Uh-Oh! Media bias confirmed by UCLA

[arnisador]

THAT they are educated has nothing to do with the politics of reporters. They got the education they did because they leaned to the left.

I expect that's probably true--that the education is more of a correlation than a causation. Those who disagree with the prevailing viewpoint self-select out. The current Chronicle of Higher Education has an interesting article on schools of education and social work taking a more active stance--weeding out those who will not work for 'social justice' as they define it (that is, weeding out conservatives).

Moreover, conservatives tend to avoid teaching positions in academia, for a whole host of reasons, a job seemingly preferred by liberal professors. In addition, those with a capitalist bent tend to flock to careers where money is to be made. Conservatives also tend to be overrepresented in mathmatics, engineering and hard sciences.

This is certainly true of those in engineering and business, but I think it's less true of mathematicians and scientists, who do after all come out of the liberal arts tradition. Still, they tend not to be as liberal as those in, say, the humanities.

 

[arnisador]

http://www.dailylobo.com/media/paper344/news/2004/03/11/News/Study.Unm.Professors.Mostly.Democrats-631740.shtml?norewrite&sourcedomain=www.dailylobo.com

The group released the results of a four-month study Wednesday that found 83 percent of registered professors at UNM are Democrats, 11 percent are Republicans and 6 percent are classified as other.

http://www.ncpa.org/iss/gov/2002/pd090502c.html

A recent survey issued by the Center for the Study of Popular Culture and the American Enterprise Institute reveals that the overwhelming majority of college professors are registered Democrats, and that they teach in disciplines where politics matters the most. It has prompted considerable comment.

It found that:

• More that 90 percent of professors who work in the arts and sciences departments at leading colleges and universities belong to either Democrat, Green or Working Class parties -- with very few registered as either Republican or Libertarian.

• Among history professors at the University of Colorado at Boulder, only one out of 29 was a registered Republican -- and among 19 political science professors only two Republicans could be found.

• At the University of Texas at Austin, of the 109 professors whose political affiliation was identified, 94 were Democrats and 15 were Republicans.

• At Brown University, 54 professors whose political affiliations were recorded in primary registrations last year were Democrats, compared with three Republicans.

 

[mrhnau]

Hard pressed to see those kind of statistics in other industries, except certain parts of the press. I wonder how things like that would line up with the Equal Opportunity crowd?

Great way to propogate your cause.

 

[arnisador]

It's an embarrassment. We talk about cultural diversity all the time but no one strives for intellectual diversity of this sort. Having 80%+ of faculty Democrats when it's more like half-and-half in the general population is worrisome to me.

 

[mrhnau]

You seem to be confusing the term 'Intelligent' with 'Educated'.
They are not synonyms. Yet you seem to be using the interchangably.

Not confusing, but indeed using interchangably. Though not synonymous, often related. Not always the case though. School is just one metric that can be used to gauge intellegence. Not the only, and not always accurate. Met a few brilliant people who had a hard time in high school. :asian:

 

[ave_turuta]

What's more, conservative views haven't traditional sold papers. What sells papers is populist rhetoric. The man on the street buys papers that play to his sense of alienation, and tells him that someone else is 'out to get him'.

That's my 'fair and balanced' interpretation.

I think it all depends on how you define "left" and "right." For the average European, all American newspapers can be considered center or center-right. I do not think there is a single newspaper that would be termed "leftist" by European standards. European newspapers are FAR from "populist rhetoric," as you term it, yet they still sell (I scan on average and because of my work through several newspapers daily, amongst them: La Vanguardia, El Pais, El Diario Montanes, ABC, El Periodico de Catalunya and El Mundo in Spain - occasionally I may read the basque journal GARA and others . of these, only El Pais and El Periodico are considered leftist, the rest are center to conservative, such as ABC or El Mundo); i also read The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph in the UK; Le Figaro and Le Monde in France; and Haaretz (leftist) and the Jerusalem Post (conservative) rom Israel.

Do I do this because I am "educated"? Actually, my level of education has nothing to do with it. My father is an unskilled, uneducated worker (he only finished elementary school). Yet every day two different newspapers entered our home: one conservative (published regionally), one progressive (published nationally). That's how I and many other Spaniards grew up. All my friends have the daily habit of buying the newspaper, two if they can afford it. At home, we also watched two newscasts: the 8:30 on a progressive channel; the 9:00 pm one on national TV, which was alternatively progressive or conservative depending on which government was in place at the time (still is this way). Citizens of Sweden, Finland, Germany and other European nations are used to buying newspapers on a daily basis, paying 1 euro or more for them (many also read them in bars, etc.) Europeans newspapers carry, surprisingly, news. The Washington Post, instead, is 35 cents worth of very brief columns that run for about one fifth of a page next to a gigantic hecht's commercial for their weekend sale. American media offers 24 hour continuous "news" coverage: symptomacially, though, stories like that of the "runaway bride" story was newscast over and over and over and over and oooooooooover again on all channels (fox, cnn, whatever); never mind that there are others, more important things to cover. As much as the average American may watch a lot of television or read a lot of stuff, I wonder if the overflow of information has not resulted in Americans reading more of the same instead of diversifying their sources. It seems to me much of the US media is preaching to the converted (you only need to compare the tough questions asked on BBC, for example, to the apparently aggresive but insubstantial converage of many similar programs on CNN or Fox News). I simply do not think the problem with US media is that it's "biased" (conservatives will say the media is too progressive, and progressives will make the argument it is too conservative). I just think the root of the problem is the increasing lack of diversity in the media across the nation.

 

[Makalakumu]

I just think the root of the problem is the increasing lack of diversity in the media across the nation.

With the Clear Channel type of consolidation happening everywhere, the number of voices is being reduced. Sure there are small outlets, but the big ones are the ones that make a difference.

 

[mrhnau]

With the Clear Channel type of consolidation happening everywhere, the number of voices is being reduced. Sure there are small outlets, but the big ones are the ones that make a difference.

I tend to think the opposite is happening in the US. With the advent of the internet and alternatives to the standard m edia popping up everywhere, I think diversity is starting to emerge. Used to be that the big three (ABC, NBC, CBS) and a few large papers (NY Time, Washington Post, ect) had control of what 90%+ of all US citizens read. Media such as Limbaugh, Hannity, Fox News and blogs have all emerged as alternatives to the standard view on current events. I think thats good. You might not agree with some of the views being presented, but at least their voices are getting out there and opposing the historically liberal media. Its kind of refreshing... more extreme liberals have emerged as counter points, and I welcome them too. I'd rather have a choice of what I listen to/read. Blogs in particular are interesting, since they are hard to regulate and just about anyone can write one these days. now, you need to be careful of course, but its interesting to see what everyone thinks

MrH

 

[ginshun]

It's the education level. Most folks who write for these institutions are college educated and tend to lean left because of it.

Right, because we all know that only illiterate, slack jawed, "I quit ma schoolin' in the 6th grade", rednecks are conservatives.

Certainly somebody that went to college couldn't be anything but a liberal.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Then why do celebrities tend to lean further to the left?[/quote

Total fallacy. Most educated people are liberal does not imply that only educated people are liberal.

As an aside, reporters who study journalism may do so at the BA level or, as at Columbia, at the MA level as a first degree (similar to the MBA in that regard). However, it's true that many have a BA in some generic humanities or social science field, and that the political bias of education is less noticeable at the undergraduate level.

One has to ask, since I work with so many Engineers, and it is really Right here at work, to the point of scary to someone in the middle. Could it be personalities that go into certain degrees or jobs, more than the education level or the subject of the education that leans people wither right or left?

Good Post Grad work idea

 

[Makalakumu]

I tend to think the opposite is happening in the US. With the advent of the internet and alternatives to the standard m edia popping up everywhere, I think diversity is starting to emerge. Used to be that the big three (ABC, NBC, CBS) and a few large papers (NY Time, Washington Post, ect) had control of what 90%+ of all US citizens read. Media such as Limbaugh, Hannity, Fox News and blogs have all emerged as alternatives to the standard view on current events. I think thats good. You might not agree with some of the views being presented, but at least their voices are getting out there and opposing the historically liberal media. Its kind of refreshing... more extreme liberals have emerged as counter points, and I welcome them too. I'd rather have a choice of what I listen to/read. Blogs in particular are interesting, since they are hard to regulate and just about anyone can write one these days. now, you need to be careful of course, but its interesting to see what everyone thinks

MrH

Here is an opposing viewpoint from a guy whose in the business.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0407.turner.html

Today, media companies are more concentrated than at any time over the past 40 years, thanks to a continual loosening of ownership rules by Washington. The media giants now own not only broadcast networks and local stations; they also own the cable companies that pipe in the signals of their competitors and the studios that produce most of the programming. To get a flavor of how consolidated the industry has become, consider this: In 1990, the major broadcast networks--ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox--fully or partially owned just 12.5 percent of the new series they aired. By 2000, it was 56.3 percent. Just two years later, it had surged to 77.5 percent.
In this environment, most independent media firms either get gobbled up by one of the big companies or driven out of business altogether. Yet instead of balancing the rules to give independent broadcasters a fair chance in the market, Washington continues to tilt the playing field to favor the biggest players. Last summer, the FCC passed another round of sweeping pro-consolidation rules that, among other things, further raised the cap on the number of TV stations a company can own.

 

[Makalakumu]

My first question: What facts can you sight to support your first premise.... that "Republicans certainly have more money than democrats". Just wondering if this is your presumption or some quantifiable fact. From my experience, it's the opposite.

From what I've been able to google, the information is pretty clear, on average Republicans make more money then democrats. Many democrats are living below the poverty line and this more then offsets the "liberal elites" income.

second: The next section about your classmates and instructor's political 'leanings'.... how do you know? Honestly, not trying to be argumentative...I've got respect for you NYK, but I'm just trying to get a handle on how you'd know that much about That many peoples political beliefs without guessing.

Either we talked about it or they did something that was a dead giveaway like wear a campaign pin.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Why?

Studies have shown that people who attend college, generally, have higher incomes than those who do not.

Would you argue with this statistic?

Studies also show that those with higher education levels have more liberal views than those who do not have higher education.

The studies, and their results are not secret. And they have been repeated many times.

If you don't agree with the premise, or methodology, that's fine. Argue those points. But taking the results of the study as a personal insult is just weird.

Wait, I thought Republicans were 'rich and mean'. Now we're claiming that those with an education make the money, and most of them are liberal? 'Dude, that's weird'. :rofl:

 

[sgtmac_46]

It's an embarrassment. We talk about cultural diversity all the time but no one strives for intellectual diversity of this sort. Having 80%+ of faculty Democrats when it's more like half-and-half in the general population is worrisome to me.

I think you folks are looking at this all wrong. Who are you reliant upon for a pay check in academia? What political parties promise to spend more on arts and education? Therefore, if your paychecks and research money are reliant on government, who are you going to vote for, someone who promises to cut taxes and waste (regardless if they actually do) OR someone promises to RAISE taxes and spend more on art and education? It's a simple equation, follow the money.

It's the same with government media, like Public broadcasting and NPR. As those are funded by government, to a large extent, then they are going to support political groups that they believe will more likely support their programs in the future. They are also going to oppose any political group that is supportive of free market, because government employees do not want to have to compete with the private sector.

Anyone who wants to see the effect of this outside the US, look at government controlled media in Canada (CBC, for example) or Great Britain (BBC). That they lean left will be illustrated by the political leanings of the people who attack this post defending them as centrist and balanced. (But I digress). That they receive government funding is a HUGE deciding factor on how far left they support candidates. Left wing political parties will be supported by these groups, because they know that left wing parties that win elections, WILL support them with more tax dollars. Again, follow the money.


This is why we ALSO hear so much complaining among public broadcasting news sources about 'Corperate control' of media. Again, those who work for the government, mostly hate private competition. In their world, 'Corperation' and 'Private enterprise' are four letter words.

It's also why leftists in the US seem to admire the BBC and CBC so much...because it's a symbiotic relationship. Leftists can count on public broadcasting to back the left, and public broadcasting can count on leftists to back them when they gain political power. Isn't that right Garrison Keillor?

 

[ave_turuta]

Right, because we all know that only illiterate, slack jawed, "I quit ma schoolin' in the 6th grade", rednecks are conservatives.

Certainly somebody that went to college couldn't be anything but a liberal.

Well I hope you are kidding. I have had several years of teaching experience at an elite college. My partner has taught at a community college for mor ethan 7 years. The reality I have found is that today a sizeable part of the student body in colleges across America is staunchly conservative (I dare not mention statistics).

As for my own experience: I am a progressive, and openly so. My students know it, and so do my colleagues. However, perhaps people should be more careful before accusing college professors of "liberal bias" and so on. I have had 400 plus students. Many of them were members of the College Republicans; two of them, actually, were at the forefront of the organization while taking my course (a course on middle east history, not exactly en easy or palatable topic if you are in charge of teaching it today). Well, these two students specifically requested to be assigned to my sections during the second semester because they had truly enjoyed my lectures during the first. I like to think of the educational process as a socratic enterprise, where dialogue and respect for each other´s views conform the basis of the acquisition of knowledge. My students (hopefully) will learn something from me, but I can tell you that I have learnt as much or even more from my interaction with them. I actively and knowingly encourage my students to be open about their views when and if it is relevant to the discussion at hand: nobody (neither them, not me) should be afraid of speaking their minds. That´s what we supposedly do in college. My assignments have very specific annotations on how the grading will be based on the **academic** probity and quality of their work, not on the ideas expressed in them. And most certainly, I make sure my students know that, if anything, the classroom is and should always remain a SAFE place for everyone to speak out their minds. I have had numerous students with whom I disagree politically ask me which other courses I am teaching, come after class and talk about very diverse topics, etc. etc. Never - I mean never - have I had a complain of bias. This in a class where we must tackle eveyrthing from 19th century colonialism to the Arab-Israeli conflict to the problem of terrorism and Islamism. It is a very encouraging experience to see kids who came into the classroom with an enormous amount of prejudices and biases (Muslim and Jewish students not wanting to talk to one another, etc.) and seeing how throughout the semester they gain a more grounded, humanist view of things. Sometimes tension arises: these are very emotional topics for many of the kids, but I try to make sure that everyone stays grounded on the historiographical debates at hand. And hey, at the end of the semester, we all eat nice American donuts.

I cannot speak for any of my colleagues, but I can assure you that there are many professors out there who, no matter where their political ideas lie, are prodiving a sound education to college students regardless of political affiliation.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Well, i'd have to agree with you partially. I had a college history professor who was a card carrying 1960's era 'hippie'. He and I became pretty good friends, though we often disagreed. His area of expertise was the Civil war era and the reconstruction era. I thoroughly enjoyed his discussions, and he did his best to ensure that all sides of the issues were examined.

That having been said, I had a couple of psychology and sociology classes professored by leftists who were quite adamant that they were correct on every issue. I bucked the system pretty hard, but still managed to walk out with A's in those classes.

At any rate, we can always disagree, that's human, but I prefer it when we can do so with some level of civility. :asian:

 

[michaeledward]

Well, here it is in black and white:

http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664


Is anyone actually shocked by this? What suprised me most is that Brit Hume was rated fourth most Centrist.

Eric Alterman, author of the book 'What Liberal Media' has taken a closer look at this study. He has assembled a nice review of the 'methodology' used in the study, which point to a less-than-scientific quality to the work.

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=1347483

For instance, the researchers looked at the news content of The Wall Street Journal’s news pages – finding it the most liberal of the bunch – for a mere four months in 2002, while CBS News, which comes in as the second most liberal news organization, was studied for more than 12 years. One can’t come to any other conclusion than that this huge discrepancy in length of study represents a major analytical flaw.

I mentioned earlier I thought the methodology sounded a bit wierd.... http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=470942&postcount=14 ... guess I was correct.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Eric Alterman, author of the book 'What Liberal Media' has taken a closer look at this study. He has assembled a nice review of the 'methodology' used in the study, which point to a less-than-scientific quality to the work.

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=1347483



I mentioned earlier I thought the methodology sounded a bit wierd.... http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=470942&postcount=14 ... guess I was correct.

So someone who has written a book taking an opposite view, is attacking the validity of the research? I'm shocked.

 

[michaeledward]

So someone who has written a book taking an opposite view, is attacking the validity of the research? I'm shocked.

Spoken with the confidence of faith.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Spoken with the confidence of faith.

Faith in your desire to debunk anything that runs contrary to your beliefs, regardless of any inconvenient facts to the contrary.

As for the liberal media, it seems they're determined to follow the old saw 'The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he didn't exist.'

I suppose it would be important to proclaim 'What liberal media bias?' at the top of their lungs. Deny everything, demand proof, make counter accusations. It's hard to persue an agenda, when someone pulls the curtain back and reveals the Great Oz is nothing....but a hack political agenda.