American Media bias, admit it!

[stevoh]

There has been a lot lately made of a couple of recent issues.

1. The New York Times printing an Op-Ed piece on IRAQ written by Obama, but not accepting one from McCain.

2. Fox News accepting "talking points" from the Bush administration.

Both are causing howls of "unfair" and "media bias".

Why don't media outlets just admit their bias and print what they believe? Why do they need to hide behind this mask of "fair and balanced" when they are so obviously leaning towards a specific point of view?

Edited July 28, 2008 by stevoh

[Guest American Woman]

There has been a lot lately made of a couple of recent issues.

1. The New York Times printing an Op-Ed piece on IRAQ written by Obama, but not accepting one from McCain.

2. Fox News accepting "talking points" from the Bush administration.

Both are causing howls of "unfair" and "media bias".

Why don't media outlets just admit their bias and print what they believe? Why do they need to hide behind this mask of "fair and balanced" when they are so obviously leaning towards a specific point of view?

The NYT isn't obligated to accept every op-ed piece from everyone who submits one. The opinion page editor said that McCain's piece wouldn't work as written, but they were willing to work with him on another draft. They also said they accepted Obama's piece because it had new information. The NYT has "published at least seven op-ed pieces by Senator McCain since 1996" and endorsed McCain as the republican candidate before the NY primary. So are they biased because they refused to a publish one op-ed 'as is?' I don't think so.

link

[stevoh]

The NYT isn't obligated to accept every op-ed piece from everyone who submits one. The opinion page editor said that McCain's piece wouldn't work as written, but they were willing to work with him on another draft. They also said they accepted Obama's piece because it had new information. The NYT has "published at least seven op-ed pieces by Senator McCain since 1996" and endorsed McCain as the republican candidate before the NY primary. So are they biased because they refused to a publish one op-ed 'as is?' I don't think so.

link

See, now thats an interesting answer. Because, it aligns nicely with what my experience with American Media is overall. Instead of saying that the new york times has bias, you defend its choice to run the piece.

Whether or not the bias of the times influenced the decision to run or not run McCains IRAQ piece, they are most definitely biased towards the left side of the political spectrum. Why can't they admit that? Why can't fox accurately state they are a right wing media group, why do they fight so hard to claim to be "fair and balanced'?

[M.Dancer]

See, now thats an interesting answer. Because, it aligns nicely with what my experience with American Media is overall. Instead of saying that the new york times has bias, you defend its choice to run the piece.

Whether or not the bias of the times influenced the decision to run or not run McCains IRAQ piece, they are most definitely biased towards the left side of the political spectrum. Why can't they admit that? Why can't fox accurately state they are a right wing media group, why do they fight so hard to claim to be "fair and balanced'?

There is no evidence of bias. Not after printing so many of McCain's pieces. There might be alos bias to the right if they decided not to run a McCain piece..in thecase where he may have written a disjointed babble.....

Te question is will they give Mccain anothe ropportunuity to write proactively, which it seem they want to.

[Guest American Woman]

See, now thats an interesting answer. Because, it aligns nicely with what my experience with American Media is overall. Instead of saying that the new york times has bias, you defend its choice to run the piece.

I defend their choice not to run the piece because they obviously can't run everything that's submitted and they have to choose according to what they think is new and newsworthy. As I pointed out, they've run several of McCain's editorials in the past and they endorsed him in the primary, so what makes you think they are biased against him?-- Because of one editorial that the op piece editor didn't think was bringing anything new to the table? I repeat. I don't think this one incident shows any bias, and if you do, I think it's because you're looking for it.

[August1991]

Why don't media outlets just admit their bias and print what they believe? Why do they need to hide behind this mask of "fair and balanced" when they are so obviously leaning towards a specific point of view?

The Toronto Star is openly Liberal. You may be on to someting here, Steve. The saviour of daily printed newspapers is identification with a political party.

Frankly though, let's be honest. Printing a newspaper every day and distributing it to kiosks and people's homes doesn't make sense. We have the Internet.

Offhand, I'd say that daily newspapers will disappear. (Just think of the lost revenue from classified ads. It's a killer. Then think of the electronic/carpet warehouse ads.)

Steve, you refer to "media outlets". After newspapers, what are "media outlets"? Are they biased? Steve, is the Internet biased?

Sorry but I have never accepted this idea that Americans are influenced by the mass media, MSM. IME, ordinary American citizens are smart people who know about what matters to them. They figured out bias long ago. They pay attention to news that matters to them - Hollywood, Wall Street and Washington generally don't. But it is entertaining.

[Riverwind]

There is no evidence of bias. Not after printing so many of McCain's pieces.

Printing an op-ed by only one candidate during a presidential campaign is evidence of bias wrt the current campaign no matter how many previous pieces the other candidate had printed. That said, I would give the NYT the benefit of the doubt and accept that McCain's first submission may have been lacking in content but that should be easy to resolve and I would expect to see an op-ed by McCain printed in the next week or two. If it does not happen then the claims of bias definitely have merit.

[M.Dancer]

Frankly though, let's be honest. Printing a newspaper every day and distributing it to kiosks and people's homes doesn't make sense. We have the Internet. Offhand, I'd say that daily newspapers will disappear.

Except that sceanrio, which has been on the table longer than I have worked for newspapers overlooks two things....

1) Very few mediums are as user friendly as newspapers...you can take newspapers anywhere, read what ever stories where and when you want, stop, start and reuse the leftover to line your birdcage. The print medium caters to thise who want longer in depth commentary and analysis and are free to digest it on the train, plane or in the terlet....

1) Most people hate reading on the computer...the internet is much more conducive for video...if anything the internet is a danger to broadcast news....

[Guest American Woman]

....That said, I would give the NYT the benefit of the doubt and accept that McCain's first submission may have been lacking in content but that should be easy to resolve and I would expect to see an op-ed by McCain printed in the next week or two. If it does not happen then the claims of bias definitely have merit.

If it does not happen, you should consider the possibility that McCain didn't present a revised submission before you conclude that the claims of bias definitely have merit.

[Riverwind]

If it does not happen, you should consider the possibility that McCain didn't present a revised submission before you conclude that the claims of bias definitely have merit.

I was assuming McCain would not be dumb enough to let the opportunity slip by and would post any rejected piece on the Internet. However, if McCain quietly drops the issue then I would conclude that he did not bother to re-submit an article.

[Guest American Woman]

I was assuming McCain would not be dumb enough to let the opportunity slip by and would post any rejected piece on the Internet. However, if McCain quietly drops the issue then I would conclude that he did not bother to re-submit an article.

The rejected piece has already been posted on the internet. He could very well not quietly drop it and not make another submission. From what I'm reading, it doesn't sound as if he plans on doing a re-write.

[Shady]

There's no need to debate this topic. It's accepted science.

Media Donations Favor Dems 100-1

An analysis of federal records shows that the amount of money journalists contributed so far this election cycle favors Democrats by a 15:1 ratio over Republicans, with $225,563 going to Democrats, only $16,298 to Republicans .

Two-hundred thirty-five journalists donated to Democrats, just 20 gave to Republicans — a margin greater than 10-to-1. An even greater disparity, 20-to-1, exists between the number of journalists who donated to Barack Obama and John McCain.

Searches for other newsroom categories (reporters, correspondents, news editors, anchors, newspaper editors and publishers) produces 311 donors to Democrats to 30 donors to Republicans, a ratio of just over 10-to-1. In terms of money, $279,266 went to Dems, $20,709 to Republicans, a 14-to-1 ratio.

...

A second is to analyze contributions from folks in the same corporate cultures. That analysis provides some surprising results. The contributions of individuals who reported being employed by major media organizations are listed in the nearby table.

The contributions add up to $315,533 to Democrats and $22,656 to Republicans — most of that to Ron Paul, who was supported by many liberals as a stalking horse to John McCain, a la Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos with Hillary and Obama.

What is truly remarkable about the list is that, discounting contributions to Paul and Rudy Giuliani, who was a favorite son for many folks in the media, the totals look like this: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans (four individuals who donated to McCain).

Let me repeat: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans — a ratio of 100-to-1. No bias there.

Link

[Moonlight Graham]

Most media isn't like reading Associated Press news snippets. There's always going to some bias no matter the media outlet, people are only human. But some are more worse than others & are more intentional than others.

However it isn't illegal for a media outlet to have bias or a politcal agenda. Free speech is the law the U.S., so while it can be very annoying i don't have a huge problem with it. One's best bet is simply to get one's news from several different media sources.

[August1991]

Two-hundred thirty-five journalists donated to Democrats, just 20 gave to Republicans — a margin greater than 10-to-1. An even greater disparity, 20-to-1, exists between the number of journalists who donated to Barack Obama and John McCain.

Searches for other newsroom categories (reporters, correspondents, news editors, anchors, newspaper editors and publishers) produces 311 donors to Democrats to 30 donors to Republicans, a ratio of just over 10-to-1. In terms of money, $279,266 went to Dems, $20,709 to Republicans, a 14-to-1 ratio.

I'd say that's fatal for Democrats.

It's like having 90% of horse traders, or blacksmiths in 1910. You just know that they're on the wrong side of history.

[peter_puck]

There's no need to debate this topic. It's accepted science.

Media Donations Favor Dems 100-1

SIGH.

I think they should use articles like that for courses on critial thinking.

You cherry pick a particular year, massage the data to fit your hypothesis and fail to consider other variables.

First of all, you pick a year when the Democrats are outraising the Republicans. In almost all other elections the Republicans (and their surrogates) outraise the Democrats (and their surrogates).

You subtract the money given to Ron Paul and Rudy Guliani (they are Republicans, aren't they ?).

You picked a year when the Democratic race went on a lot longer than the Republican race did. (a longer period to raise funds).

You compare an inspiring leader (Obama) and an uninspiring leader(McCain). Don't get me wrong, I think McCain is the best candidate, but nobody is really passionate about him. Do you think McCain could have drawn a crowd of 200K (or whatever it was) in Berlin.

You picked a year when certain special interests had a deep, emotional interest in the Democratic candidates while there was little in the Republican candidate. The traditional black Democratic voter has an interest in Obama as president. Can you say the same about Conservatives and McCain.

You pick a year when the Republican party is demoralized and the Democrats are confident.

[Shady]

SIGH.

You cherry pick a particular year

Not at all. But this topic isn't up for debate. The science is settled.

In March and April 2005, the University of Connecticut’s Department of Public Policy surveyed 300 journalists nationwide — 120 who worked in the television industry and 180 who worked at newspapers and asked for whom they voted in the 2004 presidential election. In a report released May 16, 2005, the researchers disclosed that the journalists they surveyed selected Democratic challenger John Kerry over incumbent Republican President George W. Bush by a wide margin, 52 percent to 19 percent

New York Times columnist John Tierney surveyed 153 campaign journalists at a press party at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston. Although it was not a scientific sampling, Tierney found a huge preference for Democratic Senator John Kerry over incumbent Republican President George W. Bush, particular among journalists based in Washington, D.C. He found that journalists from outside Washington preferred Kerry by a three-to-one margin, while those who work inside the Beltway favored Kerry’s election by a 12-to-1 ratio

In January 1998, Editor & Publisher, the preeminent media trade magazine, conducted a poll of 167 newspaper editors across the country. Investor’s Business Daily reporter Matthew Robinson obtained complete poll results, highlights of which were featured in the MRC’s February 1998 MediaWatch. In 1992, when just 43 percent of the public voted Democrat Bill Clinton for President, 58 percent of editors surveyed voted for him. In 1996, a minority (49 percent) of the American people voted to reelect Clinton, compared to a majority (57 percent) of the editors.

In April 1996, the Freedom Forum published a report by Chicago Tribune writer Elaine Povich titled, “Partners and Adversaries: The Contentious Connection Between Congress and the Media.” Buried in Appendix D was the real news for those concerned about media bias: Based on the 139 Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents who returned the Freedom Forum questionnaire, the Washington-based reporters — by an incredible margin of nine-to-one — overwhelmingly cast their presidential ballots in 1992 for Democrat Bill Clinton over Republican incumbent George Bush.

In 1985, the Los Angeles Times conducted one of the most extensive surveys of journalists in history. Using the same questionnaire they had used to poll the public, the Times polled 2,700 journalists at 621 newspapers across the country. They found that by a margin of two-to-one, reporters had a negative view of then-President Ronald Reagan and voted, by the same margin, for Walter Mondale in 1984.

In 1981, S. Robert Lichter, then with George Washington University, and Stanley Rothman of Smith College, released a groundbreaking survey of 240 journalists at the most influential national media outlets — including the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS — on their political attitudes and voting patterns. 81 percent of the journalists interviewed voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in every election between 1964 and 1976.

Link

[Carinthia]

Sorry but I have never accepted this idea that Americans are influenced by the mass media, MSM. IME, ordinary American citizens are smart people who know about what matters to them. They figured out bias long ago. They pay attention to news that matters to them - Hollywood, Wall Street and Washington generally don't. But it is entertaining.

No media bias? What about the media "black out" regarding the lack of probing questions in the lead up to the Iraq war? They have all readily admitted that they were instructed by their corporate superiors to just go quietly along with the Bush/Cheney/Rummy plan for war. Had the media done their jobs, Americans may not have been so influenced and supportive of a war that was orchestrated on a pack of lies. There were many people who questioned the legitimacy of this war. The media ignored them. There were many anti war demonstrations in Washington, other American cities and around the world prior to the start of this war. The media chose to ignore it all and played it down by showing small 5 second snippets. There are still many stupid, lazy people who are indeed influenced by the Media. I mean after all, Obama is a Muslim dontcha know?

Edited July 29, 2008 by Carinthia

[bush_cheney2004]

....Had the media done their jobs, Americans may not have been so influenced and supportive of a war that was orchestrated on a pack of lies. There were many people who questioned the legitimacy of this war. The media ignored them. There were many anti war demonstrations in Washington, other American cities and around the world prior to the start of this war. The media chose to ignore it all and played it down by showing small 5 second snippets.

This is patently false.....news media (American and others) devoted plenty of time and ink to the "war protesters", including body counts and the utter futility of such efforts. Don't blame the news media for failing to win the day.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/15/sprj.irq.protests.main/

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/internation...3/protests.html

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200302/1...16_111731.shtml

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2765041.stm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/20...-protests_x.htm

[Carinthia]

Sure they reported it all on the back pages, they just didn't sit around with pundits hour after hour analyzing the legitimacy of it. They were more interested in diverting y'all by giving a blow by blow account of who's doing what in Hollywood. It's all so transparent it stinks to high heaven.

Edited July 29, 2008 by Carinthia

[bush_cheney2004]

Sure they reported it all on the back pages, they just didn't sit around with pundits hour after hour analyzing the legitimacy of it. They were more interested in diverting y'all by giving a blow by blow account of who's doing what in Hollywood. It's all so transparent it stinks to high heaven.

Complete and utter nonsense.....in fact, the media included high profile "Hollywood" protesters (e.g. Sean Penn) as well on front pages because it was good copy. The American public television and cable access networks devoted many hours to the war's run-up and protests. ABC's "Nightline" featured interviews with Scott Ritter. Famously, the UN Security Council hearings, Hans Blix, UNSCOM, and the IAEA became household terms. How could this be without wide media coverage?

[Guest American Woman]

There's no need to debate this topic. It's accepted science.

Media Donations Favor Dems 100-1

An analysis of federal records shows that the amount of money journalists contributed so far this election cycle favors Democrats by a 15:1 ratio over Republicans, with $225,563 going to Democrats, only $16,298 to Republicans .

Two-hundred thirty-five journalists donated to Democrats, just 20 gave to Republicans — a margin greater than 10-to-1. [...]

So we have two-hundred thirty-five journalists who donated to Democrats, while just 20 gave to Republicans. Out of how many journalists in the world?

The way I see it, one could just as easlily conclude that Democrats are more likely to donate than Republicans. That's every bit as valid a conclusion; that Republicans are just less likely to donate. I'll point out the Fox News donations to back up my point: $1.280 for the Democrats and zero for the Republicans. We all know that Fox News does have some Republican journalists; why didn't they donate anything? And because the Democrats did and no Republicans did, does that means Fox News is liberally biased? Or does it mean the Republicans are cheap?

Searches for other newsroom categories (reporters, correspondents, news editors, anchors, newspaper editors and publishers) produces 311 donors to Democrats to 30 donors to Republicans, a ratio of just over 10-to-1. In terms of money, $279,266 went to Dems, $20,709 to Republicans, a 14-to-1 ratio.

Ditto what I pointed out above.

Let me repeat: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans — a ratio of 100-to-1. No bias there.

Let me repeat. One could conclude that Republican journalists and those from other newsroom catagories are just cheaper than Democrats when it comes to supporting their candidates. Without the total numbers and political afflictions of people who work in these media fields, the "study" is useless.

Furthermore, how were these searches conducted? How inclusive were they? It doesn't sound as if there's anything to indicate that this study is a valid one. Seems to me someone is desperately looking for "proof" that the media has a liberal bias and is grasping at straws in an attempt to do so.

Edited July 29, 2008 by American Woman

[eyeball]

Except that sceanrio, which has been on the table longer than I have worked for newspapers overlooks two things....

Three actually, you can't rip a couple of pages off the Internet to get the fire going in the morning.

[eyeball]

So we have two-hundred thirty-five journalists who donated to Democrats, while just 20 gave to Republicans. Out of how many journalists in the world?

The way I see it, one could just as easlily conclude that Democrats are more likely to donate than Republicans. That's every bit as valid a conclusion; that Republicans are just less likely to donate. I'll point out the Fox News donations to back up my point: $1.280 for the Democrats and zero for the Republicans. We all know that Fox News does have some Republican journalists; why didn't they donate anything? And because the Democrats did and no Republicans did, does that means Fox News is liberally biased? Or does it mean the Republicans are cheap?

Ditto what I pointed out above.

Let me repeat. One could conclude that Republican journalists and those from other newsroom catagories are just cheaper than Democrats when it comes to supporting their candidates. Without the total numbers and political afflictions of people who work in these media fields, the "study" is useless.

Furthermore, how were these searches conducted? How inclusive were they? It doesn't sound as if there's anything to indicate that this study is a valid one. Seems to me someone is desperately looking for "proof" that the media has a liberal bias and is grasping at straws in an attempt to do so.

OTOH as shady says, 'there's no need to debate this topic. It's accepted science'. This is not unlike the case of climate change where the vast majority of proffesionals whose job it is to find out the facts agree on them. I'm not a scientist and I just can't disregard that high level of consensus when I'm asked to choose what policy direction we should follow. By the same token I am not a reporter, my ear is nowhere near as close to the ground as theirs, and I'm not about to disregard just how many are unwilling to support right wing parties when I'm asked to vote.

Shady's report should definitely read as bad news for the Republicans.

Edited July 29, 2008 by eyeball

[stevoh]

I defend their choice not to run the piece because they obviously can't run everything that's submitted and they have to choose according to what they think is new and newsworthy. As I pointed out, they've run several of McCain's editorials in the past and they endorsed him in the primary, so what makes you think they are biased against him?-- Because of one editorial that the op piece editor didn't think was bringing anything new to the table? I repeat. I don't think this one incident shows any bias, and if you do, I think it's because you're looking for it.

But my question is, why does it matter? I don't need to see an article by Obama to know the New York Times has a leftist bias, I just have to read the newspaper. I don't need to see a specific incident to know Fox News is biased, I just have to spend 5 minutes with Glenn Beck (and then throw up, but thats my leftist bias showing up).

But they (and you) will fight tooth and nail trying to deny bias. Hey go for it, not an issue, and in this case, you might be right. But why are you fighting? Why does it matter? Why can't the New York Times, when under criticism for bias simply say "yes, we are biased, so what?"

[eyeball]

Why can't the New York Times, when under criticism for bias simply say "yes, we are biased, so what?"

They probably feel cornered and defensive. Big organizations are notorius for their ability to come clean, it seems to come with the territory. I'd like to know why the political parties, when under criticism for not keeping their promises can't simply say "yes, lying is the only way to get elected, so what?"