I'm going to insert an observation here which I don't believe anyone has brought up yet but which is important.

How does one measure a bias in reporting, be it left or right? I'm going to start with the fact, which I believe to be true, that it is impossible to avoid all bias; that a bias in reporting the news is unavoidable as long as one is selecting what constitutes news and what does not, and how to put a story into words and pictures.

But I am also going to point out that any measurement of bias needs to be done after the fact to be legitimate. In other words, if you point to studies showing that a majority of journalists hold liberal views, or on the other hand reason that the owners of media outlets are all (or nearly all) for-profit corporations and thus will slant to the right on economic issues, this is not an assertion that there IS a bias in reporting in one direction or the other, but rather a theoretical prediction that there SHOULD be one.

The only way to determine where the bias actually slants towards is to measure the news stories themselves, carefully, against a chosen standard that one determines would represent "balanced" coverage -- a bias towards the center, if you will. If the coverage as observed is to the left of that point, then it is left-biased; if to the right, it is right-biased.

Now, the $64,000 question is this: how do you determine where that center-bias point should be located?

I shall leave the question hanging and allow others to discuss it for a while, because to be perfectly honest I don't have clue one myself how to go about this.

Have you heard of any big shake-ups of MSM execs? If they were serious about maximizing market-share, they’d be emulating the news organizations they’ve been losing to, like Fox news and the alternative media.


Exactly right, this is a marketing tool. But who is their target market? Is it investors looking for the maximum return on their investment? No. They’re telling their investors upfront that profits are ancillary. They’re selling prestige over profits.

__________________
Election 2008 – Addicted to Placebos

In the Introduction to Censored [1966]: The News That Didn't Make the News-And Why, a 1966 book by Carl Jensen, Walter Cronkite wrote:

"'A handful of us determine what will be on the evening news broadcasts, or, for that matter, in the New York Times or Washington Post or Wall Street Journal.... Indeed it is a handful of us with this awesome power... a strongly editorial power.

"...we must deicide which news items out of hundreds available we are going to expose that day. And those [news stories] available to us already have been culled and re-culled by persons far outside our control.'"

Censored: The News That Didn't Make ... - Google Book Search

To learn the truth, you must read "between the lines."

It is all there, in plain sight.

Damn I wish I had saved more of my old posts.

You wouldn't believe how many times I have done the same research 2, or 3 times, all because I didn't save my old posts.

This is actually a GREAT question.

You are a logical thinker, but your logic is tainted by bias.

Sometimes I fell like you are playing me and others here, already knowing the answers to the questions you ask, but I am not sure. You do a good job of selling the "I am not set in my opinion one way or another", aspect.

Anyways, there are many different ways to judge media bias, some perhaps more valuable than others. Our own personal observations are one way.

Another way is to look at a particular news source and to see how often they
interview, or quote people from one of the two major parties compared to the "other" party.

Another is how much time they give to each party.

Another is the number of positive stories for each party, compared to negative stories.

Another is certain keywords which are used more often by one of the two parties.

Another is the stance on a particular issues which is strongly supported by one of the two parties. One of the best examples of this is gun control. I don't think I have ever seen a truly supportive piece on television news which supports the "right to bear arms."

There are numerous organizations who have studied the media for years.

I am having trouble finding some of the info I used to have, here is one piece, as an example, which shows how Sunday News belongs to conservatives.

Media Matters - Third time's not the charm: Sunday-morning talk shows still imbalanced

It is a great piece and it proves that Conservatives get more time than liberals.....on SUNDAYS.

I just found this piece form last year. Cool. I love the internet.

This Harvard study has some tidbits.......

Newspapers lead all other media outlets in terms of content and tone favorable for Democrats. Perhaps the most disturbing facet of the newspaper coverage was that nearly half of all front page stories were triggered by newsroom initiative rather than reacting to what candidates did and said. This stands in contrast to all other media.

On the front pages of newspapers, Democrats tended to get more coverage than in other media, somewhat more positive coverage than elsewhere, and more stories tended to contain information that explained how they would be affected if that candidate were elected than was true in the press coverage overall. In addition, many more of the stories were initiated by journalists than elsewhere in the press, a fact that signals a special role for print as a source of enterprise in news.

Another distinguishing characteristic of the print stories studied was tone. Democrats got much more positive coverage in the daily papers examined than they did elsewhere. Fully 59% of all stories about Democrats had a clear, positive message vs. 11% that carried a negative tone. That is roughly double the percentage of positive stories that we found in the media generally. Just under a third (30%) of the front page stories examined were neutral.

For the top tier Democrats, the positive tilt was even more the case than for Democrats in general. Obama’s front page coverage in the sample was 70% positive and 9% negative and Clinton’s was similarly 61% positive and 13% negative.

Republican candidates, in contrast, were more likely to receive clearly negative stories in print than elsewhere: 40% negative vs. 26% positive and 34% neutral.

Newspapers also stood out for initiating more campaign coverage on their own. Nearly half of all front page stories were triggered by newsroom initiative rather than reacting to what the candidate or others said or did (46%). That is substantially higher than the 28% in the media generally in the sample. A little more than a third of stories were triggered by the candidates and their campaigns (37%), compared with 46% generally.

Following on the heels of newspapers was network evening news. The tone of coverage was again slanted toward Democrats with Barack Obama getting the bulk of positive coverage and John McCain getting the bulk of the negative.

THE INVISIBLE PRIMARY—INVISIBLE NO LONGER: A First Look at Coverage of the 2008 Presidential Campaign | Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ)

This is just one piece. It is not "proof."

Another study.......

Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist
By
Meg Sullivan
| 12/14/2005 5:36:31 PM

While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.

These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly.

Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist / UCLA Newsroom

There are many more studies, but I will have to look more later.

The degree to which this "great little racket" has been accepted and assimilated by members of the press was expressed by Mark Halperin, then political editor of ABC News, in an appearance on a right-wing radio talk show in October 2006:

"Many people I work with in ABC, and other old media organizations, are liberal on a range of issues. And I think the ability of that, the reality of how that affects media coverage, is outrageous, and that conservatives in this country for forty years have felt that, and that it's something that must change ... And news organizations putting their heads in the sand for forty years, and not caring that half the country thought we were too liberal and biased against them, was an insane business decision. But it was also insane to do from the point of view of what we're supposed to do as our core mission ... I don't know if it's 95 percent [the percentage of people with whom he works who are liberals], and unfortunately, they're not all old. There are a lot of young liberals here, too. But certainly, there are enough in the old media, not just in ABC, but in old media generally, that it tilts the coverage quite frequently, in many issues, in a liberal direction, which is completely improper."

Journalism and its discontents | Salon

Editors of any large media outlet are careful about using words. To use the word "improper" is pretty damning.

we were discussing media bias.......this gave me a real laugh……how can one possibly expect any tribune non partisanship with this kind of nonsense going on....this doesn't send a message to every reporter in the newsroom?

How about T shirts for McCain as well f their intent it to drive public interest? We know the answer to that don’t we?


In the Tank for Obama

The Chicago Tribune and other media outlets in the Windy City haven't exactly been known for their probing analysis of Barack Obama. In fact, more often than not they have been cheerleaders for the man the Tribune called "a rising star" when it endorsed him in his losing race for Congress back in 2000.

But now the Tribune, under the new ownership of local real estate impresario Sam Zell, has done itself one better. Leo Klein, a liberal blogger, notes on Mr. Obama's own Web site that Tribune salespeople are hawking Obama T-shirts as premiums. Reporting from a Walgreen's drug store in downtown Chicago, Mr. Klein noted that "a woman called to everyone entering the store saying they could get a free 'Obama' teeshirt if they signed up for the Tribune."


Mr. Klein snarkily notes that the Tribune has a reputation for being a Republican paper, stemming from the thundering conservative editorials of its late publisher Robert McCormick. But the Tribune hasn't been a conservative paper in years, and in 2004 zealously pursued the divorce records of Mr. Obama's GOP opponent Jack Ryan in what many considered a highly questionable invasion of privacy. Mr. Ryan dropped out of the race, and Mr. Obama glided to an easy victory over the eccentric Alan Keyes.

The Tribune hasn't said anything about its sudden lurch into pushing Obamamania paraphernalia. What's next? Perhaps an Obama poster sandwiched into the paper and suitable for framing. Somehow a mere editorial endorsement just won't cut it anymore.

OpinionJournal's Political Diary [politicaldiary@oj1.opinionjournal.com]

__________________
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

Yes it is obvious that the mega corporate ownership of media mitigates against the possibility of a liberal bias. But I do not ignore the content of media product. In fact I have repeatedly referenced the recently exposed program engaged in by all the major media outlets to disseminate pentagon propaganda for years through the agency of supposedly independent military analysts who were in fact merely pentagon shills. Other examples like the media's obsession with Obama's lack of a lapel pin and their equally obvious pass to McCain on his repeated confusion over the difference between shia and sunni are legion.

__________________
A nation of slaves is always prepared to applaud the clemency of their master who, in the abuse of absolute power, does not proceed to the utmost extremes of injustice and oppression.
Edward Gibbon

sure, I agree, and as I have stated before believe ot OR not, Fox in the shape of Col. Hunt, is and I watch a lot of news shows etc. the most honest I have seen, hands down. He excoriated bush for a long time and still does, his books are no partisan rah rah for the pentagon or the war.

But your point is apt, and I agree by and large there has been a lot of that anfd of course recognizing that cnn, abc , cbs and nbc have ole Wesley as their the war sux and is a pit champion too. But thats one issue Tim.

Oh, and his repeated confusion? What twice? and he corrected himself immediately and the lapel pin thing is stupid,(but hes wearing one now though isn't he????) come on, your rat holing now.
The debate is frequency and whats more overall slant.

I just had an interesting experience. I was doing some surfing and googled McCain missteps. Got a no. 1 hit from CNN, political ticker, McCain missteps.
CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - AP: McCain dogged by campaign missteps « - Blogs from CNN.com

So I read it and googled obama missteps....guess what? Go try it your self, see what you comes up with and what does not come up, McCain’s got like a full page from well know media sources. A site for such regards Obama?
Nope, they are all blogs and the politico.com way down the list and is dated March 7th..….. .....hummmmmmm, so how is it CNN and the NY times, Yahoo news , AOL et al sees fit to categorize McCain missteps but does not accord Obama the same?

__________________
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

It was at least three times and he didn't correct himself - Joe Lieberman had to whisper in his ear.
Try google searches for "obama flip flop". For every search you do I can supply another. These "issues" like "missteps" or "flip flops" are headline blurbs and soundbites that are used to grab attention for that minute so advertising can be sold. If they indicate any bias at all it is a bias that the publishers have decided will produce more profits today than an alternate bias. They are also, for the most part, as accurate as most soundbite news gets. The worst that can be said of them is that the same criticism could be made of the other candidate but was not. The right wing bias issue I cited (lying about Iraq) was systemic, long lasting, deliberately misleading, and coordinated.

The routine "reporting" about obama's flag pin, obama's secret islamic beliefs etc have no corollary on the McCain side. Nothing that vicious or that patently ridiculous or false has been trumpeted throughout the media about him. Where is the endless loop of rev hagee speeches? And where is the "swiftboating " of McCain? Where are the lies about his military record? It was done the last time a decorated veteran ran for president. Why not now?

__________________
A nation of slaves is always prepared to applaud the clemency of their master who, in the abuse of absolute power, does not proceed to the utmost extremes of injustice and oppression.
Edward Gibbon

dude please....I'll trade you several; time, newsweek US snooze and World Report and “US”, People et al covers for a Hagee rant....please huh?

Seen the you cannot have alex add yet? ( the “US” magazine add with Obama and Michelle, go look at a it, they white washed his ass, figuratively and literally, yes I know its not a news mag, just saying, they did a Michael Jackson number on him, where’s the outrage?)

Oh and remember the very flattering McCain Time magazine cover after his winning the rep. primary? Yea, I don’t either because there wasn’t one but we all saw Obamas didn’t we?

Or maybe the networks discussing the senators caught up in “VIP” loans last week, you know evil predatory lenders that Obama makes hay of? Oh, didn’t see that ? Me nether because the Nets didn’t touch it.

I can go on all day, with alike bias, please.

Your rationalizations do nothing to answer my question wherein supposedly news sources host up to date pages shilling for obama....or anti McCain.

__________________
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

Well, thanks, but I want to point out that the most important part of the question was this:

All of the rest of your post seems to be predicated around the following answer: "The two main political parties represent a balance around the ideological center, with Democrats to the left and Republicans to the right of that point consistently, so that one may judge the media bias according to how they treat candidates of the two parties."

Is that what you're saying? And if so, why do you believe this?

just a tad more grist for mill, I was going to post this in the russert thread, but believe this is far more important here as to the article content re; the areas I have emphasized by bold font....


Russert Took Media Bias Seriously
By BERNARD GOLDBERG
June 18, 2008; Page A15

There have been millions of words written and spoken in the past few days about Tim Russert -- words about how Tim knew his beat better than almost anyone in Washington, about how hard work was in his blue-collar DNA, and about what a decent guy he was. All true.

But days later another reality has finally sunk in: that while his colleagues loved and admired Tim, I'm not at all sure they really understood him, not the part that made him so important in American journalism, anyway.


Knowing politics as well as he did was part of it, for sure. But a lot of people in Washington know politics. Asking probing questions was part of it, too. But again, Tim didn't have a patent on tough questions. And it wasn't just that (unlike too many others) he was fair to both sides. No, what made Tim Russert different, and better, I think was his willingness to listen to -- and take seriously -- criticism about his own profession. He was willing, for example, to keep an open mind about a hot-button issue like media bias -- an issue that so many of his colleagues dismiss as the delusions of right-wing media haters. (Trust me on this one, I worked at CBS News for 28 years and know Dan Rather personally.)

In 2001, my first book, "Bias," came out. It was an insider's look at bias in the media. Not one network news correspondent would have anything to do with me. I couldn't get on any of their morning news shows to talk about the book (which was a national best seller), or their evening shows or their weekend shows or even their middle-of-the-night news shows. No one in network television wanted to discuss the issue, no matter how many Middle Americans thought it was important.

Russert was the lone exception.

He had me on his CNBC interview show, and we talked about bias for a full hour. He had me on his show two other times. About five years ago, we turned the tables and I interviewed him for a book I was writing on the arrogance that I believe pervades too much of American journalism.

Tim was a big proponent of diversity, but he wanted to go further than the usual stuff. "I am for having women in the newsroom and minorities in the newsroom -- I'm all for it. It opens up our eyes and gives us different perspectives. But just as well, let's have people with military experience; let's have people from all walks of life, people from the top-echelon schools but also people from junior colleges and the so-called middling schools -- that's the pageantry of America . . . You need cultural diversity, you need ideological diversity. You need it."

Tim understood that without that kind of diversity, journalism would be in trouble. He knew it wasn't good for journalism or America if almost all the people reporting the news lived and worked in the same bubble.

"There's a potential cultural bias. And I think it's very real and very important to recognize and to deal with," he told me. "Because of backgrounds and training you come to issues with a preconceived notion or a preordained view on subjects like abortion, gun control, campaign finance. I think many journalists growing up in the '60s and the '70s have to be very careful about attitudes toward government, attitudes toward the military, attitudes toward authority. It doesn't mean there's a rightness or a wrongness. It means you have to constantly check yourself."

"Why the closed-mindedness when the subject comes around to media bias?" I asked him.

"That, to me, is totally contrary to who we're supposed to be as journalists. . . . If someone suggested there was an anti-black bias, an anti-gay bias, an anti-American bias, we'd sit up and say, 'Let's talk about this, let's tackle it.' Well, if there's a liberal bias or a cultural bias we have to sit up and tackle it and discuss it. We have got to be open to these things."

His many friends in journalism -- the ones who spend their lives inside that comfortable, elitist bubble -- would do well to take those words to heart. Facing up to their biases and making a conscious effort to get rid of what Tim called "preferred positions" on important social issues (for abortion and against guns, for example) would be a lasting tribute to Tim.

We ended our conversation that day with an exchange about the criticism he took from some on the political left for wearing a red, white and blue ribbon on his lapel when he interviewed Vice President Dick Cheney on Sept. 16, 2001. He told me a good friend of his died at the World Trade Center on 9/11, and that the friend's family had asked if he would wear the ribbon, "and I never thought for a second about it."

"I want a debate about national security and who defines national security," he said. "I understand all that. But in the end, you have to make judgments, and on that day I made a judgment that five days after the most horrific event of my lifetime and of my journalistic career, that for me to say to the country I too am part of this, I too have experienced this gut-wrenching pain and agony, and I too have enormous remorse and sympathy, with not only the people who died in the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and in the field in Pennsylvania, but all of us -- we're in this together. This isn't covering Democrats and Republicans or the Bills versus the Redskins; this is us. The Taliban doesn't believe in the First Amendment."

"But what about those who say journalists shouldn't wear red, white and blue ribbons, that by doing that somehow you're taking the government's side in some debate or another," I asked him.

"It is imperative," he told me, "that we never suggest that there's a moral equivalency between the United States of America and the terrorists. Period. I'll believe that until the day I die."

Which was way too soon.

WSJ.com - Login

__________________
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

You don't even need to lie about McCain's military record. I've lost count of the number of conservatives who respond with pure disbelief when I tell them McCain violated the standing protocols and signed papers admitting he was a war criminal, Most people still think he was tortured because he wouldn't talk.

sure and then he stayed there after being provided an inviation to leave, by signing more shit...what a crud......get serious will you....

__________________
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