The latest survey, by MSNBC investigative reporter Bill Dedman, had a simple methodology: Go to Federal Election Commission public records and see what various media figures contributed, and to whom.
The story that resulted was well-written and researched. But Dedman buried the lead in the 16th paragraph: "The pattern of donations, with nearly nine out of 10 giving to Democratic candidates and causes, appears to confirm a leftward tilt in newsrooms."
Nothing new, really. This is the same thing that surveys have found over and over again for three decades. To wit:
A landmark 1981 study by Robert Lichter and Stanley Rothman of 240 journalists at top media outlets found that more 80% voted for Democrats for president in each election from 1964 to 1976. Further, 54% called themselves left of center, while just 19% called themselves right of center.
A 1985 Los Angeles Times survey of journalists found the same thing about 55% of journalists called themselves "liberal." In the 1984 election, they voted 58% to 26% for Democrat Walter Mondale, while the public went 59%-41% for President Reagan.
A 1988 survey by the Journalist and Financial Reporting of 151 business reporters from more than 30 publications found the same thing: 54% of reporters called themselves Democrats, just 9% Republicans. And 52% gave Reagan "poor" or "below average" grades. Only 17% called him "excellent" or "good."
A 1992 survey by Indiana University compared journalists to the overall U.S. population and found them "3% to 10% more likely to say they are Democrats, depending on which national survey you use as a yardstick, and 10 to 17 points less likely to say they are Republicans."
More recently, a 2004 Pew Research Center survey of 547 journalists discovered five times more national journalists calling themselves "liberal" than "conservative." And 55% said the media aren't "critical enough" of President Bush; 8% said "too critical."
The fact is and it is a fact the media are far more liberal than they are conservative, and far more liberal than the public at large. They represent one of the most consistently left-leaning segments of American society.
This bias infects coverage top to bottom from Iraq stories dwelling only on U.S. casualties and allegations of atrocities and torture to the abysmal coverage of the economy in which the media studiously avoid any mention of the fact that we are in the middle of an extraordinary boom.
By the way, poor coverage of the economy is nothing new. A 1983 study by the Institute for Applied Economics, for instance, found that while 95% of all economic statistics were positive reflecting the strong upward growth in our free-market economy 86% of the coverage was negative. How about some balance?
One would expect the media, even if biased, to have a bit of humility. But, as Dedman shows in asking reporters about their political activities, they're virtually clueless.
Here, for instance, is how New Yorker writer Mark Singer defending his contributions to a number of left-wing groups:
"If someone had murdered Hitler a journalist interviewing him had murdered him the world would be a better place. I only feel good as a citizen, about getting rid of George Bush, who has been the most destructive president in my lifetime."
George Bush is Adolf Hitler? This is insane. Yet Singer is a respected member of the press. Chalk it up to the mainstreaming of extreme beliefs of fringe kooks like Michael Moore.
Then there's Margot Patterson, who covered both the Iraq War and the anti-war movement for the National Catholic Register, and who gave thousands to anti-war Democrats.
Her rationale: "I feel my responsibility as a journalist is to be fair . . . (but) when I see my country embark on a course of action that I think disastrous to its future and fatal to its citizens, I think it my duty to do my utmost to stop it."
We don't expect journalists to give up their rights as citizens. But when you move from journalism to activism, it puts an entirely different tinge on what you do. And, gee, Margot, you covered the war and actively opposed it at the same time. Isn't that bias?
All the same, the media love to say they're not biased in their reporting. This is an obvious falsehood: No one can completely separate their ideals, feelings and political attitudes from how they report. It's just basic psychology. And when they deny bias exists, it's dangerous to democracy as we see now in the war on terror.
In October 2005, a Pew Research Center poll asked the media and average Americans to say whether they agreed with the statement, "The decision to take military action was right."
At the time, just 28% of the media agreed compared with 48% of the overall public. Today, after an endless barrage of negative war coverage, Americans have become more gloomy. Did the media's persistent bias turn the American people against the war?
Journalists such as former CBS news anchors Dan Rather and Walter Cronkite who say, "Sure, we're biased, but it doesn't affect our reporting" are just plain full of it.
A study by UCLA Professor Tim Groseclose and the University of Chicago's Jeff Milyo, "A Measure of Media Bias," carefully documented whom the media used as sources for their reports. They found very clear left-leaning bias among the mainstream outlets.
Looking at major news media, for instance, only one Fox News Special Report could be called "right-of-center," they said. CBS Evening News was the most liberal, followed in order by The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, NBC Nightly News and ABC's World News Tonight.
The leftward bias is overwhelming.
http://tinyurl.com/2nqnn9
Now I expect the loony, lying, left will just attack the link and try to rewrite history rather than attack the facts as usual....the media was left leaning 40 years ago, 20 years ago, and at the present.....they (the reporters )admit that fact themselves, and the loons still won't accept it....
(NOT)
