Media Bias - Is the media becoming more conservative?

SOS2008

This thread is a continuation of the earlier thread: FOX News - Let's bomb a democracy back to the stone age. I finally have had some time to do some more research on the topic of media bias (also addressed in the thread: Gannon Guffaw), and it is amazing how many conservative web sites there are that tout a liberal bias in the media--which in itself "speaks volumes" if you know what I mean. Here is information on a few articles, web sites, and books on the topic of media bias becoming increasingly conservative (to the right):

San Francisco Chronicle
Ethan Rarick
Sunday, September 26, 2004

CBS explodes liberal media bias myth -- If ever a story should destroy the myth of liberal media bias, it is the flap over Dan Rather's flub. …the real and long-lasting lesson of this story lies in the amount of attention being paid to the apology… The answer lies in the political impact…and reveals much about political coverage in the mainstream media. The CBS apology obviously helped him [Bush], casting a pall of doubt over the entire issue of whether young Lt. Bush did his duty during the Vietnam War. The difference in play given to…apologies is only the latest evidence of a growing, and yet little remarked, conservative media bias.

I do not suggest that conservative apparatchiks crashed news meetings around the country and demanded front-page play for the CBS story. But I do suggest that as the country's political spectrum has become ever more conservative -- dragged "to the right, to the right, farther to the right," as Tom Frank puts it in his brilliant new book, "What's the Matter With Kansas?'' -- media organizations have shifted, too.

For one thing, mainstream media organizations are always in search of viewers and readers, and it's a solidly conservative country. Republicans have won six of the last nine presidential elections. They hold majorities in both houses of Congress and on the Supreme Court. They dominate the business establishment. Newspapers and television stations across the country are competing for the same viewers and readers that have pushed Fox News' audience past CNN's and made the Wall Street Journal one of the largest newspapers in the country.

Second, the conservative movement's hallelujah chorus among overtly partisan media outlets -- Fox News and talk radio are the prime examples -- has amplified the traditional right-wing charge that journalists are all participants in a grand liberal conspiracy. The ironic result is that journalism has become hyper-sensitized to conservative criticism, and, in the guise of trying to be fair, leans farther and farther to the right.

I've mentioned ratings and how this is indicative of changes in our nation (i.e., basics of supply and demand), and here are some numbers (posted on a conservative web site):

NewsMax.com Thursday, March 3, 2005

CNN Ratings Fall 16 Percent

CNN Headline News has been making headlines itself with its revamped prime-time lineup, with one new show beating MSNBC in the ratings and the other two new programs doing respectably well.

But the parent network is not enjoying any such success.
CNN is falling farther behind Fox News Channel in the cable news ratings war, with a network-wide 16 percent falloff in viewership for February and a 21 percent slide in prime time.

The New York Post reports, "Fox News was the only one among the four cable news networks to post ratings gains during the month."
An 18 percent gain, to be exact, pushing Fox News to nearly triple the viewership of its rival.

 CNN's "Paula Zahn Now" down 17 percent; Fox's "O'Reilly Factor" up 9 percent
 CNN's "Larry King Live" off 23 percent; Fox's "Hannity & Colmes" up 19 percent
 One bright spot for CNN: "Anderson Cooper 360," which gained 2 percent.
CNBC and MSNBC aren't immuned to losing audience to Fox, either. CNBC's ratings are down 42 percent in prime time, and MSNBC's viewer numbers are lighter by 15 percent.

In this web site it appears FOX is no longer using the tag line of "fair and balanced" reporting, but now it is "We report. You decide"? In any event, here are some stats...

Media Matters for America
http://mediamatters.org/items/200503180008#1

"We Report. You Decide."
-- Fox News Channel motto
"Fox was measurably more one-sided than the other networks, and Fox journalists were more opinionated on the air. ... In the degree to which journalists are allowed to offer their own opinions, Fox stands out. Across the programs studied, nearly seven out of ten stories (68%) included personal opinions from Fox's reporters -- the highest of any outlet studied by far. ... Fox journalists were even more prone to offer their own opinions in the channel's coverage of the war in Iraq. There 73% of the stories included such personal judgments. On CNN the figure was 2%, and on MSNBC, 29%. The same was true in coverage of the Presidential election, where 82% of Fox stories included journalist opinions, compared to 7% on CNN and 27% on MSNBC."
-- Project for Excellence in Journalism

And a book: What Liberal Media? By Eric Alterman

“Most of the criticism (and anger) has so far emanated from the political Right, which has offered us the rather unconvincing argument that a systematic Left bias is destroying the quality of news and debate in our country today. Journalist and historian Eric Alterman begs to differ.

What Liberal Media? confronts the question of liberal bias and, in so doing, provides a sharp and utterly convincing assessment of the realities of political bias in the news. In distinct contrast to the conclusions reached by Ann Coulter, Bernard Goldberg, Sean Hannity, and Bill O’Reilly, Alterman finds the media to be, on the whole, far more conservative than liberal, though it is possible to find evidence for both views. The fact that conservatives howl so much louder and more effectively than liberals is one significant reason that big media is always on its guard for “liberal” bias but gives conservative bias a free pass.”

It was stated in the earlier thread that many CNN folks have moved to FOX, if anything this remark only helps substantiate this point, but as shown above, it isn't just an "institutional" phenomenon.

Janitor

Quote by SOS2008

...Fox journalists were more opinionated on the air...

But the strong opinions and the debates (ever watch right-wing Hannity and left-wing Colmes going at it?) are what makes Fox fun to watch.

I raise my skeptical antenna just as high while watching Fox news as I do when listening to evangelicals on the radio. But it's all good (fun).

Kerrie

Quote by Janitor

I raise my skeptical antenna just as high while watching Fox news as I do when listening to evangelica radio. But it's all good (fun).

Nowadays, you have to do this for any sort of information that comes to you regardless of its form. Media has a delicate way of providing facts with color.

Moonbear

Quote by SOS2008

It was stated in the earlier thread that many CNN folks have moved to FOX, if anything this remark only helps substantiate this point, but as shown above, it isn't just an "institutional" phenomenon.

Can someone please explain how people moving from CNN to FOX demonstrates or substantiates an institutional problem? I find it hard to conclude anything from that information. Maybe FOX is paying better, maybe CNN's loss of ratings suggested it was a good time to find another network, maybe the people who can't keep their opinions separated from the facts were pressured to leave CNN and found a home at FOX, maybe they thought they could make a change at FOX and reach more conservative audiences with a liberal message, only to find out after arriving that they were being pressured to add opinions and to include more of the conservative viewpoint to keep up ratings.

I think for a long time the media really has been biased more to the left than the right, so a shift right-ward doesn't necessarily mean they've gone all the way over to the far right, just reaching closer to center.

Then again, as I think I mentioned in another thread, the problem I really see endemic in the media is not the side they lean to, but the laziness in their reporting. I think they need to fill time with more opinions because nobody is going out to gather more facts. If you're going to offer interpretation of the facts, make the effort to consider all interpretations.

When the local news fairly recently reported on the increase in unemployment rates, they blatantly editorialized it by saying, this is good because it shows more of the people who gave up on looking for jobs are seeking employment again. The "this is good" part was pure editorializing, and I heard the exact same canned phrase on more than one station, telling me this wasn't based on the reporters' own research, but just reading from a press release statement. Not one of the stations I listened to provided the evidence that this was indeed the reason for the increased numbers of unemployed. How do we know that's true? If it is true, they could have equally well provided the information in a factual manner, by presenting the data of, for example, how much of that increase was due to workers seeking jobs who have been unemployed for over 1 or 2 years who were not included in previous surveys or to even tell me how they are counting them now if they didn't count them before? But, this would require a reporter go to the original document and read through the data and find the most relevant rather than read from a canned statement on a press release.

I don't blame the administration for issuing press releases that put a positive spin on what they present; that's what anyone issuing a press release does, provide their side of the story. It is then up to the reporters to dig deeper and confirm the information and ask questions about the content of that press release.

Beyond that, I also don't want to hear the reporters' opinions and interpretations of information they report on, although sometimes it is helpful to get some form of interpretation on complex issues. In that case, I want them to go out and talk to experts in the field and quote the experts, (Dr. X from Y University explains that this indicates Z, while Dr. A from B Institute presents the counter-argument that these data indicate C).

So, regardless of which way the media leans on any given day, there is an overall problem of laziness in reporting.

SOS2008

Quote by Moonbear

Then again, as I think I mentioned in another thread, the problem I really see endemic in the media is not the side they lean to, but the laziness in their reporting. I think they need to fill time with more opinions because nobody is going out to gather more facts. If you're going to offer interpretation of the facts, make the effort to consider all interpretations.

When I read this earlier I agreed with this point. It was said that MSNBC is considered liberal, but then this agency links to other agencies all the time, many of which are what I consider to be liberal. But truly, the point is to present real information instead of opinion.

Still, it would seem that if the market (American constituency) is becoming more conservative, the media will need to become more conservative to keep their ratings up--basic economics. This is why I feel the media can no longer be considered completely liberal...

*ray b*

go search my posted quote of a new york times editor in 1954
basic idea was we work for the CORP and if we print anything
the bosses disagree with we are GONE

and cence where are CORP boss/owner liberal?????

it also helps to know where an idea started go to it's roots
liberal media was a HITLER IDEA as in liberal jews =commies = evil people
control the media
why because they donot like or support HITLER
at least to the nazi ideals and we know how well they did

and cence when are the CORP boss/owner COMMIES???

the WHOLE IDEA IS PURE BS just an other BIG LIE that the neo-con's
learned from the NAZI's

ROOTS RUN DEEP

Pengwuino

Quote by ray b

it also helps to know where an idea started go to it's roots
liberal media was a HITLER IDEA as in liberal jews =commies = evil people
control the media

You do realize you just screwed yourself there right? Liberal = left wing and conservative = right wing is a US-Only (or well, non-european as far asmy knwoledge goes) idea so you basically said the liberals of the US have their roots in adolf hitler (which they dont of course, no sensible person tries to link 21st century news reporting with adolf hitler).

And a new study came out only a week ago i believe showing there is in fact, a liberal media bias (a variety of universities and journalistic institutions contributed to teh study if anyone was watching the newspapers the last few weeks). Almost 2x as many articles/news stories were negative towards bush as they were towards kerry.

SOS2008

Quote by Pengwuino

And a new study came out only a week ago i believe showing there is in fact, a liberal media bias (a variety of universities and journalistic institutions contributed to teh study if anyone was watching the newspapers the last few weeks). Almost 2x as many articles/news stories were negative towards bush as they were towards kerry.

As stated when posting this thread, such articles focused more on the apology stories, which actually helped cloud the issues and helped Bush become reelected. Also as stated when posting this thread, I saw a lot of conservative sites like this--and if there is anything of substance, such as the stats I posted from one of these sites, it supports the basis that the media is becoming more conservative. Otherwise, and in other words, these stories/sites are conservative, thus conservatively biased (i.e., are all about how liberal the media is).

Pengwuino

Where did you get that information. That story wouldnt have been part of the criteria the study took on when deciding how the media acted that way because it painted neither a positive or negative picture towards either candidates. And if anyone actaully watched the news, it was clearly anti-bush. I mean every single day you had to hear about people dieing in iraq or oil prices this and that or people crying about the economy. Now of course, same things are happening but the media doesnt really care anymore for some unknownn reason ;)

kyleb

Yeah, if they wanted to at least try to be fair to Bush they would have kept their mouths shut about Iraq and such.

misskitty

This is an interesting thread you all have got going here.

The media has always input their opinions when they reported stories. I tend to agree with Moonbear in this situation as far as the media moving closer to the center versus media moving so far to the right, the way some people claim; not anyone specifically here.

The media has never really been fair about anything. Everyone has an opinion and when they feel strongly about something they will think of anyway, subliminally or bluntly expressing it. Reporters, again like Moonbear mentioned earlier, have found subliminal ways of getting their opinions interjected into the stories they report.

The media always has a way of warping the stories. For example, the newsreels shown in the movie theatres before the featured picture, those were done on mulitple takes with the filmer and the reporter picking the best take to show to the public. It is nothing like the coverage of war we receive today. Even today reporters will warp stories. A reporter, I don't remember who it was, was reporting with, I think, a marine unit in Iraq and he almost gave away their position. That's a big NO-NO. When they reported what had happend, the story was changed to something like the unit wouldn't let the reporter do his job.

My thought is its one thing to have a reporter in a war zone letting people what is going on. Its a whole nother story when positions or task forces and units are exposed potentially put many lives at stake.

The media is an unpredictable animal. They will do almost anything to increase viewer ratings and paper sales.

*ray b*

Quote by Pengwuino

You do realize you just screwed yourself there right? Liberal = left wing and conservative = right wing is a US-Only (or well, non-european as far asmy knwoledge goes) idea so you basically said the liberals of the US have their roots in adolf hitler (which they dont of course, no sensible person tries to link 21st century news reporting with adolf hitler).

And a new study came out only a week ago i believe showing there is in fact, a liberal media bias (a variety of universities and journalistic institutions contributed to teh study if anyone was watching the newspapers the last few weeks). Almost 2x as many articles/news stories were negative towards bush as they were towards kerry.

WHAT???????????
LEFTWING/RIGTHWING is based on seating of members in the post revolution PARIS FRANCE goverment accembly or total euro and pre-1800 too
and has NOTHING TO DO WITH AMERICA

and the IDEA of a liberal media is HITLERS not the fact
in fact the media is CAPITALIST and cares about #s and CASH INCOME
far more then IDEAS

we once did have a liberal media in some citys in the 60's
it was the underground press and has been DEAD for years

just maybe the bias againts W BuSh was based on FACTS
like an ilegal war and LIES to get us in to the ilegal war

russ_watters

The media certainly is moving to the right - but its still far left of center.

Oh, and that crap about Hitler being the root of the perception of the bias is pretty rediculous.

*ray b*

Quote by russ_watters

The media certainly is moving to the right - but its still far left of center.

Oh, and that crap about Hitler being the root of the perception of the bias is pretty rediculous.

no !! the media wants to be centered to MAX the #s and income
you and your neo-CONNED brothers are so far off to the right that the center looks like the left to you

HITLER was the man to bwitch about the media=jews=commies the loudest
was he the first maybe not but he was the man who made this idea an issue
the neo-conned have followed his lead
but so do not like to admit where this BS came from
and it is eazy to see why but that makes it not one bit less TRUE
know the roots of ideas and see what you are truely following

misskitty

Ray calm down there is no need to be abrasive. We're just discussing whether the media is presenting the news more from a republican view than the traditional democratic view.

I agree with Russ and Pengwunio. Its all rubbish. As far as left-wing/right-wing, it has to do with the seating of the house in Paris, but its just slang in the states for democrat and republican, thats all. There's no need to get all up in arms about it.

*ray b*

I remember a time not so long ago that both partys had a left, right, and center
factions, but now the neo-cons have allmost totaly taken over the GOP
this is not good or normal as there is no moderation just dogma unchecked
once there was such a thing as liberal members of the GOP
now they are very few and far between

I post TRUE FACTS that the neo-cons donot like or admit to
the ones calling the fact rubbish are abrasive NOT ME

russ_watters

Quote by ray b

I post TRUE FACTS that the neo-cons donot like or admit to
the ones calling the fact rubbish are abrasive NOT ME

Well, how 'bout the fact that "neo-con" is a word invented by radical liberals as an insult and not an actual division of conservativism recognized by scholars...?

Ray, you know you've already been warned for such behavior (re: Hitler and your combative attitude). Are you trying to get banned? Cool your jets.

And if you can substantiate your Hitler claims, please do (and we'll remove your warnings). Otherwise, cease and desist.

Similar Threads for: Media Bias - Is the media becoming more conservative?
Thread	Forum	Replies
The Media	General Discussion	8
Overt Liberal Media Bias: Journalistic Fraud	Current Events	37
Idiot media!	Current Events	33
The lie of media liberal bias....continued.	Current Events	21

kyleb	Yeah, if they wanted to at least try to be fair to Bush they would have kept their mouths shut about Iraq and such.

russ_watters Mentor	The media certainly is moving to the right - but its still far left of center. Oh, and that crap about Hitler being the root of the perception of the bias is pretty rediculous.