Blogcritics: Comments on The Liberal News Media

Comment by Richard

Tue, 25 May 2004 16:38:38 EDT

Of course, in some countries the truth is the truth, not what 15%/45%/60% of the population regard as an acceptable version of the truth, and the political views of the professional reporting it is immaterial. But then again, a small reminder of the dominance the conservatives enjoy outside of the media, and which deserves fair counter ...

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Tue, 25 May 2004 14:15:27 EDT

The key phase here is "self-assessment" - the study asked the journalists to describe themselves:

Questions to reporters in annual survey:
Are you liberal or conservative?
National Media: 34 percent liberal, 7 percent conservative. (Nearly a 5-to-1 ratio)
General Public: 20 percent liberal, 33 percent conservative.

Fox News describes itself as "fair and balanced" so I suspect their journalists described themselves as moderates. As surveys go, this is not one of the most useful.

Comment by Dirtgrain

Mon, 24 May 2004 14:40:34 EDT

Corporations own the media = corporate bias. Journalists working for the corporate-controlled media and being filtered and censored so their reporting aligns with the corporate agenda = corporate whores. You would be better served to find out what the political bent of the editors is. Even that might not really matter. What matters is if they are willing to sell out the truth, ethics and journalistic integrity for corporate cash. Can you find a survey on this one? Why don't you just read Manufacturing Consent by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky? {Please don't bother responding by denouncing Chomsky's character or political agenda. Just read the book--and fact check it if you think it is wrong} Corporations don't care about the truth, and they don't care about integrity. They aren't capable of caring at all. It's all about the money. Lastly, Stern and Imus are corporate whores.

Comment by Shark

Mon, 24 May 2004 09:59:19 EDT

re: Comment #5 - While I don't agree with the 'idiot' namecalling aspect, I'll second that opinion. There's a big difference between cutting/pasting/sniping vs linking to a contemporary story and adding something *original, creative, or interesting. RJ needs a bit more stringent criteria for his own entries. Either that, or a heightened sense of shame. *see CW Fisher for more

Comment by RJ Idiot

Mon, 24 May 2004 09:47:06 EDT

rj, do you think that for once you can write a meaningful post that includes three paragraphs of orginal throught and analysis instead of cutting and pasting from another source that actually took the time to write an article and then putting one line of commentary on it? Really, I don't undertand why they let people like you post on here. it really detracts from the site.

Comment by RJ Elliott

Mon, 24 May 2004 01:37:55 EDT

"Never heard of Elaine Chao" She's in the Cabinet. "What's the percentage of conservatives vs. liberals in talk radio?" Honestly, it's a lot closer to parity than you might think. Those who specialize in political talk tend to lean right (understatement), but they don't attempt to hide this fact. Those who are mere "shock-jocks" (Stern, Imus, Bubba, etc.) tend to lean Left. And now there's Air America Radio. And there has always been NPR... "How come everybody bitches about CNN and the like being liberal but they don't say a damn thing about Fox news? It's just as partisan. No, I take that back, it's even more blatantly partisan. Nobody bitches about it" Er, EVERYONE bitches about it. I agree that FOXNEWS is just as partisan as CNN or other news organizations, but this is hardly some sort of secret... The main complaint that I have isn't the liberals in the media who are honest about their political views (like Air America Radio). It's the liberals who pretend to be completely "fair and balanced" who irk me. Dan Rather is an example. Aaron Brown and Chris Matthews are two others. And there are many more...

Comment by boomcrashbaby

Mon, 24 May 2004 01:11:09 EDT

Never heard of Elaine Chao, but Colin Powell was why I changed my original percentage of 100 down to 99. we don't have a Proportional Representation electoral system in the US, BCB. It's winner-take-all. Well, since the media is based on advertising, ratings and the almighty dollar, that makes the success of media based on capitalism. Isn't capitalism, winner-take-all? I don't get your point. What's the percentage of conservatives vs. liberals in talk radio? How come everybody bitches about CNN and the like being liberal but they don't say a damn thing about Fox news? It's just as partisan. No, I take that back, it's even more blatantly partisan. Nobody bitches about it, because it's partisan on their behalf. Makes rants about the liberal media grow old. If you don't like it, change to fox. If Gore had won, do you think his administration would be only 20% liberal? Do you think it would be 33% conservative? I get your point here. But considering that Liberman was his running mate and Liberman is a Republican in Democrats clothing, I'd have to say his cabinet would have a little more variety than Bushs.

Comment by RJ Elliott

Mon, 24 May 2004 00:28:17 EDT

"99% of the administration falls into the neo-con category." Uh, people like Colin Powell and Elaine Chao and Norman Mineta are neo-cons? News to me... "Quite a bit more skewed than any media bias if you ask me." Er, we don't have a Proportional Representation electoral system in the US, BCB. It's winner-take-all. If Gore had won, do you think his administration would be only 20% liberal? Do you think it would be 33% conservative?

Comment by boomcrashbaby

Mon, 24 May 2004 00:22:30 EDT

What's sad is the part where 33% of the general public considers themselves conservative, yet 99% of the administration falls into the neo-con category. Quite a bit more skewed than any media bias if you ask me.