How Biased is the Media? Tim Groseclose, Author of Left Turn, Answers Your Questions

Last week we solicited your questions for Tim Groseclose, a political science professor at UCLA and author of the new book, Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind. The response was fast and furious. A total of 149 questions (and counting) have been posted in the comments section. We selected 14 of them for Groseclose to answer, and he obliged us quite promptly. As always, thanks to all for participating.


Q. Why does liberal media bias exist in the first place? What would you suggest as a way that a) journalists could be more aware of their own bias and limit it in their reporting; or b) the profession of journalism could attract a more unbiased (or merely more representative) cohort? – Jack

A. The main reason why bias exists, I believe, is simply that newsrooms are filled overwhelmingly with liberals. Here’s the most important fact to know, if you want to understand media bias: If you poll Washington correspondents and ask “Who’d you vote for last election?”, about 93% will say the Democrat.

Why are newsrooms so liberal? I don’t know, except that I suspect that it’s mainly self-selection. I believe that there is something in the DNA of liberals that makes them want to pursue careers like journalism, academia, and the arts.

A manager or owner of a media outlet could try to counteract this by trying to hire more conservatives, but he will have a hard time trying to find conservatives who want to be journalists. He’ll either have to pay conservative journalists more or be willing to hire conservative journalists who are not as good at reporting as liberal journalists. It’s a hard problem for a news-outlet manager to solve. I basically believe we’re in an equilibrium  – that liberal bias is basically here to stay.

How can journalists be aware of their own biases?  One way is to read Chapter 11 of my book, “The Anti-Newsroom, Washington, County, Utah.”  In the chapter I search for a place that votes the opposite of a newsroom – 93-7 for the Republican. It’s basically impossible to find such a county, but one that comes close is Washington County. I interview lots of people in the county to give the reader a sense of what political views in the anti-newsroom are like.  If journalists think about how conservative, and maybe even strange, views are in the anti-newsroom, they may begin to realize how liberal, and maybe even strange, views are in actual newsrooms.

And if a journalist is really serious about understanding his or her own biases, he or she could visit Washington County, Utah.  One of its residents, Tom Seegmiller, has agreed to host such journalists.  Seegmiller is the owner of Dixie Gun and Fish and the Locker Room, an athletic supply store. If such journalists are interested, they should contact Seegmiller at one of his two businesses. Seegmiller is even willing to take such journalists to church with him. And if they desire, Seegmiller is willing to take such journalists hunting with him.

Q. How do you account for the filter bubble effect — that liberals and conservatives alike listen to media that doesn’t challenge their views? – Rachel

A. All my results about where people get their news involved surveys about where independents get their news.  I ignored the results involving Republicans and Democrats.

Although Republicans and Democrats probably do get their news from vastly different sources, in one sense it hardly matters.  To win a nationwide election, you need to win over the independents. Republicans and Democrats basically cancel each other out. To change policy, the key is to persuade independents/moderates.

Q. My question is this: is self-selection at work in media companies (both the liberal and conservative medias)? And, what other occupations have strong political self-selection? Are bankers more likely to be conservative? Are artists and actors more likely to be liberal?  - Caleb b

A. Yes, I think self-selection is the key. But it feeds on itself. That is, once the newsroom becomes overwhelmingly liberal, it becomes less pleasant for conservatives. Consequently, conservatives become even more reluctant to become journalists.

As a conservative professor, I can speak from experience, that when people from one political group begin to dominate an organization, they can sometimes become a little sanctimonious and tedious.  See, for example, page 4 of my book, where I describe an email that my co-author received from one of his fellow University of Missouri professors.  (I think Amazon allows you to read the page for free.)

I think probably the most conservative profession is military officer.  So I hear, military officers vote about the opposite way that journalists vote.

Q. What role does religion play in these biases? Michele Bachmann and Jim DeMint are both Christian ideologues, and while there are certainly “anti-religion” ideologues on the left, neither Barney Frank nor Nancy Pelosi would qualify. – Lawrence

A. I think you are probably right; there are no strong anti-religion ideologues in Congress. But I think the vast majority of Americans are fairly pro-religion.  If America were divided 50-50 on religion vs. anti-religion, I believe you’d see more anti-religious ideologues in Congress.

But just because there are two sides to an issue, that does not mean that a reporter should give each side equal treatment.  That is, “unbiased” does not always mean giving equal treatment to two sides of an issue.

For instance, lots of people (and I am one of them) believe that the evidence suggesting (i), that the earth is warming, is greater than (ii), that the earth is not warming.  Thus, to be unbiased, I believe that a reporter should give more favorable treatment to (i) than (ii).

A hero of the left, Edward R. Murrow, may have made this point best. Interestingly, he used a religious example to make the point:  To insist upon such an artificially equal treatment of two sides of an issue “is like balancing the views of Jesus Christ with Judas Iscariot.”


Q. Agreed; I think the strongest counterpoint to Mr. Groseclose’s premise is, what would the presidential split have been if all the influential media outlets weren’t owned by conservatives (re: Disney, Murdoch/Newscorp, GE, etc.) – cackalacka

A. I’m not sure I agree with the premise. If GE shareholders and executives are so conservative and have such power over their journalists, wouldn’t that cause Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz to have a conservative bias? For much of the time that John Stossel was at ABC, the chairman of the Disney Board was George Mitchell – the former senator who’s PQ is about 80.  If corporate executives are so powerful, wouldn’t we have seen a liberal bias from Stossel?

The New York Times is a corporation with two classes of shareholders. The class that has control over running the company contains a relatively small number of shareholders. The same is true with the Washington Post. I’m sure that with each company the shareholders are very liberal.

Meanwhile, the Washington Times is not a corporation (it is owned by the Unification Church), yet its slant is fairly conservative. So I’m not sure that it’s true that corporation-owned media companies tend to be more conservative than non-corporation-owned media companies.

To answer your question about the presidential election, suppose that for some reason all the media moved left – say all media began adopting a Slant Quotient of 74, like the New York Times. This would mean that the overall Slant Quotient of the media would move from 58 to 74, a change of 16 points. This would give Democrats an extra advantage of about 8 percentage points. Assuming everything else constant (e.g. Obama and McCain are still the candidates and they adopt the same policy positions as they did in the actual election), then, according to my results, Obama would have won by approximately 61-38, instead of the actual result, 53-46.

Q. And as a follow-up… if there exist institutions that provide a conservative bias, how do their ratings compare to one with a liberal bias?  - Matthias

A. Well, I suppose that one of the most conservative groups in America is officers in the military. I’m not sure what it would mean to calculate a slant quotient for them.


Q. Given that the politics of the USA are significantly more conservative than most other developed nations, how applicable are your findings to an analysis of the mass media in other countries?  - Brennan Young

A. Yeah, my book is completely silent on that question. I agree that other nations are generally more liberal than us. If I’m right, that there’s something in the DNA of liberals that makes them go into journalism, then I’d at least speculate that in other countries journalists similarly adopt a Slant Quotient to the left of the country’s average Political Quotient. But that’s just speculation, not evidence.

Q. Aren’t there other – perhaps more important – ideological axes than liberal/conservative? (e.g. statist vs. grassroots) – Brennan Young

A. Yes, there are definitely other axes.  E.g. you could imagine a libertarian/anti-libertarian axis. But I’m not sure they are more important.  Please see, for instance, my discussion on pages 40-44 of political scientist Keith Poole and the Nominate scores he created.  Nominate estimates a numerical score for politicians on the “dimension of maximal conflict” within Congress.  According to Nominate, politicians like Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank are at one end, and politicians like Michele Bachmann and Jim DeMint are at the other. That is, the “dimension of maximal conflict” puts far-right conservatives at one end and far-left liberals at the other. It does not put libertarians like Ron Paul at one end and anti-libertarians at the other.  Accordingly, Nominate suggests that the liberal/conservative dimension is indeed the most important dimension, at least in Congress.  (This is not to say that in future years, things might change.)

Q. How does PQ vary by age and education? If more education is correlated with higher PQ, does that explain media bias since most journalists are required to have a college education? – Sam

A. It turns out that the people with the least education (non high school graduates) and those with the most education have the most liberal views. The voters with the most conservative views are those with intermediate amounts of education – those with only “some college” and those who completed a bachelor’s degree but did not attend grad school.

Q. How do you reconcile your conclusions with the fact that Americans appear to choose media you label as liberally biased when they have more conservative options? Why doesn’t the media reflect the supposedly conservative viewpoint of its consumers? Does the media really drive consumer thought in an open media market, or is the opposite true? – Ricky C

A. I think a lot of it is simply that it’s hard for a media organization to hire conservative reporters.  I know that if academia suddenly decided “we need a balance of conservative and liberal professors,” then the next question that deans and department chairs would ask is “Okay, where do we find the conservative professors to hire?”  I suspect something similar occurs with the media. Conservatives just don’t tend to want to enter into journalism, at least not at the same rate as liberals.

As a consequence, news outlets can hire liberal reporters at a lower wage rate than they would have to pay if they insisted on hiring conservatives. They can probably also get higher quality reporters if they’re willing to hire more liberals, simply because the pool of liberal reporters is larger than the pool of conservative reporters.

As I understand, a similar issue arises in baseball. Teams want a balance of right- and left- handed pitchers. But the pool of right-handed pitchers is much higher than that of left-handed pitchers (since there are much more right-handed people in the population than left-handed people).  As a result, on lots of objective measures – e.g. throwing speed – right-hand pitchers tend to be better than left-hand pitchers. I think something similar might be occurring with liberal and conservative reporters.

Q. American public opinion is fickle on important issues. It is hard for me to consider the average American voter the “center” when that center appears to be a sporadically moving target. When talking about a “center”, you expect something a little more stable even as it shifts. Journalists, more ingrained with the issues and needing to maintain integrity over time, would have more stable opinions. Do you look at shifts over time? Do you have a PQ moving average? How does this compare to journalistic PQ?    – Ricky C

A. Well, events cause us to change our views.  I know my views have evolved over the years.  (E.g. I used to think that abortion was okay when the fetus is three months old.  But having a kid and seeing a sonogram changed that view.)

Nevertheless, I’d argue that, at least over the last half century or so, the American center has been pretty stable.  E.g. if you check page 50 of my book, you can see a graph of how the center (i.e. average PQ of American voters) has evolved.  Between 1960 and 2009, it’s remained within the 47-58 range, and usually it’s been very near 50.

Although I have a few surveys over how journalists vote in elections, I don’t have much data about their PQs.  Part of the problem is that journalists are so reluctant to reveal their political views.  If it were up to me, they’d be more transparent about such things.  (See, e.g., the epilogue of my book.)

Q. Of the actual voting public what’s the percentage of viewers that get their news exclusively from the liberal media? What’s the percentage that gets it from both liberal and conservative view points? What’s the percentage getting their news exclusively from conservative viewpoints? What prevents one set of viewers from changing their news consumption habits? Is selection of media source an indication of enlightenment?  - Deron

A. My answer to the first four questions is “I don’t know.”  As for the fifth question, yes, I believe that anyone who has a PQ under 20 (like me) yet chooses to subscribe to the New York Times (as do I) is enlightened. I’d say the same thing about anyone who has a PQ above 80 yet chooses to frequently read the Washington Times or frequently watch the O’Reilly Factor or frequently listen to Rush Limbaugh.

Q. Do you have PQ scores for economists? I’d like to cross-reference this with the economists’ track records over the last 10 years so I can decide whether your idea of PQ is poppycock.  - Ben

A. No, but on page 112 of my book I review the work of Dan Klein (at George Mason University) and Christopher Cardiff (at San Jose State University).  They have tracked the voting behavior of economists and other professors. They find, for instance, that in a typical presidential election economics professors vote about 2.8:1 for the Democrat.  (In sociology the ratio is 44:1; in political science 6.5:1; in electrical engineering 2.5:1, and in finance 0.5:1.)

As for economists having poor track records, I might agree with you, at least when it comes to macroeconomics.  I believe that in 200 years people will look upon the current state of macroeconomics the way we look upon blood-letting doctors of two or three centuries ago (i.e., that they had no idea what they were doing).

During the Depression, the overwhelming majority of newspapers opposed Franklin Roosevelt. Yet he won 3 re-elections easily. Does that mean that without the opposition of the newspapers, he would have won even more easily? – Paul

A. My results suggest yes – the media really do influence the way people think and vote.

Leave A Comment

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



View All Comments »
  1. David Wright says:

    I got through the first Q and A –> Liberals don’t hunt? Is that a conclusion based on Tom Seegmiller’s invitation to journalists? Go north to Saskatchewan in Canada, home of the first socialist government in NA, birth place of Canadian healthcare, and I guarantee you will find a lot of hunters. When I lived there, many of my friends had a deer or two in the basement freezer.

    As I have learned from my reading of Freak and Super-Freakonomics, conclusions are often based on false premises.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 41 Thumb down 10
    • James says:

      There are likewise a number of more-or-less conservative treehuggers out there, too. Which is not to say that one can’t simultaneously be a hunter and a treehugger, regardless of one’s politics.

      Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 3
    • Marty says:

      In the last federal election, the Conservative party won 13 out fo 14 seats in Saskatchewan. Provincial Saskatchewan politics is dominated by the Saskatchewan party which is conservative.

      Despite it’s history, Saskatchewan is now a conservative province. It’s pretty remarkable that the NDP lost their base so completely.

      Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
      • Winghunter says:

        Approximately 20 years ago Canada’s version of Republicans split their base in half and did not win a single major election UNTIL this last federal election.

        That’s called an act of suicide followed by a final revolt against Socialism.

        Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
  2. Alvaro Fernandez says:

    Maybe getting the conservative journalists is difficult but appointing a conservative ombudsman could help.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 3
    • Mike B says:

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

      Disliked! Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 22
      • Alvaro Fernandez says:

        Journalism is about FACTS and not about being CATALYST. It must be differentiated form OPINION commentary. Journalism as a catalyst of change is POOR journalism.

        This is why I hate idiotic labels. Only in the English language does “liberal” mean someone who leans to the left, in the rest of the world it’s equivalent to libertarian. The “conservative” label (which I hate) is regarding the role of government: few rules and let the persons and markets run free without uber bureaucrats meddling.

        From Nolan charts I know I lean to the right. Is there such a thing as a hawkish libertarian? That’s me!

        I’ll borrow from

        Today, those who subscribe to the principles of the American Revolution — individual liberty, limited government, the free market, and the rule of law — call themselves by a variety of terms, including conservative, libertarian, classical liberal, and liberal. We see problems with all of those terms. “Conservative” smacks of an unwillingness to change, of a desire to preserve the status quo. Only in America do people seem to refer to free-market capitalism — the most progressive, dynamic, and ever-changing system the world has ever known — as conservative. Additionally, many contemporary American conservatives favor state intervention in some areas, most notably in trade and into our private lives.

        “Classical liberal” is a bit closer to the mark, but the word “classical” fails to capture the contemporary vibrancy of the ideas of freedom.

        “Liberal” may well be the perfect word in most of the world — the liberals in societies from China to Iran to South Africa to Argentina tend to be supporters of human rights and free markets — but its meaning has clearly been altered in the contemporary United States.

        The Jeffersonian philosophy that animates Cato’s work has increasingly come to be called “libertarianism” or “market liberalism.” It combines an appreciation for entrepreneurship, the market process, and lower taxes with strict respect for civil liberties and skepticism about the benefits of both the welfare state and foreign military adventurism.

        This vision brings the wisdom of the American Founders to bear on the problems of today. As did the Founders, it looks to the future with optimism and excitement, eager to discover what great things women and men will do in the coming century. Market liberals appreciate the complexity of a great society, recognizing that socialism and government planning are just too clumsy for the modern world. It is — or used to be — the conventional wisdom that a more complex society needs more government, but the truth is just the opposite. The simpler the society, the less damage government planning does. Planning is cumbersome in an agricultural society, costly in an industrial economy, and impossible in the information age. Today collectivism and planning are outmoded and backward, a drag on social progress.

        Libertarians have a cosmopolitan, inclusive vision for society. We applaud the progressive extension of the promises of the Declaration of Independence to more people, especially to women, African-Americans, religious minorities, and gay and lesbian people. Our greatest challenge today is to continue to extend the promise of political freedom and economic opportunity to those who are still denied it, in our own country and around the world.

        Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 5
      • Short Bald Guy says:

        Journalism masquerading as “journalism” is activism. Plain and simple. Lying about it makes it worse. The extrapolation you put forth of the term “conservative” is, well I must be respectful, misguided and rather shallow take on what it means to be a conservative in America. Reminds me of a thought process born from sitting around and smoking in a friends basement and eating Cheetos in high school.

        Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3
  3. Rachel says:

    Way to not use the part of my question that actually challenged the author to qualify for his own assumptions.

    “The average American voter, he argues, has a PQ of 50. Liberal Democrats Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi both have a PQ of approximately 100; conservative Republicans Michele Bachmann and Jim DeMint have a PQ of approximately 0. If we could “magically eliminate liberal media bias,” Groseclose writes, the average American would have a PQ closer to 25, and would be more in line with people like Ben Stein, Dennis Miller and Bill O’Reilly.”

    By the author’s reasoning, if we eliminate “liberal media bias”, then the average American ends up….exactly where he places prominent conservative media commentators. That’s not “magically eliminating liberal media bias”, that’s “replacing liberal bias with conservative bias.”

    Also, I’m very disappointed with the answer to the question that was apparently considered “safe” for this author to answer.

    “All my results about where people get their news involved surveys about where independents get their news. I ignored the results involving Republicans and Democrats.
    Although Republicans and Democrats probably do get their news from vastly different sources, in one sense it hardly matters. To win a nationwide election, you need to win over the independents. Republicans and Democrats basically cancel each other out. To change policy, the key is to persuade independents/moderates.”

    First of all, back up your answers: use citations. Where do independents get their news? List your sources. I’m pretty sure there’s not one magical news station that all independents — and only independents — use.

    Further, not all independents are independents for the same reason: you can’t lump them together. In my own personal experience (which I would hardly use as the basis for a book without backing it up with readily available data), independents get news from a variety of sources, including liberal-leaning publications, conservative-leaning publications, and whatever favorite celebrities say to do. Some independents are moderates that don’t fit into a party: some are single-issue voters. You can’t treat them as the same just because it’s convenient for your thesis statement.

    Also, your statement is simplistic to an extreme. Independents aren’t the only factor that decide elections. Off the top of my head, the degree of partisanship is a major factor when it comes to turnout. If the media organizations whip their viewing public into a frenzy, viewers vote. Engagement is important. Both conservative and liberal media organizations excel at this. The issues being discussed are important. Your rubric is not comprehensive, likely because a more comprehensive rubric would dash your theory.

    Not buying your book, but you’ve provided me with an easy target for a potential thesis paper. Thanks!

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 56 Thumb down 22
    • Mike B says:

      Why do I feel this is some Freakonomics event to teach those that comment here how to confront poorly argued statements and advocacy statistics.

      Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 5
    • cackalacka says:

      HEAR HEAR.

      I want to thank our hosts for passing along the question, but I want to thank Mr. Gloseclose for tap-dancing around it.

      “I’m not sure I agree with the premise. ”

      I’m not quite sure you understand it. To put it politely.

      Media is owned by affluent interests. Affluent interests are generally averse to change, as they have a vested interest in status quo. In short, one can point to all the Ted Turners and Mitchell anecdotes, but if one buys ink by the barrel, one is likely inherently conservative.

      When the NYTimes Judith-Millers a war, they’re doing it in a grand Hearstian tradition to bolster their bottom lines. When GE owned NBC, they had an interest to boost demand for their newsroom coverage AND their bottom line from their weapons division.

      That’s great that NBC hired Maddow, remember Phil Donahue?

      I do dig the shout-out Cornell West gave your book, but anyone, particularly one who purports to be an academic, needs to be able to reconcile the ‘liberal media’ myth, with the fact that the folks who write the checks for the newsroom staffs are decidedly conservative.

      Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 15
    • Sam_L says:

      Have you read his book? Or just the summaries posted here?

      It sounds like you haven’t; making conclusions about a study based on summaries doesn’t bode well for the quality of the thesis.

      Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 12
      • Rachel says:

        Sam – you’re right, I haven’t read his book. And I likely won’t write a thesis on it, as even a cursory Google search reveals numerous issues with Groseclose’s methods, and I’d prefer to do original research. ( and cite methodology issues with the original paper; this review indicates that Groseclose did not correct any of the methodology issues when putting the paper into book form:

        But I’m not reading his book because Groseclose’s performance here has convinced me there’s nothing worth reading there. This kind of press blitz is de rigeur for any academic author promoting a book on a controversial topic. His Q&A here was supposed to drum up interest in his book. And not only did the Freakonomics team select softballs — again, I asked two questions in my post, and they selected the easy one — Groseclose whiffed at every pitch. Why bother buying the cow when you can smell the spoiled milk from here?

        Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 10
      • cackalacka says:

        Hear hear, again.

        You can’t judge a book by it’s cover, but you can detect sloppy thought and bad faith response in a couple hundred words.

        My assertion is hardly controversial (powerful interests own media outlets, powerful interests prefer status quo, ergo media owners usually have a conservative slant.)

        Groseclose whiffs, answering a question he wished he had been asked (useful for a politician, not so much for a purported intellectual) and classifies the Washington Times with ‘slant is fairly conservative’ (understatement) while asserting the masses are in league with his conservatism.

        I really hope Groseclose gives the questions a little more thought. Mine was not a curveball by any stretch of the imagination, and if this publication is an intellectual enterprise, he should be able to account for it. If it is just a salve for wounded conservative ‘intellectuals,’ well, life is too short for these ‘ideas.’

        Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 10
      • Ian Joshua says:

        After reading the amazon review linked above, I went from being frustrated at the author’s willingness to drink his own kool aid so to speak to being completely comfortable outright dismissing him. His analysis put the ACLU and the NRA only 3 points apart on his (almost entirely baseless, irrelevant) PQ scale, with both organizations to the RIGHT of center – the ACLU at 48.9 and the NRA at 45.9. I really recommend reading the amazon review Rachel mentioned for a well thought out summary of this author’s many mistakes in his original research paper (which would have prevented any true academic from seeking a publishing deal before addressing his methodological errors). If only I had read that review or his original paper earlier so we could have seen his reaction to being confronted with something as unbelievable as his own PQ ratings of the ACLU and NRA.

        Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5
      • Rachel says:

        This Q&A really makes me doubt the validity of Freakonomics as a whole — if they’re willing to give a platform to Groseclose despite the well-documented methodological issues (as well as to Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam, who had similar methodological issues), how can I trust that any study posted on Freakonomics has statistical validity?

        Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 7
    • JBP says:

      You make some good points, but you also manage to throw in some pretty bad fallacies. For example, this statement “I’m pretty sure there’s not one magical news station that all independents — and only independents — use. ” is a straw man.

      Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2
  4. Adam says:

    Not once is Fox News mentioned in any way in his answers (Bill’s The Factor was mentioned, but was not used as an example to confirm his argument). I see points in his various arguments to the above questions, but if you do not address Fox News the holy grail for conservatives and it’s influence on conservative bias in the media, then the debate must continue. Fox continuously claims they are the most watched TV network along with their news stories online… If this is in fact true, then Liberal bias can not possibly be as prevalent as the author portrays.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 12
    • Joe says:

      “Fox continuously claims they are the most watched TV network along with their news stories online… If this is in fact true, then Liberal bias can not possibly be as prevalent as the author portrays.”

      Nope it is simple for there to be an extremely prevalent bias and still have one be an exception. All you need is more than 2 news sources in the media. Which we do. We have more than 2, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, NPR, MSNBC, Huffington post, and hundreds of newspapers.

      Just as if you had 2 football teams, one made up of 5 people, one of whom, at 6’8′, 350 lbs is larger than anyone else on the field, the other side is made up of 500 regular sized people.
      The one side has the single largest person, but is outnumbered 100 to 1. Denoting how you can easily have an overall left leaning media bias, but the right have the one most watched one.

      Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 14
    • J1 says:

      Fox News is (and claims, correctly, to be) the most watched news network on CABLE, not TV in general. FNC’s audience size is dwarfed by that of even the lowest rated network news broadcast.

      Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 4
    • Sam_L says:

      Adam -

      Fox can be the most watched news source, and yet not come anywhere near the total viewership of other outlets. Suppose Fox has 25% of total TV news impressions – CNN, NBC, CBS, and ABC could each have a 18.75%. Fox is the most watched, but the total number of liberal impressions would overwhelm Fox 3:1.

      Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 3
      • James Hanley says:

        It’s not just CNN, NBC, CBS and ABC we have to consider–you’re artificially limiting the journalism world to TV news. You also have to consider the influence of talk radio, which is overwhelmingly dominated by conservatives (Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, etc.). They quite possibly are far more influential than CNN, NBC, etc., combined. Certainly Rachel Maddow plays to far fewer people than Limbaugh does.

        Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2
    • Reg says:

      Fox news is the most watched as a single channel. They don’t lie on that one. But the sum of all other channels’ audience is more. Change the thesis.

      Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
  5. assumo says:

    I wonder where the freakanomics blog fits on the slant scale, and how that compares to the political quotient of the forum participants. I would guess that when critical thinking increases, the effect of media bias would decrease substantially. In the end, wouldn’t reason win the day?

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1
    • David Wright says:

      “In the end, wouldn’t reason win the day?” if only this were true…

      Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 0
  6. Tony says:

    Hey guys! I made up a completely dubious ranking system that confirms my own previously held beliefs! Buy my book!

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 61 Thumb down 19
  7. Mike B says:

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

    Disliked! Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 36
  8. SVeedub says:

    As a former journalist who worked for a short time in Washington County, Utah, I can say that the newsroom there was certainly more liberal than the populace. However, the influence and the power remained in conservative hands. The views in Washington County are very skewed, as the author suggests, so I understand his analogy with Washington DC newsrooms. I find it hard to believe that Washington DC newsrooms are representative of newsrooms across the country, though. Are there statistics with nationwide samples of how newsrooms vote?

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