Tom Edsall argues on the Columbia Journalism Review website (10/8/09) that the mainstream media should just own up to the fact that they’re liberal. This comes as a response to the notion that the elite press missed out on the ACORN and Van Jones stories–a dubious premise. But Edsall doesn’t make much of a case. He writes that before 1965, “reporters were a mix of the working stiffs leavened by ne’er-do-well college grads unfit for corporate headquarters or divinity school.” Since then, however, the elite press”is composed in large part of ‘new’ or ‘creative’ class members of the liberal elite.” Edsall’s version of liberalism, then, is an elite strand focused mostly on certain social issues–his list is “abortion rights, women’s rights, civil rights and gay rights.”
Those seem like majority positions, but never mind. Edsall offers one concrete example:
In a UCLA study of media bias, reporters were found to be substantially more liberal and more Democratic than the public at large.
The study in question is the famous (and famously complicated) one that found that Fox News Channel‘s Special Report was centrist, and the Drudge Report leaned left. That should be enough to dismiss it on its face, but it’s worth pointing out that that study did not tell us anything about “reporters” per se; they studied how often outlets cited particular think tanks, and ranked those think tanks on an ideological scale based on which politicians cited those groups (i.e., a liberal lawmaker drops the names of liberal think tanks; the frequency with which that think tank is cited in the media tells you how liberal the outlet is).
That the roundabout methodology of the study produced such bizarre conclusions is one reason not to cite it, but it also wasn’t a study of what Edsall claimed it was–that is, of reporters’ own political sentiments. But there are such studies. In fact, FAIR released one in 1998, where journalists’ views on important economic policy questions were compared with public opinion poll results on the same issues. Journalists were, it turns out, well to the right of the public on most issues; when asked to classify themselves, the majority were center-left on social issues, and center-right on economic issues. But the main finding was this:
- On select issues from corporate power and trade to Social Security and Medicare to healthcare and taxes, journalists are actually more conservative than the general public.
In other words, the research that Edsall wants to cite exists; it just mostly contradicts his premise.
Peter,
You had to reach back 11 years to find something that contradicts Edsall?
How can he be right, when you are obviously a conservative? (Sarcasm off)
So why don’t you own up to being liberal Peter? It is becoming more and more a thing to be ashamed of lately isn’t it?
“ashamed of lately” ? What country are you living in ? 8 years of conservative disasters, and liberals should be ashamed.
The 1998 study was and is landmark, and its thoroughness is easily verified. Ranking reporters by which think tanks they cite is a really dumb premise. Most think tanks are corporate-sponsored propaganda machines. Watch OUTFOXED (DVD) for a history of Fox news – a group of well-funded conservative idealogues deliberately set out to manufacture the idea of the liberal bias in the 80’s, and they invested money in right wing think tanks and eventually FOX in order to create an illusion of conservative national leaning. The polls don’t show it, and never have. The people have always been far left of the corporate-owned media in this country, and the gap has only gotten wider as huge media conglomerates have been allowed to dominate the US market.
read a little – you’ll find that one-liners about liberals being ashamed don’t cut it anymore. that’s why the dems won congress in 2006 and the presidency in 2008. that’s why the dems are the only ones talking about ending the health insurance companies 50-year old exemption to ANTI-TRUST laws, which allows them to maintain monopolies in 12 states and price fix in the rest.
the gig is up – 3% medicare overhead vs 29% Cigna overhead is all you need to know.
There is no liberal media. How many lies that republicans come up with are going to be believed because it is repeated constantly. Bush would never have been president if not for the very republican slant of all the news media. It was a complete and total republican take with the swift boat liars and then with the republican approach to solving the election issues in FL and then OH. Gives you a really good idea that the money behind the major news media is not from mostly liberal people. Bush had to ruin the country, leave it in shreds with the collusion of his republicans before a Democrat could become President.
If anyone should be ashamed, it’s the teabagging liars like Ted Pearson. The Goofy Old Party
is a brand that’s badly tarnished and reeks of purposed ignorance.
What liberal media?? Jon Stewart recently lambasted CNN for not following up on wingnut guests’
lies.
Extremists will always point to that which isn’t 100% as extreme as they are and call it “liberal” any day of the week. Corporate news isn’t liberal, it just isn’t extremely right wing as Cluster Fox is and that makes them “liberal.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYlyb1Bx9Ic
Noam Chomsky states that that is a fallacy, that because most reporters are Democratic, that means the media is liberal. He says in that video the OWNERS control the output. He says that would be like saying the floor workers at GM control what car is made, the design, what they’re going to produce, etc… That is a fallacy. Watch that video above.
I would like to know why the age–and not the methods–of any
study are reason to question the veracity of a study? The
appearance of “grasping” for supporting documentation is a
time-honored ploy to make a contradictory party look
desperate and therefore its conclusions suspect if not completely
false. In addition, if anyone doubts how the media actually
operates as a “fourth-wing” of government need only review
the run-up to the invasion of Iraq on patently false pretenses
and documentation of the White House-engineered campaign
to control the language and message of the “threat” Iraq
posed to US citizens to understand precisely how “non-liberal”
the media actually is. To reach any other conclusion reveals
how deluded you are by the incessant and purposeful
deceptiveness by those who desire to maitain the myth of
a liberal bias in the national media outlets.
If support for civil rights and defending people from the hatred of FOX viewers and Dittoheads is liberal, be liberal and be proud. Just talk to people about the issues. Speak to their rights and needs.
FOX and ilk appeal to dislikes, fears, and lack of intellect (or the need for intellect) all while riling up Teabaggers to follow in the footsteps of our nation’s Founders who, to believe FOX, were just like the ignorant and paranoid that tune in.
They like to limit the intellect as most of the CMSM does to how to look at things. Instead of not fighting a war at all, they will only have on those who will argue over how to fight it. Limit the points then narrow the focus even further so contrary points never are able to come up within their specifically framed set of values and concepts.
They rail against “liberal intellectuals” but have on their own versions all the time and laud them their Ph.D’s and such like Monica Crowley. (I don’t know what her’s is in though.)