Liberal Media Attempting to Understand Conservatives

[mheslep]

As it stands, many large corporations and conglomerates overwhelmingly support the Republican Party.

As it stands, many large corporations and conglomerates overwhelmingly support the Democratic Party. The richest residential areas of the US overwhelmingly support the Democratic Party; it has indeed become the party of the rich.

 

[jgens]

As it stands, many large corporations and conglomerates overwhelmingly support the Democratic Party. The richest residential areas of the US overwhelmingly support the Democratic Party; it has indeed become the party of the rich.

According to Howard Zinn, the large corporations and conglomerates donate many millions more to the Republican Party than the Democratic Party. If this has changed significantly in the last election, it would be the first time in several years that a Democratic candidate received more corporate donations than a Republican candidate.

But beside the point, it doesn't make sense that corporations would continue to support a party that is hostile to their interests. Unless of course the Democratic Party doesn't push for more regulation, government involvement, etc. in which case it could hardly be considered liberal from an economic viewpoint.

Edit: I'm withdrawing myself from the discussion after this post.

 

[mheslep]

But beside the point, it doesn't make sense that corporations would continue to support a party that is hostile to their interests.

Ask government owned General Motors, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and semi-owned Chrysler which US political party is hostile to their interests.

See the 2008 Presidential contributions by commercial industry below. Of the 13 sectors, Democrats collected more money in all but 4 of them, with several - lawyers and electronics (e.g. Apple, Google ) going overwhelmingly to the Democrats.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/sectorall.php?cycle=2008

 

[Mgt3]

There is no "liberal dominance" in the media. Hamilton's "All the News That's Fit to Sell" presents good quantitative evidence that market forces are the primary determinants of whether a story or editorial appears in a news medium. News outlets target their market to appeal to reader's/viewers. Content analysis of news services such as AP, Reuters, etc. has time and again shown that these particular sources show no bias in their reporting. This "liberal media" whining was old ten years ago.

 

[Evo]

There is no "liberal dominance" in the media. Hamilton's "All the News That's Fit to Sell" presents good quantitative evidence that market forces are the primary determinants of whether a story or editorial appears in a news medium. News outlets target their market to appeal to reader's/viewers. Content analysis of news services such as AP, Reuters, etc. has time and again shown that these particular sources show no bias in their reporting. This "liberal media" whining was old ten years ago.

Isn't his critique of news media from 1969 to 1998? That's ancient by today's standards. Was there anything more recent in his book?

 

[Evo]

Here is an interesting study.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist

By Meg Sullivan December 14, 2005 Category: Research

While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.

These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly.

"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."

"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.

The results appear in the latest issue of the Quarterly Journal of Economics, which will become available in mid-December.

continued...

 

[CRGreathouse]

I read that study. It was interesting, but seemed methodologically flawed to me. I don't dispute its broad conclusions, but I would hesitate to draw much more from that -- and I would understand if a person rejected it outright.

 

[Gokul43201]

Fairly weak rebuttal. Makes a valid point that a possible flaw in Measure of Bias could be the difference in quality between left and right wing think tanks, then asserts that the left leaning tanks are indeed better by means of citing his own blog post (spinsanity blog).

Even without a demonstration of the difference in quality, this exposes a flaw in the methodology, since that methodology implicitly assumes no difference. The onus is upon G & M to show that any such difference is negligible.

 

[Gokul43201]

The richest residential areas of the US overwhelmingly support the Democratic Party; it has indeed become the party of the rich.

Not even close:

1. 2008 Presidential Election exit polls: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1

2. Some randomly selected Senate exit polls (picking every 5th state, alphabetically ordered):

a. GA: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=GAS01p1
b. KY: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=KYS01p1
c. MN: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=MNS01p2
d. NH: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=NHS01p2
e. OR: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=NHS01p2

... ran out of patience here, having yet to find a single case where the richer segment of the population voted in greater numbers for the Dems than the poorer segment.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Here is an interesting study.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

continued...

The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third.

How many times have I recommended the PBS News Hour as the best? I have also been defending CNN.

Meet the Press [esp under Russert] should easily be at the top of any qualified list.

 

[Gokul43201]

I recall when CNN fired Aaron Brown for Anderson Cooper, replacing journalism with pizazz. A sad day was that.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I recall when CNN fired Aaron Brown for Anderson Cooper, replacing journalism with pizazz. A sad day was that.

Agreed. They are getting fluffier and fluffier. King and Brown both seem to do a pretty good job, most of the time.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

How many times have I recommended the PBS News Hour as the best? I have also been defending CNN.

A quick google suggests that the answer is, dozens of times.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...physicsforums.com&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

So much for the closet liberal theory, eh? You know who you are.

 

[Gokul43201]

Ask government owned General Motors, Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae, and semi-owned Chrysler which US political party is hostile to their interests.

Selective sampling. Ask Walmart, Exxon, Chevron, GE and BoA (the 5 largest).

See the 2008 Presidential contributions by commercial industry below. Of the 13 sectors, Democrats collected more money in all but 4 of them, with several - lawyers and electronics (e.g. Apple, Google ) going overwhelmingly to the Democrats.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/sectorall.php?cycle=2008

1. Not all sectors are created equal.
2. This could be as much related to the quality of the candidates (and the odds of their winning) than any particular polarity in government-industry coziness.

 

[Vanadium 50]

1. Not all sectors are created equal.

Then look at the totals: 36% Republican and 64% Democratic.

This could be as much related to the quality of the candidates (and the odds of their winning) than any particular polarity in government-industry coziness.

It could be. But that theory would predict that the contributions be independent of sector. Why then is labor 95% Democratic?

I understand this is a particular fact that goes against the "conventional wisdom".

 

[Gokul43201]

Then look at the totals: 36% Republican and 64% Democratic.

I agree that the totals are a better metric than the number of sectors (hence, my objection to the latter).

It could be. But that theory would predict that the contributions be independent of sector. Why then is labor 95% Democratic?

No it would not. If the theory was that the only thing that mattered was the quality of the candidates, then one might be able to argue some independence (even then, I can't see the validity of such an argument; there could be so many gazillions of sector-to-sector differences in priorities, style or whims that make some spend more than others), but I didn't even go as far as saying that candidate differences were the dominant factor (let along the only one).

I understand this is a particular fact that goes against the "conventional wisdom".

I'm not arguing for the conventional wisdom. I am merely pointing out inadequacies in the provided argument. My squabble is with the methodology, not the result.

 

[aquitaine]

Isn't his critique of news media from 1969 to 1998? That's ancient by today's standards. Was there anything more recent in his book?

12 years ago was right before "the fox effect" took hold of the media. It was around that time that fox was turned into a republican propaganda station. Then the other media outlets, msnbc and cnn in particular, decided to stop trying to be objective and imitate fox, just by spouting democratic propoganda. The result is the vast wasteland that our media has become, full of shouting heads and deeply slanted reporting. cnn used to be a respectable news organization, but those days are gone. Unfortunately one of effects of this has been to further polarize and divide our political system, making is very hard to actually look for real solutions to our problems.

 

[russ_watters]

I realize this thread has moved fast, but a quick point about the argument looking for evidence of a liberal bias: Why nitpick the evidence, when some major players in the liberal media itself acknowledge the bias? There is no need to prove a fact that has already been acknowledged. Indeed, that was my main point in posting the thread in the first place!

The NYT did not need to do a study to prove to itself that it had a liberal bias: it knew and it made an attempt to deal with it.

 

[mheslep]

Not even close:

1. 2008 Presidential Election exit polls: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1

2. Some randomly selected Senate exit polls (picking every 5th state, alphabetically ordered):
[...]
... ran out of patience here, having yet to find a single case where the richer segment of the population voted in greater numbers for the Dems than the poorer segment.

Ok, I'll have to qualify. The rich now live in the Democratic party, whether the poorer segment does or not.
From your link:
CNN 2008 Presidential, by income: $200,000 or More (6%) - Obama 52% McCain 46%
Moreover, the super rich overwhelmingly live the D. party; it is not even close as you say. Of the 20 richest zip codes in the US, 19 of them overwhelmingly contribute to the D. party.
[PLAIN]http://www.weeklystandard.com/sites/all/files/images/WELL.15-32.Caldwell.jpg

I.e. mainly Wall Street, Hollywood, and DC, which I think should be unsurprising.

 

[mheslep]

I'm not arguing for the conventional wisdom. I am merely pointing out inadequacies in the provided argument. My squabble is with the methodology, not the result.

Well, on the subtopic of industry, keep in mind the thesis in debate at the moment is only:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2793875&postcount=71"

As it stands, many large corporations and conglomerates overwhelmingly support the Democratic Party.

which I made as a counter to the reverse statement from jgens - not that all or a majority of them do (I don't know). And my limited statement was called into question.

 

[mheslep]

Selective sampling. Ask Walmart, Exxon, Chevron, GE and BoA (the 5 largest)...

Without looking, I'd wager that at least GE (&MSNBC) CEO - Immelt in 2008 was a big Democratic pay day.

 

[madness]

I realize this thread has moved fast, but a quick point about the argument looking for evidence of a liberal bias: Why nitpick the evidence, when some major players in the liberal media itself acknowledge the bias? There is no need to prove a fact that has already been acknowledged. Indeed, that was my main point in posting the thread in the first place!

The NYT did not need to do a study to prove to itself that it had a liberal bias: it knew and it made an attempt to deal with it.

Andrew Marr is a top journalist in the UK and he has said "...the press is relatively right-wing (with some exceptions) because it is owned by big business, which is a truism and is well known".

 

[aquitaine]

I realize this thread has moved fast, but a quick point about the argument looking for evidence of a liberal bias: Why nitpick the evidence, when some major players in the liberal media itself acknowledge the bias? There is no need to prove a fact that has already been acknowledged. Indeed, that was my main point in posting the thread in the first place!

The NYT did not need to do a study to prove to itself that it had a liberal bias: it knew and it made an attempt to deal with it.

So the NYT made an attempt to deal with, what more could you want? That's a lot more than can be said for any so called right wing media outlet. There's always going to be bias in some form or another because it is humans who are running the show, but they should try to be concerned with one thing: the truth, no matter where it takes them. Unfortunately, that is not what they are concerned with.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Andrew Marr is a top journalist in the UK and he has said "...the press is relatively right-wing (with some exceptions) because it is owned by big business, which is a truism and is well known".

Is he talking about the UK media here?

 

[Gokul43201]

Without looking, I'd wager that at least GE (&MSNBC) CEO - Immelt in 2008 was a big Democratic pay day.

I do not contest that. I'm just pointing out what would be closer to an unbiased sample. If that sampling supports your thesis over someone else's, so be it.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Of the 20 richest zip codes in the US, 19 of them overwhelmingly contribute to the D. party.
[PLAIN]http://www.weeklystandard.com/sites/all/files/images/WELL.15-32.Caldwell.jpg[/QUOTE]

No, 19 out of 20 (according to your data) contribute a _majority_ to the Democratic party. I wouldn't call 52% "overwhelming".

I'm actually rather surprised that the one giving a minority to the Democrats is McLean, which is in a strongly Democratic area.

 

[Office_Shredder]

I'm not convinced. Using campaign contributions as a way to measure support in an area is sort of indirect, compared to the obvious measure of seeing who won in the voting in that district. Also, these numbers came in a year when Obama and the Democrats destroyed every fundraising record in existence, and the Republicans were in a slump.


http://www.physorg.com/news64503916.html
Research indicates that rich people tend to vote Republican

Research tends to indicate that rich people vote for Republicans, but the tie is tenuous

 

[mheslep]

No, 19 out of 20 (according to your data) contribute a _majority_ to the Democratic party. I wouldn't call 52% "overwhelming".

<shrug>. 72%, 76, 86, 84, 73, 80, 65, 75, 79, 78, 81, 64, 83, 84, 48, 77, 70, 57, 59, 52%. Taken as a whole, then, the richest US zip codes contributed overwhelmingly to the D's as of 2008.

I'm actually rather surprised that the one giving a minority to the Democrats is McLean, which is in a strongly Democratic area.

I don't think so. The adjacent areas are indeed strongly D' (i.e. counties of Fairfax and esp Arlington), but I doubt McLean itself, a part of http://wolf.house.gov/images/user_images/va10map_modified_smaller(2).gif" , if my observation of the campaign yard signs in 2008, and the fact that Speaker Newt Gingrich and VP Dick Cheney live there (or used to) are any evidence at all.

 

[mheslep]

I'm not convinced. Using campaign contributions as a way to measure support in an area is sort of indirect, compared to the obvious measure of seeing who won in the voting in that district.

Not convinced of what? My thesis is not about popular support, but about the politics of the wealthy, and especially the uber wealthy in the US.

Also, these numbers came in a year when Obama and the Democrats destroyed every fundraising record in existence, and the Republicans were in a slump

Your point?

http://www.physorg.com/news64503916.html
Research indicates that rich people tend to vote Republican

Research tends to indicate that rich people vote for Republicans, but the tie is tenuous

1. That link reflects 2000, not 2008 data. 2. You might consider rereading your link and qualifying your summary:

Higher-income states, which used to favor Republicans, are voting for Democrats; yet overall, Republicans remain the favorite among the wealthy. For decades, Democrats have been viewed as the party of the poor, with Republicans representing the rich. Recent presidential elections, however, have shown a reverse pattern, with Democrats performing well in the richer "blue" states in the northeast and on the West Coast, and Republicans dominating in the "red" states in the middle of the country

.

 

[j93]

Ok, I'll have to qualify. The rich now live in the Democratic party, whether the poorer segment does or not.
From your link:
CNN 2008 Presidential, by income: $200,000 or More (6%) - Obama 52% McCain 46%
Moreover, the super rich overwhelmingly live the D. party; it is not even close as you say. Of the 20 richest zip codes in the US, 19 of them overwhelmingly contribute to the D. party.
[PLAIN]http://www.weeklystandard.com/sites/all/files/images/WELL.15-32.Caldwell.jpg

I.e. mainly Wall Street, Hollywood, and DC, which I think should be unsurprising.

This is just 2007-2008 election. Could it be that this was a good year for the democrats. I don't think its possible to post one election year and interpret it as bias. Thats like if tuesday was 50 degrees and wednesday was 80 degrees and you decide to interpret this as thursday being 80 friday 110 and so on.

I don't think you could extrapolate anything from how journalists vote in real life since that may not be in agreement with the side they wish to give the news public. Take Gretchen Carlson who graduated from Standford with honors yet takes on a character of a country joe housewife who doesn't know what a czar is. People may play characters in the news that may contrast with their personal beliefs therefore how they vote in their personal life may not be relevant.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Not convinced of what? My thesis is not about popular support, but about the politics of the wealthy, and especially the uber wealthy in the US.

Why is political support amongst the uber wealthy measured by campaign contributions to a single presidential candidate? I proposed looking at how those zip codes voted

Your point?

Your point seems to be that if Obama raised twice as much money as McCain in a wealthy zip code, then that zip code was overwhelmingly Democratic. But Obama raised twice as much money as McCain. Period. Everywhere in the country. So your thesis immediately extends to "prove" that the country is overwhelmingly Democratic, and your claim that the rich more so than the rest of the country are with the Democrats is wrong.

1. That link reflects 2000, not 2008 data. 2. You might consider rereading your link and qualifying your summary:

Qualifying my summary? Rich people in the northeast voted for Democrats because the northeast votes for Democrats. It explicitly states in the article that in Democrat-leaning states, there is essentially no rich/poor voting gap, and there is one in Republican-leaning states that tends towards wealthy people voting Republican.

The paper itself was finished in 2005. I guess I'll have to apologize for all of the social sciences for not being able to output high quality research on demand without actually spending time doing the research, but these things tend to lag a bit. If you have more recent research that indicates said patterns have changed since then please cite it. I have not been able to find a whole lot on the topic

 

[Gokul43201]

Missed this before...

Ok, I'll have to qualify. The rich now live in the Democratic party, whether the poorer segment does or not.
From your link:
CNN 2008 Presidential, by income: $200,000 or More (6%) - Obama 52% McCain 46%

Since according to the exit polls, McCain had 45.4% of the total (exit) vote, he actually did a little better with the rich. More specifically, if the rich live in the D party, the poorer segment does to a greater extent (going by the exit polling alone).

Moreover, the super rich overwhelmingly live the D. party; it is not even close as you say. Of the 20 richest zip codes in the US, 19 of them overwhelmingly contribute to the D. party.
[PLAIN]http://www.weeklystandard.com/sites/all/files/images/WELL.15-32.Caldwell.jpg[/quote]That is not a list of the "20 richest zip codes" (nor does it claim to be). The richest zip-codes are listed here: http://wealth.mongabay.com/tables/100_income_zip_codes-10000.html

In any case, winning a greater share of campaign contributions from a district is not a particularly water-tight argument that X wins a greater share of the votes from there. Recall that about midway through the election season, we had numbers showing that Obama was out-earning McCain 5-fold in terms of campaign contributions from members of the military.

 

[turbo]

In any case, winning a greater share of campaign contributions from a district is not a particularly water-tight argument that X wins a greater share of the votes from there. Recall that about midway through the election season, we had numbers showing that Obama was out-earning McCain 5-fold in terms of campaign contributions from members of the military.

This might be a good time to point out that campaign contributions are not an indicator of voter support in any region, as you said. Wealthy donors want to support whomever they predict to be the winner in a race so that they can apply some leverage after the election. When McCain picked Palin and she started opening her mouth on the campaign trail, it's likely that a lot of the "smart money" trended to the Dems. Unlike in horse racing, where you can place bets up until post-time, political wagering can continue well into the race.

 

[Al68]

Research tends to indicate that rich people vote for Republicans, but the tie is tenuous

What's interesting is that the same people who claim this are the same ones who refer to Republicans' constituents as ignorant hillbillies when it suits them.

The only reason to care about such nonsense is if someone wants politicians to tell them what to think.

For those who like to ignore such nonsense and think for themselves, the votes of every congressman and Senator on every bill is public record. That's their job and that's how they should be judged.

 

[Office_Shredder]

What's interesting is that the same people who claim this are the same ones who refer to Republicans' constituents as ignorant hillbillies when it suits them.

That's a southern stereotype, not a rich/poor stereotype