About Opentopia
Opentopia Directory Encyclopedia Tools

Media bias in the United States

Encyclopedia : M : ME : MED : Media bias in the United States

Claims of media bias in the United States attract constant attention. Partisan activity from every area of the US political spectrum may concentrate on some aspect of real or perceived media bias. The question of bias in the US media is also of great interest to people living outside the US, in the English-speaking world and (increasingly) outside it. This interest may proceed from the extent that global media can be seen to be concentrated in US ownership.

Claims of media bias in the United States include, though are not exhausted by, the issues of liberal or conservative biases. These debates are of contemporary significance in the partisan arena of US cultural and social politics. It is quite possible for a media outlet to be conservative on some subjects and liberal on others: for example to be fiscally conservative, yet still favor liberal social policy. Therefore, organization of the discussion of bias around these two terms is neither exhaustive nor exclusive.

Contents

History

Examples of bias in America are almost as old as newspapers, and predate the United States. In fact any expectation of an 'unbiased' media is relatively recent. Before the broadcast age all media were privately owned and it was expected that a newspaper would reflect the opinions of its publisher. Frequently an area would be served by competing newspapers taking differing political views.

In 1728 Benjamin Franklin, writing under the pseudonym "Busy-Body", wrote an article for the American Weekly Mercury advocating the printing of more paper money. He did not mention that his own printing company hoped to get the job of printing the money. It is an indication of the complexity of the issue of bias when we note that, even though he stood to profit by printing the money, Franklin also seems to have genuinely believed that printing more money would stimulate trade. As his biographer Walter Isaacson points out, Franklin was never averse to "doing well by doing good".

In 1798, the Congress of the United States passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which prohibited the publication of "false, scandalous, or malicious writing" against the government, and made it a crime to voice any public opposition to any law or presidential act. This act was in effect until 1801.

In 1861, President Abraham Lincoln accused newspapers in the border states of bias in favor of the Southern cause, and ordered many newspapers closed.

In the Nineteenth Century, many American newspapers made no pretense to lack of bias, openly advocating one or another political party. Big cities would often have competing newspapers supporting various political parties. To some extent this was mitigated by a separation between news and editorial. News reporting was expected to be relatively neutral or at least factual, (though this was certainly not always the case) whereas editorial was openly the opinion of the publisher. Editorials might also be accompanied by an editorial cartoon, which would frequently lampoon the publisher's opponents.

At the start of the Twentieth Century many American newspapers were guilty of blatant yellow journalism. None were more guilty of this than William Randolph Hearst whose newspapers deliberately falsified stories of incidents that may have contributed to the Spanish-American War and, not incidentally, helped Hearst sell a lot of newspapers.

In the years leading up to World War II, politicians who favored the United States entering the war on the German side accused the international media of pro-Jewish bias, and often asserted that newspapers opposing entry of the United States on the German side were controlled by Jews. They claimed that reports of German mistreatment of Jews were biased and without foundation.

Hollywood was said to be a hotbed of Jewish bias, and pro-German politicians in the United States called for Charlie Chaplin’s film The Great Dictator to be banned, as an insult to a respected leader.

During the civil rights movement in the 1960's, television was accused by many Southerners of bias against White Southerners, and bias in favor of mixing of the races. Many Southern television stations refused to air programs such as I Spy and Star Trek, because of their racially mixed casts. During the labor union movement and the civil rights movement, newspapers supporting liberal social reform were accused of communist bias.

In modern politics, an early claim that liberal bias dominates the media dates back to November 1969, when Spiro Agnew, then Vice President under Richard Nixon made a landmark speech denouncing media influence on politics. In 1970, in San Diego, Agnew called those opposed to the war in Vietnam the "nattering nabobs of negativism."

From the 1990s onwards, some American conservatives have increasingly voiced their perception that liberals dominate the American mass media and present a liberal point of view.

Several authors have written books on liberal bias in the media. Some examples include:

Claims that media in the United States show liberal bias

"Liberal media" is a common phrase used by conservatives in American political discourse to express the view that the American media generally has a liberal bias. The expression is frequently used by critics of the network news shows of CBS, ABC, and NBC, cable channels CNN and MSNBC as well as major newspapers and news-wires, especially the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, Washington Post and the San Francisco Chronicle, as well as the Associated Press.

People who use the phrase "liberal bias" claim that liberal biases are evident in both the choice (what stories are favored, or "played," over others) and coverage (how stories are researched, portrayed, and presented). According to their perceptions, there is a "slant" or "spin" in the news that tends to promote a liberal agenda.

Those who support the concept of a liberal media bias often also claim that as individuals most journalists, and news producers, hold liberal political views. In a survey conducted by the American Society of Newspaper Editors in 1997, 61% of reporters claimed to be or lean towards being Democratic or liberal. Only 15% claimed to be or lean towards being Republican or conservative. A survey by the Pew Research Center and Project for Excellence in Journalism in 2004 found 34% of journalists describing themselves as liberal, 54% as moderate, and only 7% as conservative.

Some have argued that the media tends to portray Republican leaders as less intelligent, compared to their Democratic counterparts.

Some argue that even asking politicians about their plans to solve social issues is a form of liberal bias, on the grounds that such a question must be based on the liberal assumption that government has a role in solving social or economic problems.

Those who support the view that a liberal media bias exists, have said that the media has a tendency to inflame stories which suggest that guns in the hands of private citizens are responsible for crimes (and ignore those when a gun has been used for positive purposes in law enforcement or self-protection — this would be classified as spiking).

Many of the positions in the preceding paragraph are supported by a 2002 study by Jim A. Kuypers of Dartmouth College: Press Bias and Politics. In this study of 116 mainstream US papers (including The New York Times, the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle), Kuypers found that the mainstream press in America operate within a narrow range of liberal beliefs. Those who expressed points of view further to the left were generally ignored, whereas those who expressed moderate or conservative points of view were often actively denigrated or labeled as holding a minority point of view. In short, if a political leader, regardless of party, spoke within the press-supported range of acceptable discourse, he or she would receive positive press coverage. If a politician, again regardless of party, were to speak outside of this range, he or she would receive negative press or be ignored. Kuypers also found that the liberal points of view expressed in editorial and opinion pages were found in hard news coverage of the same issues. Although focusing primarily on the issues of race and homosexuality, Kuypers found that the press injected opinion into its news coverage of other issues such as welfare reform, environmental protection, and gun control; in all cases favoring a liberal point of view.

Conservative critics claim that the editorial pages of many large U.S. newspapers such as The New York Times, the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle, allegedly have a more-or-less explicitly liberal point of view. They claim, however, that a wall exists between editorial and reporting. Some critics see this wall as crumbling in the heat of partisan politics. Newer media, such as television and some web news sources, do not distinguish as clearly between the editorial department and the news department. Conservatives frequently accuse the big three networks of liberal bias in their news reporting. This view is represented by the slogan of Fox News, "Fair and balanced", which suggests that the competition is not fair and balanced.

Some people claim that bias is present not just in news programs but in the networks' other programs as well. Some entertainment programs have been accused of having a subtle political bias.

In addition to accusations of intentional bias, some accuse reporters of being lazy, and claim that this creates a tendency towards liberal bias, since it takes less effort to challenge politicians and government officials with questions than it does to investigate the actual causes of social problems. Reporters (even conservative reporters) may have a tendency to take the easy path and confront officials with emotion laden social problems and ask "What are you going to do about it?".

It has been observed that bias that seems to be politically motivated may be motivated by sensationalism rather than politics.

Examples

The breaking of the Lewinsky scandal by Matt Drudge, instead of Newsweek, who originally had the story and held onto it, is often cited as an example of alleged liberal media bias.

It is also claimed by those who allege liberal bias in the media that there is a tendency to inflame stories which suggest that guns in the hands of private citizens are responsible for crimes (and ignore stories where a gun in the hand of a private citizen apprehended a criminal). [link]

Conservatives alleged media bias in the perceived different treatment of Senators Robert Byrd and Trent Lott over racial issues. Byrd, a Democrat and a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, used the term "white nigger" in an interview [link], but allegedly was not aggressively questioned by the media regarding the slur. Critics contrast this treatment to the media coverage of the Republican Lott, who was forced to resign as Senate majority leader in a firestorm of criticism from Democrats and Republicans alike regarding a comment about Lott's home state of Mississippi supporting then-segregationist Strom Thurmond's 1948 Presidential campaign ("We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years either."[link]). Lott made the comment at Thurmond's 100th birthday celebration.

During the 2004 elections, CBS reported they had a copy of a typewritten memo that proved Bush had ignored a direct order to take a physical. The authenticity of the memo used as the source in the report was later questioned by independent analysis. The supposed author of the document later claimed that she didn't write it. [link] It is unknown to this day who actually produced the document, however Bill Burkett has admitted to providing the documents to CBS and lying to them about its source [link]. Talk show host Rush Limbaugh (himself a media personality) uses this event to support his theory that the media is biased to the left.

A conservative criticism of the media is that it has covered the bad news in Afghanistan and Iraq, where American-led coalition forces are currently engaged in controversial military action, while ignoring the good news. Critics point to the heavy coverage of the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse, a perceived obsession with coalition and civilian body counts, with threats of a military draft, and perceived mismanagement of the conflicts. Progress, such as economic development, political reform, and increasing numbers of local police and defense forces, is rarely covered. Some soldiers have been quoted as saying the Iraq where they serve is not the Iraq shown on TV, and that Afghanistan isn't shown at all. Some outspoken critics of the media have gone so far as to claim that this is a sign of an Anti-American bias, and a deliberate attempt to diminish public support, with the ultimate goal of forcing a total withdrawal of American forces.

In June and July 2005, the chair of the Board of Directors of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Kenneth Tomlinson, appointed as chairman by President George W. Bush, investigated his own corporation for liberal bias, using government funds, and did not find any evidence of liberal bias. His attempt to purge CPB of what he perceived as "liberal bias" sparked complaints of political pressure.[link] Tomlinson commissioned a $10,000 study into Bill Moyers' PBS program, "[Now with Bill Moyers]" without informing the board of the investigation.[link] Tomlinson resigned from the CPB board on November 4, 2005.

Claims that media in the United States show conservative bias

Claims of conservative bias came largely in response to the widespread claims of liberal bias, and to the growth of mainstream conservative media, most notably Fox News, many talk AM radio stations, and the recent onset of conservative bloggers. While critics of conservative bias in media often point, explicitly or by example, to right wing pundits such as Rush Limbaugh, it is important to distinguish between news media, which in a free society generally acknowledge a commitment to objectivity, and commentary, which has no such obligation.

Claims of conservative bias can be found in Media Matters for America, FAIR, Pipa and other media watchdog groups; in blogs, such as Talking Points Memo by Josh Marshall and reports from Air America Radio, and in the writing of journalists such as Salon.com's Joe Conason.

Conservative media bias is said to exist for two reasons. First, the owners of media corporations are alleged to be conservative, like many business owners. As owners, they may be in a position to dictate editorial and hiring policies. The second reason traces media concentration. The mass media is comprised of a few very large media corporations. Such a uniformity of ownership means that stories which might not be to the benefit of these large corporations may not be run. Examples of conservative media bias might include the media's failure to cover, for example, many of the early anti-globalization demonstrations or its depiction of the protesters as troublemakers and prone to violence. Among the media sources accused of conservative bias are Fox News, the Washington Times, New York Post, Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune, Beehive Standard Weekly, New York Sun, San Diego Union-Tribune and the Arizona Republic.

Finally, it has been claimed that liberal journalists often try so hard to avoid any hint of liberal bias in their work that they end up showing conservative bias. A 1998 study from Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), a self-described progressive media watch group, found that journalists are "mostly centrist in their political orientation"; [link] 30% considered themselves to the left on social issues compared to 9% on the right, while 11% considered themselves to the left on economic issues compared to 19% on the right. The report explained that since journalists considered themselves to be centrists, "perhaps this is why an earlier survey found that they tended to vote for Bill Clinton in large numbers."

FAIR (and others) have also argued that accusations of liberal media bias are part of a conservative strategy, noting an article in the 20 August 1992 Washington Post in which Republican party chair Rich Bond compared journalists to referees in a sporting match: "If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is 'work the refs.' Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack next time."

Examples

In some cases the ownership of the media outlets is called into question, such as conservative Rupert Murdoch's media empire which includes the Fox News Channel. According to a press release from Fox News Channel in August 2004, "FNC is now the most watched twenty-four hour news network in the nation." And, according to a year-long study by the University of Maryland, College Park's Program on International Policy Attitudes, more than two out of three Americans held the false view that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 9/11 attack and that the head of state of Iraq had a "collaborative relationship with Al-Qaeda," and Americans who rely on Fox News for their coverage of the war in Iraq are more likely to hold such false views. According to former Fox News producer, Charlie Reina, "The roots of Fox News Channel's day-to-day on-air bias are actual and direct. They come in the form of an executive memo distributed electronically each morning, addressing what stories will be covered and, often, suggesting how they should be covered."

The New York Times, which is often accused of liberal bias by conservative critics, published Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Judith Miller stories uncritically reporting President Bush's arguments in favor of military action against Iraq, and his assertions that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction which posed an immediate threat to the U.S. and Europe. The CIA has since determined that most of these assertions were false.

Some observers of conservative bias cite as an example the contrast between the press coverage of president Bill Clinton, which hit a new low with the rush to sensationalize every lurid detail of his marital infidelity, with that of, for example, Ronald Reagan, who was known as the "Teflon President."[3]

Some point to the CBS network declining to air a planned miniseries on Ronald Reagan because of complaints of inaccuracy and bias made by conservative groups, or the cancellation of a Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher by the ABC network after sponsors withdrew in response to comments the host made regarding the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center ("We have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly.") as instances of conservatives wielding power in the media via economic pressure.

In a signed article in London's The Observer, on October 17 2004, two weeks before the 2004 US presidential election, Andrew Stephan wrote "The 43rd US President has always had a much-publicized knack for mangled syntax, but now George Bush often searches an agonizingly long time, sometimes in vain, for the right words. His mind simply blanks out at crucial times. He is prone, I am told, to foul-mouthed temper tantrums in the White House. His handlers now rarely allow him to speak an unscripted word in public ... A senior Republican, experienced and wise in the ways of Washington, told me last Friday that he does not necessarily accept that Bush is unstable, but what is clear, he added, is that he is now manifestly unfit to be President." Contrast this with major US media coverage of Bush at the same time which, while sometimes critical, was always respectful.

Not long before Super Bowl 38, it was reported that a 30-second political advertisement called "Child's Play" sponsored by MoveOn.org, a grassroots liberal advocacy organization, was rejected by CBS (which televised the Super Bowl) on grounds that the ad violated the network's policy against accepting advocacy advertising, according to a CBS spokesperson. The ad was critical of Bush administration fiscal policies. However, a 30-second spot produced for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy by Ogilvy & Mather, advocating national drug enforcement policies, was accepted for broadcast. Martin Franks, executive vice president of CBS, stated that there is "a thorough vetting of every ad that appears on CBS. End of sentence." Advertisements during the Super Bowl are some of the most expensive ad time on television due to the high ratings of the event. [link] [link]

In 2003, MTV, which like CBS is owned by Viacom, refused to air another Moveon.org ad, this one opposing the war in Iraq. The ad was rejected on the grounds that it was an advocacy advertisement from an interest group. MTV regularly broadcasts recruitment advertisements for the U.S. Army. [link]

Bias in the comics

The Doonesbury comic strip, a topical daily cartoon, has often been accused of liberal bias. In 2004 a conservative letter writing campaign was successful in convincing Continental Features, a company which prints many Sunday comics sections, to refuse to print the strip, causing Doonesbury to disappear from the Sunday comics in 38 newspapers. Of the 38, only one editor, Troy Turner, executive editor of the Anniston Star in Alabama, continued to run the Sunday Doonesbury, albeit necessarily in black and white. However, on September 12, 2005, the decision to drop Doonesbury from The Guardian (UK) was reversed less than 24 hours later, after the strip's followers voiced strong discontent.

It should be noted, that Doonesbury is often considered an editorial cartoon and published on the opinion page of newspapers. Editorial cartoons (as well as comics in general) are not bound by any journalistic ethics to present only neutral or politically balanced viewpoints. Doonesbury and creator Garry Trudeau have never claimed to be unbiased.

Furthermore Doonesbury is not the first cartoon to blur the distinction between the comics and editorial cartoons. Li'l Abner by Al Capp routinely parodied southern democrats through the character of Senator Jack S. Phogbound. Pogo by Walt Kelly caricaturized a wide range of political figures including Joseph McCarthy, Richard Nixon, Hubert Humphrey, George Wallace, Robert F. Kennedy, and Eugene McCarthy. Modern cartoons other than Doonesbury routinely take political stands today. Mallard Fillmore by Bruce Tinsley and Prickly City by Scott Stantis both have a decidedly conservative, anti-liberal tone. Non Sequitur, however, has been perceived to be biased toward the liberal side, but instead of making its points explicitly, it uses symbolism. (i.e. In Wiley's Chronicles of Ele, he often pokes fun of the "Emperor of Bullemia, Jorge Flush").

Opposing views

Mainstream media organizations accused of slanted reporting often go to great lengths to defend their objectivity.

In addition, some individuals maintain that there exists in the media a conservative bias, precise opposite to constant claims. Eric Alterman, author of What Liberal Media? The Truth About Bias and the News is one of those who argues against any significant liberal bias. Reviewer John Moe sums up Alterman's views:

"The conservatives in the newspapers, television, talk radio, and the Republican party are lying about liberal bias and repeating the same lies long enough that they've taken on a patina of truth. Further, the perception of such a bias has cowed many media outlets into presenting more conservative opinions to counterbalance a bias, which does not, in fact, exist." [link]
Critics of the concept of 'liberal bias' argue that it is largely an invention of the conservative right. The acronym SCLM is sometimes used to refer to the "so-called liberal media" to reflect this division in how the media is perceived.

Many of these critics also say that most media outlets are owned by wealthy individuals, many if not most of whom are on the right (for example, Rupert Murdoch, the owner of FOX News; FOX is often a target of those who charge conservative bias). Moreover, they say, both the print and broadcast media survive from advertising revenues, which makes the media rely to an extent on corporations; they thus claim that these media are less likely to present information that could harm potential advertisers.

Critics also point to the worldwide perception that US media is more right-wing than in most other democracies, and less likely to challenge an official position than most other countries' media. Certain neoconservatives, such as Irving Kristol, have said that the charge of "liberal bias" has been exaggerated for rhetorical purposes. Foreign news agencies sometimes break stories before the domestic press when the contents might be unfavorable to an American right-wing point of view. For example, when the BBC ran revelations that the state of Florida had been over-aggressive about removing alleged criminals from the voter register (which many argue probably delivered the state and therefore the White House to George W. Bush in the contentious 2000 election), no US news agency ran the story.

On the other hand, those who claim there exists widespread liberal bias argue that a number of these wealthy business owners are liberals, so great wealth does not necessarily entail conservatism. They point to Ted Turner, the founder of CNN, as well as other liberal figures who are multimillionaires such as George Soros, John Kerry, Jesse Jackson, Ted Kennedy, John Edwards, Bill Gates, and many Hollywood stars. However, few of these wealthy liberals are owners of major media outlets.

Film critic Roger Ebert, in his review of Elephant (2003), gave an account of a reporter from NBC who approached a story about violent movies with preconceived conservative bias.[link]

The propaganda model proposed by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky in their book Manufacturing Consent deems possible bias of the journalists themselves to be an insignificant matter, but claims that structural and economic causes filter the type of news published. They claim that the five main causes of conservative bias are media ownership by large corporations with financial interests aligned with conservatism, advertising by large corporations as the main source of funding for media, dependency on "established" institutions to supply their demand for sources of news stories, organized conservative flak, and "anti" ideologies that align with the financial interests of the corporations that own and fund the media (such as anti-communism). Chomsky and Herman substantiated their claim of conservative bias by examining news stories by, for example, counting the number of conservative versus liberal sources and guests.

Research

Steve Ansolabehere, Rebecca Lessem and Jim Snyder of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology analyze the political orientation of endorsements by U.S. newspapers http://econ-www.mit.edu/faculty/download_pdf.php?id=1148 working paper version ; (the paper is forthcoming on the Quarterly Journal of Political Science). They find an upward trend in the average propensity to endorse a candidate, and in particular an incumbent one. There are also some changes in the average ideological slant of endorsements: while in the 40s and in the 50s there was a clear advantage to Republican candidates, this advantage continuously eroded in subsequent decades, to the extent that in the 90s the authors find a slight Democrats' lead in the average endorsement choice.

Self-described as "the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly, http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.pdf , a study by political scientists Tim Groseclose of UCLA and Jeff Milyo of the University of Missouri at Columbia, both of whom have written for conservative think tanks (American Enterprise Institute), advocacy groups (Federalist Society), and periodicals (The American Spectator)Boehlert, Eric. Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over for Bush, Free Press, 2006. ISBN 0743289315, was published in December of 2005 in the Quarterly Journal of Economics. The study's stated purpose was to document the range of bias among news outlets.http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664 The research concluded that of the major 20 news outlets studied "18 scored left of [the average U.S. voter], with CBS Evening News, The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal, while only the Fox News "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter." In this study, "left" and "liberal" are treated as synonyms, and are identified with think tanks cited by Congressional members of the Democratic Party, while "right" is identified with think tanks cited by Congressional members of the Republican Party. The number of times a media outlet quotes these organizations is counted, but not the context in which the organizations' names appear, meaning that a report critical of a liberal organisation would count as liberal bias, not conservative bias, and vice versa. The report also states, however, that the news media also show a remarkable degree of centrism, since all but one of the outlets studied are, from an ideological point of view, between the average Democrat and average Republican in Congress.

John Lott and Kevin Hassett of the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute studied the coverage of economic news by looking at a panel of 389 U.S. newspapers from 1991 to 2004, and at a subsample of the two ten newspapers and the Associated Press from 1985 to 2004 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=588453 (link to the abstract) . For each release of official data about a set of economic indicators, the authors analyze how newspapers decide to report on them, as reflected by the tone of the related headlines. The idea is to check whether newspapers display partisan bias, by giving more positive or negative coverage to the same economic figure, as a function of the political affiliation of the incumbent President. Controlling for the economic data being released, the authors find that there are between 9.6 and 14.7 percent fewer positive stories when the incumbent President is a Republican.

Riccardo Puglisi of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology looks at the editorial choices of the New York Times from 1946 to 1997 http://ssrn.com/abstract=573801, (link to the abstract) . He finds that the Times displays Democratic partisanship, with some watchdog aspects. This is the case, because during presidential campaigns the Times systematically gives more coverage to Democratic topics of civil rights, health care, labor and social welfare, but only when the incumbent president is a Republican. These topics are classified as Democratic ones, because Gallup polls show that on average U.S. citizens think that Democratic candidates would be better at handling problems related to them. According to Puglisi, in the post-1960 period the Times displays a more symmetric type of watchdog behaviour, just because during presidential campaigns it also gives more coverage to the typically Republican issue of Defense when the incumbent President is a Democrat, and less so when the incumbent is a Republican.

Additional information

According to Reporters Without Borders the media in the United States lost a great deal of freedom between the 2004 and 2005 indices, citing the Judith Miller case and laws restricting the confidentiality of sources as the main factors. http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=554. According to their index of press freedom, American media are comparable to those of Bolivia, Israel or Italy, which places them in the top third of the index. However, they are ranked below all but one European Union country (Poland) and below most OECD countries.

According to Noam Chomsky, American commercial media encourage controversy within a narrow range of opinion, in order to give the impression of open debate, but do not report on news that falls outside that range.

Accusers of liberal or conservative bias alike typically ignore the dictionary meanings of those words (as do modern political parties). In fact, in the current political discourse, the words seem to have meaning that shifts depending on point of view. The Oxford American Dictionary defines "liberal" in the political sense as "favoring democratic reform and individual liberty" and "conservative" in the political sense as "favoring private enterprise and freedom from government control".

References

See also

Organizations monitoring bias

Mainstream

Liberal

Conservative

Examples/Sources

  1. [Extracts from Agnew's talk here]
  2. Lichter, S.R., Lichter, L.S. and Rothman, S., 1992. Watching America: What Television Tells Us About Our Lives.
  1. Eric Alterman, author of What Liberal Media? The Truth About Bias and the News is one of those who argues against any significant liberal bias. Reviewer John Moe sums up Alterman's views:
"The conservatives in the newspapers, television, talk radio, and the Republican party are lying about liberal bias and repeating the same lies long enough that they've taken on a patina of truth. Further, the perception of such a bias has cowed many media outlets into presenting more conservative opinions to counterbalance a bias, which does not, in fact, exist." [link]
  1. Media Imperialism is a critical theory regarding the perceived effects of globalization on the world's media. It is closely tied to the similar theory of cultural imperialism.
"As multinational media conglomerates grow larger and more powerful many believe that it will become increasingly difficult for small, local media outlets to survive. A new type of imperialism will thus occur, making many nations subsidiary to the media products of some of the most powerful countries or companies. Significant writers and thinkers in this area include Ben Bagdikian, Noam Chomsky, Edward S. Herman and Robert McChesney."
  1. Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, a book by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky.
..."the pressure to create a stable, profitable business invariably distorts the kinds of news items reported, as well as the manner and emphasis in which they are reported. This occurs not as a result of conscious design but simply as a consequence of market selection: those businesses who happen to favor profits over news quality survive, while those that present a more accurate picture of the world tend to become marginalized."
  1. A UCLA political scientist released a peer-reviewed study which concluded that, in general, "almost all major media outlets tilt to the left." [link] Billed as "the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them," it used a somewhat complicated pattern to figure out the political center of the electorate and based the positions of the media on that center. As the first peer-reviewed study to use this particular measure of political position, the study's claims have been contested due to some of its methodogy. [link]
"Our results show a strong liberal bias. All of the news outlets except Fox News’ Special Report and the Washington Times received a score to the left of the average member of Congress. And a few outlets, including the New York Times and CBS Evening News, were closer to the average Democrat in Congress than the center. These findings refer strictly to the news stories of the outlets. That is, we omitted editorials, book reviews, and letters to the editor from our sample." [link]

Bibliography

External links

Non-partisan

Liberal point of view

Conservative point of view

 

From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Original article here. Support Wikipedia by contributing or donating.
All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License See Wikipedia Copyrights for details.

Search Titles
0123456789
ABCDEFGHIJ
KLMNOPQRST
UVWXYZ?

E-mail this article to:

Personal Message: