The latest Pew survey once again finds the media runs far more liberal than the generic population.
While it’s important to remember that most journalists in this survey continue to call themselves moderate, the ranks of self-described liberals have grown in recent years, according to Pew. For example, since 1995, Pew found at national outlets that the liberal segment has climbed from 22% to 34% while conservatives have only inched up from 5% to 7%.
The survey also revealed what some are sure to label a “values” gap. According to Pew, about 60% of the general public believes it is necessary to believe in God to be a truly moral person. The new survey finds that less than 15% of those who work at news outlets believe that. About half the general public believes homosexuality should be accepted by society — but about 80% of journalists feel that way.
The problem is that this liberal bias naturally infuses into coverage of events – which are almost always covered with a noticeable liberal slant. The coverage of the war in particular has been biased beyond all belief. Many members of the media actually want the US to lose this war so that Bush will lose re-election – even if that means the slaughter of scores of Americans. While certainly not all journalists feel this way, the coverage of the war has been incredibly and unduly negative, and the media has ignored stories that don’t match their desired conception that the war is turning into another Vietnam.
Unfortunately, the media is the last place one will find accurate and unbiased information these days.
Here’s another explanation – liberals are right, and conservatives live in La-la Land. Maybe that’s why reports about things in the real world seem to be liberal to you? Because the world of the conservative is a fantasy world that doesn’t exist?
That would explain why listeners of NPR tend to better informed than viewers of Fox News – the only way to report the news with a “conservative bias” is to make things uo?
Thanks for trolling, now go back to DU.
Michael Barone writes:
“Roosevelt did not have to deal with one problem Bush faces today. And that is that today’s press works to put the worst possible face on the war.”
There is no doubt the media as a whole is very biased. This study is one more piece of evidence. There is no way that the far more liberal views of the journalists does not impact their reporting. To think that these journalists can be so perfectly objective is a fantasy.
It’s interesting how the media proclaims any issue, once it goes positive for Bush, as no longer being an issue in the election.
So, for instance, as long as jobs were not showing gains, we were told that was going to be an issue. Now that we have a boom in jobs, we are told that this will not be an issue in the election.
In essence, the media is attempting to frame the election in such a way that only issues that can be seen as negatives for Bush will be legitimate issues. They act as if positive performance and achievements should not factor in to the decision on the incumbent.
Of course, under Clinton, it was just the opposite. We were always told how positive developments, such as jobs, stock market, etc. were more important issues to people than the negative issues, such as Clinton’s scandals, lack of character and trust, etc.
You know that makes you sound like a conspiracy thoerist right?
That may be a point not made. Both sides of this argument tend to play the conspiracy card. I hate politics, but even I remember the famous phrase, “right wing agenda”. Anyone who’s ever seen Citizen Kane knows the basic story line being sold here. Elites try to pursuade the public into thinking like them.
In this respect maybe its a good think to have a “liberal media” and a “conservative media”, that way you can try to balance the two. All this creates more work for the viewer. And that is why blogs are cool.
In print and online, words have to stand on their own. If you state facts, they must be factual, otherwise they we be refuted by actual facts (instead of fact-like opinions). Plus, the diversity and volumn of the information gathered and presented by blogs is enough to fuel any internet addict.
If the mainstream media looses its competition with blogs it will be because of inadequate coverage and not any perceived slant.
Chris: the problem is not a “liberal media” or a “conservative media”–it is that we have a liberal media that tries to pass itself off as unbiased.
I have no problem with a commentator or organization being liberal and letting us know that upfront.
As for print and online versus broadcast media, I have generally found that it is possible to present any viewpoint and make it seem credible, regardless of the medium. So I don’t necessarily share your optimism that words on a page are so much more likely to be parsed through a greater filter of credibility.
I do believe, however, that the main advantage of the internet versus broadcast media is that all information and viewpoints are available.
That does not necessarily guarantee that people will be any more discerning, but it does allow for that possibility.