Fair.org's Strawman Liberal Media Ploy
Fair ain't fair
This has got to be the silliest conclusion drawn from a study I have read from a media outlet.
Apparently if you source a conservative, that means you can't be liberally biased.
Of course no one would source a conservative in order to bash them, attempt to discredit them, to take what had been a positive action and portray it in a negative light, etc.
I mean obviously since I cited a liberal source in this post, I can't be conservative, can't be biased conservative, in fact it is proof of the opposite. Just applying a little "Fair.org" reasoning here.
Now of course the easiest means of determining if the media is liberal or conservatively biased is to, "GASP" I know hard to imagine this, ASK the people reporting the news their political persuasion.
Which is of course just what PEW did.
PEW survey
The findings...
So there you go.
Nick
This has got to be the silliest conclusion drawn from a study I have read from a media outlet.
Apparently if you source a conservative, that means you can't be liberally biased.
Of course no one would source a conservative in order to bash them, attempt to discredit them, to take what had been a positive action and portray it in a negative light, etc.
I mean obviously since I cited a liberal source in this post, I can't be conservative, can't be biased conservative, in fact it is proof of the opposite. Just applying a little "Fair.org" reasoning here.
Now of course the easiest means of determining if the media is liberal or conservatively biased is to, "GASP" I know hard to imagine this, ASK the people reporting the news their political persuasion.
Which is of course just what PEW did.
PEW survey
The findings...
Quote:
While most of the journalists, like many Americans, describe themselves as "moderate," a far higher number are "liberal" than in the general population.
At national organizations (which includes print, TV and radio), the numbers break down like this: 34% liberal, 7% conservative. At local outlets: 23% liberal, 12% conservative. At Web sites: 27% call themselves liberals, 13% conservatives.
This contrasts with the self-assessment of the general public: 20% liberal, 33% conservative.
While most of the journalists, like many Americans, describe themselves as "moderate," a far higher number are "liberal" than in the general population.
At national organizations (which includes print, TV and radio), the numbers break down like this: 34% liberal, 7% conservative. At local outlets: 23% liberal, 12% conservative. At Web sites: 27% call themselves liberals, 13% conservatives.
This contrasts with the self-assessment of the general public: 20% liberal, 33% conservative.
So there you go.
Nick
Comments
Both the Fair.org data and the PEW data is essentially meaningless.
As far as the FAIR report, I think you misunderstood the gist of it. The claim doesn't reduce as far as you took it: "Apparently if you source a conservative, that means you can't be liberally biased." That's not it all-- that's worthless data because the sample size, namely just you, is too small. But if you look at who NPR quotes over the years, you'll find that conservative voices enjoy more time on the network than liberal voices. That means NPR's coverage tilts to the right- a basically inevitable tendency whenever a Republican wins the White House. You'll find that much is true for the rest of the mass media too. The administration just enjoys the bully pulpit at this moment so media coverage will reflect that.
What I also find interesting is the fact that NPR's coverage tilted to the right during the Clinton administration as well. Given a current administration's power to nearly monopolize the news, this is a significant finding. I think it suggests NPR is far more balanced than some may like to admit-- even possibly conservative leaning. But I'm concerned about just how the surveys define "liberal" and "conservative" when people have multiple, non-mutually exclusive views. For instance, who is a socially liberal but economically hardcore conservative-- in other words a libertarian? What about their voices? It doesn't neatly fit into that binary opposition between "liberal" and "conservative."
Nick: I think the essential question you're getting at here is great. You're basically asking, "how do we measure fairness in the media?" "Is one method better than another?" Important questions that need to be asked, and I thank you for basically bringing them up. Can I just suggest one thing? That you phrase things more openly to begin the thread so that we encourage open discussion. For instance, ask a larger, more general question, and then you could always bring up the FAIR and PEW studies as examples of how, in your opinion, one is better for whatever reason than another. We should all be thinking "Big Tent" to attract people, not attack people. Save that for within the thread.
Originally posted by BRussell
In related news, the New York Times has admitted and apologized for their highly biased coverage of the war in Iraq.
But I thought Anne Coulter proved they were a bunch of commie lubruls...confusing isn't it?
Originally posted by ShawnJ
"how do we measure fairness in the media?"
One way would be to look at think tank citations.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
As far as the FAIR report, I think you misunderstood the gist of it. The claim doesn't reduce as far as you took it: "Apparently if you source a conservative, that means you can't be liberally biased." That's not it all-- that's worthless data because the sample size, namely just you, is too small. But if you look at who NPR quotes over the years, you'll find that conservative voices enjoy more time on the network than liberal voices. That means NPR's coverage tilts to the right- a basically inevitable tendency whenever a Republican wins the White House. You'll find that much is true for the rest of the mass media too. The administration just enjoys the bully pulpit at this moment so media coverage will reflect that.
What I also find interesting is the fact that NPR's coverage tilted to the right during the Clinton administration as well. Given a current administration's power to nearly monopolize the news, this is a significant finding. I think it suggests NPR is far more balanced than some may like to admit-- even possibly conservative leaning. But I'm concerned about just how the surveys define "liberal" and "conservative" when people have multiple, non-mutually exclusive views. For instance, who is a socially liberal but economically hardcore conservative-- in other words a libertarian? What about their voices? It doesn't neatly fit into that binary opposition between "liberal" and "conservative."
I didn't "misunderstand" it.
I said that the premise behind the research is fundimentally flawed. There is no basis to believe that who you source is who you support. I could source a quote from George Bush about his No Child Left Behind Act and then devote the rest of the piece to showing how, in my slanted news view, he has underfunded it and left millions of children behind.
In fact consider some people mentioned frequently here, Al Franken and Ann Coulter. Doesn't most of their writing consist primarily of quoting, citing and detailing the writings, speeches, and policies of others?
If I were to take Lying Liars by Franken and analyzed it for sources do you think I would encounter more conservative or more liberal sources in it? It is likely he has far more conservative sources since he is dealing with conservatives and their lies.
What about say, Rush Limbaugh? Doesn't Limbaugh spend a lot of time highlighting what liberals are doing and then attempt to discredit it? I would bet liberals are cited far more than conservatives on his show. He doesn't need to cite conservatives, he IS the conservative.
I would dare say that the nature of attack politics means that you cite the oppositions "opinion" and attempt to discredit them via "facts" from your own viewpoint. The fact that NPR sources conservatives more could mean that they are discussing and attempting to discredit conservatives more.
Also consider the fact that they only looked into what they considered to be news shows. If I analyzed the shows where only news is presented, I could make the claim that Fox News is completely unbiased. It is the quasi-news/talk shows that fill the rest of the news time or discuss/spin the news that gives the claimed conservative tilt. Franken for example doesn't slam Fox News reporting. He slams Hannity and colmes. He slams O'Reilly.
Are you honestly going to tell me that Democracy Now! for example has a conservative tilt? I think Tavis Smiley an enjoyable and informative newsperson, but that doesn't mean I don't know his politics.
To get the true picture of NPR, they would have to come up with a true measure of political leanings, and then apply it to all shows on NPR. I'm sure a good percentage would be completely unbiased. I can't see assigning political leanings to say, Jazz concernts. But there are lots of non-news shows that definately espouse a political viewpoint on NPR. Additionally simply looking at who you source could be nothing more than who you attack, not necessarily who you support.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I didn't "misunderstand" it.
I said that the premise behind the research is fundimentally flawed. There is no basis to believe that who you source is who you support. I could source a quote from George Bush about his No Child Left Behind Act and then devote the rest of the piece to showing how, in my slanted news view, he has underfunded it and left millions of children behind.
In fact consider some people mentioned frequently here, Al Franken and Ann Coulter. Doesn't most of their writing consist primarily of quoting, citing and detailing the writings, speeches, and policies of others?
If I were to take Lying Liars by Franken and analyzed it for sources do you think I would encounter more conservative or more liberal sources in it? It is likely he has far more conservative sources since he is dealing with conservatives and their lies.
What about say, Rush Limbaugh? Doesn't Limbaugh spend a lot of time highlighting what liberals are doing and then attempt to discredit it? I would bet liberals are cited far more than conservatives on his show. He doesn't need to cite conservatives, he IS the conservative.
I would dare say that the nature of attack politics means that you cite the oppositions "opinion" and attempt to discredit them via "facts" from your own viewpoint. The fact that NPR sources conservatives more could mean that they are discussing and attempting to discredit conservatives more.
Also consider the fact that they only looked into what they considered to be news shows. If I analyzed the shows where only news is presented, I could make the claim that Fox News is completely unbiased. It is the quasi-news/talk shows that fill the rest of the news time or discuss/spin the news that gives the claimed conservative tilt. Franken for example doesn't slam Fox News reporting. He slams Hannity and colmes. He slams O'Reilly.
Are you honestly going to tell me that Democracy Now! for example has a conservative tilt? I think Tavis Smiley an enjoyable and informative newsperson, but that doesn't mean I don't know his politics.
To get the true picture of NPR, they would have to come up with a true measure of political leanings, and then apply it to all shows on NPR. I'm sure a good percentage would be completely unbiased. I can't see assigning political leanings to say, Jazz concernts. But there are lots of non-news shows that definately espouse a political viewpoint on NPR. Additionally simply looking at who you source could be nothing more than who you attack, not necessarily who you support.
Nick
Nick, I don't think your line of reasoning quite holds up.
It looks to me like you are assuming that conservative citations are followed by unsourced rebuttal; something like "President Bush today said something, which is of course bullshit". Which yields one conservative citation without having to count a "liberal citation" on the other side of the ledger.
Now, granted, this is the way the Limbaughs and Coulters of the world operate, but it certainly isn't the way NPR presents stories. That is, they don't just stick "personalities" on the air, whose remarks require no outside attribution, and let them rant about the crimes of their partisan enimies, ala Fox.
If NPR is citing conservative sources just to knock them down, the only way they are going to do that is to cite appropriate liberal sources. And if they are net liberal, as you seem to be arguing, it stands to reason that they would cite more liberal sources in rebuttal than the original point of contention.
Which means a survey would still show more liberal citations than not.
Yes, there are quasi news talk shows on NPR, but I can't think of a one that has anything like the tone of the cable news and talk radio liberal bash fests.
Can you explain specifically which shows would be managing to rack up conservative citations as a means towards discounting them without also citing as many or more liberal sources to do so?
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
If the US media truly were liberal, the Bush admin would have been crucified on a daily basis for the last three years.
If they were liberal? Hell, all they have to be is HONEST to start crucifying him. If they went so far as liberal they could start the slow torture like they did in Abu Ghraib.
Originally posted by addabox
Nick, I don't think your line of reasoning quite holds up.
It looks to me like you are assuming that conservative citations are followed by unsourced rebuttal; something like "President Bush today said something, which is of course bullshit". Which yields one conservative citation without having to count a "liberal citation" on the other side of the ledger.
Again no liberal citation is necessary if the person writing the news considers themselves the source, they don't have to cite anyone. If the person writing the news is liberal, which the Pew study suggests is disproportionately true, then you have plenty of "liberal" sources that don't have to be cited since they are the author.
Now, granted, this is the way the Limbaughs and Coulters of the world operate, but it certainly isn't the way NPR presents stories. That is, they don't just stick "personalities" on the air, whose remarks require no outside attribution, and let them rant about the crimes of their partisan enimies, ala Fox.
If NPR is citing conservative sources just to knock them down, the only way they are going to do that is to cite appropriate liberal sources. And if they are net liberal, as you seem to be arguing, it stands to reason that they would cite more liberal sources in rebuttal than the original point of contention.
Which means a survey would still show more liberal citations than not.
Again this is an assumption, however it is easily proven wrong. I'll give you two examples, one of them even from the PBS show "Democratic Underground" which I mentioned in the previous post.
Here is a Joe Conason column. I think someone like you would certainly consider him reputable.
Conason
As you can see, it is an almost perfect example of what I described. Conason takes time to cite Bush, but only so he can knock down the words Bush said. The source for the information to knock down Bush is of course Conason. Again Conason considers himself the source, he doesn't have to cite anyone to support what he claims.
Here is one from Democratic Underground.
Bush Criticism
This is exactly the type of thing you just said couldn't happen on an NPR show. So please take a good look. The quoting is from Bush, the criticism is from the author. The author's source is himself.
Yes, there are quasi news talk shows on NPR, but I can't think of a one that has anything like the tone of the cable news and talk radio liberal bash fests.
The "tone" has little to do with the reality of what is being done. I consider the "tone" of Franken for example to be quite harsh.
Can you explain specifically which shows would be managing to rack up conservative citations as a means towards discounting them without also citing as many or more liberal sources to do so?
You've got two sources above. One specifically from a show on NPR and the other, from someone I think you very much consider credible and respected. It is a bit harder to do with NPR since they have little in the way of text on their site. Transcripts cost money and my search for alternatives yielded nothing. If you can find transcripts for NPR shows that don't cost me money to discuss, I'll gladly discuss them as well. The two examples I provided are pretty good ones.
Nick
Originally posted by Northgate
But I thought Anne Coulter proved they were a bunch of commie lubruls...confusing isn't it?
Actually, they apologized because they were not more critical of the war / Iraqi sources / White House intelligence and giving lip service to the Bush propaganda.
Originally posted by trumptman
Again no liberal citation is necessary if the person writing the news considers themselves the source, they don't have to cite anyone. If the person writing the news is liberal, which the Pew study suggests is disproportionately true, then you have plenty of "liberal" sources that don't have to be cited since they are the author.
You're going to have to search long and heart to find me a news story where the reporter quotes himself as a source. That's just ridiculous.
If your are talking about editorials critical of the administration, as you seem to be: yes. There are liberal editorials at large in the media. You may notice there are also conservative opinion pieces. Quite a few of them, actually.
Quote:
Again this is an assumption, however it is easily proven wrong. I'll give you two examples, one of them even from the PBS show "Democratic Underground" which I mentioned in the previous post.
Here is a Joe Conason column. I think someone like you would certainly consider him reputable.
Conason
As you can see, it is an almost perfect example of what I described. Conason takes time to cite Bush, but only so he can knock down the words Bush said. The source for the information to knock down Bush is of course Conason. Again Conason considers himself the source, he doesn't have to cite anyone to support what he claims.
Um... yeah. That's an editorial critical of the Bush administration.
Quote:
Here is one from Democratic Underground.
Bush Criticism
This is exactly the type of thing you just said couldn't happen on an NPR show. So please take a good look. The quoting is from Bush, the criticism is from the author. The author's source is himself.
I'm not aware of any show on NPR named "Democratic Underground". The NPR website doesn't have such a show in their program listings.
And yes, NPR has the occasional editorial.
We don't seem to be making any headway in supporting your odd theory that the number of liberal vs. conservative citations on NPR, as opposed to liberal editorials, can be accounted for by self sourced Bush bashing.
Quote:
The "tone" has little to do with the reality of what is being done. I consider the "tone" of Franken for example to be quite harsh.
You've got two sources above. One specifically from a show on NPR and the other, from someone I think you very much consider credible and respected. It is a bit harder to do with NPR since they have little in the way of text on their site. Transcripts cost money and my search for alternatives yielded nothing. If you can find transcripts for NPR shows that don't cost me money to discuss, I'll gladly discuss them as well. The two examples I provided are pretty good ones.
Two liberal editorials that have nothing to do with NPR doesn't strike me as much of a refutation of my earlier post. Well, actually, it makes no sense at all.
Originally posted by trumptman
But there are lots of non-news shows that definately espouse a political viewpoint on NPR.
Nick
Right. Although regular "news" shows are political too-- in fact I would argue that everything is political and that complete objectivity is impossible. Yes, even jazz concerts. But to get back on to the specific point about NPR's political leanings, I think you misread the article. Norman Solomon said the FAIR study dealt only with "four National Public Radio news shows: All Things Considered, Morning Edition, Weekend Edition Saturday and Weekend Edition Sunday."
Ostensibly, those kinds of shows don't quote people just to knock them down-- like you'll find on dedicated "opinion" shows (as others have mentioned). Point is that NPR's news coverage tilts to the right by a 3-2 margin in terms of conservative vs. liberal sources. That's indisputable. It just covers more conservative sources than liberal ones. That's not necessarily wrong-- the point of the news is not to provide "balanced coverage"-- but it does question just how anyone can say the network's news shows are "liberally biased" when it devotes a majority of its coverage to conservative sources.
Maybe it's not the most exact measure of how "biased" a network is-- but I think it has value when used generally. Based on everything we've discussed in this thread, what value do you think it has?
Fellowship
Originally posted by Fellowship
I think you're all biased
Fellowship
You too.