The Truth About Media Bias...
Okay, I'm sick of this. Let's get it cleared up once and for all, right now.
There is no inherent "liberal bias" in the mainstream media. Neither is there any inherent "conservative bias."
Oh, don't get me wrong. There is bias, and tons of it. But it's not what the noise machines on both sides of the aisle would have you believe. There's no big conspiracy theory involved here. The "conspiracy," such as it is, is a simple one, and so blindingly obvious I'm amazed more people don't see it for what it is.
The bias is toward the audience for that given news outlet.
Take, for instance, The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, two of the most well-known and respected newspapers in the country. The Times tends to cater more to the intellectual crowd, with extensive features on theater and the arts supplementing its news coverage. This audience has always tended to harbor opinions on the more liberal/progressive side. Thus, the Times will tend to slant its coverage to favor that set of values. By the same token, the Journal is the de facto standard-bearer for the financial world, read religiously by businessmen, stockholders, economists, and most anyone involved with the process of making the money move. The world of Big Business has always been fairly Republican, so the Journal's editorials also tends to veer to the right.
The same applies to television. Fox News tends to be viewed by more people who identify as conservative, while MSNBC's audience usually goes the other way. Thus, Fox's coverage and commentary will favor conservative viewpoints, and MSNBC's will favor liberal ones. (The granddaddy of all cable news nets, CNN, has traditionally been a left-leaner as well, but in more recent years they've been trying harder to reach the middle ground.)
And why does this happen? It's simple... money.
Let's just face the facts here. For at least the last 150 years, if not much longer, reporting the news has never been done primarily for the public good. It's always been about turning a profit. Advertiser dollars, subscription dollars, Neilsen ratings, you name it. And in this day and age of 942 TV channels and bloggers everywhere you turn, it's easier than ever to figure out the kind of audience you're playing to, and adjust your marketing strategy accordingly to target that audience. Cable news does it all the time; they express opinions that will lure in those of a certain mindset, and then advertise products they feel will appeal to that mindset.
So, there you have it. News is entertainment and a marketing tool, and journalism is dead. If it ever really lived to begin with. Sometimes, I have my doubts.
It's as simple as that. Lefties, quit whining about Fox News; you have MSNBC and they're no better or worse, so be happy with that. Righties, quit whining about "liberal bias" in the media; they're playing to their audience, just as your pundits do.
And both sides should always remember: You only notice bias when it's against you. If something is biased in your direction, that's defined as "impartial."
Think about it...
There is no inherent "liberal bias" in the mainstream media. Neither is there any inherent "conservative bias."
Oh, don't get me wrong. There is bias, and tons of it. But it's not what the noise machines on both sides of the aisle would have you believe. There's no big conspiracy theory involved here. The "conspiracy," such as it is, is a simple one, and so blindingly obvious I'm amazed more people don't see it for what it is.
The bias is toward the audience for that given news outlet.
Take, for instance, The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, two of the most well-known and respected newspapers in the country. The Times tends to cater more to the intellectual crowd, with extensive features on theater and the arts supplementing its news coverage. This audience has always tended to harbor opinions on the more liberal/progressive side. Thus, the Times will tend to slant its coverage to favor that set of values. By the same token, the Journal is the de facto standard-bearer for the financial world, read religiously by businessmen, stockholders, economists, and most anyone involved with the process of making the money move. The world of Big Business has always been fairly Republican, so the Journal's editorials also tends to veer to the right.
The same applies to television. Fox News tends to be viewed by more people who identify as conservative, while MSNBC's audience usually goes the other way. Thus, Fox's coverage and commentary will favor conservative viewpoints, and MSNBC's will favor liberal ones. (The granddaddy of all cable news nets, CNN, has traditionally been a left-leaner as well, but in more recent years they've been trying harder to reach the middle ground.)
And why does this happen? It's simple... money.
Let's just face the facts here. For at least the last 150 years, if not much longer, reporting the news has never been done primarily for the public good. It's always been about turning a profit. Advertiser dollars, subscription dollars, Neilsen ratings, you name it. And in this day and age of 942 TV channels and bloggers everywhere you turn, it's easier than ever to figure out the kind of audience you're playing to, and adjust your marketing strategy accordingly to target that audience. Cable news does it all the time; they express opinions that will lure in those of a certain mindset, and then advertise products they feel will appeal to that mindset.
So, there you have it. News is entertainment and a marketing tool, and journalism is dead. If it ever really lived to begin with. Sometimes, I have my doubts.
It's as simple as that. Lefties, quit whining about Fox News; you have MSNBC and they're no better or worse, so be happy with that. Righties, quit whining about "liberal bias" in the media; they're playing to their audience, just as your pundits do.
And both sides should always remember: You only notice bias when it's against you. If something is biased in your direction, that's defined as "impartial."
Think about it...