the "liberal media"

[j_b]

May 25, 2004

 

Despite a perception that National Public Radio is politically liberal, the majority of its sources are actually Republicans and conservatives, according to a survey released today by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, a left-leaning media watchdog.

 

"Republicans not only had a substantial partisan edge," according to a report accompanying the survey, "individual Republicans were NPR's most popular sources overall, taking the top seven spots in frequency of appearance." In addition, representatives of right-of-center think tanks outnumbered their leftist counterparts by more than four to one, FAIR reported.

 

Citing comments dating to the Nixon administration in the 1970s, the report said, "That NPR harbors a liberal bias is an article of faith among many conservatives." However, it added, "Despite the commonness of such claims, little evidence has ever been presented for a left bias at NPR."

 

The study counted 2,334 sources used in 804 stories aired last June for four programs: "All Things Considered," "Morning Edition," "Weekend Edition Saturday" and "Weekend Edition Sunday." For the analysis of think tanks, FAIR used the months of May through August 2003.

 

Overall, Republicans outnumbered Democrats by 61 percent to 38 percent, a figure only slightly higher now, when the GOP controls the White House and both houses of Congress, than during a previous survey in 1993, during the Clinton administration.

 

"Some people may think is too left of center because they are contrasting it to the louder, black-and-white sloganeering of talk radio," said FAIR's Steve Rendall, a co-author of the report. "It could be that, just by contrast, the more dulcet [tone] and slower pace and lower volume of NPR makes many people think it must be the opposite of talk radio."

 

link

[foraker]

Now, don't go making hamburger out of sacred cows.....

[catbirdseat]

"Some people may think is too left of center because they are contrasting it to the louder, black-and-white sloganeering of talk radio," said FAIR's Steve Rendall, a co-author of the report. "It could be that, just by contrast, the more dulcet [tone] and slower pace and lower volume of NPR makes many people think it must be the opposite of talk radio."

Political Relativity. If you compare a moderate viewpoint to one that is ultraconservative or even reactionary, it will seem liberal by comparison.

[scott_harpell]

...or if a left leaning "watchdog" evaluates that a source is conservative... some relativity issues could also be present.

[foraker]

same as if a right leaning 'watchdog' evaluates that same source and decides it's liberal?

[j_b]

there is nothing relative about the data they compiled.

[Jim]

same as if a right leaning 'watchdog' evaluates that same source and decides it's liberal?

 

[scott_harpell]

same as if a right leaning 'watchdog' evaluates that same source and decides it's liberal?

 

exactly...

[Jim]

Though my reaction is "Duh - no kidding" it is worthy of note that they made no subjective decisions as to who was conservative and who was liberal. It was the number of GOP folks vs the number of Dems. Seems straightforward to me. Unless the GOP is making a major shift to the left. Yea right.

[J_Fisher]

They were comparing quotes from "right of center" vs. "left of center", not just Ds vs. Rs. That is subjective.

 

While the study is interesting trivia it doesn't really show bias one way or the other. Bias would be shown by whether the quoted source was put in a favorable or unfavorable light, etc.

 

Also note that their sample was May - August 2003. During this time there was a war going on, being pursued by a republican administration. Their sources for most stories will of course be from the administration.

[scott_harpell]

They were comparing quotes from "right of center" vs. "left of center", not just Ds vs. Rs. That is subjective.

 

Who determines what is right of center and what is left of center?

[Ratboy]

I do.

[willstrickland]

I'll take issue with this study because I don't believe its ultimate conclusion is correct.

 

The ultimate conclusion is that NPR is not liberally slanted. I believe that is false for the following reason:

 

Yes, the outside sources, as shown in the study, are more often conservative. However, the NPR hosts, producers/editors, and on-air staff commentators/reporters have a fairly strong liberal leaning. It is quite evident in their tone, questions, and editing. The points they emphasize, and the way interviewers address interviewees also show this bias. These people above have a much greater impact on the shows than the guest sources they interview.

 

I like NPR. I listen to it approx 5 days a week because it's less biased/more neutral than some other sources and it's relatively intelligent for morning/afternoon radio. I'm probably just slightly left of center. But I definitely sense the liberal...well not exactly bias, but slant, in NPR. Just yesterday in the car I was thiking that the way the host asked questions, the points he stressed, and his demeanor and tone, made him seem obviously liberal and slanted. I still like NPR though.

[iain]

and that daniel shore guy, talk about a fence sitter I agree with you will, it is left-leaning but informative and not sensationalized.

[Skeezix]

Journalism attracts liberals because they are idealistic and willing to work for low pay if they perceive what they are doing as improving the world.

[j_b]

people can say the data is trivia all day long, it won't change that npr, and all mainstream media btw, use a large majority of conservative/business sources for their reports. if npr were truly liberal, wouldn't it use primarily progressive sources? why let your opponents define and frame the issue on their terms instead of having people you agree with do so? it simply does not make any sense and it is a very convoluted argument which belies its weakness.

 

the journalists themselves may have a liberal slant on social issues (hey, like ~65% of americans), but the usual message on the economy and foreign policy does not really challenge that of the people in power. if the message does not question the status quo on big policy issues, it isn't really progressive.

[johndavidjr]

Yeah, liberalism is the status quo, because it will always be expedient (look at Dubbya's drug bill & Rush getting backed by the ACLU). I'm always in favor of muddling through.

Edited May 26, 2004 by johndavidjr

[marylou]

and that daniel shore guy, talk about a fence sitter I agree with you will, it is left-leaning but informative and not sensationalized.

 

Dan Schorr

 

I think he just does op-ed stuff nowadays though, which is sposta be slanted.

[J_Fisher]

all mainstream media btw, use a large majority of conservative/business sources for their reports. if npr were truly liberal, wouldn't it use primarily progressive sources?

 

If a reporter wants to report on war, the DoD has to be the primary source. If you report stock prices, you get the info from the NYSE. Are they supposed to call Noam Chomsky for the body count of the latest action in Fajullah or the last earnings report for GE? And whether you think the war is the greatest thing since sliced bread or the NYSE should be dismantled and all shares given to Fidel Castro, you don't need original sources to make that bias known.

[JayB]

"If a reporter wants to report on war, the DoD has to be the primary source. If you report stock prices, you get the info from the NYSE. Are they supposed to call Noam Chomsky for the body count of the latest action in Fajullah or the last earnings report for GE?"

 

Exactly.

 

You are faltering, Evil Homonym. That business about "progressive sources" is your weakest point/rebuttal in quite a while, which is really saying something.

[johndavidjr]

I'm a financial reporter, a pretty narrow field, but once in a while my stuff gets shoved in newspapers. Point made above, re. sourcing Noam Chomsky for GE earnings, is quite right. He wouldn't take my call, and if he did, he would have nothing of immediate relevance to say. Of course given all the $$$ in the financial industry, the copy editing desk is trained to be highly "conservative" in hewing to straight & narrow with the stuff they get.

 

Maybe is a bit like what I've said elsewhere about Right-Wingers having talked themselves out of a place in discussions of wilderness values. But in my view, Chomsky sounds nearly irrational about politics, & I gather his linguistic ideas of 40 years ago, while perhaps still of interest, have fallen out of favor as well. Once in a while analysts (typical sources) have moral impulses, but for the most part its just a great big machine that you glom on to & it pays your rent (barely)....and nobody really gets blamed because half the time you just say "the company said"

Edited May 27, 2004 by johndavidjr

[j_b]

your vision of journalism is truly sobering. if reporters had waited for dod info to report on the 100's of civilian deaths in fallujah we would have never heard about it. the same goes for prisoner torture, reconstruction, nature of the opposition and on for countless issues related to this war. dod interaction with the media during times of war pertains more to propaganda than news. i am not saying you should not listen to what dod has to say, but to make it the most relevant source is bound to produce the same uncritical news reporting we are accustomed to by the mainstream media and certainly not the type of critical reporting the 4th estate is supposed to do.

 

how many major news outlet were critical of the wmd justification, while progressives were crying foul from the get go? how surprising that jo blow armed with a computer and an internet connection would apparently know more than what is reported by the media? why did we have to go to the foreign press to find out about most of these issues? didn't npr and other media outlets have access to the same sources the foreign press did? or perhaps the problem is they'd rather stick with dod. do you think said foreign press has a majority of gop/dod sources regarding iraq? gee, just imagine, they probably don't and they still manage to report critically about what's going on.

[j_b]

consider the results from this survey while you are at it: http://www.fair.org/reports/journalist-survey.html

 

"This survey shows that it is a mistake to accept the conservative claim that journalists are to the left of the public. There appear to be very few national journalists with left views on economic questions like corporate power and trade—issues that may well matter more to media owners and advertisers than social issues like gay rights and affirmative action.

 

The larger "liberal media" myth has been maintained, in part, by the well-funded flow of conservative rhetoric that selectively highlights journalists' personal views while downplaying news content. It also has been maintained by diverting the spotlight away from economic issues and placing it instead on social issues. In reality, though, most members of the powerful Washington press corps identify themselves as centrist in both of these areas. It is true, as conservative critics have publicized, that the minority of journalists not in the "center" are more likely to identify as having a "left" orientation when it comes to social issues. However, it is also true that the minority of journalists not in the "center" are more likely to identify as having a "right" orientation when it comes to economic issues. Indeed, these economic policy views are often to the right of public opinion. When our attention is drawn to this fact, one of the central elements of the conservative critique of the media is exposed to be merely sleight of hand.

 

This illusion has not been exposed here merely to replace it with an equally false mirror image of the conservative critique. Painting journalists as the core of the "conservative media" does not do justice to the complexity of the situation. Like many profit-sector professionals journalists tend to hold "liberal" social views and "conservative" economic views. Most of all, though, they can be broadly described as centrists. This adherence to the middle is consistent with news outlets that tend to repeat conventional wisdom and ignore serious alternative analyses. This too often leaves citizens with policy "debates" grounded in the shared assumptions of those in positions of power.

 

Which brings us back to the conservative critique. It is based on the propositions that: (1) journalists' views are to the left of the general public, and (2) that these views influence the news content that they produce. Having now exposed the first point for the myth that it is, we are left with the issue of personal views influencing news content.

 

There are two important responses to this claim. First, it is sources, not journalists, who are allowed to express their views in the conventional model of "objective" journalism. Therefore, we learn much more about the political orientation of news content by looking at sourcing patterns rather than journalists' personal views. As this survey shows, it is government officials and business representatives to whom journalists "nearly always" turn when covering economic policy. Labor representatives and consumer advocates were at the bottom of the list. This is consistent with earlier research on sources. For example, analysts from the centrist Brookings Institution and right-wing think thanks such as the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute are those most quoted in mainstream news accounts; left-wing think tanks are often invisible. When it comes to sources, "liberal bias" is nowhere to be found.

 

Second, we must not forget that journalists do not work in a vacuum. It is crucial to remember the important role of institutional context in setting the broad parameters for the news process. Businesses are not in the habit of producing products that contradict their fundamental economic interests. The large corporations that are the major commercial media in this country—not surprisingly—tend to favor style and substance which is consonant with their corporate interests; as do their corporate advertisers.

 

It is here, at the structural level, that the fundamental ground rules of news production are set. Of course, working journalists sometimes succeed in temporarily challenging some of those rules and boundaries. But ultimately, if they are to succeed and advance in the profession for any length of time, they must adapt to the ground rules set by others—regardless of their own personal views."

[Fairweather]

Speaking of liberal radio, I hear that the new "Air America" (Al Franken, host)is having trouble making their payroll, has breached contracts with affiliates, and listenership is abysmal.

 

Maybe Right-Wing radio is a success because it is entertaining, (sometimes) informative, and financially self supporting.

 

Does j_b really believe that 65% of America is left-leaning? The facts don't support this. Please cite sources. (Pref. not "village voice", "salon.com", "workers world", "onion", etc.)

 

 

BTW; I like NPR, but if you believe it is center, or right-of, you'd better check and see just how far to the left you have drifted!

[JoshK]

Rush Limbaugh is quite successful due to his ability to gain massive followings of likeminded hateful idiots. Michael Moore might be bad, but Mr. Limbaugh is the original fatass windbag.