Gallup has an interesting poll out about general perceptions of the popular press. They give the media high marks in some areas. But beneath the headline, we also have another poll on media bias, one that looks just like every other scientific poll that's ever been done on media bias.
There are two theories that I can think of to explain this. 1) People aren't stupid, they see what they see and come to rational conclusions, or 2) conservatives have a Svengali-like ability to fool people.
I say you just have to look at how the blogosphere looks, vs. what the bigtime media looks like, to know what America looks like. The answer is self-evident.
When Fox News Channel was created, they said they would try to be more fair. They said that most of the mainstream media seemed to have the notion that there were two Americas: right-wing extremists and sensible centrists. The Fox folks took polls like this gallup poll (which is no different from countless other polls done over the last 20 years) to heart, and made an effort to play to that audience--and they're whupping the snot out of everyone else in the ratings. They're still growing, and even though they're still not in as many outlets as CNN, they've got nearly twice the audience now.
I suppose some wring their hands and decry how America's going down the tubes because of this. I say we'd have been a more healthy society if the broadcast media had taken this seriously sooner. Including most self-described liberals. The problem here is that they were stereotyping the lives, and the viewpoints, of half of America.
The truth is that the big-time news media (which I define as most television news, half the nation's newspapers and most of its glossy news magazines) isn't liberal. It's narrow-minded, prejudiced, and provincial. The fact that so many people in newsrooms share the same biases on a host of hugely important cultural issues is the real crux of the issue.
"Conservative" and "liberal" have no fixed meaning. There's no reason a "conservative" cannot support women's rights, or a "liberal" cannot support war on Saddam Hussein. When people say the media is "too liberal," they don't mean the media is too open-minded and tolerant. They mean it's too narrow and focused on stereotypes, mired hopelessly in 1970s-era assumptions about how the world works.
Hiding your head in the sand is a good way to avoid confronting your prejudices, but is it healthy?
I say you just have to look at how the blogosphere looks, vs. what the bigtime media looks like, to know what America looks like. The answer is self-evident.
Bwah!
Sorry. I was either going to laugh or spit my coffee out in mid swallow.
Comparing the blogosphere to bigtime media, are you??
Try this simple substitution first:
I say you just have to look at the telephone to know what America really looks like, vs. what the television looks like. The answer is self-evident.
You can't compare the two.
And another thing:
Only a tiny percentage of Americans can overcome the barriers to entry that stand in front of the blogosphere. Here they are, arranged in concentric circles, so to speak:
Dean, the readers of your blog have blown past those challenging barriers with plenty of room to spare. That is why I come here to your blog.
That, and the royalty checks you send me every month for posting.
Ooops. I wasn't suppose to say that, was I?
Sor-ry!
Notice above that I didn't present any further barriers to entry like having an articulate opinion, or an enlightening opinion. And never mind the part about being able to type coherently. The barriers I enumerated are challenging enough. As I said, the folks who come here have blown past those barriers. But face facts: not all bloggers have the audience you have.
On the other hand, what are the barriers to entry to being an inert member of the audience for anything being shown on network television?
- Access to a TV
No, my friend, the blogosphere represents a pretty highly unique and skewed sampling of Americans.The bigtime media, i.e., network news, attracts another sampling of Americans.
That is what is self-evident.
>> When people say the media is "too liberal," they don't mean the media is too open-minded and tolerant. They mean it's too narrow and focused on stereotypes, mired hopelessly in 1970s-era assumptions about how the world works.
Too liberal=focused on stereotypes? I've never heard that interpretation. I think that's because it really doesn't seem to make sense. Or needs more explaining. Are "we" the ones that pine for the 1950s?
Oh, good, I don't have to be the first to post on a subject. I was with you on your reading of the poll until abot half way down and you started saying Fox News was more representative of America.
Wrong. It is more representative of citizens who watch cable news.
That still is a relatively small sliver of the population, - about two million people total per night for CNN, FNC, and MSNBC combined according to this Link here: http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030103-6246169.htm
Now I've got to go and fix my blog template again. I !@#$% it up.
I don't suggest that the blogosphere is perfectly representative of America. But I firmly believe that the gallup poll--which certainly is representative--gives us a hint as to why the blogosphere looks the way it does.
By the way: able to afford a computer and internet access. That would be at least 90% of the adult population in America. Most of the remaining 10% or so would have free access through public schools and libraries.
So essentially, what you're saying is that illiterate people with short attention spans make up a majority of Americans? ;-)
I did not say Fox News was more representative of America. So I would appreciate it if you would retract that statement.
What I said was that polls have shown for decades that a majority of Americans believe the press is "too liberal" (and by "too liberal" they certainly do not mean "too open-minded and tolerant"). The mainstream press ignored these polls, and other data that showed there was a problem.
By taking such data seriously, the Fox News people have been rewarded. And that's all I said.
Fox News is certainly no more important than, say, a big regional newspaper or a major local news broadcast. I'm sure WGN's nightly news out of Chicago, or WOR in New York, pulls similar ratings. [shrug]
By the way, who are these people who are pining away for the 1950s? I don't know anybody like that.
What you're saying is that illiterate people with short attention spans make up a majority of Americans? ;-)
Your words, not mine.
>> What I said was that polls have shown for decades that a majority of Americans believe the press is "too liberal" (and by "too liberal" they certainly do not mean "too open-minded and tolerant"). The mainstream press ignored these polls, and other data that showed there was a problem.
By taking such data seriously, the Fox News people have been rewarded. And that's all I said.
Dean,
Perhaps one part of this reason you overlooked is that the liberal viewpoint has saturated the broadcast and print media. NSNBC cancelled Phil Donahue two days ago. He was certainly a big draw on his 1980’s afternoon talk show. He obviously has as much experience as Bill O’Reilly. But just why does O’Reilly kick his ass every single night in the television ratings?
I personally believe O’Reilly is better; but I am very opinionated and biased. Donahue is not talentless, either. Maybe O’Reilly is trouncing in the ratings is because Donahue is because O’Reilly’s view of events has not saturated the marketplace as Donahue’s, and by proxy, other liberal’s viewpoints have over the past forty years.
======================================================
Dean,
Funny you should mention that. I have heard that somebody polled Chicagoans many moons ago regarding whom they most highly esteemed in their great city. Pro athletes such as Michael Jordan and Walter Payton were on top. LOCAL Chicago newscasters were directly behind them. So, obviously Chicagoans are not cynical toward THEIR newscasters.
I firmly believe Americans are justifiably cynical toward national newscasters who apparently see their charge as being “changing America for the better.” That might just be part of the liberal disease. Witness Jeanneane Garofolo and Ed Asner, et. al. as well. Their news reporter jobs are to report the news, not to tell us dumbasses what the news means.
That is why I have not watched Dan Rather in 25 years, Peter Jennings in 20 years, or Tom Brokaw the past decade. I am not a stupid ass who cannot think for himself. I believe the “great” newscasters believe all of us dumb enough to watch their news shows are just that. I usually Fox news, Wolf Blixer (exclusively) on CNN, or watch no television news, period. I receive better news analysis from people who post to your blog than from those prima donnas on network news.
Walter Cronkite never allowed his opinions to bias his news coverage. That all changed after he retired.
I am sure that I do not alone believe this. Broadcast news is also receiving quite healthy competition from Internet sources (pat yourself on the back Dean) as well as cable news. I hope broadcast news disappears permanently in one-half decade. They are absolutely terrible.
Retract? I'll clarify what I was referring to.
You ARE saying that because Fox News has done polls similar to Gallup's that their product is now more representative of America THAN OTHER MEDIA OUTLETS.
I don't comprehend the distinction you were trying to re-make in your posted comment. >>By taking such data seriously, the Fox News people have been rewarded. And that's all I said.
Unless by "rewarded" you mean a greater number of viewers who don't agree with the views beign presented.
It's a mystery to me why O'Reilly and his ilk are so popular. Even if you agreed with him, his disingenuous approach and his tactics are too dishonest and off-putting. [I'm not saying you, Dean, were defending him.]
I do feel the same about "liberal" talk show hosts who do the same.
Dimn --
It's called entertainment. O'Reilly is an entertainer. The same way a boxer is an entertainer.
No Ara, no one pays attetnion to a boxer when he says he's for or against a war. For or against a politician. You don't feel the echoes of a boxer's pronouncements thorughout the public discourse.
Its not entertainment when O Reilly insists on being right about political issues that matter. It's not entertainmnet when he talks to the father of a man who died Sept. 11 and says he's done more than him for the families of Sept. 11.
It's not "entertainmnet when it's on the Fox NEWS channel and when its head gets the ear of the president frequently. Or when John Ellis, GWB's cousin, is the one to call the election on 11-7-2000. [that's just an example, I'm not bringing "everything" back to the election]
Rush is entertainment? Hannity too? Savage etc?
Yet, they shape massive public opinion. and the opinions they shape are on politics and war and impeaching a president. It's gone beyond entertainment.
Dimn,
You are mistaking my point.
Entertainment is the sugar-coating that makes the pill tasty and go down easier.
What the pill does is a different story.
oh :)
Please find my comments Here
It's not "entertainmnet when it's on the Fox NEWS channel and when its head gets the ear of the president frequently.
Quick, someone inform Rick Kaplan, golfing buddy and overnight guest of Bill Clinton WHILE HE WAS PRESIDENT.
Tell you what, do a quick search on Nina Burleigh (reporter). I dare ya.
>> It's not "entertainmnet when it's on the Fox NEWS channel and when its head gets the ear of the president frequently. Or when John Ellis, GWB's cousin, is the one to call the election on 11-7-2000. [that's just an example, I'm not bringing "everything" back to the election]
Dimn,
Did he not call the election accurately?
>>Wrong. It is more representative of citizens who watch cable news.
dimn,
Your answer does nothing to explain just why FNN consistently beats CNN, MSMBC, and CNBC, in cable ratings. Might it just be consumers voting with their television sets?
>>Unless by "rewarded" you mean a greater number of viewers who don't agree with the views beign presented.
No dimn, it means that FNC was rewarded with higher viewer ratings than it direct competitors. You know, it's that free enterprise thing.
>> I suppose some wring their hands and decry how America's going down the tubes because of this. I say we'd have been a more healthy society if the broadcast media had taken this seriously sooner. Including most self-described liberals. The problem here is that they were stereotyping the lives, and the viewpoints, of half of America.
Dean,
Look for national broadcast television stations to withdraw from the news business in the next ten years.