The myth of the liberal Media

[XTC]

Of all the pieces of greasy stinking propaganda shat out by the right wing PR machine and regurgitated by the weak minded slogan robot conservatives on this board and in the culture generally, none is more ubiquitous, obnoxious, and demonstrably false than the notion of persistent left wing bias in the national media. About four years ago I undertook a serious research project on the origins of this claim, in the process accumulating a massive library of "research" on the media's left wing slant. Two conclusions immediately struck me.
First, the type of evidence typically employed to make the liberal media case has, since the late 1960s, been almost entirely comprised of anecdotal or statistical data badly taken out of context. The author of the study will cite numerous published or behind the scenes instances of a particular journalist expressing a left of center (or often not sufficiently right of center) perspective on an issue, and then combines it with a statistic that demonstrates the left leaning attitudes of journalists as a whole, like the oft cited 70% of journalists who voted for Clinton in 1992. The point is, claims about liberal media bias almost always rest on the notion that the personal attitudes of journalists are the primary factor in shaping the content of mainstream news. Now, even if a collection of anecdotes and the fact of voting for Clinton in 1992 indicate a consistent liberal attitude, why are we supposed to conclude that journalists on average are free enough in their profession to control the entire editorial slant of their organizations? What the right-wingers fail (deliberately) to account for in their screeds is the political economy under which the news media, and its employees, operate. The fact of media's narrow concentration into a small number of private hands, and its total dependence on corporate underwriting in the form of advertising for almost all of its revenue, are crucial factors in determining the boundaries of acceptable reporting which any news room -even if it were peopled by Viet Cong or former members of the Weather Underground- needs to consider if its staff wants to keep their jobs. Other important factors journalists and editors need to pay close attention to in order to survive are the willingness of their sources to cooperate with them. Because the news media in this country is a big business, the bottom line at the end of the day isnâ??t quality or integrity, its, well, the bottom line. This has lead to a situation in which packaged stories are preferred to ones that have to be dug for. On any given issue there are a dozen think tanks and PR wings of government agencies that provide regular briefings and mountains of data to reporters for free in order to get their story across. As a reporter, being paid by the word and with crushing deadlines constantly looming, simply regurgitating the stories the think tanks and the PR experts feed them is the only way to get by, and a way that keeps editors, investors, and sources generally happy. With these very real constraints in mind, one can begin to see that the voting pattern of journalists in a given election, or a possible anecdote revealing an individual reporter's personal values, is entirely meaningless.
The second conclusion I drew from my personal study of this issue was that the "liberal media" myth got its start, was cultivated and disseminated, by a series of right wing think tanks and Republican Party loyalists. The attitudes of the person or persons engaged in this type of research has never been neutral. The best example of this is an organization called Accuracy in the Media (AIM), which since the 80s has been publishing a constant stream of "liberal media" bashing in the form of studies of such poor quality they don't stand up to even the most cursory scrutiny, and is funded generously by fortune 500 corporations. AIM is a single example of around a dozen or so "think tanks", all funded by the same sources, that have the purpose of getting their claims, no matter how poorly substantiated, into the public consciousness. They are engines of "political flak" used to intimidate journalists and indoctrinate the public. And fuck you if you buy their shit.

XTC Reviewed by XTC on 07-11-2005. The myth of the liberal Media Of all the pieces of greasy stinking propaganda shat out by the right wing PR machine and regurgitated by the weak minded slogan robot conservatives on this board and in the culture generally, none is more ubiquitous, obnoxious, and demonstrably false than the notion of persistent left wing bias in the national media. About four years ago I undertook a serious research project on the origins of this claim, in the process accumulating a massive library of "research" on the media's left wing Rating: 5

[antinexus]

I like how the New York Post was being blamed of being overly liberal just 5 days before they openly endorsed George W as their choice for president in '04.

Yes, I know these 2 things are mutually exclusive... I just thought it was funny.

[Psycho4Bud]

I recall the last election you would have swore by watching 90% of the news channels Kerry walked on water! How soon we forget....

[BlueCat]

I think many Bushites know the gig is up they just don't want to admit they have made a mistake.
It is sad that they would rather continue this charade than admit our country is being run by its biggest corporations, and the man they elected is at the head of the pig tough stuffing his gut. While we are busy watching them use humans as play soldiers for their entertainment they are busy dividing up the resources of the world. Reagan, Clinton and Bush have all sold our country out to the highest bidder. The Chinese are buying all our resources, they are buying our stock and we, thanks to walmart are buying everything Chinese. I wish people would step outside the box and drop the party bullshit. 2 % of the country are getting rich on the backs of our citizens and it will take us coming together as a nation to stop them.

Look who owns the top 10 companies in this country and who profits from them and look at the taxes they pay it will make your blood boil....

Great post XTC one of the best I have ever read. *thumps chest* WOW, Good job.

[Psycho4Bud]

XTC made it a point to make this a right wing issue. What about the left?

Financial experts cited by the New York Post on Saturday said that the Kerry family's reported $5 million annual income wouldn't come close to covering their lavish lifestyle, which includes five estates, multiple cars, a $3.5 million Gulfstream V jet complete with plasma TV, gold fixtures and two bathrooms, a yacht worth $750,000 to $1 million and servants in every location.
http://www.joelcomm.com/more_heinzkerry_hypocrisy.html

Have you seen the bigger piggies
In their starched white shirts
You will find the bigger piggies
Stirring up the dirt
Always have clean shirts to play around in.

[BlueCat]

At some point finger pointing will have to stop both parties are quilty as hell...
XTC is seeing the real problem...Fat Cats getting fatter.

[Psycho4Bud]

In their styes with all their backing
They don't care what goes on around
In their eyes there's something lacking
What they need's a damn good whacking.

Ain't the Beatles great?

[BlueCat]

In their styes with all their backing
They don't care what goes on around
In their eyes there's something lacking
What they need's a damn good whacking.

Ain't the Beatles great?

Have you ever read the BCCI affair?

We need to just wipe the slate clean....I don't like either party.

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1992...cci/01exec.htm

[Fengzi]

. Because the news media in this country is a big business, the bottom line at the end of the day isnâ??t quality or integrity, its, well, the bottom line. .

I think you hit the nail on the head here. It's all about money. From what I have seen the media is neither conservative or liberal. It is sensationalistic. The senstaional stories are the ones that get the more readers/viewers and, in turn more advertisers, and ultimately more dollars.

People here put so much stock in what they read in the papers or hear on the tv but few realize they seldom hear the real story. I'm not saying that the media is lying but the "truth" isn't always as true as we would like to believe. I have seen numerous cases where the media has manipulated facts, or left others out, in order to make a story more sensational. It's like the so called "reality" television. A reality shows producers will pick out who will be the villians and who will be the good guys early on. Do you think they show the villians good moments or the heroes bad moments. No, they just show a character that they have created. The media does the exact same thing with its news stories.

The sad part is that we hear so many of these "truths" during the course of our lives that few of us, myself included, really know what is the truth anymore. There are certain common perceptions that I know, through my education and profession, to be totally false. For every one that I know, however, I'm sure that there are a hundred that I don't. It's gotten to the point that for many issues I simply don't know what to think anymore.

[Psycho4Bud]

Have you ever read the BCCI affair?

We need to just wipe the slate clean....I don't like either party.

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1992...cci/01exec.htm

Put it in my favorites....the ol' man needs his readin' specs for that much! LOL I'm with ya though, both of the main two parties are real lacking!!! THREE TIMES NOW!!!