Liberal Media Bias - News Media Bias

The war in Iraq has cost trillions of dollars, and thousands of American lives. Americans are beginning to debate the strongly liberal news media bias, which led this country into such a quagmire. Such liberal media bias seems strongly entrenched in our corporate media, so much so that it would be foolish to take any of its claims for granted, without an independent, rational analysis of the evidence. The news media bias that we can readily observe on 24/7 news networks, and other so-called news media, is distinctly of a neo-conservative bent. Indeed, "twenty-four hour news" strikes an informed ear as a definite misnomer - "twenty-four hour opinion" seems more accurate. And to the extent that this and other media is engaged in the project of providing actual news coverage, that coverage is endlessly polluted by sensationalism. Naturally, that only serves to make the task of divorcing what is true and rational from bias and distortion more difficult. In spite of that, the public seems to be well aware of the problem of media bias. The media itself even gives special status to particular instances thereof. Take for example the New York Times' recent decision not to run an editorial by Senator John McCain. It seems that between that editorial decision and the subsequent criticism of it, everybody is in agreement that there is a general bias in the news media. The only trouble is that everyone seems convinced that that bias falls on the opposite side of the aisle from one's own political views.

Apart from its presence in the public awareness, media bias is a subject of study for various academic disciplines, as well as a number of different political action groups and non-governmental organizations, coming from the background of a broad range of political perspectives. The focal point of such study in this country tends to be the presumed lack of balance between liberal and conservative trends in news reporting and analysis. There is a legitimate concern as to whether a tendency for the media to lean heavily to one side might affect public perception and voting habits in such a way as to be harmful to that same public's welfare. Some research, such as that of Giacomo Corneo, has found that while media bias in general does not always work against the public good, it is only under quite specific conditions that a bias will work in favor of that public good. However, the character and the extent of bias in media is often quite subjective, a fact perhaps well-evidenced by the rather popular conception of a "liberal media," a term often confidently identified as a myth, rather than a reality. Rather, the phrase "liberal media" is typically followed by the word bias -- "liberal media bias." By contrast, however, there are markedly bad instances of a lack of balance, such as the uniformly conservative make-up of the Wall Street Journal editorial page, about which one might argue that there is little subjectivity.

Sensationalism as a contributor to the problem of media bias falls along somewhat different lines than a liberal or conservative bent in analysis. Certainly, it eliminates objectivity from reporting, and even harms its would-be factual nature. That is, its aim in emotional pull, rather than the provision of pure information about a topic. In fact, in less vernacular context, "sensationalism" refers to a theory about the generation of ideas as coming from sensual experience, the notion that knowledge comes exclusively from sensation. But whatever the theory behind it, our media is largely driven by the appeal of emotional sensation, which has drawn us, as a society, so fully into that experience that media has become an agent of social engagement. ("Rights")

The term "infotainment" has come to be applied to the mode of presentation of radio and T.V. news that so often seems filled with sensationalism. It is shortsighted, however, to suppose that entertainment is somehow a new quality of news, when enjoyment has been an aspect of the consumption of news in all media and in all eras. In 1895, Felix Agnus of the Baltimore American even claimed directly that sensationalism was at that time declining, as the readers of newspapers were beginning to demand a higher quality of journalism. It is easy to imagine that demand taking hold among modern audiences, considering that sensationalism is, as it always has been, an intellectual flight-of-fancy, something that grabs for the attention of readers, or, as the case may be, viewers, but does not sustain them.

But it is still easier to understand how sensationalism quickly grows to be excessive in news reporting. Particularly in times of political, social, or economic uncertainty, the evident role of fear in news reporting becomes all too clear. And taken as a subset of yellow journalism, this trend in news reporting is professionally unethical at best. No doubt most of us have felt a bit of that fear in being exposed to an over-emphasis upon dramatic and heart-wrenching or violent sequences in visual media. And surely many of us have paused to consider that our emotions were being unfairly exploited. Indeed, such exploitation has real, material effects in the lives of those susceptible to it. There is a great much sensationalist reporting on the topic of violent crime that has led to increased anxiety about that topic in the lives of viewers, and perhaps to truly excessive worry. Certainly, public reporting has a psychological effect on the people towards whom a story is aimed, and also on the subjects of a story. Looking to a more specific, and more unusual case study, Clive Field, in response to a newspaper article misrepresenting the pay of the Zimbabwe cricket team, described it as "counter-productive to Zimbabwe's performance, both as individuals and as a team."

Liberal media bias can also be said to grow out of a for-profit structure of the mass media, which leads it in some fashion to support the interests of those most capable of providing those profits, namely corporations and social elites, whose interests, in broad terms, are the maintenance of status quo. This is certainly the view famously espoused by Noam Chomsky, and expanded upon in the documentary Manufacturing Consent, which borrows its title from a text by Chomsky on the topic. The film devotes much time to analysis of coverage of the Indonesian invasion of East Timor in the New York Times. Chomsky holds this up as a clear example of the extent to which the mainstream American media is loath to levy criticism upon a political ally of the United States, a failing which he would have articulated in more popular media criticism. However, he would no doubt be disappointed in the virtual absence of such an initiative.

In spite of vehement criticism of the media coming from noted liberal voices, there is a often repeated notion in public discussion that reporting is distorted toward the left wing by a "liberal media." Believers in the truth of that assertion often refer to a survey indicating that 89% of journalists voted for President Clinton in 1992, while others question the breadth, accuracy, and indeed bias of that survey itself. Many simply do not question the concept of a "liberal media," and take it as a indisputably accurate description, thinking that such examples as the once famous ousting of Jeff Gannon from the US press corps constitute proof that conservative journalists face tremendous obstacles in trying to operate in a solidly liberal career. Of course, many who see themselves as liberal think quite the opposite, that the "liberal media," is simply a myth, and that the established bias is toward the other side. And still others reject what they also see as a myth, without acknowledging any purely partisan bias at all.

Still, purported support for a liberal bias is dug up at many turns. There have evidently been recent exaggerated reports that Iraqi president Jalal Talabani endorsed Barack Obama's troop withdrawal plan during the latter's visit to the Middle East. Regardless of whether this is typical, it is certainly true that injecting distinct subjectivity and opinion into such stories is a violation of the responsibilities of a reporter. No one can be expected to be devoid of opinion, but for a reporter to claim credibility he must make a concerted effort to keep his reporting of the news free of those opinions. Unfortunately, in the recent history of the media, journalists seem to have, by and large, developed attitudes in dealing with public officials that belie their opinions, without continuing to effectively perform the tasks of discerning the information that their jobs seemingly dictate they ought to. Without a questioning public, the liberal news media bias will become fact and rewrite history.