The events of the last few weeks with the scandal in the British tabloids have focused renewed attention on Fox News. While the phone hacking scandal that has ensnared Mr. Murdoch is salacious, it is the type of story news people live for, particularly since it is happening to Fox News, who has become the voice of the anti-media.
As Sacramento Bee columnist Leonard Pitts writes this week, “Fox says it is, as the name would suggest, a news network. Its critics say it is actually the propaganda arm of the Republican Party and that its highest loyalty is not to accuracy, fairness or other journalistic values but to the furtherance of the party line.”
So, are they fair and balanced? No they are not and they are not supposed to be. They are a creation of Roger Ailes, who is frankly one of my anti-heroes, in that I admire his brilliance and his innovation.
One of the best articles in order to understand Fox News is a lengthy expose by Rolling Stone Magazine from June of this year in which it chronicles the history of Roger Ailes.
The article writes, “The key to decoding Fox News isn’t Bill O’Reilly or Sean Hannity. It isn’t even News Corp. chief Rupert Murdoch. To understand what drives Fox News, and what its true purpose is, you must first understand Chairman Ailes. “He is Fox News,” says Jane Hall, a decade-long Fox commentator who defected, over Ailes’ embracing of the fear-mongering Glenn Beck. “It’s his vision. It’s a reflection of him.””
And it chronicles the remarkable career of Mr. Ailes from his days of helping to revolutionize political campaigns by totally remaking the image of Richard Nixon, to his painting Michael Dukakis as a cold and unfeeling ACLU liberal, to his most recent endeavor of directing Fox News.
Fox News is not about Rupert Murdoch, it is about Roger Ailes.
“Murdoch has almost no involvement with it at all,” says Michael Wolff, who spent nine months embedded at News Corp. researching a biography of the Australian media giant, as Rolling Stone reports. “People are afraid of Roger. Murdoch is, himself, afraid of Roger. He has amassed enormous power within the company – and within the country – from the success of Fox News.”
Writes Rolling Stone, “But an examination of his career reveals that Ailes has used Fox News to pioneer a new form of political campaign – one that enables the GOP to bypass skeptical reporters and wage an around-the-clock, partisan assault on public opinion. The network, at its core, is a giant soundstage created to mimic the look and feel of a news operation, cleverly camouflaging political propaganda as independent journalism.”
They continue, “The result is one of the most powerful political machines in American history. One that plays a leading role in defining Republican talking points and advancing the agenda of the far right.”
Roger Ailes has successfully been able to punch mainstream media in the mouths. Conservatives for some reason believe they are the only ones who hate the mainstream media. They argue that there is a liberal bias in the media.
Liberals, on the other hand, recognize media for what it is – a product of corporate interests. Corporate interests are more libertarian in bent than anything else. They are conservative in their opposition to government regulation of business, but they tend to be more socially liberal and they are mixed in terms of their support for the environment, depending on whether you are talking about the oil industry or some of the more environmentally-conscious industries.
The other problem as liberal media critics point out, is that media is reliant on government and other official sources for their news. That means they are reluctant, at times, to take on those in power.
However, there is also a pack mentality, when they smell blood or weakness, they go after it.
What has emerged in the internet, cable and satellite age is a more decentralized media. No longer does ABC, NBC, and CBS have a monopoly on news. CNN, once the innovator in cable news, is on its heels taking a backseat to Fox, and more recently MSNBC, which to some extent provides a liberal counterbalance to Fox.
In short, what we see is the reemergence of partisan media sources as people’s primary source of information. Some lament this fact, as they argue that an independent media is vital to a democracy.
To me, that simply ignores the root of this government and democracy, which was based primarily on competing partisan news services. It has only been in the last hundred years or so that independent and impartial news has become the norm.
My problem is that was always a façade. The reality is that we have never had an impartial and unbiased news. It was never biased just toward liberals, as Fox and its adherents on the right would allege, but it has always been biased.
Liberal publications, like Project Censored, used to highlight stories that were kept out of the mainstream media. Now, with the advent of alternative and independent media, Project Censored has become almost obsolete.
I think as long as people are willing to acknowledge Fox for what is – a partisan news source that serves the express purposes of Roger Ailes – then there is no problem with stations like Fox.
Traditional journalists have a problem with new media, however. They argue that the journalistic standards for news media are torn down. They argue that there is no quality control. There is no check, no assurance of accuracy.
I have run the Vanguard for five years and I disagree. When I make a mistake, my readers will always catch it. And if I report on something and they do not buy it, they argue against it, sometimes vehemently.
In fact, I would argue that I have a lot more accountability than a traditional newspaper. In a newspaper, you might be lucky to get a small retraction notice from the paper after a large story. And if you disagree, you can write a space-limited letter to the editor that gets put toward the back of the paper.
On the other hand, as I have argued, sometimes fair and balanced is actually less accurate. Newspapers often cover both sides of a story out of a sense of duty. But sometimes, one side is demonstrably right and the other side is wrong. By failing to take sides out of the notion of impartiality, traditional media approaches, in fact, become inaccurate. By way of being inaccurate, they become the thing they have attempted to avoid, partiality.
Nothing is perfect and so if we have to endure a scandal like the hacking scandal of Murdoch’s paper in order to have more access to more news services, that is the price that we pay. If it means we have a Fox News, then that means that opponents of Fox and their points of view have work to do to create the alternative.
That is what the free market of ideas is about. And while people can argue that Mr. Murdoch’s fortune has helped give Roger Ailes his platform, there are some equally wealthy liberals out there who could do the same.
The key for me is open information. As long as we understand that we are reading propaganda, we are better off without the illusions of impartiality and phony balance.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I disagree with a lot of the points in this article. I won’t go point by point, but I will just make a general comment. IMHO, “news” is no longer news anymore. What is passed off as “news” is really nothing more than a bleeding of the op-ed page onto the regular news page. We are being spoon fed opinion as if it were news. In fact, I would go so far as to say it is not uncommon for what is passed off as “news” to be complete fiction/fabrication – from the headlines to content. How often have you read a salacious headline, only to read the content and find it has no relation to the headline? How often are “statistics” used in articles to argue a point of view as if it were fact, “statistics” garnered from a completely biased and highly questionable source?
It has gotten to the point that I do not believe a thing I read or hear. I trust nothing as newsworthy, feeling I have to approach everything w deep skepticism. There is absolutely no attempt at objectivity, integrity or honesty in news reporting these days, and I think that is a shame. Journalistic standards of any sort have been thrown out the window. When more objective news comes from blogs and tabloids, that is a sure sign that what is passed off as “legitimate” “news” networks is a sorry excuse for honest journalism.
And I will go one step farther. I believe the news media is in large part responsible for some of the horrible partisanship that is occurring at all levels of gov’t. Because the news media gloms onto those extremists that give them the most titillating sound bite, moderates have literally been ignored. So their views, which represent the general population far more than the platforms of extremists, are buried in oblivion. The result has been the ascendency of the extremists, who out-shout anyone w a moderate view. Moderates in gov’t have left in disgust, not willing to cater to the extreme elements in their respective parties, who get all the media attention and drive the entire messy process to head this country over the cliff.
In short, I have very little respect for what passes as the “news” media on either side of issues…
I agree with some of what the vanguard says. bias has been in the news for awhile now. Like the vanguard, I don’t think I see a single news source that isn’t biased in some way. The closest to accurate truthful reporting in my opinion was investigative reports with Bill Curtis.
Fox news has been pretty conservative leaning, but to say they are an arm of the republican party, if it is true, is no more true than the new york times, the sacramento bee are arms of the democrats. but neither one is truly fair and balanced.
” In fact, I would argue that I have a lot more accountability than a traditional newspaper. In a newspaper you might be lucky to get a small retraction notice from the paper after a large story. And if you disagree, you can write a space limited letter to the editor that gets put towards the back of the paper.”
I would caution the vanguard from making ego-driven statements like this. I have been little impressed with coverage on issues in general whether you are talking about fox news, cnn, NBC, or yes, even blogs.
When I think of Roger Ailes I also think Joseph Goebbels and how easy it is to manipulate people with propaganda. The most annoying thing about Fox are the sound bites (themes) that begin in the morning and then repeated (gaining steam) throughout the day by all of the commentatrs and “journalists”. Chis Wallace acts more like prostitute than a journalist – you can almost see the stings controlling his lips.
Right now we are on the brink of worldwide economic turmoil and without question this situation has been driven by Fox News – too much focus on winning the next election with no concern for the financial well being of the country.
I watch Fox along with CNN, the major networks and I read three papers – that is the only way to get a balanced view.
Unfortunately Howard K. Smith and Walter Cronkite are no longer with us and much of their journalistic integrity seems to to have passed with them ! The Tweets and vlogs from participants in major events give an immediate, if sometimes biased, view . In the end, as always, one must rely on one’s own reason and common sense to cull the suede shoe salesmen from the reporters .
Personally, I find the invective of O’Reilly and the blissful ignorance of Beck offensive and occasionally treasonous .
Interesting characterization. I started reading this and felt a bit hostile about it, but it finished with some good points. It’s true that Roger Ailes has been very successful at doing what he intended to do. Many people might not realize that this had been a goal of his since the Nixon Administration, where he laid out the blueprints to make a conservative propaganda news network to push a conservative agenda (not a conspiracy theory, the documents are available in the Nixon Library: http://gawkernet.com/ailesfiles/ailesfiles.html).
What I find a bit shocking is the attitude that this should be acceptable and even lauded. I think history will look back and see one of the greatest disappointments of the 21st century was the loss of integrity and credibility within the media. While the availability of information is certainly part of that, the biggest piece is undoubtedly Fox News. It’s an organization that repeatedly claims to be telling the unbiased truth, while repeatedly and intentionally lying to its viewers.
Fox News is successful because they preach a fictional reality that a group of people in this country would rather listen to than legitimate news. Saying they should be accepted and appreciated for their success is like applauding a parent for only feeding their child ice cream and Big Macs, and how the kid always seems to enjoy eating.
Taking Rolling Stone’s word for what the fictional reality is at Fox News? Rolling Stone doesn’t have an axe to grind here? Jann Wenner who is to Rolling Stone as Roger Ailes is to Fox News is only interested in stirring things up to boost circulation. Oh, and the only thing Rupert Murdoch is afraid of now? The News Corporation shareholders, who want to ease him and his family out of executive positions. For being in power while truly despicable phone hacking was going on. I mean human beings don’t delete messages from a missing girl’s cell phone while she’s still missing.
I think any analysis of Fox news needs to include discussion of the “echo chamber” which Fox has excelled at exploiting:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Echo_chamber_(media)
The irony is that while our media appear diverse due to the internet, the source of many blogs and “alternatives” is actually the same source as before: newspaper journalists being paid less and less to cover more and more. The vanguard is a anomaly with FOIA requests and on the ground reporting.
But even then many articles are simply commentary or summary of news gathered elsewhere, like this article for instance. In it, we are not reading direct reporting. We are reading a report about a report in Rolling Stone.
Ugh. Every time I see the false equivalency that “Oh yeah Fox is bad and conservative, but _____________ is the same thing on the left,” it’s hard to not bang my head against the wall.
The Sacramento Bee does not run smear stories against its critics and photoshop them to make them look uglier. FOX News does: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fR1MB8tq-v0
MSNBC does not crowd footage from a completely different event for the sake of slamming candidates that don’t fit into their ideologies. FOX News does: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaIh0GzMawE
CNN does not choreograph rallies to support political agendas. FOX News does: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-f10HE-YGs
The New York Times does not edit quotes to say the exact opposite of their intended meaning. FOX News does: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y43LTuGlVaI
So can we stop the false equivalency crap? Please? =/
*MSNBC does not show crowd footage…
We don’t need far left liberals, like many on this blog and the blogger, telling us what’s fair and balanced news. You’re all unqualified to give a fair assessment because of your political leanings.
Way to be dismissive and offer absolutely zero constructive comment, rusty. As a favor, could you try checking out those links and explaining why the evidence presented is invalid in making the point that Fox is not a legitimate news organization?
And for the record, everyone who disagrees with you is not far left liberal.
One example comes to mind, have you ever heard of Dan Rather and his CBS concocted Bush story which led to his departure? Almost all news organizations make mistakes or maybe even purposely try and mold a story to fit an agenda. You’ve shown some examples of Fox’s mistakes and with a little research you’ll find all news outlets do the same things. One thing about Fox’s opinion shows that you don’t always see on other networks is Fox usually has guests with dissenting views. I’m just saying that most that post on here can’t give a fair and balanced opinion of what’s biased news because of the own bias.
Dismissing that you’ve got one example of one network vs several examples about a single network merely off the top of my head and 5 minutes of Googling… You are missing the fact that there is a world of difference between reporting on an incorrectly vetted rumor/story (if I was going to include those, my list against Fox would have been tremendously longer) and what I pointed you at. Each of those links is blatant, intentional, and could not possibly have been done by accident.
To rephase: Those are not “mistakes”. Get a reality check.
Sorry Justin,
But I will use the equivalency. The Sacramento Bee just put a editorial cartoon of a concentration camp, and used arizona in there likening arizona to Nazi Germany because of the opposition to unions. To make that comparison is a grotesque distortion of fact, completely biased, and does stand up to the examples you gave (assuming the examples you gave are accurate.)
Paul Krugman from the times similarly tried to claim right wingers give death threats while left wingers do not in one of his columns.
So yes, I will use equivalency all day long.
” You are missing the fact that there is a world of difference between reporting on an incorrectly vetted rumor/story (if I was going to include those, my list against Fox would have been tremendously longer) and what I pointed you at.”
The dan rather attempt to defeat bush in the kerry election was not simply reporting a story incorrectly justin. Rather and his team concocted phony documents, and an expert had even told him of the problems ahead of time. yet he ran with what he knew questionable use of those papers anyway, and ran with them as if they were facts.
“The Sacramento Bee does not run smear stories against its critics and photoshop them to make them look uglier.”
so yes, SAc Bee does run smear stories of its critics.
91 O: [i]Fox news has been pretty conservative leaning, but to say they are an arm of the republican party, if it is true, is no more true than the new york times, the sacramento bee are arms of the democrats.[/i]
To suggest that Fox News is only as cozy with the Republicans as the NY Times/Sac Bee are with the Democrats is a false equivalency at best, in my view. Fox News at one time recently was paying salaries to Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich, all now presidential candidates. A way to allow politicians/public figures exposure and get paid for it. That is unprecedented, as far as I know.
If you’re going to play the rhetoric card instead of talking about credible reporting, I’m pretty sure Glenn Beck’s rantings grossly outclass anything in a newspaper. You’re also comparing apples to oranges.
Your characterization of the events surrounding “Rathergate”, is, frankly, wrong. The documents were never authenticated by the CBS team; they were unable to authenticate them as they were copies and (poorly) decided to run the story anyhow. To say they “concoted” them is misleading and not supported by evidence. The most false statement given was that the documents had been authenticated, when only one of the signatures had been.
Furthermore, the documents have still never been proven as false. The closest “proof” that they are false was a statement that they were correct: “CBS interviewed Marian Carr Knox, a secretary at Ellington Air Force Base from 1956–1979 and Killian’s assistant on the dates of the memos. Although Knox felt the memos reflected the truth about Bush’s alleged service failures, she also stated she did not type the memos, they were not written by Killian, and that she had no firsthand knowledge of Bush’s time in the Guard. Knox said, “The information in here was correct, but it was picked up from the real ones,” she said. “I probably typed the information and somebody picked up the information some way or another.””
But I guess reality has well-known a liberal bias.
91 (re: Sac Bee): I think you need to read the entire sentence and watch the clip instead of taking half the sentence. It’s a clip of Fox News panning folks that ran an article against it, during which they photoshop the individuals profile pictures to make them look ugly and odd.
Sorry, listening to outright false statements that people are too lazy to fact check (or unwilling to because it doesn’t fit into their agenda) is a pretty big pet peeve of mine.
Ya know, Justin is right on. Any notion that NYT is a liberal newspaper disappeared with Judith Miller’s right wing reporting on the invasion of Iraq, weapons of mass destruction, etc. Since the Bush years, NYT has been so assiduously middle of the road that one often has to read very carefully to figure out what is happening; they are the champs of faux balance. Ah, and you simply can’t wait to read David Brooks on their ed page, can you! The SacBee has long been a red state rag (wish full thinkers they!), with the paleolith Dan Walters leading the way. Not to mention their tilt in favor of sending what is left of our water to the Westlands Water District. They were so loving of the Governator in the early years, when it was clear that he was no more than a publicity hound, that it was disgusting. Now, which side will they take (both!) in the Amazon v. Wall Mart anti tax wars; just watch.
[b]Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist
[/b]
[url]http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx?RelNum=6664[/url]
Apparently left-leaners on this blog can’t recognize media bias unless it disagrees with their worldview. Blind bias is the worst type second only to lying bias which is rampant in most of the main-scream media.
Thank God for Fox. Otherwise the left would only hear the sound of their own voice, and believe everyone else thinks like them.
By the way, I regularly watch CNN and MSNBC and read the Bee and the NYT and listen to Alan Colmes’s radio show. I also read the WSJ and watch Fox News and listen to conservative talk radio.
I can see the bias. Fox News is generally in-your-face debate with right-leaning hosts, but they invite everyone on. I remember one interview Bill O’Reilly did with Phil Donahue and Phil wiped the floor with him. O’Reilly wanted him as a regular guest and Phil declined (I guess he was worried that he could not pull off a well-rehearsed act a second time.)
Conversely, the bias contained within the likes of the NYT, MSNBC and CNN are more sinister because they mask it in formalized journalistic structure. For example… the quips… the opinion that is carefully planted within the story… the placement of stories… the types of “news” they report… the stories they emphasize and de-emphasize… the lack of rebuttal and opposing opinion.
Then we have Hollywood…. maybe the guiltiest institution of liberal bias and public brainwashing.
My guess is that most of you Fox haters spend very little time watching the station… and very little time reading or listening to anything you have labeled as being of the “ugly right” variety. George Soros has pumped as much effort and money into liberal and socialist cause as has Roger Ailes for conservative causes. Spend a little time at the http://www.huffingtonpost.com and see how the old left-leaning media wishes they could behave like… it is much more disgusting that anything Fox puts on the air.
This entire scandal is a joke because, like the MLB steroid scandal, if Murdock’s players were doing it, all the other players were doing it too.
Jeff, it’s obvious most of these detractors don’t watch Fox proven by the fact that they always mention O’reilly as being unfair. If they watched they would know that over the last few years O’Reilly is much more moderate than he used to be. He often agrees with Obama and will sometimes argue on his behalf. How can they claim to be a Fox expert and give opinions when they don’t watch?
Have anything more recent as a counter weight than 2004?
Fox news is the voice of the angry white male. So now I get it David. You want to be the Fox news of Yolo County.
But it is not as simple as channelling Rousseau fighting to the death of those you disagree with to allow them to have their say. Hacking into the voice mail of a missing and murdered girl misleading her family about the chances of her being alive is not only over the line its immoral.
Rusty: You are right on. O’Reilly may appear more conservative by comparison to other stations’ talking heads that have grown more liberal over the years. However, he is moderate on many issues and demonstrates he will change his mind if convinced otherwise. He originally supported amnesty for illegals saying it was too mean to deport people that had put down roots. Later he changed his mind looking at the fiscal reality of costs to provide services to illegal immigrants. He often blasted Bush and threw in his support for some Obama actions and policies.
I always note that the media stars the left likes to hate the most are usually the ones they most fear they could learn something from. I have a theory that humans need spirituality like they need air and water, and since most elite liberals are godless, their ideology has become their religion. With this theory you can understand the vitriol they direct at people like O’Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh and Beck. How would you respond if someone attached your religion?
“attached your religion”
s/b attacked your religion
WDF1: “To suggest that Fox News is only as cozy with the Republicans as the NY Times/Sac Bee are with the Democrats is a false equivalency at best, in my view. Fox News at one time recently was paying salaries to Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich, all now presidential candidates. A way to allow politicians/public figures exposure and get paid for it. That is unprecedented, as far as I know.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A34557-2001Apr3?language=printer
Dan Rather was caught at a democratic fundraiser, so sorry, it is equivalent, and no it is not unprecedented. But maybe that little detail wasn’t covered by the bee or the times. It was in the washington post.
so you and Mr. Kudo can dispense with the self-righteous holier than thou bull.
Kudo: “Sorry, listening to outright false statements that people are too lazy to fact check (or unwilling to because it doesn’t fit into their agenda) is a pretty big pet peeve of mine.”
oh, really? Dan rather used forged documents against bush. If you are saying he didn’t know, then he didn’t fact check, in which case he isn’t following journalistic ethics, if he did know, he was in on it, which is also a gross violation of journalistic ethics. Sorry, but you are in no position to get all self-righteous.
and I’ll repeat it again, lets not forget the editorial cartoon in the bee, smearing the governor and the state by comparing Arizona to Nazi Germany – A gross smear and character assassinaton – that had no basis in fact.
Paul Krugman tried to claim after the arizona shooting that it was republicans and right wingers where the problem with death threats lie – a gross slander and malicious attack, and no basis in fact ether because the shooting had nothing to do with party that had already been established.
I wish I’d been on earlier today. I could have invoked [url]Godwin’s Lawhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_law[/url] at 09:57.
[quote]Godwin’s law (also known as Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin’s Law of Nazi Analogies)[1][2] is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990[2] which has become an Internet adage. It states: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1 (100%).”[3][2] In other words, Godwin put forth the hyperbolic observation that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably criticizes some point made in the discussion by comparing it to beliefs held by Hitler and the Nazis.[/quote]
Here is a brief discussion. on Godwin’s law. And it usually holds true. It didn’t take long today.
I will help with the link:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law[/url]
It is silly, but the general point seems valid.
Godwin’s law will be eventually be replaced by another that predicts the use of Osama Bin Laden and Radical Islam. It isn’t every day in history that we have such profound examples of evil to use to demonstrate extremes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/16/opinion/16nocera.html?_r=1&scp=4&sq=joe Nocera Murdoch&st=cse
David you should have read this before becoming a fox news apologist
JB: [i]Godwin’s law will be eventually be replaced by another that predicts the use of Osama Bin Laden and Radical Islam. It isn’t every day in history that we have such profound examples of evil to use to demonstrate extremes.[/i]
IMO, it works as well in reference to Stalin, Chairman Mao, Mussolini, Pol Pot, or whatever one’s prefered villain is for the sake of absurd comparison in arguments.
JB: Regarding your article citation on Tim Groseclose and Jeff Milyo, 2004/2005, both of those authors have well-documented conservative leanings, and as such have a stake in seeing this kind of result. But there are some problems with their study that I will have to discuss later.
“David you should have read this before becoming a fox news apologist “
I wonder if you really read the article if you believe I’m a Fox News apologist. A lot of it was tongue in cheek. Basically I’m backhandedly defending Fox News and what has spawned in this country.
“I think as long as people are willing to acknowledge Fox for what is – a partisan news source that serves the express purposes of Roger Ailes – then there is no problem with stations like Fox.”
Yes, that’s being an apologist for Fox. Right.
I’ve discussed Tim Groseclose before with Jeff. I saw his paper at a political science conference back in the day. It was an interesting idea, but ultimately flawed.
When I was in graduate school, I was interested in media coverage and I never saw a really good study that was able to measure ideological tilt of the media. There were some attempts at content analysis which were pretty poor and subjective. There were some attempts using proxy measures, a study from UCLA from about five years ago from Groseclose comes to mind, but that assumes a lot from proximal measures. It also base-lined it to the statements of congress failing to account for probable conservative biases in those congresses. You cannot convince me that number of mentions of liberal think tanks are a good proxy for ideology. Most media attempts a form of balance by weighing one group’s statements against another. It may simply be that the media chooses different places of origin for those statements.
wdf1: [i]”Regarding your article citation on Tim Groseclose and Jeff Milyo, 2004/2005, both of those authors have well-documented conservative leanings, and as such have a stake in seeing this kind of result.”[/i]
David: [i]”I’ve discussed Tim Groseclose before with Jeff. I saw his paper at a political science conference back in the day. It was an interesting idea, but ultimately flawed.”[/i]
wdf1, So their political leanings disqualify them from the research? Ignoring the fact that there is dissagreement with your “well-documented conservative leanings” suggestion, it is interesting to me that you chose to ignore the data from this academic, peer-reviewed study, and instead look for a way out of acceptance.
David, I would be interested to read what you can cite to back your point that this study is flawed. At the same time, I would like to see references to other studies that show a different conclusion.
Here are some current examples of liberal media bias. I have plenty more:
[quote]ABC on Monday and Tuesday ignored its own poll’s finding that 37 percent of Americans now believe that Barack Obama’s policies are hurting the economy. No mention was made of the results on Monday’s World News or Nightline.
On Tuesday, Good Morning America news anchor Josh Elliott vaguely explained, “And a new ABC News poll finds Americans are increasingly pessimistic about the future. 68 percent who suffered a layoff in their household say jobs remain very hard to find in their area.”
But, no one on the program highlighted respondents’ negative feelings towards the President. The 37 percent number is a six point jump since October.[/quote]
[quote]
In an interview, MSNBC president Phil Griffin made some rather strange characterizations of his network, insisting that it “comes from a progressive stance” while it is simultaneously “not ideologically driven.”
Those two concepts would seem contradictory in the minds of most people–but not to Griffin, who seems to believe that his staff of “smart people” who “do their research” is up to the task.[/quote]
[quote]
Quoting a British politician who claimed “right-wing nutters” pose the most serious threat to the international financial system, MSNBC’s Martin Bashir asked his conservative guest on Monday: “He’s right, isn’t he?”
The MSNBC anchor posed this question at the end of a contentious interview with Tea Party Nation Founder Judson Phillips, after asking Phillips four times whether he wanted the U.S. to default on its debts.[/quote]
[quote]
Frank Schaeffer – the embittered liberal progeny of the late evangelical Christian scholar Francis Schaeffer — appeared on MSNBC’s “Martin Bashir” program this afternoon where he availed himself the opportunity to spew forth more venom against American evangelicals, who tend to vote for conservative Republicans.
Schaeffer was ostensibly brought on to react to new polling data that show 56 percent of Americans believe it’s important for presidential candidates to have strong religious beliefs, even if those beliefs don’t square with the voter’s personal views.
In the process of the interview, Schaeffer indirectly compared evangelical Christians to the Taliban as he slammed “faith-based politics” [/quote]
[quote]
Once again, Tea Party-critic John Avlon took aim at “hyper-partisanship” in Congress but focused the blame squarely on House Republicans while saving a tiny bit of blame for Democrats. In a July 25 op-ed for CNN.com, he hit Republicans for walking away from a generous deal by President Obama to settle the debt ceiling debate.
We are learning that activists and ideologues pushing anti-tax pledges have nothing to do with the responsibility of governing,” Avlon berated Tea Party members of Congress, while accusing them of opposing the bipartisan plan set forth by the “Gang of Six” simply because Obama approved of it.”[/quote]
[quote]The New York Times does not edit quotes to say the exact opposite of their intended meaning. FOX News does: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y43LTuGlVaI [/quote]
Seems to me I remember a NYT reporter who was fired bc he got caught making up stories out of thin air. The NYT is just as guilty of putting out garbage as the rest of the news media…
As for Dan Rather – after the Memogate debacle, Rather has no credibility…
From Wikipedia:
[quote]The Killian documents controversy (also referred to as Memogate, Rathergate or Rathergate[1]) involved six documents critical of President George W. Bush’s service in the Air National Guard in 1972–73. Four of these documents[2] were presented as authentic in a 60 Minutes Wednesday broadcast aired by CBS on September 8, 2004, less than two months before the 2004 Presidential Election, but it was later found that CBS had failed to authenticate the documents.[3][4][5] Subsequently, several typewriter and typography experts concluded the documents are forgeries,[6][7] as have some media sources. No forensic document examiners or typography experts have authenticated the documents, and this may not be technically possible without original documents.[8] The provider of the documents, Lt. Col. Bill Burkett, claims to have burned the originals after faxing copies to CBS.[9]
CBS News producer Mary Mapes obtained the copied documents from Burkett, a former officer in the Texas Army National Guard, while pursuing a story about the George W. Bush military service controversy. The papers, purportedly made by Bush’s commander, the late Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian, included criticisms of Bush’s service in the Guard during the 1970s. In the 60 Minutes segment, anchor Dan Rather stated: “We are told [the documents] were taken from Lieutenant Colonel Killian’s personal files”[10] and incorrectly asserted that “the material” had been authenticated by experts retained by CBS.[11][/quote]
[quote]The authenticity of the documents was challenged within hours on Internet forums and blogs, with questions initially focused on alleged anachronisms in the documents’ typography and content soon spreading to the mass media.[12] Although CBS and Rather defended the authenticity and usage of the documents for a two-week period, continued scrutiny from other news organizations and independent analysis of the documents obtained by USA Today and CBS raised questions about their validity and led to a public repudiation on September 20, 2004. Rather stated, “if I knew then what I know now – I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question,”[13] and CBS News President Andrew Heyward said, “Based on what we now know, CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report. We should not have used them. That was a mistake, which we deeply regret.”[13][14]
Several months later, a CBS-appointed panel led by Dick Thornburgh and Louis Boccardi criticized both the initial CBS news segment and CBS’ “strident defense” during the aftermath.[15] CBS fired producer Mary Mapes, several senior news executives were asked to resign, and CBS apologized to viewers. The panel did not specifically consider whether the documents were forgeries but concluded that the producers had failed to authenticate them and cited “substantial questions regarding the authenticity of the Killian documents.”[/quote]
Yeah I read it David. Just didn’t think it was cute.
JB: [i] it is interesting to me that you chose to ignore the data from this academic, peer-reviewed study, and instead look for a way out of acceptance.[/i]
[i]I would be interested to read what you can cite to back your point that this study is flawed. At the same time, I would like to see references to other studies that show a different conclusion.[/i]
First, Jeff, have you read the actual article by Groseclose and Milyo? I’m inferring not, but please correct me if that is wrong. I am in the middle of reading it at the moment, and it is relatively tame in its presentation in contrast to what you interpret its meaning to be. I would like to comment further, but I’d like to finish the article first.
Jeff:
I made two key points about it already that you didn’t respond to. The two biggest problems that I have already mentioned is their measure for ideology is questionable at best. They basically use number of citations of think tanks, label the think tanks left and right and and then compare it to members of congress and their use of think tanks. To me that just opens up all sorts of problems in assumptions that there would be a parallel use of reference to think tanks in journalism versus a congressman. But the other problem is that it is not even clear that this is a measure of ideology. For instance, I would write a story where I site the Brookings institution study and then have five quotes from five different conservative politicians. I could have one paragraph devoted to Brooking and five devoted to those conservative politicians and yet by his measure it would be a plus-1 liberal article. That is an extreme example, but not implausible. Bottom line, and I have not really read the research in six years at least, at the time, it did not strike me that he had come up with a great measure of ideology. It is a brilliant piece, he is a top notched methodologist, but I don’t buy his measure.
[i]”broadcast aired by CBS on September 8, 2004, [b]less than two months before the 2004 Presidential Election[/b]”[/i]
This puts the emphasis on media’s potential to corrupt the political process. The vision is a frantic news room considering that Bush may win the election… this resulting in blind, emotional, careless euphoria having this story to run.
Imagine yourself in the daily editorial meetings at the NYT and CBS News, and consider how the conversation over George Bush, Sarah Palin or Michele Backmann might go and how this might influence the actions and behaviors of young impressionable employees trying to gain recognition and approval for their work.
Liberal bias is rampant in the minds and views of the majority of the people working in entertainment, media and news. It permeates almost everything they produce (for example, listen to the editorial of Jim Carrey emoting about the effects of global warming in his narration of “IMAX 3D – Under the Sea”). It takes a significant management effort to counter the effects of such imbalance of ideologocal leanings. The same is true for public education. The bias leaks out because the leadership is not setting the correct tone.
I don’t hear Fox claiming they are not conservative leaning. However, the liberal media keeps denying they have liberal bias. This fact makes Rathergate that much more worthy of critical response. They deny it and were caught at it… so it proves they are capable of lying at the top levels. This should be alarming because it provides evidence that it is a common practice, and they only got a bit sloppy covering their trails this time.
Media has become the forth branch of government and it has grown more powerful than the other three combined. The First Amendment needs to be revisited. Real “news” and real “journalism” should be held accountable to a code of journalistic ethics. Those tools of politics that use the cover of news and journalism to manipulate public opinion for political gain should be ratted out and disqualified from First Amendment protections.
wdf1: I read the complete study many months ago. I have referred to it many, many times in response to those that deny liberal media bias. I have copies of the article printed to hand to disbelievers.
“Tame” is not a word I would associate with the findings considering the extent of the problem compered to the vitriol leveled at Fox for conservative bias.
Of almost greater interest to me is the denial.
“Seems to me I remember a NYT reporter who was fired bc he got caught making up stories out of thin air. The NYT is just as guilty of putting out garbage as the rest of the news media… “
You cited a single example without discussing the steps that they have taken since to avoid a repeat. That story came out almost a decade ago, do you have any examples of it happening since (since your statement is that they are just as guilty but you rely on one example).
Jeff: I hope you’ll take a moment to read my brief critique of Groceclose. But in a later post you said, “the vitriol leveled at Fox for conservative bias.” Fox is not conservative biased, they are conservatives. That’s like calling Olbermann liberal biased when he is in fact a liberal and makes no bones about it otherwise. There is a huge difference between the two. Fox is not attempting to be impartial or balanced, they are attempting to be at best a counterbalance and at worse a mouthpiece.
Abstract of the study itself:
[url]http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/content/120/4/1191.abstract[/url]
Whew! Good thing I watch the News Hour!
A tongue-in-cheek preview of the study:
[url]http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/bias_study_falls_437_percent_s.php[/url]
A more detailed analysis:
[url]http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002724.html[/url]
David, let me understand your point. Are you saying that Fox is a conservative organization but not conservative biased?
Assuming this is not what you meant, I think you are confirming my point. The point that there are two types of news media bias. One where the bias is admitted and maybe even part of the design of the show/publication… and the other where bias is denied with a “holier than Fox News” position.
Fox is providing a counter balance because there is a market for it. They did not invent the market, but as the rest of the media has drifted left, Fox stepped up to be an alternative for people with a growing desire to throw a beer bottle at the TV or radio… or to only use their daily paper to line a bird cage or kennel. Fox is not a mouthpiece… the talking heads on Fox have demonstrated on copious topics that they will jump on any politician going against what they believe are righteous principles.
The number of people that claim they are conservative is double the number claiming they are liberal… and this divide has remained pretty steady for the last few decades. Yet, the main media continued to drift left. The success of Fox News is proof of this.
[quote]Media has become the forth branch of government and it has grown more powerful than the other three combined. The First Amendment needs to be revisited. Real “news” and real “journalism” should be held accountable to a code of journalistic ethics. Those tools of politics that use the cover of news and journalism to manipulate public opinion for political gain should be ratted out and disqualified from First Amendment protections.[/quote]
Amen Jeff!
[quote]You cited a single example without discussing the steps that they have taken since to avoid a repeat. That story came out almost a decade ago, do you have any examples of it happening since (since your statement is that they are just as guilty but you rely on one example).[/quote]
1) You’ve condemned our local DA on far less evidence.
2) I suspect this incident is only the tip of the iceberg.
3) If I gave you ten examples, I suspect you would rationalize them all away, bc those examples do not fit w your world view that the NYT is not corrupt or biased.
4) The friggin’ guy made stuff up at the NYT. How does that not tarnish the reputation of any news outlet that had that happen! It implies a corporate culture that does not supervise its underlings.
5) Do you honestly think Dan Rather “created news” just one time? Give me a break! His reputation was toast and he was booted off CBS for very good reason. And frankly, since he unfairly ousted Walter Kronkite to get where he got, one good turn deserves another!
From one single google search using the words “NYT false reporting”:
[quote]Online Exclusive…Fatal Error: Lies of The Times, Their Lies Took …
May 26, 2004 … Today, _The New York Times_, for the first time, raised questions about its … 0223_rr_button_no_play. Reports On Popular Uprisings …. who made sensational false claims that were championed by Miller and The Times. …
http://www.democracynow.org/2004/5/26/online_exclusive_fatal_error_lies_of – 71k – Cached – Similar pages
Judith Miller’s WMD reporting – New York Times war reporting …
May 21, 2005 … Pulitzer Prize winner Judith Miller’s series of exclusives about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq — courtesy of the now-notorious Ahmad …
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/media/features/9226/ – 59k – Cached – Similar pages
Worst of the Week: The New York Times’ False and Misleading …
Worst of the Week: The New York Times’ False and Misleading Allegations. By: Rep . Lamar Smith | September 30, 2008 | 4 Comments | Printer Friendly …
http://www.aim.org/on-target-blog/worst-of-the-week-the-new-york-times-false-and-misleading-allegations/ – 43k – Cached – Similar pages
New York Times finally apologizes for false Guantánamo recidivism …
Jun 6, 2009 … On May 21, the New York Times published a front-page story, … Claiming that the report “provides new details concluding that about one in …
http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2009/06/06/new-york-times-finally-apologizes-for-false-guantanamo-recidivism-story/ – 88k – Cached – Similar pages
Shocker: New York Times radioactive water report is false
Mar 8, 2011 … The New York Times is on a tear about the dangers of a method of natural gas extraction called hydraulic fracturing.
http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/capitol/shocker_new_york_times_report_is_cLlp6sP8ohc3mZIXbFT7EM – 54k – Cached – Similar pages
False Report of 12 Survivors Was Result of … – New York Times
Jan 4, 2006 … A series of miscues among rescue workers exhausted from 30 hours of searching led to the news that 12 miners had survived.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/04/national/04cnd-mine.html – – Cached – Similar pages
FALSE RAPE REPORT UPSETTING CAMPUS – New York Times
Dec 12, 1990 … The student newspaper’s report of the rape hit the George …
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/12/12/us/false-rape-report-upsetting-campus.html – 44k – Cached – Similar pages
New York Times editor uncovers false reporting in Latin American …
Jan 8, 2007 … The public editor of the New York Times has found that readers of its weekly Times Magazine were denied thorough and accurate reporting in a …
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=8325 – 40k – Cached – Similar pages
False comparisons between New York Times and Huffington Post …
Jun 20, 2011 … False comparisons between New York Times and Huffington Post obscure true difference. Steve Myers by Steve Myers Published June 20, …
http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/top-stories/136319/false-comparisons-between-new-york-times-and-huffington-post-obscure-true-difference/ – 50k – Cached – Similar pages
Judith Miller (journalist) – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Miller was criticized for her reporting on whether Iraq had weapons … My job is to tell readers of the New York Times what the government … This turned out to be false. On May 26, 2004, …
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller_(journalist) – 95k – Cached – Similar pages[/quote]
OH YES, THE NYT IS JUST A BASTION OF HONESTY AND INTEGRITY! LOL
From the New York Post 2011:
[quote]11:03 AM, March 8, 2011 ι Abby Wisse Schachter
The New York Times is on a tear about the dangers of a method of natural gas extraction called hydraulic fracturing. But a funny thing happened on the way to proving their case for how “fracking” poisons drinking water. It turns out that when you actually test the waterways that provide the drinking water that is supposedly poisonous, the test reveal that the water is fine.
Recently the Times reported that waste water from hydraulic fracturing — which contained dangerous levels of radioactivity — was being dumped in Pennsylvania rivers and streams that provide the state’s residents with their drinking water. In response to the Times’ allegations, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection had issued a report of water tests from those same rivers which shows that there are no harmful or dangerous levels of radioactivity present in the water.
The New York Times story made this claim : “The [fracking] wastewater, which is sometimes hauled to sewage plants not designed to treat it and then discharged into rivers that supply drinking water, contains radioactivity at levels higher than previously known, and far higher than the level that federal regulators say is safe for these treatment plants to handle.” And the story specified Pennsylvania as an offender.
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection did a water test of seven rivers and this is what their report concluded: “All of the samples, taken in November and December, showed levels at or below the normal naturally occurring background levels of radioactivity, the agency said. All samples also showed levels below the federal drinking water standard for Radium 226 and 228, it said.”
Don’t hold your breath for as splashy a correction from the Grey Lady as their original front page story. That would just complicate the paper’s political motivation to try and stop natural gas drilling everywhere in the northeast.
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/capitol/shocker_new_york_times_report_is_cLlp6sP8ohc3mZIXbFT7EM#ixzz1THUOPObE%5B/quote%5D
Jeff:
I don’t understand, you asked me for my critique of the Groceclose study and then don’t respond at all to it.
David: I missed that post for some reason. Let me take a look and respond.
I agree that our own bias clouds what we read. However, I also think it clouds what is written and said. For some reason the majority of journalists, media talking heads, and Hollywood producers and actors tend to lean left. There is probably a psychologocal or behavior study in waiting to discover why, but it is pretty well accepted that this is the case. The ideological filtering process might start in public education and then be reinforced in higher education. Reguardless, given the power and reach of the media to influence, it corrupts the political process.
[quote]Where is the center[/quote]
It’s like obscenity – I know it when I see it!
David: On your critique of the Groceclose study, I understand your point, but I am in agreement with Grocesclose that the method of counting the citations of references (think tanks) as compared to the citations from members of Congress is valid (and brilliant, I think).
First, the party alignment and ideological voting record of each politician is definitive. It provides a non-argumentative base for comparison. Also, we have well established agreement over the political leanings of all the major think tanks that are commonly referenced by politicians and political wonks.
You bring up a theoretical example of how this might not work, but in practice I absolutely agree that people cite supporting sources much more frequently than non-supporting sources. If what you use as your example was the rule and not the rare exception, we would not see the numbers as skewed left or right… there would be more middle-ground for all news sources as they equally cite sources on the both sides of the argument over a body of work.
This is an interesting topic for me because I see how hard you and other liberal progressives work to deny liberal media bias while you jump all over sources like Fox News. I am not prone to conspiracy theories, but the left view dominates education and the media. I think you and others know this but also know that the advantage is lost when the knowledge of this becomes conventional wisdom. So, the longer the left can prevent this truth from being absorbed into the collective understanding of the voting public, the longer the left can leverage the political power it provides. That is why I am thankful for Fox News, because with the media there is no check and balance other than the media. If the media has a bias (and this study proves it does), then at least we should celebrate it having copious diversity of bias.
Jeff:
I agree with you that Groceclose’s method was brilliant, I just still think it was flawed.
Some of the academic critiques I have seen point out that there may be other differences in the structure of the think tanks that may make it more likely for the media to cite some over others, while still balancing their coverage. For instance, you might cite someone like the Brookings institute, which would be on the left though not the far left, but also has pretty prestigious people working for them.
As I mentioned he’s only looking at half of the equation here and not attempting to see if the coverage is balanced over all.
“You bring up a theoretical example of how this might not work, but in practice I absolutely agree that people cite supporting sources much more frequently than non-supporting sources. If what you use as your example was the rule and not the rare exception, we would not see the numbers as skewed left or right… there would be more middle-ground for all news sources as they equally cite sources on the both sides of the argument over a body of work.”
Not necessarily. You do take into account, just as Groceclose doesn’t alternative theories on why that may be.
So one common example is a 2003 study in which the researcher would not that the NY Times consistently interviews liberal academics who favor gun control, on the other hand balances the story by interviewing gun deals or the NRA to provide the balance. Now why would you do that? For one thing, there are probably more liberal academics to interview and for another, the best source to interview on the right would be gun deals or NRA members.
Another example is that many articles cite the NCAAP as a group, but you are not going to interview the KKK in counterbalance, so you probably select an individual to balance the article. This is not a small factor, because according to their data the NAACP is the third most cited group.
The study produces odd results. It finds RAND more liberal than the ACLU. The other problem that you have not even addressed is that their study makes the NY Times look more conservative and the Wall Street Journal News Pages look liberal.
Another problem is that they studied the content of the WSJ for only four months in 2002, but examined 12 years of CBS News and 11 of NPR. Why does this matter? Because they are not comparing citations over the same periods of time.
Bottom line this is a brilliant study that is too flawed at its core to take the findings very seriously.
Jon Stewart had a very inciteful piece last night explaining how the left really gets away with things in the media:
[url]http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-july-27-2011/gop—special-victims-unit[/url]
It’s very interesting, Fox News (O”reilly and Ingram) now seems to be turning on the Tea Party – perhaps they do care about the country.