Anyone who's looked at any serious survey of the political attitudes of the professional press knows that they tend to lean left. Pew Reaserch's latest poll only confirms the obvious.
The response from most on the left usually comes in two forms: either that journalists, because they're so well-informed compared to the general public, will naturally tend to lean left just like all smart, well informed people tend to. The other is that it's not relevant because corporate ownership means that the left-leaning reporters are forced to lean right anyway.
And so of course nothing is ever really explained. Except note this:
As the same Pew Research poll shows, significantly more people in the general population (as opposed to just reporters) self-describe as "conservative" than as "liberal." That's actually been true for many years, in countless polls by groups like Gallup and Pew Research and Zogby: self-described "liberals" (most of whom lean left of course) have always been outnumbered by self-described "conservatives" (most of whom lean right).
I myself consider myself a common-sense classical liberal, which by coincidence at the moment means I often align with "conservatives" on certain big issues--free trade, the spread of democracy and human rights, school choice, and Social Security choice. What I find most odd about that is that any of those are considered "conservative" ideas, since traditionally, they're all anathema to conservatism.
But anyway, I notice that the traditional American "liberal" (i.e. moderate socialist leftist) is generally outnumbered by self-described conservatives in the general population (not among reporters, among the general population). Then there are the libertarians, who are generally these days identified with the conservatives even though most maintain that they're not.
All this tells me one thing: Blogs are more representative of the general population than the professional press is. Which should be no surprise. My guess is that an awful lot of people who lean right will tend to be people who choose careers other than journalism--but for whom blogging is a perfect outlet.
Article via Common Sense & Wonder. Who, by the way, also make a good point about blaming Bush.
Good read Dean.
"Then there are the libertarians, who are generally these days identified with the conservatives even though most maintain that they're not."
I agree, we libertarians are assuredly NOT conservatives. There's quite a few differences in the viewpoints of a libertarian and a conservative - where we see somewhat eye to eye is economics, social issues is an entirely different story.
From the article: "According to Pew, about 60% of the general public believes it is necessary to believe in God to be a truly moral person."
Not a surprising number, but dissapointing. However, I expect that number to fall in years to come. I know plenty of atheists who have morals, and they stick to them too, they just have different reasons than a God fearing person might.
I love how the argument "The other is that it's not relevant because corporate ownership means that the left-leaning reporters are forced to lean right anyway" by those defending left-leaning journalism boils down to:
Corporations are, by definition and without any possible exception right-leaning. Because obviously there can't be corporations whose founders espouse leftist ideology.
Hopefully, the major cultural casualty of this media war on the home front will be that tired relic of the French Revolution; the political spectrum of Left v Right. Few people who really look at it can definitively put themselves in some identifiable arc without a tendril reaching out and over into some other niche. "Spectrum" of course is merely a model, it comes to us from science and it's worth in human interactions is minimal, I think. Another model, one I have gained some perspective from, is "Polymeric". Individuals know where they themselves sit at their core but long chains of philosophy, experience, geography, economics... everything that makes up an individual may snake far beyond what we can see and interact with others in ways opaque to us. But overall, the result is a coherent and viable polity where know one quite knows what is going on.
Hopefully, the major cultural casualty of this media war on the home front will be that tired relic of the French Revolution; the political spectrum of Left v Right. Few people who really look at it can definitively put themselves in some identifiable arc without a tendril reaching out and over into some other niche. "Spectrum" of course is merely a model, it comes to us from science and it's worth in human interactions is minimal, I think. Another model, one I have gained some perspective from, is "Polymeric". Individuals know where they themselves sit at their core but long chains of philosophy, experience, geography, economics... everything that makes up an individual may snake far beyond what we can see and interact with others in ways opaque to us. But overall, the result is a coherent and viable polity where know one quite knows what is going on.
Grr.
The right-wingers are all linking to this same article, claiming it backs up their Big Lie about a liberal media. Since few of them have actually read the article, let me point out a few things:
**This is a survey about the EMPLOYEES of the media, not the CONTENT of the media. It's not, I repeat, not the same thing.
**The self-admitted liberals represent 23 to 34 percent of the media. That's about a third. Not even a simple majority, let alone a contolling interest.
**The major players in the national media---Viacom, GE, Clear Channel, et al---are all major GOP contributors. Why are liberals shovelling huge wads of cash to Bush? Are the Bush/Cheney Pioneers actually a hidden liberal cabal?
As Deep Throat said in that parking garage a generation ago, "Follow the money." The money is overwhelingly conservative, even if the sound guy on Eyewitness News at 11 is wearing a PETA t-shirt.
Dave,
Never heard of the Ford Foundation, have ya?
Dean,
I'm going to contest one thing you said, because it annoys me...school choice is the quintessential conservative position on education; massive, monopolistic, public school systems...thats a liberal innovation.
Don,
Although you mention some interesting points regarding media bias, I do not believe your comments regarding bias are inherently biased; I simply believe your statements regarding bias are incomplete.
The statistics crystallizing media bias in my mind concerned voting of media personalities, not polls regarding their opinions. I view these Pew polls as suspect since they require media personalities to analyze their own bias, a subjective way to measure subjectivity if you ask me.
Surely, media personalities such as Dan Rather or Andy Rooney view themselves as being reasonable, and therefore, “moderate.” But as Bernard Goldberg states in his last two books “Bias” and “Arrogance” these elites live inside their own bubble anyway. He mentions one woman in “Bias” stating, “I cannot believe Richard Nixon beat George McGovern (in 1972). I don’t know a single person who voted for Nixon.”
Nixon illustrates this best in his book “No More Vietnams” citing that 72% of the media
voted for George McGovern in 1972 while 36% of America did the same. Nixon beat
McGovern with 70% of the vote in 1972. This pattern repeats itself every single
Presidential election cycle where Democrats win less than 50% of the popular vote. 85%
of the media voted for Jimmy Carter in 1980 when he received about 42% of the popular
vote. In 1988 Dukakis received about 44% of the popular vote while receiving 88% of
the media’s support. Clinton won the Presidency in 1992 with only 46% of the vote and
received 92% of the vote from media personalities.
IMHO, it’s safe to say that the media shares little in common with the general public
when the media votes approximately 2-1 favoring the Democrat Presidential candidate
compared with the general American public. This is a true indication of media bias.
Gallup no longer does these polls, unfortunately.
KevinB
Tecumseh, MI
Kevin, I can't believe you try to prove your point by citing two of the most self-serving liars I've ever had the misfortune of reading, Nixon and Goldberg.
Both of them twist around results of privately-funded push polls with tiny samples to prove their thesis: Nixon's "I'm not evil" and Goldberg's "Dan Rather was mean to me boo hoo hoo."
And once again you ignore the media OWNERS, the people with the money and therefore the final say about what you read and hear.
I've read Goldberg---have you read WHAT LIBERAL MEDIA by Eric Alterman (now available wherever finer books are sold)? You really should. he looks at the CONTENT of the media instead of the employees.
Kevin, I can't believe you try to prove your point by citing two of the most self-serving liars I've ever had the misfortune of reading, Nixon and Goldberg.
Both of them twist around results of privately-funded push polls with tiny samples to prove their thesis: Nixon's "I'm not evil" and Goldberg's "Dan Rather was mean to me boo hoo hoo."
And once again you ignore the media OWNERS, the people with the money and therefore the final say about what you read and hear.
I've read Goldberg---have you read WHAT LIBERAL MEDIA by Eric Alterman (now available wherever finer books are sold)? You really should. he looks at the CONTENT of the media instead of the employees.
Business Philosophy 101: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Answer: The chicken rancher. Don's correct, I think.
Don, have you ever actually worked in a newsroom?
I can assure you that at the top of the news media food chain the news divisions jealously guard their independence from the eeeeeeeeeeevil right-wing capitalist bean-counters in the boardroom.
If those bean-counters really have so much control over the content of the news, why are the Not-So-Big Three broadcast networks losing more and more of their audience share?
And don't you think lumping Nixon and Goldberg together as "the most self-serving liars" is just a tad ... biased?
"I'm going to contest one thing you said, because it annoys me...school choice is the quintessential conservative position on education; massive, monopolistic, public school systems...thats a liberal innovation."
Mark, you might want to reread his article - Dean said he is a "common-sense classical liberal" as opposed to a "traditional American 'liberal' (i.e. moderate socialist leftist), there is a big difference. Just as there are diffent types of conservatives(such as religious fundamentalist conservatives, which you are definitely not one of, you are a completely different kind of conservative, and that's a good thing in my view), there are different types of liberals. Nowhere did Dean say that choice in the school system was the position of what we would consider liberals today to represent - but common-sense classical liberals would realize that would be a good idea. True liberals change their ideas if they see something better - they are open minded and tolerant. False liberals(like we have much of today) are not open minded, and are extremely intolerant.
Also, conservatives alone can not claim want for choice in the school system - http://www.lp.org/issues/program/edu.html
May be my bias speaking, but I think libertarians may be the new true liberals.
Just a clarification - put 'moderate' in front of libertarians in that last sentence. I think the more extreme libertarians are a bit whacko.
The mass media are definitely "bi-assed" when it comes to gun rights. Gun owners are constantly portrayed as criminals and maniacs, and the lie is constantly propounded that the Second Amendment only protects the National Guard. My friend Jeff Soyer at Alphecca has a weekly "Check on the Bias" that you should check out:
http://alphecca.com/
Megapotamus wrote:
"Hopefully, the major cultural casualty of this media war on the home front will be that tired relic of the French Revolution; the political spectrum of Left v Right. Few people who really look at it can definitively put themselves in some identifiable arc without a tendril reaching out and over into some other niche. "Spectrum" of course is merely a model, it comes to us from science and it's worth in human interactions is minimal, I think. Another model, one I have gained some perspective from, is "Polymeric". Individuals know where they themselves sit at their core but long chains of philosophy, experience, geography, economics... everything that makes up an individual may snake far beyond what we can see and interact with others in ways opaque to us. But overall, the result is a coherent and viable polity where know one quite knows what is going on."
Excellent! Very true. I don't fit on the 1-dimensional "Left-Right" spectrum at all, and neither do most of the thinkers I most admire, e.g., Camille Paglia, Ayn Rand, Friedrich Nietzsche, G. K. Chesterton. I've argued for decades that a spectrum must have at least 2 or 3 dimensions. E.g., my friend Robin Georg Olsen's spectrum of modernist-traditionalist and populist-elitist. Or, the Pournelle spectrum of statist-antistatist and rationalist-irrationalist
http://www.baen.com/chapters/axes.htm
I was once privileged to witness one of the great moments in the history of spectrumology. I was visiting the John Birch Society booth at the Oregon State Fair when I overheard an old Bircher arguing with a young man of rather opposite views. The Bircher asked the young man how he defined "Left" and "Right".
The young man answered: "The Right says 'One Way, Only One Way'. The Left says 'Anything Goes'."
The Bircher replied: "It's the other way around as I see it. The Left wants 'One, One World, One Everything'. The Right opposes that."
Both are true! And I thought of a spectrum with those as 2 dimensions. There are many, many spectrums. Spectrums, spectrums, spectrums, spectrums.... I love spectrums. Spectrums I do love.
There's been plenty of content studies done as well.
Also, the Pew Poll asked media figures their views on liberal issues and got considerably higher numbers than the American populace on such issues. And even the self-identified liberals are higher than the American populace, let alone the "moderates" who are truly liberals.
Look, Don, you slam Kev for quoting from a couple of books thus giving us a good bit of data, and you don't bother to offer any info other than a book title in return.
So, let me do the lefty thing here. I'm goint to write a book, someday. (Well I already have, but this will be a non-fiction book) with Michael Moore and Dan Rather conspiring together to hoodwink the American people. The title is "I am a Lefty and a Bad Person."
There that proves my case, doesn't it?
And I thought it was a tenet of lefty thought that those in charge, like Dan Rather, are evil.
Your central arguement seems to be that Big Business is Republican. This is naive. BB is for BB. They contribute to both sides, although primarily to incumbents of either variety.
BB's politics are usually 1)timid 2)centrist 3)focused on getting more taxpayer money their way, or of getting legal protection from competition. Oftentimes, BB's support liberal causes because it gets them favorable press, or their upper level managers are liberal (say George Soros or the Kroc heir's contribution to NPR).
Most BB's are not truly capitalist. In fact, they are more fascist. That is, for those who have no idea what that term means, is that they favor a joining of gov't and business where nasty surprises don't upset the very profitable lemonade stand they got going. And when they inevitably mess up, the taxpayer is there to foot the bill for the cleanup.
Personally, Don, you might want to crow about the liberal dominance of mainstream media. Its an impressive feat. A small minority has dictated much of the politics of the last fifty years. Congratulations.
But Reality is coming to get ya'. Sacred cows will be skewered.
Tadeusz
And once again you ignore the media OWNERS, the people with the money and therefore the final say about what you read and hear.
With a few notable exceptions, owners tend to be more interested in making money than promoting their personal ideology, and thus don't care how the newsroom slants the reporting as long as it sells advertising. The hire reporters, who, as Dean notes, tend to lean left, and let them do what they do.
Here's an overview of the whole art (not science!) of spectrumology*:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum
*Spectrumology: word coined by me (as far as I know), the contemplation of ideological spectrums/spectra
Dean is quite right that a number of positions routinely designated as "conservative" or "Rightist" could just as easily be seen as "liberal" if not "Leftist".
School choice is one example. All true liberals should be for this as it gives poor parents a choice in how they educate their children.
Abortion is another. I used to be pro-abortion on Rightist grounds (a woman's body is her property and government should stay out of it). Now I'm pro-life on Leftish grounds (the unborn are people, too, and should have equal protection).
Gun control is illiberal since it disarms women, homosexuals, Jews, Negroes, and the poor.
The Left used to be ardently pro-Jewish, but now they are anti-Israel and increasingly viciously anti-Jewish. All the regimes the Left now urges us to tolerate subjugate women and persecute homosexuals.
Two other examples I forgot to mention:
Liberals used to be opposed to racial quotas. Now, quotas are "the official" liberal position, according to the Democratic party.
If liberals means anything at all, it has always meant a commitment to free thought and free expression. Political Correctness, speech codes, "hate speech" laws, are anathema to anyone who has a moral right to call himself/herself a liberal.
Thanks Steve but I think it's "spectra".
Well I'm going to to the typical leftish thing and say that although press employees tend to be disproportionately liberal, the editors skew conservative. Sorry, no cite, as I am a big lazy lefty. But it is out there.
Anybody who cites Goldberg as an authority on press bias needs to read Alterman and Frankens' books on bias to observe the slicing, dicing and shredding of any credibility that guy ever had. But they're biased I hear you cry. And that's just proof of how biased you are too! Well, that is true to an extent, but only if your definition of bias excludes the thoroughness, intellectual honesty, and logical rigout of the proponent's arguments. Which my side wins hands down. Ding Ding Ding!
The press was disproportionately liberal in 2000 too, so you'd have expected them to be rough on Bush and more forgiving of Gore. Right? Cos that's what we're talking about here: the biases they display in their output. Well, no. The fact that I'm still coming across people who put 'invented the internet' in quote marks around the blogosphere, this site included, is an interesting data point. Face it guys, they rode Gore like a donkey over lies that weren't lies. They completely ignored gigantic fibs Bush was telling about his Texas tax cuts, astonishingly fell for his 'fuzzy math' soundbite and spread their arms in welcome for the most childish, irrelevant, and spun-to-dry pieces of RNC oppo research.
So spare me the gnashing of teeth over the Liberal Media. Please.
Dean, re:Free Trade - Which is more important, what you say or what you do?
Regarding 'naming the book and running', I do so without shame because Franken's book is genuinely funny and should be enjoyed by anyone with a sense of humour. Alterman's is dryer so perhaps you could steer clear of it.
Ok an anecdote from the book. Franken & Goldberg are on some show debating bias. Franken brings up a quote for Goldbergs book, an alleged example of media bias. About Russia, something like 'look communism isn't the problem, shortages are', which Goldberg transcribe verbatim from the Media Research Institute. So Franken say, Bernie, there was something important happening that day that might give that qoute a bit of context. Bernie hadn't a clue. It was around 91 some fairly dramatic scenes in the collapsing communist Russia were occuring, you know. So Goldberg looked like a rube, they had conservative calling in complaing about the liberal media bias cos for having smart, articulate liberals debating this conservative who was left scratching his head.
A rather heart-warming and entertaining anecdote for any Democratic partisan out there, but Franken tells it better. Just thought I'd share.
For one try at a two axis political model as opposed to the Left-Right dichotomy see Political Compass. FWIW on this scale I score directly in the center, a sort of radical moderate.
If you'd like something shorter than the political compass, but still somewhat accurate, try this: http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html
Max, I've arranged a swap at another site, Lying Liars for Treason so in the near future perhaps we can have an informed exchange on Franken's relative merits. I look forward to it.
Regarding 'naming the book and running' I also make no apologies. Some ideas are too detailed/complex/important to simply cut-and-paste into a comment field. Despite evidence to the contrary, we still store a lot of information offline.
Dave Schuler and John Dibble:
Thank you! I've taken both of those spectrum quizzes a number of times. I'm at the high end of the libertarian spectrum (increasingly so, these days). On the Political Compass, I scored:
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian -2.16
Economic Left-Right 7.88
As I see it, on both spectra, the economic (socialist/capitalist) dimension is derivative of two, more philosophical, dimensions. i.e., 1) equality/inequality and 2) statism/individualism.
I should also add that, on the Political Compass, the non-economic (authoritarian/libertarian) dimension looks to me to be derivative of a number of dimensions. e.g., statist/individualist, globalist/nationalist, secularist/religionist. Also, questions about discipline of children were mixed in with questions about the freedoms of adults.