Oh, That Liberal Media
Sep 12
* Sixty percent of the nation’s daily newspapers print more conservative syndicated columnists every week than progressive syndicated columnists. Only 20 percent run more progressives than conservatives, while the remaining 20 percent are evenly balanced.
* In a given week, nationally syndicated progressive columnists are published in newspapers with a combined total circulation of 125 million. Conservative columnists, on the other hand, are published in newspapers with a combined total circulation of more than 152 million.2
* The top 10 columnists as ranked by the number of papers in which they are carried include five conservatives, two centrists, and only three progressives.
* The top 10 columnists as ranked by the total circulation of the papers in which they are published also include five conservatives, two centrists, and only three progressives.
* In 38 states, the conservative voice is greater than the progressive voice — in other words, conservative columns reach more readers in total than progressive columns. In only 12 states is the progressive voice greater than the conservative voice.
* In three out of the four broad regions of the country — the West, the South, and the Midwest — conservative syndicated columnists reach more readers than progressive syndicated columnists. Only in the Northeast do progressives reach more readers, and only by a margin of 2 percent.
* In eight of the nine divisions into which the U.S. Census Bureau divides the country, conservative syndicated columnists reach more readers than progressive syndicated columnists in any given week. Only in the Middle Atlantic division do progressive columnists reach more readers each week.
We live in a pretty evenly divided country, one that actually is more center-left now than it has been in the recent past, so economics probably cannot explain this by itself. This is a complicated issue, involving the phony ‘liberal media’ campaign of the right, but I don;t think that anyone can see a discrepancy this large and not notice that newspapers tend to be owned mainly by rich people and large media corporations. And I don;t think it will come as a surprise that such people tend to like conservative economic policies because those policies redistribute wealth up the economic ladder. Newspaper owners pay for the news they want and, especially, for the opinions they want. They want conservative opinions and news and they get it.
Again, this more complicated than anyone issue, but it would be astonishing if the economic/political desires of the owners were not reflected in the editorial page choices. For some reason, the notion of “objectivity”, that news papers should provide both sides of the story, dies on the editorial page. It makes perfect sense that conservative owners would take that loophole in journalism ethics and use it to try and get the political outcomes that they desire.
Link via Atrios.
#1 by Ted at September 12th, 2007
| Quote
Kevin, the hard data you present is 100% about columns and columnists, but later on you slip in news along with opinions. Every poll I have seen over the past 20 years puts the percentage of progressives/liberals/Democrats vs conservatives/Republicans doing news reporting at between 65-35 and 85-15.
#2 by Kevin at September 12th, 2007
| Quote
Ted
Just briefly
1)I am not aware of a scientific poll with numbers anything like that (most are self responders) etc
2)whats important in news reporting are what stories get covered - -decided by the editors — and what the content of te stories are. Look around the media matters site and you can see that the notion of liberal bias is just no true.
I know your points deserve more attention than that, but I am going to be scarce for a day or two — I promise to get back to them.
#3 by Devil's Advocate at September 12th, 2007
| Quote
This is the most flawed study I have read in a while, and I understand how to read social science studies.
I have provided for you the most thorough analysis on the Internet of Media Matters’ study. You can read it below.
Media Matters Spouts its Own Flawed Study as Fact: How They Did It, In Great Detail
#4 by digglahhh at September 12th, 2007
| Quote
Well, if that’s the most thorough debunking of the study on the Internet, I’d consider this study to be a success.
So, there sre subjective and semantic concerns about what marks one as a conservative, progressive, or centrist. Welcome to the world of metalinguistics, buddy…
But, do you attempt to address the complex issue of attempting to objectively judge somebody on an arbitrary continuum while personally holding a position relatively far from the center of that continuum? No, of course not. You simply replicate the same methodology you slam Media Matters for using; isolate a paragraph and label it as something other than what they did. Basically, you accuse an openly-liberal organization of not being able to restrain themselves from exhibiting the bias that you, an openly-conservative blogger, claim you are able to. You can do it; they can’t.
But, then you break out the heavy ammunition - the tried and true, kid-tested, mother-approved tool to make all intellectual credibility disappear in the blink of an eye - the extreme hypothetical! So, you come up with a scenario in which it is possible for about 96% of the columnists to be liberal, but the paper still measure as conservative by this study. Then you just assume that such an extreme hypothetical is the actual case in most at most of the papers. But, that’s not all - you then pen some drivel, self-congratulatory enough to make Chad Johnson blush in the middle of an endzone celebration.
Hey, perhaps, you could have a 21:1 ratio of conservatives to liberals and the paper could still rate as liberal? Perhaps, they under-reported the conservative bias in the media? But, that would obviously be ridiculous, even though your argument isn’t…
But, wait, why don’t you try to amass the most responses of any reader on this site, would that, then make “Lean Left” a conservative site?
I think we are all aware that “conservative,” “progressive,” and “centrist” are all relative terms. Thanks!
#5 by Ted at September 12th, 2007
| Quote
Kevin, I was not claiming that the news, in general, has a liberal bias. I was just pointing out that you expanded data on columnists to include news, and that is not valid.
If I were to label news as a whole, I would say it has a centrist, status quo bias. It lends credence to those in power, diminishes those that are not, and emphasizes the same things over and over while ignoring everything else. This translates to the party not in power and anyone attempting to institute basic change perceiving the news to be biased against them.
(By “the news”, I mean typical mainstream media outlets. I don’t consider Fox to be news, nor do I consider Countdown, The Daily Show, or Real Time to be news, although I do believe these sources serve as the primary source of information on current events for a fair number of people.)
#6 by tgirsch at September 12th, 2007
| Quote
Ted:
If I were to label news as a whole, I would say it has a centrist, status quo bias.
I don’t think that’s quite right. For one thing, the media generally views the status quo as being centrist, whether or not that’s actually the case. Worse, they assume that whatever is exactly between what those on the left say and what those on the right say must be the “centrist” position, whether or not that’s the case. The problem with this becomes apparent if you have a moderate liberal position pitted against an extremely conservative one, or vice versa: the “centrist” position, in their analysis, is actually one that’s fairly conservative (or liberal, depending on the example). And all of this sets aside the idea (*oh, the horror*) that it’s entirely possible for one side or the other (or both) to be objectively wrong on an issue (cf, the tax cut debate).
But more than all of this, it’s not so much the “status quo” that the media is biased toward, but the popular narrative. After 9/11, for example, Bush and Rudy were the staunch leaders, according the narrative, so everything that got reported was jimmied to fit into that narrative, no matter how well it actually fit, and whether or not it was actually true. The media coverage of Iraq didn’t really turn negative until after it was clear that the Democrats would make big gains in the 2006 midterms, because the narrative was that if Democrats won, it was because of Iraq. And so on and so forth.
#7 by Ted at September 12th, 2007
| Quote
Tgirsch, yes, the popular narrative. That more accurately reflects my thinking. I was having trouble finding the right words to describe my thinking, but that is exactly what I meant.
I disagree with your second point, but we have discussed this before and so I just let that go.
#8 by Rick at September 12th, 2007
| Quote
The emphasis here is on op/ed columns, not straight news. It was op/ed columnists like Bill Kristol that so blatently (and with conflicting interests) mislead the public by echoing the drumbeats of the White House’s war machine prior to the war in Iraq. I think these findings are very relevant; it’s the opinion pieces that are ultimately more persuasive.
#9 by Dan M. at September 13th, 2007
| Quote
TG, Ted,
Excellent point, but of course it doesn’t answer how the common narrative forms.
From what I’ve seen, in terms of media reports on things that I have personal knowledge or above-average learning of, media, fundamentally, is just plain wrong. It’s not biased, it just sucks at actually knowing anything. In all the cases where I have personal access to participants in news events (admittedly rare; I’m nobody special), I have never had an instance without errors in factual details that affect the exact meaning of the news story. They’re even worse on matters of science, and their history is dubious.
Given that policy matters depends most critically on fact, experience, and long-term effects of past decisions, it’d be shocking if it was possible to even pose coherent questions in policy debates, if one were to only use non-specialized media reports.
Sadly, this is exactly where commentary and editorial come in. Reasonably smart people rapidly realize that following the news does not equip them to understand politics or policy matters. So they look for abstracts, syntheses, and theories… from the editorial pages, where there can be all the bias in the world.
#10 by Dan M. at September 13th, 2007
| Quote
Devil’s Advocate,
If I’m reading your right, you think Ronald Brownstein can’t be centrist because he believes in gov’t funding of children’s health care. You call that funding “socialized medicine”. And Neal Peirce can’t be centrist because he consideres global warming and suburban sprawl real, making him an “environmentalist kook”.
You’ve certainly made it clear where the bias lies. What do you call a centrist? Somebody who only spits on the women at abortion clinics instead of bombing them?
#11 by Ted at September 13th, 2007
| Quote
Dan M, my personal experience with the media being inaccurate parallels yours.
#12 by Devil's Advocate at September 13th, 2007
| Quote
No Dan:
When someone thinks the government should force people against their will to pay for the care of other’s children, that’s liberalism.
If I want to help other’s children, I’ll do it, but not by the barrel of a gun.
Yes, if you are concerned about suburban sprawl, you are a liberal.
If you hate Wal-mart, you are a liberal
If you believe Al Gore, you are a liberal.
#13 by johnnyboy at September 13th, 2007
| Quote
If you believe Al Gore you are a liberal? Are you calling Rudy Giuliani a liberal because he acknowledges global warming as a problem?
Are you calling Orrin Hatch, one of the co-sponsors of the bill that would increase governmental health care programs for children, a liberal?
#14 by digglahhh at September 13th, 2007
| Quote
Whoa, for somebody who remarks sarcastically about Media Matters potentially categorizing “liberal” as a form of name-calling, you certainly use it as one…
Here’s another thing about conservatives, are you all arms-ophiles to the extent that you must compare all obedience to legislative matters to being done “at the barrel of a gun.”
You know what else you’re not forced to do at the barrel of a gun? Live here! That’s right, how’s that for turning a conservative argument on its head… You don’t want to have to pay for the healthcare of other children, move someplace where… Oh, wait, what’s that? There is no place in the world that doesn’t find that decision abhorrent enough to legislate against that? Oh, sorry. You’re kinda fucked there, I guess.
When you think that you shouldn’t have to contribute financially to matters that are public issues (like the health of your children… and their classmates), that makes you a libertarian.
Yeah, you guys get along just fine without being forced at gunpoint to fund public services. That is of course, until somebody actually holds you at real gunpoint for your finances, at which point you expect the police to work for you…
#15 by Redleg at September 13th, 2007
| Quote
Devil’s Advocate,
If you love Walmart for it’s anti-worker, anti-competition, anti-supplier, and pro-sweatshop actions then you must be a Rethuglican.
If you’re anti-environmental protection and pro-giant deficit spending then you must be a Rethuglican because you want to destroy our kids’ futures.
#16 by interesterlitigant at September 13th, 2007
| Quote
The problem here is one of communication. Showing how many conservative opinion columns there are is irrelevant. It is not the opinion pages that are a problem. It is ‘news’ being written as ‘news’ but being driven by opinion. Come into the real world and stop acting like you can reprint parts of a traitor document from MediaMatters and expect the logic to escape thinking people. It is inductive reasoning to do what they did and worse to parrot it by doing it here. Nice robot. Have some oil.
#17 by Dustin at September 13th, 2007
| Quote
I don’t know if it’s really fair to say that it is a conservative bias in the media, it could just be the result of other biases. There are also discrepencies over the number of womens’ opinions in the media, hispanic opinion, black opinions, gay opinions, young adults/ college student, poor people, etc. Rich white men make up the media, and rich wite men tend to be conservative.
#18 by Dan M. at September 13th, 2007
| Quote
Devil’s Advocate:
Who threatened you with a gun? Did you press charges?
#19 by Dan M. at September 13th, 2007
| Quote
interesterlitigant:
What’s “a traitor document”? Can you tell me what’s wrong with inductive reasoning?
#20 by digglahhh at September 14th, 2007
| Quote
Dan,
To whom would he press charges? The police steal his tax money at gunpoint, or at least are part of whom the stolen goods are distributed to - they are accomplices in the crime…
It’s all part of the conspiracy to enable welfare mothers to push Bentleys.
Geez man, think rationally for a minute…
#21 by tgirsch at September 14th, 2007
| Quote
Ted:
I’m not sure which point you’re classifying as my second one, so I’m not sure where you disagree with me. Surely you’re not disagreeing that it’s possible for one side or the other (or both) to be objectively wrong about an issue. So I’m confused as to where, exactly, you disagree. I don’t intend to get into a protracted debate about it; I’m just curious as to where the disagreement is.
#22 by Ted at September 14th, 2007
| Quote
The disagreement relates to if a news organization is (or should be)in a position to pass judgement on issues and then either report just one side or else position one side as right and the other side as wrong. For me, this is what analysis is, and analysis and news are not the same thing.
#23 by tgirsch at September 14th, 2007
| Quote
Ted:
What I’m suggesting is that if a public figure makes a claim that is clearly and demonstrably untrue, the media should not simply parrot that claim — they should report that the claim is untrue. Do you really disagree with that assessment? I think that the news media ought to be more than an overglorified stenographer. I’d expect more from an news story than he said/she said.
#24 by digglahhh at September 14th, 2007
| Quote
I guess that invites the slippery slope theory.
Look at the arguments that go on here about what individual regulars feel is easily demonstrably untrue…
For the record, I know I’m doing a lot of slamming of D.A., but I want it to be clear - I don’t think this study really holds any water either. I don’t think any of these types of studies hold water; they really only serve to re-establish whatever pretenses you hold coming into the study.
How we all define “liberal,” “centrist,” “conservative,” and the like is a subjective, individual exercise. Even attempting to objectively quantify the status quo admits that the center is subject to move.
I stick to empirical facts - the media is largely owned by rich white men - draw your own conclusions…
#25 by Ted at September 14th, 2007
| Quote
TGirsch, as digg mentioned, one person’s demonstrable truth is another’s conspiracy. So it is potentially a slippery slope. Let me tell you a story about a guy who was the first to claim the earth was not the center of the universe…
#26 by Patrick Bateman at September 15th, 2007
| Quote
Maybe having such a statistics-heavy post was not the best idea. There will always be ways to undermine it and claim it as dismissable. Anybody who has taken Statistics knows that there is more than one way to present data, and there are ways to present it in a light befitting your own intentions. Not saying that your motives are not genuine and righteous, but as I have learned, there will always be some crack, some imperfection that your enemies will pick and scratch at to make sure you look like the first-class jackass they see you to be. So, in the future, less stats, more ass-kickery.
#27 by tgirsch at September 17th, 2007
| Quote
If reporting the truth is off-limits because of fear of bias or some slippery slope, then we’re probably already lost beyond hope. Dick Cheney can happily go on the air and say “I never said that” no matter how much video someone has of him actually saying that, because pointing out his lie would be “bias” and a “dangerous precedent.”
I’m truly and honestly flabbergasted that anyone can think that way. I’m as much into recognizing gray areas as anyone I know, and I still think black-and-white exist. Not all truth is totally subjective…
#28 by Ted at September 17th, 2007
| Quote
Tgirsch, clearly I have failed to communicate my point of view. In the case of Cheney, I would like the news to show the video of him making the statement - and show his denial of the statement. In other words, report both sides. I have never suggested anything be off-limits, In fact the basis of my position is nothing should be off-limits. I was under the impression that you were in favor os restricting coverage of fringe objections (such as those who question global warming) - something I disagree with. However, rereading what you have posted here, I see you have not said that, so I am afaraid I have superimposed previous positions onto this one.
#29 by tgirsch at September 18th, 2007
| Quote
Ted:
Understanding what you were actually arguing against, I feel a lot better now.
However, I don’t believe I’ve ever advocated censoring the minority viewpoint. I do object when the media tends to report both sides of a contentious issue as if those sides are equal, when they are not. In other words, I wouldn’t give AGW deniers no time — they should have a forum to try to make their case — but I wouldn’t give them equal time, either, which is what our media does all too often.
Specifically in the context of the global warming debate, the objections of the deniers should be reported, but so should the fact that those deniers are decidedly in the minority; and so should the fact that most of the specific objections they raise have been repeatedly debunked; and so should the fact that many (if not most) of the objectors are themselves heavily funded by the very industries that stand to lose the most if concrete action on global warming is ever actually taken.
That last is called a conflict of interest (or, at least, a potential one) and that’s the sort of thing that needs to be in the public eye. On the same token, if a guy who argues for wind power to replace fossil fuels is heavily invested in a private wind turbine manufacturer, then that is also a potential conflict of interest that should be reported.
Instead what we get is he-said/she-said, completely devoid of context. And that serves no one.
#30 by Ted at September 18th, 2007
| Quote
We are closer to agreement that disagreement. My final point is we need to keep in mind that in most cases of positive change (be it social, scientific, governmental, or other), those who first propose change are, by definition, in the minority and have little or no support. To the degree they are minimized by the media, the advancement of their cause is delayed, to our detriment.
#31 by digglahhh at September 19th, 2007
| Quote
“I don’t believe I’ve ever advocated censoring the minority viewpoint. I do object when the media tends to report both sides of a contentious issue as if those sides are equal, when they are not. In other words, I wouldn’t give AGW deniers no time — they should have a forum to try to make their case — but I wouldn’t give them equal time, either, which is what our media does all too often.”
Ted implied this, but what about issues that are far more philosophical, sociological, or ethical, than scientific. You are basically endorsing the marginalization of a great many of the views you have. The reason why many otherwise legitimate debates have turned assumed a vast majority vs. fringe dynamic is specifically because it was decided (usually for political reasons and personal gain) to promote one and marginalize the other one.
Oh, and extrapolating this, don’t bother complaining why the Yankees and Red Sox get 1/2 the ESPN coverage, while the Brew Crew are barely acknowledged. The “majority” opinion is, who gives a shit about the Brewers (or hockey, for that matter).
#32 by Ted at September 19th, 2007
| Quote
digg, since you brought up baseball, can you believe how the Red Sox continue to try and salvage their terrible Eric Gagme mistake? Would a football team allow a placekicker to lose 4 games in the last part of a season without cutting him loose? I suppose the fact that there are 10X more games in a baseball season has something to do with it, but from where I sit, Gagme might as well be on the Yankees payroll for his net effect on the two teams.
#33 by digglahhh at September 19th, 2007
| Quote
Yeah, not to jack the thread, but…
It is very strange that the one sport that has no sort of salary cap is the one in which it is most common to run overpaid, underperforming veterans out there, presumably, just because you are paying them big bucks.
After realizing what everybody else knew before the deals, even the Knicks relegated big money flops like Jalen Rose and Steve Francis to the bench. New Orleans threw the ball to Colston more than Horn last year, while Bush emerged as more focal than Deuce. Mo-Jo Drew was given more touches than Fred Taylor in the second half of last season (Taylor actually still had something of a renaissance season). Yet, the Sox still trot out Gagne. Moose had to basically cost the Yanks any prayer at the division before he was moved out of the rotation (then he goes out and tosses a gem last night, go figure), and if Delgado hadn’t gotten hurt, moving Green to 1B, Lastings would probably not have gotten a real shot, again.
I guess in the cap sports overpaid, rotting ex-superstars found on teams’ benches can have to do with the necessary economics of trades.
Regardless, the Yankees are heavily ripped for being willing to abandon expensive ships. Whenever I tell one of my best friends that to anybody outside of NYC, the Mets financial model doesn’t register as significantly different than the Yanks’, his (contrived) objection is how the Yankees are uniquely willing to just cut ties with guys making big money. As if giving endless chances for redemption in an attempt to save front-office face at the detriment of the team is something that should be lauded - provided you have other options, of course…
It’s been a while since you put up a sports post, TG. I think it’s time for MVP and CYA picks.
#34 by tgirsch at September 19th, 2007
| Quote
Ted and Digg:
To the degree they are minimized by the media, the advancement of their cause is delayed, to our detriment.
I’m not so sure I agree with that last part. Yes, people with dramatic new ideas — even the good ones, which are a small minority — have to earn their way into the spotlight, but that’s as it should be. If we let every minority viewpoint jump to the front of the line, we’d be deluged with crap. New ideas must earn respect; they can’t just expect it. And with respect to scientific matters, which is what I was specifically addressing when talking about minority views in news reporting (I may not have been clear enough about that), that respect is earned through the scientific journals, not through the mainstream media.
Yes, it can be a slow, even frustrating process. But it’s the best one we’ve got, and you know as well as I do that just giving the benefit of the doubt willy-nilly isn’t going to have good results.
Now when you turn the analogy to sports, that’s a different matter entirely. For starters, sports isn’t news at all. It’s a pastime. If the market decides that nobody gives a shit about the Brewers, or about hockey, then so be it. So you’re really talking apples and oranges, there.
Again, in case I wasn’t clear, I was reserving my criticism to factual matters which can (at least to some degree) be discussed and analyzed objectively. Purely subjective matters are a horse of a different color. But I defy you to try to tell me that the case for war, or the case for global warming, are purely subjective matters, with no possibility of objective analysis.
#35 by tgirsch at September 19th, 2007
| Quote
Digg:
I don’t have that many opinions on the league-wide awards, because I don’t pay too much attention to teams other than the Brewers. I think Braun is clearly NL Rookie of the Year (which might have been a battle if Houston’s rookie had stayed healthy). AL MVP probably has to go to A-Rod, much as I hate to admit it. Cy Young? No clue, either league.
(By the way, to me CYA = Cover Your Ass; it took me a while to get to Cy Young Award)
#36 by Ted at September 19th, 2007
| Quote
While my Cubs pick from a month or so ago has not yet to panned out, looks like my NYY pick will be dead on. Mussina or no Mussina.
#37 by digglahhh at September 20th, 2007
| Quote
Well, my original contention was already apples to your oranges - the sports analogy was just a papaya for TG…
What about things that are not scientifically objective? What about economic or political theories?
Meaningful, far left commentary, is entirely shut out of mainstream political discourse. Integrating more socialist reforms into the way you run a country is not some new, dramatic idea. These are age-old political debates. “Blowback” and the political history of our relations and actions in the Middle East should an opportunity to tell its story similar to the one “they hate us for our freedom” gets.
And you know what TG, don’t give me the red herring that sports isn’t news. This is capitalism; it’s all a fucking market. News organizations aren’t non-profit, altrustic organizations. If the public decides that they don’t give a shit about Habeas Corpas, it ain’t fucking news either! At least not in the way we are defining news in this discussion - what news outlets decide to cover.
In fact, talk to anybody “in the hood,” and they’ll tell you that your Constitutional rights being subject to any authority deciding not to grant them ain’t news to them… But, I digress.
My long-stated ideal is to just throw away this naive notion that objectivity is even possible, and a worthwhile goal for news organizations to aspire to. Ideologically based news is fine by me, so long as that ideology is properly advertised. I want to turn on my TV and hear, “And here’s what a bunch of out-of-touch rich white men, who built their wealth on the backs of slavery, immorality, and impropriety who don’t give a flying fuck about you or any of your friends have decided you should know about today, and what they think of it…” (Cue anchor, Condoleeza Sanchez-Woo-Sitting Bull-Jacksonenstein)
#38 by tgirsch at September 20th, 2007
| Quote
Digg:
I guess we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this. I guess I didn’t realize that liberal economic theories had zero support among qualified economists, and that I had therefore relegated them to zero coverage with my proposal.
My long-stated ideal is to just throw away this naive notion that objectivity is even possible, and a worthwhile goal for news organizations to aspire to.
Watch The News Hour, for fuck’s sake!
#39 by digglahhh at September 20th, 2007
| Quote
Oh, I rarely watch any news on television, it’s not really a problem. Though it would be awesome to hear things like that.
But, going back to your first point, it doesn’t matter whether liberal economic theories have support among “qualified economists,” at least in the sense that it doesn’t translate into presence in mainstream news outlets. The news outlets themselves decide what is credible, what makes you “qualified” to express your viewpoint with them as your medium. In contemporary American society, I think that a “qualified” communist, socialist, anarchist, etc. economist is basically viewed as an oxymoron - personal and academic credentials and accolades don’t really seem to change anything.
No amount of scientific study, economic theory, or whatever will change the fact that the people who control the media have interests beyond “objective science.”
#40 by Filmiki at September 22nd, 2007
| Quote
Curious Information , Thanks