Tim Groseclose’s New Book on Liberal Media Bias

My good friend and co-author Tim Groseclose has a new book out entitled Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind. As the title suggests, it has a definite conservative slant. It is not, however, a right-wing rant by any means. Rather, it is a carefully researched and amusingly written book by a highly regarded academic.

I’m bored to death by politics. So I didn’t expect to enjoy Groseclose’s book, but I really did. I’m always surprised when an academic can write for a general audience, but Groseclose definitely has that gift.

As I said in my blurb for his book, liberals will not like what Groseclose has to say, but that is all the more reason why liberals should read his book.

Leave A Comment

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.



View All Comments »
  1. JohnS says:

    As someone who is not from the US but regularly consumes mainstream american media, I am always shocked when I see someone accusing it of being left-wing biased.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 61 Thumb down 28
    • PaulD says:

      It’s all relative, of course. If you’re from Europe, then yes, our media doesn’t seem so liberal. But relative to what ordinary Americans believe there is a definite bias.

      Jack in the Box had a commercial a few years ago where Jack is riding a moped through the streets of an Italian city, and he says, “Over here they eat Italian food every day. But they don’t call it Italian food — they just call it food.” Likewise, the American media doesn’t refer to itself as liberal media — but they sure are quick to label something to their right as conservative or reactionary.

      Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 6
      • Benjamin David Steele says:

        Stop and think what you are saying. Where do you hear the claim that the media is liberally biased? You hear it in the mainstream media. If the media actually was liberally biased, then the media reporters and pundits wouldn’t be attacking each other as being too liberal.

        Furthermore, if you want to know where the American public stands, then just look at what they support. On key issues, the American public is to the left of mainstream media and mainstream politics.


        Thumb up 6 Thumb down 10
  2. Deron says:

    Not sure why liberals should care what the book says, but I’m anxious to read it.

    Given a spectrum from liberal to conservative “the media” is going to be off center. It’s not something for liberals or conservatives to feel burdened by, recognize it perhaps, but not worry over it.

    The conclusion, as the title suggests, that the bias distorts our thinking is a bit rich. Unless, one has the biased opinion that there’s a view point that’s free of distortions.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 13
    • Mike B says:

      Anything that makes you consider things that run contrary to you’re existing world view is bound to alter how you think.

      Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 3
    • Patrick says:

      When 95% of mainstream media political donations go to Dems it is clear that the media is left wing. If you consider the New York Times or MSNBC to be conservative, then your politics have been distorted in just the way Groseclose describes in his book. I think one of the examples cited in Grosclose’s book is that whether you are a conservative or a liberal, you view Fox News as being right of center. But just because Fox News is to the right of MSNBC and CNN doesn’t mean it is right of center. It could just be centrist but appears right when compared to other media outlets.

      Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 56 Thumb down 54
      • JohnS says:

        By that logic, it could be the other way around too – that CNN is centrist but is viewed as leftist since it’s to the left of Fox news. This is not an argument for the media being liberally biased.

        I’d love to see a link confirming that 95 % number. Also, an explanation of how donations imply media bias. I really can’t figure it out – if it was 95% of donations from media companies, then it might make sense, but not if it’s of donations from all sources.

        Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 46 Thumb down 19
      • Dave says:

        I haven’t read the book (which I’m imagining makes this case in more detail, but you can try playing around with the Huffington Post’s Political Fundraising Tool which allows you to track donations by party and search these by occupation. I don’t get 99%, but definitely a strong leaning towards the Democrats when searching for media-related occupations.

        Note that occupation in this case is self-reported, and that many news organizations prohibit their staff from making political contributions as part of an attempt to remain objective. i.e. there are some significant problems with the above, but it’s a start.

        Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 3
      • Tony says:

        have you considered that maybe journalists tended to vote democrats in this last election because they were exposed to more of the facts?

        Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 23
      • MeanOnSunday says:

        There are four studies:

        ABC employees during 2008 presidential election: 99% to Obama (Washington Times 2009)
        Journalists during 2008 presidential election: 95% to Obama (Investor Busineess Daily 2008)
        Journalists giving to any political organization between 2004 and start of 2008 campaign: 89% Democratic/Liberal groups (MSNBC 2007)
        Journalists during 2004 presidential election: 99% to Kerry (PoliticalMoneyLine 2004)

        All are percentages of the named groups making donations exclusively to Democrats or Republicans determined from public records of the donations

        Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 3
      • Michael says:

        Those studies (and most on this page) seem to show that the non-politicians most immersed in the details of politics (that is, journalists) and the facts of issues tend to fall to the side of what you call “liberal.” Not that liberals rise up and control the news.

        It seems to me that the thought (unfounded by any study I’ve ever seen) is that liberals shape the news, when the reality may be that the news may shape liberals.

        Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 23 Thumb down 21
      • Nosybear says:

        Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

        Disliked! Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 15
      • James says:

        Couple of unanswered questions in there, I think.

        1) What percentage of journalists don’t donate to any candidate?

        2) What percentage do donate, but do so in such a way that their identity & the fact of their contribution won’t be tracked?

        Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0
      • Clancy says:

        Excactly. I myself have views that are percisely on center, what any sensible person, free from bais would believe. The fact that 85% of people with opinions are to the right of me is clear evidence of their bias and their influence by a biased media (or even a shadowy conspiracy!)
        If only media were free from bias, everyone would agree with me and we would live in a utopia!

        Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 48 Thumb down 7
      • Joshua Northey says:

        If you think Fox News is centrist you don’t have any idea what you are talking about. Fox News consistently right of center of US politics, which are about as “rightist” as any politics in the G10.

        Sure Fox News is no Goebbels, but that is damning with faint praise.

        Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 12
      • rationalrevolution says:

        The whole notion of defining “left” or “”liberal” via political parties is nonsense at the root. It takes all objectively out of the whole process by starting with the assumption that Democratic Party, or in this case of his book, one specific Democratic Party activist group, is in fact “liberal” or “leftist”.

        Any objective measure shows that today’s Democratic Party it itself right of center and dominated by corporate interests in the first place. The media is one thing and one thing only, which is pro-corporate.

        This guys methodology was designed from the start to reach his foregone conclusion. He designed a methodology that would clearly result in labeling everything “liberal” cause that’s what he wanted.

        Folks on the right don’t have the slightest either understanding of or concern for objectivity . You see the exact same types of methodologies employed in the creationist and intelligent design circles, in the “the Civil War was about States Rights” circles, in the “the Founding Fathers were all Christian fundamentalists” circles, etc. It’s all the same selective methodology, this is just one more chip off the same old block.

        Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 38 Thumb down 24
      • Jaime says:

        It is all largely subjective however, from a European mindset I find that really all US media is slightly right winged.

        However, I believe that whether something is Right or Left winged or the holy grail of political blandness: Centrist, it makes no difference. What should matter is the quality of the information you recieve.

        FOX has outright lied or accidentally aired wrong information on more occassions than any other major US network almost always to put a point across (whatever that point may be), albeit, CNN or MSNBC (in particular the latter) are not free of such actions the magnitude of them are on a different scale.

        When you add in the sensationalist trends that flood all mainstream media and add to the misinformation and lack of objectivity of these what you end up with is a spawing pool of ignorant (and unaware of it) masses.

        When will the conversation turn from point-of-view to quality-of-information arguments?
        I do not care whether my TV is left or right-wing biased because my TV is not worth watching. As such I will not read that book nor do I feel compelled to in the slightest. I encourage people to get informed properly before they question the ethics of bias.

        Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 19
      • Dawson B says:

        Yes, individual journalists tend to be Democrats – which, remember, only says about their position on the political spectrum that they’re left of the Republicans, not that they’re left-of-center. More importantly, that comes with the implicit assumption that lowly journalists are the ones who decide what they’re reporting on, the slant they’re giving it, and the facts they choose to include and exclude. These are largely editorial decisions.

        Donations don’t demonstrate bias in reporting. Freedom House receives funding from Congress, but that’s not evidenced its biased towards the US government. You’d have to take numerous media reports and demonstrate a consistent and systemic bias one way or the other to show actual bias. Just looking at funding or donations isn’t enough to prove the bias that might result from them, you have to demonstrate the bias itself.

        As has been said, media bias is subjective. There has to be a second thing against which media are biased, because there’s no universally applicable political spectrum by which to judge reporting. That second thing could be public opinion, I think that’s a reasonable place to look. And if you compare public opinion to mass media reporting in certain fields – universal health care, the Iraq and Afghanistan and Libyan wars, US policy towards Israel – a systemic media bias to the “right” of public opinion becomes clear.

        Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3
  3. Mike B says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Disliked! Like or Dislike: Thumb up 48 Thumb down 53
    • Dawson B says:

      I wonder what news outlets you consider mainstream and what evidence you have that they’re committed to quality reporting? If we’re talking about television news stations, I think there’s no question they’re not even committed to reporting news, just some insipid celebrity stories and irrelevant popular culture buzz. That’s been my perception of CNN, MSNBC, and Fox when I do watch them. I think any sort of systemic bias would be hard to pick out from that rubbish amalgam of vapid, unimportant nonsense that those three stations spit out.

      Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
  4. rationalrevolution says:

    Oh lord. Any book that starts out by saying that “without liberal media bias” the average American would hold the views of Ben Stein and Bill O’Reilly is just plain nonsense.

    Seriously, you’re touting a book that states in the introduction that without “liberal media bias” all of America would be like Texas, Kansas and South Dakota, as well as Orange County California, and that, “to the liberal elite, such places are a nightmare. They are family friendly, largely suburban, and a large fraction of the population go to church on Sundays.” And then he goes on to “quote” “someone” from Hollywood (cause ya know that Hollywood is really representative of “liberals” after all) who complains about Orange County. Talk about ivory towers….

    Seriously, this is the book you want to throw your recommendation behind? Cause we all know that “liberals” hate families right, that’s a real nightmare. I guess I should have ensured my kids were aborted.

    So he then goes on to describe how he invented some “slant quotient”, and according to his fabricated metric, EVERY SINGLE NEWS OUTLET, EXCEPT FOUR, has a “liberal” bias.

    LOL, this is laughable comedy.

    If it weren’t for the liberal media, John McCain would have defeated Obama he claims! LOL

    In our current world, of massive liberal bias, FOX News and the Washington Times “SEEM” conservative, but they really aren’t, they are really centrist and objective. If we could eliminate “liberal media bias” these organizations would be seen as the objective centrists they are! LOL

    Give me a break, I can’t believe anyone would endorse this book….

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 75 Thumb down 41
    • J1 says:

      “Any book that starts out by saying that “without liberal media bias” the average American would hold the views of Ben Stein and Bill O’Reilly is just plain nonsense”

      Haven’t read it, but I’d agree with you on that one. Still, I do think most media outlets in the US have a left wing slant; I just think people understand that and adjust for it. The “ivory tower” problem is the idea that the public is too dumb to recognize bias and correct for it.

      Also, liberal bias can mean many things. Even on Fox News, you see a lot of reporters who seem to operate on the assumption that the government can and should respond to basically any problem they identify, and that people with a financial interest in something are inherently less trustworthy than people without one, despite ample evidence that ideology is a much more powerful motivator than financial gain.

      Thumb up 10 Thumb down 9
  5. Pat says:

    To answer JohnS, 2 points:

    First, The media gives plenty of airplay to liberal/democratic politicians who claim to know the true motives of their conservative counterparts and very little if any to the conservative or republican or libertarians.

    For example, ask any neutral observer why conservatives favor tax cuts, and my guess is that they’ll usually answer “because they’re in bed with big business (or the insurance companies or the military industrial complex, etc.)”. But the truth is, they believe that lower taxes will increase total revenue (the rising tide which lifts all boats).

    Second, typically, liberal positions (not by design, I’m not a conspiracy theorist) tend to be more easily encapsulated into the oft maligned sound bite. “There’s a poor person….give him money from a wealthy person”. Neat, simple and quick. The lessons taught us by B.F. Skinner and J.K. Galbraith won’t make for compelling television, and we need to go to commercial.

    Full disclosure: I have NOT read the book. I’m going straight to amazon to order it as soon as this posts!

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 48 Thumb down 43
    • JohnS says:

      For the first point, I guess one could make a study checking the amount of time given to conservative/liberal politicians in various media outlets. There would be a number of problems with such an approach, but do you have any study or similar to back up this statement? It sounds very much like a personal anectode otherwise.

      I also assume that when you say “neutral observer”, you mean “average observer”, or something, because it was clearly not a neutral observer in your example. Also, I highly doubt that your point is true – most americans are in favor of low taxes.

      I am also not convinced by your second point, that liberal positions are easier to convey. “Tax cuts means more money for you!” also seems like an easy sell, and I’m sure most issues out there are also easy to formulate one way or another.

      But more importantly, whether or not it’s easy to sell opinions doesn’t matter – it’s what media actually does which means that they’re biased or not. This is really an irrelevant argument, even if it’s true.

      Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 7
      • rationalrevolution says:

        Studies like this have been done. Here is one example that is done on newspapers:


        Here is another one that was done on Sunday political talk shows:


        Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 14
      • Alex in KY says:

        Are you seriously posting a media matters website as a source? They are a liberal propoganda machine. Since when has George Soros been unbiased?

        Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 22 Thumb down 18
      • rationalrevolution says:

        Their methodology and the underlying data is provided. If you want to dispute the findings, address the facts.

        Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 10
      • Pat says:

        I freely admit that I have no studies to cite other than my own experience watching the news. There are studies out there, which I don’t have at my finger tips, which comparing the relative negative, neutral and positive stories dedicated to Obama vs. those to McCain during the last election, and they favored Obama. (full disclosure again: I voted for neither for president).

        I can, however, say with absolute certainty that I have never (I’m not being hyperbolic, I mean NEVER) heard anyone give the rationale of lower taxes amounting to higher revenue.

        Now, I’ll ask you to check your own experience. How many times have you heard the phrase “the rich should pay their fair share” or some similar phrase? Now, contrast that with the number of times have you heard a comparison of the rich’s current share of the tax burden vs. the middle and lower classes? Finally, and most importantly, have you ever heard how they actually define “fair share”? Is there an objective formula? Is there a constant standard?

        Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 10
      • JohnS says:

        You do realise that personal experiences makes for very bad arguments? I don’t trust my judgement more than I trust yours, and neither should you. That’s why I was hoping you’d back up your arguments with something with more substance.

        As you admit to having no evidence regarding airtime, we’ll let that issue pass. Let me just say that there’s alot more to Left-Right media bias than Obama vs. McCain. There has been more presidential elections, there’s time between them, and there’s more behind what gets reported than sheer bias.

        You have also slightly shifted the point about tax rate arguments. In your last post, you seem to say that noone you’ve spoken to would use that particular argument to motivate reducing taxes. I assume that you mean, in continuing and clarifying your previous post, that noone you’ve spoken to would say that the republicans used that as an argument to motivate lowering taxes. The point was about what image the media gave of the republicans motivations, not what people themselves thought of tax rates, correct?

        Also, in your original post, you claimed that the average american believed in conspiratory reasons behind the GOPs decision (the GOP being in bed with the military industrial complex). This is now downgraded to simply not believing the correct argument behind the GOPs decision. It is a slightly weaker assertion, and one I find easier to believe, but it’s still a very flimsy argument. It still relies on what I (or in this case, you) “think” this average american, or neutral or whatever, would say. It is alot easier to accept the argument if you already believe in a biased media, and alot easier to dismiss if you don’t. It’s not a very good argument, even though it may seem so to someone who believes in a biased media. You can do better than this.

        On a side note you’ll be happy to hear that I know plenty of people, both american and otherwise, who argues that lower taxes, in the US and outside, would increase total revenue. I am not convinced it’s always true, though.

        Finally, I’m not entirely sure what you mean with your final paragraph. I’ve certainly heard plenty of pointless buzz phrases in favour of both liberal and conservative positions, both based on questionable conceptions of “fairness” (“It’s their money, they earned it, it’s not right for the government to just take it”, “Why should I have to pay for your healthcare?”, “Taxation is theft”). I wouldn’t say that one side is better at this than the other, and in my experience american media is quite good at handing out both types. Again, this argument seems based on personal experiences.

        Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 5
      • Pat says:

        Let me clarify the last paragraph (yes is was unclear). “The rich should pay their fair share” is a long used argument for shoring up our budgetary shortfalls, but the statement presumes two things. First, that they are not already paying their fair share and second, that some agreed upon metric exists to define “fair”.

        I’m not arguing whether or not the rich pay their fare share, I’m asking you, have you ever heard anyone on the nightly news ask any of the following questions in response to that statement?

        “How much are they paying now?”
        “Why is the amount that they’re currently paying not fair?”
        “How much would be fair?”

        Of course, I’m asking based on our mutual experiences. I don’t have the means to conduct studies nor the time to critically evaluate the methodology of other studies.

        Brit Hume said something wonderful last week (I’ll paraphrase). “Walter Cronkite, it turns out, was an arch liberal. But nobody seems to have known that until years after his retirement”.

        Sad commentary on the media today.

        Thumb up 9 Thumb down 9
    • rationalrevolution says:

      “First, The media gives plenty of airplay to liberal/democratic politicians who claim to know the true motives of their conservative counterparts and very little if any to the conservative or republican or libertarians.”

      This is simply not true at all. In fact several studies, two of which I’ve sighted below, show that conservatives/Republicans get more air time on new programs. Please cite examples or studies of news outlets, other than the Daily Show and the Colbert Report, doing what you claim. The only times I’ve seen this is on FOX where the liberal is just being setup as a foil….

      “For example, ask any neutral observer why conservatives favor tax cuts, and my guess is that they’ll usually answer “because they’re in bed with big business (or the insurance companies or the military industrial complex, etc.)”. But the truth is, they believe that lower taxes will increase total revenue (the rising tide which lifts all boats).”

      More nonsense. You’ve actually fallen for the right-wing propaganda. The policy makers don’t believe that it will generate more revenue, that’s always just been a ruse to sell the notion to the public. It is an objective fact that tax cuts don’t inherently generate revenue. It’s not impossible that some would in certain situations, but it is definitely not a rule or economics, and the fact is that even the tax cuts under Reagan resulted in loss of revenue, which is why Reagan signed tax increases into law in his 2nd term and Bush had to raise them again. It’s also why tax revenues went through the roof under Clinton after he passed tax increases.

      “Second, typically, liberal positions (not by design, I’m not a conspiracy theorist) tend to be more easily encapsulated into the oft maligned sound bite. “There’s a poor person….give him money from a wealthy person”. Neat, simple and quick. The lessons taught us by B.F. Skinner and J.K. Galbraith won’t make for compelling television, and we need to go to commercial.”

      It’s quite the opposite. It’s the Republicans/conservative who successfully practice soundbite politics. Conservatism is built on a simplistic view of the world, its why it appeals so heavily to uneducated people, who tend to skew conservative, despite the fact that its against their clear economic interests.

      Claiming that tax cuts raise revenue is a very simple soundbite, that sounds great. It tells people exactly what they want to hear, you can have your cake and eat it too. “We can cut taxes AND have more money, WEEEE!” It’s absurdly simplistic.

      Another example in the current budget debate is the issue of Social Security and the deficit. Over and over and over again, from every news outlet I hear the claim repeated that cutting the deficit will require cuts to Social Security. This sounds reasonable, but it is in fact completely wrong, yet no one corrects it because its a complicated issue.

      In fact Social Security has never contributed a dime to the deficit and never will, it is forbidden by law from borrowing money or getting transfers of money from the general fund. Social Security has been bringing in huge excesses for the past 30 years, it has in has been the single largest FINANCIER OF the deficit. Social Security is the single biggest LENDER TO the federal government, its not a borrower. In the future it will never run deficits, the fact that it will bring in less than it pays out is by design (BY REAGAN) because it supposed to be using the $2.5 trillion in the trust fund that was loaned to the general fund, and again, that system was put into place by Alan Greenspan and Ronald Reagan!

      In fact, there is NO WAY POSSIBLE that changing Social Security, in any way, can even affect the deficit, because its a separate program that has its own separate dedicated revenue stream, and the program is designed such that it can’t run deficits. By law all it can do if it doesn’t have enough money is lower payments. It’s not that there are no issues with Social Security, but the issues have nothing at all to do with the deficit, yet you would never know this by listening to any “mainstream media” news outlet.

      Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 14
      • Pat says:

        The topic is not whether or not tax cuts raise revenue. For that I refer you to Dr. Thomas Sowell, professor of economics at Stanford University and fellow of the Hoover Institute. Particularly his book “The Citezen’s Guide To Economics”. He states the case more eloquently than I can.

        The topic is certainly not whether or not I’ve fallen for right wing propaganda.

        The topic is bias, and I stand by my statement. If Republicans propose a tax cut (for this one example) they will pay the price in public opinion because their rationale will not be explained. I have NEVER heard any of the anchors of CBS, NBC or ABC news even mention the phenomenon which occurred under 5 presidents (Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, GW Bush).

        Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 12
    • JimFive says:

      Re: “the truth is, they believe that lower taxes will increase total [tax] revenue”
      The reason, that no one believes the above statement is because it is absurd. If we take it to the conclusion then we see that a 0% tax rate gives us more revenue than a 10% tax rate. Thus we must either believe that conservatives believe this, and are therefore stupid, or that they are lying. So, if you asked me why conservatives favor tax cuts my answer is “because they are ideological opposed to the idea of government and want to drown it in the bathtub.” If you ask me why conservatives *say* they favor tax cuts I would give your answer.

      As for your second point I find it to be quite the opposite. Liberal positions tend to be nuanced and complicated while the conservative position tends to be more “Government Bad” sound bite nonsense.

      BTW, I marked your post “like” because I don’t think that you should be hidden for a poor rating just because people disagree with you. Hiding comments should be for trollish, offensive, or pointless comments, not for real disagreements.


      Thumb up 7 Thumb down 9
      • Pat says:

        By the same token, taken to it’s extreme, RAISING taxes to 100% would result in zero revenue because no one would work for zero benefit. see the link below.


        Thanks for the “like”, I did “like”-wise for you

        Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2
      • Pat says:

        P.S. To JimFive,

        Conservatives are not ideologically opposed to government nor do they wish for it to drown in the bath tub, as the mainstream media would have you believe (sorry, I had to throw that in there).

        Conservatives would like to see smaller government whose function is limited to that which protects our liberty, safety and sovereignty. Many would also like to see more power shifted from the federal government to that of the states, municipalities and towns because they feel that it can better serve the specific needs of the electorate and be closer to those they are accountable to.

        Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 4
  6. Clancy says:

    Whether or not it makes Liberals angry doesn’t say much about it. A well-reasoned rational argument, backed up by irrefutable data that forced me to rethink my entire political philosophy or be forced into irrational denial would make me angry. But a poorly reasoned, poorly written rant by a curmudgeony right-wing hack filled with glaring inaccuracies would also make me angry.

    Also, let’s remember that “un-biased” does not necessarily mean “honest” or “factually correct.” Someone giving evolution and intelligent design equal time is being “un-biased.” Someone talking about evolution and ignoring intelligent design is being “factually correct.”

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 42 Thumb down 7
  7. Joshua Northey says:

    It has a pretty strong “left-wing bias” on some economic/social issues where there is legitimate debate. On other economic/social issues the “left-wing bias” is simply its attempt to portray the truth accurately. A unimpressive as a lot of reporting is and as shallow as reporters can be, they are still better educated then the public at large, and better educated people tend to be more “left-wing”.

    Since the modern political system grew up in the mid 1800s the “left-wing” has always been on the side of history, progressive arguments eventually prevail while the conservatives fight a regard action which has temporary successes, but in the long term inevitably retreats.

    The American press is downright jingoistic on foreign policy/nationalism, with American media chronically showing Americans the image of themselves they want to see, being unrelentingly patriotic, and perfectly willing to support offensive warmongering. On some economic issues the media has a pretty “right-wing pro-big business bias”. You never see major American media asking hard questions of some basic tenets of our economic system.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 6
    • rationalrevolution says:

      Right, and this is the key. Yes, on some social issues that have little or no real economic implications the media does tend to “skew left”, like on issues of homosexuality, etc., but on economic policy every single mainstream media outlet is right of center, even MSNBC for that matter. None of them are calling for fundamental changes or even bringing questions about, the fundamental basis of our economy. All that even the most “far-left” (which is to say least far right) new outlets do is call for jobs creation programs or bring up growing inequality, but then its only cursory.

      If the issue is gay adoption or race issues, then yeah, there is some “liberal” bias, but on most issues there is none. On issues of stuff like homosexuality, however, the right-wing position is that homosexuality is unnatural, a “choice”, or a disease or some nonsense, when science actually proves that it is biological and that homosexuality is pervasive in nature among all animals, so the facts simply line up on the “liberal” side of the issue.

      Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 8
    • RB Glennie says:

      *Since the modern political system grew up in the mid 1800s the “left-wing” has always been on the side of history, progressive arguments eventually prevail while the conservatives fight a regard action which has temporary successes, but in the long term inevitably retreats.*

      Sure, like the `progressives’ were right all along about the Soviet Union, Mao’s China, the character of the Hanoi govt in Vietnam (“…they’re just nationalists…”), and so on.

      Thank goodness for the `temporary successes’ of the right…

      Frankly, anyone who doubts that the major news-media in the U.S. – the media `of record’ as it were, the NY Times, the WA Post – are not biassed to the left, isn’t living on earth.

      On the other hand, that may account for the points of view of several posters on this comment board.

      Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 19
  8. cackalacka says:

    Wow, someone through a rock through the Overton Window.

    Jennifer Rubin? Judith Miller? et alia?

    Just because most folks find movement conservatism abhorrent, does not make them liberal.

    The press has one primary position: to be profitable and deferential to their owners. Full stop.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 4
    • James says:

      “Just because most folks find movement conservatism abhorrent, does not make them liberal.”

      Note that the converse also applies: just because some of us find movement liberalism abhorrent. that does not make us conservatives. However much we may agree with one or the other on particular issues.

      Sometimes the truth – or pragmatics, or basic human decency – favors the liberal position, sometimes it favors the conservative. I like to think my position’s determined by those factors, not ideology.

      Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2