Yet, despite the growing mountains of evidence showing MSM bias, using this as proof for an information cartel driving a liberal bias (or any bias) in the MSM still does not pile higher than a hill of beans. On the contrary, this overwhelming evidence is actually doing a better job of proving the the opposite: that there is no systemic bias in the MSM. To make my point, let's play with marbles.
Alice and I decide to toss a marble in a bucket for every MSM news story we see. The color of the marble we toss represents our interpretation of the story's political bias with red for conservative, blue for liberal and purple for politically neutral. I am a known card-carrying liberal and Alice sleeps in Reagan jammies. Not surprisingly, a month later, her bucket is filled with 50% blue marbles, 45% purple marbles and 5% red marbles. She looks at my bucket and quips, "Still wearing your Trotsky PJs, I see," and notes that it contains 50% red marbles, 45% purple marbles and 5% blue marbles. So we thoroughly mix our respective buckets together in a tub, take a few steps back and, guess what? The tub appears to be filled with purple marbles.
If only two people play the game, it is reasonable to assume that one player is less objective than the other and, thus, skews the merged results. When lots and lots of people are collecting samples of media bias, the quantitative integrity of the sample collection matters less and less because it is also reasonable to assume that this lack of integrity distributes equally across the political spectrum. Since the errors will tend to distribute evenly across the political spectrum, then the results will still produce the same mean. Translation: still no systemic MSM bias being shown.
A news report deemed false (whether real or imagined) is the most popular indictment of the MSM bias but is far from the only argument being used. There are myriads of studies using methods such as relativistically ranking how conservative or liberal a news organization is deemed. Other studies have surveyed editors and journalists about their political beliefs. Still others count the frequency of liberal versus conservative sourcing, or possibly, the frequency of the reporting of a politically charged event.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dr Dreadful
Great job, Friv D. You've basically set up a grand experiment here: anyone taking issue with any part of this article is very possibly demonstrating their own biased perception of the media (in this case, you)!
One other important point you could have mentioned is that bias in the media is fluid, not static, and responds to the realities of the moment. For example, there was a period of three or four years after 9/11 when many MSM outlets took a decidedly kid-gloves approach to the Bush administration. If a harsh critique was published or broadcast, Karl Rove had only to accuse the perpetrator of a lack of patriotism and the outlet would back off.
That tactic probably helped to win Bush the '04 election. After that, the MSM got noticeably more critical of him, in response, I think, to the public's growing disillusionment with the various wars.
2 - Baronius
You've gotta love a media critic who doesn't know what network Glenn Beck is on. OK, sure, the example that Andrew used could be deliberately dated, but I doubt it, considering he doesn't even know how to spell GlenN's name.
3 - Zingzing
Maybe that's a little nitpicky thing the editors should get on, baronius.
4 - Frivolous D (Andrew Ratzsch)
Thank Doc D.
I have always been mindful of those "kid glove years" as a counterweight to the liberal bias charge.
That said, I much prefer your characterization of a "fluid media." I'm sure that we agree that politicians were remarkably effective at managing public opinion during that era. In the context of the article's thesis, it could still be said that the journalists and editors were simply responding to market demands.
Of course, this still doesn't exonerate them from looking like a bunch of of Karl Rove's minion eunuchs.
5 - Zingzing
And of course, beck was on fox when he literally wept tears over the health care act.
6 - Costello
You gotta love a troll like Baronius who isn't bright enough to understand the difference between a hypothetical analogy and a citation of fact.
7 - Frivolous D (Andrew Ratzsch)
Baronious,
Glenn Beck's radio show doesn't meet a widely accepted definition of the MSM for the simple reason that he is syndicated. His show is neither produced nor broadcast by a national news organization. Rather is is rebroadcast on a number of smaller radio stations and most of those, if not all, don't have national news collection and dissemination abilities.
So the anachronism was, indeed intentional. However, I apologize for the lack of clarity. My only excuse is that I've become complacent, having adapted to an audience capable of making these inferences on their own. However, I will try to be clearer in the future.
However, your comment that I misspelled the name "Glenn" is absolutely correct. Just shoddy writing, no excuses.
8 - Baronius
Friv - If you're open to criticism, let's talk about this:
"There are myriads of studies using methods such as relativistically ranking how conservative or liberal a news organization is deemed. Other studies have surveyed editors and journalists about their political beliefs. Still others count the frequency of liberal versus conservative sourcing, or possibly, the frequency of the reporting of a politically charged event."
Those studies sound pretty interesting. Maybe you should have elaborated on them more than a simple announcement that they're "suspect". In fact, you really didn't elaborate on anything specific in this article except for the Zimmerman story. It's nice to know how you feel about media bias, but it would have been better if you'd discussed specifics.
9 - Baronius
Dread, are we talking about George W. Bush's first term? The non-stop condemnations of Ashcroft and the PATRIOT Act, the constant tally of "x number dead since Bush declared Mission Accomplished", the claim that Bush was trying to distract us from his failure to capture OBL, et cetera? Please identify some of these marbles that you're counting.
10 - Frivolous D (Andrew Ratzsch)
Baronius,
First of all, I never said that they were all wrong, what I said is that there is no consensus on their validity, whether left, right or center. Had I listed only a few examples, then you would have charged me with "cherry picking." Therefor, to support that assertion to your satisfaction, I would have to list every study and all of their respective critiques. Since I made no reference to data or conclusions of a specific study, convention did not require a citation. Further, it would have left very little room in the article for substantive original content.
The convention is tha, as my critic, it is your job to prove me wrong. So feel free to to post a study that supports a claim of a general and consistent pattern of bias in the national news reporting. To prove me wrong, your study must be credible (e.g. academic, recognized institution, sponsored by national organization, etc. - not Joe the Plumber); it must have been published for peer review; and have wide peer-level acceptance as being as being fundamentally accurate and without flaws that impeach the credibility of its conclusions.
Go crazy! I'll be here.
11 - Dr Dreadful
Perhaps my standards are too high, Baronius, since I come from a tradition in which the sitting government is routinely eviscerated by the MSM on the grounds that it is their job as the fourth estate to hold them accountable.
Contrast Paxman's style vs. Blair in that video with this NBC interview with President Bush, given shortly after Katrina, in which Brian Williams pulls more punches than a boxer with no arms.
Or this Newsweek piece from 2003, in which the magazine decided on the brink of the highly contentious Iraq invasion that the absolute perfect angle for an extensive feature on the President would be an extensive analysis not of his rationale for going to war but of his religious faith.
Did any of those criticisms, claims and body count tallies you speak of actually appear in the MSM, Baronius, or were they on liberal blogs and on the websites of groups like Media Matters, Daily Kos or Think Progress?
12 - Baronius
Andrew, that's a weird little judo move you're doing. I didn't say you said they were wrong; I said you said they were "suspect". In fact, I didn't say anything that didn't come straight from your article. You admit that there are studies showing media bias - you wrote about them. Then, when I mention the studies you wrote about, you question me about it. Well, here's a source about the studies that you might want to consult. It's an article called "The Fallacy of Liberal Media Bias", and you can find it here (note the lack of link).
13 - Dr Dreadful
Baronius, perhaps I missed it, but I read through the article again and can't see anywhere Andrew claims that any studies are "suspect".
Conclusions drawn from those studies - now, that's another matter.
14 - Dan(Miller)
Doc, re # 13: I'm not suggesting these studies are all useless, just suspect appears in the second paragraph, close to the top of page 2.
15 - Dr Dreadful
Page 3, actually, Dan, but thanks.
16 - Frivolous D (Andrew Ratzsch)
The "suspect" statement accurately reflects my belief that there is no bias study (left or right) that is irrefutable and I my challenge to Baronius in #10 also reflects that... which is why I let the whole "suspectgate" dangle.
In the broader context of the paragraph and thesis, it was meant to say that every study is going to be held suspect by somebody and that to continue to use individual studies, regardless of their merit, will only serve to intensify the stand-off. The paragraph more clearly concludes that "flawed or not, when viewed collectively the widely varying results of these studies still aggregate into a net-neutral conclusion." In other words, no-one is winning this war. I see now that the paragraph could be better, though.
17 - Baronius
No one is winning this war because there are two sides to it? That's the gist of what you're saying. As long as there are people who hear left-wing bias and right-wing bias you're unwilling to declare that either side is right. You're not persuaded by the quality of either side's argument. The mere fact that both sides exist is enough to persuade you.
You'd be more convincing if you'd consider the actual arguments instead.
18 - Frivolous D (Andrew Ratzsch)
"You'd be more convincing if you'd consider the actual arguments instead." Which arguments? Consider them in what sense. It is obvious from your comments that you didn't read the article for content but just "sifted it" for weaknesses, because your charges are disconnected and generic. And your summary is an interpretation of the preceding comments only.
Since you don't like to read, a recap:
First: I am suggesting that there is likely to be more truth in "averaging" the results of those studies than there is in any single study. However, this is an opinion because I am not aware of a study that attempts this approach.
Second: The economics of the MSM industry provides an alternative metric. Please see the last few paragraphs for an outline of this argument. I freely acknowledge that my views have been heavily shaped by Daniel Sutter's paper which is why he earned a link in the second to last paragraph, despite no specific reference to his work. I will add that the paper was written with the input and endorsement of Tyler Cowen, a famous (and famously) libertarian Georgetown economics professor, a brilliant man who constantly pisses me off.
This article is properly considered an opinion piece that meets reasonable expectations of support. Your best avenue of attack would to be to recognize that there is no formal method of aggregating either the news samples or the studies and therefor the net-neutral conclusion is an assumption. Run with it.
If you want a conclusive, watertight argument, you won't get it. I think you could mine this article for a couple of PhD thesis's and I only had 1500 words and a weekend. If you want an intelligent debate, then read the article for content first.
19 - Baronius
Andrew - Please don't presume to tell me what I did and didn't do when I read this article. If I found weaknesses, it's because the article was weak.
Dread - I remember watching those segments on the nightly news, so it wouldn't have been left-leaning internet commentary. I'll see if I can find some examples online - but no promises.
20 - Frivolous D (Andrew Ratzsch)
Baronius, it wasn't a presumption, it was a deduction.
21 - Baronius
Dread - Here are a few examples:
To Many, Mission Not Accomplished; Residents Say Occupation's Unkept Promises, Military Tactics Fuel Resistance
The Washington Post, June 3, 2004
Bush Defends Year-Ago Claim Of End of 'Major Combat' in Iraq; President Appeared Under 'Mission Accomplished' Banner
The Washington Post, May 1, 2004
Odai Hussein May Have Killed Self
ABC News, July 23, 2003
"U.S. officials expressed hope that the deaths of Saddam's sons would put an end to violent resistance in Iraq that has left 41 U.S. soldiers dead since President Bush announced the end of major combat operations on May 1."
AFTER THE WAR, A BATTLE STILL RAGES FOR PEACE IN IRAQ
PBS NewsHour Extra, August 29, 2003
"Four months after major combat operations ended in the Iraq War, U.S. soldiers and their international allies still face major challenges in their efforts to bring peace, stability and a new infrastructure to the former totalitarian nation."
Bush Plans Probe of Intelligence
Chicago Tribune, February 2, 2004
"Since May 1, when Bush announced the end to "major combat operations" in Iraq, the president and his administration have been the subjected to questions over the inability of weapons investigators to turn up any chemical, biological or nuclear weapons--the White House's initial and most important rationale for using deadly force to overthrow Hussein."
22 - Dr Dreadful
Baronius, those examples are just the normal tone of the news cycle, not the savaging you claimed in your #9.
I can see how a Bush supporter might have seen them as less than impartial, just as you can probably see how an Obama supporter might find these headlines unfair:
Obama’s Afghanistan Decision Is Straining Ties With Democrats
New York Times, December 3 2009
"President Obama’s decision to send more troops to Afghanistan over the objections of fellow Democrats on Capitol Hill is straining a relationship already struggling under the weight of an administration agenda that some Democratic lawmakers fear is placing them in a politically vulnerable position."
Obama's Afghan Problem: Not a General, But a War Strategy
Time, June 25 2010
"The most damaging comment by General Stanley McChrystal about the Obama Administration's Afghanistan war effort was not in the Rolling Stone story that got him canned. Instead it was his explanation, two weeks ago during a NATO briefing in Brussels, for the delay in the planned Kandahar offensive, deemed the pivotal campaign of the war."
Documents leak leaves White House on defensive about Afghanistan policy
Los Angeles Times, July 26 2010
"The leaking of a trove of U.S. documents has put the Obama administration on the defensive about its Afghanistan policy and may deepen doubts in Congress about prospects for turning around the faltering war effort."
23 - rightstat
plot right/wrong track national poll results and then check how often these polls are mentioned in MSM depending on which party holds the power in DC... It could yield an interest and relatively clear measure of bias.
24 - Dr Dreadful
It could, but I've a feeling it wouldn't be all that edifying as most MSM outlets automatically report poll results as they are released by the polling companies.
25 - Jay
My personal belief in liberal media bias arises from my personal transition from Marxist to libertarian. Post transition I became aware of both news and editorial content that either didn't report some news, e.g. gays or minorities committing crimes against whites, gun owners protecting the life of a loved one or themselves, etc., or failing to present alternative viewpoints when appropriate.
Although it's true that I've become a Fox News junky, as a libertarian I disagree with much of it because I'm a social liberal.
But to their credit, Fox presents more opposing viewpoints with their regular lefties - Bob Bechel, Alan Colmes, Kirsten Powers, Juan Williams, et.al. and, with the possible exception of Bill O'Reilly, show more respect for those they disagree with.