Shortly after Bush was re-elected, the left, in an effort to fix what they viewed was an imbalance in the viewpoints espoused in talk radio, proposed a revival of the Fairness Doctrine. Republicans, holding a majority in the Congress, opposed, and the legislation never got to the floor. Since then, we've experienced first hand the decidedly leftist-oriented, pro-Obama coverage of 2008, and 2012 election cycles. We've been able to contrast the fawning and adoring media during the Obama presidency against a backdrop of a hostile and confrontational media during the Bush administration. It's time conservatives ask if in fact the left was right on this one, and whether it's time to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.
This is about much more than mere balance on talk radio. In newsrooms and television studios across America, there is a serious diversity problem in which one strand of thought dominates and dissent is ridiculed, cast out, and crushed. News coverage, in its content, selection and even in its very premises, serves to perpetuate one view., and entertainment venues follow suit. It's hard to find even one form of media, or even one venue, that isn't rife with left wing talking points and premises.
My leftist friends will say that I'm blaming Romney's loss on the media, when Romney was just a loser. Romney most assuredly was a loser, as he lost. However, it's indisputable that left wing bias not only exists but is pervasive - prominent liberals even admit as much from time to time, The problem, as a 2008 Pew poll found, was that liberals in journalism are vastly over-represented, as compared to liberals as a percentage of our general populace. This lack of diversity and balance in our media has an effect on the populace, who are continuously exposed to an onslaught of one-sided liberal thought, and shielded from stories that might conflict with the liberal media narrative.
The leftists will claim that "Faux" News and the WSJ are Republican-leaning outlets, that if bias did exist, it doesn't make a tangible difference, and besides, all is fair in love and war. But that's not true. Fox News and The Wall Street Journal go out of their way to host liberals in virtually every discussion on the issues, and are much more balanced than MSNBC (or NBC even) is partisan. Taken together and adding the few boutique conservative magazines (The Weekly Standard, et alia) still pales in comparison to the massive liberal media complex. To quote the great Victor David Hanson:
When you tally together the cultural influence of The NY Times, The Washington Post, NPR, PBS, CBS, ABC, and NBC, and then consider the slant of a USA Today or People magazine, it all adds up. Worse perhaps are the biases of AP, Reuters, Bloomberg News, Google, Yahoo, and the other wire services that feed supposedly neutrally reported news to local affiliates that ensure their prejudices are aired as disinterested information.
I'd say it's even worse than that; from television shows as innocuous as Good Morning America (co-anchored by former Clinton alum George Stephanopolous), children's films like The Lorax, or even coverage of a Climate Change fundraiser in your local penny saver, bias is pervasive. And it does matter: the results of this imbalance can be observed in Obama's re-election on issues of abortion rights amid record unemployment and a workforce that's smaller than at any time in the last 30 years, and even though Romney wasn't running on making changes to settled law. It's safe to say that if George W Bush had presided over 7.9 percent unemployment on election day, the results of his re-election campaign would not have been the same (Unemployment during the 2004 election was only 5.4 percent - Geoge H. W. Bush lost re-election with unemployment at 7.4 percent).
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dr Dreadful
I see an obvious issue with your proposal for the political leanings of journalists to be published at the head of their articles, and that's selection bias.
Blogcritics is something of an exception, but in general people tend to read and watch only political opinions they agree with. If Leonie Liberal opens her newspaper, and sees at the top of an article that its author has a +5 Republican rating, she's most likely not going to read it. If one of the objects of political writing is to change hearts and minds, such a system would hobble journalists before they ever put pen to paper.
I'm fine with the notion that media outlets should seek political balance among their editorial and writing staff, and some - mostly online - do a pretty good job of it. But as you observed, most journalists are liberal, which makes that goal very hard to achieve even if the newspaper, TV channel, website or what have you actually wants to. You need to encourage more conservatives to choose it as a career. And, especially, competent ones, because frankly a lot of right-wingers currently in journalism are absolutely crap at it.
2 - Baronius
To be perfectly honest, Fox News has done more damage to the right than any other media institution. It may have won a few converts, but it presents a caricature of conservative thought.
Worse - far worse - it presents a caricature of the conservative critique of the media. The original slogan, and I think the original intent, was "we report, you decide". That's a legitimate critique of the mainstream media, and it's a potentially good business plan for a network. What it became was junk news, the kind of blurring of news and editorial that this article fairly criticizes. Yes, FNC is more likely than any other network to have representation of left and right on an issue or a show. Balanced, kind of. Fair? No, not at all. FNC does rightward spin, across the board.
So I'm John Q. Public. I'm innoculated to the network news after years of exposure. (More accurately, I'm infected.) I see Fox News as lunatics. They're trying to tell me that the stuff I've listened to all my life is biased, but what they're claiming as neutral is practically Tea Party press releases. I see MSNBC and they're doing the exact same thing on the other side. Am I going to be persuaded that the mainstream media are biased? No. I'm going to declare Democrats and Republicans to both be stupid, register as an independent, and continue to watch "The ABC Neutral News with George Stephanopoulos".
3 - Baronius
Dread, I think you mean confirmation bias.
4 - Dr Dreadful
Yes, Baronius, that too. Both, really.
5 - Dr Dreadful
Yes, FNC is more likely than any other network to have representation of left and right on an issue or a show. Balanced, kind of.
No, not at all. Fox News shows often feature no left-wing voices at all. And when they do, great care is taken to ensure that the "liberals" are as lukewarm, demented or incompetent as possible. So, yes, Fox does have liberals on, but they are rarely the Bill Clintons and Rachel Maddows of this world. They are far more likely to be either (a) people who self-identify as liberal but say and do no liberal things whatsoever, e.g. Greta van Susteren; or (b) idiots like Al Sharpton or Geraldo Rivera, who are booked precisely because there is a much better than even chance that they will make fools of themselves on the air.
6 - Baronius
Slate.com did a telling article, "Slate Votes", in which all their staff announced their presidential choices.
Totals
Obama: 31
Romney: 2
Gary Johnson: 2
Jill Stein: 1
No one: 1
Their publisher, who's been there less than two months, was one of the Romney votes. Their Account Manager was one of the Johnson votes.
7 - Baronius
Dread - context! I said, "Balanced, kind of. Fair? No, not at all." See what I did there? I said the same thing you did, but wittier.
8 - Tommy Mack
"Our framers," as you put it, never expected the Internet. Nor can it be successfully argued that they were conservatives. The idea of a free press is a liberal idea to begin with. As to fair, that depends upon one's judgement. It is a cultural misfortune that so many conservatives are all about fairness when they disagree with the truth.
Tommy
9 - Dr Dreadful
Context? OK, here's a rewording.
Baronius: Balanced? Kind of.
Me: Balanced? No, not at all.
10 - Baronius
Tommy - You may not realize this, but it's a commonly-held position among conservatives that they're the true successors of the Western liberal tradition. I hate to bring that up, because it usually devolves into a "what do you mean by a particular word" thing.
11 - Baronius
Again, Dread, we're saying the same thing.
12 - Dr Dreadful
What do you mean by "same", Baronius?
;-)
13 - The Obnoxious American
I consume media of all kinds and Fox is often more balanced than many of the other media outlets out there. It's a favorite target of the left, but they don't watch it. Doc's characterization of Fox is so obviously off base that it's evident he never puts it on. Is Shep Smith (4pm and 7pm slots) conservative? No. Is Greta Van Sustren a hardcore conservative? Hardly. Who is MSNBC running during those slots? No one on the fox network is nearly as partisan as, say a Kieth Olbermann, or a Paul Krugman.
Further, Tommy's comment is completely fact free, and I'd challenge him to try to back it up. He won't obviously, because he cannot. But it might be fun to watch him try.
14 - The Obnoxious American
Oh, and before anyone pipes up with, "Well Olbermann was gone long ago" - i know - it was an example. The Ed Show is more partisan, Maddow, Al (chuckle) Sharpton, and so on. That's just MSNBC, you got extreme liberals who are constantly distorting the facts or simply not reporting them at the NY Times, Wapo (home to Ezra (journolist) Klein), LA Times, etc etc ad nauseum. And don't get me started on the clear bias of the so-called "fact check" sites out there.
15 - Baronius
Ob, when you say "Fox News", most people don't think of Shepard Smith and Chris Wallace. They think of Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly.
I remember that the National Enquirer always used to win awards for health reporting. And they did solid, factual reporting on health issues. But it didn't help their reputation any, and that wasn't why anyone read it.
16 - The Obnoxious American
Bill O'Reilly agrees with Obama that taxes should go up on higher income earners. O'Reilly refused to endorse Mitt Romney, and openly mocked him for not appearing on the Factor.
Bill O'Reilly is a conservative, no question about it. But he's not even close to extreme in his views. He'd be best described as center-right. Put him up against loony leftwing extremist Ed Shultz in MSNBC's same time slot. Or Lawrence O'Donnel, who was in that slot before.
Ever watch Brett Baier's Special Report? He's extremely impartial, and his nightly panel always includes notable liberals who are given plenty of time to state their view, and they do.
17 - Dr Dreadful
Fox is often more balanced than many of the other media outlets out there.
No, Obnox, it gives the illusion of balance. I admit it is a pretty good illusion, as it must be if it fools you.
It's a favorite target of the left, but they don't watch it.
Oh yes they do.
Doc's characterization of Fox is so obviously off base that it's evident he never puts it on.
Not if I can help it. I rarely watch MSNBC either. I prefer media like this one, where instead of impotently screaming at my TV screen I can actually add my own input and people will respond.
However, as I related in one of my own old articles, the owner of the gym I used to frequent before I relocated used to have Fox News on 24/7. I'm very familiar with the product and don't imagine it's changed much in the intervening years.
Is Shep Smith (4pm and 7pm slots) conservative? No.
I'm not familiar with Shepard Smith since he's had his own show: when I used to be forced to watch Fox News he was one of their "pretty face" field reporters, which is generally Fox code for someone they don't want their viewers to take too seriously. I am aware that among his liberal firebranding highlights is a lukewarm refutation of birtherism, three or four years after everyone else decided it was bollocks. (Oh, and he apparently thinks Billy Graham is dead.)
Is Greta Van Sustren a hardcore conservative? Hardly.
I didn't say I thought she was. I said she was a self-declared liberal who never says or does liberal things on Fox News. That is part of the illusion of "fair and balanced" that the network projects.
Who is MSNBC running during those slots? No one on the fox network is nearly as partisan as, say a Kieth Olbermann, or a Paul Krugman.
MSNBC does not, as far as I know, advertise itself as a balanced network. It's positioned itself pretty much as the anti-Fox, and I don't think anyone pretends it's anything different.
18 - The Obnoxious American
So basically, your response is you watched it at the gym in the past and based on that you're able to judge, even though you have no idea who shepard smith is (liberal host of 2 daily slots for the last several years). Way to speak out of a deep knowledge on the issue.
Look, if you want to complain about fox, watch it first. Otherwise, you're banging on about something you've no idea about. Illusion of being balanced. Hahaahahaha..
In either case, this article isn't about Fox. The proposal I'm putting forth would include Fox in any case. I'm comfortable with that. There is a well documented and extreme leftist bias in our media currently, where stories don't even get told. We regulate all manner of American industry, all less important in function than our news. It's time to restore balance and fairness to what is referred to as "The News."
19 - Dr Dreadful
Obnox, as I said, I doubt the product has changed that much, whether they've switched around a few of their presenters or not. I've seen enough of it (for example, my father-in-law rarely watches anything but Fox when he's not glued to Storage Wars and the History Channel) to come to my own judgement about that. Of course, I could be wrong: in your opinion, has the editorial bent of Fox changed significantly in the last few years? If not, how can my assessment be invalid?
I've given my reasons why I'm sceptical of your proposal. I'm prepared to accept that there is a leftist bias in the US media, purely because of who most journalists are and the fact that they're human. But extreme? Uh-uh. Liberal journalists are far more likely to pull their punches than conservative ones are: just read a random sampling of op-eds from both sides if you don't believe me. Editorial slants notwithstanding, journos know that the people who write their paychecks more often than not aren't liberal, and that there's only a certain degree of jugular-ripping they'll tolerate. So there's a degree of built-in balance right there.
Again, IMO, the answer isn't some kind of "fairness doctrine", but encouraging more conservatives to go into journalism. The ones that are there now do a piss-poor job of representing: for every PJ O'Rourke there are 10 Sean Hannitys.
One final question: If some stories aren't getting told, how do we know about them?
20 - Baronius
Dread, I'm not going to speak for Ob, but I don't think the problem is on the editorial page. It's not the big, obvious rants of a Chris Matthews. It's the constant drip, drip, drip of stories written by identical J-school graduates who don't think of questioning their assumptions. Journalists may have their suspicions about the beliefs of their companies' owners (and not every owner is the same) but it doesn't affect their day-to-day work any more than the positions of the op-ed writers.
21 - Dr Dreadful
But the people who make the editorial decisions to run or not run the big stories aren't the J-school drones.
You'd be hard-pressed to find liberal bias in, say, a few routine column inches about what the Dow did yesterday.
22 - The Obnoxious American
First, you're making a completely non-factual statement when you complain about the so-called "piss-poor" job of conservative journalists. Did it ever occur to you that conservative journalists never get a shot at the big shops, which are controlled from the editorial board on down, by extreme leftists?
It's the left that's done a piss-poor job - they are biased, and they've let their bias infect their product. The Columbia School of Journalism, the supposed arbiter of what's considered quality journalism, has virtually nothing to say on the matter. Your ilk owns the mainstream media completely, and they've done a terrible, piss poor job.
And btw, Baronius' last comment is 100% right - the problem starts in j-school, which creates a hostile environment for anyone who doesn't tow the liberal line.
"One final question: If some stories aren't getting told, how do we know about them?"
Well, Fox helped expose both fast and furious, as well as Benghazi - two real scandals, with actual dead Americans as a result (as opposed to say what happened with the Bush era AG scandal or the Valerie Plame scandal that the left was eager to investigate). And on these two scandals, the MSM is way behind the curve.
23 - The Obnoxious American
Doc, again not true - articles on the movement of the Dow are common targets for liberal talking points. The Dow went up yesterday because... insert your leftist talking point here.
24 - Dr Dreadful
First, you're making a completely non-factual statement when you complain about the so-called "piss-poor" job of conservative journalists.
You are correct. It is nothing more than my opinion that the likes of Beck, Hannity, Coulter etc are obnoxious hacks with as much talent for real journalism as a marmot with advanced Alzheimer's.
Did it ever occur to you that conservative journalists never get a shot at the big shops, which are controlled from the editorial board on down, by extreme leftists?
Did it occur to you that this is also a completely non-factual statement?
Your ilk owns the mainstream media completely, and they've done a terrible, piss poor job.
They are not my "ilk", and I agree with you that by and large the quality of output of the US mainstream media is utterly abysmal, which is why I don't spend all that much time looking at it. I was raised on the BBC and the UK print media, which is (or used to be before Murdoch took over most of it and dumbed it down) highly adept at getting the public pissed off at the transgressions of their leaders. Here, politicians routinely get a pass on just about everything they do, unless what they did involved their reproductive organs, in which case it's primetime fodder for weeks.
There are no more Woodwards and Bernsteins. When was the last time a pol resigned or withdrew a candidacy over anything other than the waving about of willies and boobs?
So, if the Fourth Estate is not doing its job...
Fox helped expose both fast and furious, as well as Benghazi
Exactly. And where did they get the story?
25 - Dr Dreadful
The Dow went up yesterday because... insert your leftist talking point here.
Well, then, let's try an exercise. Here's the NYT's latest stock market report. I don't see anything in the way of bias, but perhaps it's just too subtle. How might you rewrite this piece to make it less "liberal"?