Binkster Thinktank

2005-08-21T20:26:00.000-04:00

Wonders Never Cease
--------------------
Well it seems that sadly my summer is drawing to a close. Yes it is still hot enough to receive national heat warnings here in DC, but my marker for summers end is almost here. Yes I’m heading back to school. This will hopefully be my last year, at least for a while. I am a mere 24 credits away from a bachelor’s degree, hazah! After which I will join the ranks of the gainfully employed, unless my backup plan of marrying a doctor/lawyer/otherwise moderately wealthy woman who wants a man to tend the house come through, in which case I’m going to bake and be the parent chaperon on field trips. I’m totally cool with that. I am the future generation of stay home dads, or if my little guys don’t swim, simple a stay home husband.

Speaking of education, I received a shock today, after much wailing and gnashing of teeth concerning my Spanish 102 summer class, I found out I got a B. Keep in mind I was anticipating the lower spectrum of D. I am speechless, as was the case for most the class, which is why I wasn’t anticipating good things.

On the entertainment front, with my recent moving into a new apartment and getting cable for the first time (long story, in a nut shell, my mother correctly believed cable = waste of time/money, would rot brain) I am now addicted to Dog the Bounty Hunter on A&E. I don’t know if it’s the rough crime quelling attitude or the striking Hawaii location. Just can get enough.

And finally in international affairs, China and Russia engage in Orwellian language escapades, naming their joint war games as Peace Mission 2005. I guess that marketed better than Global Domination 2005.

2005-08-03T18:45:00.000-04:00

Pardon the Interruption
---------------------------
I'm sure the multitude of people who regularly peruse this fine web publication were going crazy over the lack of new fresh content, and to those 3 people I apologize. So the reason for my away time is that I have just moved in to a fantastic new apartment, shedding the dormitory life and moving into the real world. Fun fun fun.

That and I’m swamped with my summer Spanish class. As divinely as a spin the English language these skills are not directly transferable to Spanish, where I have a hard time counting above 10.

But all this is besides the point. Point is I am now moved in, with all the luxuries of basic cable and internet so be on the lookout for more posting from the cornucopia of ramblings in my head. Prepare to enjoy again.

2005-07-11T19:41:00.000-04:00

Closing thoughts on the"Liberal Media"...
The final instalment of a series
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Even now with admitted self-censorship, three years of U.S. occupation, 13,190 wounded, 1,752 Americans dead, and no weapons of mass destruction , criticism is sharp on a media that fails to paint a happy picture of Iraq. In September of 2003, MSNBC host Joe Scarborough told viewers that "some of the most powerful media players in America don't want America to succeed in Iraq…. American soldiers have told me that the biggest morale challenge that they are facing is not Saddam and Osama's thugs, but, rather, it's dealing with the biased, slanted reports that they're getting from American news organizations." [i] [1]

In response to claims that reporters were overlooking “good” stories, Newsweek magazine noted that journalists who might actually try and cover what these critics deem the "good" news are discouraged from doing so. They write, "In Baghdad, official control over the news is getting tighter. Journalists used to walk freely into the city’s hospitals and the morgue to keep count of the day’s dead and wounded. Now the hospitals have been declared off-limits and morgue officials turn away reporters who aren’t accompanied by a Coalition escort."[ii]

FAIR points that that “while critics say journalists should be chastised for not reporting on hospitals, the occupation forces are making it more difficult for reporters to actually visit them”. Moreover FAIR suggests “whether they are based in Baghdad or in Washington, journalists are obliged to report the news on the ground, not as "good" or "bad" but as news, regardless of how it fits with the vision the administration would like Americans to see”.[iii]

It would seem that in the light of these situations that allegations of a pure and malicious news media bias are unfounded. With such a pivotal part of America society within its sphere of influence the charge of having no credibility is perplexing at best. The goal of an objective press should always be paramount. Brent Cunningham says “Objectivity has persisted for some valid reasons, the most important being that nothing better has replaced it. And plenty of good journalists believe in it, at least as a necessary goal. Objectivity, or the pursuit of it, separates us from the unbridled partisanship found in much of the European press.”

Why then is there this constant barrage of accusations? Michael Parenti in a Humanist article suggests “For one thing, attacks from the right help create a climate of opinion favorable to the right. Railing against the press's "liberalism" is a way of putting the press on the defensive, keeping it leaning rightward for its respectability, so that liberal opinion in this country is forever striving for credibility within a conservatively defined framework....Their goal is not partial control but perfect control, not an overbearing advantage (which they already have) but total dominance of the communication universe. Anything short of unanimous support for a rightist agenda is treated as evidence of liberal bias. Expecting the press corps to be a press chorus, the conservative ideologue, like any imperious maestro, reacts sharply to the occasionally discordant note.”[iv]

What then can be a solution to this perceived problem? Brent Cunningham suggests, “As we [journalists] descend into this new age of partisanship, our readers need, more than ever, reliable reporting that tells them what is true when that is knowable, and pushes as close to truth as possible when it is not.”

While it is impossible to separate the humanity from the journalist it should be fair to say that the intent of both as one is good. It is then important to examine the fruits of their labor and aim to hold them both up and accountable so that they can fully aid in the process of democracy. We live in important time with important decisions to make. We must be well informed if we are to make wise decisions. It is key to have a reliable source of information in the media to help us along the way.

[1] One can only hope the biggest moral crasher is the media saying you living in a hellhole, never mind the reality of actually living in one with dieing service men, and little kids with grenades all around you. Damn you liberal media!

[i] Is media bias filtering out good news from Iraq? (2003, October 23). Fair & Accuracy In Reporting. Retrieved April 25, 2005 from http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1840

[ii] Ibid

[iii] Ibid

[iv] Parenti, M. (1995 January). The myth of a liberal media. Humanist. 55, Issue 1, 7-10.

2005-07-10T18:18:00.000-04:00

The"Liberal Media" and Iraq coverage...
some more for you to ponder
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States unilateral preemptive strike against Iraq is one of this budding decade’s biggest stories. Surely a liberal media would pounce on this opportunity to question and challenge a conservative administrations tactics. To the contrary, the media was not only lacking a liberal slant, but it failed in its duty to serve as a balance and fact checker to the Executive branch’s hawkish march to war. Once the actual invasion began the media still was limited in its objective coverage, instead serving as sounding board, repeating the Administrations message.

A study by Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) found that television newscasts largely excluded skeptics of the invasion of Iraq in the two weeks of coverage leading up to the event. In its study FAIR examined 393 on-camera sources in nightly news stories about Iraq. More than two-thirds of the guests featured were from the United States. Of the U.S. guests, 75% were either current or former government or military officials. Similarly, when both U.S. and non-U.S. guests were included, 76% were either current or retired officials. FAIR asserts that such a predominance of official sources virtually assures that independent and dissenting perspectives will be underrepresented.

Of all official sources, 75% were associated with either the U.S. or with governments that supported the Bush administration's position on Iraq. Only 2% of these sources were skeptics or opponents of war. Of the total on-camera sources only 68, or 17%, represented skeptical or critical positions on the U.S.'s war policy.[i]

Part of this lack of perspective could be due to the relativity little accountability demanded by America’s prominent newspapers.

Washington Post editors acknowledge that the President and other administration officials had no problem receiving prominent coverage in the paper, even when their warnings were repetitive. "We are inevitably the mouthpiece for whatever administration is in power," said Karen DeYoung, a former assistant managing editor for the Post. "If the president stands up and says something, we report what the president said." And if contrary arguments are put "in the eighth paragraph, where they're not on the front page, a lot of people don't read that far."[ii]

In an October 2004 Post article, reporter Howard Kurtz states that “the front page is a newspaper's billboard, its way of making a statement about what is important, and stories trumpeted there are often picked up by other news outlets”. The troubling part of this is that the Post acknowledges that its coverage was self censored, moving questioning articles to the middle of the paper, away from front page prominence. “We did our job but we didn't do enough, and I blame myself mightily for not pushing harder," said Post assistant managing editor Bob Woodward. “We should have warned readers we had information that the basis for this was shakier [than widely believed]...Those are exactly the kind of statements that should be published on the front page."[iii]

Across the country, "the voices raising questions about the war were lonely ones," said Post executive editor Leonard Downie Jr. "We didn't pay enough attention to the minority." The Post article also points to how some other news organizations have “cast a withering eye on their earlier work”. Specifically cited were The New York Times and The New Republic magazine[1] expressing regret for their prewar editorial arguments about the Iraq invasion.[iv]

Other forms of media also unduly practiced self-regulation. In a 2005 study reported by Editor& Publisher, it was found the many media outlets “self-censored their reporting on the Iraq invasion because of concerns about public reaction to graphic images and content”.[v]

This is a disturbing but not easily understood issue. “There is no single explanation for these holes in the coverage, but I would argue that our devotion to what we call "objectivity" played a role.” Writes Brent Cunningham, of the Columbia Journalism Review “It's true that the Bush administration is like a clenched fist with information, one that won't hesitate to hit back when pressed. And that reporting on the possible aftermath of a war before the war occurs, in particular, was a difficult and speculative story.”[vi]

[1] These two news sources are often lambasted by the Right as being the bastions of the liberal media. If these strong hold of the press’s liberal slant were deferring to the right, how much more were “objective news sources" doing?

[i] Rendall, S. & Broughel, T. (2003 May). Amplifying Officials, Squelching Dissent. Fair & Accuracy In Reporting. Retrieved April 25, 2005 from http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1145

[ii] Kurtz, H. (2004, August 12). The Post on WMDs: An inside story. The Washington Post. p. A01 Retrieved April 22, 2005 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58127-2004Aug11.html

[iii] Ibid

[iv] Ibid

[v] Strupp, J. (2005, March 19). Study: Media self-censored some Iraq coverage. Editor & Publisher. Retrieved April 22, 2005 from http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000846234

[vi] Cunningham, B. (2003 April). Re-thinking Objectivity. Columbia Journalism Review. 456, 33-41.

2005-07-08T00:08:00.000-04:00

A few examples of
"Liberal Media" coverage...
The saga continues
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Let’s now examine if there is a perceived bias in three different prominent news stories of the past year. First we will examine the coverage of the death of Ronald Reagan, then the 2005 Inauguration, and finally the media’s coverage of the United States actions Iraq.[1]

In June of 2004 Ronald Regan, the 40^th President of the United States and deity of the modern conservative movement passed away at age 93. Surely this figurehead of conservatism would be meticulously analyzed and critiqued in his death by a liberal media. But that was not the case. Instead there was an overflowing of warm memories and purely positive sentiment. Despite Reagan’s record of deficit spending, fiscal and tax policies leading to increased social inequality, considering Nelson Mandela a terrorist, completely ignoring the emerging AIDS epidemic, and the Iran-Contra scandal, he was remembered and praised as the sole conquer of communism, the Great Communicator, and the funny cowboy everyone loved. [i]

Columnist Scott Holleran in Capitalism Magazine puts it in perspective, “The American public's response to Ronald Reagan's death reflects the cheerful, American sense of life that Mr. Reagan brought to the White House...Ronald Reagan was as engaging as everyone says, as this writer had the pleasure of discovering first-hand while working on his presidential campaign in 1980”. While Holleran freely admits these memories are pleasant, they are “no substitute for an appraisal of Mr. Reagan's political philosophy. From the beginning of his presidency, Ronald Reagan was neither a true defender of capitalism nor a great commander in chief. Wrongly using religion as the moral defense of free markets and letting faith blind him to the dangers of America's enemies, Mr. Reagan laid the foundation for today's faith-based presidency.”

This accurate summary of Reagan’s politics was nowhere to be found in the month long media orgy over his death. Holleran surmises, “Americans ought to revere what is good about Ronald Reagan, but we must acknowledge reality first”.[ii]

In yet another distinguished ceremony of America’s civil religion, the 2005 Presidential inauguration served as an opportunity for a liberal media to show its true colors. With the incumbent President wining by one of the narrower margins in history and facing a daunting second term due to first term decisions, a liberal media would be sure to strike. But that was not the case. Salon’s Eric Boehlert states that the “notion that the television networks or 24-hour news channels would spend their inauguration coverage contrasting the scenes of wealthy corporate donors toasting the president while young soldiers and middle-aged Guardsmen battle in Iraq is wildly naive...The idea that broadcast journalists would use this celebration, of all things, as a time to press President Bush on Iraq simply does not reflect the modus operandi of today's mainstream media.”[iii]

Media Matters for America (MMFA), a self styled “progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media”[iv], documented that all the pundits or commentators who appeared on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC during the channels' January 20 inauguration coverage. Between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. EST, Republican and conservative guests outnumbered Democrats and progressives 19 to 7 on Fox News, 10 to 1 on CNN[2], and 13 to 2 on MSNBC. MMFA also noted that “the rare Democrat or progressive guest usually appeared opposite conservatives, whereas most Republican and conservative guests and commentators appeared solo or alongside fellow conservatives”.[v]

This trend continued through primetime inauguration coverage as well. MMFA found that Republican and conservative guests outnumbered Democrats and progressives 25 to 4 on Fox News, 7 to 1 on CNN[3], and 9 to 5 on MSNBC.[vi]

It comes as little surprise with this Republican/conservative slanted commentary then that the cable news networks downplayed and mocked inauguration protesters. MMFA documents how commentators on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News all “ridiculed inauguration protesters, downplayed their numbers and significance; and implied that they posed a security threat”.[vii] If this arm of the media was as liberally biased as it is claimed, then unquestionably they would have taken this chance to give liberal dissenters a national platform.

[1] These three news stories represent to me a time and opportunity for the news media to really show what they are made of. The public will turn to them in these situations as part of a grand ritual of our common civil religion. How the media acts during these times should be a strong indicator to their typical coverage perspective. These events represent times of sadness, celebration, and conflict, the bias of any relationship.

[2] This does not including a Republican-skewed panel featuring Ohio voters.

[3] Again this does not including a Republican-skewed panel featuring Ohio voters

[i]Ronald Regan: Wikipedia encyclopedia. Retrieved , April 21, 2005 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan

[ii] Holleran, S. ( 2004, June 14). America's Funeral: Ronald Reagan in Perspective. Capitalism Magazine. Retrieved , April 25, 2005, from http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3732

[iii]Boehlert, E. (2005, Jan. 20). Giving Bush a pass – again. Salon.com. Retrieved , April 25, 2005, from http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2005/01/20/media_on_inauguration/

[iv] Who we are. Media Matters for America Retrieved April 23, 2005, from http://mediamatters.org/etc/about.html

[v] No room for progressives on cable news inauguration coverage. (2005, January 20). Media Matters for America. Retrieved April 20, 2005 from http://mediamatters.org/items/200501210001

[vi] No room for progressives on primetime in inauguration coverage either. (2005, January 21). Media Matters for America. Retrieved April 20, 2005 from http://mediamatters.org/items/200501220001

[vii] Cable news dismissed and ridiculed inauguration protesters. (2005, January 21). Media Matters for America. Retrieved April 12, 2005 from http://mediamatters.org/items/200501210007

2005-07-07T01:47:00.000-04:00

Another Serving of
"Liberal Media" ?...
Yet another part of a continueing series
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Leading the charge against the accusations of an overarching all inclusive liberal media bias is Eric Alterman, author of What Liberal Media?: The Truth About Bias and the News. Alterman is a Professor of English at Brooklyn College of the City University of New York, a media columnist for The Nation, a blogger for MSNBC.com, a senor fellow at the Center for American Progress, and an author of five other books.

Alterman points out “Republicans of all stripes have done quite well for themselves during the past five decades fulminating about the liberal cabal/ progressive thought police who spin, supplant and sometimes suppress the news we all consume”. Alterman goes on to highlight the success of such a wide array of unarguably conservative news media from Fox News to The Weekly Standard and Limbaugh, stating “no sensible person can dispute the existence of a conservative media”. He also acknowledges there is also a liberal media saying “it is tiny and profoundly under funded compared with its conservative counterpart”.[i]

In the Nation article “After You, My Dear Alphonse” columnist Katha Pollitt asks “What's the matter with conservatives? They have the White House, both houses of Congress, the majority of governorships and more money than God. They rule talk-radio and the TV political chat shows, and they get plenty of space in the papers; for all the talk about the liberal media, nine out of the fourteen most widely syndicated columnists are conservatives. What I want to know is why can't they just admit it, throw a big party and dance on the table with lampshades on their heads? Why are they always claiming to be excluded and silenced because most English professors are Democrats?

She goes on to observe for conservatives it seems that “running the country turns out to be harder than it looked... [Bill Clinton] made it seem so easy! Now, unemployment is way up, the government's awash in red ink, Iraq is a mess. So, everything has to be someone else's fault... They can dish it out, but they sure can't take it”.[ii]

[i] Alterman, E. (2003, February 24). What Liberal Media? Nation, 276, Issue 7.

[ii] Pollitt, K. (2003, October 20). After You, My Dear Alphonse. Nation, 277, Issue 12.

2005-06-28T17:12:00.000-04:00

A Brief Pause from Our Sponsors
That being me...

Well I’m home for a bit, back in the lovely state of Oregon, for a brief vacation I suppose you can call it. I'm back to visit with my folks and go to a few friends weddings, which seem to happen with greater frequency as time goes on. All these wedding presents, how many place settings can everyone really want? Next thing they'll be having kids and what not, and I'll have to buy presents for them to. I’m not sure my budget can handle this. Who am I kidding, so far I’ve mostly been chipping in with my folks for the gifts; translation I choose it, they pay for it.

Be on the look out for infrequent updates on my travels and tomfoolery as the next week unfolds. Also my liberal media postings will continue once I return to DC.

2005-06-23T21:32:00.000-04:00

It keeps coming
"Liberal Media" ?...
Fourth in a series
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Cable news is a relative young feature of the national news media. Having its beginnings in the early Eighties, but coming of age within the past decade, it now is the main source of information for many American’s whose schedule don’t allow for the traditional networks new broadcast in the early evening.[1]

The forefather of the cable news format is CNN. Cable News Network or CNN is the original 24-hour news station. Launched in 1980 by Ted Turner, it is a division of the Turner Broadcasting System, owned by Time Warner and currently has a reach of over 88.2 million homes. CNN is traditionally known for its ability to show events quickly, frequently, and at great length. The first major attention garnered by CNN was during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, where it featured unprecedented news coverage from the ground. CNN broadcasts primarily from its headquarters at the CNN Center in Atlanta as well as from studios in New York City and Washington, D.C.

Thought not the first, Fox News Channel is now America’s “most watched news channel”. Owned by the Fox Entertainment Group, a subsidiary of Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, it is available to 85 million subscribers in the United States. First launched in October of 1996, the network quickly gained standing in the late 1990’s as it started taking market share away from CNN. Fox News presents a wide variety of programming, with up to 15 hours of live programming per day. Fox primarily broadcasts out of its Rockefeller Center studios in New York City.

Two of the networks trade mark slogans are “Fair and Ballanced" and “We Report, You Decide”. The obvious implication of these two catch phrases is that all the other networks deliver a skewed perspective. However it is most often fox that is accused of having a bias in its reporting.[2]

The last station I will analyze is MSNBC, a 24-hour news channel available in over 76 million households in the U.S. and with most broadcasting coming primarily from its studios in Secaucus, New Jersey. Founded by Microsoft and General Electric, which owns NBC Universal, and launched in July of 1996, MSNBC is currently America's third-most-watched cable news channel, after Fox News and CNN.

According to a study by Tien-Tsung Lee in the Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, “despite research to the contrary, the general public and a significant number of politicians are convinced the U.S. news media have a liberal and pro-Democratic bias. Findings based on two large national surveys suggest that audiences' ideologies and partisanships affect how they view the media. Strong conservatives and Republicans are more likely to distrust the news media, whereas the best predictor of a media bias perception is political cynicism”.[i]

One of the primary promoters of the accusation of a liberal media is the Media Research Center (MRC) founded by Brent Bozell in October of 1987. This group’s self described mission is to “bring balance and responsibility to the news media” and prove that “liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values”. They aim to not only expose the heinous liberal scoundrel influence on media, but to “neutralize its impact on the American political scene”.[3]

In a special repot released by the MRC in June of 2004 entitled “The Liberal Media Every Poll Shows Journalists Are More Liberal than the American Public — And the Public Knows It” they describe how “surveys over the past twenty-five years have consistently found that journalists are more liberal than rest of America”. This MRC Special Report summarized the relevant data on journalist attitudes, as well as polling showing how the American public’s recognition of the media’s liberal bias has grown over the years: This data was broke down into four sections. The first area outlines how journalists vote for liberals, the next that journalists say they are liberal, thirdly journalists reject conservative positions, and finally that the public recognizes the bias.[ii]

Much of MRC’s argument is centered on journalist personal opinions documented either in studies or on political talk shows where they are asked to express their own opinions. While this provides an interesting insight into how the reporter’s cognitive thought process operates, I feel it is a poor argument for bias since there is no collaborating evidence of biased “hard news” produced. Since the professional journalists community ascribe to an ethos of accuracy, attention which would be called to it if violated. Instead of a liberal bias being scene, many journalists in retrospect are seeing more self censorship the norm, especially in today’s political climate.[4]

This survey, full of old data[5], was conveniently released five months prior to the 2004 presidential elections, packaged to fit current political models. For example, journalists are reported as voting for Democrats in elections. This is faulty reasoning to equate them with liberalism. While some Democrats are liberal, the most recent Democratic president, Bill Clinton, was seen as centrist by most. Also the data from the 1970’s political voting record of journalist is very dated both because the body of journalist has changed since then and because the nature of the political parties has shifted since then.[iii]

Similarly in his book Weapons Of Mass Distortion: The Coming Meltdown of the Liberal Media, Bozell, from his clearly conservative bias, unsuccessful attempts to prove that the news-reporting media is more liberally biased than it is conservatively. Kirkus Review is quick to point out that while he maintains that he is talking about liberal bias in hard reporting, not commentary, he repeatedly draws on liberal commentators as exemplars of bias.[iv]

[1] In a June 2002 study by the Pew Research Center it’s reported that “About half (48%) describe themselves as news grazers people who check in on news from time to time over the course of the day. Roughly the same proportion (49%) get the news more habitually, watching or listening at regular times. Compared to habituals, grazers are considerably younger, less interested in serious news, and use media sources at lower rates except for cable and online news.” http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=156

[2] This identity could be due to their abundance of conservative on-air personalities. Media Matters for America has logged over 520 instances where Fox News has broadcast questionable news content. This is compared to a tally of 175 incidences against CNN and 178 for MSNBC.

[3] Not quite the fair and balanced approach from the start you would look for in a media analysis group. But those damn conservatives, our way or the highway, or more aptly Guantanamo Bay.

[4] Take special note of media censorship in Iraq war coverage in later sections.

[5] Data taken largely from survey conducted in the early 1970’s and 1980’s. No offense is meant for those who see these eras as not too long ago, my apologies, but the pace at which politics and media change from day to day is vitally important, so data aged this much will have little in a current study unless its purpose is examining trends or changes.

[i] Lee, T. (2005) The liberal media myth revisited: An examination of factors influencing perceptions of media bias. [Abstract] Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 49, No.1, 43-64. Retrieved April 22, 2005, from http://www.leaonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15506878jobem4901_4

[ii] Noyes, R. (2004) The liberal media: Every poll shows journalists are more liberal than

the American public — and the public knows it. Alexandria, VA: Media Research Center. Retrieved April 22, 2005, from http://www.mediaresearch.org/specialreports/2004/sum/sum063004.asp

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] Weapons Of Mass Distortion: The Coming Meltdown of the Liberal Media (Book). (2004, May 1). [Review]. Kirkus Reviews, 72, Issue 9, 427. Retrieved April 23, 2005, from Academic Search Premier database.

2005-06-22T21:56:00.000-04:00

Even More "Liberal Media" ?...
Third in a series
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Why then the large perception of a liberal media bias? Where is it founded?
Let’s first define some of the core terms we will be using with frequency. Merriam-Webster's defines bias as “an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially: a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment or prejudice, also a systematic error ... encouraging one outcome or answer over others”.[i] Donna Rouner, Michael Slater, and Judith Buddenbaum in their article “How perceptions of news bias in news sources relate to beliefs about media bias”, specifically define media bias as a “perceived attribute of a news source whereby the individual news source, or the group the news source represents, has a clear, vested interest in a cause or action relative to maintaining or changing the status quo.” They go on to explain “A highly biased source generally would be presented in a journalistic account as operating to alter the status quo in some fashion, like eliminating taxes or making abortions illegal. A biased journalistic perspective, then, would mean only one side, not two or more sides, of an issue is presented.”[ii]

The two opposing attitudes of this divide can be labeled as liberal and conservative in persuasion. Liberal, also referred to in this paper as progressive, can be defined a political [belief] associated with ideals of individual freedom, greater intellectual liberty, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives, such as the U.S. Constitution.[iii] [1]

Conservative, or more accurately for this work, neoconservatives, are characterized by an aggressive moralist stance on foreign policy, a lesser social conservatism, weaker dedication to a policy of minimal government.[iv] [2]

For the sake of full disclosure, I perceive myself as ascribing to a liberal/progressive point of view. I feel former President John F. Kennedy sums up my views, “If by a Liberal they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people – their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties – someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a Liberal, then I'm proud to say I'm a Liberal”.

Now that we have a lexicon, let’s look to the medium we will be examining. While most news media is interrelated taking cues from each other, if not directly connected though business conglomerates owning controlling proportions, I will focus on three specific stations and three news events while still giving appropriate attention to other news media.

[1] Classic antagonistic descriptions also include whiner, America hater, traitor, hippie, liar, communist, hypocrite, tax raising, hard work hating, baby killing, and elitist snobs. Usually used when losing in a discussion or writing a book.

[2] Also referred to as bible-thumping, gun-loving, uneducated, inbred rednecks, confederate-flag-waving, bastards. Most often referred to as such after an evening of imbibing.

[i]Bias: Definition. Marion-Webster Online. Retrieved April 24, 2005, from http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=bias&x=20&y=13

[ii] Rouner, D., Slater, M.D., & Buddenbaum, J.M. (1999) How perceptions of news bias in news sources relate to beliefs about media bias. [Electronic Version] Newspaper Research Journal. 20, Issue 2, 41-52

[iii] Liberal: Wikipedia encyclopedia. Retrieved , April 21, 2005 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal

[iv] Conservative: Wikipedia encyclopedia. Retrieved , April 21, 2005 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative

2005-06-21T19:15:00.000-04:00

"Liberal Media" ?...Contiued
The second in a series
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The traditionally high place held for the news media has been diminishing of late. A Pew Research Center (PRC) polls found that in July of 2003 only 52% of those polled believe that the press protects democracy, 20% thought it did neither or they didn’t know, and 28% believe that it actually hurts democracy. This concern could be linked to popular belief that the media is increasingly biased. In the same PRC poll, even though 62% agreed that news organizations were “highly professional”, 53% also agreed that they were “politically biased”, with 51% overall believing they have a liberal ideological tilt.[i] Oliver Willis, a progressive political blogger of note, attributes this to the “republican noise machine” of conservative pundits continually decrying the “liberal elite” media for being biased

This perceived news media bias runs contrary to the professional code of ethics outline by the SPJ. It clearly states, “conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility.”[ii] They put forward four imperative ethical areas for journalist.

First journalist must seek truth and report it. Specifically “journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information”. Next is the aim to minimize harm. Elaborating SPJ explains “ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect”. The last two guidelines are perhaps most important in the battle for objective accuracy. The third guideline calls for journalist to act independently, “journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know”. Lastly PSJ directs journalist to be accountable. “Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other. Journalists should: clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct, encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media, admit mistakes and correct them promptly, expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media, and abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.”[iii]

While not mandatory, the SPJ Code of Ethics is voluntarily embraced by thousands of
writers, editors and other news professionals. The present version of the code was adopted by the 1996 SPJ National Convention, after months of study and debate among the Society's members.

[i] Strong Opposition to Media Cross-Ownership Emerges: Public Wants Neutrality and Pro-American Point of View. (July 13, 2003) Pew Research Center. Retrieved April 26, 2005, from http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=188.

[ii] Code of Ethics. Society of Professional Journalists. Retrieved April 25, 2005, from http://www.spj.org/ethics_code.asp

[iii] Ibid

2005-06-21T00:37:00.000-04:00

"Liberal Media" ?
The first of a multipost series
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In our three-tiered government of federal, congressional, and judicial powers, there is a forth branch, keeping an eye on all the others. This pillar of our politic is the news media, the eyes and ears of the public. Their duty is inform us about our public servants actions and the countries events. American founding father Thomas Jefferson stated “The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure.” Clearly the importance of media integrity cannot be underestimated. It is then perplexing to hear some accuse this institution, divided among few hands, as being biased and liberal. While I prescribe to a liberal mindset, I am still uncomfortable with a subjective news source since it is often my only recourse for information when making civic decisions.

But is this accusation entirely correct or simply a reaction by sects of ideologs who are upset with truthful reporting that fails to support their opinions? In this paper I will investigate the claim of a liberal bias in the media, focusing particularly in the realm of cable news networks, specifically CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC, who devote 24 hours a day presenting the public with the news and informative commentary. Investigating reports and statistical breakdowns of various news events, with special attention paid to three important news events of the last year; the death and funeral of Ronald Reagan, the 2005 Presidential inauguration and the coverage of the United States involvement in Iraq, I will evaluate the validity of the claims of a liberal media bias filling the airwaves.

As suggested before the role of journalism is pivotal in a democracy. But what exactly is a journalist? In today’s new media age of the internet and blogging anyone can post “news” without any prior standing or experience. The Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) defines a professional journalist as one who can “provide information in an accurate, comprehensive, timely and understandable manner”. Journalists who are part of the SPJ prescribe to the opinion that their mission should be to aid in the “perpetuation of a free press as the cornerstone of our nation and our liberty”. They go on to declare that “to ensure that the concept of self-government... remains a reality into future centuries, the American people must be well informed in order to make decisions regarding their lives, and their local and national communities.” [i] Journalist should provide the information to guide this process. This is a heavy responsibility with innate imbedded power

The influence journalist wield is due in part to their expansive reach and supposed credibility. In America, freedom of expression, and its firstborn free press, is the first entitlement guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. This high calling, as many see it, should aim to be an impartial observer and reporter for those who cannot be there first hand. This ideal is difficult, if not nearly impossible, to achieve, because every person will have their own standards and beliefs that affect them on a personal level. Idyllically a true professional should be able to put their personal platform behind them for the sake of accuracy. This is where the arguments of a biased press for many begins.

....To Be Contiued......

Endnotes

[i] SPJ Mission. Society of Professional Journalists. Retrieved April 25, 2005, from http://www.spj.org/spj_missions.asp

2005-06-14T19:57:00.000-04:00

Well hello. This is a simple test post to just get my feet wet.

Things can only get bigger from here i suppose. Hopefully in the following days/weeks you will check back and find all kinds of fun ramblings on Politics, the many manifestations of popular culture that i enjoy, and jucy tidbits from my ever churning cerebral cortex.

Until then, peace.