I've been wondering about claims that the MSM is, in general, left wing biased. I've also been wondering about claims that Fox News is right wing biased.

When evaluating the main players in this media game (I define main players as those who bring in the biggest audiences and that is usually a player in television media), my opinion is that for a long time we had little choice - NBC, ABC, CBS, and CNN. Unless one spent time reading both a left wing rag combined with a right wing rag (I'm using 'left' and 'right' as equivalents to Democratic and Republican, respectively), there was little way one could get a balanced report by just quickly grabbing a half hour of TV news during a one's busy week.

That was the case until Fox News came along. Now there is a major player who offers a right wing bias (relative) for mass consumption.

But is there really a right wing bias to FNN? Assigning this bias, of course, is subjective and relative to one's own position on the political spectrum. This makes it difficult to quatify any bias as that quantification is dependant on the observer.

As a start, though, we could look at political contributions of employees at the major players. It may not be anything definitive, but it's a start in some sort of quantification of this bias: TV / Movies / Music: Top Contributors to Federal Candidates and Parties | OpenSecrets

I can't post the table summarizing the contributions as I can't save it to an image, but I will highlight some of the findings (contained in the link):

75% of contributions from the major players in the TV/Movies/Music industry are from Democrats.

20% of contributions from that industry are from PACs, the rest are individual contributions.

General Electric* (owns NBC): 89% to Dems; 11% to GOP (total $403,042; 100% individual contributions)

Time Warner (owns CNN): 78% to Dems; 22% to GOP (total $1,527,123; 73% individual contributions)

Walt Disney (owns ABC): 66% to Dems; 34% to GOP (total $718,331; 55% individual contributions)

National Amusements (owns CBS/Viacom): 85% to Dems; 15% to GOP (total $1,215,606; 84% individual contributions)

News Corp (owns FNN): 75% to Dems; 25% to GOP (total $726,494; 72% individual contributions)

(*I checked to see if all contributors from GE, which has its hand in all types of inductry, including some associated with the right (defense) and some associated witht he left (media), are lumped into this number and it appears the the website does break down contributions from divisions of major corporations.)

Based on these data, it appears that one could say, yes, the major media players for mass consumption do have bias in favor of the left. If one does, one probably needs to include FNN in that claim.

On the other hand and based on these data, it appears that one could say FNN is not biased at all compared to the other major media players.

What do these data tell you? And, if anyone has any ideas how to best quantify media bias, it would be great to discuss it here.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

Yet on the other hand, despite the monies given, it seems that coverage doesn't reflect the money according to this LA Times article and a George Mason University study.

In study, evidence of liberal-bias bias - Los Angeles Times

I've heard of this study. It's based on content which seems quite subjective. For instance it says that BHO got more than double the airtime (quantifiable) as JSM, yet they conclude that this content was 'tougher' (subjective). Sit both a Democrat and a Republican in front of that coverage and I bet one gets a different judgement on whether the coverage was 'tough' or not. Thanks for the link.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

The bias measurements are, well broad and at the same time not quantified as to your everyday slights that occur. For instance, its one thing to say McCain has 34 favorable stories while Obama has 70.....

Whats not counted is the absence of types of news pieces that are unflattering to either.
The example that strikes me most is, the fact that the msms never miss a chance to label a wrong doer as a republican con. But do not always apply that yardstick to the same degree or frequency to the dems libs....its one of those things that slips under the radar. When I brought this up last I was poohed poohed as to what difference does it make, they are all liars and thieves?

Yes but then lets drop the labeling entirely, I am all for it, but we know that’s not going to happen, there fore there is an unregistered inequity here. There are other examples.

As to the OP, directly- well, what bugs me is the hard headedness displayed when faced with the fact that NO organization, that is dogmatic as these are, can escape a lack of objectivity when dealing with issues on this basis.

The lib mantra is fox is right of center and a spin machine, okay, but then tell us in the other breath, the msm; abc nbc cbs cnn and msnbc are not despite the get weight of viewpoints that are opposite of foxs.....that’s intellectually bereft and dishonest posit that is part and parcel of the issue overall, which equals- “ we are fair, you are not” when the same objective yardstick is applied to both, its denial of reality.

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

I think it would make more sense to look at the reporting that each station does rather than who contributes to the company.

i still feel since about 2002 the MSM has been pretty tilted to the left .... some will say cause the administration was republican some will say cause it sells papers or air time

in the end the data shows that with votes and money the media favors the left every time ......... they are mostly all anti war and troops are to them just props to bushbash (reference 60 minutes)

I'm going to have to agree with Jack on this one, at least when it comes to this campaign. The MSM has covered Barack much more, but a lot of the time spent has been negative or an apparent effort to sink his campaign.

Compare the extensive coverage the media gives to Michelle Obama with Cindy McCain.

__________________
Is our children learning? -George W. Bush

"I think—tide turning—see, as I remember—I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of—it's easy to see a tide turn—did I say those words?"—Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004

The GMU study covered from June until just recently. As BHO got more coverage, he would get more negatives. However, I'm looking for some longer term studies that are more quantitative, as we've been hearing these MSM-leans-left FNN-leans-right claims since well before June of this year.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

From the link........

The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, where researchers have tracked network news content for two decades, found that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign.

Wow, a study lasting a whole 6 weeks.

While interesting, it is not a substantial study.

Also, what do you thing would have happened if Hillary had won the nomination?

I doubt that there would have been as much negativity surrounding Hillary had she won, as she was the media darling while she was a candidate.

Good post, especially the last paragraph.

The reason FOX News took off so quickly is because there was no television news that towed the republican line.

Now there is.

All mass media outlets are biased. Almost all of them are slanted to the left, except FOX, The Wall Street Journal and some radio talk shows.

It is common sense to anyone who is able to recognize bias, even when that bias supports their opinions.

yea well pew has some new research out too, 39% of foxs audience are dems..... their audience is more varied with larger blocks overall then the others including the nets....you'd think they would wake up to that ....but no....they want to burn the witch while standing there stirring their own witches brew......

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

Actually it's 33%, which is still impressive, especially when compared to the make up of the audiences who watch the other news networks.

Fox News Ad Targets CNN's Heavily Democratic Audience

Great post, but even with this data to support the facts many will still chose to believe a lie. It is beyond questioning, the evidence is so overwhelming that there is liberal media bias favoring Barack and liberal causes. Only the willingly ignorant could deny such a reality.

But, hey its OK because if someone wants to be told what to think then that's their prerogative.

Until I hear even one authority or "study" that is itself liberal say there is a liberal bias I'm going to just treat this whole thing as the very definition of "self serving ". Just as I wouldn't ask Joe Stalin to lecture on the evils of communism it's really difficult to gauge a left-wing bias accurately if you think the last American President not an avowed communist was Herbert Hoover. It's also just barely possible that the reason the media notes so many more arrestees as Republicans than Democrats is that there's so many more arrestees that are Republicans than Democrats. As Colbert put it, "...reality has a well-known leftist bias"

The public editor of the NY TImes admits it is a liberal newspaper....

THE PUBLIC EDITOR
Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?
By DANIEL OKRENT

Published: July 25, 2004

OF course it is.

The fattest file on my hard drive is jammed with letters from the disappointed, the dismayed and the irate who find in this newspaper a liberal bias that infects not just political coverage but a range of issues from abortion to zoology to the appointment of an admitted Democrat to be its watchdog. (That would be me.) By contrast, readers who attack The Times from the left - and there are plenty - generally confine their complaints to the paper's coverage of electoral politics and foreign policy.

I'll get to the politics-and-policy issues this fall (I want to watch the campaign coverage before I conclude anything), but for now my concern is the flammable stuff that ignites the right. These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you've been reading the paper with your eyes closed.

The New York Times > Week in Review > The Public Editor: Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?

The piece above is very good, I highly recommend it.

Washington Post admist pro Obama bias...

Deborah Howell, the Washington Post's Ombudsman, finally admitted in an article today that her own newspaper is heavily biased in favor of Barack Obama:

Democrat Barack Obama has had about a 3 to 1 advantage over Republican John McCain in Post Page 1 stories since Obama became his party's presumptive nominee June 4. Obama has generated a lot of news by being the first African American nominee, and he is less well known than McCain -- and therefore there's more to report on. But the disparity is so wide that it doesn't look good.

Washington Post Admits Pro-Obama Bias (Wizbang)

BBC

BBC Report Admits Liberal Bias on Abortion

By Elizabeth O'Brien

LONDON, England, June 18, 2007 (LifesiteNews.com) - After one year's investigation, an official BBC report reveals that the BBC shows a strong liberal bias through its disproportionately large coverage of certain "single-issue" concerns.

Commissioned last year by the BBC managers and board of governors, the report concludes that political events and daily news are covered fairly. The Daily Telegraph reports, however, that the agency has given a heavily biased portrayal of issues such as poverty, climate change and religion.

During the same year, BBC also admitted to having an anti-Christian bias (also not specifically addressed in the report). "The BBC is not impartial or neutral," said Andrew Marr, BBC senior political commentator. "It's a publicly funded, urban organization with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias."

BBC Report Admits Liberal Bias on Abortion

ABC

On the ABC site's must-read "The Note" section, prepared by the network's "political unit," was the following, and we quote verbatim:

"Like every other institution, the Washington and political press corps operate with a good number of biases and predilections.

"They include, but are not limited to, a near-universal shared sense that liberal political positions on social issues like gun control, homosexuality, abortion, and religion are the default, while more conservative positions are 'conservative positions.'

"They include a belief that government is a mechanism to solve the nation's problems; that more taxes on corporations and the wealthy are good ways to cut the deficit and raise money for social spending and don't have a negative affect on economic growth; and that emotional examples of suffering (provided by unions or consumer groups) are good ways to illustrate economic statistic stories. ...

NewsMax.com: Inside Cover Story

Here is a recent piece from Bill Moyers....

His speech at the 2008 National Conference for Media Reform yesterday is burning up the Internets (though I have Joe to thank for directing me to it). In the speech Moyers says:

Edward R. Murrow told his generation of journalists, no one can eliminate their prejudices. Just recognize them.

Here is my bias.

Extremes of wealth and poverty cannot be reconciled with a truly just society. Capitalism breeds great inequality that is destructive unless tempered by an intuition for equality which is the heart of democracy.

When the state becomes the guardian of power and privilege to the neglect of the people who have neither power nor privilege we can no longer claim to have a representative government.

Bill Moyers admits bias

Last week, NPR’s own official ombudsman, Jeffrey Dvorkin, admitted a liberal bias in NPR’s talk programming.

Bozell's News Column -- 10/21/2003 -- NPR Admits a Liberal Bias -- Media Research Center

ABC political chief admits liberal bias....

YouTube - Political Chief Admits Liberal Media Bias

Shocker: Veteran WaPo Reporter Admits MSM's Bias Is 'Overwhelmingly to the Left'
By Dave Pierre | September 25, 2006 - 13:52 ET

On the Thursday, September 21, 2006, episode of his radio show, host Hugh Hewitt interviewed Thomas B. Edsall, who up until recently was a senior political reporter for the Washington Post. He had been with the paper for 25 years. Through precise and direct questioning by Hewitt, Edsall admitted something that is rarely heard from a liberal these days. In a shocking admission, Edsall articulated that the biases of the mainstream media are "overwhelmingly to the left." He also proposed that Democratic reporters outnumber Republicans "in the range of 15-25 to 1"!

In the interview, as Hewitt and Edsall discussed the rise of conservative talk radio and the biases of the mainstream media, Edsall stated the following:

EDSALL: ... I agree that whatever you want to call it, mainstream media, presents itself as unbiased, when in fact, there are built into it many biases, and they are overwhelmingly to the left.

Shocker: Veteran WaPo Reporter Admits MSM's Bias Is 'Overwhelmingly to the Left' | NewsBusters.org

BBC network admits it: We're biased toward left
Acknowledges failure to offer debate due to inherent liberal culture of staff