Gasp! The press has an agenda?!?

Pages

For a long time, those on the Right have said that the mainstream media overwhelmingly consists of liberals and Democrats. Polls have been done that show that reporters are Democrats by a 12-1 margin. I, among others, have said that this cannot help but bias the news. That story selection and presentation are slanted by the views of the presenters. This theory is usually mocked by those with leftwards leanings on this board (except in the case of Fox news, where the rightwards bent of those reporters obviously biases *their* presentation of the news). The response back is usually that the members of the MSM are professionals who don't have an agenda.

In the last two days, there have been two articles that I think make my point.

First, there was this article by a reporter from the Philadelphia Daily News. He is upset with bloggers who question the veracity of the Associated Press story about the six people burned alive in Iraq:

Even if the report were wrong, and I'm not convinced that it is, it was in the context of horrific--and demonstrably true--escalating violence in Baghdad

. . . .

In fact, it's almost not worth swatting at these gnats from the 101st Fighting Keyboard Commandos. I'd rather just concede, and let them have as their main talking points on the Middle East: The fact that smoke was added to a picture of a real Israeli bombing of Lebanon, that the AP printed an incorrect story about one of the hundreds of deadly acts of sectarian violence in Iraq, and even the allegation--totally unproven and not resulting in any actual charges--that one Iraqi photographer who has worked with the AP has ties to the insurgents.

For our main talking points that the Iraq war is immoral and that U.S. involvement needs to end, we'll take the lies about weapons of mass destruction and Saddam's ties to al-Qaeda that didn't exist, and the unrelentingly sad fact that more than 2,900 Americans and tens upon tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have now died in an unnnecessary civil war, all for this mistake.

Let's see who wins that one.

I seem to remember being told that the MSM didn't have 'talking points'. He basically admits the biases of the MSM by saying that the story being inaccurate is irrelevant because it is 'in context' with the point they were trying to make. I thought that reporters were supposed to 'report' the news accurately above all else.

The second story came from Editor and Publisher magazine, talking about the ISG report:

For years now, the debate has raged: Does the press overstate the level of violence in Iraq and ignore the overall positive aspect of the U.S. involvment [sic]? The Iraq Study Group report today, in its main claim that the situation in Iraq is now "grave" and "deteriorating" would seem to offer a clue to the answer, but more specific details--providing a "slam dunk" (if we may use that phrase) on the side of the press--are found in the Intelligence section of the report near its end, starting on page 93.

This completely dispels the idea of the 'adversarial press'. The idea that reporters are skeptics who question authority and have no agenda of their own. They are overjoyed that the ISG has taken the 'side of the press' in accentuating the negative in Iraq.

Reporters tend to have that 'change the world' or 'stick it to the man' mentality so often found on the Left. People also usually associate with people they have things in common with, so it is not surprising to see liberals hire other liberals in the MSM. That explains the preponderance of liberals. On top of that, true objectivity is almost impossible to achieve, and reporters are going to show their biases in the stories they choose and how they present them.

Thoughts?

I obviously have no statistics to back this up, but I would guess that Democrats outnumber Republicans in any profession that requires a post high school education, journalism included.

... as well as requires a degree in liberal arts.

I obviously have no statistics to back this up, but I would guess that Democrats outnumber Republicans in any profession that requires a post high school education, journalism included.

lol. Yep, must be, since Democrats are so much smarter than us stupid Republicans. As long as you don't count graduates from business schools and ignore most welfare recipients.

That actually might be the silliest thing I have ever heard.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

... as well as requires a degree in liberal arts.

This seems more likely. Speaking as one still waist deep in science majors, I would not be surprised to find tech folks lean Republican (Libertarian really, but you vote on who ya got) on many issues.

EDIT: And business folks, obviously.

For years now, the debate has raged: Does the press overstate the level of violence in Iraq and ignore the overall positive aspect of the U.S. involvment [sic]? The Iraq Study Group report today, in its main claim that the situation in Iraq is now "grave" and "deteriorating" would seem to offer a clue to the answer, but more specific details--providing a "slam dunk" (if we may use that phrase) on the side of the press--are found in the Intelligence section of the report near its end, starting on page 93.

This completely dispels the idea of the 'adversarial press'. The idea that reporters are skeptics who question authority and have no agenda of their own. They are overjoyed that the ISG has taken the 'side of the press' in accentuating the negative in Iraq.

Is it bias is they're the "side of the press" is the side that is apparently actually reflective of reality? I thought that kind of truth/fiction bias was generally called honesty and considered a good thing.

JohnnyMoJo wrote:
I obviously have no statistics to back this up, but I would guess that Democrats outnumber Republicans in any profession that requires a post high school education, journalism included.

lol. Yep, must be, since Democrats are so much smarter than us stupid Republicans. As long as you don't count graduates from business schools and ignore most welfare recipients.

That actually might be the silliest thing I have ever heard.

Most welfare recipients have a post high school level of education? Maybe the super-smart Republicans don't need to do things like read other people's statements and can just rely on that inner sense of truthiness.

Most welfare recipients have a post high school level of education? Maybe the super-smart Republicans don't need to do things like read other people's statements and can just rely on that inner sense of truthiness.

Nah, I read it. I just thought it was an interesting way to ignore all the people that didn't finish high school or didn't go to college that are Democrats.

JohnnyMoJo wrote:
Most welfare recipients have a post high school level of education? Maybe the super-smart Republicans don't need to do things like read other people's statements and can just rely on that inner sense of truthiness.

Nah, I read it. I just thought it was an interesting way to ignore all the people that didn't finish high school or didn't go to college that are Democrats.

Ah, so you read it, then ignored it so that you could instead make an unrelated point of your own. How productive.

Yay, more volleys of insults, as opposed to rational discussion!

Alien13z wrote:

I obviously have no statistics to back this up, but I would guess that Democrats outnumber Republicans in any profession that requires a post high school education, journalism included.

I work in an office full of Republicans with engineering degrees.

JoeBedurndurn wrote:

Most welfare recipients have a post high school level of education? Maybe the super-smart Republicans don't need to do things like read other people's statements and can just rely on that inner sense of truthiness.

I think he's trying to say that welfare recipients tend to skew Democrat. Might want to practice what you preach, there, champ.

Podunk wrote:

I think he's trying to say that welfare recipients tend to skew Democrat. Might want to practice what you preach, there, champ.

I was sarcastically drawing attention to the fact that Johnny's statement was unrelated to the statement he quoted and replied to. Perhaps this will be helpful:

Alienz: I would guess that Democrats outnumber Republicans in any profession that requires a post high school education.
Johnny: LOLZ0rz! Democrats are so much smarter than us stupid Republicans.* As long as you don't count graduates from business schools and ignore most welfare recipients.
Me: Most welfare recipients have a post high school level of education?*

(Asterisks denote sarcasm)

I apologize for any inconvenience and mental anguish my posting may have caused.*

There's a difference between a bias and an agenda.

Anyway, most of the figures I've seen have shown that education vs. party affiliation curves. People with limited high school educations or less tend to vote Democrat, as do people with graduate degrees or higher. People with a basic four-year bachelor's degree tend to be moderate/Republican. However, students of all levels of education that are focused toward business are generally Republican, and those focused toward the arts, including journalism, are generally Democrat.

I'm not going to say there isn't any bias in the media outside of Fox because that isn't true. I don't think it's as strong as you'd like to think JMJ; rather, I think reporters just report what's true and what's scandalous, neither of which bodes well for the Republican party right now. However, when the White House press secretary (Tony Snow) is hired directly from Fox? Are you telling me the White House hired him because he's unbiased? Why would they start with him, who by all means SHOULD be biased if he's going to be defending the acts of the administration to the public?

For those of you that claim Democrats tend to be smarter, most of Hollywood is Democratic. ... Yeah, that's right, they're f*cking morons.

If you think the media in general is overwhelmingly liberal, here's a little test. Name extreme right-wing and left-wing pundits in nation-wide media.

Right:
O'Rielly
Limbaugh
Coulter
Hannity
Colmes

Left:
Franken
...Lil' help?

I guess JMJ would consider anyone that disagrees with Bush to be a far left wing-nut, in which case the Left category is much larger, seeing as it contains about 70% of America. And Al Franken. Or maybe we should throw in people like Jon Stewart, because he's clearly a liberal, and Comedy Central is really as valid a news source as FOX.

There's no point arguing this though. Dissent always looks like bias when you're sure you're right.

And the Daily Show never used to make it a daily habit to skewer the Democrat administration when Clinton was in charge.

No sir. Not at all. Only Republicans get made fun of by that liberal propaganda "comedy" show.

Olberman? (Edited my Daily Show comment because Farscry makes a good point.)

Back on topic before I decide to lock this thread for some posts that are really out of line: all I see is one reporter who apparently does have an agenda, though he's mostly just being snotty about bloggers and seems to have phrased things in a way that you can go "aha! CAUGHTCHA!". And on the other hand who the hell is Editor and Publisher magazine anyway?

Journalists tend to skew Democrat. So what? It has to be one way or the other, doesn't it? I'd overwhelmingly bet that the management and ownership of those same organizations skews Republican, a point you will dismiss, I'm sure, with an amazing flourish of the perspective wand that we all wield. The press runs across the spectrum, and the only thing they all have in common is that they skew whichever way sells their publication or satisfies their advertisers. If people tuned in to watch soldiers opening schools and changed the channel for bad news on the war, we'd see a whole different thing.

This kind of cherry picked evidence doesn't do much to forward a legitimate discussion, I think.

It's called 'Critical Reading.'
Everything has an emotional taint, unless you are reading technical writing or math.
Even unbiased news will sometimes show bias, simply because language is almost incapable of allowing you to describe a scene without applying an emotional label.
Is some of it over the top? Absolutely! Are some people bad reporters? Holy Crap Yes! Is it easy to ignore them? Absolutely!

So 2 people in the "Main Stream Media" chose bad phrases in an effort to write strongly and revealed that they (the 2 people) have a bias. Does this mean that these 2 people are a member of the "Main Stream Media" BECAUSE of their bias? Does that make them incapable of reporting the news without letting their personal bias affect the facts? Maybe. Maybe not.

I do wonder what the "Wholly Unbiased Reporter" would look like... probably a robot. And everyone knows that all robots HATE biological creatures because of their stench.

I'd overwhelmingly bet that the management and ownership of those same organizations skews Republican, a point you will dismiss, I'm sure, with an amazing flourish of the perspective wand that we all wield.

Nope, I tend to agree with that. Most of the media companies are publicly traded, which means the owners are stockholders, which are marginally more Republican than Democrat. Management I'm not so sure of...management of the news divisions are probably liberal, while upper management could go either way (I'd be speculating). I do think it is interesting that you assume that 'management and owners' skew Republican. Not saying I disagree, but it contradicts Alien13z's point.

BTW, nice post Lobster.

I guess JMJ would consider anyone that disagrees with Bush to be a far left wing-nut, in which case the Left category is much larger, seeing as it contains about 70% of America.

My belief of bias has nothing to do with Bush. It has long predated his presidency. And I would be in the 70%, so does that make me a left-wing nut?

Gorilla's modification of my original post is a good refinement of what I was thinking. Take out business and engineering types, and leave it with liberal arts majors, and you're going to skew Democratic. Journalists are drawn primarily from the liberal arts.

I'm flattered that my alleged stupidity is the source of such humor to you. Please note that I'm not biting back because I'm incapable of doing so.

I do think it is interesting that you assume that 'management and owners' skew Republican. Not saying I disagree, but it contradicts Alien13z's point.

Which is why I didn't agree with Alien, and apparently what he wrote is not precisely what he meant. I'm willing to cut the guy the benefit of the doubt.

On point, with particularly the highest levels of management and ownership probably skewing republican - again, we're really only guessing here - it's no more legitimate for you to say the media is liberal than it would be for me to say the media is conservative.

The Media Is Capitalist.

Elysium wrote:

Journalists tend to skew Democrat. So what? It has to be one way or the other, doesn't it?

IMAGE(http://www.esplatter.com/images/am/explode.gif)

The Media Is Capitalist.

The media is sensationalist because drama sells. I mean really how many times do we need to have this conversation?

Management I'm not so sure of...management of the news divisions are probably liberal, while upper management could go either way (I'd be speculating).

The last survey I saw showed that editors skewed conservative, reporters liberal.

It's easy to pick a target - "journalists claim to be objective" - and shoot it down with isolated examples. What's more interesting is that Fox News has spent it's time explaining to us that no one can be totally objective, so there's no real point in not exposing your bias. Therefore, just as they conduct news in a slanted way, it follows that all those other journalists must be doing the same thing - only trying to hide their bias! Oh noes!

All I know is that the accusation that anyone outside of avowed Republican reporters is a closet liberal is bunk. Look at the sub-text of the first piece Johnny cited - that anyone who says Iraq is *really* bad is an embattled liberal who is exaggerating. Naturally, this means that the war is not actually as bad as it's given out to be, and rather than having done something entirely boneheaded as a nation, we can rest assured that we were just fooled, and soon enough, it'll all be revealed as a misteak.

The second piece is simply a reaction to the beating all of the "defeatist attitudes" held by the "nattering nabobs of negativity" led to in the conservative press, and even in the White House Press Office. For years, they were told to shut up, stop hating America, etc.

Now, two guys who, yes, supported those positions - and don't even identify as liberal in the quotes! - do *one* piece each in the style of Fox News, letting their opinions out, and it's evidence of a Grand Liberal Conspiracy. Right. Great sample size.

It's much easier to think that these are two guys who have collected thousands of nasty letters and emails for reporting what turns out to be right, and they took a little time to gloat. Gosh, they're human! Horrors.

But it's hard to miss the point of the articles - the "negativists" and "America-haters" were neither. They were simply correct and realistic in their reporting. This kind of accusation is just another obfuscation of the fact that the so-called "liberal media" was actually more unbiased than the conservative rah-rah brigades. But I guess if I point that out, I'm part of the problem, eh?

Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr, owner of The New York Times and very active in mixing his personal activism with the paper's editorial policy and it's hiring practices, is undeniably liberal. The paper's editorial pages are overwhelmingly liberal. And the NYT sets the news for this country, until recently with the explosion of the internet. Now it's anybody's game.

souldaddy wrote:

The paper's editorial pages are overwhelmingly liberal. And the NYT sets the news for this country, until recently with the explosion of the internet.

Newspapers haven't set the news in this country since television news came on the scene. The New York Times, Journal, and Washington Post still get scoops and do a lot of reporting, but it's the TV news that determine what's going to be a big story.

From what I've seen TV news people aren't liberal in the traditional sense. Yes, they're pro-gay rights, but they don't seem like raging leftists on economic issues. Why would they be? The ones in control and top reporters are very rich.

I'm a little curious why two articles allow you to make any sorts of claims about "The Press"?

Any systematic bias you find in the news is usually a bias towards selling news, and that varies as well.

I think any claims of "The Press" doing anything else is more then a little silly - can anyone here demonstrate a country wide dismissal of editorial or news articles of any political persuasion? Evidence please?

Robear wrote:

What's more interesting is that Fox News has spent it's time explaining to us that no one can be totally objective, so there's no real point in not exposing your bias.

Isn't their slogan, "Fair and balanced?"

And the NYT completely supported the Iraq War, even to the point of allowing Judith Miller to trade column inches for access, and continuing to support the Administration even after it was clear that the information she was being fed was wrong. When a reporter is so completely a conduit of information that she becomes part of a who-said-what-when scandal on the side of the Administration, that's a problem.

This is the strongest liberal bias source in the country? Pfeh! Not very good support for the "overwhelming liberal bias" theory, then.

Isn't their slogan, "Fair and balanced?"

Yes indeed. It's always good to put what you want people to think up front and center, especially when your entire reason for existence is to insert biased commentary into the news (purportedly, to counter existing bias).

One: There is a difference between a bias and an agenda. A bias is just an inclination toward one pattern of belief, at the expense of others. We all have it, even scientists, even judges, and yes, even reporters. There is no such thing as a neutral and unbiased mindset (except, maybe, from a robot. Well, even they have biases if they have artificial intelligence, and then you get into their programming, and... okay, fine, not even robots.)

Speaking from a reporter's perspective, bias is not a good or bad thing. It's just there. You just have to be aware of it and factor it into whatever you write, forcing yourself to remove your personal feelings from the situation. After all, nobody cares what you think about the news; they care what the news is. (This is, by the way, where a good editor comes in, to catch you if you've editorialized.)

But saying that the "liberal" press has an agenda, on the other hand, means they have a plan of action. Anyone who has ever worked any time at a newspaper or magazine can tell you that the only agenda the editorial staff has is to get tomorrow's paper/the next issue out. All these conspiracy theories about how the press has motives and they calculate how to sway the readership to the "liberal" point of view is, frankly, ridiculous. It's one thing to say the press has a bias. But it's an entirely different thing to say "the press" has an agenda aside from providing you the news. I'm curious what that agenda is supposed to be?

Now, granted, there are crappy reporters, and crappy editors, and even crappy publications, which if given enough careful consideration, might appear as if they have a plan in place to make their readership believe a given set of ideas. Make no mistake, though: They're not devious. They're just crappy.

One last thing: I think there's a certain amount of confusion between 'liberal bias' and 'writing to your readership'. If we acknowledge that everyone on an editorial staff has a particular bias, then which comes first: the editorial staff that writes with a liberal/conservative slant, or the readership that demands articles written with a liberal/conservative slant? That is, which came first: The New York Times or readers who wanted articles like those The New York Times writes? This is a deceptively simple question and shouldn't be dismissed off-hand.

Luckily for those yearning for more balance, there's a new fresh voice launching on the conservative end of the news media spectrum!

Pages