As about as far left as one can get... some out there think that the "Spokesman" is Liberal??? good grief... Liberal.... www.Raw story is middle of the road... Liberal is The Daily Kos... The spokesman/.... you must be smokin very very old dope... john olsen

Look at all this drooling over Obama, the Messiah. Doesn't that tell you something?

Damn right that tells me something, the ENTIRE newspaper industry and the rest of the media including the Socialist Review is afflicted and controlled and manipulates public sentiment by communists and socialists and jews. It's a massive conspiracy against the WASPs in this country, they that made this country great.

World Nut Daily RULES!

Absolutely right, GL and John. The Cowles family is well known to be a sleeper cell personally planted in Spokane area by Karl Marx one of several trips he made in the 1880s in which he infiltrated the U.S. crossing the future U.S./Canada border desguised as a Nez Perce indian and delivering secret copies of the Communist Manifesto to Cowles family agents and what some call premature Wobblies. In reality Marx was here to visit the medicinal waters of Medical Lake in hopes of a cure for the ailments which eventually killed him in 1883. Cowles were smart enough to keep their hands clean and noone has ever found the copy of the Communist Manifest Marx personally handed to him but history does not lie. Well actually history does lie, especially leftist history, claiming that William Cowles arrived in Spokane in 1893 but the fact is he made a secret trip here to stake out the Spokane area as a home for his future leftist rag and to meet Marx. (Incredibly prescient, Marx also proposed to Cowles after seeing Medical Lake that a mental hospital would some day be built there and that some day the United States would be a major global power possessing air vehicles which it would use as part of an capitalist imperialist scheme to conquer the world. This news in particular was devastating to Mr. Cowles, per the small group of first hand witness to the meeting).

No doubt about it, the S-R is as far left as left gets and the whole world knows it.

Really old dope, John. Perhaps spiked with a little PCP, I'm thinkin'.

Good grief!

Maybe some drooling would be done over McCain, if he gave us anything to drool over, which is unlikely.

David, hilarious, man.

EXACTLY.

Well. if L. Graham is right, then the Washington Times must be making a fortune.

Oops. One-seventh the circulation of the Washington Post.

The rest from wiki:

"The paper has lost money every year that it has been in business.[6] In 2003, The New Yorker reported that a billion dollars had been spent since the paper's inception, as Rev. Moon himself had noted in a 1991 speech, "Literally nine hundred million to one billion dollars has been spent to activate and run the Washington Times"[7]. In 2002, Columbia Journalism Review suggested Moon had spent nearly $2 billion on the Times[8] and in 2006 Consortium News said that the figure was more than $3 billion.[9]."

Next theory?

CBS "editing" covers McCain mistake. Read about it here.

If an Obama mistake were covered, would we hear that it was done on purpose?

Steve-

I have a question? How does the SR believe it can maintain its credibility, when it's editors and staff continue to discount and marginalize those who view media and this paper as liberal; and when the number of Americans sharing that view (currently 67%) continues to grow?

Or do you even see that as an issue of credibility?

I think the problem comes with framing. Someone can call the U.S. media liberal if they want. And if that same someone considers liberal to be the equivalent of leftist, socialist, communist, and/or anti-American, then you have a problem. However, when you see liberal as being in the center or perhaps just slightly left of center, and acknowledge that a true left exists -- a legitimate left which holds power in innumerable countries around the world -- then you have a different problem.

The tactic (of the Bruces and other rightwingers) which uses the term "liberal" to mean "left" essentially excludes and delegitimates the real "left". Of course, the first tactic is combined with a second tactic which is to attack any true "leftist" perspectives as communist/socialist, insane, conspiracy theorizing, and other variations of tried and true McCarthyite tactics.

I think Bruce and others like him would feel better about themselves and get a better reception if they undertook two acts of honesty:

1) Acknowledge that they themselves are rightists, and
2) Acknowledge that the mainstream media is roughly in the center (give or take a few inches of movement left or right of true center) of a true political rightwing and a true political leftwing.

As you can see, I can acknowledge the existence of both and as a result not only have a certain inner peace coming from knowing who I am in the real world but also recognize that the mainstream media is an anchor used by the ruling class to hold the risk-averse U.S. population in a place of intellectual and political paralysis -- the sickness of "balanced coverage" and its comorbid and non-existent "objective news".

I would never "deligitimize" you David, maybe marginalize you or nuetralize you, but never deligitimize you! That would not be any fun.

And wow, I have a "tactic!" according to David. Gee, I didn't know that. I guess I better start paying more attention to my "strategies" as well.

My my David, (I am reading one paragraph at a time and then responding, if you were wondering) i am making "complex" tactical decisions - combining one with another.

Whew! I am gettign worn out. how do I do that and work full-time, spend as much time as I can with my grandson, play golf, go out to dinner or a movie or whatever, sleep, etc etc. I am not a 20-something man anymore; I better rest.

I am a rightist! If that label works for you, David, then there, you have permission to use it in reference to me (and others like me) - as if you need my permission.

I don't really know what a rightist is - but if it is opposed to leftists, then okay!

The media is within the "centrist" segment of the political spectrum. It is not far right, nor is it far-pathological.

ok . . .? that too! i just don't claim to have the "inner peace" as you do. I used to though, seriously. Oh yeah!, I used to sit lotus-style on the floor with my hands on my knees - palms facing up, chanting "my word." My word cost me $45.00 (even though I was a starving college kid) and I was not supposed to ever, ever tell anyone what my word is. And this is actually funny, but true; I never have told anyone my word. And I'm not really sure why. Maybe someday I will tell you. How about that.

So it seems you and I are at about the same place now - but I no longer think in terms of "ruling class" and the "proletariet" and all that stuff.

I don't think people, especially these days, are such simple social animals who all think alike just because they all live in their "ticky-tacky houses, all in a row." Those images just don;t make any sense anymore.

But i do see the media as a centrist and not an extremist institution; I've never said that. but it is decidedly biased towards liberalsim.

and I agree that the term liberal is not used appropriatesly these days. In fact, if you want to get technical, I have to take something back, or at least clarify it. I amy be a "rightist" but I consider myself a clasical liberal.

YYou know, like jefferson, Madison and those cats! They had vision, by golly, and they put down some powerful things. Todays "liberals" are leftists comparatively speaking.

It is true, "It's a mixed-up, muddled-up shook-up world, except for Lola."

But it is refreshing to know that we can end up in the same political vicinity.

Steve: This won't come as any surprise to you. I've told you much the same things MANY times... to no avail. Yes, your paper IS tipped over left.. no question, except among the handful of hardcores like those already posted here (OK, one exception) who berate those who disagree with their version of left wing tolerance.
Gary Crooks will continue to blast Republicans, Doug Clark will continue to lower the bar socially, '7' will continue to embarass, and your staff, ALL of them will remain totally clueless regarding anything having to do with the Evangelical community...
I like Gary, I learn stuff from him, but he's about as non-partisan as James Carville. I've had numerous e-mail conversations with you as well and you have always been polite, but also totally unmoved by anything I could say. This attitude oozes from every pore of every member of your staff, call it what you will, but many of us call it elitist arrogance.
The whole thing is reaching critical mass, not just here in Spokane, but world-wide. The world appears to be almost equally split between conservatives and liberals. Note newly elected conservative Govts in France & Germany.
We need each other, but nobody wants to be talked down to. There are every bit as many fools amongst the left as there are among the right... BUT YOUR PAPER HAS SPENT THE LAST 35 YEARS DEMEANING HALF THE PEOPLE IN THE INLAND EMPIRE: The stories you pick, the bias they're given, the amount of coverage-including their placement. There is even less ideological balance at your paper than there is at Fox News.
Try running an independent survey of people's opinion of your paper, and do it among non-subscribers! I've been doing that for years and have NEVER come upon someone who was pleased by how their ideas are treated and where you plan to take our society.
What I've always hoped for was sort of two staffs... That could really debate major issues, report on things from their very different perspectives and let the readership decide... Fat chance, huh?

tom thumb - I am afraid that Steve Smith is not interested in fair; he is from that school of journalism that says media can and should attempt to "change" society.

What he doesn't realize that he is only partially correct. Media can and should "facilitate" progress within society, by delivering news and opinion and ideas in a fair, open and balanced manner.

But that noble idea has been badly morphed by the elites in media into a belief that THEY can be the agents of change and progress. And who, other than conservatives, should be marginalised?

If one is to believe that media is not generally slanted to the left; one would have to first believe that journalists (being human) are completely capable of, and disciplined enough, to never allow their personal values and beliefs from seeping into their work.

Since this is not realistic in the real world, media organizations would need to maintain, at least some semblence of, a balance of its staff. The word is "diversity." But, as we know, this only refers to race and ethnicity and sexuality - not to social or political values.

So we have a media, run by imperfect humans, which largely hires its own. Consequently we have, across the board in all medium, 80 to 85% who self-identify as Democrat or liberal. Less than 6% self-identify as Republican or conservative.

But still; Steve Smith will tell you liberal bias is nothing but a "myth." Gary Crooks will tell you that the New York Times once ran a story that was supportive of a Bush policy.

Gary Graham will not even reply to your comments or questions, and Doug Floyd will merely excuse it.

There is only one reporter, of those whom I have offered comments to about a specific issue of bias, has responded openly and honestly and actually seemed to welcome the comments and learn something from them. That reporter is Richard Roesler. And i perceive him to be very professional and genuinely interested in presenting the news without his own "flavor."

There are others on staff who routinely "flavor" their work, and whenever I have noticed a story with "flavor," it is almost always a liberal worldview or value.

Steve Smith is intelligent to understand this phenomena - he chooses to ignore it.

Bruce:
Life is full of surprises! I never expected any agreement from anyone in response to my post. I stopped posting a year ago. I'd finally worn out! Yes, emphatically YES to all of your reply. My friends in former communist Eastern Europe tell of pitching rocks at Soviet tanks. I share their frustration, only the tanks are gone but the Spokesman soldiers on... and on ... and on!

I've been fighting this particular fight now for over 25 years and have read countless letters to the editor complaining about this obvious problem. And although Steve & his current crew are much more polite in their opposition to different viewpoints than the awful Chris Peck and his gang of thugs, it's impossible to get them to make even the slightest change in direction... even tho Steve is smart enough to realize that they've TOTALLY alienated at least half the residents of the Inland Empire. A scenario duplicated all across America, as naughty little conservative children refuse to swallow their nanny's leftist gruel.

Consequently we have, across the board in all medium, 80 to 85% who self-identify as Democrat or liberal. Less than 6% self-identify as Republican or conservative.
-Bruce

Incorrect.

Summarizing a variety of polls on the matter, a majority of journalists, across the board, self-identify as moderate.

However, some 30-35% self identify as liberal, vs. 5-10% who self-identify as conservative.

Currently, from a variety of surveys, the American public, also polls as majority moderate. If asked to choose between Democratic (liberal) and Republican (conservative), about 45-50% self identify Democratic, or leaning so, 35-40% Republican, or leaning so, and 10-15% who decline to state any preference. This is a fairly large gain in recent years for the Democrats, but is historically how it's been for at least 60 years.

GL: Liberals are fond of calling themselves 'moderate'. Look up William Tate's interesting piece, "Putting Money Where Mouth Is", about media donations to presidential candidates this go-around. Bottom line is something like 100 to 1 in favor of Obama!

But originally I was merely responding to Steve's Q about how his paper is perceived in its readership area. I wouldn't be surprised to see negatives, because of liberal bias, as high as 70%, if the survey was truly conducted by a reputable agency.

Try conducting your own survey. I bet you'll be surprised, not only at the broadbased antipathy you'll discover, but also by the passionate strength of that negativity!

Tom Thumb - yeah, these blogs are very, very conservative non-friendly, and lonely.

GL - there are more than enough polls of journalists (one in particular right after the 2004 election which was done in Washington DC).

One of the questions posed to the DC journalists was straight forward; if you voted for president, who did you vote for?

96% voted for John Kerry; 3% voted for George Bush.

Any other questions GL, or are you merely going to defend liberal bias just for the sake of being contrarian?

Here is one for you GL, name one conservative on the Editorial Board at the SR. Just one.

Washington Post Howard Kurtz said, "Where does journalism get off saying it's OK to give one candidate twice as much coverage -- this week, I would say four times as much coverage -- as the other candidate running for president?"

Can you disagree with this GL, or will you just ignore the question?

Look up William Tate's interesting piece,

William Tate is a partisan idiot, who also said in that idiotorial that it was liberals who donated to Ron Paul, as a stalking horse to McSame. Yeah, right, it wasn't hard core conservatives donating to Ron Paul, it was liberals, despite all evidence to the contrary.

He's a moron.

And yes, I'm shooting the messenger, when the messenger is a lying moron and deserves it.

Journalism is by its nature a progressive profession. We question authority, shine light on uncomfortable truths, and speak up for the weak and the voiceless. There have been several studies showing more rank-and-file journalists vote Democrat than Republican.

That, however, is a red herring, because the ethics of the profession frown most darkly on journalists who abuse their position to advance their personal politics. A journalist is more likely to overcompensate against their own bias than they are to favor it. My professional integrity is worth far more to me in the long run than the outcome of an individual election.

Consider the recent coverage of the presidential race. Yes, Obama got quite a bit more coverage than McCain. That's because Obama was giving a speech in front of more than 200,000 people in Germany, and McCain was doing a photo-op in a grocery store. Are we really supposed to treat those events as equivalent? If WSU is in the Final Four and Gonzaga is playing a charity scrimmage, should those games get equal weight in the name of fairness?

I've heard out a lot of complaints about media bias, and they nearly all have the same thing in common - they are based almost purely on perception, and they come from people who want the news re-framed in order to better square with their personal beliefs. "Balance" is not what they're after.

The Web is just as full of people who complain that the press is too biased in favor of corporations and conservatives. Are Bruce and Tom Thumb concerned that we don't take those complaints seriously enough?

For example:

The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, where researchers have tracked network news content for two decades, found that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign.

link

Well said Ken, in both posts.

And, lest the knuckle-draggers ask, The Center for Media and Public Affairs, is a CONSERVATIVE outfit.

No Ken - it is not just tom thumb and me, 67% of Americans believe media is liberal and biased.

To believe your fairly tale, that a code of ethics and personal integrity keeps journalists bias free, then one would also have to believe that journalists are superior people compared to people in congress. They have all kinds of ethics codes and we know how that has worked out.

Your “theme” actually sounds quite elitist. You argue that one cannot view the finished product to determine if there is bias; you have to look at professionalism and standards. That sounds extremely out of touch. For you to even call journalism a “progressive” profession is illuminating.

Maybe you don’t realize it, or maybe you just don’t stop to analyze the implications, but the Progressive movement - is a unique liberal worldview.

So if a vast majority of journalists are liberal and/or Democrat, why is it a stretch to say that there is no liberal bias? That would mean that you belong to an elite profession (but you already knew that) where codes and personal integrity keep bias out.

So that is why when Gov. Spitzer had his little “affair” and had to resign, none of the network news identified Spitzer as a Democrat. He was just a governor from New York. And that is why you could pick up nearly any paper in the country - and I have seen examples of this - when Tom DeLay was busted out of congress, he was a Republican from Texas, or a “conservative” Republican, but never just a congressman.

That is why Karen Dorn Steele’s recent pieces on the gay hooker and the legislator included so many references of Tom Shmoe (I don’t recall the legislator’s name) as Republican, or a conservative legislator? And that was on a piece only about the hooker.

When the SR carried a story (inside of course) about Chris Dodd having to face ethic’s questions, he was identified as “Chris Dodd, D-Connecticut. Why do Democrats in trouble only deserve being referred by title or party initial, while Republicans in the same boat are not only Republicans, they are “conservative” as well?

And you would have an excuse or an explanation to cover these incidents - any kind of dodge will do. That is why I my respect for journalists has gone from being fairly high to ranking them below politicians but even with lawyers.

Not one person on the SR staff, that I have communicated and or discussed this issue, has been honest, except for one. You cannot be honest and expect me to accept that coverage of a presidential election is dictated by the same rules and is equal in importance to that of a basketball game. Your statement really says everything anyone would need to know about your willingness to listen to facts or analysis. You don’t want to hear it, and any dodge will work as far as you are concerned.

Your mind is closed.

So you really don’t see a media that is completely in the tank, comparatively speaking, for Obama? If you answer no, then not only is your mind closed, you are wearing blinders as well. Remember the SR staff going all ga-ga and showing no embarrassment at all, when Michelle Obama came to town?

Bottom line is, the staff at SR seems it will speak only the party line when it comes to liberal bias.

So they were "tougher" on Obama the first 6 weeks. Hmm, what took place during that time . . . oh yeah! there was Rev Wright and the doemstic terrorist matter, there was the "bitter, gun-toting, holding on to faith" matter.

But they were actually tougher on him at that time. Should that be shocking? That is out of touch thinking.

GL - that's right, it is a "knuckle-dragging" organization. But it must be an honest organization; you wouldn't have got a similar report - only in reverse - from Media Matters, would you?

This whole topic is just so unbelievable it is a joke. I can only shake my head.

Ignore the facts, Bruce, and just rant away.

For example - Wild-eyed exagerations of "disaster" during a Republican presidency. "The sky is falling!"

"The economic vice tightens. Inflation soars as Americans sweat their
bills....We wish we didn't sound like a broken record, but once again
tonight there is troubling economic news. Americans are getting it
from all sides. From inflation...to the mortgage mess...and the
banking crisis."
-- CBS's Katie Couric opening the July 16 Evening News.

Markets are gyrating, inflation is rising, banks are closing.
Consumer pessimism is at an all-time high....How much trouble are we
in? How long are we going to be in trouble? Is it grave?...My house
is falling apart, the real estate mortgage companies may be in
trouble, and now I hear about possible bank failures. And the stock
market is tanking....Where do you put your money that you know it's
safe? Under the mattress?"
-- ABC's Charles Gibson talking to a panel of financial experts

Hyperventilating at an extreme. there is not an economist in the country who would describe our economy in this way. Not one

The amazing thing about liberal journalists, is that thay do not see that their personal views - genrally pro-abortion, pro gun-control, pro gay-marriage, pro affirmative action, etc - "are not necessarily mainstream." But, as "progressives," it is their views that America should be reshaped around the above principles.

So when they speak matter-of-factly about abortion, they assume that most mainstream americans share their views. And that is why they do not even recognize that they are biased. to them, they are just speaking "reasonably."

They don't always include liberal bias by design; often it just comes out because they and their circle of influence pretty much all have similar views.

Elite wannabes

You argue that one cannot view the finished product to determine if there is bias; you have to look at professionalism and standards.

People have looked at the finished product time and time again and determined that the systematic bias you assert does not exist.

That's not to say that individual stories can't be biased, or in error. But for every individual story that appears to show a liberal bias, I can find a story that appears to show a conservative bias. That's why anecdotal evidence isn't a very good way to demonstrate a pattern.

Feel free to prove me wrong. Don't just give me anecdotes about bias you perceive, show me some actual research. With all of the well-funded conservative think tanks out there, surely someone has cracked this egg open by now, right? (Note: Bernard Goldberg doesn't count - anecdotes and perception again).

What about the Center for Media and Public Affairs report? If you're really interested in fairness and balance, why aren't you chastising the networks for being unfair to Obama?

It's all so sad, really, nothing is going to change. Lib & Conservative worldviews are SO far apart it's hard to imagine any real compromise. Yet "a house divided against itself cannot stand" and the fate of our nation, indeed that of the entire world, hinges upon our coming together on issues of importance.

But this blog has been a microcosm of the larger debate... and why most people of my pursuasion no longer are willing to participate. Ken's 'bias, what bias?' is certainly more palatable then GL's name calling, but, again, the end result is the same. Tragic.

As I was attending my 40th high school reunion over the weekend, I pretty much stayed out of this debate after setting it up.

I agree with Tom Thumb on almost nothing. I will agree that our society can resolve problems only through the reconciliation of opposing values. That process requires both sides to put themselves in the shoes of those who disagree with them, to begin to understand the values of the opposition and to find a mid-point where there is common ground.

Of course, at the extremes of any significant issue, this does not happen.

But in the middle it does take place. That is why our society has all but resolved some major issues, much to the distress of the extremes on both ends of the spectrum.

For example, we have resolved in our society the debate over the death penalty. Americans have said they favor the penalty, but want it administered more fairly.

Abortion has been resolved, too, though the extremists on both sides will argue otherwise. Americans have said over and over that abortion is OK with limitations. There is no abortion on demand and there is no outright ban.

Sometimes we simply fail to recognize that the public has reached a judgment (which is different from public opinion, as per the Daniel Yankelovich book, "Coming to Public Judgment").

Gay marriage is another case in point. There is no public judgment on the issue of marriage, precisely. But the question of civil unions has been resolved just about everywhere which is progress from the point where gay couple had no rights.

My point is the extremes at either end of a major issue rarely win, which is what keeps them going. The all or nothing set will almost always be frustrated in a free society.

Tom Thumb's problem is that he holds a Biblical-based world view that accepts no compromise. So he will always be frustrated by the compromises made in a free and secular society.

Bruce may be more secular, but he is just as inflexible. He seems to me to be unable to see the middle ground.

Journalists tend to focus on the extremes because that is where we find conflict and conflict always has been a fundamental element of news. In doing so, we feed the bias debate because both ends will always be looking to see is their extreme view is reflected through a lens acceptable to them.

But some journalists are beginning to focus on the middle ground where change actually occurs. It's not as sexy. And it will always be called "bias" by the extremists. But it's where we need to be.

steve

Ken and Steve

PERSISTENT MEDIA BIAS
David P. Baron
Stanford University
August 2004

A survey by the American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE (1999)) revealed that 78 percent of the public believed that there was bias in news reporting.

“Patterson and Donsbach (1996) surveyed journalists in five western democracies and concluded that bias was present in their reporting. They presented journalists with news situations and asked them to make decisions about story content and headlines. They then correlated the responses with the self-reported political orientations of the journalists. [80 to 85% of US journalists self-describe as Democrat and/or liberal]* Patterson and Donsbach concluded (p. 466), “When they move from facts to analysis, their decisions are subject to errors of judgment and selectivity of perception. As a result, partisanship can and does intrude on news decisions, even among journalists who are conscientiously committed to a code of strict neutrality. The evidence presented in this article indicates that partisan bias occurs at measurable levels throughout the news systems of Western democracies.”

Media bias could have a variety of sources. Bias could reflect the preferences or world view of the owner of the news organization.

Media bias could also have demand-side explanations. Individuals have a demand for news as entertainment and may have a demand for stories that are consistent with their political or social viewpoints. This may provide an incentive
for a news organization to bias stories to cater to particular clientele.
Skepticism, however, about possible media bias causes the media organization to set a lower price for its news service, and a profit-maximizing news organization tolerates bias only if it gains more on the supply side than it loses on the demand side.

The ASNE wrote, “the research also suggests that much of the public believes there are internal axes that get ground (favorite causes, tenacious beliefs, unstaunchable convictions of what’s right, etc.) and attitudinal mindsets.

One source of bias may be from self-selection into journalism. Journalists are younger, better educated, and more liberal than the American public. In the ASNE survey of journalists, “At the bigger papers, 61 percent of newsroom respondents described themselves as Democrats (or leaning toward Democrat) and only 10 percent as Republicans (or leaning toward Republican).” In 1992 89% of the Washington journalists surveyed voted for Bill Clinton and 7% for George Bush. Sixty-one percent of the journalists rated themselves as liberal or liberal to moderate and 9% as conservative or conservative to moderate (Povich (1996, p. 137)).

Another possible source of bias is journalists’ perception of their role to “protect the underdog.” ** Zaller (1999, p. 24) provided a different perspective on the journalists’ practice, “What elite journalists want is a profession that adds something to the news—a profession that not only reports, but also selects, frames, investigates, interprets, and regulates the flow of political competition. What journalists add should be, in their
ideal, as arresting and manifestly important as possible—if possible, the most important part of each news report, so as to call attention to journalists and to the importance of their work.”

• My inclusion

A peer reviewed study from Stanford University; is this the kind of “proof” you would require Ken? And Steve, you always want to make it about the reader; this report and ANSE conclude it is more about the organization, the editors and the individual journalists.

But I am sure you all have encountered other academic studies (there are more) demonstrating a “pervasive” bias, and you have been able to discount, ignore or deflect. Your declining sales is not just about the “internet.”

And GL . . . oh never mind, at least there is some comic relief from your drive-by insults.

The paper you're citing (Baron, 2004) does not support your conclusion that widespread liberal bias exists in the media. It acknowledges that a variety of biases can exist in a number of forms and attempts to create a means to measure them. Here's the whole thing if you want to read it.

But as long as we're cherry-picking items from studies that support our own conclusions, I can't help but note a key sentence from the conclusion of Baron's report:

Although journalists may have incentives to bias stories, those incentives can be dampened by factors such as professionalism and by controls instituted by the news organization.

I seem to recall you dismissing this concept as fantasy earlier. Does that mean Baron's analysis isn't credible?

The evidence presented in this article indicates that partisan bias occurs at measurable levels throughout the news systems of Western democracies.”

thanks for the link - I have the report and I have read it. have you?

Cherry-picking!? did you want me to include the whole report? How is it cherry-picking? Show me something from the report that contradicts the findings I provided.

"Partisan bias occurs at measurable slevels . . . " The study also reported various polls showing a huge imbalnce between libreral/democrat and republican/conservative journalists . . . like by a ratio of 6 to 1 and 9 to 1. So are you going to say that the findings, which says there is measurable bias in the US (1 of the 5 western countries) does not support a conclusion that it is more likely than not that a majority of that bias is liberal?

Logic would certainly say one could draw that conclusion.

But I am convinced that you, as with everyone else I have debated at the SR, are not going to budge from your position that, if there is liberal bias, it is equal to or less than conservative bias. "That's your story and you are stickin' to it."

And of course, Steve Smith always "cherry-picks" the questions or challenges which he responds to.

"he probably "doesn't have time for that nonsense."

That's a reasonable conclusion, Bruce, but only if you exclude the myriad other factors that go into news judgment. For instance, Baron acknowledges that professional standards have a mitigating effect on potential bias, but he doesn't take this into account in his models.

There's no question that "supply-side" bias exists and can affect media coverage. No disagreement there. Where we disagree is the extent to which this is a problem and the impact it's having on the industry.

The original point was that the newspaper business is faltering because of this alleged bias. Let's use some of Baron's conclusions to evaluate that idea:

Conclusion 1: Bias reduces the demand for news because individuals are more skeptical of reports from
news organizations that tolerate bias. Demand for news, both nationally and within our market, has never been higher.

Conclusion 2: A profit-maximizing news organization tolerates bias only if that allows it to hire journalists
at a lower wage. This is a necessary condition for the presence of media bias in the model. Baron's point was that journalists restricted from using their position to further their own viewpoint command a higher premium in terms of wages. But our wages are relatively flat while the labor pool grows because of layoffs elsewhere in the country, so in theory the trend should be toward less bias.

Conclusion 3: When it tolerates bias, a news organization lowers its subscription price. Price and bias
are thus negatively correlated. I think we know the answer to this one.

From the report:

A survey by the American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE (1999)) revealed that 78 percent of the public believed that there was bias in news reporting. There, however, was little consensus on the nature and direction of the perceived bias.

"Bias" can take on any number of forms. For instance, when a car company makes record profits, it's regarded as a positive, but when an oil company makes record profits, it's regarded as a negative. This is a view held by the public, and it regularly manifests itself in news reports. A news outlet that treats oil profits as positive news might be rejected by the public as "biased," even though on the balance of things it really isn't.

If the problem was as simple as you've made it out to be, then conservative newspapers would be springing up everywhere and raking in the dough.

The conclusion that liberal bias is widespread and is killing the newspaper industry simply doesn't hold up.

"Tom Thumb's problem is that he holds a Biblical-based world view that accepts no compromise. So he will always be frustrated by the compromises made in a free and secular society."

My, my! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Substitute 'Steve Smith' and 'pseudo-elitist worldview' and you summarize YOUR views as well. Talk about taking no prisoners. You media types no longer report events, trends, et cetera, you try to initiate them... the very heart of my reason for posting and wasting all this time in the first place!

I tell you that well over half the Inland Empire hates your paper's guts and you come after ME? Well, silly me, it certainly COULDN'T be YOU! We're out here in the real world making a living, trying to raise families, DOING things, while you're squirred away in some office trying to twist news to fit your latest agenda. Then when any of us complain or even QUESTION the validity of your latest weird crusade we're pummeled with cute little pejoratives by you and your minions... like GL. Why don't you go back to doing your job... REPORTING instead of trying to push some brave new world and we'd ALL be better off. If I go to a muffler shop, it's because I want a muffler- NOT a lecture on the environment!!

Then you call yourselves 'elite' or 'progressive', whatever. I've watched the steady decline in moral, spiritual values in our society for over 50 years. Just what you call progress I cannot understand. The unmitigated arrogance of all this journalistic jihad is precisely why most sane conservatives won't give you and yours the time of day... They know what I have yet to learn, that your bunch isn't here to report or learn, it's here to teach... Dialogue means "You talk, we listen... and hasten to obey."

You talk about freedom in a secular society as if all the churches in the area suddenly closed. If anyone is bound up in frustration, it must be you and yours because after 75 years of this nonsense, preaching at us from all venues, public schools, TV, movies, the constant drip drip drip of your paper, there's still a VERY large percentage of us who aren't buying it... Do the community survey I suggested at the getgo and I'll bet you a steak dinner at Klinks you pass 70% negativity!!

Tom,

I am not going after you or calling you cute little names. You have a world view shaped by your bible. It brooks no disagreement. That's just a fundamental truth that you cannot deny.

I may be many things, but ultimately, I'm a pragmatist. I believe in what works and if it doesn't work, try to fix it.

Religion doesn't work, at least not in the formulation or process of governance. If we ever needed evidence, just look at the last several years under you know who. Tom, you have every right to bnelieve whatever you want to believe. But don't tell me what to believe and don't expect a newspaper to become your mouthpiece, either

Nope, I believe in live and let live.

Further, I believe in standing up for the underdog and the disenfranchised. I believe in a free market economic system but also believe in a free society there needs to be some sort of safety net for the poor and the weak.

I believe in capital punishment. I believe in abortion with some limitations.

I support a strong military and defense spending, but think the nation should go to war only when it is directly threatened (Afghanistan and Osama Bin Laden) and not for political expediency, religious philosophy and oil (Iraq). I believe only Congress can declare war.

I revere the founders. I revere honest Abe, Teddy and Franklin Delano. I think Ike was underrated, but Truman was the real deal. Nixon was a crook and LBJ much the same. JFK was all image with no time to really leave legacy. Clinton would be honored by history as a great president except he couldn't keep his pants zipped. I really liked Gerald Ford, and after covering both 1976 conventions as a reporter, voted for Ford over Carter. No regrets.

I have voted for as many Republicans in my life as Democrats and not too many years ago wrote an editorial endorsing a Libertarian for statewide office.

I believe in the family as an essential unit of society, but believe a family is defined by love and consideration and not necessarily gender. Gay people are my friends, colleagues, co-workers and, yes, family. They deserve every -- EVERY -- right granted any other American including the right to serve in the military and get married and raise kids.

But I disagree that a family must be held together at all costs. If the kids are in danger, yank 'em.

I believe we pay too many taxes for an inefficient government at all levels, that we stifle business development with too many regulations and that developers have every right to develop the property they own.

The EPA is too often out of control. So is the IRS. I don;t trust the FBI or the CIA, a legacy of my life in the 1960s.

But I am, despite any thinking to the contrary, a supporter of local police providing they do their job.

Ethics means more to me than political philosophy. A lawmaker who can gdet things done, understands the art of compromise and tells the truth will always get my vote.

Am I conservative or liberal?

The labels are meaningless, The accusations of bias empty because all of us have our biases (I just laid mine out) and cannot fully divorce our values, experiences and beliefs from our actions.

The mitigator is professionalism. I have never argued that journalists are personally unbiased. That is an impossible assertion. But do claim that most journalists and most newspaper journalists, in particular, do their best to be fair, impartial and balanced.

I don't speak for TV. It's not my medium and I have little tolerance for any of it.

Bruce will always assert bias and enjoys the debate. Tom will always assert bias and bring the argument back to the moral deterioration in society.

But here's the bottom line -- no one is forced to read a newspaper. No one should spend money on a product that does not meet their needs. If you don't like the paper, don't buy us. Our future cannot be secured by satisfying the Toms and Bruces of our community.

And, Tom, we do a lot of research. Statistically valid research. Big surveys and little. We do industry standard surveys and original research around our own work.

I'm not interested in dinner, but you are simply wrong. Surveys of even non-readers in our market show political bias, or the perception of bias, is not a factor in readership.

The scope of news, the depth of the reports, the breadth of the reports... that's important. The biggest reason for dropping the paper, here and anywhere else, is either service complaints or "no time to read."

The steady declines in newspaper readership, steady and unchanging over 30 years, have to do with changes in society (two working parents in a home), changes in how we use our leisure time and technology. Bias complaints simply do not register with readers or -- and this is important Tom -- non readers. We survey the latter, too.

But in the insular world of conservative, politically ch

That is not my concern; whether newspapers are being killed due to bias. I think it is a shame they are dying out, but that is not why I oppose bias.

I oppose bias . . . because . . . it is unfair! It may not be as bad as I describe it; but it also is not as benign as you pretend it to be.

There's no question that "supply-side" bias exists and can affect media coverage. No disagreement there. Where we disagree is the extent to which this is a problem and the impact it's having on the industry.

To create bias a journalist can include in her story quotations from advocates of particular perspectives. The advocates then can present their perspectives, make assertions and allegations, draw conclusions, and argue for particular actions. The favoring of interest groups on one side of an issue is contrary to the journalistic objective of balance, but Groseclose and Milyo show that news outlets are far from balanced. They find “a very significant liberal bias” in the news media. Seven of the eight news outlets studied were found to be more liberal than the average member of Congress and “closer to the average Democrat in Congress than to the median member of the House of Representatives.”

When you couple the findings above with the ample anecdotal evidence (including Bernard Goldberg’s book), and a public “perception” (by nearly 3 to 1) that media is liberal, I think this qualifies for a “case closed” assessment; wouldn’t you agree? (If media touts “case closed” on global warming [and there is no argument that it has], my assessment should not be seen as unreasonable).
“Conservative newspapers would be springing up.” This assessment by you strengthens by perception that you really do view media as a ‘conservative vs. liberal” endeavor; with a winner and a loser. That is quite scary to me.

This study even seems to acknowledge and confirm that there is an “elitist” view which expresses its “self-righteousness” by speaking up for “the weak and the voiceless.” (The last quote is from you) While I believe that media, especially newspapers, need to give voice to the weak and voiceless, this is far different than media being an advocate for, and “speaking” in behalf of, anyone. That is not the purpose of “news” people.

And Steve; I find it enlightening that you consider me an extremist. But what puzzles me is that you seem to marginalize me because of your perception that I am extreme; at the same time when Frank’s (from Hard 7) extremism seemed to be a lark to you. I heard some of the praise you sometimes heaped on him; it was sometimes like, “kick ‘em, smack ‘em; yahoo, you sure busted them.”

So I have to wonder, are your views far enough to the left that Frank seemed to be merely “edgy” to you - but never extremist - while it is I, whose primary contact with you has been about bias in media, who is the extremist?

That is quite illuminating.

Bruce: Acknowledging the existence of bias is not the same thing as tolerating or endorsing it. Nor does it prove that bias is widespread. Nor does framing the issue in terms of businees implications (as per the original question) mean that I'm oblivious and unconcerned about the other effects. I'd appreciate it if you could discuss the issue without casting aspersions and resorting to straw man arguments.

As I mentioned, bias can take on numerous forms. But within the profession and structure of journalism, there are also checks and balances that control it. There's nothing magical or elitist about it - we're talking about basic standards of professionalism that have parallels in a variety of fields.

I've read numerous studies attempting to prove a liberal media bias, and I've been consistently unpersuaded because of two key problems: 1) Rarely, if ever, does any issue fall neatly onto a liberal vs. conservative continuum. And 2), when the issue is wedged onto this continuum, determining bias depends on where you place the yardstick. If journalists' work is influenced by their political beliefs, could the same not be said of researchers? I've acknowledged that political bias can affect some news stories. Is it possible that some academic research is similarly affected?

Or should research that confirms your preconceptions be automatically accepted without question?

The purpose of such research, of course, is to condense a complex problem into an easy-to-understand metric, but the resulting oversimplification is almost always achieved via questionable methodology (take this criticism of the Groseclose-Milyo study).

A better approach to fighting bias is to address it on a micro, rather than a macro, scale. The vague assertion that "the media" is "too liberal" is subjective and impossible to prove, and therefore impossible to address in any pragmatic sense. But there are lots of readers out there, who genuinely care about fairness and balance, who will take the time to raise specific questions about stories they feel were partial or unfair.

These conversations have generated any number of accusations of bias. In my section, I've been told that we're biased against gay people, against straight people, against country music, against heavy metal music, against big pop concerts, against established local restaurants, against North Spokane (where I live) and on and on.

Does our failure to cover Elton John make us liberal or conservative?

Sometimes these readers have a point, sometimes they don't. But the bottom line is, conversations like these go a lot further toward improving our news product than divisive, broad-brush accusations of "liberal" vs. "conservative."

Ken:
So is it fair to say we can agree that: most in the journalism field are liberal/Democrat; a majority of Amricans view media as being a “liberal” institution; and a majority of Americans believe that most media are biased.

So when will media organizations and individuals acknowledge and honestly confront that there is a real or perceived issue of liberal bias? That has always been my question.

How about an affirmative action plan to recruit a few more conservatives? How about an honest dialogue with readers?

Steve: Thanx 4 sharing all your personal values with us. I'm sure most of us (me included) also relate well to them... But, it's so typical that a blog about bias becomes a blog about YOU! I listened to you, Ken & Bruce. As a matter of fact I downloaded the entire thing and reread it all.

A couple things: You and your staff have way too much power. It begets arrogance. You say things like "if you don't like the paper, don't read it", knowing full well you're the only game in town and, even tho the internet has dented your monopoly, you still influence things around here... for good or for bad, whether I personally read the thing or not. So, I feel compelled to read just to see what you're up to now. But the long & the short of it is that NOBODY should be able to set as much of the local agenda as you guys can... and still DO! If there was an effective local counterpoint I wouldn't keep stepping in front of your bus!

Yes, Ken, "liberal/Conservative" is just foolishness. We all change places depending upon the issues... It's the power thing that bothers me most about your paper. I'm REALLY uncomfortable with a handful of J-birds deciding for the entire community which way the wind blows. Especially when it's obvious half the community isn't even represented in these decisions.

Bruce: Thanx 4 your input... I learned a lot... but I don't run a newspaper and I don't think those that do heard a word you said. I wonder why Steve even posted it as a topic!

Pardon me, Bruce, but we are having an honest dialogue. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm being dishonest.

There's no doubt that there is, to some extent, a perception of liberal bias in the media in general. But why does that perception exist?

Five years ago, more than 2/3 of the country incorrectly believed that Saddam Hussein played a role in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Would news outlets who correctly reported that Saddam Hussein did not play a role in the attack be perceived as "liberal" as a result? Should news organizations distort reality in order to "play down the middle" of public opinion?

Could the perception be shaped by routine and lockstep complaints of "liberal bias" by conservative politicians, pundits and talk radio hosts? Here's a link to a study that supports this view.

But let's suppose we take the perception as reality, and assume that the media is "liberal". How do you propose that we go about "honestly confronting" that?

First, we have to define "media." The only media I have any influence over is this newspaper, so I'll start there. Next, we have to define "liberal." That's easy when we're dealing with politics, but what about with more nuanced local issues?

For most of what we cover, achieving balance is more complicated than assigning the story a grade on an imaginary liberal-conservative continuum. How about releasing the names of the people who purchased phony degrees from the diploma mill? Was that story too liberal, too conservative, or just right?

The potential problem of bias is best addressed on the ground level, and according to the terms of whatever topic we're addressing - that's the point I was making earlier.

And how would we go about recruiting more conservatives when there is no political litmus test for the job in the first place? When I was hired here, I was assessed on my ability to edit copy, write headlines, and work effectively with others. No one asked me how I voted or how I feel about abortion.

I don't expect to ever change your mind on the issue, Bruce. But I hope someday you'll be able to find middle ground between lockstop agreement with your views and charges of elitism, ignorance and dishonesty.

Tom,

I started this post to have a conversation, which mostly has happened.

But you are not compelled to participate or read. You were given a forum to air your views, which is more than you would receive at most newspapers. Better than a kick in the pants.

But participation is always your choice.

steve

Tom,

After all of our correspondence, I would've thought that you had learned the difference between the editorial pages and the news pages.

Gary Crooks is biased! Well, yeah. I'm opinionated, too. Probably why I'm quarantined on the Opinion Pages.

So is Cal Thomas. What of it? The Wall Street Journal editorial page is conservative. Liberals need not apply. Is that concerning to you? Should that paper start an affirmative action program to get liberals on the editorial board?

And yet, the S-R has endorsed Bush, Nethercutt, McMorris-Rodgers, Jim West and many other right-leaning pols over the years. Before leaving to blog, Dave Oliveria wrote a weekly column (Hot Potatoes) that routinely critiqued liberals and liberalism and supported conservatives and conservatism. There was no liberal counterpoint to that on staff.

Yet, you choose to exclude all of the above in your screed about this paper ignoring half the people for decades. Why is that? Why can't you be more fair in assessing what we produce?

When a newspaper is started in a community as an antidote to the daily paper, it is invariable liberal. I am thinking of all the alternative weeklies, such as New Times, Village Voice, Willamette Weekly, The Inlander, etc. Why do the purveyors of these weeklies feel a liberal voice is needed as an alternative?

If we polled accountants and found that most of them were Republicans, would we then expect their work to reflect a pro-business bias? Or would be expect that their obedience to professional standards would produce audits that were objective? Or at least have objectivity as a goal?

If accountants said they were capable of meeting those standards, would it be fair to call them "elitist"?

Advertising is the life blood of newspapers. Without that money from businesses, we'd be toast. Does that mean we're influenced by who advertises? Wouldn't that tend to make us pro-business?

If we are able to avoid that, are we being elitist and super-human by blocking that influence?

Bruce speaks of an affirmative action program to get more conservatives on board. What about more poor people? More minorities? More gays and lesbians? More atheists?

If we are unable to overcome who we are, why would that be a problem only along the liberal-conservative continuum? Why wouldn't that also make us pro-white, because we're mostly white? Or pro-upper income, because that's where most of us are? Or anti-homosexual, because most of us aren't? And on and on.

It's always fascinated me that bias is always limited to political ideology. As if all people are driven by politics and care deeply about that. As if people are not influenced by class, race and non-political prejudices.

Finally, a question. What paper models the kind of fair coverage that critics yearn? Show us the media entity that emodies the kind of fair, unbiased journalism that you want.

Thanks.

Gary;

When a newspaper is started in a community as an antidote to the daily paper, it is invariable liberal. I am thinking of all the alternative weeklies, such as New Times, Village Voice, Willamette Weekly, The Inlander, etc. Why do the purveyors of these weeklies feel a liberal voice is needed as an alternative?

Interesting theory, but:

The percentage of (alternative weekly) readers 25 to 34 years old has been declining steadily since 1995, according to surveys by The Media Audit. At the same time, the percentage of readers 45 and older has been growing.

In 2007, the trend continued. Only 21.7% of alternative weekly readers were in the 25-to-34 group, down about 1 percentage point from the previous year and down 8 points since 1995 (29.7%). The number of older readers (45 and up) grew to 41.5% in 2007, up about 1 percentage point from the previous year. That figure was up over 10 points since 1995 (29.3%).

Even more than aging, parenting may be a major issue. Since 1995 the number of alternative weekly readers with a child at home has grown closer to the figure for the general population. In 2007, 42.9% of weekly readers in the 71 markets surveyed had a child at home. The figure for the entire market was 43.9%. That’s a difference of only 1 percentage point. Compare that to 1995, when only 35.4% of alternative weekly readers had a child at home as against an average of 42.4% of homes over all in the markets surveyed.

Project for Excellence in Journalism State of the News Media 2008

Gary: Yeah, OK, there have been mighty improvements at your paper... no question. This forum being one of them for SURE... Your editorial page being another... We certainly hear from all sides there- both locally and nationally. Maybe if it had happened sooner, for me anyway, I wouldn't have become so polarized.
I still can't believe some of the stuff I've read in this paper over the years that pretended to be 'news' that was merely editorial spill over.

And yes, Gary, I sure do know the difference between the two. Let me try to clarify what I was trying to say earlier: Send out 2 j-birds to cover the same story. One a card carrying ACLU dude with a green machine and a pile of Obama stickers on it and the other is Newt's first cousin. Now try & tell me there won't be a few 'subtle differences' between the two writer's coverage... like maybe it'll be hard to tell they're writing about the same thing!

There are very few things in this world I can do reasonably well... sniffing out bias happens to be one of them. I know both Ken & Steve say that 'professionalism' precludes this from happening, but I've been watching this kind of thing now for, like I said before, something like 30 years. Teachers teach from their experience. Reporters do the same and will reveal their bias with the selection of this adjective over that one, the subtle to blatant subordination of relevant facts/ selection of events, whatever.

Then the editors get it and put it on the front page or section Z, after editing the daylights out of it... and you're trying to tell me that pure professionalism will insure that both reporters described above will make almost identical choices regarding the placement of material when they're eventually promoted to editor? PAAAHHHHLEEEEZZZE!

Like I said before, too much power in the hands of too few people. Editors become good at making snap decisions (or they don't survive) but something appears to be lost in the process... Maybe there should be a law prohibiting anyone from being in journalism for more than 3 years. They can be allowed to return only after having spent at least that long in the private sector... not the schools, govt or social work, the private sector. That would also work some mighty magic with college profs and politicians too!!!

Anyway, it's late, I'm tired and have a killer headache... G'nite all.

I found out about this link from a friend of mine that thought I might want to chime in. I personally am not a subscriber.
When I first moved to this area, I picked up the paper, read it, and then burned it. I have friends that have cancelled or are canceling their subscriptions because of the liberal bias that this paper has. I came from a small town that didn't teach political views, but I have determined mine by analyzing what is right and wrong.
Seeing the way liberal trends are moving this country and others is disgusting. We have people in congress that would rather do what their financial contributors want than to do what is right for the people they are supposed to represent (Pelosi comes to mind). We are working towards a one world order that will rule over us all. We are driving away from what our founding fathers established for us. They saw the problems with their homelands and established the greatest country on earth. I would hate to see where we would be if more people like Green Libertarian were our leaders; we would probably be speaking German, Russian, Chinese, or Japanese.
I am only 29 and it did not take me long to see the problems with liberalism. If you keep taxing the money makers to support the government leeches, what incentives do they have to work harder and better? What are the never ending tax liberals going to do when the money makers stop contributing and the system dries out?
Remember, the people that buy your paper have earned the money to do so, so I would advise not to bite the hand that feeds you. For now, I am keeping my hands in my pockets because I am not going to get bit.

So, J-birds are unable to put aside their beliefs when covering a story, but Tom is able to holster his while ferreting out bias.

Meanwhile, Bruce posits that only those with stunted growth remain liberals.

If that isn't elitist ...

So, Bruce and Tom, what paper models the type of journalism you want? You haven't answered that yet.

Be great to have something to shoot for.

Thanks.

Seeing the way liberal trends are moving this country and others is disgusting. We have people in congress that would rather do what their financial contributors want than to do what is right for the people they are supposed to represent (Pelosi comes to mind).

Gary, Gary. you get a new blogger who opens up and honestly says why he does not buy into the liberal entanglements and webs . . . and the only thing you ferret out is that he is partisan?

Welcome Cory, I only wish I had been as clear headed at 29 as you seem to be, to reject the always enticing liberal ways.

And to answer your question Gary (I don't recall ever being asked this before, however) about "model" journalism; I would have to think about that for a while.

Are you saying that I should know better than you what "model" journalism is? I guess I have never approached the issue from that perspective; I guess I would have to start reading a whole lot more newspapers than I do now.

But none of that means that I can't spot bias when I see it. It is real and it thrives now more than ever.

But, according to Ken, he discounts it at a macro level because it cannot be proved through acedemic study with pie charts, stats and ratios.

He seems to totally discount anecdotal evidence, which seems a rather odd thing to say coming from a journalist, but be that as it may; I have said many times, it is subtle, it is often invisible (as when 3 networks completely avoid referring to Elliot Spitzer as a Democrat) and it is not always even done consciously by the reporter.

It is the reason why the New York Times does a feature article by a reporter who takes a number of isolated incidents involving Iraqi veterans involved in violent crimes and tries to link this to some kind of epidemic involving iraqi veterans (even though it turns out that veterens committed fewer violent crimes per capita than civilians in the same age group).

It is also the reason why you will never, ever see a similar article in a newspaper linking the many murders and violent crimes of illetgal aliens, as being an "epidemic of illegal aliens commiting murder."

This is a snapshot, if you will, of what the most pervasive kind of liberal bias looks like.

It is why 2 years ago, when the talk was just starting to percolate about Obama running for president (and I have mentioned this several times before) and he went to Kenya to his father's home village in a "return to his roots" journey.

It was an interesting story and it kind of served as an introduction to Obama. It certainly deserved coverage, with photos and all . . . but SR ran the same story, with photos (from different wire services), three (3) times in five (5) days. Huh? Who does that?

And it is also why, when SR ran an introduction story about Mitt Romney, they chose a story that focused entirely on his great-great grandfather and his great-great-great granfather, both of whom were polygamists, and it had nothing to do with Mitt Romney. He never met these men; they had been dead for a hundred years!

But, there is always "plausible deniability" to any charges of bias.

Taken individualy these two stories are meaningless and they don't infer bias; but when time after time after time, similar kinds of stories seem to always favor or shade towards Democrats or liberal positions or agenda, I say it speaks loudly . . .IF YOU TAKE THE PLUGS OUT OF YOUR EARS AND LISTEN!

But these kinds of stories can't quantified so they can not be statistically analyzed, so they are easily discounted as anything other than bias.

Plausible deniability!

So now I'm deaf, too?

We already went over this one, Bruce. What you've done is give isolated examples of stories you believe were distorted by a liberal bias (assuming your versions are accurate - some links would be nice). What that proves, at best, is that some stories are biased, something I've already acknowledged.

You're still failing to prove in any meaningful way that there is a widespread pattern of bias.

Media Matters has hundreds of examples of what they perceive to be conservative bias in the news. Here are a few examples:

The New York Times reported that during an interview on This Week, Sen. John McCain criticized Sen. Barack Obama "for proposing to withdraw American forces from Iraq within 16 months," but did not mention that only days earlier, McCain told CNN's Wolf Blitzer that 16 months is "a pretty good timetable." The Times not only failed to mention McCain's comment about a timetable, it did not report that McCain denied having used the word "timetable" when asked about it by George Stephanopoulos.

Numerous media outlets quoted or aired all or part of a statement Sen. John McCain made criticizing Sen. Barack Obama for giving a "political speech" in Berlin while "a candidate for the office of the presidency," but none noted that McCain himself gave a "political speech" in a foreign country last month, speaking to the Economic Club of Toronto in Ottawa, Canada, on a trip paid for by his presidential campaign.

Media Matters has extensively documented the disparity in media coverage devoted to controversial comments made by supporters of Sen. Barack Obama and to those made by supporters of Sen. John McCain. Several major publications have reported only on the controversy over remarks by McCain supporter John Hagee targeting Catholics, but not his controversial statements about Hurricane Katrina, Islam, women, and homosexuality. Most of those same publications have yet to report on pastor Rod Parsley and his controversial remarks in the context of McCain's campaign.

Go through their archives - time after time after time, similar kinds of stories that always favor or shade toward Republicans or conservative positions or agenda.

Based on your methodology, Bruce, this group has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that the media is in the tank for conservatives. Of course, I don't believe that. Media Matters is a political organization. They're not doing a comprehensive audit of the press, they're ferretting out specific examples of news they feel "is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda."

That's why, Bruce, when I don't accept that you have proof of a supposed phenomenon that has eluded researchers for decades, it isn't because I'm ignorant, naive, elitist, or hard of hearing.

Ted Stevens didn't come to mind? Don Young? Were we all going to drive on that bridge to nowhere?
I don't recall saying that it was only Democrats in congress causing problems. I used Pelosi as an example because as a person elected to office under the false pretense that she was going to create unity, has done exactly the opposite and has spread congress further apart at Americans expense. Bruce, you can show people like Gary and Ken facts or statistics, but they have to open their eyes to see it. I have found that you can prove your point time and time again, but if they are so delusional that they can't see anything other than their biased view, you are just talking to a shadow. It is also hard to argue with somebody who buys ink by the barrel.

So now we're blind and delusional, too.

I'm starting to see a pattern here...

Yup; deaf, blind and delusional! :)

“eluded researchers for decades.” Huh? You mean: eluded researchers for decades . . . when the studies finding liberal bias are rejected.

You see it your way and 67% of Americans see the other way. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 70 to 85% of journalists (depending on which poll you read), vote Democrat and/or consider themselves moderate to liberal. Nine to 12% (depending on the poll) vote Republican or consider themselves conservative.

These numbers do not exist in a vacuum – they mean something. And that “something” still exists whether it can be proved statistically or not. (BTW; both the Stanford and UCLA studies contained statistical evidence).

And yes, Media Matters posts all kinds of “examples” of conservative bias, just as Media Research posts liberal bias. Many examples from both are just silly, while some certainly appear to be bias; neither prove their position.

You demand a very high standard of statistical proof; I rely on what I have observed. Both are reliable measurements used all the time by scientists.

I guess it is a stalemate!

You demand a very high standard of statistical proof; I rely on what I have observed. Both are reliable measurements used all the time by scientists.

Actually, no, the second one isn't. If you've already made a conclusion and are only looking for evidence to support it, that's not considered a valid research method.

Public perception can be shaped by all sorts of things. As I noted earlier, sometimes those perceptions are wrong. That's why it's important to rely on actual facts and objective research before embracing a conclusion.

Let's take global warming, for example. This set of poll results shows that 71% of people believe the earth is getting warmer, and 67% believe that humans can intervene to resolve the problem.

Does that perception alone make global warming a reality?

Demonstrating a pattern of liberal bias in the press shouldn't be that tough. Let's take your example of party identification. Surely someone could audit media coverage of a set of comparable political scandals involving Democrats and Republicans and check a week's worth of print and broadcast stories to see how soon the offender's political party was mentioned.

Doesn't it seem strange that no one has done that?

Interesting that you should suggest that kind of study, Ken. And I am not aware of a study like that, but how would you comment on this?

There has been percolating around the edges for over a week now that John Edwards has been linked to woman who has a very young child; hmm? There are reports he was seen at 2am at a hotel where this woman was staying?

Has the New York Times ran a story about this? No. How about the Chicago Tribune? Nope. How about the Washington Post? Uh uh!

I have to go back to the story last winter about McCain being linked to another woman; a story that was not even new. This was a "story" that had been discounted several years before; but, without any new additional evidence, the New York Times runs with it.

Is it a double standard? Of course it is . . . but probably not as seen through the eyes of journalists who instinctively discount or explain-away every other similar example.

So tell me, why have the networks not run this story during their news broadcasts? Can't be confirmed? Well, that didn't seem to matter to the New York Times.

Remember liberal icon and Reverend Jesse Jackson having a "love child"? Who broke that story? NYTs? WP? NBC? CBS? No, no, no and no. It was the Enquirer.

When the NYTs did run the story; it was on page 26. Where was the McCain story? Page one.

You know what they say about a duck?

I find it very interesting that Media Matters really can’t offer any studies that show conservative bias (except for non-academic “studies” like, “the lack of gender diversity in Sunday morning shows.” Or, a “report” that says Sunday news shows: Face the Nation, Meet the Press, etc are all conservative! Huh?

Or how about this one; “Conventional wisdom says America is fundamentally conservative (hostile to government, at peace with inequality, etc.) They claim they “find” this to be false. What does that have to with media bias? They really can’t point to one study of conservative bias in media. Basically, Media Matters is just a far-left, anti-conservative site which attacks any conservative for any reason.

Now, how many reputable studies, polls and surveys conclude that liberal bias exists, in one manner or another.

• The Media Elite (1964-1967) - George Washington University
• White House Reporters (1976-1992) - US News & World Report
• Major Newspaper Reporters (1980) - California State University
• US Newspaper Journalists (1984) - LA Times
• The Media Elite Revisited (1988-92) -
• Washington Bureau Chiefs and Correspondents (1992) - Chicago Tribune
• Newspaper Editors (1992-96) - Editor & Publisher
• Campaign Journalists (2004) - New York Times
• TV and Newspaper Journalists (2004) - U of Conn.
• LA Times Survey - (1985)
• Journalist and Financial Reporting - (1988)
• Journalists, Who Are They? - (1992)
• ASNE - (1996)
• The People and the Press (2001) - Roper Center’s Public Perspective
• How Journalists See Journalists (2004) - Pew Research Center
• Journalist’s Ethics and Attitudes (2005) - Annenberg Public Policy Center
• News Media and the War (2005) - Pew Research Center

Now what else would you like to see as far as studies showing some element of liberal bias? These studies weren’t done by wacky right-wing organizations.

I am very confident, that no matter which way a person looks at the topic in a neutral manner; there really is only one conclusion to draw. And I think this is more overwhelming than the evidence supporting that man is responsible for global warming.

The studies you cite (in a list you've pulled from the Media Research Center, which is every bit as political as Media Matters), show that journalists tend to vote for Democrats over Republicans. We already established that several days ago.

That's not the same thing as "concluding liberal bias exists." As Gary noted, most journalists, at least the journalists in our newsroom, are also white. So, based on your logic, the news media has to be biased against non-white people.

Also, the New York Times got quite a bit of heat from their "liberal" media colleagues for the McCain story. The Seattle P-I refused to publish it. Ethicists at Poynter criticized the story in unusually strong terms. That would seem to support the contention that professional standards trump political ideology.

The argument that Gary seems to always want to showcase is really a canard. The short answer to the rhetorical question; "if the newsroom is mostly all white, shouldn't there also be a bias against non-white people?"

Absoolutely not. Racism is not an acceptable behavior in this country. Neither is sexism.

Both of these standards are normative and only people on the fringe do not abide to them. You can't say the same thing for opposing political views.

Political views are not supposed to be "normative," (although that really is what we are talking about here and really lies at the core of how social liberalism is displayed in media in a normative manner) but they are pitted against each other.

So no, Gary must have read that on Media Matters because that is really only one of the few things they can write about in their desperate attempt to deflect evidence of liberal bias.

I believe you and Gary have fallen into the same trap.

And thank goodness for a handful of editors at the PI and for ethicists at Poynter. that piece by the Times was not only a vivid dispaly of bias, it violated basic journalism 101. Verify your sources!

You are corect that Media Research is political and slanted. but, if you review the information and sources and studies and research on the two sites, you will find a clear difference.

Media Research addresses mainly hard news stories, while Media Matters mostly functions as an "attack dog" to try to counter conservative pundits. It devotes whole sections to Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannitty etc. None of whom are "newspeople."

Most of the "stories" of conservative slant in hard news, as depicted in Media matters, really requires one to streeeetch credulity and reason.

I know you think that is merely my "biased" opinion, but you have to realize I was "all for" liberal slant in media just several years back. I have looked at this stuff from both sides.

Why does everyone recognize that "media is ga-ga for obama." "Media swoons over Barack." "Media is in the tank for Obama." This isn't even debatable. No one even tries to dispute it.

Does that mean those journalists can't do their jobs when reporting on the election? No. But it does mean they are all capable of "shading" - even slightly - when they do their jobs. Journalists are human.

Can you honestly say that 3 years ago when things were really bad in Iraq and Gitmo was int he news and wiretapping, etc that there wasn;t a fair amount of "piling on" by media in its "reporting?" I can't "prove" it scientifically, but i know it when I see it.

And what do you have to say to those media people, who in a moment of honest candor acknowledge the existance of an elite "newsroom" where "the word consrervative is spoken the same way people say 'child molester'."

We are talking about Peter Jennings, Walter Cronkite, a former president of CBS news who won't watch it anymore because of its slant, producers at 60 minutes, reporters from the NYTs, Washington Post, etc.

Many have spoken candidly about how pervasive it can be. some have acknowledged their own "sins," explaining that it was often an expectation - or at least an option.

The bottom line is, there is a pervasive perception, supported by a volumn of anecdotal evidence - some clear as a bell - supported by logic (most journalists are liberal), acknowledgment from many in media - some icons - and an industry (papers) which is on the decline.

Would it hurt if news organizations - without admitting anything - stopped its reflexive denials of bias and reached out to its readers with a new kind of candor and a committment to re-double efforts to imporove?

I know nothing about the news business, but it seems that there is something more going on than just having to compete with a new media and a new reader.

Bruce,

I didn't get my thoughts from Media Matters. A lot of things make up who a person is. What side of the tracks they grew up on, ethnicity, income, gender, politics, parents.

All of those things can shape someone's world view. But you seem to think politics is the only thing that influences a journalist's thinking, which is amusing considering the fact that religion greatly shapes Tom's thinking.

How is it that j-birds are able to separate all but politics from their reporting. It is not normative to inject that. Nor is it acceptable.

By the way, when you come across a media outlet that does it the way we should do it. let me know. I would still like to see what you consider to be unbiased reporting.

I understand that you may not have found it thus far, but perhaps MRC can be of some help. What is their model of fair and impartial reporting?

Bruce, I think you should remain true to your ideals, and you should continue to question news stories whenever you feel something is amiss.

What I hope you'll try to do is acknowledge that your perspective - which you've admitted is a product of your own perception - is not necessarily the only correct one.

You'll go a lot farther making your case if you recognize that news decisions are based on many factors. You conclude that the Times McCain piece ran because the writers and editors were liberals, and perhaps they would have exercised more caution if a Democrat were involved. Maybe that was a factor, maybe it wasn't. But there were other pressures involved - the Times may have been concerned about being beat by the New Republic with a similar story, for instance. Not exactly a good reason to run with the story, but it probably goes a lot farther in explaining the decision.

Your argument rests entirely on the notion that journalists, as a whole, are slaves to political ideology and are incapable of adhering to basic ethical standards. Should it come as a surprise that journalists would tend to disagree with that view?

Obviously, in any profession, there are people who don't live up to the standards expected of them. But your insistence that these ethical lapses are the norm rather than the exception just isn't supported by reality.

Let's consider the work done by the two political outfits we've discussed earlier. Out of the thousands upon thousands of news stories broadcast and published each day, they might find one that they feel is biased. Does that really prove a pattern? Or do you think the perception of a pattern might be exaggerated somewhat by the ensuing drumbeat from pundits and talk radio hosts?

If the economic challenges that newspapers are facing today are the product of biased reporting, how about showing us an example of an unbiased newspaper that is bucking the trend?

But you seem to think politics is the only thing that influences a journalist’s thinking

Absolutely not! But that isn’t the point. I don’t care what color a journalist is; or where they wear a dress or pants, or even what sex they are. I don’t care if they are Jew, atheist or Lilliputian?

I really think you are injecting race and sex, etc to confuse the matter. Yes, your color, and where you were raised, and your religious influences, all impact who you become and WHAT your politics are. But, contrary to what the diversity and multicultural snobs will tell you, Americans are a pretty homogenous group.

To accept their version (and by extension, your argument) we would have to accept that . . . “blacks think this way,” “Asians think that way;” Southerners have these views and Westerners have those views; urban people believe this and country people believe that. That is a vast simplification of things.

And contrary to the image the diversity movement would have you believe . . . those who hold that view actually demonstrate the classic symptoms of all racists - they lump individuals into racial groups, ethnic groups, religious groups, etc. and then they assign characterizations for each group.

That is racialism in its simplest of forms.

But back to your belief that by focusing on the politics of j-birds (is it ok for a non j-bird to use that term of endearment?) it overlooks color, sex, religion, etc.

I say no!! Political views are what you believe; race and sex are who you are and where you came from to get to where you are today. Apples and oranges. But, this what happens to intelligent people who have probably been through countless sessions of “sensitivity training” and “cultural competency” and “multiculturalism.”

If I have essentially the same views as, let’s say Thomas Sowell, does his or my race matter when we communicate those thoughts on paper? But I am certain he and I had vastly different backgrounds, influences; plus he is from an older generation, be grew up in an urban environment and I grew up next door to the “Beaver,” he is black and I am white. So if he and I were reporters at a newspaper, our differences in backgrounds might seep into our respective writings; but if we were inclined to let our political bias into our reporting, our backgrounds would be of little to no consequence to the readers.

It isn’t “normative” to inject your urbane views into your writing, while someone else injects their country-bumpkin views? I don’t know, but that is not the same as letting your political views influence how and what you report.

I think you are trying to obscure the issue.

I will let you know when I come across that publication - if it exists. And I have no idea if MRC has a model; I don’t really ever read it, except when I need ammunition to ‘quell the misguided views of liberal j-birds.” :)

Suggestions noted, Ken, and I accept much of what you say, as I do that of Gary. I can acknowledge that in the ‘heat of battle” I do view journalists as like-minded and with personal agendas - but I do understand that a vast majority of journalists are ethical and they do a good job, including present company.

And maybe I haven’t enunciated it enough, or maybe you are just note recognizing it, but I have always believed that most of the liberalism that creeps into media reports is not malicious, nor is it intentional, nor is it even done consciously.

It reveals itself in stories that are covered versus those not covered. Just the mere presentation of a story - very fairly written - can serve to underscore a particular view of the world. Balance that against another story that isn’t covered, and it begs the question, what is the viewpoint here?

When a newspaper (SR) runs many (it seemed like dozens) stories on the front-page about the Scooter Libby allegations and everything leading up to the trial, while it all but ignored the story of Sandy Berger “stealing and destroying” classified documents out of the National Archives (documents that shed poor light on Clinton), you ask yourself if you have been reading the NY Times. And no one even attempts to explain it when asked by a reader. All you know is that the editors and others are fervently anti-Bush and anti-Iraq war; it is difficult to accept the total silence when the questions are posed.

But I could drone on and on and prove nothing.

In the end, media presents its view of America and world much more than it presents my view.