Liberal Bias in the News, Part IV

[mattp]

At the suggestion of Fairweather, I took a book about the liberal media on a recent climbing trip. As it turned out, we had enough tent time that I actually read the thing: Bias by Bernard Goldberg. I had been assured that this was a well-written book and that the author makes an "airtight" case; instead what I found was a poorly written book that showed no signs that it had been very well researched and in which at least a third of the discussion was devoted to whining about his former employers and waging a personal attack on Dan Rather. There was almost no attempt to undertake a substantive analysis of whether any patterns in news reporting actually supported the author's thesis (that the media consistently slants the news to the left), and even on an anecdotal basis there were not very many real-life examples of the bias that he was complaining about.

 

Don't get me wrong: I agree with many of Goldberg's complaints about how the media tends to favor sensationalism over substance and that they are more concerned about marketing and ratings than they are about presenting important news stories, and I agree that politically correct thought-minders do us no favors in the discussion of any political or social issue. I don't know, but I am also willing to believe he may be correct that, more-often-than-not, individual news reporters may be more liberal on certain social issues than the "average American." However, I believe he far from made his case that the "liberal media establishment" has slanted everything toward the left. Look at the way the press has handled G. W. Bush, for example; or the Enron business; or Israel. On a more local basis, look at how we have been informed about Sound Transit or the WTA riots.

 

Is there really a consistent liberal slant to the news, when it comes to news that matters? Has anyone else read this book?

[Sphinx]

Sorry, matt, I'm too cynical, young, and dumb to know what's going on. I don't watch the news, vote, or care. I am a perfect example of an arrogant, stupid American who doesn't give a fuck. I don't know if there's a liberal slant in the news, all I know is there is so much sensationalism in the news that I don't watch it.

[Greg_W]

There is definitely a leftward slant when it comes to reporting about guns, Matt. Take, as an example, the recent "news story" that was FAKED by CNN regarding the effects of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban (thanks for nothing, Bill Clinton); I can try and send you a link. Also, you never hear POSITIVE stories about guns being used to protect innocent people or prevent crimes, but these things happen on a regular basis throughout our country. It has been estimated that about 2 million potential crimes are thwarted each year by citizens exercising their right to keep and bear arms.

 

My two cents.

 

Greg_W

[Ursa_Eagle]

"... estimated that about 2 million potential crimes are thwarted ..."

and how many more happen due to guns?

[Greg_W]

Ursa_Eagle said:

"... estimated that about 2 million potential crimes are thwarted ..."

and how many more happen due to guns?

 

Answer your own question and provide your own data if you want to discuss this in a reasonable manner. Your post has no meaning other than to apply an uneducated smear on legitimate information I am trying to communicate.

 

Greg_W

[iain]

Hard to compete with headlines like this:

 

Deputy sheriff, father shot in face by 15 year old while responding to domestic disturbance, severe, possibly fatal neurological injuries.

 

[Ursa_Eagle]

I'd like to see where the "estimated 2 million thwarted" number comes from

[Greg_W]

Ursa_Eagle said:

I'd like to see where the "estimated 2 million thwarted" number comes from

 

I'll see what I can do.

[mattp]

Greg-

Gun control may be an issue where the media distorts things though, even so, the distortion may not come from a liberal bias as much as a tendency toward sensationalism. Certainly I would agree that you are much more likely to see stories about people being shot than about how people were not shot, and therefore the dangers of having guns in the home are going to be highlighted more than the safety presented by their being there, but this is different from a deliberate attempt to slant the news for a political purpose. I am not convinced that any purportedly rational analysis of the incidence of in-home shootings or shootings by friends or family members vs. the numer of crimes averted is misstated -- are you?

[Greg_W]

I don't want my lack of response to be taken as lack of ability to back up what I say, but I don't have my information at hand.

[mattp]

Don't worry Greg. I don't think anybody expects you to have all the facts and figures stored in your head and, even if you did, a single study or even ten different studies would probably not completely answer the question.

[murraysovereign]

Greg_W said:

Ursa_Eagle said:

I'd like to see where the "estimated 2 million thwarted" number comes from

 

I'll see what I can do.

 

I have a hard time believing that meaningful data can be compiled on something like this. No doubt the NRA can cite some "study" they did, or the anti-NRA crowd can counter with a "study" they did that refutes the results of the NRA "study", but I would view both sets of figures with great scepticism. It's pretty speculative stuff, no matter which side you're on.

As for its relevance to the original topic - someone getting shot/robbed/beat up is news; someone not getting shot/robbed/beat up isn't news. It's not necessarily a reflection of bias, just the fact that things that didn't happen don't make for very interesting news stories, otherwise we'd be subjected to "live, on-the-scene" updates from reporters breathlessly informing us that "just minutes ago, a school bus rounded this corner and continued on down the street, safely delivering all the children to their homes. It did NOT plunge off into this ravine, and County Medical has confirmed that no-one was killed or injured as a result. Now I understand we're going to Bob at the airport, where yet another passenger plane has landed without incident as is now taxiing to the terminal. Bob, what can you tell us from the scene?" The media's reluctance to report each such non-incident, choosing instead to report on the ones that crash, doesn't mean they're biased against aircraft or school buses. It's just a reflection of what's considered newsworthy.

 

 

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

"If it bleeds, it leads," as they say. Sounds reasonable enough that that sort of shit gets way overreported/sensationalized, while good deeds or events get ignored. It seems when you do hear about something nice happening, it's some kind of fluff human interest piece about a kid saving his hamster from drowning or some shit.

 

On a media-bias related note, the coverage of the recent Bush visit to Portland and the attendant protest was interesting to see. The Portland Tribune's article cited that lots of police planning kept things "under control", and quoted an attendee of Bush's $2000/plate fundraiser luncheon as saying that it was sad that they needed so much protection to exercise their civil liberties. At no point was there any question raised as to why there needs to be a heavily armed riot squad to face off against a bunch of unarmed pacifists (who, strangely enough, were not rioting). Or why the police were acting as security guards for a private function (to the tune of over a million dollars, thus far in the lap of taxpayers). Or why it was necessary to have one cop for every 5-6 people protesting. The entire tone of the article implied that the protesters were some kind of unsavory force that was a hair's breadth away from spinning completely out of control, and were only civil because of the stormtrooper riot cops. They're basically inventing a riot that never would've happened.

[Fairweather]

mattp said:

On a more local basis, look at how we have been informed about Sound Transit or the WTA riots.

 

 

HOLY SHIT! Are they rioting again over at The "WTA"?

 

...Thanks for considering the book and taking the time. As promised I have picked up a copy of "Blinded by the Right" and will read it just as soon as I plow through "Spy On The Roof of the World". You're right about the "whining" in Bias. Especially in the Foreward of the paperback edition. But regardless of your final conclusions, maybe a seed of media-skepticism is now germinating in your thought.....or not.

 

Hope your expedition went well! I'll give you my thoughts on your "literary recommendation" soon.

[mattp]

Fairweather, you'll find that Brock is a whiner, too, but I think that he paints a picture that is more compelling than that painted by Goldberg, if for no other reason than the extensive detail and long history he provides.

[Norsky]

Greg_W said:

There is definitely a leftward slant when it comes to reporting about guns, Matt. Take, as an example, the recent "news story" that was FAKED by CNN regarding the effects of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban (thanks for nothing, Bill Clinton); I can try and send you a link. Also, you never hear POSITIVE stories about guns being used to protect innocent people or prevent crimes, but these things happen on a regular basis throughout our country. It has been estimated that about 2 million potential crimes are thwarted each year by citizens exercising their right to keep and bear arms.

 

My two cents.

 

Greg_W

 

May God save our automatic weapons!

Click Here for some gun numbers from a very biased source. Watch the trailer if so inclined.

[Greg_W]

Norsky said:

Greg_W said:

There is definitely a leftward slant when it comes to reporting about guns, Matt. Take, as an example, the recent "news story" that was FAKED by CNN regarding the effects of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban (thanks for nothing, Bill Clinton); I can try and send you a link. Also, you never hear POSITIVE stories about guns being used to protect innocent people or prevent crimes, but these things happen on a regular basis throughout our country. It has been estimated that about 2 million potential crimes are thwarted each year by citizens exercising their right to keep and bear arms.

 

My two cents.

 

Greg_W

 

May God save our automatic weapons!

Click Here for some gun numbers from a very biased source. Watch the trailer if so inclined.

 

Your response shows the typical products of misinformation and ignorance that is rampant in the non-gun owning or anti-gun crowd today. No disrespect to you, Norsky, but "automatic weapons" as you call them were banned in 1934 !!! We are not talking about automatic weapons, we are talking about semi-automatic weapons (one shot per trigger pull) that happen to "resemble military-style weapons" (that's pretty much ver batim from the bill).

[iain]

Greg_W said:

I don't want my lack of response to be taken as lack of ability to back up what I say, but I don't have my information at hand.

[JoshK]

Greg, I'm curious about what your specific complaints with the assault weapon ban are? I don't know much about it, but do know that their is no good reason why people should be able to own "streetsweeper" 12 shot automatic shot guns, sub machine guns and the like.

[erik]

josh

 

unbelievably stupid question.

 

the reason we need sub machine guns is so that we can kill that squirrel and the likes of it with little to no skill. you can just pull the trigger and wade thru the carnage afterwards.

 

there is no reason to allow semi automatic weapons other then owner needing another reason to compensate for lack of.

 

i would like to see actual reasons with legitimate support for needing semi automatics.

 

 

[mattp]

Not only did our press completely ignore the news from BBC - at the time of the President's Stae of the Union speech that the uranium purchase thing was bogus but, about six weeks ago, President Bush said that we went to war in Iraq because "we gave him [saddam] a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in." I don't believe a single reporter asked for clarification of this statement that was clearly, at best, "revisionist history." I don't think any commentator on NPR, in the New York Times, or anywhere else made much mention of it either, even though Bush made this statement at a time when the Democrats were jumping up and down about how he had lied in the State of the Union Speech. That's the liberal media for you - slanting the news to the left and telling us what to think.

[rbw1966]

Automatic weapons are not banned but rather you need a special license to possess one. Unless by "ban" you mean they are not available as gifts for opening a savings account in a Texas bank.

 

 

[Billy]

If anyone wants gun statistics on a worldly level, they should watch the movie "Bowling For Columbine". Its really pretty frightening.

 

My two cents:

-its really an oil war, no matter what you think

-readily available guns do increase gun deaths

-Bush was told that the uranium info was suspect before he used it in his speech, but he chose to go ahead anyway

-news deserves to be slanted to left anyway

[mattp]

One of Goldberg's primary examples of the libera bias in the news - the accusation that in mainstream news media they always identify conservatives as "conservatives" but fail to identify liberals as "liberals" has apparently proven dead wrong. In 2002 a guy named Geoffrey Nunberg undertook to study this question and found that, if anything, the opposite is closer to being true (the "liberal" media identify liberal experts, polititicians, and organizations as "liberal" in situations where they tend not to identy their conservative counterparts as "conservative").

 

[klenke]

I do recall watching the "dissenting views" of the BBC News during the war (comes on PBS regularly or semi-regularly). It wasn't all dissenting, of course, but I will say that the BBC appeared to be doing a better job of going with facts instead of propoganda and sensationalism.

 

The news and the war: well, if the newscasts just went with facts the whole time it would be a pretty short broadcast. But then, what are facts? Facts are truths in the eyes of the beholder. But who beheld the truth? Can we really be certain of anything in the world? Does this website really exist? Any fact handed down from one person to another on down the line is bound to get distorted over time, through space, and in the mind. The last guy, returning to the source, may find the fact he thought he knew to be nothing like what really happened. And so it goes and so it goes.

 

Note that "history" itself is the subjective art of the historian. History does not write itself. People write history. Historians cannot possibly know every cause and effect in the realm of their research. They must make leaps of faith and assumptions as to some or many of the connections. In this way, no "history" can ever be said to be what really happened. Only God knows what really happened--and to God (like Billy Pilgrim in Slaughterhouse Five) "history" is one long event from the beginning of time to the end of time. A history is one person's perspective: the historian's.