Beyond “Bias”
For an institution shot through with liberal bias, the liberal media sure does seem to love conservatives. On one cable network, for example, a former Republican congressman hosts a three-hour show every weekday. And that’s the most liberal of three networks! Impressive. Similarly, The New York Times is so liberal that it not only has Bill Kristol as a columnist, but also decided to publish this item about how unfairly liberal the media is, citing tons and tons of examples of the liberal media itself calling out its own dastardly liberal biases. Why, with the liberal media so eager to condemn its own biases and give jobs to all manner of rightwing hacks, it’s almost as if the liberal media not so liberal.
But that’s just some silly blogger talking. In the real world, all responsible people know that when conservatives win elections, the only responsible thing is for the media to give more platforms to conservatives in order to reflect the country’s conservative sentiments. Meanwhile, when conservative lose elections, only responsible thing is for the media to give more platforms to conservatives in order to counterbalance the liberal bias that caused the losses. Also to publish articles about how conservative the country’s sentiments are. But never, ever, ever wonder how liberal the media could really be if it reacts to conservative electoral defeat by proclaiming the country to be essentially conservative.
Oh well.
But seriously. One contribution that Media Matters has made to the field that I think hasn’t gotten the recognition it deserves is the attempt to shift media criticism out of the hoary territory of accusations of “bias.” Simply put, it’s not possible for working journalists to purge themselves of bias, nor is it possible for readers or critics to adduce definitive proof of bias. Making spurious claims of bias in order to try to get journalists to pursue the impossible task of eliminating their mental biases is impossibility squared. It’s an intellectually bankrupt dead-end. By contrast, one can just critique the work. Point out errors of fact or logic, or observe the relative balance of coverage toward this or that.
I don’t, for example, think I ever saw a television network or mass-media publication provide a cogent explanation of the differences between Barack Obama’s climate change proposal and John McCain’s climate change proposal even though the proposals contained some important differences. I have no idea whether this was attributable to “bias” or even how I would know. Nor am I sure which candidate would benefit from exploring this question. I am, however, sure that I’ve several times seen their plans described as being the same on the grounds that they’re both “cap and trade” plans. That’s false. Does the habit of saying it reflect bias? And bias toward whom? Who knows and who cares? What matters is the information — accurate information about important topics should be conveyed in a clear manner.
44 Responses to “Beyond “Bias””
Register
RSSLogin
Yglesias Tweets
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 4th, 2008 at 9:59 am
I think this is absolutely correct. However, this is not the only thing Media Matters does. They also try to address “bias”. That is why they have so many of the articles of the form “Person X mentioned Y without mentioning Z”. And for reasons similar to what you wrote, I think that these are the weakest articles that Media Matters writes.
In fact, I will go so far as to say that Media Matter’s bias articles (as opposed to their factual critique articles) are actually hurting them. A lot of people complain that they do not keep up with Media Matters because they publish so much stuff. And with all this volume, if a lot of what they publish are weaker, less interesting articles, then you stop paying attention. I know I rarely read anything from MM beyond the headlines; and if I didn’t have an RSS feed, I would not even bother to take the time to do that.
November 4th, 2008 at 10:00 am
I do wonder how much of this is driven by the ratings Fox News receives. These are businesses, after all.
There are two reasonable responses to Fox. One is to go to the other side of the spectrum, and explore the market for strong, progressive shows in the MSM. The other is to try and carve out part of their territory by hiring GOP hacks. Unfortunately we’ve seen much more of the latter than the former.
November 4th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Matt is of course correct. But what he doesn’t say, but I will, is that few reporters are smart and well-educated enough to understand the accurate information themselves, let alone convey it. This is especially true of anything quantitative and/or anything involving science (sensu latu, to include economics).
November 4th, 2008 at 10:04 am
I also think complaints of “bias” give the media too much credit. It suggests that they know how to report intelligently and fairly but choose not to. For most of them, that’s a false premise, either because (1) a hell of a lot of reporters really just aren’t that bright or capable of really incisive analysis; and/or (2) most of them have a higher demand for news product placed on them than they have time to reasonably fulfill. (Most of the 24-hour cable news reporters and anchors fall into both of these categories, IMO.)
November 4th, 2008 at 10:12 am
As a general rule I find the whole charge of liberal bias by conservatives to be completely cynical, since their main purpose is to discredit competing media so that they can control the airwaves and so “change the culture” in a conservative direction. Attacking the “liberal media” is a regular feature of Limbaugh, O’Reilly and Hannity. And why not. The very first things that revolutionaries do when trying to take over a country (or its culture) is capture and control the radio station.
It’s impossible to prove a negative, and bias is in the eye and ear of the beholder. And I do think the mains stream press leans toward liberalism — as it should, since the press in this country exists as a popular check on The Establishment, and most power establishments are conservative and self-regarding by nature.
The difference between liberal and conservative media lies not in the political leanings and bias of their practitioners, but in the very purpose of this media. The mainstsream press may have liberal sympathies but they are still dedicated to professional journalism and their purpose is to uncover the truth and report it. The conservative press exist for a much different purpose. Their aim is to advance the conservative movement and support the Republican Party — as long as the GOP is controlled by movement conservatives. They are in fact a Conservative Media Establishment that screens Republican candidates, sets the agenda, provides the talking points and does damage control when conservatives get into trouble.
MSNBC with Olberman and Maddow have probably gone the furthest in provided a liberal counter to FOX’s conservatism, but even MSNBC provides far more balance (Tucker Carlson, Joe Scarborough) than FOX does. I mean, come on. FOX’s idea of “fair and balanced” is Alan Colmes?!
November 4th, 2008 at 10:17 am
FYI, if you’re interested in mitigating climate change, while it’s true that both have proposed “cap and trade” plans, Obama’s is the more effective plan, due largely to an auction of all allowances, rather than allowance giveaways that McCain plans.
Additionally, there are unlimited offsets allowed in McCain’s plan that are likely to be poorly regulated and heavily exploited by some companies. Obama allows the purchase of offsets, but not an unlimited amount.
Also, Obama doesn’t favor raping the coastline to suck out every last drop of greenhouse gas-producing fossil fuel for a possible 3 cent drop in gas prices seven years from now. In fact, you’ll also notice that McCain has recently become the champion of coal, which, from a climate standpoint, is pretty much the worst. Although, I’ve been annoyed with Obama’s love affair with the mythic “clean coal” industry. “Clean coal” is an oxymoron.
(BTW, notice how gas prices went down without drilling for babies, or whatever the McCain proposal is now)
November 4th, 2008 at 10:36 am
I think the ultimate demonstration of the lack of a liberal bias can be seen in the way the MSM has treated Palin. If a man or woman with her obvious lack of competence and compulsive propensity to continually spew outright lies had been the Democratic candidate for vice president, the MSM would have mercilessly mocked her, not dissimilar to the way it did Al Gore, who was clearly competent and, if one actually fact checked his public statements, was not prone to telling lies, despite the MSM’s disingenuous and biased attempts to claim otherwise.
November 4th, 2008 at 10:45 am
Bias in what sense? There’s a sense in which TV really is biased both ways.
American TV has rather few God references as compared to what the median American might expect to see. How often does the weatherman unironically thank God for sunny weather? Do journalists publicly pray for the safety of troops overseas at the start of each broadcast? Not even FOX does this. Contrast this with, say, the percentage of their TV time that football players devote to God-talk. I’m not saying that more TV news Godishness would be good, but the current level of TV Godishness is unrepresentative.
This apparent liberal bias in the God department masks bias in news content, which seems (from my Canadian perspective) to be heavily in favor of a right of center policy agenda.
November 4th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Just to play Devil’s Advocate, I think most wingnuts complain about bias in the news itself rather than in pure editorial content, and complain about blurring the lines between the two (only when that editorial content leans left, or course).
I think they’re still wrong: reporters are rarely ideologues even if they are generally liberal, their beliefs don’t necessarily influence their reporting, and overall the profit motive leads most media businesses to stay pretty evenhanded. And even if they’re right, so what? If we’re talking about widespread biases throughout an entire industry, there’s no cure for it other than a much stronger form of affirmative action than liberals have ever pushed for. Good luck with that, right-wingers.
But the point is, pointing out right-wing pundits and asking why right-wingers still claim there’s a liberal media seems like a bit of a strawman.
November 4th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Is that clip art?
November 4th, 2008 at 11:25 am
They also claim Fox is only biased during its opinion shows, not during news. But then I have never been able to figure out when Fox is not showing an opinion show.
November 4th, 2008 at 11:27 am
I notice the righties rarely complain about the liberal bias present in Fox Nooz and in the Washington Moonie Times. Presumably they are the standard to which all other aspiring news media should seek to hold.
November 4th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Bias is not the problem in political coverage. Politics is not a sporting event, it’s public policy. Yet we cover it as competition.
It takes a tremendous effort for a reporter to learn enough to write effectively on public policy; to write without bias, and report candidates positions honestly. To do so with insight into how those positions are shaped by influences like industry so that a voter can make an informed decision is crucial to democracy working, and almost totally missing from the system today.
I live in paper mill country. The local issues in a mill town impact water quality, air quality, jobs. Those issues rise to the state level, and expand to include forestry and wildlife, biodiversity, carbon sequestration, global trade . . .it take a savvy reporter to cover them. They are sparse on the ground.
November 4th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
You are simply full of shit. Everybody with eyes and ears knows the media has tanked out for The One.
November 4th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
I read elsewhere that CNN has hired Cheney hagiographer Stephen Hayes as an analyst or commentator or something — that’s sure as hell not liberal bias we can believe in.
November 4th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Matt, I think you should watch more PBS and CSPAN. Sometimes they can be boring, but they talk about the differences between campaigns and have none of the hoary bluster.
Because the cable in my room for some reason is different than the other rooms in my apt., I don’t get Cable News© in my room. So I watch PBS and CSPAN a lot. The main negative is that the call in shows on CSPAN attract wackos.
November 4th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
While it is true the Scarborough was a Republican congressman, he actually does criticize his own party, his President and his Presidential candidate. He also has guests and co-hosts who have opinions sharply different than his.
Olbermann on the other hand, is a pure shill for Obama and is too frightened to have many Republicans on (except for critics like John Dean or McClellan).
November 4th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
I follow specific reporters, and here’s a roundup of one WaPo writer’s strange habits. The reporter highlighted here also has a habit of “liberal” bias.
Since MattY has never showed any ability to understand someone else’s argument and accurately represent it, let me suggest that, as with everything else he says, this should be ignored.
November 4th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Kristol doesn’t really work for the Times. He’s the resident commissar imposed on the Times by movement Reublicans. He doesn’t report to Sulzberger; he watches Sulzberger, keeps him in line, and reports to someone else. (Besides the Soviet system of commissars, the national offices of mobbed-up unions controlled locals by placing a representative on the local boards. His title might be “second vice president” but he had power).
David Brooks is another commissar. If his columns sometimes make no sense, it’s because he’s trying to prserve his reputation for sanity and intelligence while also, as required by his job description, being a loyal Republican. Squaring the circle is hard.
November 4th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
I’m in general agreement with Matt and most of the comments, esp. Ted Frier’s about the total cynicism of the liberal bias charge. I’d go further though. I’ve had arguments with conservatives in which inconvenient facts are brushed aside using the charge of media bias. It’s a cheap and easy debating ploy. However, it has also become an element of right-wing paranoia. For the hardcore Sarah Palin acolytes, the liberal media bias is evident because the media just will not expose Obama’s socialist, terrorist, muslim connections (or whatever fantasies they take as fact). This view is necessary for maintaining the aggrieved belief that they are being screwed by the East Coast elite (or whatever is keeping them down). Stirring that pot provides rating shares for cable channels and talk radio and the base for the Republican party. You can’t really fruitfully discuss bias with people who function in an alternate universe.
November 4th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
I’ve made the following argument before on MY’s old Atlantic blog:
Expect to see newspapers become even more conservative. Why? Look at the demographics of metropolitan daily newspaper subscribers. Old and white, and becoming older and whiter by the day.
I can’t remember the last time I’ve seen anyone under 30 reading a newspaper. Hell, I’m 46, and the only time I read a printed newspaper is when I travel.
November 4th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
rj: if you search for her name at my site, you’ll find several instances of the MSM lying about Palin. There are literally too many to link.
And, regarding Ayers et al, the NYT cover-up then spread to other sources that “liberals” would have us believe have no “liberal” bias.
Can I suggest denying the moon walk instead? There’s actually more evidence of that being fake than there is of “liberal” bias being an invention.
November 4th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
If there’s a case to be made that the media is not biased, Matt certainly didn’t make it. Even the NYT has two pet conservatives? Well, then, maybe it’s a moderate organization. Oh, they ran an article talking about media bias….well, that must mean that the media isn’t biased!
One could argue that if we have studies showing 80%-90% of reporters are liberal…and we have strong evidence that confirmation bias plays a powerful role in determining how people process information…and we have studies by Pew and other organizations showing a stark contrast in the coverage of the candidates…and we have the NYT and WaPo sending planeloads of reporters to Wasilla, but responding to any controversy surrounding Obama (whether it be Ayers, Wright, Rezko, campaign finance fraud, etc) with ‘well, we contacted the Obama campaign spokesman, and the said it’s not true.’..then maybe we would have a stronger case that media bias exists than it doesn’t. Are Matt’s anecdotes an airtight substitute for studies, or just another example of confirmation bias?
There is certainly no reason given the evidence above that conservatives shouldn’t complain about it. It can 1) possibly work the refs, 2) encourage conservative alternatives. The problem is essentially that news organizations are not integrated; AA is obviously a terrible way to address this, but conservatives are not crazy for talking about bias when there is plenty of evidence both theoretically and in practice that it exists.
November 4th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
No one’s bothering to argue with you, 24, because you’re self-evidently refuting. Come back when you can understand the difference between “printing information believed to be accurate at the time and later proved incorrect, and corrected” vs. “lying”.
November 4th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Forgive me if I am missing the point…but to me the bigger issue is not bias, but competence. most mainstream media outlets in this country are incompetent period. They cannot perform even the most rudimentary fact-checking, they hire people who have been wrong so many times it is beyond embarrassing, and many of their writers cannot write to save their lives.
They clearly adhere to the old tabloid journalism maxim that one should never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Arguing about whether the crap that they produce is bias is a little bit like arguing about which pile of bovine excrement smells worse. At the end of the day, it’s all (mostly) a pile of crap.
November 4th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Or, you could do the short form. The average big-city daily is shrinking to the point of not even being useful as lining for the kitty-liter box. The idea of reading a paper to learn something was never a good one, but it’s becoming laughable and absurd.
November 4th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Bravo.
November 4th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
The problem is not a bias, everyone has biases. Where does that bias lead you, what is the output like? Informed and informing, or obscuring and unable to countinience a reasonable opposing view?
On just three items, Scotter Libby’s pardon, FISA, and SCHIP. Would you call any MSM response to these items as in anyway liberal?
January 13th, 2009 at 9:31 am
laptop battery
laptop batteries
February 8th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
laptop battery
February 9th, 2009 at 3:05 am
laptop battery
March 11th, 2009 at 6:25 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 22nd, 2009 at 7:01 am
tramadol
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
April 2nd, 2009 at 7:23 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:00 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 14th, 2009 at 10:31 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
viagra