ABC News website admits to liberal bias

[The Robfather 0]

link

 

 

"Like every other institution, the Washington and political press corps operate with a good number of biases and predilections.

 

"They include, but are not limited to, a near-universal shared sense that liberal political positions on social issues like gun control, homosexuality, abortion, and religion are the default, while more conservative positions are ‘conservative positions.’

 

"They include a belief that government is a mechanism to solve the nation's problems; that more taxes on corporations and the wealthy are good ways to cut the deficit and raise money for social spending and don't have a negative affect on economic growth; and that emotional examples of suffering (provided by unions or consumer groups) are good ways to illustrate economic statistic stories. . . .

 

"The press, by and large, does not accept President Bush's justifications for the Iraq war -- in any of its WMD, imminent threat, or evil-doer formulations. It does not understand how educated, sensible people could possibly be wary of multilateral institutions or friendly, sophisticated European allies.

 

"It does not accept the proposition that the Bush tax cuts helped the economy by stimulating summer spending.

 

"It remains fixated on the unemployment rate.

 

"It believes President Bush is ‘walking a fine line’ with regards to the gay marriage issue, choosing between ‘tolerance’ and his ‘right-wing base.’

 

"It still has a hard time understanding how, despite the drumbeat of conservative grass-top complaints about overspending and deficits, President Bush's base remains extremely and loyally devoted to him -- and it looks for every opportunity to find cracks in that base.

 

"Of course, the swirling Joe Wilson and National Guard stories play right to the press's scandal bias -- not to mention the bias towards process stories (grand juries produce ENDLESS process!).

 

"The worldview of the dominant media can be seen in every frame of video and every print word choice that is currently being produced about the presidential race. "

[Guest JMA]

"They include, but are not limited to, a near-universal shared sense that liberal political positions on social issues like gun control, homosexuality, abortion, and religion are the default, while more conservative positions are ‘conservative positions.’

I think most people already knew the media had a social liberal bias.

 

That's pretty much a given.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Well, that's not really that site admitting to liberal bias - just sort of re-exposing what most people following the issue already assume after Bernard Goldberg's op-ed and book a few years back.

 

Interestingly enough, while current media tends to be socially biased to the left, it also tends to be economically biased in the opposite direction.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Part of what makes socially liberal positions so easy to defend is that aside from some (abortion, for one) a lot of them are generally expanded versions of the utopian society you see the world in during your younger years. Unless you grew up in some seriously deprived environment, anyway.

 

The old lesson, "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all?" Political correctness.

 

The story of Robin Hood, a children's folklore hero for taking from the excessively and needlessly rich and spreading it to those less priveleged? I don't have to explain that one too much, I hope.

 

I could name off a couple more examples, but I think the point is made. If this post makes me sound like I'm acting high and mighty about my political position, I'm not trying to. I've thought this kind of thing over long and hard before though I have difficulty putting it into words like this.

 

Basically, there's an arguement to be made that the media is socially liberal. But it's bias is about as equal the bias of those who watch it. While someone who's good at math could successfully explained how giving more money in the hands of the rich will eventually reach the lower classes and empower them (and undoubtedly, someone also very good at math will refute it and pull up a bunch of numbers to say it doesn't work), the short-term effects simply fail to satisfy the want to see everyone with their equal share.

 

 

 

I don't know. I'm kind of rambling at this point. But you get what I mean. I hope. And I hope I don't have the air of a jackass here. In fact, I don't know why I'm talking so much about financial policy, when the media leans to the right on those issues (probably because their jobs pay well and never get shipped off.)

[Vern Gagne 0]

I think this poll was meant has sarcasm. The fake numbers though are pretty close to the real numbers.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Well, that's not really that site admitting to liberal bias - just sort of re-exposing what most people following the issue already assume after Bernard Goldberg's op-ed and book a few years back.

 

Interestingly enough, while current media tends to be socially biased to the left, it also tends to be economically biased in the opposite direction.

Where does the media hold a righ leaning view on economic issues?

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

The story of Robin Hood, a children's folklore hero for taking from the excessively and needlessly rich and spreading it to those less priveleged? I don't have to explain that one too much, I hope.

Bah, Robin Hood was a tax cutter...

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Part of what makes socially liberal positions so easy to defend is that aside from some (abortion, for one) a lot of them are generally expanded versions of the utopian society you see the world in during your younger years. Unless you grew up in some seriously deprived environment, anyway.

 

The old lesson, "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all?" Political correctness.

 

The story of Robin Hood, a children's folklore hero for taking from the excessively and needlessly rich and spreading it to those less priveleged? I don't have to explain that one too much, I hope.

 

I could name off a couple more examples, but I think the point is made. If this post makes me sound like I'm acting high and mighty about my political position, I'm not trying to. I've thought this kind of thing over long and hard before though I have difficulty putting it into words like this.

 

Basically, there's an arguement to be made that the media is socially liberal. But it's bias is about as equal the bias of those who watch it. While someone who's good at math could successfully explained how giving more money in the hands of the rich will eventually reach the lower classes and empower them (and undoubtedly, someone also very good at math will refute it and pull up a bunch of numbers to say it doesn't work), the short-term effects simply fail to satisfy the want to see everyone with their equal share.

 

 

 

I don't know. I'm kind of rambling at this point. But you get what I mean. I hope. And I hope I don't have the air of a jackass here. In fact, I don't know why I'm talking so much about financial policy, when the media leans to the right on those issues (probably because their jobs pay well and never get shipped off.)

So liberals are just illogical children basing their stances on pipedreams?

 

Sounds about right.

[Guest JMA]

Part of what makes socially liberal positions so easy to defend is that aside from some (abortion, for one) a lot of them are generally expanded versions of the utopian society you see the world in during your younger years. Unless you grew up in some seriously deprived environment, anyway.

 

The old lesson, "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all?" Political correctness.

 

The story of Robin Hood, a children's folklore hero for taking from the excessively and needlessly rich and spreading it to those less priveleged? I don't have to explain that one too much, I hope.

 

I could name off a couple more examples, but I think the point is made. If this post makes me sound like I'm acting high and mighty about my political position, I'm not trying to. I've thought this kind of thing over long and hard before though I have difficulty putting it into words like this.

 

Basically, there's an arguement to be made that the media is socially liberal. But it's bias is about as equal the bias of those who watch it. While someone who's good at math could successfully explained how giving more money in the hands of the rich will eventually reach the lower classes and empower them (and undoubtedly, someone also very good at math will refute it and pull up a bunch of numbers to say it doesn't work), the short-term effects simply fail to satisfy the want to see everyone with their equal share.

 

 

 

I don't know. I'm kind of rambling at this point. But you get what I mean. I hope. And I hope I don't have the air of a jackass here. In fact, I don't know why I'm talking so much about financial policy, when the media leans to the right on those issues (probably because their jobs pay well and never get shipped off.)

So liberals are just illogical children basing their stances on pipedreams?

 

Sounds about right.

Well, you know what Jesus said about children.

 

Not that I care about what Jesus said or anything...

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

From what I've gathered, mostly everybody is a social "liberal" regardless of how they feel on other issues, on this board I mean. I don't think they'd complain about that sort of bias.

 

In Canada, the one socially conservative newspaper that we had, The National Post, was sold by Conrad Black to someone else, whereas now the paper is only fiscally conservative.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Where does the media hold a righ leaning view on economic issues?

One of the better polls I've seen is from fair.org.

 

Q23: On economic issues, how would you characterize your political orientation?

 

Left: 11%

Center: 64%

Right: 19%

Other: 5%

 

You can see the whole survey here, but it's quite long. This data is about 2/3 of the way down the page. Obviously it's not a stunning majority, but compared to social issues (where 30% of journalists see their views as being to the left as opposed to this 11, and only 11% to the right), it's much less severe.

 

And of course, this is also indirect evidence - what journalists personally believe versus actual citations in print. Take it as you will, but the difference between how most journalists see social and economic issues is pretty substantial.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

You can see the whole survey here, but it's quite long.

While 43% of journalists felt that the government should guarantee medical care, a similar 35% felt that this was not the responsibility of the government. In contrast, a February 1996 New York Times/CBS News poll found that the general public supports government guaranteed medical care by more than a two-to-one margin (64% to 29%).

 

 

[Vyce 0]

Part of what makes socially liberal positions so easy to defend is that aside from some (abortion, for one) a lot of them are generally expanded versions of the utopian society you see the world in during your younger years. Unless you grew up in some seriously deprived environment, anyway.

Some of grew up in a dystopia and liked it, Mr. Fucking High & Mighty.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

So liberals are just illogical children basing their stances on pipedreams?

 

Sounds about right.

Well, sort of. Obviously you're putting your own negative spin on it, but I think you still understand anyway.

 

But basically you're there. A lot of the more jarring conservative stances are done because they believe the world isn't the place the liberals think it is. Conservative leadership's tendency to look out for itself such a majority of the time winds up proving who your strongest friends are, although our efforts to make sure the country's soil is never the site for another terrorist attack has really stretched beyond previous ones leaving us with fewer allies than almost ever before.

 

But, since I don't want to talk about Iraq for the umpteenth thread, I'll say that I believe Republicans are, because of these beliefs, typically more political than Democrats are. I'm not saying Democrats aren't political of course, but I'm not talking about the Kennedys and the Hillarys here, or even the MoveOn crowd, I'm talking about the John and Jane Doe living at 123 Any Street.

 

Basically, I don't think the conservative claim that all media and news except for a few sources are in the pocket of the DNC is actually true. I think that a large amount of people, media people included, believe more in the social principles of the liberals than the conservatives because it more closely mirrors the kind of sharing and etiquette that gets you respect in the public world.

 

By comparison, conservative values seem more like tough love. Tough love has it's time and can make the world a better place in desperate situations, but not a lot of people depend on tough love all the time.

 

This relation between social etiquette and political platforms basically spells out why I think average Democrats are less political than average Republicans. Some conservative positions require going on the defensive, as you're sometimes you're suggesting moving in a drection that seems in the 180 of positive in a "do unto others" world.

 

I think I'm done getting psychological here, and I'm just postulating so there's plenty of room for disagreement or interpretation (or misinterpretation) but anyway, I think that explains why I think most of the media, the country, and the world holds a more generally liberal view when it comes to social issues.

[Dogbert 0]

From what I've gathered, mostly everybody is a social "liberal" regardless of how they feel on other issues, on this board I mean. I don't think they'd complain about that sort of bias.

 

In Canada, the one socially conservative newspaper that we had, The National Post, was sold by Conrad Black to someone else, whereas now the paper is only fiscally conservative.

You could always pick up any of the Alberta newspapers (motto: "So Conservative, It's Sickening").

[NoCalMike 0]

If the mainstream news wanted to liberals a favor, they could do a lot more then talk about abortion and gun control. There are lot of issues that are never brought up in the news that you could consider "liberal friendly" Like I have said before, it is a corporate media, they look out for what is best for them to make money, that is all.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

If the mainstream news wanted to liberals a favor, they could do a lot more then talk about abortion and gun control. There are lot of issues that are never brought up in the news that you could consider "liberal friendly" Like I have said before, it is a corporate media, they look out for what is best for them to make money, that is all.

You're absolutely right. I am a social liberal on almost everything except abortion and gun control. But media coverage puts me in this staunch Republican mood.

[2GOLD 0]

Actually, it is a little bit of both. Being stuck around the media people in many places before, I can tell you the dem to rep ratio is way out of balance.

 

The media is designed not to report the news much anymore, it's kind of a mix of both. It's find the news and then spin it into something that equals ratings. Which isn't that hard considering the hate the democrats have right now for the Republican admin is just off the wall so bringing down an admin is ratings.

 

So FOX NEWS will do the opposite to grab THOSE ratings. It's not so much a bias as it is a "do what you have to do for ratings" and since certain organizations are LOADED with democrats and some are LOADED with Republicans, it sorta comes off looking like they have a bias. Not true, most reporters will sell their morals and candiate up the river for a big ratings share.

 

If Bush does something majorly wrong, all news organizations go after him to get that BIG GRAPHIC news as I like to call it.

 

So where does bias come from? College professors. Those who have taken the journalism class know that you are REQUIRED to think like your professor on a certain story or you fail. It's really that simple. Depending on the university is which side of the spectrum you get since few college professor seem to be middle of the road people.

 

So, in summary. Is their a bias in the media? Yes, to ratings.

Does the media care who is the President? No

Does being a democrat or republican as a reporter matter? Yes, because if you dislike the person in office you can put the best spin on the ratings grabber story.

 

These are all the reasons and more I didn't want any part of news. The other? Some of these parents I would have slugged by now.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Your post would make sense except that stories do not immediately go from a journalist to the front page. They go through editors and other filters first.

 

I generally believe the media will ultimately kiss ass with whoever's in office. They don't want to lose important connections, or be the last one to break the news when someone at a press conference said something important.

 

Whining about liberal media bias in Washington during the Clinton years had at least some evidence to it. During this time it's pointless.

[Guest thebigjig]

I think it's impossible to have a news organization that is completely fair and balanced... especially considering the extreme split in the country right now between left and right. However, there are a few things that I hear and know about that I do not see being reported on any news network... for example, our vice president is involved in a haliburton bribary scandal which would have been HUGE news in 1996, and maybe even in 2000 and pre 9/11. However, it's surprisingly ignored

 

I dont really see that much of a liberal slant anymore with the exception of a few sources. CNN doesnt seem that liberal... even though it's painted as such by conservative outlets. I find it funny that if you report on the deficit expanding, or that the administration is now backing away from their job growth report, then you are labeled "liberal" by many hardcore republicans, and that makes me laugh... and kind of disturbs me.

 

So basically, in my opinion, the media has more of a conservative slant at this point in time than a liberal slant... although it seems to be getting more of a moderate feel than a year ago... where if you didnt agree with Dubyah, then you were labeled unpatriotic