Media Bias Anyone?

[TheChadd]

Let me ask a more general question. Can you conclude that a group is biased just because they come to a different conclusion than the general population? Let us say that half the population supports evolution and the other half creationism. If we were to ask science reporters if they supported intelligent design or evolution, and found that 98% supported evolution, would you conclude that reporters were biased? I wouldn't. I would instead assert that the reporters were probably more interested in the subject than the general population, were more intelligent, had more scientific training, had examined the evidence in more detail, and perhaps were less biased by religious beliefs. They had then made a relatively unbiased decision that evolution better fits available data than creationism.

If you will accept that science reporters believing evolution theory does not prove science reporters bias, then it is equally reasonable to accept that even if journalists support Democrats this does not prove journalistic bias. It may simply be a reflection that those who study the political parties in detail for the most part come to the conclusion that the Democratic party has better policies than the republicans.

I don't think so. I don't see how being a reporter makes you an expert on matters of politics especially since for example much of it relies on economics and that isn't something your everyday reporter would pick up on. I also don't believe politics is something where we can discover the 'truth', there is no 'truly' best way to govern a society.

edit: In general to disprove this I wonder what the % of democrats is like amongst journalism majors. There may be something about journalism (like teaching) that takes your typical democrats fancy.

 

[gdnp]

I don't think so. I don't see how being a reporter makes you an expert on matters of politics especially since for example much of it relies on economics and that isn't something your everyday reporter would pick up on. I also don't believe politics is something where we can discover the 'truth', there is no 'truly' best way to govern a society.

Obviously, the level of disagreement between economists over the best way to manage the economy is much greater than the degree of disagreement between biologists on evolution. Still, my point was that you cannot prove bias by demonstrating that people who are following something on a day to day basis and talking directly to the experts, like reporters, come to a different conclusion than a population that gets most of its info from commercials and TV news sound bites. Bias is one possible cause. Better information and critical thinking skills is another.

 

[Newtons Bit]

A pretty good example of bias: http://www.nypost.com/seven/09142008/news/politics/mac_hater_has_a_lousy_image_129007.htm

Controversial celebrity photographer Jill Greenberg, a self-professed "hard-core Dem," deliberately took a series of unflattering shots of Republican nominee John McCain for the current cover of The Atlantic - and then bragged about it on a blog.

 

[uk_dave]

Democrats don't have money?

They do this time.

 

[SezMe]

I don't think there's any doubt that the press leans to the liberal side; <snip>

I don't think there's any doubt that the press leans to the conservative side. Really, that is my opinion.

So clearly we are both wrong. There is doubt as evidenced by the comments in this thread. So we can debate the issue with an inconclusive surely to be the outcome. But the one thing you should be willing to admit is that there is, in fact, doubt about the issue. Either that or turn in your skeptics badge.

 

[GregHouseMD]

Hard to listen to a signal so weak that it is drowned out by stations two thousdand miles away as soon as the sun goes down.

The right wingers own the signals and only grudgingly allow a liberal station to come into a market. Do you really believe that there is more of a market for high school football and basketball than for a dissenting political voice? There is no market for a dissenting voice on a station that covers thousdands of square miles, but there is a market for another Spanish music station in the same area with twenty other similar? Don't feed me compost and call it chocolate mousse.



<snip>

You are aware that you can listen to Air America online and even hear past shows thanks to "Ondemand" and Podcasts?

They are also available on XM satelite radio as America Left. Yes, a few hours is going to be preempted during football season on Saturdays only but there is no signal issue with Satelite radio, is there?

Possibly the reason the network isn't more widely broadcast was the inability to pay their bills which led to stations dropping them and then the bankruptcy.

 

[bozothedeathmachine]

Anyone seriously trying to refute/support the "liberal bias" thing should go read "What Liberal Media?" by Eric Alterman. It's been a few years, but it was interesting and attempted to put up some evidence to refute the meme.

Of course, I'm sure a book supporting bias could be written as well.

Air America sank because nobody listened to it.

Hard to listen to a signal so weak that it is drowned out by stations two thousdand miles away as soon as the sun goes down.

lefty, I have to go with Ziggurat on this one. Air America was crap. I tried to listen to it several times. It was just hour after hour of whining. Maybe the were having a bad week. And Randi Rhodes made me pray that I'd go deaf.

 

[SezMe]

I don't understand this. There are more Democrats than Republicans and the nation seems split down the middle politically yet you don't get to a liberal talk radio host until #11. Liberals don't listen to the radio? Conservative ownership don't support liberal talk? What?

 

[BeAChooser]

I don't understand this. There are more Democrats than Republicans and the nation seems split down the middle politically yet you don't get to a liberal talk radio host until #11. Liberals don't listen to the radio? Conservative ownership don't support liberal talk? What?

Maybe liberalism isn't suited to a forum where ordinary people can call in and challenge opinions (or often as not, lies) with facts and logic.

 

[SezMe]

Maybe not.

When you have a useful thought regarding my question, I'll be happy to read it.

 

[GregHouseMD]

It's been said that if you aren't a liberal at 20, you do not have a heart, if you aren't a conservative by the time you are 40, you do not have a brain.

It's also been said:

A liberal is a conservative who's been arrested. A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged.

And yet, with a vocal liberal population, liberal talk shows fail. It is a conundrum.

ETA:

Why is it the First Amendment is sacred but the same isn't true of the Second Amendment?

(At least until recently, according to the Supreme Court.)

 

[kallsop]

Another data point:

Compare And Contrast: Gibson’s Questions Of Obama vs. Gibson’s Questions Of Palin

 

[gdnp]

It's been said that if you aren't a liberal at 20, you do not have a heart, if you aren't a conservative by the time you are 40, you do not have a brain.

It's also been said:

A liberal is a conservative who's been arrested. A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged.

And yet, with a vocal liberal population, liberal talk shows fail. It is a conundrum.

ETA:

Why is it the First Amendment is sacred but the same isn't true of the Second Amendment?

(At least until recently, according to the Supreme Court.)

It's also been said: How many non sequiturs does it take to screw in a lightbulb? Answer: ask GreghouseMD.