Monday, December 19, 2005

Media Bias survey from UCLA

From UCLAThis actually suprised me a little, not the fact that media biasness is real, but what lead the way. The Wall Street Journal. Their opinion page is conservative, and that's what I usually read, but their news pages (I don't suscribe) are viewed more liberal than the New York Times of all places.

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.

CBS and the NY and LA Slimes as I call them are obvious for the left, and the Washington Times and Brit Hume are known conservatives so that does not surprise me.

The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third.

Lehrer's rating sure surprised me. I haven't watched CNN since Pat Buchanan and Bill Press were on crossfire so I can't comment on Aaron Brown. Charlie Gibson? I have to wonder about that. I remember some strong biased anti-2nd amendment statements from him on a Peter Jennings hit piece on the NRA.

The fourth most centrist outlet was "Special Report With Brit Hume" on Fox News, which often is cited by liberals as an egregious example of a right-wing outlet. While this news program proved to be right of center, the study found ABC's "World News Tonight" and NBC's "Nightly News" to be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found.

NBC and ABC are to the right of CBS, but still left. Then there's the "State News" which makes the NY Slimes look only slightly leftist....


Dave said...

I left confused by this entry. If you're not against Gay marriage how can you claim to be conservative?

Anonymous said...

What the hell is conservative about governing who can be married under the law?

This new form of conservatism is hardly conservative!

Please don't confuse being a conservative with being a bigot!

I want my party back!

Dan said...

Dave - The stuff in block print is quotes from UCLA's story.

Jon Koller said...

While this study was interesting in the sense that it based it's definitions of liberal and conservative on lawmakers, it really wasn't done very well. It merely counted references to conservative/liberal thinktanks. All this study shows is that certain think tanks are able to penetrate different outlets to different degrees, nothing more.

Anonymous said...

There is bias in anything when you are dealing with human beings, but what’s shameful is the 30 plus year gop strategy to smear the media in general because it doesn’t like what’s being reported about it. It stared with Nixon, and I guess since courageous, tenacity print journalists exposed the corruption and brought down that presidency they sure do hate reporters. They have succeeded all too well in smearing every single dedicated professional journalist, from the reporter on a weekly newspaper to the network anchor.

Here’s the funniest part of the report, “Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the AVERAGE U.S. voter. Those outlets were created with bias in mind and serve as the official voice of the bush administration, much like Pravda did for the USSR. It fails to account for faux news practices of regurgitating bush talking points, and things like when it debates a policy or issue it will have just conservative guests on, or it will have two conservatives on and just one liberal, or it always chooses a weak liberal to go up against the strong conservative- IE Hateate and Colmes is a good example. H& C is notorious for having the hatemonger ann coulter on and no one to challenge her outrageous statements.

Its amazing to me that anyone can call mainstream media “liberal biased’ after what is happening to newspapers and media outlets. They are being bought up by a few huge corporations, and almost every newspaper is owned by a huge chain, like Gannet or Knight-Ridder. We all know how much money corporations give to republicans.

somedaysoon said...

I love talking about the liberal bias in media. Mostly because there is an endless supply of examples. Remember, bias is not just what is reported, but what isn't reported as well. Or where a story is placed, or what was edited out. I'll be happy to go tit for tat with you digging up examples. I'll even give you three to each one you can find. I'd give you 50, but I don't type that fast and have other things to do.

Anonymous said...

I’m sure you do love talking about the “Liberal media bias” myth. Actually, it’s a republican strategy that has worked oh so well despite the media growing more and more conservative everyday. This was a strategy first introduced by the Nixon thugs almost 40 years ago. Two metro reporters brought down the most corrupt administration since the current one. Gee, I wonder why they hate the press so much? When you talk about the liberal media bias the conservatives always trot out their poster boy, Bernie Goldberg. I wasted my time reading that crap first book of his, and all I got out of it was how much he hates Dan Rather.

His current book should disqualify him from being any kind of reliable source and revealed his true colors, but you still cling to him. Where was the liberal media bias during the Clinton witch-hunt? Despite every single poll saying the American people were sick of hearing, reading and watching about Monica Lewinski, as well as every other conservative attack, from Vince Foster too Whitewater, it didn’t stop, and it still goes on.

Liberal media bias my ass. It’s funny; I don’t see any mention of Jack Abramoff, and his ties to the Republican leadership. But you can always claim it’s just a case of the liberal media blowing it out of proportion. What a set up, I mean strategy, huh?

somedaysoon said...

Abramoff not in the news enough for you, are you joking. It's everywhere. And it should be. Funny thing though. I just read an article about his ties to Michigan tribes, yet no mention of Levin's connection to those tribes and Abramoff. Again, what is left out of a story is just as important as what's left in.

It is only your perception that the media is growing more conservative, the reality is that more of the whole story is being told. Or stories that were never heard are getting out. You are comfortable in only hearing things that agree with your way of thinking. Now you have to hear things that don't jive in your little world and it bothers you.

And last, let me ask you a question. When was the last time you heard about a private citizen defending themselves with their firearm. Only if they are going to be brought up on some charges will you ever hear this kind of a story. Why is that. It happens every day, in every state. You'd think that an occasional story would get out.

Anonymous said...

Maybe some day soon you’ll make a valid point. Jack Abramoff all over the news? Are you joking? It doesn’t even approach the number of stories or noise we heard about Monica Lewwnski, and this actually is a crime. Also, I was referring to this and other right-wing blogs. I know of no ties to Indian tribes by Levin, Carl or Sander, and if so, so what? Abramoff’s firm made contributions to a few Democrats, but not nearly in the amounts of bribes that when to Republicans. If I’m not mistaken, the Republicans control the house and senate, and they tend to decide what bills make it to the floor for a vote. I also don’t see any Democrats going on any golfing trips.

What the hell does “It is only your perception that the media is growing more conservative” mean. You say you have so many examples of this so-called liberal media bias, how about just one example? Bush has practically run this country into the ground, ran up a huge debt, made more enemies than allies, trashed the constitution and eroded many of the personal freedoms this country was founded on, yet for the most part the media has given him a pass.

When was the last time I heard about a private citizen defending themselves with their firearm? If I never heard any, what who’d be the point anyway? In a high crime area where murders are very common they may only get a mention in the police blotter or a mention on the six o’clock new. But throw in an unusual circumstance, such as a very young person, old person or some other sexy detail, and it may rise to the level of making on the Greta vonstssian show. A gun owner brought up on charges may rise to that circumstance. I may agree with you that the news media tends to sensationalize things, but how does that rises to liberal media bias I have no idea. But, it’s a business and they have to compete against the latest reality show.