Two of my blogging buddies, who are also posting at Gather, published stories about the White House Press corp's aversion to FoxNews. Joe Gandelman, of The Moderate Voice , and James Joyner, of Outside The Beltway ,
As if more was needed, this story provides additional evidence that the mainstream media has a liberal bias.
A UCLA-led study recently concluded that almost all major media outlets have a liberal bias:
Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.
Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.
The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third.
The research used the Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) scores as a standard gauge of a lawmaker's support for liberal causes. The ADA tracks the percentage of times that each lawmaker votes on the liberal side of an issue. Based on these votes, the ADA assigns a numerical score to each lawmaker, where "100" is the most liberal and "0" is the most conservative. The researchers assume the average ADA score in Congress (50.1) represents the political position of the average U.S. voter. The researchers examined U.S. media coverage of the past 10 years, tallying the number of times each media outlet referred to think tanks and policy groups, such as the left-leaning NAACP or the right-leaning Heritage Foundation. The study omitted editorials and Op?Eds to focus on bias in news reporting.
The study's lead author was surprised at how biased the main stream media is:
"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."
Perhaps an academic would be surprised by evidence scientifically demonstrating the degree of main stream bias. Studies show academia is similarly biased. But anyone who reads, listens or views a range of mainstream media outlets and reads some of the right side of the blogosphere will just yawn and shake their head at the inevitable outcry from the left.
If you want a "centrist" view of the news the study concluded NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," ABC's "Good Morning America," CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown," Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and the Drudge Report ? were in a statistical dead heat in the race for the most "centrist" news outlet. Of the print media, USA Today was the most "centrist."
The study labeled those outlets "centrist," rather than balanced or fair.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 33
My complaint about the liberal media is not their outright bias or their reliance on a golden roledex file of liberal "experts" but their choice of subject matter. NPR is especially bad about this.
Public Radio which is supposed to be "public" seems quite comfortable marketing itself to the liberal academic elite.
In short, one will hear tedious weekly reports on "feminist" issues.....but it would be a cold day in hell before NPR does a NASCAR or hunting story.
.....but it would be a cold day in hell before NPR does a NASCAR or hunting story.
NASCAR
more NASCAR
still more NASCAR
And there are many NPR hunting stories, as well, including a story on efforts top make hunting more accessible to the handicapped and a report on why hunting is on the decline.
Brrrrrrrr
Next question: who funded the researchers?
I admit the study appeals to me because it purports to support something I believe to be true - there is a liberal bias in the main stream media.
One reference in the "Food" section of Morning Edition, one reference to a commentary that mentioned NASCAR and one link to a site that had nothing to do with NPR.
Hmmmm.
I do have to hand it to you Jade, NPR has actually used the word NASCAR. Searching the NPR site turned up a whopping 246 references to the word "NASCAR" over a decade.
Searching on the program "All Things Considered" on the topic of "news", I found 12 references in 10 years of news stories. Other than the biggest sports news stories of the decade, the death of Dale Earnhardt, there was hardly a single reference to an actual NASCAR event. Most of the references were to a "NASCAR theme on a bedroom wall", a "NASCAR driver testifying on mine safety" etc.
Searching on the program "All Things Considered" on the topic of "news" for the word "Soccer", I found 100 references over a decade. Like NASCAR most of the references were oblique, but there were many direct references, like that of a Latina Soccer League in New York and the American buyout of a british soccer team.
Searching methodically through all topics I found that even oblque reference to "Soccer" out numbered oblique references to "NASCAR" by a factor of 2:1.
Quite interesting -- Soccer v. NASCAR, what a great measure of academic leftist elitism!!
I've noticed that those mainstream "liberal" outlets generally present information in a less sensationalized, and more civilized tone than the alternative venues. While many viewers may be entertained by the ranting and screaming that plagues some regularly aired programs, I wonder if the viewer is actually listening for information, or is merely seeking the same kind of entertainment one might experience at a dog fight.
(I don't hear much about NASCAR on my local listener supported catholic radio station, either. Or soccer)
Although NASCAR isn't a sport--it is often treated as such. NPR is not a sports network, so it's pretty obvious they're going to be doing peripheral stories involving NASCAR as opposed to giving out standings and race results. BTW, the link you say doesn't reference NPR actually does; it refers to an NPR interview with a NASCAR driver.
You also should understand NASCAR has a pretty limited following that is pretty much contained to the Southern US whereas soccer is the most popular sport in the world.
Don't you find it incredible that you'd support the findings of any study without being able to explain its methodology? Regardless of whether you really wish it to be true?
I also believe that if you'd researched these professors' backgrounds, you'd have found they've a long history of being funded by rightwing advocacy groups.
That's a minor point, however. What's more troublesome is their methodology--which you decline to identify. Perhaps you understand just how shaky this methodology is.
Let's look at their methodology; they took a list of "200 of the most prominent think tanks" and looked in the Congressional Record for the period between between 1993 and 2002 to see how often a member of Congress cited each of them for a fact or opinion. Then they assigned a rating to each group that corresponded to the average ADA rating of the members who cited it.
In essence, if a Democratic Senator cited the Rand Corporation study published in the NEJM--Rand became a "liberal" think tank. More troubling. the researchers make no distinction between peer-reviewed work in the New England Journal of Medicine and press releases from the Heritage Foundation. Thus, a dubious story in Matt Drudge is treated no differently than a peer-reviewed article in Foreign Affairs.
Interestingly, an economist took the methodology used by these researchers and applied it to the 2005 Congress and found Congress scored a 54.2--meaning a GOP-controlled House and Senate is left-of-center.
I miss Aaron Brown! He was so witty, cerebral, and caring. I missed his segment that went over the next day's newspaper front pages...the rooster sound was hiliarious. I cannot wait for him to get back into the TV or radio once his CNN contract allows him to. However, I hope he pops back up in public radio...
Maybe that explains why recent polls find Congress even less popular than President Bush.
Aaron Brown left CNN six months ago, but is still under contract with CNN? I need a gig like that
CY: Interested in some beachfront property in Nebraska?
I am curious as to who funded the study since the methodology doesn't seem to be available. What was that Deep Throart supposed to have said, "Follow the money!"
Martha: The methodology is available here
As for funding of the authors..Media Transparency
National Public Radio contains the word public because it is funded to be exactly that. A Catholic radio station is funded to be --- Catholic.
Obviously Ms. Gold, you spend too much time in the urban areas, NASCAR is indeed popular in the South but is also popular in rural communities. Though Soccer may enjoy world popularity, NPR is not funded by and for the world, it is funded in part by U.S. taxpayers for the benefit of U.S taxpayers.
Therein lies a problem -- .
Though National Public Radio and National Public Broadcasting are funded as a Public entity, it is marketed primarily to a eastern liberal elite audience.
My cursory analysis of references to "soccer" and "NASCAR" illustrate the fact that public broadcasting is completely out-of-touch with the greater culture.
NPR does not shy away from exposing the conservative fallacy which is I guess a problem for the thought control crowd. Facts, as it has been said, are anti Bush.
Is there anybody here who would trust a study which said that the ACLU was conservative? If a study claimed that, would you trust the study, no matter who issued it?
What about a study which clamed that the NRA is only slightly conservative?
I don't care if you like or dislike the NRA or the ACLU, but the ACLU is decidedly liberal, the NRA is decidedly conservative, and I doubt many people on either side would disagree.
This study, however, does disagree. This study you are quoting placed both the NRA and ACLU JUST SLIGHTLY in the conservative category as having very little bias.
Anybody here agree with that assessment? It's been a while since the ACLU was accused of a conservative bias.
Further, this is NOT a UCLA study. It is a study by a political scientist there. There is a phenomenal difference.
Further, the study claims to be the first of it's kind. That simply isn't true, the Pew Center has been continually studying biases in the media for at least 8 years (http://people-press.org/ ). I'm quite suspicious of any researcher who wouldn't know that, or attempt to explain why his study contradicted the Pew study.
Also, this study was funded by (and run by an ex-members of) an extremely conservative organization, the Heritage Foundation.
Disagree with me that the Heritage foundation is extremely conservative? The study doesn't. The Study found that the Heritage Foundation was even MORE conservative than the Christian Coalition.
That strikes me as significantly less than an "unbiased" study (unlike the Pew study, which was unbiased, and found only a SLIGHT oscillating bias in the news).
Not surprisingly, this study has been debunked by most major news sources.
This excludes Fox news. While their motto may be "fair and balanced", and "we report, you decide", they spent considerable time reporting the "study", and no time (that I am aware of) reporting either it's specious findings, the phenomenal criticism the report has received, or who funded the report.
I should expect (and hope) that if the ACLU funded a report that clamed no liberal bias in the news, Fox would report the source of the findings along with the findings. In this case, they did not.
Then again, the ACLU is a slightly conservative organization (only slightly less than the NRA).
http://mediamatters.org/items/200512220003
But you can find more if you look. Too tired to do research for other people.
The consensus appears to be that the study is a joke (admittedly, the left wing media consensus). Calling the ACLU, an organization fighting for the impeachment of the president, conservative (if only slightly) REALY IS quite funny though.
Mr. Yankee gives a good summery of the methodology used to test "Bias".
HOWEVER, that methodology is phenomenally flawed (as the results would tend to indicate). They measured ONLY how often a news organization referenced a think tank or policy group, NOT the nature of the reference.
Therefore, referring to the ACLU (either by saying "The flawed ACLU report" or by saying "The brilliant ACLU report") would give the organization +1 in the liberal coloumn. Any mention of a Liberal or Conservative organization, whether supporting or refuting a claim by that organization, counts as a bias TOWARDS that organization's views.
That doesn't strike me as a reliable way of tabulating the data. Anybody disagree with me that that's what they're doing? Anybody think that's a reliable method?
An impeachment is a trial, nothing more or less. You impeach those you suspect may have committed a crime, if they are found guilty, they can be removed from office.
Clinton was impeached because he MIGHT have had lied under oath in a civil case (a misdemeanor, and by the way, everybody always does. Spend some time in a court or just watch Judge Judy. Every judge assumes he's being lied to by everybody, and he usually is).
So Clinton might have lied, they impeach him, prove conclusively that he DID, but decide that despite being guilty (and a sexual predator), his crimes did not rise to the level of "High Crimes" and did not remove him.
I wasn't against the impeachment. I thought it was a waste of time, but so is a lot of what we do out of paranoia. If the republicans felt they needed to do it, let them do it. If it wasn't anything that serious, it would come out at impeachment. If it was serious, than he should be removed, so what's the problem?
What blows my mind though, is it's quite clear that Bush may very well have lied to Congress and the American people about intelligence. Lying to the people is not an impeachable offence. Lying to Congress is a felony! It is unbelievably serious!
Now, I have no doubt that many here are sure he didn't lie, that he got bad intelligence. Okay, but there's loads of evidence to the contrary, serious and credible evidence. Multiple people at the cabinet level have said he lied, the downing street memo is damming…
Do these people have a reason to lie? Yes, just like Paula Jones did. Doesn't mean that they are lying any more than she was.
It blows my mind that when president Clinton is accused of a misdemeanor, "unbiased" Republicans demand an impeachment to learn the truth. But when Bush is accused, repeatedly from people with decades history of serving this country (Bob Woodward, Paul O'Neill, Richard Clarke) of multiple felonies, the "unbiased" Republicans are phenomenally dismissive of it.
Are the democrats really asking a lot when they ask for a trial? If republicans truly want to break down partisan politics, can they deny these requests?
And to bring this around to Bias in the media, Clinton's sex scandal was on the news 24/7… The accusations made by credible government sources (and by MI5) get a few days of play, after which the media is accused of a liberal bias.
Of those of you who only watch Fox news, how many of you know that there were in fact weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? There were, undisputed fact.
The UN sealed a number of WMD in bunkers across Iraq. They were there, we knew where they were, and they had been legally declared by Saddam Husain. We were not looking for WMD's, but UNDECLAIRED WMD's.
Many of the declared WMD's in Iraq have been lost, stolen when the UN Pulled out before the war, and the US failed to secure them (we checked the bunkers, then moved on. The bunkers have since been raided).
Fox news hasn't reported that. Every other major news source has.
Fox news hasn't reported that the impeachment process is already underway. Rep. John Conyers introduced resolutions 636, 636, and 637 to form a comity with the power to impeach the president. He did this 5 months ago.
Who here thinks that's a big deal? Who here thinks Fox has reported it? Who here thinks the Liberal media is crushing bush with this?
If you BELIEVE there is a liberal bias, you will find one, whether or not it is true. And you'll accept studies like this blindly, instead of objectively looking at it BEFORE reaching a conclusion.
As far as the kiss.... I'll try to hide my disapointment :P
to the title of your article... is it Media Bias... or Media BUY-US... methinks it's the latter... ;)