Just this survey alone is interesting. Fox earns the word “conservative” to describe it, unlike the other sources.

Here’s how people feel about the media currently.

Page 1

[RAMDOM] Please tell me what one word best describes your impression of X. And And what one word best describes your impression of…

When a talking point is repeated too many times,

I’ve repeated nothing “too many” times. If the fact were to change someday, then I would change my statement about the fact.

Not at all. Nearly everyone agreed Hussein was a threat totally aside from what outlandish claims were made. He had already demonstrated himself to be an active threat to the region and our interests (oil more than Israel, but obviously to both), had attacked his neighbors, had possessed and used WMDs already, etc..

It’s no surprise Bush’s ratings went as high as they did at the start of the war.

DLS: Do you have any non-anecdotal empirical data to support the oft-repeated claim that the media is liberally biased? Certainly for every rightie asserting left-bias, Media Matters is asserting the contrary. To quote Mark Knopfler of Dire Straits in “Industrial Disease”

No need. Most learned Americans versus a tiny cottage Denial Industry makes “two” and its implied equality vanish.

The journalists’ own voting records and record of being positive toward liberals versus negative toward conservatives is all I need refer to. For those who want just one example, a good two-part writeup, this (which the Cottage Denial Industry has hated), look here and here:

The independent media analyst S. Robert Lichter looked at 10 major surveys on the political beliefs and voting patterns of mainstream print and broadcast journalists from 1962 to 1996. As Lichter writes, “the pattern of results is compelling.” The percentage of journalists who were classified as “liberals” were, survey to survey: 57, 53, 59, 42, 54, 50, 32, 55, 22 and 61. The percentage classified as “conservative,” survey by survey: 28, 17, 18, 19, 17, 21, 12, 17, 5 and 9. Voting patterns and findings on specific issues (for instance, regarding abortion, gun control or taxes) have consistently mirrored these general attitudes.

Surveys since have shown no overall change in this dynamic. A 1996 survey of 1,037 reporters at 61 newspapers found 61 percent self-identified as “Democrat or liberal” or “lean to Democrat or liberal,” vs. only 15 percent Republican or leaning Republican. A 2001 survey of 301 “media professionals” by Princeton Survey Research Associates found 25 percent self-identified as “liberal,” 59 percent as “moderate” and only 6 percent as “conservative.”

o In the 2000 presidential election, both candidates received mostly negative press, and largely to the same degree: George W. Bush received only 37 percent positive coverage; Al Gore, only 40 percent. By contrast, Bill Clinton received far more positive coverage than his Republican opponents in 1996 and 1992 (in ‘96, 50 percent positive to Bob Dole’s 33 percent; in ‘92, 52 percent to George H.W. Bush’s 29 percent). In the past six presidential elections, coverage favored the Democrat in three, and both the Democrat and the Republican received negative coverage in three (’80, ‘88 and ‘00). In none did the coverage favor the Republican.

o “Only 43 percent of all on-air evaluations of George W. Bush were favorable” in Bush’s first 100 days in office (compared with a similarly negative 40 percent for Clinton in his first 100). In his first 50 days, Bush received 48 percent positive coverage, but only 36 percent was positive in his second 50. Only 29 percent of on-air evaluations from nonpartisan sources (anchors, reporters, experts, citizens) were positive to Bush.

o Bush did get a terrific bounce from the rallying effect of Sept. 11. From that day through Nov. 19, 2001, Bush “received the most positive coverage ever measured for a president over an extended period of time” — 64 percent positive to 36 percent negative. But Bush’s high of 77 percent positive that September was down to 59 percent within two months.

o Coverage of the Bush administration’s consideration of a military strike against Iraq, as seen in the network newscasts and in front-page New York Times stories from this July 1 through Aug. 25, was 72 percent negative.

To those long used to a media controlled by, and “news” defined by, their own largely liberal and establishmentarian views, this can seem unfair and wrong — but this is a case of “been up so long, it seems like down to me,” as Lichter puts it. I think to most people it seems more like democracy.

When a talking point is repeated too many times, you can be pretty sure those resorting to it are doing so on automatic pilot, without caring a hoot about whether there’s any truth to it or not. So, even those talking points that reffect the truth become valueless in an argument.

Anyway, they just annoy me.

A talking point is something repeatedly and mindlessly brought up for effect, whether it is true or not. It can be either, BTW.

Well, by that definition, most of the accusations of “repeating talking points” are themselves “repeating talking points” since the accusation appears to arise automatically (and pretty mindlessly) nearly every time certain opinions are perceived to have been posted.

Maybe it would be better for everyone if people’s opinions were addressed based on their content and not based on an accusation that they are just “talking points”. After all, how would you feel if you were accused of “repeating talking points” nearly every time you commented? I expect that you would resent it and I’m asking that you understand that others react in exactly the same way to that accusation.

Fundamental questions in methodology are not even settled.
For example, negative statements about Bush are usually classfied as party bias. This is very questionable, because by that logic, when Clinton was being pilloried by all the media, we would have to conclude that the media were right-wing.at hte time.

Bias is like pornography, impossible to define, but everyone thinks they know it when they see it.

If bias is to be examined, it can be examined only within very narrow limits and narrow definitions How would you classify a conservative criticizing the current GOP?

I’m not aware of any studies with sufficiently strict criteria that support your view. At best, they raise questions to ponder.

A talking point is something repeatedly and mindlessly brought up for effect, whether it is true or not. It can be either, BTW.

Anyway, sometimes “talking points” are based on underlying truth. Repeated studies of the political affiliations of reporters and editors, the money they donate, AND the content analysis of their stories have shown a strong skew towards leftist social views and, to a lesser extent, national security views. The mixture is much less clear on economic issues. Coverage of political candidates is very strongly skewed against Republicans on most media outlets and endorsements of candidates by major newspapers skew very strongly towards Democrats in most recent elections.

FoxNews and talk radio are, of course, high profile exceptions to most of these trends, but they are exceptions that provide contrast and highlight against which much of the rest of the media can be seen to be so clearer skewed. And FoxNews and talk radio have tiny audiences compared to the broadcast and newspaper outlets that are dominated by the left.

There was a report released recently that swept the right-wing blogosphere like wild fire. It showed that by a big margin journalists have donated to Democrats more than Republicans. Nobody mentioned that only 10-12 % of journalists donated to political parties or candidates at all.
Nobody mentioned that there was no corrolation shown or even looked for between their donations and what the donors actually wrote as news copy.

It was a good talking point. They ran with it and are still running with it.

News outlets are biased primarily in favor of raising viewer ratings, by any means. Everything is geared to satisfying the hunger for profit at HQ.

There was a time when news was less focused on Wall St. and politics and more focused on human interest stories.
Now, business activities and poliitcs drive a huge share of news coverage,. Since the Republican party is associated with promoting business interests, it’s only logical that it has gained new stature in the HQ of those looking out for the bottom line of media corporations.

The ground has shifted.

“Two men say they’re Jesus. One of them must be wrong”

The few studies I’ve seen that actually look at numerical data e.g. the number of conservative versus liberal guests on talk shows, show a marked republican tilt.

You turn off the Comedy Channel without watching the Colbert Report? I’ve gotta watch the fake O’Reilly once or twice a week.

I have been a Chris Matthews fan, but lately his questions have been more like volleyball than hardball, and he seems to be slacking. He had terrific coverage last year on the CIA Leak case, but then tonight sounded like he knew little or nothing about it?? Cheney’s office complained to NBC- when he got too close to the truth, but could they make him back off?

(4) Our comment space is reserved for comments that relate to a post’s topic. You should not reprint lengthy text from your own works or those of others, including news articles. You MAY link to them.

kritter,

You touched on all the reasons I watch him. Funny world… Pay $50/mo to watch an hour and a half of TV a day!

“Countdown” at 5pm (we best coasters get it during the dinner hour instead of in prime time) and day old “The Daily Show” at 8pm.

The only thing else worth a damn IMO is 1,000 Places to See Before You Die on the Travel Channel.

And, speak of the Devil… it’s ten to five I gotta go turn on the TV.

ABC, CBS, NBC, The New York Times and other major newspapers, CNN, Time, Newsweek, etc., have always been correctly criticized for their obvious liberal bias.

I guess you forgot about the run up to the war in Iraq.

It’s entirely expected that large media conglomerates are going to be conservative. It’s the name of the game when you have to cater to the needs of advertisers.

Judith Miller was not an aberration.

Mainstream Conservative Media bias

???

Are you at the far left (who wrongly refer to the true “mainstream” media as “right-wing corporate emdia”), like FAIR (whose name is a lie) or their show “CounterSpin” [sic; additional leftist spin]?

ABC, CBS, NBC, The New York Times and other major newspapers, CNN, Time, Newsweek, etc., have always been correctly criticized for their obvious liberal bias. Only those on the true far left, or those already far to the left but also more comfortable with frequently-more-leftist foreign media would call our obviously left-wing media “conservative” or “right wing.”

Or is this just a question of nomenclature? Right-wing media have been alternative, not mainstream, media. The only network that is properly accused of being conservative is Fox (and treated with total hostility by the rest of the media as well as by liberals in the lay population because it is not liberal like the rest), and even Fox isn’t that far right. The well-known alternative conservative media are so well-known they form what may be caonsidered an alternative, right-side “mainstream” dwarf counterpart to the true, and truly liberal, mainstream media that everyone knows, but those outlets with the commonly accepted name “mainstream” are indisputably liberal (despite failed attempt after failed attempt to dishonestly deny the obvious).

The “right-wing corporate media” lie and myth has never been accepted by those familar with the media.

Really? I thought being moderate was “not extreme, excessive, or intense…in opinion or opposed to extreme views”.

I think your definition is more that of ‘non-partisan’, which is something different.

One can be, after all, a moderate partisan. It used to be a very common designation, until differing of opinions came to mean that the other person must be a moron, or evil.

I apologize to any who may have been offended, confused, or lead off track by my inappropriate post.

That’s why I like TMV. You and I may not always agree Jason, but I respect your reasoned arguments.

I think this is partly schtick but mostly what rings true. Just one example: How many times did we hear them elude that Iraq and 911 were linked? Well, they never were.

I’m sick of seeing this administration flip-flop when they are called to task on their statements. Even Mr Snow flip-flopped on the USA firings.

The conservatives coined the term to attack Kerry, but this Administration is bringing it to new heights.

Olbermann: Bush, Cheney should resign
‘I didn’t vote for him, but he’s my president, and I hope he does a good job.’