Tecs Take #1
 

Is the "Liberal Media" actually a manifestation of simply reporting information that implies negativity toward the current government in power? Does the simple fact that there is so much amiss, create the perception of bias?

Good point.

It is very likely that with a sufficiently liberal administration the media would be seen as too conservative.

And the media is also an instrument of the public. If it is too liberal for the administration, could it mean the administration is too conservative for the public?

I can personally remember the allegations of a liberal media during the Clinton Administration, and I bet whatever triggers them was around for longer than that.

I definitely don't think that any perceived liberal bias in the media is an effect of the Bush administration. It may be that one has more opportunity to level the charge in our current times, but if anything, I think that reporting tends to sour on presidents as their administrations progress.

The other thing is that it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest to read hard evidence that media members as a whole hold liberal beliefs - just look at where they come from and where they tend to work. I'm not at all convinced that this is mirrored by a distortion in their presentation of information. I do believe that news presentation goes to where the bosses think the money will be, which isn't a liberal or conservative issue.

No. The negativity towards government is directly related, in my opinion, to law makers who do not take action based on a consistent set of principles.

To use Republicans as an example - they say they support smaller government, the reality is that they don't. People vote for Republican candidates on that and other principles only to be disappointed.

On the Democratic side - the Democrats said the last round of Congressional election sent a message saying that the American people wanted a change with Iraq. To this point they have done nothing, and people are disappointed.

Our news sources became commercial and profit driven beginning in the Reagan administration. Corporate interests have replaced even neutral reporting of events and any notion that there exists a liberal media is a farce. The media coverage of this administration's run up to war is just one of many examples that corporatism drives the content of our "news."

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Where do we come from? It's not like there's a journalist commune that we all live in before we get our big break ;)

that said, yes, journalists tend to be more liberal than conservative, but a "flaming liberal" is a pretty rare find in a journalist. Most of us are much closer to the middle of the road. I for instance am pro choice, anti affirmative action. You can't really pigeonhole that into a liberal or conservative mindset.

You're wrong there. It's a conservative issue. Hands down. The bosses of journalism are now large multi-conglomerate corporations. GE owns NBC. Disney owns ABC. The republican party is the one that is more friendly to business. Businesses get better tax breaks, better subsidies, and less regulation under the republicans than they do under the democrats. Large corporations aren't stupid, and therefore tend to support republicans over democrats.

Now why would a large corporation that supports the republicans want their most visible and vocal mouthpiece to be spewing liberal rhetoric? That's an asinine conclusion.

The media isn't too liberal or too conservative. It's too chicken. We need to hold people from all sides accountable when they screw up, and as a whole, we simply don't do that nearly enough.

Shakran:

Thanks for your response to my comments - I hope you know that I mean to offense.

"Where they come from" means journalism programs at Universities - particularly the elite ones. It's not a slam, but much of the atmosphere in these places is...progressive to be kind, one-sided to be blunt. At least that has been my overwhelming experience and observation. That may well be a natural state of affairs. At any rate, no matter the orientation, being opinionated and passionate does not mean that someone cannot present facts and issues fairly. Of course these are generalizations, and even I could name notable exceptions. I'm just thinking out loud about trends that might be strong enough to add up to an impression over time.

And by money flow, I still think in the end that works out to neither conservative nor liberal. It probably has more to do with where the publication can find an audience - niche, geography, and where the interest lies. Often that means assuming positions contrary to the current powers. I know that I'm more likely to be enticed to read an article criticizing Bush than one that praises Bloomberg, even though I like Bloomie better than Bushie.

Of course. And none was taken. I was genuinely curious as to what the hell you were talking about ;) Some people think journalists come from elite, wealthy families, and live elite, wealthy lives that are so far removed from the people they report to that they can't relate. In addition to the irony that that's a perfect description of the republican party, it's also completely false. In fact, most journalists work for significantly below average salary. I was just making sure you weren't in the camp that believes that.


Well to be honest, yes, universities tend to be liberal in nature. But speaking for myself we journo students were way too freakin' busy trying to figure out what the hell we were doing to worry about being "liberalized" by the college.

I appreciate that you recognize this. Too many fail to understand that. We can be as liberal or as conservative as anyone else personally, but a good journalist is capable of pushing that aside when he's covering the story.