Media Bias Is Real - But Is It Liberal or Conservative?
87The media is biased - but not in the way you might think!
I'm not going to throw a bunch of assertions out there for you. Instead, I want you to see for yourself.
Do your own comparative analysis. Pick a big news story and take a look at how several different news source cover the same story. Take a look at
- your local paper
- two or three different TV and radio news shows
- at least one national paper
- one or two international news sources like the BBC and Al Jazeera.
- To really get a full view, also seek out some openly slanted publications (from either side of the political aisle).
Compare. Look at how each paper or show reports the facts.
- Do some papers report facts that others leave out?
- What kind of language is used? Does the story name "terrorists," or "freedom fighters?" Was there an "assault on a refugee camp"or was it an "incursion into enemy territory?"
- Can you identify hidden assumptions in the language used?
- How much of the story is factual, and how much is assertion or generality?
Follow this news subject over a period of weeks or months and see what you begin to notice.
As you do this experiment, it is vital to follow several different topics. In my own experience, the media does indeed have a liberal bias in many social issues (only superficially in many cases), but a conservative or hawkish bent in many others.
"The definition of ‘liberal’ being contentious and in itself highly politicised in the U.S.... conservative criticisms] of journalists’ views appear selective and often seem to focus deliberately on issues like abortion and affirmative action.
In similar vein, political pundits like Ann Coulter (2003) and Bill O’Reilly, and self-confessed ‘whistle blowers’ like Bernard Goldberg (2002, 2003) build their case against the ‘liberal media’ to a large extent around an almost caricature-like image of journalists and editors:
Goldberg’s definition of liberalism is a conservative activist’s wet dream of hot button and wedge issues: abortion, affirmative action, feminism, homosexuality, and taxes. Liberals may think of themselves as striving for educational opportunities, good wages and benefits, progressive taxation, environmental conservation, civil liberties, and corporate accountability. Those nuances, and in fact many of those concerns, are lost in Goldberg’s narrative. (Harmon 2005: 111)
from: Revisiting the "Liberal Media Bias":A Quantitative Study into Candidate Treatment by the Broadcast Media During the 2004 Presidential Election Campaign by Brandenburg, Heinz. p. 4
What exactly is a liberal? What exactly is a conservative? How many of the political figures on either side of the aisle actually fit neatly into those categories? Richard Nixon, a Republican, passed many measures that Democrats would be proud of and indeed worked hard for. President Bush, a supposed fiscal conservative, spent five times more on government programs than Clinton.
Labels such as liberal and conservative are next to worthless when it comes to evaluating actual policies and performance. Yet every day we hear about "liberal" bias in the media (from major media figures, no less).
Another problem with declaring a liberal or conservative bias in the media is in which issues you study. As stated above, Bernie Goldberg demonstrated a liberal media bias by focusing on issues such as abortion and affirmative action. If you carefully select which issues you examine, you can prove whatever you want.
This selection of issues probably accounts for the different perceptions that Americans have about the media- liberals are more likely to perceive a conservative bias, while conservatives believe there is a liberal bias.
Sure - the media in general might be in favor of gay rights or abortion. But how much of the media was reporting the facts about the WTO or NAFTA back in the nineties? Did you see anything on television warning about the coming economic crash because of adjustable rate mortgages? Did you hear in the news about the repeal of the Glass/Steagall act in 1999?
Some issues are safe to report on - and will bring a guaranteed audience. Other issues, often the issues that are most important to our lives... not so much.
Try to be aware of your own biases as you watch the news and evaluate news sources. Are you rejecting things because they don't jive with the way you think? We all do it - it's human nature. The only way to fight it is to be constantly aware of it and work hard against it.
Other Hubs on Media and Politics by William R. Wilson
- What Causes Media Bias?
Media bias is real - but it is not simply a matter of liberal media vs. conservative media. That division is manufactured, and it is a great example of the way media figures manipulate the facts to get... - Thinking Clearly About Politics: An Example
I recently published the hub How To Think Clearly About Politics: Facts, Assertions, and Generalities. As a quick followup, I'm examining an article from newsbusters.org. Click here to read the original... - How to Think Clearly About Politics: Facts, Assertions, and Generalities
Freedom is a slippery concept, it seems.We must remember that in time of war what is said on the enemys side of the front is always propaganda, and what is said on our side of the front is truth and... - Michael Savage, Hate Speech, and Political Violence
On July 27, 2008, Jim David Atkisson entered the Unitarian Universalist church in Knoxville, Tennessee. He had with him a shotgun and the intention of killing as many liberals as possible before he was... - Glenn Beck - Populist Demagogue
Watch this infamous video. For the good stuff, start around 1:45. Also, watch for 5:18: Glenn Beck later did a 180 on the topic of FEMA deathcamps, claiming that there was no good evidence for them. He...
 | Amazon Price: $10.00 List Price: $19.95 |
 | Amazon Price: $4.69 List Price: $22.00 |
![Century of Self [2 DVD Set]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51TprDBlKRL._SL75_.jpg) | Amazon Price: $49.99 |
 | Amazon Price: $5.28 List Price: $28.98 |
 | Amazon Price: $7.50 List Price: $9.95 |
 | Amazon Price: $6.50 List Price: $14.00 |
CommentsLoading...
Wouldn't it be great if people just learned to think for themselves once in a while? There are so many people around who have simply abdicated responsibility for critical analysis with regard to politics, and just slavishly follow the views of their favourite newscaster or public figure. it's precisely because these views are just regurgitated sound-bites that any counter ideas are so frequently met with an aggressive response.
Pam - yeah, they had to come up with a new label for Bush's folk, because they sure as heck weren't conservative! I think Corporatist (a la Mussolini) would be a more accurate term for the Bushies but what do I know - I'm just an intellectual pointyhead.
Amanda - isn't it interesting the the Left hasn't produced anyone comparable to Rush or Glenn Beck? I think the reasons for that are pretty complex, but I am tempted to say that the real reason is that lefties think for themselves and won't take the words of any media figure as gospel.
Very well done, I did not want to get political but I'm damn frustrated when people around me don't listen. In law enforcement and surrounded with an eclectic group of young people and old.
Hi Bountyhunter - as soon as I start making broad generalizations about how people on the left think for themselves more than those on the right, you show up and provide an example of how I am wrong! Thanks for dropping in - I look forward to reading more of your thoughts.
Hi, William. One of the reasons I got a journalism degree, I remember, was because "I wanted to see how it all works." lol
It's actually complicated...though I love Noam Chomsky and agree with many of his assertions regarding the instigation of media 'conversations.' Messages are framed through many things even when a journalist is writing, ie. Advertisers do play a role, even beyond general manipulation of the elite. I could go on, but suffice it to say it is very important, I think, to read across a broad spectrum of sources.
Thanks Lita - I couldn't agree more. I really miss having a local radio station dedicated to NPR news. In Louisville, where I used to live, the NPR station played news programs all day long, including BBC news programs and the Diane Rehm show.
Where I live currently we have one NPR station which plays 2 news programs during the day and classical music the rest of the time. We also have a commercial radio station which plays only right wing talk shows, 24/7.
Very sad.
The MSM is absolutely biased toward SOCIAL LIBERALS. Not Classical Liberals. News coverage during the last election—I'm not going to provide a bunch of links here as I am sure you know this—was 90% favorable to Obama and 80% negative to Palin. This is not objectivity. Not to mention the "chill that ran up my leg" and all that other nonsense. Journalists themselves show up in polls as liberals 90% of the time. It is only natural that their worldview lens reflects what they believe or want to believe.
That's kind of what I said in the hub James - whether you see bias depends on your worldview. And I think that the media is socially liberal on many issues - but not on the issues that really matter.
Actually there is a paper that I looked at while researching this series of hubs which deals with the 2004 election. They found that, overall, the media coverage of the election was biased to the right based on several different criteria - but this was only due to Fox News's overwhelming right wing bias. If you exclude Fox News, as a whole the media gave both candidates equal time and equally favorable coverage.
I haven't seen a similar study for the 2008 election but I'm sure it would be interesting.
Thanks for stopping by my Hub James.
The first necessity for a successful civil society is an informed populace. Without a reliable, unbiased source of information, equally available to all, what we get is what we've got; a species on the verge of self-inflicted extinction.
CWB - agreed.
I agree with you.I try to filter my news through several sources.I watch CNN,the BBC,Al Jazeera and PBS.I don't define myself as liberal or conservative,I think those terms have little relevance.Thanks for another thought provoking hub!
Thank you Oldenuf! I think (if I had to) I would define myself as a socially libertarian, fiscally conservative communitarian. LOL.
The answer is that it is complicated. All of the mainstream TV channels called a Bush win in 2000, even though, of course, there were some questions about who really won in the ensuing weeks.
But that doesn't mean there is "Republican bias" in the media, necessarily.
Murdoch, who owns Fox, which is right wing, also owns The Times in Britain, which is pretty centrist, on the whole -- I am not sure he believes everything that Fox News pundits say, himself...
In addition, The Simpsons and Family Guy are Fox productions (right?), but I don't think we could call these shows "conservative."
No-one in the mainstream media really grilled Bush on his "reasons" for the Iraq campaign... Does that make them "pro-Bush"?
The answer is that the media shows Disney/Ted Turner/Rupert Murdoch bias. In other words, money talks -- which is why you need a public tv channel... which will never happen (I mean one that can actually compete, not PBS...)
Exactly Adsense. TV news exists solely as a means of delivering advertising (not so much different from hubpages, eh?). Because this is how it's been for 60 years, no one even questions it, it's just how things are. So it's no surprise that the media are more interested in Tiger Woods than in the truth about the Iraq war, and more interested in Climategate than they are about the science behind global warming.
You are so right about public media - so many conservatives seem to forget that "public" means that it is owned and controlled by the people.
Ok I'm going to redefine myself: socially libertarian, fiscally conservative, anti-war except when necessary, pro environment, pro feminist, anti racist, democratic socialist (in that I believe that the people, not corporations and not the government, should have the economic power in society).
As to public media, after many years of prolonged exposure to the BBC news attack dogs, I have seen that something can be "public" and extremely critical of the government. During the Falklands War, one BBC commentator actually referred to the British troops as "their" instead of "our" troops ("they" being the British military). He got into hot water over it, but it still aired like that, night after night.
The CBC in Canada also does pretty damn well, too, though it's a bit softer in some places (Canadians, y'know... too polite).
They exposed the lie about Iraqi soldiers stealing incubators from Kuwait, for example -- got it from the horse's mouth... a Kuwaiti princess...
Media is biased on both sides. You have 'Conservative' and 'Liberal' talk shows all over. Most media is owned by Conservatives. The media bias also depends upon the person's political and philosophical perspective. I'd like a media, or for the news to be presented, w/o 'news' people giving opiniated news casts, and then calling it 'fair and balanced.' But of course, just presenting the news doesn't get ratings.
Right on shazz- it's a ratings game. NPR and the BBC do a good job of presenting the facts without too much spin though.
I am not too sure about the BBC to be honest, as a Brit. As for NPR (which I have never really heard), Chomsky tells a story of how they censured HIM... I quite like PBS.. they too show a lot of detritus, but I usually learn something when I watch it. Canada's CBC can be quite good sometimes too (and uncovered the fake incubation thefts scandal regarding Kuwait and Iraqi invading soldiers), and I imagine can be received in the northern US.
Adsense - It's all relative. Compared to the television networks, NPR is stellar, but they do mess up. It's like the New York Times - they are far superior to most of the other Newspapers in America, except maybe the Christian Science Monitor - but they promoted Bush's lies about Iraq unquestioningly. And - there are many ways to be biased, some much more subtle than others.
Best advice is to question what you hear, no matter where you hear it - and no matter how much it agrees with your own views!
A lot of journalists may be liberal, but there are so few of them left these days. but very few journalists can pick and choose what to write - only the best and brightest. Most media stories and features are chosen by editors and publishers and the like. Media outlets are owned by corporate interests. Corporate interests are rarely socially liberal. Great hub.
Thank you Dolores!
correct me where im wrong. I am under tha enlightenment that a journalist should only deal with the facts.. Also under the view that the only way that a jounalist should look at a polition is down.... I consider myself a realist, but i can love liberal views and cheer on conservative bastards like Glen Beck, him being one of the wildest far out views but based on facts i can feel the fear... i assume everyone has a bias toward their own personal gain, and if i had a voice i would scream shreaks similar... But when u lay down with pigs they will call u swine every time and so the Liberal/Conservitive labels are nothing more.. The media makes their money that way seen so clearly in this Fox News-CNN quarel... I fear that maybe its a doomed situation.... the media seems to hold hands qite daintily with political office to the extent that a change in political power has become a numbers game more than a portal of real valuable information for the poor and powerless. its so bad that maybe one day we wont have the free speach to call a apples green apples or damn a senator fer makeing choices i myself consider taboo... great post - even better topic
I'm glad I found this hub. Good one. And you seemed to try to be fair as well. And you were. I admit, I expected for you to present your 'bias' lol.
Well done, makes you go hmmmm.
Thank you for writing a great hub. Labels have certainly destroyed intelligent discourse in American politics.
Thank you Mr. Wilson for this topic of the ages. I write this a year and a half after your commentary (15 months actually) and follow up comments.
I do what you suggest but only after a public event like the OJ trial showed me the news...wasn't new, it was manufactured to the segment they serve. But overall I feel the "Press" (adversarial in nature yet respected because based on investigation and facts of both or all sides of the debate) is comatose. Now replaced by the "media" or entertainment motivations, not watchdog that our founding fathers saw was necessary. The inability to tolerate the adversary is what at the root of our ills. The vanity to "know" one's views as better without challenge as opposed to closer to the truth because of challenges...it is at the heart of a speech approaching its 50th anniversary delivered by JFK to NY Publishers in the week after the Bay of Pigs debacle. The President delineates himself as recently the darling of the Press and yet he challenged them to scrutinize him, but at the same time consider the national interests...if at all possible.
It is one of the most important oratories to preserve the concept of self rule that is UNIQUE to America. "The President and the Press" April 27, 1961 ...look at least at 3 sources since even that speech has been edited by the library of JFK itself (*source upon request)....odd and ironic.
Equally telling is President Obama's only entry on the subject "Statement of the President to the Press". He the only President to attempt to censor a news organization successfully for a few months in late 2009. I use the files of the whitehouse.gov, UCSB's President's collection and archive.org for the audible downloads. But still I wonder which one is most accurate.
Thank you for acknowledging your bias in later comments, it was nearly vulgar in its appearance in your article to watch for media bias.
I wonder how you deal with the conflict of traditional vs. progressives with regard to woman's suffrage and equality? One would think that Sarah Palin should be idolized by the feminist movement, not ridiculed because she differs from the progressive's views, I'm assuming.
I believe marriage shouldn't be redefined because it offends the very nature of society in general, yet I might agree that it is no longer relevant in social contracts once we remove accountability from relationships. Civil Unions degrade the commitment of the relationship appropriately. It is merely a contract of consent and not of the higher purpose to hold families together. That battle conceded by me as "mission accomplished" of the progressives who hold themselves unaccountable for the chaos of anarchy or the evils of being oppressed.
Align ideals with behavior so to alleviate the mental anxiety of hypocrisy on all sides since the Press is asleep at the wheel. The truth not bounded by the adversary who is now declared not a friend but an enemy i much the same way your disdain for Fox News slithers in your comments, although I still understand why and still respect you. The truth though is farther and farther on the horizon. The assertion that without Fox News the news is balanced shows just how far from the center you are, yet your article gives me hope you keep on your self examination and possibly include Fox News to pull you closer to the center. When their viewership of the analysts exceeds their entire competition combined. The ability to discern the newsreaders and journalists of Fox News and the talking heads of the analysts that are the channel's celebrities. But Katie Couric must be in your sights as she claims no bias yet hers is as distinct as Bill O'Reilly's. To dismiss Fox News without specific facts falls into your generalization mistake. Yet to dismiss them out of hand is dismissing over 50% of the cable news viewing public and therefore no chance to see both sides with blinders on one eye, let alone where the center really is, if one exists at all.
Cheers!
(my bias is against the Sophist and those who persuade with Pathos, leaving Pthos and Logos in their wake)
I have worked in the media the last 20+ years. I believe media is biased in many ways. Sometimes it depends on the writer, the editor, the audience - or even the publisher (the owner).
I was taught in college that in Washington DC a reporter reports what they are told, or they no longer have access to sources of information. Apply that consideration to an administration that politically swings back and forth. Will you have access this year?
Likewise, I have worked for various publications and seen advertisers call in and cancel their association/advertising because of political bias etc.
YouTube video...
I have a hard time with the perception of someone from Massachusetts being able to discern what is liberal and what is not. Likewise, I am sure they would feel the same about me being in the North West, which is considered far right. In my eyes the local newspaper is little more than the daily cheerleaders of commie-lib propaganda.
Case in point...
Currently, this state is debating whether or not guns should be allowed on college campuses. Not once has anyone stopped and asked - "Do we have the authority to regulate this?" They simply assume that they do. Government gets its authority from the people who created it. The people have not given the government THAT authority. Does that stop them at all from acting upon the assumption that they have the authority? Nope. They move forward full steam with no regard to future legal challenges, costs etc.
And the legal challenges? Why? The law specifically states any unconstitutional law, is to be ignored by the courts, the officials, and the people.
Sometimes we as a people are like stupid puppets who can't read.
Instead of the newspaper reporter coming out and saying... well the law says to ignore unconstitutional laws... they come and say... well we got this new law and that's just the way it is for now.
This shows my bias as well.
The point is, the media is bias to someone. Who and how, depends on the variables.
Nice Hub! Good interaction too.
- Harlan
Fianally here is the PROOF of overwelming liberal bias! http://www.westernjournalism.com/ucla-professor-i-
pgrundy 2 years ago
I remember when 'liberal' referred to rich people who had a sort of guilty conscience 'nobless oblige' political sensibility. That's where the term 'bleeding heart liberal' came from in the 70s and 80s. But now the term is used to describe anybody who doesn't watch Fox news. It's pretty silly. I also don't think 'conservative' describes the neocons very well. It's all gotten quite warped. Great hub, thanks. :)