Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Media Bias - Is the media becoming more conservative?

  1. Mar 19, 2005 #1


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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
    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
    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
    And a book: What Liberal Media? By Eric Alterman
    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.
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2005
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 19, 2005 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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).
  4. Mar 19, 2005 #3


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    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.
  5. Mar 19, 2005 #4


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
  6. Mar 19, 2005 #5


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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...
  7. Mar 19, 2005 #6
    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

  8. Mar 19, 2005 #7


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2005
  9. Mar 19, 2005 #8


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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).
  10. Mar 19, 2005 #9


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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 ;)
  11. Mar 19, 2005 #10
    Yeah, if they wanted to at least try to be fair to Bush they would have kept their mouths shut about Iraq and such. :rolleyes:
  12. Mar 19, 2005 #11
    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.
  13. Mar 20, 2005 #12
    LEFTWING/RIGTHWING is based on seating of members in the post revolution PARIS FRANCE goverment accembly or total euro and pre-1800 too

    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
  14. Mar 20, 2005 #13


    User Avatar

    Staff: 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.
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2005
  15. Mar 21, 2005 #14
    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
  16. Mar 21, 2005 #15
    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.
  17. Mar 21, 2005 #16
    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
  18. Mar 21, 2005 #17


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2005
  19. Mar 22, 2005 #18
    I agree with Russ. Ray, support your claim with some evidence please. Otherwise, don't persue the arguement with your opinions as evidence.
  20. Mar 22, 2005 #19


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    In fact modern media dates back to 1883: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAyellow.htm [Broken]
    http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/gahff/html/ff_197900_yellowjourna.htm [Broken]
    [caveat - I'm not sure which direction they leaned] And I learned something new: Sensationalism, yellow journalism, "human interest" stories, and politically motivated stories were all invented by Pulitzer (I thought it was just Hearst). Wow, did his stock (and that of the award that bears his name) ever go down in my book. But hey - seems to me that Dan Rather should be up for a Pulitzer Prize: he's cut from the same cloth.

    edit: According to http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000517184 [Broken], (its a year old) the political leanings of journalists are actually moving further left.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  21. Mar 22, 2005 #20
    I doNOT like or belive this BS
    I am posting it here because
    you donot know where the media is liberal IDEA came from

    Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:

    "In my eyes the charge against Judaism became a grave one the
    I discovered the Jewish activities in the Press, in art, in
    literature and
    the theatre. All unctuous protests were now more or less futile. One
    only to look at the posters announcing the hideous productions of the
    cinema and theatre, and study the names of the authors who were
    lauded there in order to become permanently adamant on Jewish
    Here was a pestilence, a moral pestilence, with which the public was
    infected. It was worse that the Black Plague of long ago. And in what
    mighty doses this poison was manufactured and distributed. Naturally,
    lower the moral and intellectual level of such an author of artistic
    products the more inexhaustible his fecundity. Sometimes it went so
    that one of these fellows, acting like a sewage pump, would shoot his
    directly in the face of other members of the human race. In this
    we must remember there is no limit to the number of such people. One
    to realize that for one Goethe, Nature may bring into existance ten
    thousand such despoilers who act as the worst kind of germ-carriers
    poisoning human souls. It was a terrible thought, and yet it could
    not be
    avoided, that the greater number of the Jews seemed specially
    destined by
    Nature to play this shameful part.
    "And is it for this reason that they can be called the chosen
    "I began then to investigate carefully the names of all the
    fabricators of these unclean products in public cultural life. The
    of that inquiry was still more disfavourable to the attitude which I
    hitherto held in regard to the Jews. Though my feelings might rebel a
    thousand time, reason now had to draw its own conclusions.
    "The fact that nine-tenths of all the smutty literature,
    tripe and theatrical banalities, had to be charged to the account of
    who formed scarcely one per cent of the nation- that fact could not
    gainsaid. It was there, and had to be admitted. Then I began to
    examine my
    favorite 'World Press', with that fact before my mind.
    "The deeper my soundings went the lesser grew my respect for
    Press which I formerly admired. Its style became still more repellant
    and I
    was forced to reject its ideas as entirely shallow and superficial.
    claim that in the presentation of facts and views its attitide was
    impartial seemed to me to contain more falsehood than truth. The
    were- Jews.
    "Thousands of details that I had scarcely noticed before seemed
    to me
    now to deserve attention. I began to grasp and understand things
    which I
    had formerly looked at in a different light."

    "Making an effort to overcome my natural reluctance, I tried
    read articles of this nature published in the Marxist Press; but in
    so my aversion increased all the more. And then I set about learning
    something of the people who wrote and published this mischievous
    From the publisher downwards, all of them were Jews. I recalled to
    mind the
    names of the public leaders of Marxism, and then I realized that most
    them belonged to the Chosen Race- the Social Democratic
    representatives in
    the Imperial Cabinet as well as the secretaries if the Trades Unions
    the street agitators. Everywhere the same sinister picture presented
    itself. I shall never forget the row of names- Austerlitz, David,
    Ellonbogen, and others. One fact became quite evident to me. It was
    this alien race held in its hands the leadership of that Social
    Party with whose minor representatives I had been disputing for

    I dislike posting hitler's words BUT your disbelife forces me to do so
    does he say directly the media is liberal, well not directly, but the short version is
    jews are liberal/commies who control the media, and posion the state/folk
    as the neo-con's now [rightly I think leave off the jew part] say the liberals
    [who are realy commies] control the media and posion the people

    the idea is the same

    want more of this hitler drivel??

    "" even more: all at once the Jew also becomes liberal and begins to rave about the necessary progress of mankind."" -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

    ""Actually the Jew by means of the trade union, which could bea blessing for the nation, shatters the foundations of the national economy.
    Parallel with this, the political organization advances.
    It plays hand in glove with the trade-union movement, for thelatter prepares the masses for political organization, in fact, lashes theminto it with violence and coercion. Furthermore, it is the permanent financialsource from which the political organization feeds its enormous apparatus.It is the organ controlling the political activity of the individual anddoes the pandering in all big demonstrations of a political nature. In theend it no longer comes out for political interests at all, but places itschief instrument of struggle, the cessation of work in the form of a massand general strike, in the service of the political idea.
    By the creation of a press whose content is adapted to the intellectualhorizon of the least educated people, the political and trade-union organizationfinally obtains the agitational institution by which the lowest strata ofthe nation are made ripe for the most reckless acts. Its function is notto lead people out of the swamp of a base mentality to a higher stage, butto cater to their lowest instincts. Since the masses are as mentally lazyas they are sometimes presumptuous, this is a business as speculative asit is profitable.
    It is this press, above all, which wages a positively fanaticaland slanderous struggle, tearing down everything which can be regarded asa support of national independence, cultural elevation, and the economicindependence of the nation.
    Above all, it hammers away at the characters of all those whowill not bow down to the Jewish presumption to dominate, or whose abilityand genius in themselves seem a danger to the Jew. For to be hated by theJew it is not necessary to combat him; no, it suffices if he suspects thatsomeone might even conceive the idea of combating him some time or thaton the strength of his superior genius he is an augmenter of the power andgreatness of a nationality hostile to the Jew.
    His unfailing instinct in such things scents the original soull in everyone, and his hostility is assured to anyone who is not spiritof his spirit. Since the Jew is not the attacked but the attacker, not onlyanyone who attacks passes as his enemy, but also anyone who resists him.But the means with which he seeks to break such reckless but upright soulsis not honest warfare, but lies and slander.

    Slowly fear of the Marxist weapon of Jewry descends like a nightmareon the mind and soul of decent people.
    They begin to tremble before the terrible enemy and thus havebecome his final victim.
    The Jew's domination in the state seems so assured that nownot only can he call himself a Jew again, but he ruthlessly admits his ultimatenational and political designs. A section of his race openly owns itselfto be a foreign people, yet even here they lie. For while the Zionists tryto make the rest of the world believe that the national consciousness ofthe Jew finds its satisfaction in the creation of a Palestinian state, theJews again slyly dupe the dumb Goyim. It doesn't even enter their headsto build up a Jewish state in Palestine for the purpose of living there;all they want is a central organization for their international world swindle,endowed with its own sovereign rights and removed from the interventionof other states: a haven for convicted scoundrels and a university for buddingcrooks.

    He works systematically for revolutionization in a twofold sense:economic and political.
    Around peoples who offer too violent a resistance to attackfrom within he weaves a net of enemies, thanks to his international influence,incites them to war, and finally, if necessary, plants the flag of revolutionon the very battlefields.
    In economics he undermines the states until the social enterpriseswhich have become unprofitable are taken from the state and subjected tohis financial control.
    In the political field he refuses the state the means for itsselfpreservation, destroys the foundations of all national self-maintenanceand defense, destroys faith in the leadership, scoffs at its history andpast, and drags everything that is truly great into the gutter.
    Culturally he contaminates art, literature, the theater, makesa mockery of natural feeling, overthrows all concepts of beauty and sublimity,of the noble and the good, and instead drags men down into the sphere ofhis own base nature.
    Religion is ridiculed, ethics and morality represented as outmoded, untilthe last props of a nation in its struggle for existence in this world havefallen.
    (e) Now begins the great last revolution. In gaining politicalpower the Jew casts off the few cloaks that he still wears. The democraticpeople's Jew becomes the blood-Jew and tyrant over peoples. In a few yearshe tries to exterminate the national intelligentsia and by robbing the peoplesof their natural intellectual leadership makes them ripe for the slave'slot of permanent subjugation.
    The most frightful example of this kind is offered by Russia, where he killed or starved about thirty million people with positively fanatical savagery, in part amid inhuman tortures, in order to give a gang of Jewish journalists and stock exchange bandits domination over a great people."" -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

    please note I doNOT agree with any of this BS
    it is posted here to show HITLER was the one who popularised this idea
    that our current neo-con's repeat
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook