Liberal Bias in the Media?

[Shakeyhands]

There is no conspiracy, folks. And the numbers so far bear this out.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...ol=968350116795

I posted this especially for Max and Monty... I love you guys!

[B. Max]

There is no conspiracy, folks. And the numbers so far bear this out.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...ol=968350116795

I posted this especially for Max and Monty... I love you guys!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

An article in the TS claiming there is no liberal bias in the media is not exactly reassuring. Both the CBC and the red star are leftwing propoganda machines. Both trot out the likes of doctor fruit fly, a leftist who has been discredited over and over again, but you will never see that on CBC or in the TS.

[newbie]

This has always been the case Shakey. The right's like to think otherwise but the facts don't bear out, especially in the States. The cons control both houses, have their man in power and talk radio is overwhelming conservative. Plus, with the help of Ruport Murdoch, most of their press leans right as well. Liberal media bias is nothing but a myth.

[kimmy]

Kind of a reach, Shakey.

Yes, the news directors' numbers were a little lower than the public's when it came to the Alliance. But that should be weighed against the fact that only 10 per cent of news directors intended to vote for the New Democrats. In Canada, NDP support at that time measured between 13 and 16 per cent. In short, TV news bosses are more in the middle than, well, the middle.

The article shows disproportionately low preference among news directors for the NDP and the former Alliance, but disproportionately high preference for the Liberals and the late PC party. In short, there might not be a liberal bias, but the article suggests there might be a Liberal bias.

One could also certainly wonder who the news directors who used to vote PC would chopse now that the PCs are dead.

This tidbit here was particularly interesting...

No CBC news directors said they intended to vote for the Alliance but more than 11 per cent of news directors in the private sector did — so just a little channel surfing should smooth the furrowed brow of any fretful social conservative.

...which supports what many have said about the CBC's coverage of Canadian politics. You can look back on this very message board and find at least a couple of instances where the CBC news website has just plain ignored Liberal-unfriendly news items that other media outlets were giving considerable attention. Sparhawk defended the CBC on one occasion, pointing out that news people have to make judgment calls and sometimes they get it wrong. Perhaps... but this article gives reason to wonder whether political preference might be behind those judgment calls.

It is also worth pointing out that the survey seems to have been of TV news directors nationwide. That's hardly an authoritative methodology. For instance, what about the Ottawa press gallery, that has been accused of viewing their press career as an internship for higher-paying jobs with various government communications departments? The political preferences of TV news directors is an interesting starting point for a discussion, but it is hardly the last word on the subject.

An interesting article, Shakey, but it doesn't say what you wish it said. I can see why the Star wrote this article... after all, the Star are NDP cheerleaders and this article seems to suggest that the NDP might not get a fair shot from TV news directors either. But overall, the point of the article is that the political preferences of TV news directors are disproportionately to the centre-- the Liberals and the former PC party-- and that certainly *does* suggest that there could be a Liberal bias in Canada's TV newsrooms.

-k

[Leader Circle]

There is no conspiracy, folks. And the numbers so far bear this out.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...ol=968350116795

I posted this especially for Max and Monty... I love you guys!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The irony of this is, the most biased paper in Canada, is claiming that there is no bias in the media!!!!

LOL

[shoop]

Very weak methodology.

I'd say more but no need to build on another great job by kimmy.

Good work fair lass!

The article does give credence to claims of a Liberal bias in the CBC...

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear all,

Certainly there is bias in the media. Usually, it is in favour of whatever party is in power at the time. There are those that claim 'liberal (or leftist) bias towards anything that is slightly to the left of 'rabidly-right', but Canada, by and large, is a bit 'left' anyway.

[Riverwind]

The article shows disproportionately low preference among news directors for the NDP and the former Alliance, but disproportionately high preference for the Liberals and the late PC party. In short, there might not be a liberal bias, but the article suggests there might be a Liberal bias.

Political opinion in all free democratic societies centers around a middle, usually called 'mainstream', which represents the status quo. Saying that the mainstream media has a bias towards 'mainstream' opinion is like saying the sun rises in the east - it is a fact but what is your point?

In Canadian politics, the Liberals always cater to the middle so it is really hard to determine what comes first: public opinion or Liberal policy. I suspect that it is public opinion that creates the media bias which then prompts the Liberals to adopt policies in line with that bias. In short, I do not believe there is a conspiracy among media in the country to support the Liberals - I do believe there is a conspiracy among Liberals to always adopt policies supported by the mainstream media in the country.

To illustrate my point think back to the 80s when the G&M right wing paper that opposed the Liberals and supported the PCs and the Star was unapologetically supportive of the Liberals. Why is the G&M a Liberal friendly paper and the Star an NDP voice today? The answer is Canadian public opinion shifted to the right the in early 90s and the Liberals followed. The newspapers in question did not change the tone of their reporting but ended up appearing to support different parties because of the policy choices made by the parties in question.

You can look back on this very message board and find at least a couple of instances where the CBC news website has just plain ignored Liberal-unfriendly news items that other media outlets were giving considerable attention.

Sensationalism is the scourge of modern media. Just because some media outlets cover a story does not mean the story is worth covering (runaway bride anyone?). The 'omissions' on the CBC website mentioned on this forum could also be explained by a belief that story is more sensationalism than substance. The controversy over the GG appointment was nothing but hearsay and innuendo to start with. The CBC covered the story once real facts came out about the movie clips. In other words, these omissions may be a sign of higher journalistic standards rather than bias towards the Liberals.

[Leafless]

Concerning there is no evidence of Liberal bias.

The Canadian media it seems knows no other political party other than the Liberals.

How many years have flew by since the last time you have consistently read anything GOOD concerning any other national Parties especially the Conservatives other than ridicule of one sort or another.

Canada is effectively a one Party state and the media it seems prefers to keep it that way.

[shoop]

Sensationalism is the scourge of modern media. Just because some media outlets cover a story does not mean the story is worth covering (runaway bride anyone?). The 'omissions' on the CBC website mentioned on this forum could also be explained by a belief that story is more sensationalism than substance. The controversy over the GG appointment was nothing but hearsay and innuendo to start with. The CBC covered the story once real facts came out about the movie clips. In other words, these omissions may be a sign of higher journalistic standards rather than bias towards the Liberals.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is a terrible analysis of the way the CBC handled the Michaelle Jean affair. They sat on the story for at least ten hours after it was out on CTV, the Star and the Globe sites. Their original story had NOTHING new that wasn't on the previously mentioned sites half a day earlier.

You picked a bad example to support MotherCorp on. Their handling of that one will go down as the definitive example of their bias at the start of this new millennium.

[Riverwind]

That is a terrible analysis of the way the CBC handled the Michaelle Jean affair. They sat on the story for at least ten hours after it was out on CTV, the Star and the Globe sites. Their original story had NOTHING new that wasn't on the previously mentioned sites half a day earlier.

I can think of many explainations for the delay - none of which imply a deliberate bias. When the story first broke it was nothing but hearsay from a bunch of seperatists - it is quite possible that CBC workers did not follow the story because they knew Jean personally and knew the story was bogus.

[shoop]

I can think of many explainations for the delay - none of which imply a deliberate bias. When the story first broke it was nothing but hearsay from a bunch of seperatists - it is quite possible that CBC workers did not follow the story because they knew Jean personally and knew the story was bogus.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No matter how many excuses you can think of, the facts prove that none of them are justified. There definitely was a story there. Credible journalists should think of doing their jobs, not protecting their colleagues.

No matter what they thought beforehand, the CBC played this story incorrectly.

[Riverwind]

No matter how many excuses you can think of, the facts prove that none of them are justified. There definitely was a story there. Credible journalists should think of doing their jobs, not protecting their colleagues.

I might have agreed with that statement until last week. The new GG's address should have dispelled any notion that she is a closet separatist (never mind the fact she gave up her French citizenship). Good journalists write about the truth - if they knew the allegations were fiction because of their personal relationship with the accused then it is perfectly reasonable to ignore the story.

[August1991]

This is the key paragraph, as kimmy has noted:

In 2002, 46 per cent of news directors we surveyed said they would vote for the Liberals.

Environics polls conducted about the same time showed that between 40 and 46 per cent of the population intended to vote Liberal. Fifteen per cent of news directors intended to vote for the Conservatives and just over 10 per cent for the Canadian Alliance.

Environics estimated that between 15 and 18 per cent of Canadians said they intended to vote for the Tories and between 14 and 18 per cent for the Alliance.

Yes, the news directors' numbers were a little lower than the public's when it came to the Alliance. But that should be weighed against the fact that only 10 per cent of news directors intended to vote for the New Democrats. In Canada, NDP support at that time measured between 13 and 16 per cent. In short, TV news bosses are more in the middle than, well, the middle.

Why is the Toronto Star publishing 2002 data in 2005? And as Kimmy noted too, this data shows news director bias.

With that said, I don't think media bias matters. So, I agree with Thelonious, sort of. If people really cared about politics, news reports would not be biased - they would be technical and informative such as consumer reports, tax circulars and even good business reporting. Politics is a hobby at most, and increasingly of zero interest for many people.

The irony is that on one hand, we have great collective stakes but on the other, we have little or no individual interest or impact except among (the few) people who, for example, post to forums such as this one.

Anyone who who wants to get the unbiased story can get it; but most people simply don't care. They can't change anything anyway so they devote their efforts to more fruitful occupations.

[shoop]

I might have agreed with that statement until last week. The new GG's address should have dispelled any notion that she is a closet separatist (never mind the fact she gave up her French citizenship). Good journalists write about the truth - if they knew the allegations were fiction because of their personal relationship with the accused then it is perfectly reasonable to ignore the story.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I repeat, there was a story there. You agree, although are having a hard time admitting it.

If Jean's actions at the end of September changed your mind than you agree with the premise of CBC bias, because it was a story in your mind before she gave that speech.

I personally don't have an issue with her being GG. But I do have an issue with the way the CBC handled the story, which I think is related to this thread.

Why is the Toronto Star publishing 2002 data in 2005?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not really a fair critique of the, otherwise flawed, article. Academic studies take a long time to come together. Say the surveys were done fall of 2002, results collated and categorized spring 2003, numbers crunched summer 2003, article written and submitted to journal in fall 2003, peer review and revisions for first half of 2004, article accepted late 2004 or early 2005 and finally published summer or early fall 2005.

[Guest eureka]

There was most certainly not a story in the GG's case: only sensationalist slander fit only for the yellowist of rags. That some still want to raise this as an issue here says more about the biases of some posters and there real interest in politics.

Kommy, that was a well articulated post, but, infortunately, you are twisting in the wind. The premise of the article is interesting but not particularly revealing of the media and its biases.

News Directors do not always determine content; only yhe expression of the content desired by the owners. CanWest is the notable example where the News directors have their orders as to what "News" is fit to print. That, as we know, has a decided Roght Wing slant.

How many News Directors are their at CBC? would that not have some bearing on the accracy of percentage counts? They have not a lot more freedom than their counterparts in the other media and are subject to a rather conservative administration.

I once gave the example of a close friend of mine who, at one period in his career was a prominent writer and producer with CBC. He left for the simple reason that his left wing proclivities made him unpopular with the CBC brass.

It gets sillier and sillier when we still have claims that the G & M is a Liberal paper and the Star is Left Wing. That, of course, is a simple absurdity. The Globe has always been a Conservative paper - why would any right thinking employee favour a regional party of populists without any support outside of its "aggrieved" Western membership?

The Star is proudly a cntrist paper; it was founded to be so and has always been so. Sparhawk is correct in identifying its perceived shift to the Left as being a determination to remain in the centre where the party of the centre has moved to the right.

The survey of News Directors is a mildly interesting look at the personal preferences of a vryr tiny sector of the population. It has nothing to do with media content.

[August1991]

The Star is proudly a cntrist paper; it was founded to be so and has always been so. Sparhawk is correct in identifying its perceived shift to the Left as being a determination to remain in the centre where the party of the centre has moved to the right.

Eureka, thanks for noting that the "party of the centre has moved to the right".

Democracy has terrible flaws but compared to some other ways of make collective decisions, it has its advantages. As Lincoln said, "You can't lie all of the time." IOW, even the party of the centre has to move sometimes.

[Canuck E Stan]

eureka

I once gave the example of a close friend of mine who, at one period in his career was a prominent writer and producer with CBC. He left for the simple reason that his left wing proclivities made him unpopular with the CBC brass.

Does your friend know that CBC now broadcasts in colour?

[fellowtraveller]

The CBC has an unquestioanably left wing bias, coincidentally the very territory occupied by the Liberals. Note the cheerleading for the union by numerous Liberal MPs lately. Don't notice them getting involved in other, much larger strikes......

The largest newspaper chain is CanWest, unquestionably Liberal supporters. Try reading any of their rags for a month, then argue otherwise. They are careful to have a token rightie columnist or letter to the editor, but it is overwhelmingly left even in Alberta. The Sun chain is more right, but nobody actually reads these fishwrappers, they have no editorial content anyway.

[kimmy]

Kommy,

Kommy, that was a well articulated post, but, infortunately, you are twisting in the wind. The premise of the article is interesting but not particularly revealing of the media and its biases.

My intention was mostly to poke holes in the Toronto Star article, and in the conclusion that Shakeyhands has drawn from it. I think I've accomplished that.

Political opinion in all free democratic societies centers around a middle, usually called 'mainstream', which represents the status quo. Saying that the mainstream media has a bias towards 'mainstream' opinion is like saying the sun rises in the east - it is a fact but what is your point?

The article says that news directors leaned toward the Liberal and PC parties *more* than the populaltion at large did.

Sensationalism is the scourge of modern media. Just because some media outlets cover a story does not mean the story is worth covering (runaway bride anyone?). The 'omissions' on the CBC website mentioned on this forum could also be explained by a belief that story is more sensationalism than substance. The controversy over the GG appointment was nothing but hearsay and innuendo to start with. The CBC covered the story once real facts came out about the movie clips. In other words, these omissions may be a sign of higher journalistic standards rather than bias towards the Liberals.

August gave members of this forum a heads up on M Lafond's film well before the English language media got ahold of the story. As much as I admire August as a writer, I can't believe that he's a superior news-gathering organization to the CBC.

The fact is that the allegations themselves and the controversy that was rising within Quebec were of themselves newsworthy. Is a news organization's mandate to report the news, or to "manage" it?

I can think of many explainations for the delay - none of which imply a deliberate bias. When the story first broke it was nothing but hearsay from a bunch of seperatists - it is quite possible that CBC workers did not follow the story because they knew Jean personally and knew the story was bogus.

You're saying people within the CBC may have given her the benefit of the doubt because of her personal connections within the organization?

uh, isn't that the textbook definition of bias??

-k

[shoop]

You're saying people within the CBC may have given her the benefit of the doubt because of her personal connections within the organization?

uh, isn't that the textbook definition of bias??

-k

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dead on as usual kimmy. Alas lost on sparhawk....

[Montgomery Burns]

There's no doubt that there is liberal bias in the MSM. The anti-Bush and anti-Harper "reporting" (more like opinion pieces sometimes) by the MSM is embarrassing. No wonder people are tuning them out. Right-leaning Canadians are forced to pay for the CBC's hard-left propaganda.

I can't believe that 5 people actually voted for a rightwing bias in the MSM. If the media is biased to the right, then why do liberals denounce only one MSM news source..Fox News?

[mcqueen625]

Of course there is a Liberal bias. Just look at how much coverage the resignations of Conservative Party staff received compared to Liberal Party resignations, the Liberal resignations hardly received any coverage while the media tried to make a big deal out of the few who left the Conservatives. There were far greater changes within the Liberal Party staff over the same period.

The media seems to cling to anything to do with the opposition parties while the many instances of corruption within the Liberal Party gets only minor coverage. Every poll that is conucted by the media always tries to put a positive spin on whatevfer the outcome is for the Liberal side. Which is why I do not pay any attention anymore to polls, because the only one that matters is the one on election day. I remember a poll conducted in New Brunswick showing the P.C. as the overwhleming favorites, and predicted another large majority. On election day the PC's did win, but not by a majority. Infact they have a minority government and barely hung onto power. I predict that the next trip will be devastating for them.

[shoop]

Of course there is a Liberal bias. Just look at how much coverage the resignations of Conservative Party staff received compared to Liberal Party resignations, the Liberal resignations hardly received any coverage while the media tried to make a big deal out of the few who left the Conservatives. There were far greater changes within the Liberal Party staff over the same period.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are so right it is painful. There is no arguing that point at all.

Montgomery, is MSM = mainstream media?

[newbie]

If the media is biased to the right, then why do liberals denounce only one MSM news source..Fox News?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We get bored of listing them all. A few: Canada Free Press, Toronto Sun, NewsMax, Sinclair Broadcast Group, Murdoch's News Corps, Wall Street Journal..., not to mention the endless and vacuous rantings of conservative/republican talk radio.