|
Does TV Have A Liberal Bias? A recent book, Bias,
by a CBS insider Bernard Goldberg, sets out to document how the media regularly
distorts the news with a liberal bias. Goldberg makes some persuasive arguments
for his point of view. He points out, for example that a 1996 study showed that most journalists were Democrats. Eighty-nine percent of them voted for Clinton compared to 43 percent of the general population. From the standpoint of many conservatives, TV news tends to be liberal because it features stories on gay rights, civil rights abuses, antiwar demonstrations, women's rights, environmental issues, etc.—all seen as being liberal causes. But, from the standpoint of some liberals television is conservative because it's seen as being pro-business, and because it does not give adequate time (in their view) to alternative, non-mainstream views. According to Elaine Povich of the Freedom Foundation as reported by the conservative newspaper, the Washington Times -
Generally speaking—and there many exceptions—people in business tend to be conservative and people who have a background in the social sciences—through education or working with people—tend to be more liberal. (We'll avoid trying to define the terms liberal and conservative at this point and go with the rather fuzzy, widely held definitions of what the terms seem to imply.) People in the hard sciences also tend to be more conservative than people in the social sciences. The latter group includes many news people and actors, and some writers and artists—people whose ideas often surface in the media. Their views also tend to "push the envelope" of social change. However, if we look at the moguls who hold corporate control of the media, we see that almost to a man (and they are mostly all men) they are conservatives—some even ultraconservative.
Given the fact that the heads of the media conglomerates tend to be conservative, we seem to have a split between the basically conservative philosophies held by most of these business-minded media owners and top executives, and the people who shape the messages. How do the two factions coexist; after all it's management that ultimately "calls the shots?" Simply put, management—especially in programming themes—is typically geared toward whatever generates profits. We've already noted that most media consumers like ideas that a slightly ahead of the status quo, as shown by the green area in the normal curve represented below. (This diagram is discussed in some detail elsewhere.)
To understand the direction of change you need to recall that such things as two-piece bathing suits, men with long hair, miniskirts, racial integration, and the right of women to vote were at one time seen as radical liberal concepts and strongly opposed by conservative factions.Even the most conservative media owners, CEOs, directors, etc. regularly use sex and semi-nudity—which are not exactly associated with mainstream conservatism—to enhance profits. One of the best known media moguls—a person widely considered
to be quite conservative—regularly features photos of attractive, bare-breasted
women in one of his most popular (non-U.S.) daily newspapers. The feature is clearly
linked to increased readership and profits. On television, Friends (now in wide syndication) has been one of the most popular and financially successful series of all time—and, according to some observers, for its time it has pushed the envelope of sexual content more than any other popular network series. To cite two other examples, in March of 2002, the FCC received hundreds of complaints from viewers over the popular, titillating (and lucrative) Victoria's Secret lingerie programming featured on the Disney owned ABC television network. In late 2004, the FOX network, considered the most conservative in news, faced the largest fines ever levied by the Federal Communications Commission for sexually indecent programming. Clearly, there is a frequently a conflict between profits and what many people see as traditional values—with profits typically winning the contest. Other opinions on this topic can be found in this Business, Sex, and Morality Forum posting.
When it comes to news, people show a preference for "news they agree with." They also prefer not to hear about issues they don't agree with. Thus, there has been a recent emphasis on moving to a more selective, conservative tone in newscasts.
Both programs featured Republican guests (generally considered conservative) more often than Democratic guests (generally considered to be more liberal). But, as shown here, in this case the Fox news channel favored Republicans by a margin of about 8:1. The same survey showed that FOX news featured white guests 93 percent of the time and male guests 91 percent of the time. Comparing FOX news with the other primary news sources in the United States, Canada and Britain over a series of days in early 2003 indicated that not only did FOX news maintain a pro-Republican Administration spin compared to other news sources, but that many news items critical of the administration were either not presented, or in some cases were presented and subtly dismissed, or even discredited and subtly ridiculed.** Although this approach, together with FOX's impressive graphics
and effects, is clearly popular with their many viewers, it raises serious questions
about balanced news coverage and a well informed electorate. And then we have the radio talk show hosts who are almost all conservative and highly opinionated. They are discussed here and here. Even so, the popular perception is that TV news is too liberal (45% vs. 14% that think it's too conservative). Possibly not unrelated, to entice viewers and raise ratings, TV programming in general regularly "pushes the envelope" with new and often risqué ideas. Sexual themes are predominately featured. Although viewers may complain, they also tune into this type of programming. Liberal-conservative arguments, including even the definitions of the terms, would fill books. Even so, it would seem that some of the issues discussed here are worth considering when it comes to claims of a "liberal bias" in the media. *** * In February, 2003, Eric Alterman's book, A What Liberal Media? The Truth About Bias and the News, was published. This exceptionally well documented book credits the shift to the right in the recent decade to efforts by well funded conservative think tanks and their financial backers. Other books on these topics include -
** According to data, during the Iraq war, Americans turned to foreign news sources in great numbers to get a more balanced and realistic perspective on the war. Deborah Branscom, a Newsweek contributing editor, summarized the views of many journalists when she said, "Given how timid most U.S. news organizations have been in challenging the White House position on Iraq, I'm not surprised if Americans are turning to foreign news services for a perspective on the conflict that goes beyond freedom fries." *** In the well-reviewed and thought-provoking book, The Sound Bite Society: Television and the American Mind, Jeffrey Scheuer argues that television relentlessly simplifies, and simplicity is the core principle of conservatism. TV likewise punishes complex ideas and messages, which are the core of liberalism. Scheuer notes, for example, that the causes of poverty, unemployment, the crime rate, gangs, etc. are complex and cannot be effectively addressed with quick sound bites and political slogans—even though they come across well on TV and appeal to voters. Thus, rather than being a "liberal medium," according to Scheuer, television strongly promotes an appealing, conservative, oversimplified, direct-solution approach to the complex social and political issues of our times. For example, rather than address the real causes of crime, the solution that's easiest to understand is a one: to get tougher on crime and build more prisons. Although this simplistic good-evil view is attractive to voters, it doesn't confront the causes of the problem. To Home Page
© 2005, All Rights Reserved
|
*
FAIR, 
