I thought this was a pretty interesting piece on media bias that was in today's Washington Post. I think this brings up some pretty interesting points...


Bull Market for Media Bias

By Robert J. Samuelson
Wednesday, June 23, 2004; Page A21


We in the news business think we're impartial seekers of truth, but most Americans think otherwise. They view us as sloppy, biased and self-serving. In 1985, 56 percent of the public felt news organizations usually got their facts straight, says the Pew Research Center. By 2002 that figure was 35 percent. In 1985 the public thought the media "moral" by 54 percent to 13 percent; by 2003 opinion was split 40 percent to 38 percent. Americans think the "media make news rather than just report it," says Pew's Andrew Kohut. The obsession with "scandal in high places" is seen as building audiences rather than advancing the public interest.



Still, the latest Pew survey confirms -- with lots of numbers -- an especially disturbing trend that we've all sensed: People are increasingly picking their media on the basis of partisanship. If you're Republican and conservative, you listen to talk radio and watch the Fox News Channel. If you're liberal and Democratic, you listen to National Public Radio and watch "The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." It's like picking restaurants: Chinese for some, Italian for others. And everyone can punch up partisan blogs -- the fast food of the news business. What's disturbing is that, like restaurants, the news media may increasingly cater to their customers' (partisan) tastes. News slowly becomes more selective and slanted.

Rush Limbaugh has 14.5 million weekly listeners. According to Pew, 77 percent are conservative, 16 percent moderate and 7 percent liberal. Or take Fox's 1.3 million prime-time viewers: 52 percent are conservative, 30 percent are moderate and 13 percent liberal. By contrast, 36 percent of Americans are conservative, 38 percent moderate and 18 percent liberal. The liberals' media favorites are slightly less lopsided. The audience for "The NewsHour" is 22 percent conservative, 44 percent moderate and 27 percent liberal. NPR's audience is 31 percent conservative, 33 percent moderate and 30 percent liberal. Of course, many news outlets still have broad audiences. Daily newspapers are collectively close to national averages; so is CNN.

But the partisan drift may grow, because distrust is spreading. In 1988 Pew found that 58 percent of the public thought there was "no bias" in election coverage. Now that's 38 percent: 22 percent find a Democratic bias, 17 percent a Republican tilt. Almost all major media have suffered confidence declines. Among Republicans, only 12 percent say they believe "all or most" of Newsweek; for Democrats the figure is twice that, 26 percent. In 1985 the overall figure was higher (31 percent), with little partisan gap. Newsweek's numbers typify mainstream media. Only 14 percent of Republicans believe "all or most" of the New York Times, vs. 31 percent of Democrats.

What's going on? Why should we care?

Up to a point, conservative talk radio and Fox represent a desirable backlash against the perceived "liberal bias" of network news and mainstream media. I've worked in the mainstream press for 35 years. Editors and reporters reflexively deny a liberal bias, even though many ordinary people find it and mainstream newsrooms are politically skewed. Here are the latest Pew figures: 7 percent of national reporters and editors are conservative (a fifth the national rate), and 34 percent are liberal (almost twice the national rate). Most reporters I know believe fiercely in being fair and objective. Still, the debate over "what's news and significant?" is warped. Talk radio and Fox add other views.

But the sorting of audiences by politics also poses dangers -- for the media and the country. We journalists think we define news, and from day to day we do. Over the longer run that's less true. All news organizations must satisfy their audiences. If they don't, they go out of business. "Media bias is product differentiation," says James T. Hamilton of Duke University; his book "All the News That's Fit to Sell" shows how economic forces powerfully shape news judgments. If liberals and conservatives migrate to rival media camps, both camps may ultimately submit to the same narrow logic: like-minded editors and reporters increasingly feeding like-minded customers stories that reinforce their world view.

Economic interests and editorial biases will converge. The New York Times is now a national paper; 49 percent of its daily circulation is outside the New York area, up from 38 percent five years ago. There's home delivery in 275 markets, up from 171 five years ago. But if the Times sells largely to upscale readers (average household income is $90,381, almost twice the national average) with vaguely liberal views, it risks becoming hostage to their sensibilities. No less does Fox risk becoming hostage to its base.

The worthy, if unattainable, ideals of fairness and objectivity will silently erode. Many forces push that way: new technologies (cable, the Internet); the blending of news and entertainment; the breakdown between "hard news" and interpretation; intense competition; changing news habits of the young. The damage will not just be to good journalism. Tom Rosenstiel of the Project for Excellence in Journalism notes that respected national media develop common facts and language that help hold society together and solve common problems. It will be a sad day when we trust only the media that voice our views.


© 2004 The Washington Post Company

When the press reports that fairness and objectivity is "unattainable" and will grow all the more so, it is obvious what the real problem is. These navel-gazing twits are simply too lazy to live up to their alleged lofty journalistic standards. They want a pass from even <i>attempting</i> the impossible of delivering decent, informative, non-politically motivated reporting.

i think fairness and objectivity are attainable, it just runs 180 degrees from their views.

http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/goto/?getPage=http%3A%2F%2F216%2E239%2E51%2E104%2Fsearc h%3Fq%3Dcache%3AtCEKSNVW%2DOYJ%3Amason%2Egmu%2Eedu %2F%7Eatabarro%2FMediaBias%2Edoc%2B%2522We%2Binclu ded%2Bboth%2Btypes%2Bof%2Barticles%2Bwhen%2Bcollec ting%2Bdata%2Bfor%2Bthe%2BDrudge%2BReport%253F%26h l%3Den&return=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Edrudgereportarchives%2Ec om%2Fdsp%2Fsearch%2Ehtm%3FsearchFor%3Ddrudge%2Bucl a

When the press reports that fairness and objectivity is "unattainable" and will grow all the more so, it is obvious what the real problem is. These navel-gazing twits are simply too lazy to live up to their alleged lofty journalistic standards. They want a pass from even <i>attempting</i> the impossible of delivering decent, informative, non-politically motivated reporting.

It's not even just about being balanced ... it's that most journalists don't give a flying poop stain about finding and reporting news. They are all too often hair-triggered in response and lazy in terms of doing any real reporting. To me, it's not just about the liberal vs. conservative thing...it's about finding and reporting facts that haven't been pulverized by any number of special interests and views, the reporter's own notwithstanding. The more I work in this field, the more disappointed and cynical I become.

Let me just say up front that I realize the objective and unbiased public, as represented on this board by Live Steam and Bill105, won't believe a word of this or pay any attention to it. Still, I've been a journalist for more than 30 years and I feel both compelled and qualified to comment. Whatever shows up below (and I'm not sure yet what it will be) represents my own views only.
First, there's nothing new or surprising in Samuelson's essay. It's common knowledge in the business, has been for 20 years.
So, what do we do about it? We bust our @sses to be accurate, because accuracy is all we have to sell. When more than half your potential customers think you're on the take or have an agenda, it cuts into your profit margin. I literally can't even guess at the number of meetings, seminars, workshops and jerk-off sessions I've sat through while we talk about the best way to present the news fairly and objectively.
It's doomed from the start, though. Several surveys (and many, many shrinking subscription renewal lists) show that people believe and like and praise news and commentary that support what they already believe, and reject as "biased" or "slanted" any news or commentary that challenges it, regardless of the facts.
You can see that all over the country every day. Just for example, if I report that no weapons of mass d. have been found and that the 9/11 commission sees no link between Al Q and Saddam, I get letters accusing me of liberal bias. It doesn't matter that no WMD HAVE been found or that there WAS no link--people who support Bush don't want anyone to mention it. Same was true of Clinton and Monica: Any mention was considered a hack job against a popular president (yes, he WAS popular--he was elected and re-elected, which puts him one up on Bush no matter what happens in November).
Sadly, that CAN affect coverage, though not in the way conservatives say. News is a consumer product these days, and there's a lot of pressure to give people what they want. That's one reason nobody looked too closely at Bush's claims about Iraq until pretty recently--it would have been unpopular with readers and viewers. As, in fact, it's turned out to be, but the cat's out of the bag now. There are some editors and publishers (to say nothing of some presidential candidates) who'd like to put it back, but it's not going to happen.
Another factor conservatives never address is motive: The big media companies are among the most profitable and successful outfits around, benefitting hugely from the status quo. Why would they want to change that? Even if the reporters (the absolute lowest, no-authority substrate in any newsroom, by the way) wanted to bring down the system, how would they sneak their lies past their capitalist bosses? Even the idea is silly.
No-brain comments from the usual people notwithstanding, most journalists DO have high standards, and most of them center around reporting the truth. It always amazes me that so many half-bright conservatives who get their news from Bill O'Reilly or Michael Savage are certain they know more about a politician or an issue than does a reporter who's covered the beat for two years, hung with the people and gotten drunk with the aides.
In a related topic, here's a comment I heard this morning: "The major media won't cover this, but I read in the New York Times . . . " Damn that liberal rag anyway.




Bull Market for Media Bias

By Robert J. Samuelson
Wednesday, June 23, 2004; Page A21


We in the news business think we're impartial seekers of truth, but most Americans think otherwise. They view us as sloppy, biased and self-serving. In 1985, 56 percent of the public felt news organizations usually got their facts straight, says the Pew Research Center. By 2002 that figure was 35 percent. In 1985 the public thought the media "moral" by 54 percent to 13 percent; by 2003 opinion was split 40 percent to 38 percent. Americans think the "media make news rather than just report it," says Pew's Andrew Kohut. The obsession with "scandal in high places" is seen as building audiences rather than advancing the public interest.



Still, the latest Pew survey confirms -- with lots of numbers -- an especially disturbing trend that we've all sensed: People are increasingly picking their media on the basis of partisanship. If you're Republican and conservative, you listen to talk radio and watch the Fox News Channel. If you're liberal and Democratic, you listen to National Public Radio and watch "The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." It's like picking restaurants: Chinese for some, Italian for others. And everyone can punch up partisan blogs -- the fast food of the news business. What's disturbing is that, like restaurants, the news media may increasingly cater to their customers' (partisan) tastes. News slowly becomes more selective and slanted.

Rush Limbaugh has 14.5 million weekly listeners. According to Pew, 77 percent are conservative, 16 percent moderate and 7 percent liberal. Or take Fox's 1.3 million prime-time viewers: 52 percent are conservative, 30 percent are moderate and 13 percent liberal. By contrast, 36 percent of Americans are conservative, 38 percent moderate and 18 percent liberal. The liberals' media favorites are slightly less lopsided. The audience for "The NewsHour" is 22 percent conservative, 44 percent moderate and 27 percent liberal. NPR's audience is 31 percent conservative, 33 percent moderate and 30 percent liberal. Of course, many news outlets still have broad audiences. Daily newspapers are collectively close to national averages; so is CNN.

But the partisan drift may grow, because distrust is spreading. In 1988 Pew found that 58 percent of the public thought there was "no bias" in election coverage. Now that's 38 percent: 22 percent find a Democratic bias, 17 percent a Republican tilt. Almost all major media have suffered confidence declines. Among Republicans, only 12 percent say they believe "all or most" of Newsweek; for Democrats the figure is twice that, 26 percent. In 1985 the overall figure was higher (31 percent), with little partisan gap. Newsweek's numbers typify mainstream media. Only 14 percent of Republicans believe "all or most" of the New York Times, vs. 31 percent of Democrats.

What's going on? Why should we care?

Up to a point, conservative talk radio and Fox represent a desirable backlash against the perceived "liberal bias" of network news and mainstream media. I've worked in the mainstream press for 35 years. Editors and reporters reflexively deny a liberal bias, even though many ordinary people find it and mainstream newsrooms are politically skewed. Here are the latest Pew figures: 7 percent of national reporters and editors are conservative (a fifth the national rate), and 34 percent are liberal (almost twice the national rate). Most reporters I know believe fiercely in being fair and objective. Still, the debate over "what's news and significant?" is warped. Talk radio and Fox add other views.

But the sorting of audiences by politics also poses dangers -- for the media and the country. We journalists think we define news, and from day to day we do. Over the longer run that's less true. All news organizations must satisfy their audiences. If they don't, they go out of business. "Media bias is product differentiation," says James T. Hamilton of Duke University; his book "All the News That's Fit to Sell" shows how economic forces powerfully shape news judgments. If liberals and conservatives migrate to rival media camps, both camps may ultimately submit to the same narrow logic: like-minded editors and reporters increasingly feeding like-minded customers stories that reinforce their world view.

Economic interests and editorial biases will converge. The New York Times is now a national paper; 49 percent of its daily circulation is outside the New York area, up from 38 percent five years ago. There's home delivery in 275 markets, up from 171 five years ago. But if the Times sells largely to upscale readers (average household income is $90,381, almost twice the national average) with vaguely liberal views, it risks becoming hostage to their sensibilities. No less does Fox risk becoming hostage to its base.

The worthy, if unattainable, ideals of fairness and objectivity will silently erode. Many forces push that way: new technologies (cable, the Internet); the blending of news and entertainment; the breakdown between "hard news" and interpretation; intense competition; changing news habits of the young. The damage will not just be to good journalism. Tom Rosenstiel of the Project for Excellence in Journalism notes that respected national media develop common facts and language that help hold society together and solve common problems. It will be a sad day when we trust only the media that voice our views.


© 2004 The Washington Post Company[/QUOTE]

. . .a reporter who's covered the beat for two years, hung with the people and gotten drunk with the aides.Stockholm Syndrome

You can't claim to have high standards <i>and</i> hide under your desk whenever the corporate bosses say "boo".

[QUOTE=Cory]We bust our @sses to be accurate, because accuracy is all we have to sell. When more than half your potential customers think you're on the take or have an agenda, it cuts into your profit margin. I literally can't even guess at the number of meetings, seminars, workshops and jerk-off sessions I've sat through while we talk about the best way to present the news fairly and objectively.{QUOTE=Cory}

You've mentioned that you are an automotive reporter in past posts...wish I had your name, being a GM and Chrysler PR guy for years...any way... I don't doubt for a minute that reporters try to be and are accurate. It's the facts they choose to use that tend to be the problem. For instance (this is but one example, there are dozens in my field of work), we all suffered through the "What Would Jesus Drive" media feeding frenzy just over a year ago. All the headlines proclaimed "mainstream" evangelical Christians come out against SUVs. The papers, CNN, and networks made it page one stuff -- couldn't get enough of the irony that even the Religious Right had come around to the conclusion that SUVs were evil. Trouble is, the whole thing was completely fabricated. The Rev. Jim Ball, our hero of the Evangelicals who got real religion (environmentalism that is) had his DC offices paid for by the Union of Concerned Scientists and was in no mainstream Christian pastoral profession. Other than having a theological degree, he represented only himself and most mainstream Evangelicals rejected the whole premise. The whole campaign was developed by Fenton Communications (those fun guys and gals that destroyed the apple farmers of the counrty with the fabricated Alor scare in the 1980s), they even posted a case study of how they out-smarted the media. The "news" beyond the irony was that this was a major advertising and grassroots campaign being launched...neither of which happened, of course no one followed up. And even though we went out our way to tell the media what was happening, we were only "biased" corporate PR types who were disgruntled.

This stuff happens everyday with dozens of issues. You mentioned the New York Times...Danny Hakim, who covers the industry is a fair and diligent reporter as anyone I know -- a top professional who never technically violates any ethic of the profession. However, if you read anything he writes, you can bet that the industry position will be so negatively contextualized that its almost laughable...you'll get six enivonrmentalists quoted on stuff they have no credibility with (vehicle technical issues usually) and the person who really does make cars for a living is played down in the story to a point where most people aren't even reading any more. Technically, accurate, technically responsible, completely biased to one perspective.

I admit, I'm as biased as they come given the beating we usually take. But we usually know all the facts, all the spin and all the hype on any news item going in. It's pretty easy to see how it all gets gooed up in the news-o-matic machine and spit back out as a pretty lopsided product.

The posted article itself perpetuates some of the "liberal media bias" nonsense...

"Or take Fox's 1.3 million prime-time viewers: 52 percent are conservative, 30 percent are moderate and 13 percent liberal. By contrast, 36 percent of Americans are conservative, 38 percent moderate and 18 percent liberal. The liberals' media favorites are slightly less lopsided. The audience for "The NewsHour" is 22 percent conservative, 44 percent moderate and 27 percent liberal. NPR's audience is 31 percent conservative, 33 percent moderate and 30 percent liberal."

Liberal media favorites "slightly less lopsided"... indeed...

Fox has four times as many conservatives watching as liberals (52%-13%), while Newshour has a few more liberals than conservatives (27%-22%) and NPR actually has MORE conservatives than liberals (31%-30%). So public broadcasting is tagged a liberal mouthpiece, just like Fox is for conservatives, even though the numbers point to virtual balance of viewers/listeners for the "liberal side" of the media. Apparently, virtual balance in viewership/listeners points to an Evil Liberal Plot. Sheesh.

. . .an example of the press endearing itself to readers with pleasing confirmations of "conventional wisdom" (made "conventional" only through years of well financed propaganda from the fringe right).

If they didn't admit that they were hopelessly biased to the Left. . .well. . .everyone would <i>know</i> that they were trying to hide the <i>fact</i> that they are hopelessly biased to the Left!

Meanwhile, Republicans control all three branches of the Federal Government. Either this liberal bias stuff is garbage, or the press is irrelevant anyway. . .