Print Media: Left- or Right wing?

[YNGW]

I had a conversation with an old friend who is a RWer last night, and he pointed out to me an article in the NYT which further demonstrated to him that major print media is left-leaning. The headlines read (registration required):

"New Democratic Group Finances a Republican-like Attack on Dean."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/16/politics/campaigns/16ATTA.html

His words were essentially this:

“Here you have a group that affiliates itself with the Democratic Party who attacks a Democratic Party candidate, yet the headlines describe the attack as ‘Republican-like’. This is between Democrats, it has nothing to do with Republicans, yet the NYT takes any opportunity it can to condemn and indict Republicans.”

I had to admit, he had a point. These attack ads had nothing to do with Repukes at all, so why did the NYT even envoke the Repukes in the equation?

Now, I’m sure there are those reading this who feel compelled to tell me how I should have answered, and I appreciate your desire, but this post is not about that. I’m not interested in that, I can handle the situation just fine. I write this to point out how news outlets such as the NYT (for whatever reason) hands these people ammo they can turn around and use against us. From their point of view, yeah, I can see where they could believe the NYT is bias and an extention of our party given this kind of stuff. Flip the headlines and the circumstances and I'd feel the same way.

What do you think?

[leftyandproud]

1. I'll go for left..

my local paper is VERY progressive, running anti bush/puke articles at a ratio of about 9:1 with pro bush articles. I've read other papers across the country and most do seem to have a leftward tilt. With the exception of the Wall Street Journal, I think we dominate in the print media. Cable and radio on the other hand....ugh

[Atman]

2. Because it IS repubican-like

The commentary I did hear on the day's news programs was that the attack ad "could have been written by Bush!" and that it appeared as if "it could have come from the Bush team!" That is all they said all day, even the nasty old republican curmudgeon, Jack Cafferty.

Face it..it was very republican like. Remember, we're the democrats. This was a republican ad. Hence, it was "republican-like."

Your friend only has a point on the surface, not upon evaluation. One such story doth not a liberal media make.

[YNGW]

3. From our point of view, sure...

But how would you feel about a headline that said:

"New Republican Group Finances a Democratic-like Attack on Bush."

Would you wonder why a Repuke group attacking Bush would envoke mentioning the Democratic Party? I would.

And to say "That wouldn't accurately describe the way the Democratic Party operates, we don't do attack-ads like that" doesn't work, because the attack ad in the NYT article proves otherwise.

Thanks for your input.

[edzontar]

22. They would never run such an ad.

Republicans today are, basically, fascists.

Obsessed with power.

That is why they are trying to take over our party too.

Whoever is behind those ads is, in fact, Republican=disguised-as-Dem.

[NewJeffCT]

4. print media

I thought most of the print media endorsed Bush over Gore in 2000? And, a huge percentage of the print media is owned by the Right Wing Tribune Corp...

[mikehiggins]

5. Why evoke the Repugs?

Because it clarified the meaning of the ads in the mind of the NYT target audience. If group A is known for eating small babies and someone in group B is discovered with a broiled newborn on his plate, then the headline may well be "Group B member acts like Group A"

It makes the meaning of the story clear in the shortest number of words, which is good journalistic practice.

Of course, you may think my example extreme.

Think again.

[madrchsod]

6. it depends who owns the newspaper

my republican newspaper runs alot of centerist republican and democratic writers and actually prints some truthful articles about the general state of our country. the family that owns the paper is basically a real republican and really has no use for the neocons.

[cryofan]

7. Left wing facade--Major Media is "status quo" and money-oriented

For explanation, just read Chomsky, Zinn, Parenti, et al...

[Wetzelbill]

8. more of a bias for the sensational

from that whatever ideology you are you can go and pick and choose whatever you want to make your argument. However.....

I just look at the difference in the way Bush is covered compared to how Clinton/Gore were. If Clinton or, to a lesser extent, Gore sneezed the wrong way they were investigated by an independent council. The Bush administration didn't stop 9-11, started a major war for no reason and outed a CIA agent, with nary a whimper from the print media.

[JVS]

9. The media is socially liberal and economically conservative

[rogerashton]

10. First of all, it depends on what you call left wing.

From my point of view, the American political spectrum runs from Ultra-right wing to Homo Erectus -- never mind Neanderthal.

Also, the geometry of the political universe is very wierd. The horizon is so close that no-one can see more than a few inches to her or his left or right. So a real left perspective is below the horizon even for moderate rightists -- they can't imagine it, and so the Homo Erectus understands the Neanderthal position as an extreme left one, and when the 'papers come out with a Neanderthal position, the Homoi Erectus cite that as evidence of left-wing bias.

That said, the press follow the money. The big newspapers are, of course, owned by the billionaire class, and not doubt the billionaires would like to see editorials that support their interest. But they also want to make more billions. In some periods and circumstances, that creates a conflict.

There does seem to have been some slight increase in the willingness of the establishment press to criticize W* -- which is a basis for my optimism that his popularity is decreasing among people who buy newspapers. I have even seen the phrase "sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" used in a major metropolitan newspaper.

[Chef]

11. Press

I guess I can't see it as left. The Republicans have used this type of ad against Democrats before (even against their own to keep them in line). So, to say "Republican Like" seems completely accurate. Do we expect the Republicans to do any different in the general election? I, for one don't think the print media is much one way or the other in news reporting. Editorially, they all seem pretty conservative to me. I would prefer they were a little more agressive and less lazy in rooting out the truth of an issue (the Medicare drug bill is an example). They really don't take as much effort at muckrakeing as I would like. The problem the right wing has is it can't stand to have anything close to the truth printed or said because would shed light on their workings. Therefore, they have successfully campaigned to get the public to believe that they can't believe what is reported. Unfortunately, too many have bought into this, including the media seems timid to go after Bush and his gang.

[ACK]

12. Depends on where you live in the country -- liberal media myth 101

The liberal print media is not so liberal if you take a hard look at all the papers across this country.

The New York Times is liberal but what about the NY Post?

The Washington Post is liberal but what about the Washington Times?

The Atlanta Constipation (oh I meant constitution ;) ) is more liberal than the Atlanta Journal.

When you get into smaller cities with more conservative values, guess what?

The press is more conservative. Who would have thunk?

The Savannah GA papers are very conservative. No joke.

I am sure that papers in liberal towns are well ... liberal.

It is based a lot on the values of the community as a whole.

You can't judge print media solely on the NY Times.

That is where nutballs like Coulter and others get it completely wrong. Go to the middle of Texas and pick up a paper. Its conservative. Go to Austin and read the paper. Probably more liberal right?

There you go.

[deutsey]

13. I think Alterman says print is no where near as rightwing

as broadcast media, but his analysis in What Liberal Media? shows that print is by and large centrist.

These are pretty good resources on the media and their alleged liberal bias:


http://www.fair.org/reports/journalist-survey.html
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2002/123102a.html

[Wetzelbill]

17. I'd have to agree with that

[BiggJawn]

14. Indianapolis Star is RW and GOP.

Hell, Pulliam's grand-daughter is married to Dan Quayle...
'Nuf Said.

[jobycom]

15. Ask Bill Borders, editor. Kathleen Seelye made up lies about Gore

and was caught doing it, but still works for the paper. Once, she and Cece Connally of the WP both wrote similar stories about Gore claiming that he had started the whole environmental movement by discovering Love Canal, and both provided the same quote to prove it. The real quote said almost the opposite of what they claimed, but it was twisted and altered to make it fit their stories in a way that had to have been collusion.

After a week or more of pundits and journalists trashing Gore for more delusional self-aggrandizing, the high school students to whom Gore had made the quote finally got both papers to print minor retractions, and almost noone who had used the original story apologized nor tried to correct their error. No one held either paper accountable.

I wrote to the NYT after they fired a freelancer who wrote a liberally biased story and had combined several anecdotes involving several people into one fictional character-- not too different than what Seelye did, altering quotes to present Gore in a way she wanted him presented instead of how he actually was. I asked why that journalist had been fired but Seelye still worked for him. Bill Borders responded, and for several letters argued that there was no comparison, and that Seelye did nothing wrong, and the the NYT had no further obligation to correct the myth their paper had purposely generated. I looked him up on the Internet and found several complaints about Borders stonewalling on similar issues, always defending the conservative side. I also found a Bill Borders who had written several stories for right wing religious magazines concerning god's will for the Soviet Union-- pretty goofy stuff-- but I am not sure it was the same Bill Borders.

Anyway it goes, Kathleen Seelye of the NYT and Cece Connally of the WP are Republican activists writing for these newspapers, altering stories, and getting caught, and both still work for them. Connally was recently reprimanded by the WP for appearing on FOX with Brit Hume and ridiculing a Gore speech by picking on his clothes (she was one of the writers who started the whole Gore "earth-tones" nonsense). She was reprimanded by the paper for appearing on a show in which she expressed a political opinion-- not for any of the fallacies she reported, or for the non-professional way in which she mocked a major political figure without any facts-- just for giving a biased statement on a biased show. As far as I know, she is still there.

There are liberal papers, but most of the biggest ones, including the WP and the NYT, are not, despite what they may have been in the past.

[jobycom]

16. As for the headline, he's misreading it, though it's ambiguous

The point of the headline is not that the attack was similar to a Republican attack in that it was vicious, slanderous and unethical (though that would simply be an objective fact, not a bias, imo) but that the attack on Dean mirrored the subject of many Republican attacks on other candidates. Republicans are the ones who have been trying to link Democrats to Bin Laden, so saying that this commercial was similar to the ones Republicans usually run is rather factual.

Notice it's in the Advertising section, and is pointing out that this is a likely Republican strategy, to link Democrats to Bin Laden. The headline accurately sums up the contention of the article, which again, is on the advertising angle of the commercial.

Your friend is erecting windmills, or setting up straw men.

The headline is more a sign of bad editing, since it is ambiguous, but our whole media these days seems to glorify in bad writing.

[YNGW]

19. No

>Your friend is erecting windmills, or setting up straw men.

I've known him too long and that's not his style.

I do agree that it's bad editing. Headlines like this are going to be inflamitory, and for no reason. Should have just reported on the goings-on and left the Repugs outta the picture, IMHO.

[jobycom]

20. But Republicans were the point of the story. This is the Rush syndrome

The NYT wrote a story on advertising pointing out a trend that the Republicans were using that has started to be used by Democrats against their own. That's a perfectly valid story, and a perfectly valid angle to the bigger story.

But Rush Limbaugh has the media terrified to print a story that mentions anything critical of Republicans for fear of the bias accusations, and it has liberals too critical of any story that the Republicans can pretend to construe as liberally biased. (needless to say, there is no counter-fear of printing stories critical of the left.) For Republicans to pretend that any story which mentions something negative about a Republican is liberally biased is a giant windmill-- surely even they can't believe that Republicans never do anything wrong.

If the story had been about Old Navy running a Gap-like commercial, no one would scream bias, and people would nod in agreement at the observation. But Rush has everyone so convinced that the media is liberal that when a US COngressman is discovered in a possible murder cover-up (certainly a cover-up, possibly murder) they are afraid to even report it.

Want further proof of the NYT bias? Check its headlines today. No mention that the 9-1 panel believes 9-11 could have and "should have" been prevented, and was not because of the Bush administration's mistakes and incompetence. This is the very city where the attacks happened, and a major accusation from a credible Republican against Republicans doesn't deserve a mention? Would that be the case if they were blaming Clinton?

Your friend may even believe he is being rational and objective, but he is not. He's reciting platitudes with no independent thought on the matter.

[Gringo]

Print is mostly centrist, but

many small-city papers are as right-wing as cable news.

The Miami Herald is not too bad, although they pander a bit to the anti-Castro Cubans in their reporting, which is understandable here.

[rucky]

18. Because it evokes the Clelland ads

that's what makes it Repug-ish. The comparison should be mentioned in the article, tho.

[Lefty59]

21. Way Left

[Democat]

23. The U.S. print media is far right

AP and Reuters alone would make the entire print media right wing, and that's without all of the right wing editorials that each media runs as news.

Look at the California recall, 2000 election, or Clinton presidency for proof of how right wing biased U.S. print media is.

I can't believe anyone other than right wingers even wonder.

[Sean Reynolds]

24. Depends on the market.....

I feel that if it's a pretty liberal city they'll have two major papers that lean right and left. Here in Salt Lake City the largest paper, the Salt Lake Tribune, is left leaning. While the second largest paper, the Deseret News, is WAY right in its thinking.