Media Bias of Conservatives

[Shwa]

Then this could be the opening salvo of your part of our debate (of which you get first post, first word): that the corporate news media are fundamentally opposed to themselves on an ideological level; that the media, which are usually corporate entities or owned by larger conglomerates, are radical Marxists trying to undermine themselves in an act of self-immolation. And that their shareholders seem pretty sanguine at this self-destructive "Business" practice.

It sounds like a pretty crazed conspiracy theory, but if that's your starting premise, ok.

I, for one, would like to see this debate and all the unequivocal evidence of a left-wing media bias finally placed on the table for everyone to see. Seriously, if one is going to argue for the existence of a left-wing media bias, then the evidence should be fairly clear and rather extensive. So... let's see it.

But alas, like active alcoholics who cannot discern their drinking problems, it appears that anyone with even a sniff of left-wingedness cannot perceive this bias. On the other hand, that is cop-out and itself an unproven premise.

So... bring on the debate between Pliny and Bloodyminded!

[bloodyminded]

I, for one, would like to see this debate and all the unequivocal evidence of a left-wing media bias finally placed on the table for everyone to see. Seriously, if one is going to argue for the existence of a left-wing media bias, then the evidence should be fairly clear and rather extensive. So... let's see it.

Absolutely. The claim is made so often, and with such self-assurance, that clear and extensive evidence (and the ability to tackle any counter-evidence) must be legion, easy to obtain, and to be able to be conducted within conventional and intelligent debating practices.

Someone must even have written an extensive study, perhaps a scholarly one, on precisely this subject.

Where the hell is this stuff?

Which begs another question: if it does exist, why do those making the claims appear to be totally ignorant of it?

And another: if totally ignorant, why make absolutist claims in declarative sentences?

But alas, like active alcoholics who cannot discern their drinking problems, it appears that anyone with even a sniff of left-wingedness cannot perceive this bias.

So far, this remains Pliny's chief premise, which as you imply is a bland claim free of evidence. (As a rote premise of ideological blinders, it would apply equally to conservatives and centrists, too, so it flounders even by its own "standards.")

Still, I think it somewhat superior (at least it's debatable, if Pliny gives us something more to work with) than August1991's hypothesis: that journalists want to be "hip" (his word), and so are more likely to be ideological progressives. I admit I enjoy this hypothesis more, however.

[Jack Weber]

I, for one, would like to see this debate and all the unequivocal evidence of a left-wing media bias finally placed on the table for everyone to see. Seriously, if one is going to argue for the existence of a left-wing media bias, then the evidence should be fairly clear and rather extensive. So... let's see it.

But alas, like active alcoholics who cannot discern their drinking problems, it appears that anyone with even a sniff of left-wingedness cannot perceive this bias. On the other hand, that is cop-out and itself an unproven premise.

So... bring on the debate between Pliny and Bloodyminded!

Drinking problem??

The smoker you drink the player you get!!!

(respect to The Mad Bomber!!!)

[Pliny]

Then this could be the opening salvo of your part of our debate (of which you get first post, first word): that the corporate news media are fundamentally opposed to themselves on an ideological level; that the media, which are usually corporate entities or owned by larger conglomerates, are radical Marxists trying to undermine themselves in an act of self-immolation. And that their shareholders seem pretty sanguine at this self-destructive "Business" practice.

Left/right bias is a fairly simple thing to illustrate really.

Of course one must have a point of reference.

Is Fox news considered biased to the right wing? I seem to recall many criticisms of that being the case. Could we agree on that point or is it necessary to compile a list of evidences?

Awaiting your answer to that, I'll assume it is an accepted fact and citations are unnecessary.

Certainly, one can only arrive at the conclusion that Fox news is right wing biased in comparison to a point of reference. Other media can be the only other point of reference. We have talk radio that is labelled right wing, Rush Limbaugh, etc. Obviously, politically biased to the right wing.

Fox news of course contends it is fair and balanced in it's presentation of the news and it's editorial opinion, although conservative, does include input and debate from the left. So it upholds that it has a pretty centrist presentation.

Would you argue that point? Or would you say it is completely biased?

If we are arguing about whether or not there is a left wing bias from the refernece point of Fox news I think it is obvious. After all MSNBC, CNN, the New York Times, NPR could not be considered to be positioned to the right of Fox news in it's editorial opinion.

If you wish to argue whether the MSM is centrist that's going to depend upon the definition of centre.

Charles Krauthammer pointed out the other day that media bias was evident during the 2008 presidential election when in a study of objectivity CNN had 3 favourable clips of Obama for every favourable clip of McCain. Fox news was one for one and MSNBC had a 5-1 ratio in favour of Obama. CNN was taken as being the centre point and that is clearly not the centre point.

So is the argument really that there is no left wing support in the MSM from the reference point of Marxism and Communism? Do we conclude that MSNBC is centrist as it in no way promotes Marxism and Communism? Well, it might advocate social progressivism. You know, advocating government programs that support the disadvantaged in society. I mean is that really a policy of the left or is it just government being socially responsible and progressive in nature as opposed to the far right wing regressive proponents of "social darwinism".

As for invoking "conspiracy theory" in the corporate media and it being radical Marxists and opposed to itself. One has to really look at how the coporate media arrived where it did. Initially, it did it by being competitive and eliminating competition. It did it by first being better than the competition. Then it grew by buying out competition and/or lobbying for regulation that made the hurdles for new competition too stiff to enter the market. Government obliged whether moreso from the left or right is neither here nor there but if an adminstration favoured deregulation, increased competition, or in any respect threatens the hard won position of being top dog it is held in a bad light and the media will reflect that in it's editorial position. Other industries will reflect it in their political donations and support. Government may even complain about the treatment it gets from some "new" media outlets - saying it is unfair and biased or not even worthy of being called a news media outlet and snubbing it in it's press releases.

Rockefeller thought the greatest sin was competition. Once a corporation has achieved a "too big to fail" position it expects government to support it. It abhors real competition. That is really the essence of it. Not any conspiracy theory of power and intrigue. Just a collaboration of government and it's sources of revenue, a tit for tat good old boy establishment, with a mutual unwillingness to rock the boat and to continue to shore up the stranglehold of power and authority.

And you say....

Edited May 25, 2011 by Pliny

[bloodyminded]

Left/right bias is a fairly simple thing to illustrate really.

Of course one must have a point of reference.

Is Fox news considered biased to the right wing? I seem to recall many criticisms of that being the case. Could we agree on that point or is it necessary to compile a list of evidences?

I have heard frequently that it is biased towards the right wing. I have not personally looked into the matter.

Let's say, for the moment and for the sake of argument, that this is true; further, let's say that MSNBC's leftwing bias is a reality.

I have never contended there does not exist leftish and rightish media organs. I have contended that such tells us little about "the news media" having a "leftist" (or rightist) bias.

Certainly, one can only arrive at the conclusion that Fox news is right wing biased in comparison to a point of reference. Other media can be the only other point of reference. We have talk radio that is labelled right wing, Rush Limbaugh, etc. Obviously, politically biased to the right wing.

Fox news of course contends it is fair and balanced in it's presentation of the news and it's editorial opinion, although conservative, does include input and debate from the left. So it upholds that it has a pretty centrist presentation.

Would you argue that point? Or would you say it is completely biased?

You're asking whether FOX's ostensible conservatism can only be drawn in reference to other media; that Rush Limbaugh is labelled right wing; and that FOX claims to hold to a fairly balanced presentation?

If I'm reading you correctly, then yes, I agree.

If we are arguing about whether or not there is a left wing bias from the refernece point of Fox news I think it is obvious. After all MSNBC, CNN, the New York Times, NPR could not be considered to be positioned to the right of Fox news in it's editorial opinion.

If you wish to argue whether the MSM is centrist that's going to depend upon the definition of centre.

I agree with you about any determination of "centrist," though I believe "left" and "right" can be equally problematic.

I'm not sure why FOX should be deemed the "point of reference" in determining that everyone else is left wing, if that's your methodology.

Are you saying that FOX is determined by many people to be right wing; but it claims for itself a centrist presentation; so therefore, every organ to the left of FOX is "left wing"?

If that's your argument (though I'm not sure it is), it feels pretty specious. Why not start with MSNBC as a point of reference, agree for the sake of argument that it's left-wing, and contend the media is conservative? I wouldn't buy the argument for a second, but it appears that's what you're saying.

Charles Krauthammer pointed out the other day that media bias was evident during the 2008 presidential election when in a study of objectivity CNN had 3 favourable clips of Obama for every favourable clip of McCain. Fox news was one for one and MSNBC had a 5-1 ratio in favour of Obama. CNN was taken as being the centre point and that is clearly not the centre point.

What is this study? How did they come to their conclusions? What constitutes "favourable" vs. "unfavourable clips," and how can we measure this?

Further, even if the study is accurate, how does this determine a "left wing bias" rather than an "Obama bias"?

Is Obama a lefty? How so? And does a bias during a single election offer good, strong evidence that the media has a leftist bias generally?

Was the U.S media leftist in the fall of 2002 when editorials were written urging caution about the Iraq War...and then the media suddenly became right-wing four months later, when the NYTimes, WashingtonPost, et al had come around to endorsing it?

So is the argument really that there is no left wing support in the MSM from the reference point of Marxism and Communism? Do we conclude that MSNBC is centrist as it in no way promotes Marxism and Communism? Well, it might advocate social progressivism. You know, advocating government programs that support the disadvantaged in society. I mean is that really a policy of the left or is it just government being socially responsible and progressive in nature as opposed to the regressive proponents of "social darwinism".

I think these are interesting questions, and perhaps we're at least partially in agreement about how such political terms are problematic. But I fail to see how that strengthens the "leftist bias" argument at all. If anything, it underlines the comparative usefulness of the Chomsky/Herman contention of "Establishment Power" bias...which can be leftish, rightish, centrist, or heady combinations.

As for invoking "conspiracy theory" in the corporate media and it being radical Marxists and opposed to itself. One has to really look at how the coporate media arrived where it did. Initially, it did it by being competitive and eliminating competition. It did it by first being better than the competition.

That's not a given, but ok.

Then it grew by buying out competition and/or lobbying for regulation that made the hurdles for new competition too stiff to enter the market. Government obliged whether moreso from the left or right is neither here nor there but if an adminstration favoured deregulation, increased competition, or in any respect threatens the hard won position of being top dog it is held in a bad light and the media will reflect that in it's editorial position. Other industries will reflect it in their political donations and support. Government may even complain about the treatment it gets from some "new" media outlets - saying it is unfair and biased or not even worthy of being called a news media outlet and snubbing it in it's press releases.

Exactly. And Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are given far more national press and airtime (beyond their own syndications, I mean) than are Noam Chomsky or Glenn Greenwald. If there was a leftist bias, why would it not go the other way? Chomsky in particular has always attracted a large, educated, middle-class-to-affluent audience, so it's not "market forces" or "giving the people what they want." It's that powerful, establishment media consider Limbaugh et al more palatable.

It mgiht be that Limbaugh (like Krauthammer) is recognizeably playing the proper game, in which Democrat/Republican, Left/Right are the proper parameters for understanding the world; whereas Chomsky calls Obama and Reagan alike "war criminals." Certain ideas are not fit for "sober discourse," and delineations must be drawn. You can attack the other party; what you aren't to do is attack the very institutional structures themselves, or question the ultimate intentions of the mother country. (We can make "mistakes," even "grave errors"...but always for fundamentally good reasons.) Or rather, you can do this a little, make a fundamental, unpatriotic attack here and there...but know when to draw back.

A leftist bias does not properly explain such phenomena. Left Power is not at all immune to self-censorship and to fevered denunciations of heretics, obviously; but it transcends any particular ideological framework.

Rockefeller thought the greatest sin was competition. Once a corporation has achieved a "too big to fail" position it expects government to support it. It abhors real competition. That is really the essence of it. Not any conspiracy theory of power and intrigue. Just a collaboration of government and it's sources of revenue, a tit for tat good old boy establishment, with a mutual unwillingness to rock the boat and to continue to shore up the stranglehold of power and authority.

And you say....

I have a lot of agreement with your final paragraph. Government and big Business do, in certain ways, form a nexus, almost a mutual, institutionalized gentleman's agreement. I also agree that it's not a conspiracy theory (a common criticism of such analysis) but rather a predictable consensus of power, big business, and the journalistic class, who after all depend on politically and financially powerful people...both for sourcing and (in the latter case) for their very existence as journalists.

But none of this connotes (much less denotes) leftist bias in the media.

Even if Krauhammer--who is scarcely a disinterested political observer, but an outright Republican partisan--is correct in his assessment, I don't think it tells us very much:

First, it is about a single election cycle, and one in which "something new" appeared to be occurring. (I believe this was, at least, vastly overstated, but that's another topic.) I believe Reagan caught the public imagination in a not dissimilar way.

Second, the "study," whatever it is, uses "favourable" vs. "unfavourable" clips of candidates, and among three tv networks set up as "right" left" and "centre" (with FOX usurping the "centre" point by displaying "one to one" favourable clips, in a more "balanced" way than did CNN).

I think there are far better metrics...and I think further, crucially, that one needs many of them in order to determine true bias, rather than blips of electoral excitation. Campaigns and their reportages are rarely exactly equal anyway, and tell us little about media bias in a larger sense. You yourself made this point when you said that Canadian outlets endorsing the Conservatives does not bespeak of a Conservative (much less small-'c' conservative) bias in the media. And that's true; it did not bespeak of such a thing, in my view.

Ultimately, it would appear that the assertion of "leftist bias" is based mostly on psychological assumptions about journlaists and the "liberal elites" (who remain an unnamed entity). I believe a structural explanation is more useful, starting with how propaganda can be part of a free society's news media...outside of a purely psychological or ideological claim.

Edited May 25, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

Here's a brief overview of the model from whcih I have drawn a great deal of my thinking on this matter (I have a few minor quibbles, but I think it's fundamentally sound):

http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/2002----.htm

[Pliny]

I have heard frequently that it is biased towards the right wing. I have not personally looked into the matter.

Let's say, for the moment and for the sake of argument, that this is true; further, let's say that MSNBC's leftwing bias is a reality.

I have never contended there does not exist leftish and rightish media organs. I have contended that such tells us little about "the news media" having a "leftist" (or rightist) bias.

Really, your position is not one that embraces the simple left/right prism through which most people view the political spectrum. So your argument is not within the context of that paradigm and which you state you "feel the "left/right" paradigm is generally not useful in uderstanding media generally."

I understand your point of view on the matter. Outside of that paradigm of course there is no left or right only the filters of the interested parties.

Should the debate then be whether or not the left/right paradigm is even a valid perspective? That could be an extension, I suppose but I am basing the premise of a left wing biased media upon how, I believe the average individual looks at the left/right dichotomy.

It may be argued that I am making assumptions here of what concepts the average individual may hold but I think rather simply, they believe that Conservatism is right- wing, Liberals are slightly left, and the NDP are further left than the Liberals. And besides political party assignment, conservative policy is more free-market, less regulatory and less concerned with things like social justice and economic redistribution for the purpose of economic equanimity than the more compassionate and understanding and "progressive"Liberals. Although conservatives in order to gain popularity tried to call themselves "progressive" for several decades, about five, I think. They tried to position themselves more to the left or more centrist during that period.

But anyway, I feel the debate should be held through that perspective.

I have stated several times on this forum that the left/right dichotomy is an artificial one fabricated out of tradition and entirely useless in understanding the relationship of the entire spectrum of political ideologies and philosophies extending from anarchy to totalitarianism. However, it is the context from which most view and position political parties in their relation to each other, and it is the context from which I mostly express my views, as it is from my understanding the most widely understood perspective.

You are arguing from the perspective that left and right are not a relevant point and that the interests of the powerful within an establishment are a more relevant factor than left and right. I can agree with that as generally the consolidation of power and position in any socio/political sense seems to be the primary objective and left/right today is a mere distraction.

Is there someone that will argue from the perspective of the left/right paradigm then?

I still contend that there is a leftist bias in today's mainstream media and this has been increasingly the case since at least the nineteen-fifties. Conservatism, throughout that time has shifted to the left and has only recently attempted to divest itself of any of the "progressivist" label. This, plus the rise in popularity of alternative and less progressive-minded media, is exposing the mainstream media as supportive of the progressive lib-left and trying to maintain it's establishment position.

A clear single example of left wing bias was in the fact that before anything was known of Jerrod Loughner, the media was already painting him as a right wing nutcase influenced by the rhetoric of the right and the bulls-eyes of Sarah Palin's political target map.

Of course it wasn't the case at all. Barack Obama tried to make good by stating all the political rhetoric should be toned down. Of course, the left doesn't tolerate being muzzled in any way and even came to Fox's defense when the WH was thinking of shutting down Fox news as they didn't consider it a "news" organization worthy of the term. It wasn't that the media is not left wing in coming to the defense of Fox but looking through the filters of Chomsky it is entirely in their interests for the maintenance of it's power and position in the establishment.

I agree with you about any determination of "centrist," though I believe "left" and "right" can be equally problematic.

So, essentially left and right are not valid positions from which to argue? Ok.

I'm not sure why FOX should be deemed the "point of reference" in determining that everyone else is left wing, if that's your methodology.

Are you saying that FOX is determined by many people to be right wing; but it claims for itself a centrist presentation; so therefore, every organ to the left of FOX is "left wing"?

It claims to be fair and balanced presenting opinions from both sides of the spectrum but its editorial slant is right wing.

If that's your argument (though I'm not sure it is), it feels pretty specious. Why not start with MSNBC as a point of reference, agree for the sake of argument that it's left-wing, and contend the media is conservative? I wouldn't buy the argument for a second, but it appears that's what you're saying.

What would you buy? It is all dependent upon one's consideration of centre. I don't doubt there are those that feel MSNBC is politically centrist.

Was the U.S media leftist in the fall of 2002 when editorials were written urging caution about the Iraq War...and then the media suddenly became right-wing four months later, when the NYTimes, WashingtonPost, et al had come around to endorsing it?

Congress, Democrats, Republicans (Ron Paul excepted), the media cam together on that one under the weight of the "evidence" of weapons of mass destruction. The media can be be easily persuaded to support a war. Especially if you look at it through the "filters" of the interests involved. Wars are not necessarily a left or right thing Democrats are just as likely to start them as Republicans.

I think these are interesting questions, and perhaps we're at least partially in agreement about how such political terms are problematic. But I fail to see how that strengthens the "leftist bias" argument at all. If anything, it underlines the comparative usefulness of the Chomsky/Herman contention of "Establishment Power" bias...which can be leftish, rightish, centrist, or heady combinations.

In government, it is whatever maintains its growth and does not threaten the interests of the established powers.

The Republicans or conservatives are supposedly the party of small government but have not proven to be so. They seem to continue along ignoring already created entitlements and largesse won by Democrats.

Exactly. And Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are given far more national press and airtime (beyond their own syndications, I mean) than are Noam Chomsky or Glenn Greenwald. If there was a leftist bias, why would it not go the other way? Chomsky in particular has always attracted a large, educated, middle-class-to-affluent audience, so it's not "market forces" or "giving the people what they want." It's that powerful, establishment media consider Limbaugh et al more palatable.

But it is "market forces" that keep Limbaugh on the air. The media doesn't approve of Limbaugh and suffer for it financially. I'm not sure that the large educated middle class to affluent audience is really that interested in politics, except when it becomes intrusive.

It mgiht be that Limbaugh (like Krauthammer) is recognizeably playing the proper game, in which Democrat/Republican, Left/Right are the proper parameters for understanding the world; whereas Chomsky calls Obama and Reagan alike "war criminals." Certain ideas are not fit for "sober discourse," and delineations must be drawn. You can attack the other party; what you aren't to do is attack the very institutional structures themselves, or question the ultimate intentions of the mother country. (We can make "mistakes," even "grave errors"...but always for fundamentally good reasons.) Or rather, you can do this a little, make a fundamental, unpatriotic attack here and there...but know when to draw back.

A leftist bias does not properly explain such phenomena. Left Power is not at all immune to self-censorship and to fevered denunciations of heretics, obviously; but it transcends any particular ideological framework.

I agree the left/right paradigm serves somewhat of a purpose to the establishment in being obfuscating. It doens't however negate the fact that the power and position of established interests is towards shoring up it's position and the left becoming too ambitious will have to turn authoritarian at points where that power is eventually challenged by the citizenry.

I have a lot of agreement with your final paragraph. Government and big Business do, in certain ways, form a nexus, almost a mutual, institutionalized gentleman's agreement. I also agree that it's not a conspiracy theory (a common criticism of such analysis) but rather a predictable consensus of power, big business, and the journalistic class, who after all depend on politically and financially powerful people...both for sourcing and (in the latter case) for their very existence as journalists.

Everyone knows which side their bread is buttered on and the powerful really are only trying to convince the public it is their right and legitimacy to direct the affairs of other people's lives.

But none of this connotes (much less denotes) leftist bias in the media.

One need only look at the importances that are stressed by government to realize we will have less input in our own lives in the future. It is done by appeal to what is for the common good.

In the collective interests of all.

It was learned through trial and error that revolution was no way to ensure the power of the State. It has become an evolutionary process and policies that forward the interests of the establishment are what is important, right or left not being particularly relevant.

I think there are far better metrics...

I agree. And a simplification rather than more complex model is necessary. I believe that the true dichotomy of the political spectrum is from anarchy to totalitarianism. We can more easily place the size of government in cost, in regulation and in bureaucracy, in social and economic intervention on that map as opposed to the confusion of arguing over left and right policies that seem to make little difference in our overall governance but simply cater to a small difference in special interests of a social and not establishment nature.

Edited May 26, 2011 by Pliny

[bloodyminded]

Really, your position is not one that embraces the simple left/right prism through which most people view the political spectrum. So your argument is not within the context of that paradigm and which you state you "feel the "left/right" paradigm is generally not useful in uderstanding media generally."

This isn't quite what I meant, though I'm inclined to agree.

Put it this way: I'm not opposed to the left/right dichotomy arguments in every instance, and nor do I consider myself somehow above them, with a more elevated understanding. So long as we understand each other on this particular left/right matter--and I think we more or less do--then it can at times be at least a useful shorthand type of discussion. For example, while I think the dichotomy is often obfuscating, as you say, it's nonetheless quite plainly true that many of my perspectives derive more or less from what we deem "the left" in contemporary parlance. Just as you have told me elsewhere that you're more comfortable with the commonly-held view of "conservative," although the terms can be troublesome, and "conservative" fails to expansively explain your view.

So we might be at least somewhat on the same page in this...I've noticed this before, too.

Should the debate then be whether or not the left/right paradigm is even a valid perspective? That could be an extension, I suppose but I am basing the premise of a left wing biased media upon how, I believe the average individual looks at the left/right dichotomy. It may be argued that I am making assumptions here of what concepts the average individual may hold but I think rather simply, they believe that Conservatism is right- wing, Liberals are slightly left, and the NDP are further left than the Liberals.

Yes, and like I said, as shorthand, I find this dichotomy roughly acceptable, as long as everyone understands it is not black and white.

And no, I am not arguing that there is no left/right paradigm to be discussed. I am arguing that the media is not leftist...even from the perspective of those who think that it is.

(I add a caveat, which you can take as applying generally, so I can avoid repetitious preambles to every declaration: there does exist, obviously, left-leaning opinion and bias and filtering throughout the media; I'm only saying it carries no special primacy.)

Now sure, as you and I have discussed before, a viewer or reader's personal perspective of what constitutes the ideological position will have some effect. So if I thought that Communism was mainstream, centrist, then of course I'll view the media as profoundly right-wing. Vice versa with one who sees far right opinion as not really right wing. So I certainly see your point here; the terms are relative, and personal views are subjective.

Part of our issue might even be a different perspective of what most people think about it. This is extremely difficult to ascertain--it certainly isn't explained by "market forces" (per our remarks about Limbaugh...more on that later)--but I don't think we agree on this.

And besides political party assignment, conservative policy is more free-market, less regulatory and less concerned with things like social justice and economic redistribution for the purpose of economic equanimity than the more compassionate and understanding and "progressive"Liberals. Although conservatives in order to gain popularity tried to call themselves "progressive" for several decades, about five, I think. They tried to position themselves more to the left or more centrist during that period.

But anyway, I feel the debate should be held through that perspective.

Yes, I'm ok with this too. But I reiterate that neither myself nor my chief source are claiming a right-wing bias, so that problematizes the discussion.

However, I will say that I consider the media more hostile to the far left than to the far right. And that's because the far right is more amenable to such cherished birds as corporate power and nationalist views of war. It's more aligned with Establishment power.

I have stated several times on this forum that the left/right dichotomy is an artificial one fabricated out of tradition and entirely useless in understanding the relationship of the entire spectrum of political ideologies and philosophies extending from anarchy to totalitarianism. However, it is the context from which most view and position political parties in their relation to each other, and it is the context from which I mostly express my views, as it is from my understanding the most widely understood perspective.

I'm the same way.

I still contend that there is a leftist bias in today's mainstream media and this has been increasingly the case since at least the nineteen-fifties. Conservatism, throughout that time has shifted to the left and has only recently attempted to divest itself of any of the "progressivist" label.

I think we disagree. I would say the media is "liberal" from the perspective you state. But, first, I draw a real delineation between contemporary usage of "liberal" and "leftist"--as do most people, certainly including liberals and leftists. They're related, but the distinctions are sharper between them and, say, centre-left "Establishment" liberals and centre-left "establishment" conservatives. That is, John McCain and Hillary Clinton are far, far more similar in world view than I am. And this is not about my view of the left/right dichotomy; I think it is objectively demonstrable.

Second, I think any change in the media over these five or six decades is highly demonstrative of a sea-change in society. I believe society is--in many ways, not in all--more liberal. It is mainstream, and so is bound to be reflected. (This is a slight simplification, yes.)

But in other ways, I don't think it's accurate. In the fifties and before, there were a lot more newspapers, before the massive consolidations and the race for advertising revenues notched up so profoundly. There were a lot more--many--explicitly political, explicitly "working class" newspapers, pro-union, critical of the entrenched corporate and political class. These have virtually vanished...the internet didn't kill them; their death predates that. The major dailies killed them, as well as TV news (which is geared quite naturally towards soundbites and a paucity of in-depth information).

Many of these would be deemed "socialist" today, but they weren't necessarily considered so at the time.

So while the media has grown more "liberal," it has also grown more "conservative."

For instance, "free-market neoliberalism" has long been a conservative plank...and liberals as we understand them were hotly disposed to object. But now, liberals are free-market neoliberals, as it has become mainstream, at least among professional opinion-makers, including journalists. (The public, incidentally, dislikes corporations by a very large margin.)

The media has become more liberal on social issues, certainly: issues of identity politics (particularly surrounding race and gender) and so on. But I think it's roughly aligned itself with society on this, rather than moved to the left away from society.

This, plus the rise in popularity of alternative and less progressive-minded media, is exposing the mainstream media as supportive of the progressive lib-left and trying to maintain it's establishment position.

But if this is so, then how is the media supportive of the progressive lib-left? That entities like FOX and Rush are deemed "right-wing" might seem to suggest it; but where is the evidence itself? It's got to be available, or else the argument falls completely flat. It's as if we're saying, "A spider is not an insect; therefore it's a mammal."

Or "a fish is not a bird; therefore they're in opposition to one another."

That doesn't work. What's needed is evidence. A spider is not a mammal simply because it's different than an insect. Where is the evidence of its mamalian properties?

That's what I'm asking; not whether FOX and Rush are considered conservative...but where is the leftism prevalent in the rest of the media?

And on this note--and I don't consider this an unfair pre-emption--if you visit the right source, you will find examples of "liberal bias" or "anti-conservative bias." There are cherry-picked sources. But that doesn't help, because (and I assume you believe me) I could easily do exactly the same thing from the other side. So we have too look for tendencies, throuhg multiple and fair-minded examples.

Of course, this is a debilitatingly massive undertaking, and a debate isn't honestly "won" through a poster's ability to out-carpet-bomb his opponent.

So another way is to look at really, really big stoies, large-scale events of great import, and discover if there is journalistic bias one way or another, or at all. And I think what we will discover is a bias towards power and wealth...this bias doesn't differentiate between "conservatives" and "liberals" in any manifest way, I don't think: Clinton, Blair and Chretien precipitated the great liberal "humanitarian war" to protect genocide victims (an opinion, not an objective truth); and Reagan smashed the Soviet Enemy in Latin America, and America Was Standing Tall Again after fighting the (first) "War on Terror." (Again, the contradictions are notable, if generally elided.)

So that's "liberals" and "conservatives." But as for "the Left"? With some exceptions, they oppose both liberal and conservative policies; whereas the Right is more apt to support Establishment conservative policies, at least on the warfront.

A clear single example of left wing bias was in the fact that before anything was known of Jerrod Loughner, the media was already painting him as a right wing nutcase influenced by the rhetoric of the right and the bulls-eyes of Sarah Palin's political target map.

That may well be an example. There are others. But such matters are also indicative of partisanship between the Democrats and the Republicans, and their boosters. And though we might not agree, I don't consider the Democrats to be "leftists," a trivial handful of Representatives aside (Kucinich comes to mind). They're Establishment liberals, centrists even, in some ways even conservative. Heck, during the 2008 primaries, there was one candidate (Kucinich) who supported same-sex marriage. That's one out of ten...far below the percentage of public support.

Of course it wasn't the case at all. Barack Obama tried to make good by stating all the political rhetoric should be toned down. Of course, the left doesn't tolerate being muzzled in any way and even came to Fox's defense when the WH was thinking of shutting down Fox news as they didn't consider it a "news" organization worthy of the term. It wasn't that the media is not left wing in coming to the defense of Fox but looking through the filters of Chomsky it is entirely in their interests for the maintenance of it's power and position in the establishment.

I understand, but I think when it comes to freedom of speech (for example) perceived self-interest is inextricably tied up with principle. Chomsky and Ezra Levant aren't in total synchronicity about Canada's HRC's because they like each other or are political allies (clealry they're not), but because they deem that such freedoms are in the general interest, as well as in the specific political interests of any particular group.

Congress, Democrats, Republicans (Ron Paul excepted), the media cam together on that one under the weight of the "evidence" of weapons of mass destruction.

Which they easily and blithely would have laughed at were it an enemy state compiling such dubious evidence about one of our allies. The media are credulous to claims that buttress nationalism. One of their filters is that "we" are objectively "the good guys." (I assume this has been buttressed by the very real domestic superiorities of the Western paradigm.)

The media can be be easily persuaded to support a war. Especially if you look at it through the "filters" of the interests involved. Wars are not necessarily a left or right thing Democrats are just as likely to start them as Republicans.

Completely agree on both points.

But it is "market forces" that keep Limbaugh on the air.

Yes, his syndicated show is popular. But Chomsky is popular (better known than Limbaugh, actually, outside of Limbaugh's loyal audience). And his book sales are at least comparable to Coulter's. But Coulter is asked to appear as the "conservative panelist" on CNN and elsewhere...usually arguing with partisan Democrats. This is what passes for "left/right" debates. They're not going to ask Chomsky, obviously. Or forget Chomsky, who might not be suited for the quick soundbite style anyway; they won't ask anyone who will make the arguments Chomsky would make. I'm not saying it never ever happens--maybe now and then--but it is disproportionate by a long shot.

Why?

I'm not sure that the large educated middle class to affluent audience is really that interested in politics, except when it becomes intrusive.

I don't know the demographics, but I suspect that the educated middle to upper middle class are as interested in politics as any other group. At least. This is the management group, the group that comprises most journalists, most politicians, most educators, most corporate workers (outside the floor drones) and who write the commentary and opinion that profoundly affects the very discussion you and I are having.

Edited May 26, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Pliny]

there does exist, obviously, left-leaning opinion and bias and filtering throughout the media; I'm only saying it carries no special primacy.)

Do you have some evidence of this left leaning bias and filtering? It will help in my argument.

We are talking about the mainstream media here, are we not? Fox news and right wing talk radio is not even considered mainstream but where else can you get such right wing conservative bias?

Now sure, as you and I have discussed before, a viewer or reader's personal perspective of what constitutes the ideological position will have some effect. So if I thought that Communism was mainstream, centrist, then of course I'll view the media as profoundly right-wing. Vice versa with one who sees far right opinion as not really right wing. So I certainly see your point here; the terms are relative, and personal views are subjective.

If you were a communist, I believe that you would deny you were a communist and say you were for democracy, equality and believed in the concept of "from those according to their ability and to those according to their need". An outright admission to being communist wouldn't endear you to anyone but you might describe yourself as somewhat left of centre.

But I reiterate that neither myself nor my chief source are claiming a right-wing bias, so that problematizes the discussion.

Your chief source isn't arguing from the perspective of the left/right paradigm, I believe he "correctly" peels it back and looks at it as establishment forces which use the left right political divide to further their purposes in promises to the collective.

I think what you are missing is that part of the conservative movement wishes to deconstruct the consolidated power and wealth and that has always been the position of classical liberalism not "progressive" liberalism or "progressive" conservatism. The progressive movement has always been one of centralizing power by offering collectivist solutions to social and economic problems. In the progressive sense I see both liberalism and conservatism as being left of centre. Staying with the established left/right paradigm of liberals left and conservatives right they have both been moving towards statism. Polarizing the populace.

The perception of a shift of conservatism to the right is a bit of a herring, it is not about shoring up establishment conservative power but moving back to the centre and a more accountable, limited government.

However, I will say that I consider the media more hostile to the far left than to the far right. And that's because the far right is more amenable to such cherished birds as corporate power and nationalist views of war. It's more aligned with Establishment power.

I disagree with that. The left offers more of a promise of further consolidation and centralizing of "establishment power" than the right. The "establishment" views itself as progressively left and views far right conservatism as an exclusion of the "people". The left fancies and presents itself as being "of the people and for the people". In reality, they like to hold a know-best position over the unwashed masses and claim their interests are theirs.

The conservative shift today is toward decentralization, not shoring up the conservative establishment much to their chagrin and they hopefully will nip this movement in the bud and assimilate it - with the help of the liberal media of course. We cannot, after all destroy the whole left right dichotomy that holds it all together.

I think we disagree. I would say the media is "liberal" from the perspective you state.

Do you have more evidence for me?

End of debate. Start of new construct.

But, first, I draw a real delineation between contemporary usage of "liberal" and "leftist"--as do most people, certainly including liberals and leftists. They're related, but the distinctions are sharper between them and, say, centre-left "Establishment" liberals and centre-left "establishment" conservatives. That is, John McCain and Hillary Clinton are far, far more similar in world view than I am. And this is not about my view of the left/right dichotomy; I think it is objectively demonstrable.

More left/right obfuscation. Centre left liberals. Centre left conservatives??? There is just too much of this kind of confusing political schizophrenia bandied about.

Second, I think any change in the media over these five or six decades is highly demonstrative of a sea-change in society. I believe society is--in many ways, not in all--more liberal. It is mainstream, and so is bound to be reflected. (This is a slight simplification, yes.)

But in other ways, I don't think it's accurate. In the fifties and before, there were a lot more newspapers, before the massive consolidations and the race for advertising revenues notched up so profoundly. There were a lot more--many--explicitly political, explicitly "working class" newspapers, pro-union, critical of the entrenched corporate and political class. These have virtually vanished...the internet didn't kill them; their death predates that. The major dailies killed them, as well as TV news (which is geared quite naturally towards soundbites and a paucity of in-depth information).

What is today the major dailies, just swallowed the competition and consolidated their position in the establishment becoming parts of major corporations. Awwwww... we can look at all those left wing explicitly "working class" newspapers as having met their fate and succumbed but that is untrue. They may have disappeared but they are far from dead

So while the media has grown more "liberal," it has also grown more "conservative."

More bafflegab.

For instance, "free-market neoliberalism" has long been a conservative plank...and liberals as we understand them were hotly disposed to object. But now, liberals are free-market neoliberals, as it has become mainstream, at least among professional opinion-makers, including journalists. (The public, incidentally, dislikes corporations by a very large margin.)

Sorry this doesn't square with me. I agree corporations are disliked by the public but the mainstream media is corporate yet,like government, hides itself among the people.

The media has become more liberal on social issues, certainly: issues of identity politics (particularly surrounding race and gender) and so on. But I think it's roughly aligned itself with society on this, rather than moved to the left away from society.

"Liberal", to most people sits on the left on the political spectrum. And that is my argument. Thank you.

Do you have some more proof for me that the media has become more "liberal" so that I may build my arsenal for further battles?

But if this is so, then how is the media supportive of the progressive lib-left? That entities like FOX and Rush are deemed "right-wing" might seem to suggest it; but where is the evidence itself? It's got to be available, or else the argument falls completely flat. It's as if we're saying, "A spider is not an insect; therefore it's a mammal."

It's the same thing?

Or "a fish is not a bird; therefore they're in opposition to one another."

That's what I've been saying all along? Really?

That doesn't work. What's needed is evidence. A spider is not a mammal simply because it's different than an insect. Where is the evidence of its mamalian properties?

Sorry, I thought the left/right paradigm had only two sides. This mammal/spider/insect thing is a whole new dimension.

That's what I'm asking; not whether FOX and Rush are considered conservative...but where is the leftism prevalent in the rest of the media?

Simple me. I was just thinking if it wasn't conservative (right-wing) then it must be liberal (left-wing) How simplisitic, ay?

Yes, his syndicated show is popular. But Chomsky is popular (better known than Limbaugh, actually, outside of Limbaugh's loyal audience). And his book sales are at least comparable to Coulter's. But Coulter is asked to appear as the "conservative panelist" on CNN and elsewhere...usually arguing with partisan Democrats. This is what passes for "left/right" debates. They're not going to ask Chomsky, obviously. Or forget Chomsky, who might not be suited for the quick soundbite style anyway; they won't ask anyone who will make the arguments Chomsky would make. I'm not saying it never ever happens--maybe now and then--but it is disproportionate by a long shot.

Why?

This is my opinion.

Chomsky is an intellectual. Why did Ignatieff not prove to be more popular? Chomsky makes the subject too complicated and is thus irrelevant to most people. Besides, he is considered too far left in his position and doesn't support the established power structure. Just like the left wing media couldn't support communism - too much of a shift in power.

Obama's popularity is in his generalized statements. Unfortunately, no one thinks to ask him any specifics about his concept of government and he has to back pedal alot on statements about redistributing the wealth, calling it something else like "tax the rich" - far more palatable to the public.

I don't know the demographics, but I suspect that the educated middle to upper middle class are as interested in politics as any other group. At least. This is the management group, the group that comprises most journalists, most politicians, most educators, most corporate workers (outside the floor drones) and who write the commentary and opinion that profoundly affects the very discussion you and I are having.

Here I agree with Chomsky, they are interested in their status, position and take home pay. It is just as well that the great unwashed masses remain ignorant so they pose no threat to the establishment structure.

Edited May 26, 2011 by Pliny

[bloodyminded]

Do you have some evidence of this left leaning bias and filtering? It will help in my argument.

You mean evidence you can use for an argument you've stated you don't really believe in?

No, not really. I take it for granted that any model of the mainstream media is going to miss a few things, and that no declarative statements can ever be 100% accurate in every instance.

If you wish, you can find right-wing sources full of fairly stupid people who do collect evidence, cherry-pick-style, to buttress their fallacious theory, if you wish to wallow through horseshit. Krauthammer's quaint little "Cnn/FOX/MSNBC clips during a single campaign tells us everything" theory might fit the description.

If you were a communist, I believe that you would deny you were a communist and say you were for democracy, equality and believed in the concept of "from those according to their ability and to those according to their need". An outright admission to being communist wouldn't endear you to anyone but you might describe yourself as somewhat left of centre.

I don't quite see how you expect to have an intelligent and honest debate if you assume your opponent is deceiving you about his political stance.

Your chief source isn't arguing from the perspective of the left/right paradigm, I believe he "correctly" peels it back and looks at it as establishment forces which use the left right political divide to further their purposes in promises to the collective.

But he IS arguing against the stated premise of a "leftist" media.

I think what you are missing is that part of the conservative movement wishes to deconstruct the consolidated power and wealth

Uh. Huh. Who, exactly?

and that has always been the position of classical liberalism not "progressive" liberalism or "progressive" conservatism. The progressive movement has always been one of centralizing power by offering collectivist solutions to social and economic problems. In the progressive sense I see both liberalism and conservatism as being left of centre. Staying with the established left/right paradigm of liberals left and conservatives right they have both been moving towards statism. Polarizing the populace.

Ah. It's really the left who are the left/right paradigm and who are polarizing the populace. We've found the culprit, and he didn't exist before, say, Marx. Conservatives wouldn't behave this way....except who exactly these magical conservatives are remains a mystery.

So far as "right" and "left" are useful, it doesn't always come down to economics. Hell, you're practically a Marxist in your materialist view of society. Social conservatives ARE "conservatives," no matter what they think about economics. Liberals who call themselves "fiscal conservatives" can, and do, remain "liberals."

There's simplifying; and then there's simplifying right out of meaning and existence.

And if you really thought this way, you'd stop using terms like "left" and "right," but you prefer the right...who, you now say, are actually left.........

?????

I disagree with that. The left offers more of a promise of further consolidation and centralizing of "establishment power" than the right. The "establishment" views itself as progressively left and views far right conservatism as an exclusion of the "people". The left fancies and presents itself as being "of the people and for the people". In reality, they like to hold a know-best position over the unwashed masses and claim their interests are theirs.

But you utterly ignore the examples I give, presumably preferring your shopworn theory to reality on the ground.

The right wing is usually more supportive of war; and it is usually more supportive of corporate capitalism.

In these ways, it is more supportive of Establishment power than is the contemporary, Western Left.

You didn't dispute this; you avoided it.

End of debate. Start of new construct.

More left/right obfuscation. Centre left liberals. Centre left conservatives??? There is just too much of this kind of confusing political schizophrenia bandied about.

It was YOU who said you thought we should be using these constructs for the purposes of this debate.

It was your idea.

Don't switch when it becomes inconvenient.

And do you not belioeve that Hillary Clinton and John McCain have more in common, and act in ways that suggests they see the world more like each other than I do?

Are you disputing that?

What is today the major dailies, just swallowed the competition and consolidated their position in the establishment becoming parts of major corporations. Awwwww... we can look at all those left wing explicitly "working class" newspapers as having met their fate and succumbed but that is untrue. They may have disappeared but they are far from dead

This doesn't begin (in fact, doesn't attempt) to answer what I said.

I'd rather you ignore a point altogether than contort your answer this way.

More bafflegab.

Oh, really? My conjecture--which sounds pretty uncontroversial to me--that the media are in some ways more liberal and some ways more conservative than they used to be...is "bafflegab"?

Why? What's so ridiculous about the idea?

"Liberal", to most people sits on the left on the political spectrum. And that is my argument. Thank you.

Then how do you square the difference, between, for example, an American Democrat "liberal," and a Canadian Liberal "liberal"?

Or the NDP, for that matter?

At any rate, no it isn't your argument. you have two contradictory arguments: one is here your definition,the other is that I should stop talking about it in the way you asked me to talk about it because it's "obfuscating."

That's what I've been saying all along? Really?

Sorry, I thought the left/right paradigm had only two sides. This mammal/spider/insect thing is a whole new dimension.

The analogy escapes you?

Then I'll simplify. That we are calling FOX "conservative" does not prove a "leftist bias." That's absurd.

Simple me. I was just thinking if it wasn't conservative (right-wing) then it must be liberal (left-wing) How simplisitic, ay?

Absolutely. It could be more conservative than another, still conservative-but-less so; or (my argument) it doesn't offer any evidence.

And why can't you offer any evidence? I mean...it's just so...simple! You must have evidence.

Anyway, by your standard...NPR is "considered left wing"...therefore, the media has a right wing bias.

That's precisely your argument here, Pliny. By rote.

Obama's popularity is in his generalized statements. Unfortunately, no one thinks to ask him any specifics about his concept of government and he has to back pedal alot on statements about redistributing the wealth, calling it something else like "tax the rich" - far more palatable to the public.

Obama is utterly pro-capitalist. This "socialist" notion is delusional.

Edited May 27, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Pliny]

Obama is utterly pro-capitalist. This "socialist" notion is delusional.

I think this is over. You have already admitted to a left wing bias in the media.

And this claim Obama is utterly "pro-capitalist" is really delusional.

Socialism is a chameleon-like ideology that worms it's way into government by donning any fashionable cloak that further centralizes power. It is a process towards an end. The latest cloak is environmentalism.

And one only needs to look at the reality that progressivism, the socialist ideology, once gaining it's ground becomes the most solid, anti-change establishment resembling the bullying far right fascists they pretend to despise. Health care and education are examples - both crumbling under the weight of cost and inefficiency, yet demanding even more resources without any substantial improvement to efficiency or service and when resources are increased it is only a short time later that the cracks begin to widen again if they ever stopped at all.

I do not know whether you bloodyminded are confused about socialism or just like to forward confusion to keep the pot stirred, but I suspect the latter because that is how socialism changes it's progressive colours and forwards it's centralization of power. It doesn't like the idea that the public could actually understand the political process and will continue to sell out the country for votes until we reach that point where change is necessary but will be fascisticly resisted and tyranny is welcomed by the formerly social progressives in order to "conserve" the status quo.

Edited May 27, 2011 by Pliny

[bloodyminded]

I think this is over. You have already admitted to a left wing bias in the media.

Sure. When I stated that one can no doubt find instances of left wing bias here and there, even as I overall shattered your leftist bias theory (to which you remain stubbornly resistent to offering evidence...even asking me for some! )...you feel I have conceded the (non)argument?

And this claim Obama is utterly "pro-capitalist" is really delusional.

No; the "socialist Obama" claims are delusional. I'm not even judging good or bad; my understanding is that he's in most ways a fairly typical President.

And one only needs to look at the reality that progressivism, the socialist ideology, once gaining it's ground becomes the most solid, anti-change establishment resembling the bullying far right fascists they pretend to despise.

At bottom, your claim is only that when people achieve power they often behave badly. I think that might be true. That's why you should be concerned about self-styled "libertarians" achieving power. They quickly become something else.

According to your own theories.

I do not know whether you bloodyminded are confused about socialism or just like to forward confusion to keep the pot stirred, but I suspect the latter because that is how socialism changes it's progressive colours and forwards it's centralization of power.

You've discovered my sinister plot. First I addle the impressionable minds of the good folks here on MLW (isn't clearly working, but I'll soldier on; we commies are nothing if not determined); then I'll move on to other anonymous forums; then I'll run for City Council, under the guise of compassionate reform (which simply cannot ever be principled, as monumental geniuses like Ayn Rand have declared in their "philosophies" [sic]); and so on...all the way up to global Governance. Today an anonymous forum debater, tommorrow a statist paradise!

Good lord. I can accept that you think I'm naive and mistaken...as I do you.

But the assumption of dark motives of Power are a little much.

It doesn't like the idea that the public could actually understand the political process

"It" being "socialism," which is not a conscious and breathing entity that can like, or dislike, anything.

[Pliny]

Sure. When I stated that one can no doubt find instances of left wing bias here and there, even as I overall shattered your leftist bias theory (to which you remain stubbornly resistent to offering evidence...even asking me for some! )...you feel I have conceded the (non)argument?

Well, you feel the leftist bias theory is shattered, do you? Totally annihilated the position.

Maybe it's time for a vote.

No; the "socialist Obama" claims are delusional. I'm not even judging good or bad; my understanding is that he's in most ways a fairly typical President.

He is anything but typical - he is really pushing a "progressive" agenda. That he isn't starting the revolution to impose his wealth redistribution big government regime doesn't make him less of a socialist - it just means he isn't a communist.

Once again you don't grasp that opposition to him is opposition to big government and not the fascist power grab you believe it is.

At bottom, your claim is only that when people achieve power they often behave badly. I think that might be true. That's why you should be concerned about self-styled "libertarians" achieving power. They quickly become something else.

Libertarians are not about power. Although I wouldn't dismiss the odd one that seeks it.

You've discovered my sinister plot. First I addle the impressionable minds of the good folks here on MLW (isn't clearly working, but I'll soldier on; we commies are nothing if not determined); then I'll move on to other anonymous forums; then I'll run for City Council, under the guise of compassionate reform (which simply cannot ever be principled, as monumental geniuses like Ayn Rand have declared in their "philosophies" [sic]); and so on...all the way up to global Governance. Today an anonymous forum debater, tomorrow a statist paradise!

Your comprehension abilities are simply amazing. That's precisely what I am implying.

Good lord. I can accept that you think I'm naive and mistaken...as I do you.

But the assumption of dark motives of Power are a little much.

You are simply a follower parroting the progressive line. You give yourself more importance than what I would ever imply.

"It" being "socialism," which is not a conscious and breathing entity that can like, or dislike, anything.

Yes it takes a living breathing individual to lead us to the collective Utopia - whether one wishes to go or not. That there are several individuals scrambling to create the worker's paradise, all for the common good, and many naive followers are willing to centralize the power for them is the problem.

Edited May 27, 2011 by Pliny

[bloodyminded]

Well, you feel the leftist bias theory is shattered, do you? Totally annihilated the position.

Maybe it's time for a vote.

Some evidence would be a better start.

He is anyting but typical - he is really pushing a "progressive" agenda.

So secretly that it can't be perceived, only assumed.

That he isn't starting the revolution to impose his wealth redistribution big government regime doesn't make him less of a socialist - it just mean she isn't a communist.

That he isn't instituting such a regime is evidence that he's a socialist? Man, these socialists are devious.

Once again you don't grasp that oppostion to him is oppostion to big government and not the fascist power grab you beleive it is.

!

I don't think opposition to Obama is a fascist power grab. Where in the world do you get that?

Libertarians are not about power. Although I wouldn't dismiss the odd one that seeks it.

Of course they are, if they achieve it.

You are simply a follower parroting the progressive line. You give yourself more importance than what I would ever imply.

And yet you told me that you suspect I

like to forward confusion to keep the pot stirred...because that is how socialism changes it's progressive colours and forwards it's centralization of power.

Or maybe some Maoist hacked in to your account and fiddled with your post?

Edited May 27, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Pliny]

Some evidence would be a better start.

In your own words.

I would say the media is "liberal" from the perspective you state.

So secretly that it can't be perceived, only assumed.

Shhh!! yes. We'll redistribute the wealth somehow - maybe tax the rich!

You know here's an example of his transparency.

The wife of Pat Brady, poster boy fo the Brady Law, was talking with the President about need for gun control and Obama said "Well, we have some processes to go through but we have to keep it under the radar for now."

Under the radar??? This from what is supposed to be the most transparent administration ever??? The one that was going to have the health care debate on CSPAN and it wound up that the bill would have to pass before anyone can find out what's in the bill??

And don't try and tell me Obamacare isn't about a further centralization of federal powers.

That he isn't instituting such a regime is evidence that he's a socialist? Man, these socialists are devious.

Try and understand at least. That he isn't starting a revolution is evidence he is not a communist.

And yes, socialists are devious.

I don't think opposition to Obama is a fascist power grab. Where in the world do you get that?

You are more or less inferring that the Tea party movement has fascist/corporate rather than grass roots origins.

In conclusion, I believe left wing mainstream media bias has been accepted by yourself as a fact.

It is evident to you, as you have stated.

Thank you. If there are others that wish to state their case in oppostion I welcome the challenge.

Edited May 27, 2011 by Pliny

[dre]

Left/right bias is a fairly simple thing to illustrate really.

Of course one must have a point of reference.

Is Fox news considered biased to the right wing? I seem to recall many criticisms of that being the case. Could we agree on that point or is it necessary to compile a list of evidences?

Awaiting your answer to that, I'll assume it is an accepted fact and citations are unnecessary.

Certainly, one can only arrive at the conclusion that Fox news is right wing biased in comparison to a point of reference. Other media can be the only other point of reference. We have talk radio that is labelled right wing, Rush Limbaugh, etc. Obviously, politically biased to the right wing.

Fox news of course contends it is fair and balanced in it's presentation of the news and it's editorial opinion, although conservative, does include input and debate from the left. So it upholds that it has a pretty centrist presentation.

Would you argue that point? Or would you say it is completely biased?

If we are arguing about whether or not there is a left wing bias from the refernece point of Fox news I think it is obvious. After all MSNBC, CNN, the New York Times, NPR could not be considered to be positioned to the right of Fox news in it's editorial opinion.

If you wish to argue whether the MSM is centrist that's going to depend upon the definition of centre.

Charles Krauthammer pointed out the other day that media bias was evident during the 2008 presidential election when in a study of objectivity CNN had 3 favourable clips of Obama for every favourable clip of McCain. Fox news was one for one and MSNBC had a 5-1 ratio in favour of Obama. CNN was taken as being the centre point and that is clearly not the centre point.

So is the argument really that there is no left wing support in the MSM from the reference point of Marxism and Communism? Do we conclude that MSNBC is centrist as it in no way promotes Marxism and Communism? Well, it might advocate social progressivism. You know, advocating government programs that support the disadvantaged in society. I mean is that really a policy of the left or is it just government being socially responsible and progressive in nature as opposed to the far right wing regressive proponents of "social darwinism".

As for invoking "conspiracy theory" in the corporate media and it being radical Marxists and opposed to itself. One has to really look at how the coporate media arrived where it did. Initially, it did it by being competitive and eliminating competition. It did it by first being better than the competition. Then it grew by buying out competition and/or lobbying for regulation that made the hurdles for new competition too stiff to enter the market. Government obliged whether moreso from the left or right is neither here nor there but if an adminstration favoured deregulation, increased competition, or in any respect threatens the hard won position of being top dog it is held in a bad light and the media will reflect that in it's editorial position. Other industries will reflect it in their political donations and support. Government may even complain about the treatment it gets from some "new" media outlets - saying it is unfair and biased or not even worthy of being called a news media outlet and snubbing it in it's press releases.

Rockefeller thought the greatest sin was competition. Once a corporation has achieved a "too big to fail" position it expects government to support it. It abhors real competition. That is really the essence of it. Not any conspiracy theory of power and intrigue. Just a collaboration of government and it's sources of revenue, a tit for tat good old boy establishment, with a mutual unwillingness to rock the boat and to continue to shore up the stranglehold of power and authority.

And you say....

Is Fox news considered biased to the right wing? I seem to recall many criticisms of that being the case. Could we agree on that point or is it necessary to compile a list of evidences?

You cant compare Fox News to very many other networks. Fox is a pretty unique animal, and what they do goes way beyond what normally would be considered "media bias". They are a blatant political machine, that works to get republicans elected across the country, organizes political events and rallys and directly donates money to political campaigns.

Youre really talking about two diferent things.

Charles Krauthammer pointed out the other day that media bias was evident during the 2008 presidential election when in a study of objectivity CNN had 3 favourable clips of Obama for every favourable clip of McCain. Fox news was one for one and MSNBC had a 5-1 ratio in favour of Obama. CNN was taken as being the centre point and that is clearly not the centre point.

Thats what the their target audience wanted to see at the time, and marketing execs decided that content would generate the best ratings for their sponsors.

And this is exactly why for the most part it all balances out, and why the moaning about media bias is really just bullshit. The reality is that theres a pool of viewers that want to see a variety of diferent content. Media corporations pick a target demographic and then give them what their market researchers determine they want.... so while there might be certain outlets that try to their sponsors products and liberal viewers and others that try to sell their sponsors products to conservative viewers, the media as a whole basically reflects the demographic it caters too.

For example... if I ran a media company that catered to Plinys Id slant libertarian, and run bizzare conspiracy theories all day. Thats not really political bias... because I dont believe ANY of that and I have no adgenda to push it. I just want to take your money by giving you what you want.

[dre]

And don't try and tell me Obamacare isn't about a further centralization of federal powers.

Obamacare was written by private insurance providers, its really just a corporate welfare racket, no diferent than the war on terror. When American's biggest fear was "the terrorists", then their money was taken and given to government lobbying private interests. When they were afraid of a "financial collapse" their money was taken and given to government lobbying private interests. And when their biggest fear was shitty or cost prohibitive healthcare their money was taken and given to government lobbying corporations.

None of these things make the government stronger or more powerfull... in fact they have pretty much made the government bankrupt and virtually guaranteed it will have to downsize pretty soon.

[Shwa]

Point of clarification please:

Pliny:

Well, you feel the leftist bias theory is shattered, do you? Totally annihilated the position.

Maybe it's time for a vote.

Bloodyminded:

Some evidence would be a better start.

Pliny:

In your own words.

I would say the media is "liberal" from the perspective you state.

Firstly, asking for a vote is an appeal to the masses fallacy and just won't do.

Secondly, and the actual point of clarification: since when does "liberalism" equate to "left?" It doesn't in my books.

So, evidence of a left-leaning media bias was asked for and what was returned was a quote admitting a "liberal" bias. This is not the same thing. Plus, throwing a quote back from the opposition does not equate to "evidence."

Can we get this clarified please Pliny?

Thanks!

Edited May 31, 2011 by Shwa

[Pliny]

Firstly, asking for a vote is an appeal to the masses fallacy and just won't do.

Is that a clear illustration of a flaw in Democracy, in your view?

Secondly, and the actual point of clarification: since when does "liberalism" equate to "left?" It doesn't in my books.

So, evidence of a left-leaning media bias was asked for and what was returned was a quote admitting a "liberal" bias. This is not the same thing. Plus, throwing a quote back from the opposition does not equate to "evidence."

Can we get this clarified please Pliny?

Thanks!

Happy to oblige.

Left doesn't equate to liberal, in your books. Are we using your books?

Republicans are considered conservative and conservatism considered right wing. Democrats are considered liberal and liberalism is considered left wing. That is the general consensus. Of course, we can blur the lines and say there are red tories and blue liberals and everything cannot be viewed from an exclusively black and white perspective. However, we are talking about a general leftist bias in the media and not whether liberal is or is not left and conservative is or is not right.

So what exactly does the statment, "I would say the media is "liberal" from the perspective you state."

really mean? Does it mean that some of the bias is from right wing liberals and is thus not left wing.

Or that some of the bias is from left wing conservatives so is thus not left wing?

Does right wing bias stick out like a sore thumb? You may or may not agree with that statement but it can only do so in a comparative sense. It seems liberals and leftists, if they are indeed mutually exclusive of one another as you seem to wish to imply, have no problem noticing right wing/conservative bias in some of the media. I have to ask what data they are comparatively looking at in order to reach such a conclusion? A right wing political bias in the media cannot exist in the absence of any comparison. We could argue that the comparison is centrist and thus unbiased and the left wing is unrepresented in the media. Certainly then there should be a call for a fairness act so the left wing could be equally represented - and guess what there is. The left wants in. There is no shortage of leftists and/or liberals that feel they are not represented in the media and that is what this debate is about.

bloodyminded argued form the point that the left and the right are not even valid points to argue from and that they are irrelevant. I happen to agree with that but that isn't how the majority of people view the political choices they have. If they have any interest in politics at all, they have an idea of conservatism and liberalism and sometimes things, as you indicate, don't fit their concepts but in general liberalism is left of conservatism and conservatism is right of liberalism.

Once again, a BJ is of course not the same thing as sex, so Bill Clinton never did have sex with that woman. "Liberal" is not the same as left wing. Slick Willy was not lying in a strict sense of the definition of sex that includes the propogation of the species but wasn't he being a bit disingenuous in trying to ameliorate the circumstances of his indiscretions? Is there any wonder why debates with leftists and liberals deteriorate to arguments of semantics? Liberals and leftists are not the same. A position that is as clear as mud to adherents of the left/right paradigm, which is incidentally, the perspective form which the debate arises. Not whether the left or right exists or is different than what is generally understood.

In other words, you are either quite confused (of which I doubt) or perhaps just exercising your intellectual prowess in some challenging demonstration of egotism?

Edited May 31, 2011 by Pliny

[Pliny]

Obamacare was written by private insurance providers, its really just a corporate welfare racket, no diferent than the war on terror. When American's biggest fear was "the terrorists", then their money was taken and given to government lobbying private interests. When they were afraid of a "financial collapse" their money was taken and given to government lobbying private interests. And when their biggest fear was shitty or cost prohibitive healthcare their money was taken and given to government lobbying corporations.

Hmmmm....

None of these things make the government stronger or more powerfull... in fact they have pretty much made the government bankrupt and virtually guaranteed it will have to downsize pretty soon.

Good news!

[Pliny]

You cant compare Fox News to very many other networks. Fox is a pretty unique animal, and what they do goes way beyond what normally would be considered "media bias". They are a blatant political machine, that works to get republicans elected across the country, organizes political events and rallys and directly donates money to political campaigns.

Youre really talking about two diferent things.

I suppose blatant is better than deceitful.

And this is exactly why for the most part it all balances out, and why the moaning about media bias is really just bullshit. The reality is that theres a pool of viewers that want to see a variety of diferent content. Media corporations pick a target demographic and then give them what their market researchers determine they want.... so while there might be certain outlets that try to their sponsors products and liberal viewers and others that try to sell their sponsors products to conservative viewers, the media as a whole basically reflects the demographic it caters too.

For example... if I ran a media company that catered to Plinys Id slant libertarian, and run bizzare conspiracy theories all day. Thats not really political bias... because I dont believe ANY of that and I have no adgenda to push it. I just want to take your money by giving you what you want.

I don't disagree. I suppose when you start losing your audience and they start finding alternatives but you insist upon continuing to lose money by not catering to your audience is when the trouble starts.

[bloodyminded]

So what exactly does the statment, "I would say the media is "liberal" from the perspective you state."

really mean? Does it mean that some of the bias is from right wing liberals and is thus not left wing.

Or that some of the bias is from left wing conservatives so is thus not left wing?

Why you seize on this one sentence--while ignoring my contextual remarks that both precede it and succeed it--is anyone's guess.

I invite you to go back and re-read our debate, starting with your intially friendly and intelligent post (a tone and style which you quickly abandoned in subsequent posts, once you discovered I was not bowled over by such shining arguments as proposing FOX as the point of reference for...well, no good reason, actually).

I figured this debate would quickly degenerate, especially since you have deemed yourself too busy for irritants like research, but just in case you remain interested, I'll quickly summarize:

The mainstream news media is affected by several factors; notable among them (and to some degree interrelated, or at least overlapping) are ownership, advertising, sourcing, and ideology.

Your notion is that ideology, first, trumps everything, and second, tends to move in and/or derive from a single direction ("the left," or "liberals" or "conservatives-who-are-actually-the-left"...in other words, you want it every which way, and still can't offer much in the way of evidence).

Alternatively, I believe ideology is a single matter, not even the dominant one, and in any case moves a lot more fluidly and with greater complexity than you seem willing to allow.

And nationalism, or West-is-Best triumphalism, is a major part of it...even in cases where the West might be wrong. (An unthinkable event; offered platitudinously and in the abstract, but avoided assiduously in real-world scenarios.)

Who are the primary sources from which corporate entities who depend on government information and financial news get their soundbites?

Unions? Feminists? Homosexual activists" Homeless people? Leftist intellectuals?

No, as is perfectly predictable, and in fact demonstrably true, most of their sourcing comes from spokespeople for government and big business.

You might also note that one can scarcely distinguish the two; in part because business and government comprise a nexus (rather than enemies, as the more wild-eyed Randians submit); but more prosaically, because Public Relations is an industry, inherently tied to the advertising/marketing industry, and so they all speak roughly the same way, and for the interests of elites. They couldn't be expected to do otyherwise, now, could they?

So, for example, what happens when a war occurs? Well, matters like ownership (weapons manufacturers who are part of the media conglomerates) conflate quite nicely with idealist nationalism, and empty phrases about "the national interest." So even when some of the media are "anti-war" [sic], it is not so obviously the case. Really, they want "objectivity" and "balance"...which, in the case of the NYTimes or Washington Post, means "maybe we should continue on this heroic humanitarian mission...or maybe "it (this inherently heroic humanitarian mission) is not in our best interests."

I mean, seriously, there IS "bias" there all right...plain as day.

One can see the "proper" boundaries of discussion drawn quite nicely. Those who dissent from this--who assert, for example, that maybe the war is fundamentally wrong, some sort of criminal enterprise--are deemed "the wild men in the wings"; though since in many cases such opinions are mainstream global opinion, the subversive rot must stretch very far indeed.

Or the tv networks hold endless debates using the identical parameters: "the war is just and necessary": vs the Kerryesque argument, that "the war is just and necessary, but not quite at this moment." Whew, such dissent! Such far-left ideology infesting the mainstream media!

We also got to witness the tv news presenting "independent military analysts," promoting the war. OK, so every "independent military analyst," all "experts" since they were all Generals, supported the war (as opposed to overwhelming global opinion). Well, it turns out that these "independent analysts" were first briefed at the Pentagon, given talking points, and that the Pentagon referred to them as "message force multipliers," about as Orwellian a term as I've heard recently.

We had intellectuals like Salman Rushdie extolling the self-evident altruism of US foreign policy (something that should have been anathema to the Ayn Rand libertarian set, but interestingly had them nodding like Pavlov's dogs); and Christoper Hitchens defending the deception itself as necessary, in the Straussian view that Wise men must deceive the stupid public into glorious wars of nobility, &co &co.

The mainstream news media was utterly complicit in all this...and totally silent about the fact that it was happening. (As usual, there were a few mea culpas after the damage was done, after nothing could stop the process.)

There was the "Saving Jessica Lynch" propaganda piece, in which the ancient story of masculine martial courage rescuing sexually-abused damsels was given a contemporary sheen by the adducement of Lynch's own battlefield courage, before she was captured by third-World sexual degenerates. (Almost every factor an invention, according to Lynch herself; her capture occurred, but nothing else, not the abuse, not even the rescue, as it was narrated to us.)

There was Pat Tilman...oh lord, you should look up what Ms. Coulter said about this All-American! The White House itself brought him up (though to be fair, I wouldn't be surprised if Bush himself was as subject to the lies as you and I were); again, the whole story was fabricated, his very parents deceived, and all for the sake of heady war propaganda.

That's not a leftist news media, Pliny; it's an Establishment-centric, Establishment-friendly one; and it held the line endorsed by the political Right. That is, it is not inherently a "right-wing slant," though the Right were most in love with it in this instance. (The Democrats and Canadian Liberals had the pro-war media glory during Kosovo, in case you're wondering; and no, that most certainly does not constitute "left wing bias.")

You are more or less inferring that the Tea party movement has fascist/corporate rather than grass roots origins.

No, you're inferring it, but not from anything I've implied.

Edited June 1, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Michael Hardner]

The mainstream news media is affected by several factors; notable among them (and to some degree interrelated, or at least overlapping) are ownership, advertising, sourcing, and ideology.

I wanted to add that FOX isn't the propaganda machine some imagine it to be: they are a business trading in what sells. This is why their news isn't serious right-wing economics, but populist news items intended to get ratings.

This is a company that offers same-sex benefits, and has a carbon-neutral policy. They also gave Michael Moore an hour-long show before he was a household name. Why ? They thought it could make money.

[Shakeyhands]

I wanted to add that FOX isn't the propaganda machine some imagine it to be: they are a business trading in what sells. This is why their news isn't serious right-wing economics, but populist news items intended to get ratings.

Get ratings or desiminate propoganda by using a "shock" type mentaility? You cannont ignore the documented cases of outright false or misleading reporting.

This is a company that offers same-sex benefits, and...

I'd be interested top know if there is anyone at Fox that could take advantage of such benefits. (Besides Rush....)

[Michael Hardner]

Get ratings or desiminate propoganda by using a "shock" type mentaility? You cannont ignore the documented cases of outright false or misleading reporting.

Of course - but it's all part of the brand, and calculated to get attention.

I'd be interested top know if there is anyone at Fox that could take advantage of such benefits. (Besides Rush....)

I'm sure that there are plenty of gay people, liberals and environmentalists who work there. Walk into any corporate office, and they look pretty much the same. You're not going to see bales of hay piled up with shotguns resting on them.