Talk Elections

Conservatives often claim that the "mainstream media" have a Liberal bias. Do you agree that the big TV networks and broadsheet newspapers in the US generally have a Liberal (or anti-Conservative) bias?

Not as much as 20 years ago, but still I think overall that there is a lean to the left.  What they really go for, more than a liberal bias by far, is general fear mongering.  It's what idiots want to hear and they market to idiots.

"what common household item could kill your children?....we'll tell you at 11!"

The U.S. media unquestioningly supported war with Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Iran is considered ''liberal''.

They believed the WMD lies about Iraq, and now they're believing the WMD stories about Iran without any question. They support Israel's continued occupation of Palestine, and the abuses there.

Of course they don't hate gays as much as the average American, so I guess Joe Schmoe from Indiana probably thinks they seem like radicals because they don't think gays are bringing about the apocalypse.

Absolutely not.

No. Media outlets have varied biases, some of which are certainly "liberal," but I reckon that the strongest biasing factor of all in what is covered is quite obviously profit-motive.

Yes and no. Fox News touts the fact that it's the "number 1 most watched cable news network," thus making it part of the "mainstream media" and it clearly has a conservative bias. Some networks lean left, some lean right, others are moderate/unbiased for the most part.

No, but that certainly isn't to say that it doesn't have other problems, which dead0man and Redalgo have mentioned. What it chooses to prioritize really isn't reflective of some inherent political bias (at least in the sense of "liberal vs. conservative"); it's simply dumbed-down and over-polished so that the general public can show some semblance of caring about it.

The 'mainstream' media is increasingly an anachronism.

Thats true. But the concept is very much alive in the political discourse of certain groups.

It's like 'mainline' Christianity. :D

Seriously, if it's "liberal" it's more so in the Euro sense than the US one. A Rockefeller Republican bias as it were, certainly nothing remotely describable as left or even (on a saner political alignment) left of center.

Outside of Murdochville, yes - at least if you are talking about "social issues." 

No. If there's any bias at all, it's a pro-corporate elitist bisas, as seen with the lack of coverage of issues such as socio-economic inequality and the education crisis in this country, and the "liberal" New York Times's fascination of the issue of whether or not a few wealthy, elite women could play in a golf tournament.

If they weren't liberal, they wouldn't care about this sort of symbolic gender equality.

Liberal in a particular sense, yes; that doesn't necessarily equate to overall liberalism or leftism.

They have a $$$$ bias.

Which could be material pitched for a targeted audience already reading the New York Times. I am under the impression that (a.) folks with high incomes are generally more liberal on normative than economic issues, and (b.) journalists themselves tend to lean more to the left and are oftentimes cut a lot of slack provided they do not run any stories that seriously undercut the company's goals. Most major media outlets in the States are businesses first and foremost.

Yes, though most of it is likely of the unintentional, 'echo-chamber' variety.

ABC is owned by The Walt Disney Company; NBC is jointly owned by Comcast and General Electric; CNN is owned by TimeWarner; Fox is owned by Rupert Murdoch; and CBS is owned by the same guy that also owns Viacom and Paramount.

If there's any bias there, it's towards corporatism.

I understand your point (and agree with it), but who would own them if not corporations?  A hippy commune?

(and there are at least 2 TV news sources, the only 2 I ever watch, that are owned by governments....so I suppose that's an option as well)

Yes, there is a general bias to the left.  If we disregard places like FOX and MSNBC which are biased toward the right and left respectively, ABC and CNN have a very slight bias to the left.  Newspapers tend to sway to both sides, but averaged out, they slightly tend to favor the left.

But both sides distort the bias of the media to fit their party's/ideology's rhetoric.

I am fine with private firms (or worker co-ops!) controlling most of the mass media provided that alternative means for information to flow are available, academic freedom is well-respected, and some portion of the media is state-run so as to prioritize social utility over profit. It would be nice for private, public, scholarly, and popular media sources to coexist - all supplementing, challenging, and policing one another to provide people a rich array of at least somewhat accountable choices.

Unfortunately, the presense of biases is virtually inevitable and something we have to cope with.

Don't they?  Everybody makes fun of Fox News for being what they are.  Many people make fun of the various PBS news shows for being dry (because they don't do "missing white woman of the month type pieces I guess).  It's unfortunate that of the people that do pay attention they mostly watch sh**tty TV news, but it's not like we don't have options out there.  As with most things, it's the people's fault that sh**t sucks, not some evil dude in a tower somewhere laughing at his cleverness....whether you want that tower be ivory, Trump or tax dollar built, it and he don't exist.

In the context of the United States I think too little of the media is public sector. I am otherwise inclined to agree with you though. My attitude considering profit-driven bias does not tie into a grander belief about a handful of rich dudes or major corporations conspiring against the public interest. The People themselves are in part to blame if their apathy lets the state abuse its power or imprudent habits of consumption lead firms to cater to folks’ less-than-laudable preferences.

Definitely not

Something like the BBC, if properly implemented, would be great, but I really don't trust the US government to manage something like that appropriately (on a related note, though, I do love some NPR).

The problem I have with the ownership of the news channels isn't that they're corporate entities, it's that they're all, in some form or another, just subsidiaries of various giant media/entertainment/electronics conglomerates. I wouldn't have an issue if they were managed by independent companies or whatever, like they used to be. CNN being the cable news component of Turner Broadcasting, for example, was completely fine. But when they're owned by a company that also owns amusement parks, sports teams, record labels, video game developers, internet service providers, movie studios, publishing companies, etc etc etc... things start carrying a bit of a burden of suspicion.

I think you need to separate media into their component parts...

I think reporters/faces are more liberal than the general community... but considering their demographic mix... they aren't really any different to the general community.

Editorial staff are a mix, in newspapers there is much more independence but in TV... considering the expense of putting a TV station to air, they're much more driven by the owners... which leads us to...

Owners, who generally care about profits and circulation FAR more than political ideology, they'll support whichever will generate the most profits.

Note that people of a liberal bent are much more likely to get their news from the internet and a few limited sources, people of a conservative bent are much more likely to skew older and therefore more dependent on TV and newspapers. ... there's more money in conservative media... and especially when advocating the conservative persecution line.

But the stock-standard position of conservatives to generate hype by going emo "everybody hates me and nobody understands me!!" is ridiculous.

An American BBC would be amazing. The best way I would imagine would to further connect PBS and NPR and get them to establish a news channel.

They're all quite right-wing, though some are extremely so and support the GOP, with others being just center-right, and supporting the Democrats.

I'm with Polnut. I'd label the alphabet soup centre-left fiscally and Generic Northern D socially. If there's a conservative Republican there I haven't heard from them yet.

They have an small, but inconsequential liberal bias when compared to their massive sell-more-things bias. If both things will sell an equal number of papers, they'll go with the liberal story, but when there's 2 items and the conservative item will get them more money, they'll go with that.

some outlets do -- but what is important to re-define here is what a 'liberal' actually is.

Not really, and if there was, it's outbalanced by Fox News.

Yes they are biased. They rarely say anything bad about a Dem president. When there is a Repub President in the White House they want to hate on him.

Everybody says Fox News is biased. Who cares? NBC, CBS, and ABC lean to the left.

Yes. But as a liberal I could care less.

Although I've always wondered why this has been the case. Were the liberals the first ones to establish media companies? Is the journalism world filled with high educated people that requires a high education level that comes with liberalism? I'm not sure. 

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2447 (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2447)

Journalism as a profession attracts left leaning types in all countries. But generally that effect is countered by media companies being controlled by rich, Conservatives.

Shouldn't that provide some sense of balance then? My guess is the liberals established the companies, but the fact that FOX News/News Corp. exists seems to counter that.