Texas Rainmaker » What Media Bias?

What Media Bias?
June 21st, 2007 11:34 am

Just remember this when you’re reading or hearing stories in the MSM:

MSNBC.com identified 144 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 17 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.

That’s 87% who support Democrats and their causes enough to financially contribute to them. If they’re willing to write checks to support their agendas, why should we think they wouldn’t also be willing to write articles to support them?

But really, who’s surprised? It’s not like a left-leaning media is anything new.

Since 1962, there have been 11 surveys of the media that sought the political views of hundreds of journalists. In 1971, they were 53 percent liberal, 17 percent conservative. In a 1976 survey of the Washington press corps, it was 59 percent liberal, 18 percent conservative. A 1985 poll of 3,200 reporters found them to be self-identified as 55 percent liberal, 17 percent conservative. In 1996, another survey of Washington journalists pegged the breakdown as 61 percent liberal, 9 percent conservative. Now, the new study by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found the national media to be 34 percent liberal and 7 percent conservative.

It’s no wonder liberals think FoxNews is biased. In the MSM’s sea of liberalism, neutral reporting would appear to have a conservative bias.

20 Comments »

Wow, this is yet another horrific argument.

87% of those who gave did so to Democrats/liberal causes. But only 144 gave. Do you have any idea how many journalists there are? 144 is a TINY fraction. Attempting to extrapolate the behavior of this tiny sample to the journalist population as a whole is, to be blunt, just plain stupid.

Comment by forrest — 1:10 pm
Sort of like taking a poll of 1,000 Americans and claiming the results represent Americans (over 300 million) in general…

And I can understand why you’d completely ignore the second half of the post where thousands of journalists over the last 35+ years have self-identified as being liberal. I mean, that would really kind of screw up your hissyfit and all.

Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 1:23 pm
Hissy fit? I’m just laughing at a lawyer making a stupid argument. And then you go ahead and make me laugh some more by using the “two wrongs make a right” argument to justify your use of the previous terrible argument. Glad that law degree did you so well.

And take a statistics course. Maybe then you can understand why polls of ~1000, when done correctly, can be quite reliable. It comes down to very simple math. Though, it won’t surprise me if you dispute basic mathematics as well when it doesn’t fit your agenda.

Comment by forrest — 1:33 pm
So what are you disputing, Forrest? That 125 of 144 is 87%? Or that 35+ years of surveys show journalists self-identify as liberal? Or that the two facts in combination show evidence of a left-leaning media industry?

“Glad that law degree did you so well.”

I can only assume since you guys fall back on this so often that it’s purely out of jealousy. However, I won’t apologize for my success or your lack thereof.

Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 1:54 pm
Since journalists are supposed to be non biased it would make sense for them to NOT give ANY money to EITHER party. Or does that make to much sense?

Comment by MrCynic1 — 3:49 pm
I can only assume since you guys fall back on this so often that it’s purely out of jealousy.

Yeah, I’m soooo jealous of someone who a) relies on terrible arguments to make his point and b) doesn’t understand basic statistics, and then uses polls to prove his point yet decries them when they do not fit his agenda. That makes a hell of a lot of sense. Logically weak, mathematically ignorant, inconsistent in personal beliefs. I’m really jealous of that.

Plus, I enjoy how you assume I am lacking success. You do not know me at all. I’m quite comfortable and very content with my life. I’ve thought about going to law school as well, and have no doubt I could do it.

Maybe I’d give your position a bit more credence if you linked to the actual study by Pew, rather than to or at least in addition to, a conservative magazine, so it could be determined if its actually a valid study/poll. As of this moment, I have no opinion on that study itself. And as far as the 35+ years of studies, need I remind you that inductive arguments don’t prove anything definitively? A tendency for reporters to be liberal in the past does not demonstrate that they are all that way now. If anything, the growth of conservative media such as FOX should make one think the trend has moved the other way. Also, the samples/methodologies of those past polls/studies referenced by the oh-so-objective Fred Barnes could very well be flawed as well. To be short, simply relying on an opinion piece in the Weekly Standard to make your argument, as you have done, and a horrificly flawed poll is idiotic and not befitting one with a law degree.

MrCynic1, reporters are supposed to report in an unbiased fashion. In no way should that limit their ability to spend their money as they see fit. You know, the whole freedom to spend your own money thing that you conservatives clamor about so often. Does it make too much sense for you people to be consistent in your beliefs regarding personal freedom? But I can understand why you cling to the notion that if a person gives money to a specific candidate/cause, he/she cannot be unbiased, because you don’t have too much else to go on.

Comment by forrest — 4:29 pm
You do not know me at all. I’m quite comfortable and very content with my life.

Well that’s good to hear. Otherwise, just WHO would cook my fries?

Comment by crushliberalism — 4:36 pm
Jonathan, I’ll write a software application to cook your fries if you pay in advance. Otherwise, no deal

Comment by forrest — 4:45 pm
“Yeah, I’m soooo jealous of someone…

Uh oh… I feel an “I know you are, but what am I” response welling up in Forrest.

“Plus, I enjoy how you assume I am lacking success. You do not know me at all. I’m quite comfortable and very content with my life. I’ve thought about going to law school as well, and have no doubt I could do it.”

That’s always what those who can’t do it say. But, but, but, I could if I really wanted to. Sure you could, princess.

“Maybe I’d give your position a bit more credence if you linked to the actual study by Pew, rather than to or at ast in addition to, a conservative magazine, so it could be determined if its actually a valid study/poll. As of this moment, I have no opinion on that study itself. And as far as the 35+ years of studies, need I remind you that inductive arguments don’t prove anything definitively? A tendency for reporters to be liberal in the past does not demonstrate that they are all that way now. If anything, the growth of conservative media such as FOX should make one think the trend has moved the other way. Also, the samples/methodologies of those past polls/studies referenced by the oh-so-objective Fred Barnes could very well be flawed as well. To be short, simply relying on an opinion piece in the Weekly Standard to make your argument, as you have done, and a horrificly flawed poll is idiotic and not befitting one with a law degree.

Oh you’re right. After 35 years, surely the journalists have all magically become conservatives. Talk about your dumbass logic.

“MrCynic1, reporters are supposed to report in an unbiased fashion. In no way should that limit their ability to spend their money as they see fit. You know, the whole freedom to spend your own money thing that you conservatives clamor about so often. Does it make too much sense for you people to be consistent in your beliefs regarding personal freedom? But I can understand why you cling to the notion that if a person gives money to a specific candidate/cause, he/she cannot be unbiased, because you don’t have too much else to go on.”

I love how you think MrCynic is a conservative. You obviously don’t pay attention.

And no, the argument isn’t about what journalists can do with their money, its about the appearance they give when they spend it on causes that might raise conflicts of interest with their journalistic duties.

Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 4:57 pm
I love how you think MrCynic is a conservative. You obviously don’t pay attention.

I’m so sorry I am not thoroughly familar with the “Who’s Who of TexasRainmaker.com”. I mean, its such an important, well respected, highly trafficked and so influential blog and the members of the community are so widely known.

And as far as my ability to succeed in law school, think what you want. You’re completely ignorant of my educational and professional success, but if you need to tell yourself I’m an idiot to feel better about your flaws, go for it. Doesn’t hurt my feelings. I’ll still laugh at the fact that you (or someone who supported you) spent the money it took you to earn to your JD and you still can’t make sound arguments, don’t understand basic statistical principles, and hold inconsistent personal beliefs.

That’s always what those who can’t do it say. But, but, but, I could if I really wanted to. Sure you could, princess.

Yeah, and those who can do it never say that. The sheer amount of logical fallacies you engage in is absolutely astounding. And if you need to insinuate I’m a girl, go for it. I think that actually speaks more about your own insecurities and attitudes towards women than anything else, but I can’t and won’t stop you and such childish attempts at slandering me just make me laugh.

Oh you’re right. After 35 years, surely the journalists have all magically become conservatives. Talk about your dumbass logic.

Straw man alert from the lawyer, once again! I never said that. I said the trend, which still has not been established, but assuming there is one, has probably begin to shift the other way due to the fact that there is now are an increased number established places for conservative reporters to be paid for their labor. Also, don’t think everyone isn’t noticing your avoidance of my points, that a) Fred Barnes and the Weekly Standard are notoriously conservative and b) you still haven’t demonstrated validity for any of the studies to which you are referring.

Uh oh… I feel an “I know you are, but what am I” response welling up in Forrest.

Convenient placement of the ellipsis where you quoted me! And nah, I don’t need anyone to be jealous of me. Like I said, I’m content. But I do understand that some people like yourself, possess an unquenchable need for others to be jealous of them. I have always felt sorry for those people, because there is always someone smarter, richer, knowledgeable…

Comment by forrest — 5:21 pm
but if you need to tell yourself I’m an idiot to feel better about your flaws, go for it.

Actually, I tell myself you’re an idiot because it’s obvious that you are.

Comment by crushliberalism — 5:52 pm
Ah, Jonathan… always dropped the level of discourse to the middle school level! I’ll join you and remind you that it takes one to know one!

Comment by forrest — 6:08 pm
I’m sorry Forrest, but you are doing a poor job of responding to Jason here. The difference between teasing out the statistics based on who donates to a particular campaign - and a standard scientific poll such as the one Jason cites in this quote “Sort of like taking a poll of 1,000 Americans and claiming the results represent Americans (over 300 million) in general…” - is that the one Jason cites is based on a random sample - while determining the percentage of liberal journalists based on who donates to which campaign - is to base your decision on a non-random sample (think of the DEWEY WINS preprint headlines of the 1948 presidential campaign). So while you are right that the information Jason references isn’t perhaps as meaningful as Jason claims it to be - it seems to me you are right for the wrong (or, at least, unclear) reasons.

That said - it is possible to explain the noise in the data Jason references (just as it was in the 1948 campaign, which sampled via telephone, ignoring whole swathes of the population). That is - it could be that democratic leaning journalists are simply more likely to donate to campaigns than Republican leaning journalists are.

However - my best explanation of the data lies elsewhere; i.e., the ratio of liberal to conservative journalists on the staff of a particular new media outlet doesn’t really determine the content of that media outlet so much as the political persuasions of the editorial/ownership board.

Second, while I do find the news media to be perhaps a bit superficially liberal in all kinds of ways (especialy on social issues) - it is sureptitiously conservative in all the ways that matter (think of the story after story after special interest story it passes on to us about how some rare and random person has pulled themeselves up by their bootstraps to succeed in our capitalist economy - -you would think this happened everyday. And this myth alone has a huge impact in politics - and in serving to maintain the status quo, where such events are, in fact, exceedingly rare. And the funny thing is - even liberal journalists love these stories, because on the surface they give them what they think they want. Someone beating the system. And in the meanwhile, they forget how many others fail because of that very system.

Comment by djernigan — 9:55 pm
djernigan, the polls/studies that Jason is referring do not each consist of looking at who gave to what politician/cause. That was one study, and there are flaws with that study, which both you and I have pointed out. Its not a random sample, and its not a large enough sample to have a sufficiently small MOE. But the flaws you point out only deal with the first example Jason brought up and not the others. Most of the discussion here has revolved around those, which is why the things you listed as problem with the first poll haven’t been mentioned as much.

The other polls/studies are a completely different fish, none of which Jason has presented a means of determining if they are valid or not. Hence my position that you can’t draw a clear conclusion on them. Even if the past ones were valid, fair polls, inductive reasoning based on past facts doesn’t prove anything about the present.

Comment by forrest — 10:36 pm
Ok Forrest. I see where you are coming from - and I did not pay enough attention to Jason’s original post. But you really need to be very careful with this line of response. For while inductive reasoning never “proves” anything - it is all we really have throughout the natural sciences. The study Tex links to then, you might say, stands as pretty strong corroboration in support of a trend that the media is liberal (just as the geographic record shows a trend for global warming). It “proves” nothing - but it is hard to ignore all the same. Which is why I stand by my two other responses to this trend - that the trend says nothing about owner/editors - and that the media is surreptitiously conservative in ways that “so-called” liberal journalists don’t even recognize.

Comment by djernigan — 11:57 pm
Daniel (I think thats your name), I definitely agree with your two other responses.

My main point is that an inductive proof, by way of polls/studies which we have yet to see means to verify as legitimate, is not anything from which a solid conclusion could be drawn.

Now, if Jason were to actually link to something that demonstrated all the referenced polls/studies from the past 35+ years were legitimate, this could change. But he has not. He has only linked to an opinion piece in a conservative magazine written by a very conservative reporter.

I understand the necessity of an inductive proof at times (because its the only viable means of explaining a certain phenomenon), but only when the pieces of that proof are legitimate can the proof be sound.

I do not believe that the natural sciences rely solely upon inductive proofs though, so could you explain what you mean by that?

Comment by forrest — 12:40 am
Sorry - I should have said induction is essential to the scientific method - but not entirely sufficient.

It all comes from Karl Popper - responding to Hume’s problem of induction - the same one you name above. i.e., that you can’t prove a rule from individual instances. However - science by its nature always trys to do so all the same. Facts are gathered. Theories are posited based on these facts (through induction) - and then these theories are tested. The method of Conjecture and Refutation. The conjecture part is all induction, but the refutation part is all deduction. For instance, if by looking at the world around us we determine that all x’s are y - this is always only a theory, since it was happened upon inductively (Hume again). However, the theory can be disproven deductively - if we find an x that isn’t y (Karl Popper). However, so long as we continue to find x’s that are y - our theory continues to be corroborated (inductively) even while it always and only remains a theory. Deductive falsification allows us to gain greater and greater confidance in our theories within the natural sciences - but ultimtely, all our theories are based upon a house of cards which can come crashing down with a single counter-example - because they are all, ultimately, based on inductive logic.

Comment by djernigan — 8:01 am
[…] Just in case you’re tempted to dismiss the numbers” in the Whiner story above. And, no, this story was not crammed into the tubes by the Leupners. […]

Pingback by ConservaBlogs.com » From Around the Blogosphere … — 3:03 pm
[…] UPDATE: A couple of our liberal friends have emailed with the usual (yet completely wrong) tripe about the MSM being completely unbiased and neutral. Sorry to disappoint you guys with the facts (again), but here’s what MSNBC President Phil Griffin had to say about the political ideology of his network last year (h/t Ed): Officials at MSNBC emphasize that they never set out to create a liberal version of Fox News. […]

Pingback by Texas Rainmaker » Change is a Comin’… — 7:57 am
music downloads

music enthusiast

Trackback by music downloads — 11:07 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI