home

Bias In The Media

It is amazing how dumb the Media can be. Jamison Foser details one of the dumbest pieces of work I have ever seen: a report by MSNBC that shows that 116 journalists in the United States made political contributions to Democrats as compared to a mere smatterng who made contributions to Republicans. Consider how stupid the premise is - what you write is not where the bias is demonstrated, it is who you gave to. There are other obvious problems as Foser relates:

For starters, MSNBC found fewer than 150 journalists who have made political contributions. There were more than 116,000 working journalists in America as of 2002. The 144 who made contributions not only constitute a tiny fraction of American journalists, they cannot be considered a representative sample of the whole. Indeed, we know that they are un-representative of all journalists: They made reported campaign contributions, and their colleagues did not. . . . Indeed, if you look at MSNBC's list, you won't find Tim Russert or Bob Woodward or Maureen Dowd. You won't see many contributions from reporters for CNN or The New York Times or The Washington Post or ABC News. But you will find sports copy editors for the New Hampshire Union Leader and the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, a sports statistician for The Boston Globe, sports columnists for the South Florida Sun-Sentinel and the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, and a sports editor for the San Jose Mercury News.

Seems an obvious point no?

But here is the real point - I do not care if every reporter is a Bush supporting Republican. That is their business. What I care about is that the fact they are Bush supporting Republicans does not effect their journalism.

Journalists are going to have poltical views like everyone else. It is ridiculous to pretend otherwise. But if they can keep their political views out of their reporting then what's the problem?

I have said this many times -- the problem of the Media is not bias, it is competence. It is the abdication of the truth seeking role. The problem of today's Media is that it is merely transcribes what partisans say, it does not report on what is true.

Foser makes the point very well:

[A]s longtime journalist and Building Red America author Tom Edsall has explained, decades of attacks from conservatives have had the effect of turning even journalists who may personally be liberals into "unwilling, and often unknowing" conduits for conservative misinformation:
The conservative movement has been very effective attacking the media (broadcast and print) for its liberal biases. The refusal of the media to disclose and discuss the ideological leanings of reporters and editors, and the broader claim of objectivity, has made the press overly anxious, and inclined to lean over backwards not to offend critics from the right. In many respects, the campaign against the media has been more than a victory: it has turned the press into an unwilling, and often unknowing, ally of the right.
Every day, Media Matters documents examples of news reports that contain flaws that advance a conservative agenda or undermine progressive causes. In most cases, we neither know nor care whether the reporters, editors, and producers involved are conservatives, liberals, anarchists, or royalists. We focus on specific flaws in the content of their reports, not on trying to ascertain their intent.

Precisely what we should all do. In his debate with Ben Smith, I chided Glenn Greenwald for focusing on intent, rather than content regarding Poltico. I think Foser makes the point even more effectively.

< What Obama Has Learned | Romney's Double Standard >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    If they had to account for (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 08:28:59 PM EST
    their daily in-kind contributions

    Every day, Media Matters documents examples of news reports that contain flaws that advance a conservative agenda or undermine progressive causes.

    the numbers would be very different.

    Furthermore... (1.00 / 0) (#1)
    by LonewackoDotCom on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 06:42:12 PM EST
    I highlight some of the traitors to our shared, collaborative cause here. If fully as much as almost up to 20% or so of those in the MSNBC survey donated to the GOP, imagine how high that figure would go if the NYT, WaPo, and LAT didn't forbid their reporters from donating?

    et al (1.00 / 0) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 10:18:01 PM EST
    .. a report by MSNBC that shows that 116 journalists in the United States made political contributions to Democrats as compared to a mere smatterng who made contributions to Republicans.

    For starters, MSNBC found fewer than 150 journalists who have made political contributions.There were more than 116,000 working journalists in America as of 2002. The 144 who made contributions not only constitute a tiny fraction of American journalists, they cannot be considered a representative sample of the whole.

    First of all, the numbers are kinda screwed up... And if anyone wants to tell me that out of 116,000 journalists only 150 made contributions please don't waste our time. That doesn't pass the smell test....

    I want to believe (none / 0) (#6)
    by roy on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 10:33:41 PM EST
    I still think the MSM is heavily biased towards Leftist and statist views, and that the smoking gun it out there somewhere, but this is just a crap study.  It failed on a statistical level with poor methodology, and it failed on a practical level by focusing on the wrong thing.

    Parent
    What a disguise! (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 11:11:27 PM EST
    I still think the MSM is heavily biased towards Leftist and statist views,

    So, you figure that when the media repeat all the nutwing talking points and ignore IOKIYAR corruption, it's just to cover their tracks?

    Parent

    I realize that a few made journalists (none / 0) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 08:36:36 PM EST
    made political contributions to Democrats, but what I really want names and numbers on are Republican contributions made to journalists.

    Our AWFUL media again. (none / 0) (#4)
    by lilybart on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 09:46:14 PM EST
    Why does no one actually look at ALL the facts  before they write or shoot their mouths off.

    The damage is done---the lie is out there and the press never self-corrects. I mean, that story was so yesteday.

    Journalistic objectivity (none / 0) (#9)
    by Demi Moaned on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 12:12:55 AM EST
    ... if they can keep their political views out of their reporting then what's the problem?

    If, indeed. But I don't think they can. And I find the whole concept of journalistic objectivity an unjustifiable pretense.

    I do agree with you that the competence and standards issues you cite are currently of much more consequence.

    But even with a strict observance of standards and a conscientious effort to be fair, bias will creep in. It inevitably creeps in in the matter of selection, ordering and placement. It's just part of professional judgement and it's inevitably tied political opinions.

    I think it is obvious that this was not a (none / 0) (#10)
    by demohypocrates on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 12:22:20 AM EST
    scientific study.  It was a sampling and we cant even call it a random one.

    But to hear "The Ethicist" from the NYT (which basically prohibits overt poltical activity)equate giving $$ to moveon.org with giving $$ to the Boy Scouts is telling enough. I take him at his word.  He equates the two.  He earned his ideological merit badge.

    'Every day, Newsbusters documents examples of news reports that contain flaws that advance a left wing agenda or undermine conservative causes. '

    Make that 122 (none / 0) (#11)
    by Ben Masel on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 04:39:52 AM EST
    As a Candidate for the US Senate last year I recieved $1 campaign contributions from 6 members of the working press. Not in the FEC database as they were below the reporting threshold.

    Don't tell DA (1.00 / 1) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 08:53:39 AM EST
    he thinks he knows everything......

    Parent
    da (1.00 / 1) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 08:28:29 PM EST
    What you are saying is that:

    1. The donor has actually claimed a deduction.

    That is unproven.

    2. What you are also saying is that around one tenth of one percent of journalists have made a donation...that is .1%

    Excuse me while I:

    1. Laugh at the continued BS you try and pass off as knowledge in rather dumb attacks on me.

    2. Puke at the BS you pass off as "knowledge."

    Please.

    Yadda yadda means.

    You're full of it!!

    Parent

    et al (none / 0) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 09:11:16 AM EST
    I have a bud who claims that he can tell if a person who has made the new news in a negative manner is a Repub or Demo by this method...

    If the lead in says:

    "John X, Representative from the State of Confusion," was arrested and charged with.... Then John is a Demo, which you may find out at the end of the piece..

    If he is a Repub...

    "Joe Y, Repub Representative from......"

    I have never actually tried it, but I think I will.

    Details at 11...

    Be my guest (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 11:04:46 AM EST
    I have never actually tried it, but I think I will.

    It actually works the other way.  Republican party affiliation is mentioned as a last resort in articles about corruption.

    As an example of "balance," Rep Jefferson of Louisiana, a certified crook and a Democrat, is equated with the dozens of Republican congress critters on the take from Abramoff, as though a rogue element is the same as a party principle.

    How about the prostitute with the unlimited access to the White House and the fake news credentials, and the sketchy Secret Service records that show him leaving without arriving, and arriving but not leaving?  Would special treatment for a prostitute have been a story in the Clinton years, even though it was not during the Bush administration?

    But I will be interested in your research.  When will we see it?

    Parent

    Repack (1.00 / 1) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 06:24:24 PM EST
    Thanks - I would think of doing something you approve of.

    Parent
    DA (1.00 / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 06:24:59 PM EST
    yadda yadda

    Parent
    The Honest PPJ (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 06:34:45 PM EST
    You would be more honest and to the point if all your comments were in baby talk, similar to, if not the same as this:

    yadda yadda


    Parent
    squeaky (1.00 / 1) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 08:30:55 PM EST
    yadda yadda is not babby talk..

    That would be...

    squeaky squeaky

    Parent

    Whatever (none / 0) (#30)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 10:09:58 PM EST
    baby gibberish suits you is fine. Either yadda yadda or squeaky squeaky. At least you are being honest.

    Parent
    squeaky (1.00 / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 10:55:02 PM EST
    Look at it like this.

    At least when you are going "squeaky squeaky" you aren't smearing someone.

    That's actually an improvement.

    Parent

    da (1.00 / 1) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 08:29:17 PM EST
    You are just so laughable...

    Parent
    da (none / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 10:53:53 PM EST
    sigh...

    Is your life so miserable that you have nothing to do but dumb claims??

    Then enjoy.

    Parent

    da (1.00 / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 10:03:27 AM EST
    yadda yadda

    Parent
    A counter example: Mike Nifong (none / 0) (#17)
    by roy on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 06:17:48 PM EST
    As Googled here.

    I actually didn't even know he was a Democrat until I started poking around to sanity-check Jim.  Earlier today, I tried to do a somewhat thorough (but still horribly unscientific) test with a handful of MSM news sites and prominent scandalized party members.  I put Nifong on the Republican side initially because, well, the crap he pulled seemed Republicanish.

    (I scrapped my "thorough" test due to technical problems and it being pretty outside, but it started to look like the MSM consistently listed affiliation for William Jefferson, left it out for Mike Nifong, and had mixed results for Marion Barry.  I didn't get to any actual Republicans.)

    Parent

    roy (1.00 / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 06:28:16 PM EST
     
    I put Nifong on the Republican side initially because, well, the crap he pulled seemed Republicanish.

    That's funny...

    Roy.... please... just when I think you are a Libertarian independent type you write the above??

    btw... I said I would look.... That means as I read them.. not a search...

    and I also said I didn't know how accurate it was..

    details in a few weeks..

    LOL

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#24)
    by roy on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 06:53:04 PM EST
    If it makes you feel any better, I similarly assumed that everybody in the Group of 88 is a Democrat, because that seems like Democratic crap to pull.

    And "Libertarian independent" is an oxymoron, since Libertarian (written as a Proper Noun) is a political party.  They're kind of nutty.  I go by "libertarian".

    Parent

    roy (1.00 / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 10:51:29 PM EST
    Does that make you Nutty or nutty???

    ;-)

    Parent

    roy (1.00 / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 10:55:44 PM EST
    Sorry... couldn't resist.

    Parent
    roy (1.00 / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 06:30:12 PM EST
    Re Jefferson... Devil's advocate...

    Does it seem possible that, since who he is is v ery well known, nothing is revealed?????


    Parent

    Media Provides Information. Yeah, right (none / 0) (#25)
    by NMRon on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 07:37:21 PM EST
    TPM has a piece on a recent Newsweek poll showing that misinformation about Iraq, 9/11 and WMD's is still rampant, in some cases increasing. Anyone who argues that the media are keeping up their end of the bargain are kidding themselves. It's time for a return of the 'Fairness Doctrine' and especially for the complete breakup of media ownership.

    Cat Fight (none / 0) (#37)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 11:56:00 PM EST
    From his beginnings as a proprietor of a single Australian newspaper, Mr. Murdoch now commands a news, entertainment and Internet enterprise whose $68 billion value slightly exceeds that of the Walt Disney Company.

    The NYT slimes Murdoch in the face of his bid for the WSJ.
    It is ironic as the NYT is suggesting that they are nothing like Murdoch whose news is akin to disney while they are not much better. Their effort to provide entertainment rather than news is highligted by their utter failure to do anything but pamper the Bush WH.  

    Worth a read via HuffPo