Mark Halperin acknowledges liberal media bias
 

Mark Halperin is the political director at ABC news. He recently did an interview with Hugh Hewitt promoting his book(with co-authors), The Way To Win: Taking The White House In 2008 and had some pretty interesting things to say about liberal bias in the media. Please note this is a meme that I rarely pay much attention to because I just assume bias in everything I read and try to deconstruct from that starting point. But its hard to ignore when a guy of Helperin's experience makes some of these statements. I'll quote a few things and link the transcript of the interview.

[ QUOTE ]
MH: You’re asking me should people be skeptical? I think anyone who’s conservative should be skeptical of anything the old media does. But if they look at what we say in the book about the old media, if they look at the quality of ideas, I think that they’d have no reason to be skeptical, that the book is not a straightforward and honest account of not just the right, but of the left, and of the media.


HH: But the old media is overwhelmingly liberal, correct, Mark Halperin?


MH: Correct, as we say in the book.


HH: And so everyone that you work with, or 95% of people you work with, are old liberals.


MH: I don’t know if it’s 95%, and unfortunately, they’re not all old. There are a lot of young liberals here, too. But it certainly, there are enough in the old media, not just in ABC, but in old media generally, that it tilts the coverage quite frequently, in many issues, in a liberal direction, which is completely improper. And it goes from the big and major like CBS’ outrageous story about President Bush’s draft record right before the 2004 election, to the insidious and small use of language describing Nancy Pelosi’s liberal policies and ideas different than they would Newt Gingrich’s conservative ones


[/ QUOTE ]

Interview Transcript

Re: Mark Halperin acknowledges liberal media bias
 

There is no liberal bias...if you believe in things like labor unions or regulation, you CANNOT become a news reporter. There is a strong corporate filter every reporter and editor must pass. Look at Disney's board of directors, how are they going to allow ABC to be liberal? Look at the NYT reporting on the transit strike.

Of course calling it the "liberal media" is useful when they report on a well-known republican teen sex predator. Or when it reports presidental lies.

[b] no wmd in iraq? liberal media!!!

Re: Mark Halperin acknowledges liberal media bias
 

[ QUOTE ]
There is no liberal bias

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you ever watch the major networks or CNN? If so, name me the last time you saw a negative story about a Democrat. They are not allowed. The Center for Media and Public Affairs just released a study showing coverage of Republicans has been overwhelmingly negative, while Democrats receive positive coverage.

Watch CNN. All day long they feature a left-wing crank named Jack Cafferty who preaches on the evil of Republicans. Not only is he on every weekday, he has his own show on Saturday. CNN just ran a long series of specials called "Broken Government." The theme: Republicans are bad. As Lynn Cheney told Wolf Blitzer, it sounded like it has been written out of DNC headquarters.

Everyone complains here about Fox News, and their lack of liberals hosts. Name me the conservative hosts on CNN. They featurue Larry King, Wolf Blitzer, Lou Dobbs, Paula Zahn, Anderson Cooper, and of course, Jack Cafferty hating on Republicans all day. Where is the balance there?

Re: Mark Halperin acknowledges liberal media bias
 

Expect to have the FAIR study posted as a link soon to prove to you that FoxNews is totally right wing biased while CNN is right in the middle [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

Re: Mark Halperin acknowledges liberal media bias
 

[ QUOTE ]
There is no liberal bias...if you believe in things like labor unions or regulation, you CANNOT become a news reporter. There is a strong corporate filter every reporter and editor must pass. Look at Disney's board of directors, how are they going to allow ABC to be liberal? Look at the NYT reporting on the transit strike.

Of course calling it the "liberal media" is useful when they report on a well-known republican teen sex predator. Or when it reports presidental lies.

no wmd in iraq? liberal media!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Canis, the only people who believe that the mainstream(old) media is not left leaning are the far left. What is this 'you cannot become a news reporter if you believe in regulations and unions' assertion?

For many years now the only argument I hear against liberal bias in the news is the "well they are controlled by big corporations so they would never allow liberal bias". First, big and established corporations would do just fine under most progressive policies, spiking a liberal economic agenda is not particularly important. Second, the driving force behind the daily news cycle, the New York Times, is owned by a company that primarily consists of media outlets, they essentially answer to those of like mind. Most importantly is different vocations quite naturally attract like minded people often times. That young liberal people want to get in a field, journalism, where they can reach the most people and 'make a difference' seems obvious on its face, liberals want to change the status quo whereas conservatives by their very nature are less proactive. You can cling to your notions and no doubt you will, but think about why there is literally no one in the news business who comes out and admits of a conservative bias. Maybe because it doesn't exist?

P.S. Fox News is certainly conservatively biased but they were founded precisely because of the dearth of conservative viewpoints in the mainstream press. Canis, can you point to a former news person who has come out and claimed the secret conservative bias at the major networks? Good luck with that. <font color="black"> </font>

Re: Mark Halperin acknowledges liberal media bias
 

Glenn Greenwald disseminates

Re: Mark Halperin acknowledges liberal media bias
 

The idea that the press is somehow supposed to be "impartial" or "unbiased" is a 20th century concoction. It's impossible, and anyone trying to tell you that news should be impartial is trying to sell you jars full of moonbeams. In fact, a completely impartial press that merely reports events as they happen, in the absence of logical analysis by people more knowledgable on the subjects than the media consumer, would be downright useless.

Re: Mark Halperin acknowledges liberal media bias
 

[ QUOTE ]
Do you ever watch the major networks or CNN? If so, name me the last time you saw a negative story about a Democrat. They are not allowed.

[/ QUOTE ]

False, of course ... for starters, I present you the Honorable William Jefferson (D-La.)

Re: Mark Halperin acknowledges liberal media bias
 

[ QUOTE ]
is trying to sell you jars full of moonbeams...

[/ QUOTE ]

PM price.

Also, you're right. Regardless of the leaning, there's going to be a leaning.

Re: Mark Halperin acknowledges liberal media bias
 

I happen to think that the MSM is the best source available for unbiased news. If you are the kind of person who doesn't visit many outlets, you can't go wrong with the NYT or the network news.

1. I agree with the "corporate filter" argument Canis makes. All sorts of coverage that would reflect poorly on conservatives like media conglomerations and the negative effects of globalization get under reported.

2. The main-stream media are the only major organizations that try to be fair. Many outlets have ombudsmen that steer their outlet toward being fair. In addition, fairness is a concept that is drilled into reporters from their Journalism schools and early jobs. While perfection on this issue, the MSM is a lot closer to the mark than anyone else.

3. Even if you accept that the stories surrounding Democrats are more favorable than Republicans, there are two explanations for this. One is that there is a bias, the other is that Republican policies and decisions are worse than Democrats. If Bush hadn't decided to invade Iraq, we wouldn't be hearing the drumbeat of bad news out of there. Since Iraq is a mess, we should be hearing a lot of bad news. This concept applies to other issues as well.

4. Besides 3, the reason there has been a preponderance of bad news lately is that the press likes bad news stories. Bad news is more interesting and more frequent than good news in general: "If it bleeds, it leads" has been around for a long time. Republicans are associated with these bad news stories because they are in power.

I also like how JackWhite is ripping CNN for being biased, but he is using CNN's own efforts at fairness to rip on them by quoting Lynn Cheney. As for CNN's hosts that he mentions, the only one with an actual liberal bias is Cafferty. I think that Lou Dobbs is a conservative, its just that he's sick of Iraq.

And since kickabuck asked, I found this guy from the MSM who thinks Kerry got a bum rap with regard to the Swift Boat controversy.

Re: Mark Halperin acknowledges liberal media bias
 

What most progressives see as a 'conservative bias' could also be described as a 'managerial class bias' which becomes a de facto conservative bias. This bias would not be know in the least to any ombudsman, any journalist or corporate executive. It would simply be the way they collectiviely view the world. Let me explain what I mean.

Left leaning people have similar views on things like taking care of the poor, education, race relations. But, the way all of these issues are framed in the debate is from management's perspective...even for progressives. For example, taking care of the poor is an issue of charity, well, an alternative and perhaps more valid framing of the issue is that unemployed people looking for work are paying the price for the nation's monetary policy. Specifically, unemployment is kept higher than it would naturally be to hold off inflation, but in so doing it keeps working wages lower, (working class wages go up when unemployment goes down) professional wages protected and more workers out of work. So, the issue is framed everywhere as the poor draining society, but a valid framing is also that the poor pay for our way of life with their poverty. This is also the perspective of many poor people.

Race issues are also given similar treatment from news media to entertainment media (every year there is a new show about a noble white person going into the inner city to help out the helpless black folk... simply an offensive premise to anyone who reads between the lines even if there are one or two white people who go into an inner city for this purpose every year). Affirmative action is typically covered (a program helping black people) but the mountains and mountains of discrimination are no longer covered (things hurting black people). Instead a 'pro black issue' story is more likely to involve a black person beating the odds, pulling himself up by the boot straps and becoming successful, which, rather than educating people on the extreme disadvantage that black people need to overcome just reinforces the myth that most black people are lazy.

A person could write a few books on media bias and how the entire framing of the debate is done by the managerial class...for example, terrifs and subsidies are protectionist (against free trade) whereas, state-based licensing for doctors, lawyers, accountants and most older professional vocations are not ever reported as protectionist, despite the fact that the country could save 10 times the ammount NAFTA and CAFTA did by coming up with universal licensing and opening up Medical Doctors to free trade.

All of this ammounts to a conservative bias because the framing of the debate distorts the validity of progressive issues.

Here is a source on the media bias that I found very enlightening. http://www.conservativenannystate.org/

Re: Mark Halperin acknowledges liberal media bias
 

[ QUOTE ]
The idea that the press is somehow supposed to be "impartial" or "unbiased" is a 20th century concoction. It's impossible, and anyone trying to tell you that news should be impartial is trying to sell you jars full of moonbeams. In fact, a completely impartial press that merely reports events as they happen, in the absence of logical analysis by people more knowledgable on the subjects than the media consumer, would be downright useless.

[/ QUOTE ] NH

Maccaca vs Erotic [censored] Pedophilic Novels
 

George Allen(R) gets crucified by the press for weeks over a foreign word that no one has ever heard of. Jim Webb(D) writes [censored] erotic pedophilic novels and the press lets the story die in two days.....

Er yeah.....there is no press bias.

Re: Maccaca vs Erotic [censored] Pedophila Novels
 

[ QUOTE ]
George Allen(R) gets crucified by the press for weeks over a foreign word that no one has ever heard of. Jim Webb(D) writes [censored] erotic pedophilic novels and the press lets the story die in two days.....

Er yeah.....there is no press bias.

[/ QUOTE ]

George Allen, a guy with a history of racism (confederate flag and noose proudly on display, harrassment of black foe in college, many witnesses to his casual and frequent use of "niggger") spitefully calls an Indian guy a racist name on tape.

James Webb, war hero, writes Vietnam novel that is on the military's reading list for character development, a novel that received high praise from John McCain. There's sex in his novels - gasp! even gay sex!

Re: Maccaca vs Erotic [censored] Pedophila Novels
 

don't confuse your bias with liberal bias. One of the stories involves racial hate speech directed at a dark skinned person the other fiction.

Re: Mark Halperin acknowledges liberal media bias
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The idea that the press is somehow supposed to be "impartial" or "unbiased" is a 20th century concoction. It's impossible, and anyone trying to tell you that news should be impartial is trying to sell you jars full of moonbeams. In fact, a completely impartial press that merely reports events as they happen, in the absence of logical analysis by people more knowledgable on the subjects than the media consumer, would be downright useless.

[/ QUOTE ] NH

[/ QUOTE ]

Propertarian NH'ed borodog on a social issue? *writes date down*

But yeah, I agree. No news station should be fair or balanced, they should be what they are; biased as all hell. There should just be more of them, so that the inter-media attitude is fair and balanced. That's what the net is for.

Re: Maccaca vs Erotic [censored] Pedophila Novels
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
George Allen(R) gets crucified by the press for weeks over a foreign word that no one has ever heard of. Jim Webb(D) writes [censored] erotic pedophilic novels and the press lets the story die in two days.....

Er yeah.....there is no press bias.

[/ QUOTE ]

George Allen, a guy with a history of racism (confederate flag and noose proudly on display, harrassment of black foe in college, many witnesses to his casual and frequent use of "niggger") spitefully calls an Indian guy a racist name on tape.

James Webb, war hero, writes Vietnam novel that is on the military's reading list for character development, a novel that received high praise from John McCain. There's sex in his novels - gasp! even gay sex!

[/ QUOTE ]

BTW at least for me the problem with the Allen thing was not that he used some obscure potentially racist term like "macaca". It's that he made up a weird degrading term for an Indian guy. If the camerman had been black and Allen said, hey our friend "Tyrone" over here, or if the cameraman had been Hispanic, and he said our buddy "Julio" is joining us or whatever, I think that's pretty f*cked up.

Re: Maccaca vs Erotic [censored] Pedophila Novels
 

The thing was it wasnt obscure to him. Its a word very well known to his mother. The odds of his mom knowing the word, never saying it to him, it never being defined for him AND him making it up? Next to impossible i would think.

Re: Maccaca vs Erotic [censored] Pedophila Novels
 

[ QUOTE ]
The thing was it wasnt obscure to him. Its a word very well known to his mother. The odds of his mom knowing the word, never saying it to him, it never being defined for him AND him making it up? Next to impossible i would think.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find it really doubtful that he knew it was a racist derogatory term. It just doesn't make any sense that a politician would use such a slur in public. For me it is just the fact that if he wanted to find the cameraman's name he could of asked, the fact that he used "macaca" to me is the same if he had said "Abdul" or "Habib" or anyother Indian/Middle Eastern name.

Re: Mark Halperin acknowledges liberal media bias
 

[ QUOTE ]
But its hard to ignore when a guy of Helperin's experience makes some of these statements.

[/ QUOTE ]

So when Mark Halperin claims President Bush's attacks on Sen. Kerry in the 2004 election "involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done," -- and that Bush team was purposefully complaining about unfair media coverage, which was "all part of their efforts to get away with as much as possible" -- are we willing to concede then, that with all Halperin's experience, which you note and I gladly concede -- do we agree that his judgment on the behavior of the 2004 Bush campaign's tactics, and his condemnation of them, are sound?

I have no intentions of discussing 2004, nor do I believe it's relevant how the hell Bush's campaign behaved -- let's put that aside. But since the right-wing blogosphere now holds Halperin as the paradigm of journalistic virtue, I'm a little confused as to what changed their tune.

I need only point to the FreeRepublic community, which had held Halperin in such utter contempt in 2004 that they were organizing email and phone campaigns demanding his liberal treachery end -- that same community now, almost stunningly, believes Halperin is their only ally in the MSM who will give them the awful truth about liberal bias.

I don't have much to offer here other than to say the right can't seem to make up it's mind on Halperin -- most likely because they, like most other consumers of information, enjoy information that reinforces their beliefs and loathes that which doesn't; in light of this (and the endless amount of other evidence we could point to which would demonstrate something similar), I'm going to concur with (surprise) Boro that memes on media bias are perplexing at best and silly at worst -- even Halperin himself admits that (see his quote below), with all his experience, knows that it's the market, and not ideology, which dictates how information is disseminated:

"As an economic model, if you want to thrive like Fox News Channel, you want to have a future, you better make sure conservatives find your product appealing if you're going to do the right thing. You got to do it."

One of the "problems" of not having an American Prvada means consumers are put in a position of having to discern for themselves which information sources are silly, untrustworthy, or disproportionally biased. That the right is chagrin some measure of their fellow consumers still find the NYT trustworthy, or that the left is hot under the collar because lots of people like getting their news from Fox and Drudge should not prompt calls for organized letter writing campaigns or never-ending blogger investigations, but merely a stern reminder: caveat emptor.

Re: Maccaca vs Erotic [censored] Pedophila Novels
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
George Allen(R) gets crucified by the press for weeks over a foreign word that no one has ever heard of. Jim Webb(D) writes [censored] erotic pedophilic novels and the press lets the story die in two days.....

Er yeah.....there is no press bias.

[/ QUOTE ]

George Allen, a guy with a history of racism (confederate flag and noose proudly on display, harrassment of black foe in college, many witnesses to his casual and frequent use of "niggger") spitefully calls an Indian guy a racist name on tape.

James Webb, war hero, writes Vietnam novel that is on the military's reading list for character development, a novel that received high praise from John McCain. There's sex in his novels - gasp! even gay sex!

[/ QUOTE ]

It really is like there are two different realities. What you are saying seems so self-evidently true to me. The witnesses to the N-word, they weren't liberal plants, they were just people speaking out. James Webb, War hero, author, why does he have to get smeared as a "pedophilic writer". WTF? He wrote fiction books, with things he saw, in WAR. A War he fought in, heroically.

I really think these guys are pulling my leg with these statements and arguments. The posters seem intelligent to me. I really don't get it. They can't believe this stuff. These are the same guys that read me for Ace high and value bet their AK on the river, but they expect me to buy this crap? What is it Will Ferrel says in Zoolander, "I feel like I'm taking crazy pills".

Re: Mark Halperin acknowledges liberal media bias
 

In any "democracy" with a bit of history the pendulum effect is very apparent. Politics shift from the left to the right and vice-versa. I would expect that at the extreme of the swings, like experienced in the US currently both in internal (regressive taxation, security net, restriction of personal freedoms, etc...) and international politics (the war in Iraq, the refusal of signing the Kyoto agreement, refusal to endorse liberal international economic agreements, etc...), the fourth estate would act as a mechanical governor and thus being open to criticism of bias from the regime in power.

I think that is very much what is happening and it will hopefully succeed at bringing the USA back on track as a civilized and peaceful nation, respecting and caring of its own citizens and the international community as a partner rather than a bully.

Re: Mark Halperin acknowledges liberal media bias
 

[ QUOTE ]
There is no liberal bias...if you believe in things like labor unions or regulation, you CANNOT become a news reporter. There is a strong corporate filter every reporter and editor must pass. Look at Disney's board of directors, how are they going to allow ABC to be liberal? Look at the NYT reporting on the transit strike.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because liberals and conservatives both support corporations? Duh? The media is liberal, but it's pro-corporation as well. These aren't even remotely mutually exclusive.

Re: Mark Halperin acknowledges liberal media bias
 

[ QUOTE ]
The idea that the press is somehow supposed to be "impartial" or "unbiased" is a 20th century concoction. It's impossible, and anyone trying to tell you that news should be impartial is trying to sell you jars full of moonbeams. In fact, a completely impartial press that merely reports events as they happen, in the absence of logical analysis by people more knowledgable on the subjects than the media consumer, would be downright useless.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this, but it's important to be aware the bias and try to identify it, and that's where people fail.

Re: Mark Halperin acknowledges liberal media bias
 

[ QUOTE ]
3. Even if you accept that the stories surrounding Democrats are more favorable than Republicans, there are two explanations for this. One is that there is a bias, the other is that Republican policies and decisions are worse than Democrats. If Bush hadn't decided to invade Iraq, we wouldn't be hearing the drumbeat of bad news out of there. Since Iraq is a mess, we should be hearing a lot of bad news. This concept applies to other issues as well.


[/ QUOTE ]

Odd that the Daily Show, an unquestionably liberal source, has less of a problem with this than the MSM.

OK.....How about..
 

[ QUOTE ]
don't confuse your bias with liberal bias.

[/ QUOTE ]
Speak for yourself.

Remember the 4-YEARS+ of stories regarding George Bush's national guard service that climaxed with forged documents printed by MS Word on fax paper? Why did the media not crucify Bill Burkett who was their source for these documents? His story that a mysterious person handed him these documents and walked away. LOL! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I know 3 year olds that can make up better stories than that. Any competant reporter could have shredded that story and exposed Burkett for what he truly is.....a dishonest, hateful, and unethical man. The media covered his version for a day, then they let the story die. If Burkett was a Repub attacking a Dem president, he would have been in the news for MONTHS.....

Time devoted to a story is the most common form of media bias. In the 4+ years of Bush43's national guard service that found NOTHING....NOTHING...... There is a reason why CBS, ABC, and NBC no longer have a monopoly on news. Dems loved their coverage while Repubs were getting more-and-more disillusioned with them. As a result, talk radio, Fox News, and the internet have grown in popularity...... Their over-the-top bias has chased away Repub viewership to other media outlets. The ABC, CBS, and NBC news monoploy is forever dead.... And good riddance.....

Re: OK.....How about..
 

" If so, name me the last time you saw a negative story about a Democrat. They are not allowed."

ALL DAY TO-Freakin-DAY

Re: Mark Halperin acknowledges liberal media bias
 

[ QUOTE ]
So when Mark Halperin claims President Bush's attacks on Sen. Kerry in the 2004 election "involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done," -- and that Bush team was purposefully complaining about unfair media coverage, which was "all part of their efforts to get away with as much as possible" -- are we willing to concede then, that with all Halperin's experience, which you note and I gladly concede -- do we agree that his judgment on the behavior of the 2004 Bush campaign's tactics, and his condemnation of them, are sound?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, sure I'll concede that, though Ive never really argued otherwise. You might note in my OP that I said I dont pay much attention to the liberal media meme, because I assume bias in everything I read. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] But that is normal politics, that is, spin what the other guy said into something as dastardly as possible.

But yeah I think otherwise we pretty much agree. I just found it really interesting that Halperin would make such clear, unambiguous comments like that. Im not sure what motivated him to make those statements, but it was pretty interesting.

Re: Mark Halperin acknowledges liberal media bias
 

[ QUOTE ]
Propertarian NH'ed borodog on a social issue? *writes date down*


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I was going to post on that last night, but HMK beat me to it. Let it be known that I, vulturesrow, have done the impossible. BEST MODERATOR EVAR!!

--VR, a uniter, not a divider. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Mark Halperin acknowledges liberal media bias
 

[ QUOTE ]
I also like how JackWhite is ripping CNN for being biased, but he is using CNN's own efforts at fairness to rip on them by quoting Lynn Cheney. As for CNN's hosts that he mentions, the only one with an actual liberal bias is Cafferty. I think that Lou Dobbs is a conservative, its just that he's sick of Iraq.


[/ QUOTE ]

Iron, how is interviewing the wife of the Vice President fairness? That is a standard interview with a public figure.
As you acknlowedge, Cafferty is very liberal, but where is the balance? If you have a liberal guy on all day long attacking Republicans/conservatives, with no conservative to offer commentary in a similar fashion, isn't that a definition of bias?

As far as Lou Dobbs being conservative..well, in the last few days I have heard him call for more government run health care, attack the idea of school choice, of course, he always calls for higher taxes in the form of tariffs, etc.. Only you and CNN consider that conservative. Do you know any conservatives who find Lou Dobbs conservative?

The Center for Media and Public Affairs study found that Democrats recieve 77% favorable coverage, while Republicans receive 88% negative coverage.

After the 1992 Presidential election, The Freedom Forum took a poll among journalists, and found that they voted for Clinton over Bush by a 89-6 percent margin.

I could go on and on for hours with similar numbers. This is a fact: the vast majority of journalists hold left of center political views. And human nature being was it is, many allow their own views to color their reporting.

Re: OK.....How about..
 

[ QUOTE ]
" If so, name me the last time you saw a negative story about a Democrat. They are not allowed."


[/ QUOTE ]
1. Who are you quoting? It is certainly not me.
2. How does this relate to my post?
3. Where is the content of you post? Answer: There is none.

Re: Mark Halperin acknowledges liberal media bias
 

[ QUOTE ]
"For many years now the only argument I hear against liberal bias in the news is the "well they are controlled by big corporations so they would never allow liberal bias"."

[/ QUOTE ]
This is sort of a crude form for why any liberal bias can't exist. The argument that it doesn't exist is simply that there isn't any evidence of it. It's an urban myth for credulous types who say things like "the driving force behind the daily news cycle [is] the New York Times."

Re: Mark Halperin acknowledges liberal media bias
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So when Mark Halperin claims President Bush's attacks on Sen. Kerry in the 2004 election "involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done," -- and that Bush team was purposefully complaining about unfair media coverage, which was "all part of their efforts to get away with as much as possible" -- are we willing to concede then, that with all Halperin's experience, which you note and I gladly concede -- do we agree that his judgment on the behavior of the 2004 Bush campaign's tactics, and his condemnation of them, are sound?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, sure I'll concede that, though Ive never really argued otherwise. You might note in my OP that I said I dont pay much attention to the liberal media meme, because I assume bias in everything I read. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] But that is normal politics, that is, spin what the other guy said into something as dastardly as possible.

But yeah I think otherwise we pretty much agree. I just found it really interesting that Halperin would make such clear, unambiguous comments like that. Im not sure what motivated him to make those statements, but it was pretty interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not really concerned with what Halperin said about the 04 Bush campaign -- I was merely using Halperin as a tool to demonstrate that information consumers (in this case, some of them partisan, like FreeRepublic members) will naturally consume information sources that reinforce their previously held beliefs. Mark Halperin is (to the right) only a sage voice for truth and an objective information when he's pointing out liberal bias in the media -- when he points out where that conservatives actually got favorable coverage from the media (for instance, the '04 President campaign), those same consumers will decry him for his rank, subjective partisanship.

What this points to, in a larger sense, though, is that as consumers, we're tasked with deciding what's worthy of our trust. As I mentioned, since there's thankfully no American Prvada -- there's no state-sponsored publication of 'The Truth' -- consumers are free to decide for themselves which information sources they're going to rely on.

If the right is unhappy with the NYT's liberal bias, or the left is unhappy with Fox's right-wing biases -- what more is there to say other than "that's what their market wants, and they're merely catering to their market"? I just don't understand why this is a topic that causes such endless consternatios. Perhaps this is a poor analogy, but I feel like it's akin to complaining that Pepsi is biased towards Pepsi drinkers, or that Nike keeps making sneakers kids like. If the NYT is biased towards liberals, or if Fox is biased towards conservatives, it's likely only because that's where their market niche lies.

It sounds like Halperin has concluded that whatever biases exist in his newsroom, whether they truly exist as an empirical reality, or merely as a twisted fantasy -- whatever the case may be -- that they're hurting the bottom line. I'd make the case that it doesn't really matter whether or not we could even come up with an objective measure of whether or not ABC is biased. Reading between the lines of his interview with Bill O'Reilly (which I linked to above), it sounds like he's concerned that ABC is losing market share to Fox, and that he's going to make ABC more competitive by appealing to the conservative audience Fox has captured. What's left to say?

Should ABC stop trying to win back market share? Does a guy with as much experience as Halperin, who works in the midst of a billion dollar company like Disney -- do they not know how to measure where the market is at, and what the market wants?

If the right is mad about liberal bias in the MSM -- or in a more general sense, about the decadent and degenerate nature of the popular culture as a whole ("TV, music, movies, video games -- too much violence, sex, cursing and debauchery for my tastes, and not appropriate for my children" the right cries out); or conversely, if the left is angry about FoxNews, Drudge, and talk-radio kingpins...then they should forget about sinister plots, smoke-filled rooms of conspirators, and hidden agendas sinisterly set against them -- and they should instead blame their real enemy: capitalism. Blame the market. Blame your fellow consumers for having poor taste and making [censored] products popular. But please stop complaining about the smoke filled rooms and the grandiose conspiracies, which exist to foist their agendas upon you. They don't exist, anymore than Coke has a secret agenda to sell alot of soft drinks by making their product taste good.

Re: Mark Halperin acknowledges liberal media bias
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"For many years now the only argument I hear against liberal bias in the news is the "well they are controlled by big corporations so they would never allow liberal bias"."

[/ QUOTE ]


This is sort of a crude form for why any liberal bias can't exist. The argument that it doesn't exist is simply that there isn't any evidence of it. It's an urban myth for credulous types who say things like "the driving force behind the daily news cycle [is] the New York Times."

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, a couple of years ago, on this very forum(!), I posted links to a few academic studies of this question. Here's one, a meta-analysis of 59 different studies:

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi...2000.tb02866.x

Unfortunately you have to pay to get the whole study. (I got it from the library at the time, but am not sure I still have it.) But you can see the gist in the abstract: little to no bias found. I don't recall which way the "small, measurable, but probably insubstantial coverage and statement biases" went. My memory is that they were indeed minor.

Here's something I said in a post back then:

[ QUOTE ]
Here's a quote from the above mentioned article:

"The genesis of the perception of bias lies in one of two, not necessarily mutually exclusive, mechanisms. It might be a matter of selective perception (Bauer, 1964), an example of two people observing the same message or event, but interpreting it differently (Hastorf &amp; Cantril, 1954) Or it could be an example of instance confirmation, of people with various positions finding in the competing message environment specific examples of messages that offend them and then arguing that these messages are representative of the whole."

In other words, perceived media bias is a very subjective thing. Some see the media as having a conservative bias, some see it as liberal. These perceptions are often not reliable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Mark Halperin acknowledges liberal media bias
 

Correct, what we want is all sorts of options, including some that try to be objective for all those who are so worried about that fact, as well as ones of all different political stripes.

Re: Mark Halperin acknowledges liberal media bias
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"For many years now the only argument I hear against liberal bias in the news is the "well they are controlled by big corporations so they would never allow liberal bias"."

[/ QUOTE ]
This is sort of a crude form for why any liberal bias can't exist. The argument that it doesn't exist is simply that there isn't any evidence of it. It's an urban myth for credulous types who say things like "the driving force behind the daily news cycle [is] the New York Times."

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I'm convinced Chris, you have asserted that there is no evidence for bias in the media, I'll be sure to inform the credulous unwashed masses who believe the bias exists. Including current and former members of the media(Bernard Goldberg and Chris Matthews will be glad I enlightened them.)

Re: Mark Halperin acknowledges liberal media bias
 

DVaut, I agree with a lot of what you said, but the problem is that the media markets itself as unbiased. Fox claims to be "fair and balanced", not a conservative news network. I'm not going to argue for or against bias in the media, but what you said can't work unless each network markets itself accordingly.

Re: Mark Halperin acknowledges liberal media bias
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well I'm convinced Chris, you have asserted that there is no evidence for bias in the media, I'll be sure to inform the credulous unwashed masses who believe the bias exists. Including current and former members of the media(Bernard Goldberg and Chris Matthews will be glad I enlightened them.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, Goldberg! An objective study tested his assertion of liberal bias. Linguist, Geoffrey Nunberg's study examined Goldberg's claim that newscasters identify conservative politicians as "conservative" more than they call liberal politicians "liberal." Goldberg viewed this as stemming from the notion that the media see liberalism as "normal" while conservatism is outside the norm. Nunberg used an empirical word-count approach which revealed just the opposite:

http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/8/nunberg-g.html

Edit: See my other post for more:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...age=0&amp;vc=1

Re: Mark Halperin acknowledges liberal media bias
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"For many years now the only argument I hear against liberal bias in the news is the "well they are controlled by big corporations so they would never allow liberal bias"."

[/ QUOTE ]
This is sort of a crude form for why any liberal bias can't exist. The argument that it doesn't exist is simply that there isn't any evidence of it. It's an urban myth for credulous types who say things like "the driving force behind the daily news cycle [is] the New York Times."

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes Chris, and I'm sure you would agree the Palestinians get fair and balanced coverage in the American press, right?

Re: Mark Halperin acknowledges liberal media bias
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well I'm convinced Chris, you have asserted that there is no evidence for bias in the media, I'll be sure to inform the credulous unwashed masses who believe the bias exists. Including current and former members of the media(Bernard Goldberg and Chris Matthews will be glad I enlightened them.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, Goldberg! An objective study tested his assertion of liberal bias. Linguist, Geoffrey Nunberg's study examined Goldberg's claim that newscasters identify conservative politicians as "conservative" more than they call liberal politicians "liberal." Goldberg viewed this as stemming from the notion that the media see liberalism as "normal" while conservatism is outside the norm. Nunberg used an empirical word-count approach which revealed just the opposite:

http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/8/nunberg-g.html

Edit: See my other post for more:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...age=0&amp;vc=1

[/ QUOTE ]

I will be the first to admit that present day bias in the mainstream press is not nearly what it used to be. Years of brow beating and alternative sources have forced the major networks, for example, to attempt to be even handed in their coverage. Heck, even though Bush is President I haven't seem a homeless person story in quite awhile(Actually, I think homelessness ended January 20, 1993. Before that the big three networks had year long feature coverage from when homelessness started, January 20 1981)