Is the media liberal?

[Adami]

I suspect this is going to be divided into the no camp and the fox viewers. 

Personally, I'd say that the media covers a large spectrum.  There are plenty on both sides of the fulcrum, and outlets on both sides often report fairly neutrally.  So it'd be fair to say that there is some liberal media and some conservative media,  but all in all, I'd say they balance out pretty evenly. 

Why don't at least be fair when mentioning the Conservative slant of Fox news. You don't want to add that msnbc is completely liberal?
Seriously, you want to tell me Chris Mathews is unbiased?
How about Katey Couric at CBS. You want to tell me she is unbiased as well?
How about ABC news. There not liberal?

Please folks, lets keep it real huh?

WTF?  Not only did I suggest an equal amount of liberal bias, I also suggested that the conservative side was often impartial.

I guess I misinterpreted you because I thought you were saying the media is equally yolked? I think that is far from the case.

I don't know what Yolked means,

According to urban dictionary, it means having large muscles.

It means unbalanced.

Oh you mean Yoked.

[Tick]

I suspect this is going to be divided into the no camp and the fox viewers. 

Personally, I'd say that the media covers a large spectrum.  There are plenty on both sides of the fulcrum, and outlets on both sides often report fairly neutrally.  So it'd be fair to say that there is some liberal media and some conservative media,  but all in all, I'd say they balance out pretty evenly. 

Why don't at least be fair when mentioning the Conservative slant of Fox news. You don't want to add that msnbc is completely liberal?
Seriously, you want to tell me Chris Mathews is unbiased?
How about Katey Couric at CBS. You want to tell me she is unbiased as well?
How about ABC news. There not liberal?

Please folks, lets keep it real huh?

WTF?  Not only did I suggest an equal amount of liberal bias, I also suggested that the conservative side was often impartial.

I guess I misinterpreted you because I thought you were saying the media is equally yolked? I think that is far from the case.

I don't know what Yolked means,

According to urban dictionary, it means having large muscles.

It means unbalanced.

Oh you mean Yoked.

Damn it, you know I can't spell for shit!

[j]

I don't think "the media" gives a crap about political affiliations.  Sure individual "newscasters" have their own biases, they are just American people like you and me after all, but "the media" as a whole is probablly only concerned about money, ratings, etc.

Remember the people behind the networks have political affiliations too.  And of course they're primarily concerned about money; there is a LOT of money in politics.

-J

[orcus116]

Luckily there is a Fox news or the brainwashing of America would be complete.

Like many others have said this is kind of a dumb statement but I only say that because my grandfather watches FOX News all day every day and the stuff he spews out that he hears on there is absolutely ridiculous. I mean one time he insisted he heard on FOX that Sarah Palin's book Going Rogue was the second best selling book of all time behind The Bible.

My biggest problem with the network is how much of tabloid/TMZ style their "Coming up next! You won't BELIEVE..." previews are. They report on the most sensationalist topics in the most sensationalist style it's almost embarrassing.

[Tick]

Luckily there is a Fox news or the brainwashing of America would be complete.

Like many others have said this is kind of a dumb statement but I only say that because my grandfather watches FOX News all day every day and the stuff he spews out that he hears on there is absolutely ridiculous. I mean one time he insisted he heard on FOX that Sarah Palin's book Going Rogue was the second best selling book of all time behind The Bible.

My biggest problem with the network is how much of tabloid/TMZ style their "Coming up next! You won't BELIEVE..." previews are. They report on the most sensationalist topics in the most sensationalist style it's almost embarrassing.

The difference between me and your grandfather is Fox is probably his only news source, whereas it is only one perspective for me.
I still think they are a very necessary news outlet whether you think so or not.

[El Barto]

My biggest problem with the network is how much of tabloid/TMZ style their "Coming up next! You won't BELIEVE..." previews are. They report on the most sensationalist topics in the most sensationalist style it's almost embarrassing.

That's what I see every day from their headline feed, which is why I tend to dispute when people say that their news is fine and it's only the commentary that's biased.  Currently showing:

ObamaCare Shocker: 1 in 3 Employers to Ax Benefits

ObamaCare Shocker?  Really?

[King Postwhore]

I disagree. As PC and I discussed in the chat thread last week, their actual news reporting isn't much better.  There's often a bias in what you choose to [or not to] report.  And their headlines are often quite sensationalized, as well. 

This 1000%  El Barto, remember when the new was just reporting and we could make up our own mind?!  Now every reporter has to inject there feeling and thoughts.

[ReaPsTA]

I don't really think the media so much leans liberal as Democrat.  Considering that 70-80% of the people who work in the media are registered Democrats, I don't see why anyone would be shocked by the notion of a liberal media or find it offensive.  In what other entity in the world are the political leanings of its members irrelevant?  Why is the media the exception?

One of the headlines on MSNBC right now is "American Lesbian Blogger reportedly seized in Syria."  I don't think this is a bad thing at all, I'd almost say it's a good thing in many ways.  But is this story a headline because it's good business or because it tickles the fancy of the people who run the website?

I'm not trying to say conservatives don't have a voice in the media.  Talk Radio and Fox News have a lot of eyes and ears and therefore a lot of power.  But except for their specific viewers/listeners (which aren't even a majority of the country's population), they don't frame the debate about the issues in this country in any broader way.  Outside of people who watch FOX News or listen to Rush, taking anything they say seriously makes you look like an idiot*, even though all the TV networks do a terrible job at actually informing anyone about anything.

But to say a democratic/liberal/whatever bias doesn't permeate the New York Times, MSNBC, CNN, and on and on and on and on is unrealistic and purely reacting to conservatives who complain about liberal media bias.

And yes, ultimately members of the media care about satisfying their egos and making money than they do about promoting their politics.  But it's still not a good thing.

*FOX News sucks less than people think and CNN/MSNBC suck more than people think, but you still should never watch FOX News for any reason.  At least CNN and MSNBC are still pretending to be news networks.

[Tick]

*FOX News sucks less than people think and CNN/MSNBC suck more than people think, but you still should never watch FOX News for any reason.  At least CNN and MSNBC are still pretending to be news networks.

That's hilarious! You think MSNBC is more credible then Fox news?
MSNBC is real news?
Chris Mathews is a real journalist?
You'd be hard pressed to even have the bunch who post in this section to agree with that notion.
MSNBC is comedy central without the laughs.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

Wut?

First of all, nobody said anything about Chris Matthews. And he is technically a journalist. But not necessarily a reporter of the news.

Second, MSNBC is a good news outlet. It's just about on par with CNN and FOX as far as news reporting goes. Again, you can't judge a news network by their COMMENTATORS. But you CAN judge them on the news the anchors report

[El Barto]

One of the headlines on MSNBC right now is "American Lesbian Blogger reportedly seized in Syria."  I don't think this is a bad thing at all, I'd almost say it's a good thing in many ways.  But is this story a headline because it's good business or because it tickles the fancy of the people who run the website?

For the record, she's been a headline on every outlet all day, including FOX.  FOX just replaced her with a story about the Iranian women's soccer team*, but there headline was "'Gay Girl in Damascus' Blogger Kidnapped in Syria".

*It looks like FIFA has banned the wearing of niqabs, so they were disqualified.

[Tick]

Wut?

First of all, nobody said anything about Chris Matthews. And he is technically a journalist. But not necessarily a reporter of the news.

Second, MSNBC is a good news outlet. It's just about on par with CNN and FOX as far as news reporting goes. Again, you can't judge a news network by their COMMENTATORS. But you CAN judge them on the news the anchors report

"Wut?" 
I said something about Chris Mathews, so now someone did.
MSNBC is a complete joke and there abysmal ratings only had credence to that statement.
Your entitled to respect there channel, but I do not, and I'm not alone.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

I mean I don't understand why you brought him up. It's really irrelevant. Especially since he's a commentator, not a newscaster.

I'm not sure why you think it's a complete joke though. I don't think you've explained your POV

[Scheavo]

I don't really think the media so much leans liberal as Democrat.  Considering that 70-80% of the people who work in the media are registered Democrats, I don't see why anyone would be shocked by the notion of a liberal media or find it offensive.  In what other entity in the world are the political leanings of its members irrelevant?  Why is the media the exception?

I think there's a difference between the natural bias everyone has, as in how liberals will naturally have a liberal bias, and the proactive bias done by Fox News. Fox News isnt' simply conservatives showing off a natural bias, it's a "news" network specially designed to "combat" the liberal bias in the media. This is what makes it worse, and what makes it pretty much propaganda.

[Scheavo]

My biggest problem with the network is how much of tabloid/TMZ style their "Coming up next! You won't BELIEVE..." previews are. They report on the most sensationalist topics in the most sensationalist style it's almost embarrassing.

That's what I see every day from their headline feed, which is why I tend to dispute when people say that their news is fine and it's only the commentary that's biased.  Currently showing:

ObamaCare Shocker: 1 in 3 Employers to Ax Benefits

ObamaCare Shocker?  Really?

I've read some headlines from FOx News, and other conservative sites, only to click on the article, read through it, and find that the article directly contradicts the headline.

[Tick]

I mean I don't understand why you brought him up. It's really irrelevant. Especially since he's a commentator, not a newscaster.

I'm not sure why you think it's a complete joke though. I don't think you've explained your POV

Ok, since your young and have not been able to watch the networks were talking about for very long, I will tell you this. Back in the early 90's these networks were quite different then they are now. They were way more credible. All of them!
MSNBC in the 90's employed decent news reporters unlike now.
Its not just that there bias, they are nauseating.
People like, Keith Olbermann(at least he's gone now), Rachel Maddow, and Chris Mathews are not just TV personality's, they often anchor coverage for events like election night. There sniveling whining is unbearable to listen to, and I have.

As bias as Fox is, so is MSNBC. That was my original point, and its indisputable. So to say "don't watch Fox, watch MSNBC, because they are still a credible news outlet" is a joke comment.
To say MSNBC is credible, and Fox is not in not a credible viewpoint. Anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong.
I'm smart enough to know they are both the same type of coverage, except they reside on opposite sides of the fence.

Am I crystal clear enough for you now?
I hope so.

[PraXis]

The majority of media outlets are liberal, such as MSNBC, CNN, HLN, ABC, CBS, and then you have just about every major newspaper in the country.

Conservatives have Fox News (which features more liberal talking points than the other networks feature conservatives), the WSJ, and the NY Post.

Fox News destroys the other networks in ratings and the WSJ/NY Post are actually making money, unlike the NY Times (for example).

Conservatives dominate AM Radio though. Liberals used to have "Air America" but that was an abysmal failure.

[Rathma]

Compared to the internet, no, not really.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

The majority of media outlets are liberal, such as MSNBC, CNN, HLN, ABC, CBS, and then you have just about every major newspaper in the country.

Conservatives have Fox News (which features more liberal talking points than the other networks feature conservatives), the WSJ, and the NY Post.

Fox News destroys the other networks in ratings and the WSJ/NY Post are actually making money, unlike the NY Times (for example).

Conservatives dominate AM Radio though. Liberals used to have "Air America" but that was an abysmal failure.

Do better ratings make a better news station though? I learned that people will watch what they already agree with, and not who reports the news the best. Thus conservatives tend to watch FOX and liberals CNN, etc. But just because more people watch it does NOT necessarily mean that they do a better job.

[rumborak]

The US media on the whole, when compared with the rest of the world, is actually conservative, if anything.

rumborak

[Scheavo]

Here's my point:

Anthony Wiener's Scandal is gaining a lot of coverage from the media (left and right), much more than it deserves. It's getting more press coverage then Jon Ensign, even though Jon Ensign did majorly illegal things, and pretty much raped the women he was having an affair with.

Why? Because he's a liberal. The media, since it follows conservative talking points and dialogue, is covering it more than it should.

[chknptpie]

Nah, its not that the media is more conservative. It's that its funny, involves sex and nudity and gets the most viewers.

[j]

Nah, its not that the media is more conservative. It's that its funny, involves sex and nudity and gets the most viewers.

Basically this.  And also I didn't think most networks were giving it that much attention at all.  Of course it's all they've been talking about for weeks on Fox News (as expected), but when I flip through the major news stations, none of the others have done much more than acknowledge it.

-J

[El Barto]

I'm pretty tired of hearing about Wiener's wiener as well, but he did bring a lot of it on himself.  He tried for days to deny the whole thing, and any outlet in the world is going to try and nail him for it.  I certainly am seeing some bias in reports about whether or not he should continue to serve, though.  And, I'm unfamiliar with the Ensign affair, so that might suggest some coverage bias, as well.

[rumborak]

FOX will pound on it because for once a Democrat gets into the news with stuff that almost is a sole province of Republicans. In general, it's of course not as much fun to see this happen to a Democrat, since it's the Republicans who pound on their family values so much.

rumborak

[Scheavo]

Nah, its not that the media is more conservative. It's that its funny, involves sex and nudity and gets the most viewers.

Which is why the daily show covers it.

But you don't actually disprove my point. If the media was truly liberal, as how Fox News is conservative, they wouldn't even cover the issue. They pander to their consumer much more than they ever try and convince their viewers of something specific (as fox news does).

And Fox News is the biggest news source for Americans. More people watch Fox than anything else. You can't just ignore Fox because it's lol-worthy, they're a large part of the media, drive a lot of the stories, and influence a lot of Americans.

Which brings me back to my original post, and why it was simple yes or no to the media being liberal, and not an option for it being "conservative" (because it wouldn't be quite that either). I'm not asking if sections are liberal, but my entire life I've been hearing about the "liberal media" and how it drives what people think in this country. That just hasn't been true for my entire adult life. The drudgereport is also a highly influential media source, and drives much of the news cycle, whether people actually visit the site or not (it gets news stories a lot of hits, which make them popular, which get other people to look at the story). Same for Fox News.

[Scheavo]

I'm pretty tired of hearing about Wiener's wiener as well, but he did bring a lot of it on himself.  He tried for days to deny the whole thing, and any outlet in the world is going to try and nail him for it.  I certainly am seeing some bias in reports about whether or not he should continue to serve, though.  And, I'm unfamiliar with the Ensign affair, so that might suggest some coverage bias, as well.

Exactly! People don't even know about Ensign, not unless you watch MSNBC. He actually has pending criminal charges, and the senate ethics committee was goin to kick him out of the Senate, but he resigned right before they could.

Basically, he forced his best friends wife to have sex with him, largely against his desires, and when the husband found out, he paid him off, and gave him a job. I think i'm summarizing that correctly, but look for yourself. He did illegal things, whereas Anthony Weiner was simply internet-cheating on his wife.

[senecadawg2]

perhaps the real question: Is the media biased? '

Yes it is... some biased liberal media and some biased conservative media. However, there is no way i'm going to say that 'the media' as a whole is liberal when the most watched news station is Fox.

[Dublagent66]

Shocking, the liberal posters say no, the conservative posters say yes.

Yeah, I was gonna say that is depends on who you ask.  Fox News is known for providing coverage that gives people information from both sides and everything in between. CNN and MSNBC are known for their biased points of view.  There's also a big difference between providing facts and giving your take on those facts as opposed to providing selective facts and leaving the rest out.

[Scheavo]

Shocking, the liberal posters say no, the conservative posters say yes.

Yeah, I was gonna say that is depends on who you ask.  Fox News is known for providing coverage that gives people information from both sides and everything in between. CNN and MSNBC are known for their biased points of view.  There's also a big difference between providing facts and giving your take on those facts as opposed to providing selective facts and leaving the rest out.

YOu mean like how FOx News does?

[PlaysLikeMyung]

Fox News is known for providing coverage that gives people information from both sides and everything in between. CNN and MSNBC are known for their biased points of view.

Really? Because FOX is also well known for being biased towards the right. Or at least that's what I hear.

[rumborak]

Shocking, the liberal posters say no, the conservative posters say yes.

Yeah, I was gonna say that is depends on who you ask.  Fox News is known for providing coverage that gives people information from both sides and everything in between. CNN and MSNBC are known for their biased points of view.  There's also a big difference between providing facts and giving your take on those facts as opposed to providing selective facts and leaving the rest out.

Come on, dude, even conservatives, when they're honest with themselves, know that FOX is a pretty low-quality station. Look at the news item about the SWAT item, which turned out to be wrong on at least one key item. No respectable news station picked it up because they knew it probably was hyped, only the really cheapo internet sites picked it up, and FOX News. Or, remember the Photoshop thing? Such blatant abuse of news power is really only with FOX.

rumborak

[Quadrochosis]

I tend to find that arguments that say the media is too liberal are a little ridiculous. Sure, there are talk shows on MSNBC that are very liberal (not really news though) but for the most part I tend to find the media to be pretty much middle of the road.

When you think about it, all these media companies are owned by extremely wealthy people that are (probably) conservative (at least economically, since they are loaded) so if anything news outlets are a little on the conservative side (at least when it comes to business)

Also, I think the bigger problem is how shitty the media actually is overall (severe lack of professional journalism from both camps, left and right). Political leanings is lesser of an issue, since any competent person should be able to see blatant bias.

[PowerSlave]

I keep seeing people mention CNN as being liberal. I have to wonder if the only reason they're saying it is because it doesn't prop up the right so, they think that means that it's liberal. The whole "if you're not with us then you're against us" mentality? I will agree that their documentaries do tend to be liberal but, their news delivery(while being somewhat sleep inducing at times) seems to be fairly neutral to me.

Neutral in this case means center/right.

[hefdaddy42]

"The Media" isn't anything.  The only people who think "the media" is liberal are conservatives who don't see the things they think are important discussed all the time in "the media."