Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Where Does the Right-Wing End and the Media Begin?

By Rory O'Connor, AlterNet. Posted October 26, 2007.


Economist Paul Krugman on how the right-wing media machine is destroying social progress.
Advertisement

I had the opportunity to sit down this week with one of America's top economists, Paul Krugman, who of course doubles as an influential op-ed columnist for the New York Times. It's more than a bit surprising when the guy from the New York Times sounds more radical than anyone else in the room, but Krugman and his twice-weekly column have been more consistently surprising and radically different than anything else allowed to appear in the Times (or indeed anywhere else in the so-called "mainstream media") for so long that even Krugman himself no longer seems surprised by the force of his own outrage.

He certainly pulled no punches during our conversation, stating in a forthright manner his opinions on such controversial topics as truth and lies in the newsroom ("The Big Lies are all on the right"), media bias ("A large part of it is in fact right-wing bias, because they are effectively part of the right wing") and corporate pressure ("It's very clear that when the parent companies of the major news sources have issues at stake before the federal government ... this definitely influences the coverage.) Perhaps the fact that he's a tenured professor at Princeton -- and not a professional journalist still on the make -- has freed Krugman to speak truth to naked emperors and Times readers on a biweekly basis.

We spoke at the beginning of a national publicity tour for Krugman's latest book, The Conscience of a Liberal, which ranges over the history of the past century to explain what went wrong in America -- and then attempts to point the way to a "new New Deal." Part of what went wrong with America, of course, was the role played in our democracy by the mass media, as Krugman recognized and parsed in one chapter in his book entitled "Weapons of Mass Distraction."

***

Rory O' Connor: You speak in your book about "movement conservatism," which you call a "radical new force in American politics that took over the Republican Party." What role if any do the media play in movement conservatism?

Paul Krugman: The media are a very important force in it. They shape perceptions, and they conceal issues. Look at the 2000 presidential campaign, for example, where the media were so heavily biased against Al Gore. That's what brought Bush to within a Supreme Court decision of the White House. So if you look at, certainly these last seven years, the role of the media in not telling you reasons why you should be skeptical about the course of the war, for example, it's enormously important.

We have a situation right now in which there are several major parts of the news media that are for all practical purposes part of "movement conservatism" -- Fox News, the New York Post, the Washington Times -- and in which other news organizations are intimidated, at least to some extent. I sometimes talk about what I call "asymmetrical intimidation." If you say a true but unflattering thing about Bush or in fact about any other prominent conservative, oh, boy! People are going to go after you. I mean, I've got people working full-time going after me, right? But if you say a false, unflattering thing about a Democrat or a progressive, no risk ... And that shapes coverage, no question about it. It's better now, but it's still very asymmetric. The other thing we should mention about the media is their addiction to the trivial. We've got the most substantive election coming up, I think, ever. We've got clear differences on policies between parties. And what are we seeing news stories about? John Edwards' hair and Hillary Clinton's laugh ... this is horrifying! And again -- it's asymmetric. I can think of lots of unflattering things to say about any of the Republican candidates -- Mitt Romney's saying his sons are serving the country by helping him get elected! -- but it doesn't get nearly as much play in the media.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: media, fox, krugman, bias

Filmmaker and journalist Rory O'Connor is now completing AlterNet’s first-ever book, which is on the subject of right-wing radio talkers like O’Reilly, and will be available early in 2008. O'Connor also writes the Media Is A Plural blog.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Media bias is real -- and it is overwhelmingly liberal
Posted by: Jak_dah_rippah on Oct 26, 2007 1:43 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In reality, objective and independent minded Americans know that the majority of media is indeed liberal.

UCLA Study

Amusingly, the fringe extremists on Alternet, Huffpo, DailyKos, et al truly believe that the media is bias in the other direction.

Of course, while the mainstream media is to the right of these fringe extremists, it is still solidly liberal.

In addition, the shrill and fringe extremists on these Marxist blogs don't have the intellectual wherewithal to distinguish the difference between their hate speech, extremist views, and bias and the moderate and rational views held by the other 99% of Americans.

WHile Congress and the Media are liberal, they are not fringe. They represent a significant percentage of mainstream America (albeit slightly liberal). Alternet represents a minuscule percentage of a the American people (albeit highly vocal, angry, and extreme leftwing).

Case in point, while Democratic Party candidates in the recent midterm election "conned" the extreme leftwing into passivity prior to the 2006 election with rhetoric and pandering of ending the war in Iraq; once they gained office they reverted to their largely mainstream position of supporting the effort because they understand a stable and peaceful Iraq is in the best interests of US security.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» who are you kidding? Posted by: Lector
» RE: who are you kidding? Posted by: Chirico
» troll talk Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: who are you kidding? Posted by: Jeff Hoffman
» RE: who are you kidding? Posted by: launcher
» Which are you? Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: Which are you? Posted by: rocketman
» RE: Which are you? Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: Which are you? Posted by: rocketman
» Buzz off Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: Buzz off Posted by: rocketman
» RE: Buzz off Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: Buzz off Posted by: rocketman
» Don't believe him Posted by: LMNOP
» Earth to Jak Posted by: Iconoclast421
» Troll Posted by: LMNOP
» Don't feed the troll. Posted by: SENILEBIKER
» RE: Armchair general? Posted by: ronw1224
» RE: Armchair general? Posted by: bomec
LOW-BROW RIGHTWING LIE-RADIO IS THE WHOLE STORY !
Posted by: jay diamond on Oct 26, 2007 3:56 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Any discussion of the “media”, in the context of disseminating right-wing mythology (LYING) has to put Low-Brow, Right-Wing Talk Radio at the very top of this vile heap of dung.

Sean Hannity, Curtis Sliwa, Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, the whole goddamn bunch of these immoral low-brow liars represent a venemous snakepit.

I mean Hannity is on there every day lying his ass. Just tune in Hannity at random during any random moment of his lying "show" and you will instantly hear the most blantant, stark lies and smears, no matter what moment you tune it. It is really amazing. Try it.

And Krugman should try it. And Joe Conason. And Glenn Greenwald. And any American who has a serious interest in putting an end to the deliberate distortions and confusions promoted by this fascist cadre of scumbags that has reduced America to a nightmare of shame, murder, and obscene greed.

Millions more morons listen to talk radio and think it is the news. Hannity TELLS them at the beginning of the slime fest every day that it IS news.

And yet, media bigs like Krugman simply refuse even to listen to this toxic filth.

If a person is serous about ending the venal lies that corrupt our politics then it is the lowbrow, rightwing radio that must be relentlessly exposed. It gets to 50 million listeners a day, trapped in their cars; angry, harried, tense, nervous, scared, and pressured to death.....perfect conditions to make the average person susceptible to the lies and slander that is the special currency of the low-brow, rightwing, radio lowlifes like Sean Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, etc.

Bill O'Reilly get a million people a day....Low-Brow, Rightwing, Swill Radio gets 50 Million a day !

Which is worse !?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Rocketboy Posted by: Knowmad
» Rocketboy Posted by: Knowmad
» RE: ocketboy Posted by: rocketman
» RE: ocketboy Posted by: rocketman
» For a dip in a real cesspool Posted by: socialpsych
Corporate class ideoloogy is the issue, condemn both corporate democrats/republicans
Posted by: Perfectclue on Oct 26, 2007 4:06 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These are false arguments. Both class liberals and neocon elites are class ideologies with class parties, that are servile criminal thugs for corporate oligarchy. The class liberals which betrayed the Enlightenement, its deformed middle layers with their class ideology and hiearchies to filter out democratic decisions for the oligarchy, are not cowardly at all. After all they always capitulate appease these fascist and zionist foreign policies. Confusing all class deformations, which are to the right of the social center, moral center, mislabeled by the distorted class ideology of these deformed middle layers as the "left", or as "fringe extremists", comes from a long history of ideological corruption where all class forces are relabeled the center, when in fact they have morphed into fascism, corporate fascism. We need to get a handle on history and ideology, to keep from being an apologists for this criminal system.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Corporate Class Ideology Posted by: Ipsi Dixit
» RE: Corporate Class Ideology Posted by: Ipsi Dixit
» RE: Corporate Class Ideology Posted by: Ipsi Dixit
No escape from consumer commercial tv?
Posted by: Sojourner on Oct 26, 2007 4:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Having taken a seven year hiatus from tv, the soft product commercials on PBS have come to represent the loss I feel. I expect that the additional income allows PBS to pay more for the fine shows that it is now offering, and they are outstanding.

When I see the deterioration over at BBC, I know it's a losing battle to insist on pure public broadcasting. So I am stuck feeling like a loser. Just a bit more evidence that we live in the New Dark Ages.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The bias is mostly corporate influenced
Posted by: Evora on Oct 26, 2007 4:18 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Certainly there is the right-leaning bias of Fox, but to even consider them a legitimate news network is pretty laughable.

It is the corporate bias that is killing the media, and their bias isn't necessarily more right or left leaning..it is power and money-leaning. Notice the kid gloves with which the so-called liberal media treats Hillary Clinton. She was basically declared the inevitable front-runner the day she announced -- the cackle notwithstanding (and that criticism came from the left also, with good reason considering it seemed so forced and grating, and was employed seemingly to either project a softer image or at times totally out of place and completely puzzling).

She's booed at the labor debate, and the first words out of Chris Matthews' mouth was that her performance was 'majestic'. Chris Matthews may not be a 'liberal' in any stretch of the imagination, but the same gushing went on at every outlet. There are endless examples that everyone paying attention surely has seen.

The improper donation stories drop like a lead balloon. No one mentions that she's refused to give all of Hsu's money back. The phantom Chinatown dishwasher donors made a brief appearance and then disappeared from view. The media kept repeating how she raised more money than Obama in the last quarter, but failed to note that she had to transfer $10 million from her own Senate campaign coffers to do it. Then see the negatively biased stories about Edwards and Obama. The titles of the pieces alone are a clear giveaway. The sheer exclusion of other Democratic candidates from any coverage at all, from the very beginning, is something people don't even acknowledge anymore. It's all about numbers and not of ideas. That makes perfect sense for the corporate-ruled media, but absolutely none for a properly functioning democracy.

No..the media is all about preserving their power and it's pretty clear that the Clintons will be rewarding their supporters while both Edwards and Obama campaign to end corporate influence. If you think that GQ was the only media outlet strongarmed by the Clintons when they were going to print a negative piece on Hillary, you're living in the clouds.

If this is all a bias on the left, why would Rupert Murdoch be throwing huge fundraisers for her? If there is a liberal bias, why is even Keith Olbermann clearly a part of the Hillary coronation?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What About Sen. Clinton?
Posted by: Urstrly on Oct 26, 2007 4:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is always refreshing to hear from Krugman, an economist who sees through the Big Lie of the unfettered free market and its attending corollaries. I'd like to hear his thoughts on what will come of Hillary Clinton's new friendship with Rupert Murdoch. My guess is that we're going to see what Fox and the NY Post can do for at least one Democrat. The larger issue is what she'll do for him.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

“Don’t tread on me.”
Posted by: shangrilalad on Oct 26, 2007 5:07 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
.
As things now stand, few Americans will escape the consequences of the republican’s insane orgy of war and corruption. Every day that passes with madmen controlling our country increases the chances of worldwide chaos. The little people suffer now, and the middleclass are also under the gun, but not even the obscenely rich will escape their fate in a world gone mad. Wealth shields them from violence now, but it also makes them a target for future warlords now clawing they way to power. There will be no safe havens for them to escape to.

Republicans have shrunk our government down to a size that it can be drowned in a bathtub, but they also tossed aside the rule of law and legal protections that served them above all. Lawlessness trickles down like our national wealth never did, and when it hits bottom they will have to run for their lives. Their all powerful corporations will dissolve like aspirin in water under the onslaught of enemies both foreign and domestic.

Those deaf to rattlesnakes, are not immune to venom.

They forgot the American peoples’ timeless warning to tyrants, “Don’t tread on me.”

.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If "You" want fair and balanced..."
Posted by: douglashoyt on Oct 26, 2007 6:09 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You must include the BBC into your news coverage.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here's a better idea.
Posted by: maxpayne on Oct 26, 2007 6:22 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's time to TURN OFF YOUR TVs people and spend some real quality time with one another.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Why are you on the computer then? Posted by: war_on_tara
» RE: Why are you on the computer then? Posted by: Missing Piece
Spitting on Soldiers - nitpicking
Posted by: travman67 on Oct 26, 2007 6:24 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am fairly certain I watched a video on Alternet where a filmaker went and talked to a medic who had returned from Viet Nam. He said he was spat upon and discussed the event. I don't know if Krugman means "documented" as in a police report or something, but I thought the filming was done for a documentary. I don't mean to impune his credibility, but that is the sort of "third rail" issue that I have discussed in the past that is a total holy grail belief among the kind of people I work with. It is easy for these guys to latch onto an emotional issue like that and disregard anything else, being unable to reason dispassionatly, and assume that everything he says is untrue. Que lastima, if one of the left's best voices loses influence over these small concerns. I think the left has an undue burden to be perfect and a lot of leeway is given to those on the right.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Spitting on Soldiers - nitpicking Posted by: outsideagitator
» Good comment Posted by: WhatNow?
Read Books!
Posted by: peacelf on Oct 26, 2007 6:28 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For my progressive mind, the most satisfying source of information is books. Generally speaking, books are a late source of information, but they tend to reveal more if one was taught to think critically about information, news, politics, etc.

Books also say what they media refuses to say. That's why Krugman is right when he says the media "conceals issues." It's not what they say; it's what they don't say that matters.

That's why bias is difficult to detect. However, a few simple questions can help one cut through the bias to the truth about media bias: Whose interests does this report serve? Who benefits? In my experience, the media serves the interests of the wealthy white patriarchy. Like every institution in america, it serves the rich and powerful.

peace

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Read Books! Posted by: dustdevil
Journalism schools in the USA overwhelmingly liberal
Posted by: pammers on Oct 26, 2007 6:52 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You don't have to go far to see where the liberal media bias originates from.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I agree! Posted by: LeeAnnG
Earth to the extreme Left fringe
Posted by: Jak_dah_rippah on Oct 26, 2007 7:10 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is a perponderance of objective and compelling evidence to support my assertion of liberal media bias, I'll cite more when I get a break from work. You extremists fringe keep citing Marxists like Chomsky -- it helps prove my point you dudes don't have a clue:

“Most of the time I really think responsible
journalists, of which I hope I’m counted as one,
leave our bias at the side of the table. Now it is
true, historically in the media, it has been more of
a liberal persuasion for many years. It has taken
us a long time, too long in my view, to have
vigorous conservative voices heard as widely in
the media as they now are. And so I think yes, on
occasion, there is a liberal instinct in the media
which we need to keep our eye on, if you will.”
— ABC anchor Peter Jennings on CNN’s Larry
King Live, April 10, 2002.

“There is a liberal bias. It’s demonstrable. You
look at some statistics. About 85 percent of the
reporters who cover the White House vote
Democratic, they have for a long time. There is a,
particularly at the networks, at the lower levels,
among the editors and the so-called infra-structure,
there is a liberal bias....[Then-ABC
White House reporter] Brit Hume’s bosses are
liberal and they’re always quietly denouncing
him as being a right-wing nut.”
— Newsweek’s Evan Thomas on Inside
Washington, May 12, 1996.

— New Republic Senior Editor Hendrik
Hertzberg, March 9, 1992 issue.
“Coverage of the [1992] campaign vindicated
exactly what conservatives have been saying for
years about liberal bias in the media. In their
defense, journalists say that though they may
have their personal opinions, as professionals
they are able to correct for them when they write.
Sounds nice, but I’m not buying any.”
— Former Newsweek reporter Jacob Weisberg
in The New Republic, November 23, 1992.

“Everybody knows that there’s a liberal, that
there’s a heavy liberal persuasion among
correspondents.....Anybody who has to live with
the people, who covers police stations, covers
county courts, brought up that way, has to have
a degree of humanity that people who do not
have that exposure don’t have, and some people
interpret that to be liberal. It’s not a liberal, it’s
humanitarian and that’s a vastly different thing.”
— Former CBS Evening News anchor Walter
Cronkite at the March 21, 1996 Radio & TV
Correspondents Dinner.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» missing a critical distinction Posted by: inverse_agonist
» RE: arth to the extreme Left fringe Posted by: SatanicJamboree
» BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Posted by: LeeAnnG
Preachin' to the choir
Posted by: scott balogh on Oct 26, 2007 7:25 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All this talk here at Alternet makes perfect sense. It seems a few have the vision it takes to see the wickedness in the highest of places of influence. It is nothing more than preaching to the choir. My question is, when does the choir sing? Or maybe we are afraid to sing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Media Mess, full of myths
Posted by: Lector on Oct 26, 2007 8:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jack duh Ripper is quoting segments of articles from journalists which when read out of context seem like something else. Anecdotal evidence. As in, "I admit it -- the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures." William Kristol, as reported by the New Yorker, 5/22/95. I can do the same.

How is this objective and compelling evidence to support an assertion? And where are all these liberal channels? All I see are CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, far-right channels like Fox News owned by equally far-right media tycoon Rupert Murdoch, and other Christian channels such as Trinity Broadcasting Network or Pat Robertson's The 700 Club, carried by Fox Family. Show me the “liberal” channels.

According to Fox standards, Hannity & Colmes is about as fair and unbiased as it gets. Don’t forget The O'Reilly Factor, and Bod Dornan , far right of the political spectrum, or hard-right moron Michael Reagan who left the Republican party because it wasn’t radical enough. The situation is hardly any better on the supposedly liberal cable news channels where liberals or centrists may not be on unless their viewpoints are 'balanced' by conservative viewpoints as in CNN's Capital Gang or Crossfire. The pro-Bush bias of the mass media has reached an Orwellian level.

FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) documented documented that conservative or right-leaning "think" tanks (like Heritage, Cato, RAND or our favourite, the "Family Research" council) received more than 50% of media citations in 1998 and 1999, while left-wing and progressive think tanks overally received less than 13%

FAIR's issue collection reveals, among other things, how the mass media

* have helped create the myth that social security is failing, paving the way for the realization of one of the right's political wet dreams: privatization of social security
* perpetuate conservative myths about wellfare and simultanously turn a blind eye to corporate wellfare
* sensationalize street crime and ignore corporate crime
* treat religious right groups such as the Promise Keepers with kid's gloves and thus help legitimize them in the public perception
* generally avoid reporting on the lunatic fringe of the right, such as militias, neo-Nazis and anti-abortion terrorists, and in particular, avoid examining the personal and ideological connections these groups have to the Republican party
* created the perception that there is widespread popular opposition to affirmative action when in fact most people support it
* all but ignore waste, mismanagment and corruption in the military-industrial complex, especially as it relates to the planned missile defense system
* downplayed protests against the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO by portraying protestors as leftist fringe groups, communists and anarchists
* report corporate PR as legitimate scientific research.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Excellent! Posted by: WhatNow?
» Great comment, but Posted by: LeeAnnG
citizen
Posted by: throck on Oct 26, 2007 8:40 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My opinion: If the national television "news" tilts any more to the left it will fall over. As a group they are becoming dangerously close to the old Soviet Pravda. Parroting the statements of Big Government is not conservative, it is totalitarian. That is as left-wing as it gets. Show me a national news story with a pro-gun slant. Show me an anti-abortion story. I don't believe anyone can. CNN and ABC seem to be the worst offenders by a slim margin and do not let facts get in the way of their propaganda even a little bit. Talk radio is anti-abortion but just as lame and fact-free as the TV networks. I cannot offer a solution, just a good rant. Thank you for allowing me to post.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: citizen Posted by: TheNamelessCity
» RE: citizen Posted by: duck-lady
» RE: citizen Posted by: Lauren
» RE: citizen Posted by: matti
» Oh its much worse Posted by: matti
On the UCLA study
Posted by: Joshua Holland on Oct 26, 2007 9:15 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Alterman:
One of the central problems for scholars seeking to study ideological bias in the media is the lack of agreed-upon data. Natural scientists and even most social scientists can run experiments where their variables are to a considerable extent controlled. But this is simply impossible in the case of coverage of politics. An impeachment scandal over a fib about extra-marital sex is simply not comparable to misleading the nation into war—no matter what one might think of either example.

Ironically, right-wingers who spend so much time vilifying genuine academic knowledge are more than happy to embrace it when it serves their purpose, no matter how fundamentally flawed it might be. We’ve seen this tendency for more than a decade with the frequent flying of the flag of a nearly useless study, such as that of the voting habits of Washington reporters done for the 1992 election—discussed at length in my book, What Liberal Media—and we’re seeing it again today with a recently published study by two conservative media critics currently ensconced in academia.

The study, “A Measure of Media Bias” by UCLA Professor Timothy J. Groseclose and Jeffrey D. Milyo of the University of Missouri-Columbia, purports to demonstrate that the mainstream media lean leftward. It does so by allegedly estimating “scores for several major media outlets,” by counting the number of times “a particular media outlet cites various think tanks and policy groups, and then compar[ing] this with the times that members of Congress cite the same groups.” Rick Scarborough, a Baptist preacher in Pearland, Texas, has even called on his followers to “join Vision America in our New Year Resolution to Boycott Liberal Media" in 2006, claiming, in his regular newsletter, “a recent study by two University scholars has given a factual basis to what we have known to be true."

As a spokesman for the Dow Jones Company, publisher of the not-so-liberal-though-you’d-never-know-it-from-the-study Wall Street Journal, asks, "What are we to make of the validity of a list of important policy groups that doesn't include, say, the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the AFL-CIO or the Concord Coalition but that does include People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals?" And what of those stories that are quoting out-of-power liberal think tanks—like, for instance, this one—to “balance” in-power right-wing administration, congressional or state officials? Those quotes are deemed by the authors to be entirely one-sided, because they didn’t bother coding for quotes by people in power.

Apart from its context-free methodology, upon which such a study necessarily depends, something clearly smells funny here. First of all, the research, which among other things studied news organizations for varying amounts of time and at different times, found that of 20 media outlets, 18 scored to the left of center. For the record, the study also found that only "Special Report with Brit Hume" and the Washington Times scored to the right of the average voter.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: On the UCLA study (2) Posted by: Joshua Holland
» "published, inexplicably," Posted by: WhatNow?
» RE: On the UCLA study Posted by: Lauren
» RE: On the UCLA study Posted by: SatanicJamboree
This issue was covered by a professor of mine back in the 60s
Posted by: ReallyBearish on Oct 26, 2007 10:04 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's right, back in 1962. He pointed out that young reporters tended to be less rigid and leftist, while their bosses tended to be older conservative "corporate" types. He thought this was the reason that newspaper editorials were so poorly written.

One of the issues covered by Krugman (and ignored by most of the posters, esp. those right-wing bone heads) was the trivialization of the news. Don't cover real issues. Just talk about that incident where one candidate left his fly open!

And then there's the stupidity of treating all issues as if there were actually two sides, resulting in the faux headline: BUSH SAYS THE WORLD IS FLAT; OPINIONS DIFFER.

The press (outside of Fox and talk radio) is less ideological than it is shallow. And most of them play "follow the leader".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» There was a very good study ... Posted by: Joshua Holland
Welcome to the puppet show.
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Oct 26, 2007 10:15 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In this corner, we've got leftist liberals, in that corner we've got rightist conservatives - get ready for the bell - and they're off and running! Pro-choice or pro-life? Public schools or chartered private schools? Crack your egg on the left side, or crack your egg on the right side?

Look - there are two levels of propaganda in the United States today. One (which this article discusses) is the television news PR - mostly entertainment aimed at distraction - Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, The Jerry Springer Show, Oprah, etc. All razzle-dazzle, glitter, shouting and sneering, and some of it could be classified as liberal, some as conservative. It's slop, in either case - dumbed-down drivel that serves as filler in between the commercials - although with the advent of TiVo, you're seeing more product placement in the shows themselves. Stewart & Colbert have milked this for some riotous humor.

The top tier of propaganda is the one represented by the intellectual press, the major book publishing houses, so-called "think tanks", and top-flight academic institutions. Here you've got the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, Princeton, Harvard, Stanford, The Washington Post, The Economist, and so on. Again, some are more 'liberal', others are more 'conservative', but there are quite a few topics where they all march in lockstep. This is what Noam Chomsky spends his time exposing (Necessary Illusions, etc.)

Krugman discusses this a little: "A lot of people I talk to in the media say that they have received pressure in ways that only seem to make sense if you think that at some level management -- not the guys that think about audience shares but the guys who think about broader concerns -- are taking into account the political liabilities."

However, he misses at the end. It's the financial liabilities which are the main concern of upper management. The banks and the people who own and control the major media corporations have huge investments in fossil fuels, defense contractors, pharmaceuticals, telecommunications, agribusiness, insurance, etc. Regardless of which party is in power, the interests of these corporations come first.

For example:

*The corporate class has decided, well before any primary election, who the Democratic and Republican front runners are. That's odd, isn't it?

*The fact that after the Cold War ended, military spending kept on increasing due to the entrenched power of the military-industrial-Congressional complex (Feinstein is a great example of that) is not a topic deemed suitable for discussion in any forum. What happened to the "peace dividend?"

*When the Clintons helped push NAFTA through, a Princeton economist named Gene Gossman came out with econometric models which "proved" that NAFTA would have a beneficial effect on workers in the US and in Mexico (wrong!). However, economists are still cheerfully using their flawed models to make forecasts for the benefit of the World Bank and IMF global loansharking programs.

*Global warming has only one solution - ending the use of fossil fuels and building renewable energy infrastructure. Not a theme you'll see in the consolidated corporate press.

*The U.S. violations of the Biological Weapons and Toxins Convention under Project Bioshield. Ever hear of those?

There is only one party in this country, and it's the corporate party. They have two wings, like any other Beast, and their mouthpiece is the U.S. press. If you want accurate information, look outside the country.

It's a lot like the 1933 alliance between IG Farben and the Nazi Party that spawned the totalitarian state of Nazi Germany - and recall that Hitler (the rightist) signed a secret non-agression pact with Stalin the leftist?

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» See, my point with the... Posted by: matti
Take a look at the press in the 1930s
Posted by: ReallyBearish on Oct 26, 2007 10:27 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The 30s Depression was rarely covered, at least at the beginning. Most editorial writers were right-wing and against FDR. Civil rights issues, lynchings in the South, etc. were rarely, if ever covered. One paper, the Chicago Tribune (a Hearst paper), actually committed treason and published a secret report on the poor state of readiness of the army-- something of significant interest to the Nazi war machine.

When they did cover a major story (like the Bonus Army in Washington) they deliberately distorted information and facts.

One of the reasons the Communists of the period were able to make some inroads was that they were among the few actually discussing social issues and news. That in itself should cast a poor light on the press of the time. Most of what they covered was trivial.

An interesting commentary of the international news coverage of the press in the 1950s can be found in the book NATION OF SHEEP, pointing out that few papers ever discussed foreign affairs at the time of the Cold War, making most voters totally ignorant of what was going on in the world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Krugman for president!
Posted by: madaha on Oct 26, 2007 10:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Or, failing that, will you marry me professor Krugman? (I've got such a crush on him!)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is nothing more than another version of “Good German” article.
Posted by: aka_bozo on Oct 26, 2007 10:33 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What you liberals (socialists) can’t accept is that a large percentage of the human population are natural fascists. Which is why kings, Hitlers, Napolians, and – in general – any big-dick male, has been – and always will be – worshipped; much to the perpetual disgust of the socialists who want their “intellectuals” worshipped.

Sorry, nature isn’t like that. AND, more importantly to the US, we’ve got a two party system - which, btw, is fiercely defended by the socialists and fascists parties, as the winner gets the spoils of the peasant’s tax money. This means the teaming-masses of dumb-ass peasants only have TWO choices. They can vote for mommy or daddy.

What you socialist can’t admit to yourselves is that the peasants that vote fascists - HAPPILY vote fascists – and HAVE BEEN for 40+ years now! And the ONLY way to keep them from doing so is to divide them.

You have FIVE groups of peasants to pick from that ROUTINELY vote fascist:

* The fear-based “make the military perpetually bigger at any cost” people.

* The mean people with the mean imaginary-friend. The “Help Jesus punish the fornicating harlots” people.

* The mean white people who just want the Republicans to help them “get even” with “those “people”.

* The mean “survival of the fittest” libertarians.

* The “small government” libertarians.

If you can’t get any of the people in any of the above groups to vote for you ROUTINELY, you’ll be the minority party forever.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» A nit-pick Posted by: matti
» RE: Bozo...... Posted by: boydranchitos
"Liberal" media
Posted by: willymack on Oct 26, 2007 10:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Beginning with those who repeat this obvious (to anyone with a brain) lie, and then to those who faithfully watch crap like fox "news", the better to learn new words and catchphrases to express their distain for real facts and critical thinking, not too many conclusions about the sorry fact that so many Americans are so abysmally ignorant of the REAL world can be be drawn. In my view, we've been so consistently saturated with so many lies, obfuscations, and omissions for the last couple of decades, that the very idea of our mass media being biased toward liberal or progressive thinking is ludicrous. It may have been the case in the days of Edward R. Murrow, but certainly not now. Ask anyone under 55 years of age who Murrow was and you'll get a blank stare almost every time. That's how rare REAL journalists are nowadays. The real ones tend to be liberal and progressive because they're morally and ethically upright, and aren't the ass kissers so favored by the reaganites or the bushies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fox News is 24/7/365 Republican soft money campaign ad
Posted by: therealbrotherjonah on Oct 26, 2007 11:39 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After the Titty Baby so called "Conservatives" at Dumfox Noose Nutwerks threw a major league tantrum over the MoveOn ad, and had their loyal ditto-head ideological slaves flood Congress with calls demanding that the "outrage" be condemned,

today, in DumFox Noose, they're saying "Mob Bosses Tried To Have Giuliani Whacked"

First, Giuliani IS Mafia. He doesn't like me saying it, tough.

Bull O'Really? can resent this too. Big Deal.

This headline itself is, de facto, a soft money FREE campaign advertisement for il Rudi.

It's something the DumFox Noose Screws have been doing ever since Murdoch bought the Fox Studios name.

Whine about that, titty baby fascist freaks.
You p