May 24, 2004
Media Bias Revisited
Matt takes up the debate again about liberal bias in the media. After reading the Pew Center report and thinking about this issue some more, I think I may understand where our disagreement stems from.
Before dealing with the results of the Pew Center poll I want to look at the methodology. For the purposes of this discussion, I accept this poll as indicative of a trend, but I do not accept the numbers themselves. A brief glance shows a disturbingly small sample size. The average number of "working journalists and editors" surveyed is only slightly over 33. In some cases, only five were polled. No reliable statistics can come from such small sample sizes. Furthermore, only 67% of those initially contacted even answered the survey. Also, of those polled, most were either executives or senior editors. If one is to argue that an individual journalist's beliefs influence their writing, then this seems more like an attempt to pad the numbers than to discern a bias among journalists. I would like to see a much larger sample size limited to working journalists and their immediate editors before I can fully accept the results. However, for the sake of this argument the methodology is just a quibble, so on to the results.
Like the other polls Matt linked to in our previous discussion, the majority of journalists identify as moderate. Among those that don't, liberals significantly outweigh conservatives, but both are minorities. However, the report also finds a much stronger bias when it comes to two specific cultural issues, namely homosexuality and religion. Here overwhelming majorities both accept homosexuality and think a belief in God is not necessary as a basis for morality. In contrast, the general population is very evenly split on both these issues. This, I think, is the crux of the matter.
As a non-religious person, issues like this are not terribly important to me. I am more interested in foreign and economic policy with cultural issues, particularly those that intersect with religion, a distant third. Matt, on the other hand, is a devout Catholic so these issues are presumably far more important to him. His posts on Down to the Piraeus would seem to confirm this. Since the majority of those journalists polled hold beliefs on these issues far removed from Matt's own and these are issues he finds highly important, he's going to notice this disparity much quicker than I would. This naturally leads him to assume the media is generally liberal. I, however, notice when the media let the Bush administration make misleading statements or outright lies about foreign and economic policy without providing opposing viewpoints. This has lead me to assume the news media are simply irresponsible and more interested in access and profits than the truth. Obviously, neither of us has a high opinion of the media, but we differ on the reasons.
Looking back over our previous discussion, it seems clear to me now that when Matt claims there's a liberal media bias, he's concerned mainly with a liberal cultural bias which I'm perfectly willing to grant him. However, in turn, I would hope that he, and other propagators of the liberal media meme, will understand that on other issues the media have consistently allowed the Bush administration's claims to go unchallenged. This is changing now, but I think that's largely due to his falling poll numbers. When Bush's approval rating was high, little criticism of his policies was heard. The news is a business that realizes most people prefer to have their beliefs reinforced rather than challenged. So long as the majority of Americans believed and supported Bush, the news media went along. However, that is a topic for another time.
The disagreement over the media's liberal bias comes down to one's focus. I can see now that for those for whom cultural issues are paramount or simply different from those held by many journalists it would be quite easy to perceive a liberal bias. Perhaps this explanation is wrong—in which case I hope someone corrects me—but it seems reasonable to me. If it is the case, I plan to keep it in mind in future debates and hope that others do the same. Perhaps we can all amicably move on to more important and interesting debates.
I think I agree with you although you never seemed to admit that in part I was right, but only that I "perceived a liberal bias". It IS a liberal bias. With regards the war. I think that alot of mainstream media in the opennings of the war were far too in love with their embedded status and far to lazy in thier trade to do any reporting than what was directly fed to them by the powers that be in the DOD, White House, and Armed Services.
That said, the passes given to Clinton on war issues were (everyone is forced to admit) AS, if not (and I am in this camp) more, kind as those given to Bush.
There is much more to say and I think our disagreement would lie not with criticism per se but with story choice and perspective. Any president will get the press after him for stories that the libs or conservatives expose, in which case no matter what your political leanings, the other side is forced to cover it. Length and intensity of coverage, level of seriousness as it correlates to coverage length, experts used, choice of non-events-driven features on news magazines, lies repeated until they become fact (often out of laziness granted, but usually the ones that damage the right), and especially the unwillingness to connect the dots for liberal politicians' dirty deals while desperately linking Bush to everyone from Bin Laden and Saddam to OzCorp and the Green Goblin.
What I did not like was the implicit (and unintentional perhaps?) line that because I am a practicing Catholic I am the only one who notices this trend. I claim no gnostic powers of religious sight. Also the implication that I cannot see beyond these issues because I am a Catholic seemed a--dare I say--bias in your post. I see very weel what goes on in the war and economics, arts and letters, politics and legislation. This topic is very important right now because although the media has been gleeful (and quiet) about it, gay marriage has just been instituted in 11 states and a major federalism crisis is on its way. Hence press bias and social issues have been the soup d'jour of my posts of late.
Bush is being properly harangued on the War issue by left and right. They don't need my posts. And by your own admission, due to your preferences and the seriousness of this issue, it sounds like you do.
I think I agree with you although you never seemed to admit that in part I was right, but only that I "perceived a liberal bias". It IS a liberal bias.
I guess I wasn't clear on that. I meant that there is a liberal bias on some specific issues, but I don't think that necessarily translates into an overall one on all issues.
That said, the passes given to Clinton on war issues were (everyone is forced to admit) AS, if not (and I am in this camp) more, kind as those given to Bush.
I don't know. I didn't follow news nearly as closely then as I do now, but I do remember a lot of furor over his botched attempts to bomb terrorist camps. With Clinton, though, the criticism was mainly the Monica frenzy.
There is much more to say and I think our disagreement would lie not with criticism per se but with story choice and perspective. Any president will get the press after him for stories that the libs or conservatives expose, in which case no matter what your political leanings, the other side is forced to cover it. Length and intensity of coverage, level of seriousness as it correlates to coverage length, experts used, choice of non-events-driven features on news magazines, lies repeated until they become fact (often out of laziness granted, but usually the ones that damage the right), and especially the unwillingness to connect the dots for liberal politicians' dirty deals while desperately linking Bush to everyone from Bin Laden and Saddam to OzCorp and the Green Goblin.
This is part of what I was trying to get across in our previous discussion. Journalists' beliefs don't really enter into the picture that much when it comes to major stories. They have to cover them. Then when it comes to the little gotcha, "non-events-driven" pieces, they go after everybody. Like I pointed out before, look what they did to Gore in 2000 versus Bush. As for the unwillingness to connect the dots, I hear you. I wish we had less faux objectivity and more synthesis and analysis. That's why I get the majority of my news from blogs nowadays. Not only is it easy to recognize and adjust for any authorial bias, but good bloggers can delve into the complexities of any issue they want.
Now, as for ignoring liberal policitian's "dirty deals" and linking Bush to Bin Laden, I think maybe you're exaggerating a bit. Bush is in power, so naturally he's going to receive a lot more focus than those out of power. That's as it should be. Also, I don't think the mainstream news media have linked Bush to Bin Laden or Saddam. Some far left sites, sure, but that doesn't really count. There are plenty of wacko far right sites out there "reporting" equally silly stuff.
What I did not like was the implicit (and unintentional perhaps?) line that because I am a practicing Catholic I am the only one who notices this trend. I claim no gnostic powers of religious sight. Also the implication that I cannot see beyond these issues because I am a Catholic seemed a--dare I say--bias in your post. I see very weel what goes on in the war and economics, arts and letters, politics and legislation.
No, no, no. I didn't mean to imply that at all. I just meant that your beliefs on the issues I mentioned are both strongly held and in opposition to those of most journalists, so you're more likely to notice such biases than I am. I know you're not the only one who can see that, I was just using you as a specific example. I also didn't mean to imply that you aren't interested in other issues, just that they aren't paramount to you right now, as you yourself point out here:
This topic is very important right now because although the media has been gleeful (and quiet) about it, gay marriage has just been instituted in 11 states and a major federalism crisis is on its way. Hence press bias and social issues have been the soup d'jour of my posts of late.
If you'll notice, I also said that cultural issues were not my primary focus, but I just spent a couple of hours composing a nearly 800 word post on the matter. I've also written quite a bit in the past on the gay marriage issue and others, but they're still not the biggest things I think about. I've rarely come across anyone that's one-dimensional and I certainly don't assume it of others. I was just trying to make clear a difference in focus and emphasis to support my point, not to characterize you.
Btw, "I claim no gnostic powers of religious sight" is a great line.
Bush is being properly harangued on the War issue by left and right. They don't need my posts. And by your own admission, due to your preferences and the seriousness of this issue, it sounds like you do.
I'm not sure I need the posts. If anything, I need to spend less time at the keyboard. I've actually gotten a bit tired of reading things about the war at this point. It's pretty clear what's going on. More posts on the topic are just wearying. Still, I try to stay informed and since that's a major issue, I read a lot of what's out there. I've really scaled back my posts on the matter though for the same reason you don't post much about it—others are doing a better job than I could. To be honest, my preferences have me reading more apolitical sites dealing with literature, technology, and science lately. Politics are just so tiring.
http://www.piraeus.us/blog/2004/05/ouchbut-need-to-read-on-iraq.html
Re: the war. Did you read this shalacking of Dems and Repubs?
Now, as for ignoring liberal policitian's "dirty deals" and linking Bush to Bin Laden, I think maybe you're exaggerating a bit. Bush is in power, so naturally he's going to receive a lot more focus than those out of power. That's as it should be. Also, I don't think the mainstream news media have linked Bush to Bin Laden or Saddam.
Did you notice who won the palme d'or this week? I haven't seen the film, but I understand the Bush-Bin Laden connection is emphasized at least in small part. Of course, you do go on to say that lefties have connected these dots, and nobody thinks of Moore as mainstream, but I'll wager that mainstream media covers the US release of the film quite a bit. (Remember Disney wouldn't distribute it partly because of this accusation--I'm sure MM will find a distrubutor now that the film's a prize-winner. Does that count as mainstream media?)
So results of a foreign film festival can now be considered a sign of American media bias? Or are you saying that potential coverage of a controversial film counts as such?
I'm just saying wait and see, jackass.
I would think that the lack of attention paid by media outlets to Moore's coup is another incidence of a non-liberal bias, but then that's just me.....
Oh, and before anyone takes the time to actually post a reply to this, I'm not making a big deal out of it. I think you guys (Scott and Mall) misunderstood me when I wrote Does that count as mainstream media?--I wasn't being sarcastic; I was really asking.
If you're asking if the Australian portal of an online news service counts as mainstream, I'd have to say no.
What? No--that's a Reuters wire, but the standing ovation is the story. My point was that, before he won the prize in Cannes, MM was having trouble finding a distributor because of the content of the picture. Now, he has taken the top prize at the top film festival and is receiving standing ovulations (or whatever) before the Academy. He will have no trouble finding a distributor now.
Again, MM is certainly a fringe player, but motion pictures are part of the media. Certainly film distributors are part of the media.
I'm confused. A standing ovation is not media coverage - and frankly a standing ovation in front of a cabal of Hollywood types is hardly an indication of the film's embrace by the mainstream.
As for whether the story about the ovation is mainstream, well, I would have to say yes, though just because something's Reuter's doesn't mean it makes it into, say, the StartleGram. The fact that you had to go to an Australian site does seem indicative.
Okay, the story:
-From Drudge (mainstream?) off of Reuters (mainstream) and linked to a Kiwi site (not mainstream)
-About a standing ovulation (funny joke?) for a motion picture (mainstream) that will be picked up by a distributor (which owns or is owned by media outlets)
So the story, then, isn't just that the people that gave the prize in Cannes liked it, or that 600 people in California liked it, but that this will lead to a major media player buying and distributing the film.
Really, I didn't mean for this to be such a big deal, and the story certainly doesn't prove anything, but it's a link in the chain. As for the link to the Aussie site, I don't think that means a darn thing. The AP has Mirimax buying the picture.
I don't consider motion pictures as part of the mainstream news media. The key point here is that we're talking about news, not all media. I mean, if you want to include films, then you need to include music, photography, and painting too. In other words, you're just muddying the debate by unnecessarily expanding the definition of "news media". Yes, this particular film is a documentary and so ostensibly about some factual events, but most people don't get their news that way, therefore it is not mainstream.
Okay. There is a difference between the ostensibly objective standards of the news media and the artistic and First Amendment standards of film distributors, though they may be owned by the same company, right?
If that's your argument, I accept it. Nonetheless, motion pictures and their distributors are major media players. Incidentally, I believe Miramax is in the same family as ABC, a number of magazines, etc.)
That I linked to an Austrailian site had nothing to do with anything.
If that's supposed to show that the "mainstream media covers the US release of the film quite a bit", I think it fails. Of the articles listed, most either have nothing to do with Moore's film or are only tangentially related. Of those that deal directly with it, most were written for the Arts section around the same time as he won the Palme d'Or, hardly unjustified coverage. Either way, it's a controversial film, so reporting on it from time to time is simply good journalism, not evidence of media bias.
Okay. There is a difference between the ostensibly objective standards of the news media and the artistic and First Amendment standards of film distributors, though they may be owned by the same company, right?
Absolutely. I mean, I think media consolidation has great potential for abuse, but so far it seems to be fairly benign.
If that's your argument, I accept it. Nonetheless, motion pictures and their distributors are major media players. Incidentally, I believe Miramax is in the same family as ABC, a number of magazines, etc.)
Yes, they are major media players, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about bias in the news media specifically. I think most people can tell the difference between a Fox "news" broadcast and a movie.
You mean my link to the NY Times? That was in response to SNWs point on the Aussie link and how it didn't make the Startlegram (which it did, btw; I just thought a link to the NYT would be more compelling given the subject matter). I wager that I could find dozens of articles in papers around the country on this day alone that covers the reception in California. As for the release, it's not out yet, so the articles are focusing on Miramax picking it up (again, dozens of articles in the last week).
As for this: "Either way, it's a controversial film, so reporting on it from time to time is simply good journalism, not evidence of media bias"--I just wrote about the difference between the reporting standards of a film production and distribution company and the news media (your first point) and I've said repeatedly that this story doesn't prove anything, just that it's a "link in the chain." I just intended to contribute a small bit of the coverage that I predicted a few weeks ago. Okay?
Don't take it so personally. You provided a link in the chain; I tried to show how it doesn't apply to the discussion. It has nothing to do with you.
I'm not taking it personally, marmelade. I just wanted to point out that a) the mainstream news media may not have linked the President to Bin Laden or Saddam, but mainstream news media has covered mainstream media which makes that link. Thus the discussion of whether motion pictures, distribution companies, and the NYTimes, Reuters, AP, etc count as mainstream media. I understand that movies aren't news, but that really wasn't the point. Movies are media, and this discussion began by addressing what issues people most care about, and how those agendas are shaped.
and b) that I wasn't trying to prove anything, just wanted to continue the dialogue.