. Anecdotal evidence proves only what is possible.

“We should agree up front that left, right, or centrist is almost entirely dependent on the reader’s initial viewpoint.”

Phaedrus

I strongly disagree. We should use accepted social science boundaries. We should also use Democratic/Republican party positions (favoring abortion is not “centrist”). Your point of view confirms exactly what Goldberg was talking about: that “liberal” journalists believe that they have “centrist” views.


If you'd care to define these "accepted social science boundaries", I'd be happy to consider them. As for your abortion claim:
According to a year 2000 Gallup Poll:

Most American adults (51%) currently believe that abortions should be legal under some circumstances.
28% believe that abortions should be legal under all circumstances.
19% believe that they should be always illegal -- apparently even to save the life of the woman.

The same poll reveals that 50% of adults identify themselves as pro-choice; 40% as pro-life.

link

It would seem that you're the one further from center on this issue.

But I am asking YOU to tell me what arguments in Alterman’s book you find so persuasive

Alterman's book didn't significantly affect my view of the media. Again, while there may or may not be an overriding left or right-leaning bias in the media, it has not been proven. I believe those who espouse such a bias on a regular basis are either benefitting from mistrust of the mainstream media (read: radio talk-show hosts, cult leaders, etc), or are readily willing to accept leaps in logic without needing the evidence to back them.

Your asking me to prove that media ISN'T liberal is a classic example of shifting the burden of proof, BTW.”

““The point I believe he makes is that reporters, whatever their political leanings, are taught to attempt to remain objective in their reporting. Would you not agree that any reporting done by a reporter who sets out to be partisan in the beginning is less valuable? This is the relevent question, and the one I believe Alterman addresses here by pointing out that journalists are generally more interested in reporting the news than advancing their political agenda.”

Phaedrus

Trying to backpedal from your statement: "“…There is bias in all news reporting, no matter how careful a journalist is to attempt to keep his bias from his work.”? I agree that it is less valuable. That is exactly the point of Goldberg’s book. Bias in the media upsets him. We are here, partially, to determine if Alterman does indeed address this point logically and without bias.


“I haven't read this book and don't plan to, simply because it seems like a book along the same lines as Bias.”

Phaedrus

Bias is a serious work. I hope you can tell the difference. It would be difficult for you if you couldn’t.


“My point, however, is that he brought forward the money-making side of the news business. The overall goal of a news agency is to attract viewers and sell commercial space - this breeds bias, and creates an institutionalized blind spot that does not assign reporters to investigative reporting about corporate partners of the news outlet.”

Phaedrus

I think it’s a good point you raise. I agree with it. That’s one reason why I think it’s a good point. It’s not just the tone of the story that shows media bias, but what stories they choose to cover. This point; however, will be difficult to dissect. Are they not running stories because they think the consumer is uninterested, or is it to protect their corporate partners? Fringe media outlets like The Nation will catch some of these stories. If enough bias of this nature is reported in the fringe publications, eventually the mainstream “liberal” media will pick it up.


“If you'd care to define these "accepted social science boundaries", I'd be happy to consider them. As for your abortion claim:
According to a year 2000 Gallup Poll:

Most American adults (51%) currently believe that abortions should be legal under some circumstances.
28% believe that abortions should be legal under all circumstances.
19% believe that they should be always illegal -- apparently even to save the life of the woman.

The same poll reveals that 50% of adults identify themselves as pro-choice; 40% as pro-life.”

Phaedrus

“Abortion rights”, “homosexual rights”, “affirmative action”, “socialized medicine”, … these issues separate people by “liberal” and “conservative” viewpoints. Goldberg talks about this in his book. 50-40 is a pretty close split. Does that mean half the county is “liberal” and 40% are “conservative”? What does that statistic have to do with my point? I contend that the most “liberal” view would be unrestricted abortion for any reason. The most “conservative” viewpoint would be no abortion for any reason. Do you agree? I would content that the most “liberal” view would be completely favoring homosexual marriage. The most “conservative” viewpoint would be no recognition of any legal homosexual relationship. Do you agree? We can do this for each issue until we come to an understanding.


It would seem that you're the one further from center on this issue.”

Phaedrus

Now you’ve got me laughing. Are you aware that I am in favor of unrestricted abortion, completely favor homosexual marriage, I am against the death penalty, for legalization of drugs, … Do you have any other bigotry you’d like to confess?


Your asking me to prove that media ISN'T liberal is a classic example of shifting the burden of proof, BTW."

Phaedrus

You really should be a politician, Phaedrus. You manage to talk without saying much. What, no response to my question about how the media framed the 9/11 panel findings? You are aware that the headlines read: “AL-QAEDA-HUSSEIN LINK IS DISMISSED” (Washington Post), “PANEL FINDS NO QAEDA-IRAQ TIE” (NYT), “NO SIGNS OF IRAQ-AL-QAEDA TIES FOUND” (LA Times).

I’ve got an easy one for you. Name me 20 movies where a Christian, a “rich” businessman, or a Republican is the hero. And I don’t mean the “rich” businessman who is redeemed by the working-class “liberal” girl. I can easily name 20 where they are portrayed in a less than positive light. Shall we go for 50?


Let’s get on with our discussion of Alterman’s book, What Liberal Media?. There are a lot of points to discuss:

(Page 3) “The myth of the “liberal media” empowers conservatives to control debate in the United States to the point where liberals cannot even hope for a fair shake anymore. However immodest my goal, I am to change that.”

Here is your objective journalist with a preconceived notion before examination. What is the definition for that? Apparently Alterman started his book with a somewhat paranoid agenda. Whereas Goldberg didn’t use his book to defend his political views, Alterman makes every attempt to do so. This is an objective journalist?


(Page 16) “Ever since a now-legendary poll from the Media Studies Center showed that 89 percent of Washington journalists voted for Clinton in 1992, it has been hard to deny that the press is “liberal,” wrote Christopher Caldwell…”

Alterman then goes on to argue that we can completely disregard this information as irrelevant. To not pay any attention to this statistic is foolishly bad science. His idea of scientific inquiry seems to be, if it doesn’t fit our preconceived notions, we can disregard it completely.


(Page 30) When referring to Pat Buchanan he says, “…a likable, radical right-wing populist with a soft spot for Nazis.”

This is a serious journalist?


(Page 44) He postulates an argument for conservative being simple-minded in their views. While he postulates that “liberals” have a complex viewpoint.

There are no accompanying statistics on respective IQs. I’ll bet that it makes him feel good, to think he’s smarter than people whose views he disagrees with, but his argument isn’t logical nor is it factual. An approved institute has tested my 168 IQ score. The statistics are highly in favor of my being more intelligent than both you and Alterman. Does that mean that my views are any more correct than yours or his? This position would be difficult to justify from any logical standpoint.”

“"Liberals" without words. AMAZING!

From my local NYT afiliate, The Gainesville Sun:

From: Wednesday, April 21 2004
Headline, bold print, front page of Nation & World (section A):

BUSH’S POLICIES PROVOKE HATRED
The article (continued inside) blames Bush’s foreign policy for increasing hatred towards the U.S. throughout the “Arab World.”


Sidebar, small print, page 7 of Local (section B):

DRUGMAKER IMPROVES DRUG PROVISION FOR POOR
The two-paragraph article describes how a coalition of “faith-based investor groups” persuaded Schering-Plough Corp. (a large pharmaceutical company) to improve its program providing free and discounted medicines to “the poor”. And how these “faith-based investor groups” are also trying to persuade other large pharmaceutical companies to do the same.

There is quite a difference between the tone of the bold frontpage headline bashing Bush and the buried little story about "faith-based investor groups."

No agenda here, says Phaedrus


NPR radio, All Things Considered, on PBS:
A recent show talked about the news of Vladamir Putin telling the Bush administration he had intelligence of planned terrorist activities against the U.S. by Iraq. The show then spent most of its time examining possible political motives for Putin’s “defending” Bush.

No agenda here, says Phaedrus”

“Hey Arclite, I had hoped that "resolved" in the title of this thread meant you weren't planning on drumming up every instance of bias in news reporting as "evidence", when it becomes fairly obvious after a time that one can pull evidence from the media for any bias one desires to "prove", if one has the time or inclination. I'm sure you could google up thousands of disparaging remarks about any race, creed, ethnicity, nationality, political leaning or religion and present them here as "evidence", and we would still be arguing over minutiae sometime next year. I'm not interested.

You keep bringing movies into the discussion, as well. I was hoping we could keep this to the news media, rather than try to basically debate the overriding culture of America and dynamics of all entertainment and news therein. This is a discussion that there can never be a resolution for.

You also seem to have taken that I wholeheartedly agree with Alterman, even though I've repeated my position on this several times, and you've failed or refused to understand. I believe that an overriding bias in the media, if it exists, can only be proven by taking the media, as a whole, dissecting it, fully defining conservative and liberal in detail, determining the middle ground of American thought as centrist, then comparing and analyzing. While I don't have the time to do such a thing, you're free to do so yourself. I'm sure it would be a bestseller. By the way, if you're including the entertainment media, you'll also need to include religious programming, public access programming, talk radio, independent news organizations, people on the corner handing out flyers, blah, blah, blah.

You also seem to enjoy trying to bait me into some verbal conflict, and frankly, at this point, I just don't have time to do it, and I don't think anyone else is reading this thread besides us.”

“I do believe we can determine bias in the media (movies included since they are media) or at least make a good scientific inquiry that points to a likely outcome. But I don't think your dogma allows self-examination. It is my guess that the idea of questioning your own beliefs is a foreign concept for you. Polarization is popular these days. I don't think you understand the relevance of a liberal blowing the whistle on his own "team." You're a sad debater, Phaedrus.

Check out page 104 and 107 in Alterman's book. He admits that "conservatives" may have a good case for "liberal" bias in the media. You're the one who recommended this book. Now that I've questioned its validity you're busy backpedaling and rationalizing. The rationalizations increased once you discovered that I actually had read Alterman’s book.

Bait you? You hook yourself, Phaedrus. Hook line and sinker. A liberal should be open-minded and trying to be free from prejudice. You’ve shown me a lot in this debate, even if you haven’t learned a thing yourself.

I’ll bet you really don’t want to discuss Kuypers’ book.

If I offend you it is not my intention.”

“Arclite, your intention isn't to offend me? Okay! I'll just have to take what you say as an objective and unbiased look into my soul. Thanks, buddy!

You've spent most of your time here calling me a poor debator, a wanna-be politician and a bigot, so you'll have to forgive me if I call you a liar when you say your intent is not to offend. Either way, though, you didn't offend me.

I'm going to bow out of this conversation now, since you're intent on debating against a position that is nothing like the one I have stated (repeatedly). Perhaps someone like Alterman or Michael Moore would be more apropos as an antithesis to your pre-concieved and inflexible opinions on the matter. My opening statement in this debate that I would expose your prejudice has been fulfilled, and my stated position on the matter has not been addressed by you.

As for backpedaling, if you go back and re-read our last conversation on this issue, you'll note that I stated the same position then as now:

There is bias in all news reporting, no matter how careful a journalist is to attempt to keep his bias from his work. There is bias from each of us as we consume said media and form our opinions. These are issues that will be forever debated and re-debated, and the overall slant of the media will never be agreed on for a number of reasons, the biggest of which is that we as consumers never consume the entire media. We read, watch, listen to and discuss a minute part of a huge multi-faceted entertainment and news industry based on our own beliefs and preferences. It is our responsibility as citizens of a free nation to understand this, filter the bias as best we can, and form our opinions based on our best understanding of the facts. A desire to have our opinions challenged also helps.


I came to my own opinion through my judgements of the media I encounter, my reading of books on the media and my point of view. Your mileage may vary. Goldberg did little to document an overriding bias in the media. Alterman did little better, and my conclusion has been and still is that there is no reliable evidence either way - especially if you want to convolute the argument with the entertainment media, religious programming, etc.

It's been a hoot. buh bye now.”

“It really isn't my intention to offend, Phaedrus. My only comment about your feelings is sometimes the truth hurts.

"Before I begin, I’d like to first state what I believe the outcome of this discussion will be, if given a logical and fairly objective starting point.

There is bias in all news reporting, no matter how careful a journalist is to attempt to keep his bias from his work. There is bias from each of us as we consume said media and form our opinions. These are issues that will be forever debated and re-debated, and the overall slant of the media will never be agreed on for a number of reasons, the biggest of which is that we as consumers never consume the entire media. We read, watch, listen to and discuss a minute part of a huge multi-faceted entertainment and news industry based on our own beliefs and preferences. It is our responsibility as citizens of a free nation to understand this, filter the bias as best we can, and form our opinions based on our best understanding of the facts. A desire to have our opinions challenged also helps.”

Phaedrus

I have heard your opening statement, and I have addressed it.


“…There is bias in all news reporting, no matter how careful a journalist is to attempt to keep his bias from his work…”

I have provided statistics to show where that bias might be. Goldberg provides statistics and observed examples of possible bias. I have provided newspaper articles that show possible bias. Kuypers does a scientifically undertaken rhetorical analysis of bias. All ignored by you. None addressed in a questioning manner. You have a desire to have your opinions challenged? How deep is your denial?


“…multi-faceted entertainment and news industry…”

Phaedrus

I post a question about movies and you not only ignore it, but also act as if it has nothing to do with our discussion. Are you blind to your own backpedaling?


I have had people say things to me, about my behavior, that I really didn't want to hear. Most people don't really want their bad behavior pointed out. They pretend that they do, but denial and rationalization seem much less painful to most. Most certainly it is in the short run. But if I get that little twinge of hurt from someone's comments about my behavior, I know that I had better look at what I can change about me. Maybe someday you'll learn to do the same. WAKE UP CALL!

I have provided newspaper examples. You have provided none. I have asked questions that you have not bothered to answer. Yes, it is obvious that you are a poor debater. Either get over it, or improve.

I've learned something about your character, but you haven't shown me a thing about issues that may help me to examine my researched, and personally observed views. I am always willing to change my views in the face of strong evidence. A psychiatrist friend thinks it’s one of my strong points. Psychologist friends in the past told me they though it was a strong suite of my character. I think I can always improve and have worked hard to be less judgmental and more open-minded with the help of friends who challenge me. The fact that you perceive something else about my character says more about you than it does about me. Just ask a professional. It is my layman’s opinion that no amount of information will get you to examine your preconceived dogma. Oh well, you've got to live with that.

Happy trails.”

“LOL!

You've got a good career ahead of you as a cult leader!

Open your mind to the possibilities of the improbable!

Ha ha!”

“Sooo....have you all resolved Media Bias yet?”

“The overwhelming argument in this discussion, proof in any court in the land, shows that the liberal media argument is valid and worthy of further study. Heck even Alderman admits that in his book. And this was the book that the "neo-libs" chose to rebut the book, Bias? Bad choice.

Phaedrus has proven, once again, that he likes the sound of his own voice, even though he says absolutely nothing. It's awfully hard to keep flip-flopping, and rationalizing, and trying to fool people into thinking you're actually adding something to a discussion, when you debate like Phaedrus does and then put it down in print for everyone to see. I hope, for his sake, that Phaedrus keeps his day job.


Is there anyone out there who hasn’t read these books who feels interested in this topic?


Why do I think that media agenda-setting is a serious issue? Here are two related examples:

Headline-

June 25. 2004 6:01AM
Attacks in 5 Iraqi Cities Leave More Than 100 Dead
New York Times


This headline is typical of recent media coverage in Iraq. We are continually bombarded with stories and images of the death and destruction that occurs daily in Iraq. Every day the headlines in my paper repeat this unrelenting view. It is useful for me to know about these issues. These are the negative impacts of the United States’ incursion into Iraq. But why are we hearing very little about the positive impacts? Hospitals, schools, industry, and other positive infrastructure reforms are taking place daily in Iraq. I have seen one interview with a man who was in Iraq for months, personally saw these improvements taking place, and now asks why our major news outlets spend almost no time on these stories. My wife watches CNN and other news sources during the day. She saw one news story on some of the positive aspects of the U.S. presence in Iraq and expressed surprise that she had only seen this one story. Instead, we are constantly bombarded with an anti-war agenda.



June 25. 2004
Poll: 54 Percent Say Iraq War a Mistake
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON


For the first time, a majority of Americans say they think the United States made a mistake sending troops to Iraq, according to a poll released Thursday.

The CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll found that 54 percent of people say the war was a mistake, up from 41 percent who felt that way in early June.

The poll also found that more than half say the Iraq war has made the United States less safe from terrorism. Only a third said it made this country safer.

The finding that more than half now think the Iraq war was a mistake recalls the disillusionment of Americans in 1968 with the Vietnam War. The first time a majority said that was a mistake was in August 1968.

In the Persian Gulf War more than a decade ago, the highest that level of concern got was three in 10.

The negative findings on the Iraq war come as the United States prepares to turn over sovereignty of the country to Iraqis. But there are few signs that American troops will be leaving anytime soon, with violence from insurgents on the rise.

As of Thursday, 842 U.S. service members have died since the beginning of military operations in Iraq last year, according to the Defense Department. Insurgents in Iraq set off car bombs and seized police stations Thursday in an offensive that killed more than 100 people.

The poll of 1,005 adults was taken June 21-23 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.



The second story shows how the media very likely have an impact on public perception. The media portrayed the beginning of the war in a more positive light. Public support was mixed but mostly in favor. Now we have only a negative media view of our presence in Iraq and people’s perceptions have changed. Is this a coincidence? Yes there is a possibility that this perception change is due entirely to other factors, but does anyone really believe there's no connection? I think it is more plausible to assume some connection.

News bias likely has some effect on the perception of those who are skeptical about the concept of media agenda-setting. Public perception influences political action that in turn effects which the direction our country moves. We think we have a free press? We feel condescension for those countries whose news sources we believe contain propaganda? Propaganda is the definition of media agenda-setting.”

“According to a study by FAIR, National Public Radio has a conservative (or at least Republican) bias. Republican sources outnumbered Democratic sources by more than 3 to 2 (61 percent to 38 percent). In 1993 (when Clinton was President) Republican sources outnumbered Democratic sources 57 percent to 42 percent.

Surprised? Me too.”

“Violin, thank God a rational wing-nut shows back up. How did you like my Chevy Chase impression? Where do you suppose are Tilt, Laqtis, and Mutt?


I’ve always liked NPR. I listen to it most mornings and afternoons during my commute. Having more guests, from one ideology, on the show does not necessarily constitute media bias. What was the show about, and how was the guest portrayed is a better measure of media bias.

What I found even more surprising was this little gem that you left for me to find:

FAIR’s four-month study of NPR in 1993 found 10 think tanks that were cited twice or more. In a new four-month study (5/03–8/03), the list of think tanks cited two or more times has grown to 17, accounting for 133 appearances.
FAIR classified each think tank by ideological orientation as either centrist, right of center or left of center. Representatives of think tanks to the right of center outnumbered those to the left of center by more than four to one: 62 appearances to 15. Centrist think tanks provided sources for 56 appearances.

Now THAT statistic I find surprising.

Let’s look closer. Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting is a left leaning organization. Alterman mentions this organization in his book. Read the headlines on their website. That does not invalidate their research, but it calls into question what they have decided is “conservative.” Goldberg qualifies this difference by pointing to stories that either favor or oppose government social programs, affirmative action, homosexual rights, and abortion issues among others. He usually draws the line at the two party positions. That seems to make sense to me (considering I find the concept of "liberal" and "conservative" to be media contrived terms anyway), and can be more easily quantified. But the Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting stats do point away from any, “liberal” bias on NPR theory. I’ll keep those FAIR stats in mind.

Again, it’s how the media frames the story and what issues they chose to cover that concerns me. Goldberg shows some nifty statistics about how many homeless people stories the media ran when Reagan was cutting funding for public housing vs. after Clinton took office. Can anyone come up with some examples of stories they’ve heard on NPR that might constitute “conservative” bias?



Here’s an article by The Media Research Center (a “conservative” media watchdog):


NBC: Conservative Bias and FNC Undermining
Trust in the Media
In the wake of the resignations of the top two editors at the New York Times, NBC News looked at declining trust in the media overall and identified two culprits: Conservative, pro-corporate bias and the Fox News Channel.


In a NBC Nightly News piece on Thursday night, reporter Jim Avila noted that “media watchdogs complain almost daily of bias, charging that some stories are deliberately ignored.” His sole soundbite for that point: a representative of the far-left group, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, who charged that public cynicism toward the press is fueled by “the whole corporate climate, where people feel they're being sold to rather than informed.”
Then, over video of the Fox News Channel, Avila blamed it too: “And some experts say opinion-based journalism, so popular on cable TV, undercuts credibility.”
As opposed to the opinion-based journalism of NBC News and the rest of the news media, as if there were no bias in the media until FNC came along a few years ago.
The June 5 NBC Nightly News led with a story by Andrea Mitchell about the resignations of Times Executive Editor Howell Raines and Managing Editor Gerald Boyd and then Tom Brokaw went to Avila in Chicago for a look at how the public views the media.
Avila began with a Spokane artist who sees routine mistakes in stories about him and then Avila recalled how “a 2002 Pew Research study shows that only 35 percent of the public trust news organizations to 'get the facts straight.'”
Next, Avila gave a soundbite to a man in restaurant who doesn't believe all he reads in newspapers and Avila confirmed he has “plenty of reasons” to think that way. Avila reminded viewers of NBC's own Dateline NBC simulated truck explosion controversy, the case of Janet Cooke at the Washington Post in 1981, Stephen Glass at the New Republic who “imagined” stories in 1998 “and Mike Barnicle's factual carelessness for the Boston Globe.”
Avila didn't mention that NBC has helped rehabilitate the ethically-challenged Barnicle by making him a fill-in host and regular commentator on MSNBC.
Avila asserted: “Jayson Blair is just the latest example of journalistic fraud chipping away at an industry built on trust. How bad is it? Denver's Rocky Mountain News, a subscriber to the New York Times News Service, no longer automatically runs stories based on Times's unnamed sources.”
John Temple, Editor of the Rocky Mountain News: “Somehow, standards seem to erode in their newsroom.”
Avila turned to bias, but only saw it from the right: “But it's not just mistakes, say critics. Media watchdogs complain almost daily of bias, charging that some stories are deliberately ignored.”
Steve Rendell, Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting: “The cynicism that people have about media isn't just about Jayson Blair and Mike Barnicle. It's about the whole corporate climate, where people feel they're being sold to rather than informed.”
Avila: “And some experts say opinion-based journalism, [over video of the Fox News Channel showing FNC putting its logo on screen as music played] so popular on cable TV, undercuts credibility. Viewers now charge bias against any news they don't agree with.”
Greg Mitchell, Editor and Publisher magazine Editor: “They often disagree with stories because they don't agree with the political outlook or the revelations that are in those stories.”
Avila concluded: “And journalistic missteps like those in the New York Times only give ammunition to those who believe even true stories are fiction.”
While on the subject of the New York Times, three resources for evidence of the liberal bias and agenda of Howell Raines before and during his tenure as top editor of the New York Times:
-- The MRC's “Spotlight” section on Raines put together last year by the MRC's Tim Jones. You'll be able to watch video of Raines praising the wonders of Bill Clinton and complaining that “the Reagan years oppressed me.” See: www.mediaresearch.org
-- “Raines of Error: Howell’s 21-Month Times Editorialship,” an article written by TimesWatch.org Editor Clay Waters. See: www.timeswatch.org
-- A listing of a couple of dozen articles about Raines posted over the last few years by TimesWatch.org and the MRC. See: www.timeswatch.org



I did find this little nugget pertaining to media bias on a related site:

36 percent see a rightward slant, vs. 46 percent who see a tilt to the left”

“In my opinion, that's a pretty high percentage of folks who see a rightward slant.

Does The Nation have that many subscribers?”

“According to a Pew Opinion Poll, 34 percent of national journalists identified themselves as liberal; 54 percent identified themselves as moderate; and 7 percent identified themselves as conservative. Twenty-three percent of local journalists identified themselves as liberal; 61 percent identified themselves as moderate; and 12 percent identified themselves as conservative.”

“To summarize those stats;

Twice as many Liberals as Conservatives, but together less than 1/2 the total.

Over half of all Journalists believe they are fair and balanced.
This is about the same as TTers who always think the other person is biased while they are fair.

I would rather get info from an acknowledged bias than from the self delusioned.”

“ALL media is biased, regardless.

It's Poli Sci 101!”

“A good article on local media bias.

John Ryan is one hell of a leader, the kind of guy that Unions can be proud of.”

“Heh
hehehehe
hehehehehehehe
hehehehehehhehehehehee!
HEEEEEEEEE!”

“My golly gosh, I may have been horribly wrong!

This site, showing a scientific study measuring media bias, has got me thinking I may have been mislead by previous studies:

CONSERVATIVE MEDIA BIAS”

“Now, I've been saying THIS all along...

"Define yi as the average adjusted ADA score of the ith member of Congress. Given that the member cites a think tank, we assume that the utility that he or she receives from citing the jth think tank is


aj + bj yi + eij .


Is there a translator in the house???”

“That's easy.

y sub i, is just saying that there is a population of variables, that can be characterized into a distribution. Each sub i represents the individual value attributed to that corresponding x sub i.

When they refer to i versus j they are often regarding them as two separate distributions that might be disjoint, joined, or one might even be a subgroup of the other.

I didn't read the link, I just saw the quote.”

“and the formula is easy too.

aj + bj yi + eij

a, b, and e being constants, i and j a function of the distributions, and y being the dependent variable.”

“Damn it! My algebra teacher said I'd need this shlt one day and here it is. 20 years later and I finally have a use for it and now I'm screwed!”

“Sadistics is for college boys.”

“lol.. lol..”

“Define yi as the average adjusted ADA score of the ith member of Congress. Given that the member cites a think tank, we assume that the utility that he or she receives from citing the jth think tank is:

aj + bj yi + eij.

We assume that eij is distributed according to a Weibull distribution. As shown by McFadden (1974; also see Judge, et. al, 1985, pp. 770-2), this implies that the probability that member i selects the jth think tank is:

exp(aj + bj yi ) / ∑k=1J exp(ak + bk yi )

where J is the total number of think tanks in our sample. Note that this probability term is no different from the one we see in a multinomial logit (where the only independent variable is yi).

Define cm as the estimated adjusted ADA score of the mth media outlet. Similar to the members of Congress, we assume that the utility that it receives from citing the the jth think tank is:

aj + bj cm + emj .

We assume that emj is distributed according to a Weibull distribution. This implies that the probability that media outlet m selects the jth think tank is

exp(aj + bj cm ) / ∑k=1J exp(ak + bk cm ).”

“It's just a reliability model. Don't get too weirded out. All they are doing is trying to exaplain what their margin of error is, based upon the model, and the information given it.

I printed it out. I'll take a look at it when I get home tonight, and see if I can give you the cliff notes.

Glad to see someone else who follows the Drudge Retort tho.

;)
last edited: 10/19/04 5:08:27 PM”

“What’s this about the dumbing of America? I say that some folks are already so dumb that they equate the jabbering of biased opinion with the objective search for knowledge. And their choices will always reflect their dogma.”

“The sign of the dumming down of America? He's sitting in the White House right now.”

“I don't think the only dummy is in the White House. Nobody's figured out the answer to this one yet-


How do I reach the following conclusion:

 I can ethically justify that my ideas help society

 I can ethically justify that I do not have the personal wealth needed to implement my ideas that help society.

 Therefore I can ethically justify that I can use government to force others to provide their personal wealth to implement my ideas that help society.”

“ I can ethically justify that (Roads) help society

 I can ethically justify that I do not have the personal wealth needed to implement (all the roads) that help society.

 Therefore I can ethically justify that I can use government to force others to provide their personal wealth to implement (roads) that help society.”


Dude, you've had a beef with government since the Romans!”

““ I can ethically justify that (Vitamins) help society

 I can ethically justify that I do not have the personal wealth needed to implement (all the vitamins) that help society.

 Therefore I can ethically justify that I can use government to force others to provide their personal wealth to implement (vitamins) that help society.”



Gee, that works for just about ANYTHING that I deem to be good for society (airplanes, cars, ergonomic shoes,…). Must be logically ethical to force people to conform to my visions then.”

“It seems like you enjoy dealing in absolutes. It's unreasonable to assume that government can run without taxes, and unreasonable to expect society to exist without government, so it's a matter of deciding how much of a role government should play in society. That is, unless you're advocating anarchy, or something.

Could we take the discussion out of the realm of absolutism, and back into some form of plausible reality?”

“Ah, the old reductio ad absurdum fallacy. A favorite of wingnuts.”

“It seems to me pretty obvious that (1) if the government is going to do something it will require the use of tax money, and (2) that tax money is going to be taken from somebody (usually refered to as a taxpayer). This money can be taken forcefully (i.e. tax laws) or voluntarily (I don't know how that works).

It also seems obvious to me that before the government takes on a task that is going to consume tax money, a serious question should be asked, "Should the government be doing this task?" In the case of the federal government that question is pretty much spelled out in the Constitition. If you accept this concept, the federal government is doing lots of stuff it shouldn't be doing. And it is doing it with money that was taken from people by force.”

“The interpretation of the constitution is really the issue, I agree.

The constitution provides no authority for a federal income tax, nor a right to privacy, per se, but the interpretation of it, does.”