It's probably not really worth compiling international roaming charges to comment on this, but it's one of the more thoughtless conservative memes I've heard in some time: the fact that liberal blogs are cited more often in the mainstream media is evidence that the media has a liberal bias. The Maureen Dowd-Josh Marshall plagiarism incident is even being cited (such as by the usually smart Hot Air) as evidence of this.
No. The reason that liberal blogs are cited more often in the mainstream media is because they are more plentiful and more widely-read than conservative blogs. Traffic on the Internet in general tilts toward the young and the more highly educated, demographics which -- at least for the time being -- are associated with more liberal politics. And yes, I do think that liberal blogs are "better" on average than conservative ones (with plenty of exceptions on both sides) but you can reach this conclusion without having to invoke qualitative conclusions at all.
The analogy to liberal blogs is not conservative blogs but conservative talk radio, a medium where conservative hosts maintain a multifold advantage over liberal ones. How much more does Rush Limbaugh drive the conversation than, say, Randi Rhodes. A *lot* more. So does this mean the media has a conservative bias?
5.18.2009
Blogosphere Reality Has a Liberal Bias
@ 9:00 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
39 comments
Of course a "liberal bias" will be detected in the blogosphere. Since there has been a liberal bias documented in the MSM (several times, and reported upon as such), what blogs would the MSM tend to read and cite? People tend to go for what reinforces their current beliefs.
Oh, First.
Dude, GB, while you may be right, you totally missed Nate's point. He was taking issue with the statement that the major news outlets have a liberal bias BECAUSE they refer to liberal blogs more than conservative ones.
No one quotes Rush because they all know he's a windbag filled with hot air.
gbthrone:
"Since there has been a liberal bias documented in the MSM (several times, and reported upon as such)"
Having something reported on "several times" does not make it true.
Also, it might be good to read the post before commenting. Nate expressly disagrees with your claim and gives good reasons why. Responding to that by just repeating the point refuted is like sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming I can't hear you over and over.
@gbthrone:
Talk-radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh (and web sources like Matt Drudge) are cited quite often in the MSM. It's true that Limbaugh is mentioned purely for controversy that he stirs up, but Drudge's reporting is often the source for stories in the MSM.
gbthrone, I guess you'd say that Drudge is where the MSM go to balance their reporting. By the way, this is where I find a weakness in Nate's argument. He says that Limbaugh could be used to "prove" that the media have a conservative bias. It would be more accurate to say that Limbaugh, et al demonstrate that Talk Radio has a conservative bias, much as Nate admits that the blogosphere has a liberal bias.
Nate was trying to say that the MSM reference both the liberal blogosphere and conservative talk radio, but the better analogue for MSM conservative references would be Drudge, I think.
Aren't you on vacation?
I think that blogs tend to be more liberal because the guys (and girls!) who set them up tend to be liberal- young, innovative, thoughtful, motivated in politics by such things as the Iraq War or Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath at a time when the media in general has been opening up. I think there are decent conservative blogs, and I am sure as the criticisms of Obama become more obvious ans serious, so there will be more and more of them. And it is true in blogland that the good survive and the bad whither.
I think that conservatives dominate talk radio for similar reasons. They came to the fore by criticising the Clinton administration at a time when the airwaves were being opened up.
I don't think the media as a whole has a bias one way or the other (although I think the liberal blogosphere has helped correct a previously conservative institution.) I think you can find all views easily enough and make your own judgements.
To me, the media seems to have a conservative bias. I, like most, judge it relative to my own position when I see, read, or view it.
Too bad Maureen Dowd isn't a liberal anyway.
The MSM is and has always been conservative simply by nature of being large corporate entities. (See the book "Unreliable Sources.")
It still is today, else we wouldn't be seeing Salon quoted as a left blog in the MSM, and for "balance" quotes from Newsmax to represent the right. Salon may lean left, but it's a tad more reality-based than the right wing sites that get quoted.
And this is a trend: quote center-right to center-left blogs that rely on real news and fact-checking as "the far left," and for balance quote far right blogs that make things up out of whole cloth and paint them as equivalent.
The MSM is delighting in creating this false equivalency, as is its conservative wont.
You unwittingly note this yourself, Nate. Rush Limbaugh and AM radio lies drive the MSM reporting of the "wacko" right, while decidedly un-liberal Maureen Dowd, and some respectable left-leaning blogs drive the reporting by the MSM of the "wacko" left.
The job of the media is to discover and report the truth, not give equal time to both "sides".
Conservatives whine about media "bias" because they want their ideology, not the truth, reported.
FWIW, I agree with Hairball. The MSM most definitely has a conservative bias. I submit this is because (in addition to corporate control) they've been scared away from their true role by decades of conservative whining.
Agree with Reid et al.
The "liberal bias of the media" meme is a very effective one. It provides cover for any event conservatives would perceive as 'bad,' from political malfeasance to world affairs to election results.
This is despite it not being based in truth or reality, as numerous independent studies have shown (which I should cite, but unfortunately have to dash. So disbelieve me if you will; I won't blame ya).
So if it's wrong, but it works... hm.
great comparison to talk radio.
The entire IDEA of a "liberal bias" in the media is just a useful right-wing fantasy.
The right needs enemies to rally against. When reality contradicts their narrow-minded views it's evidence of "liberal media bias."
That's because Neo-Stalinists of the right think that ANY deviation from right-wing orthodoxy equals "liberal bias." They think the media exists entirely to express propaganda, and if their views don't totally dominate, they scream about "bias."
Only in a completely irrational world could the utterly conformist and corporate loving media be considered "liberal."
Multi-billion dollar media corporations are NOT out there on the ramparts fighting for change. In fact, merely to believe this crap you have to adopt the utter fantasy that high-level corporate managers can't influence the editorial decisions of their media empire or that they are all secret Marxists.
You actually hear right-wingers like Pete Kent argue that the media drones would "quit" if somehow their "liberal bias" were controlled by their bosses.
It's an utter fantasy land of course. In NO business does senior management sit back and say "we don't like the product, but we're helpless to do anything about it!"
Internet blogs were created because the corporate media COMPLETELY shut out all liberal ideas and people whatsoever. Even today you see people like John Yoo getting a regular column at the Philly Enquirer because the right-wing publisher went to prep-school with Yoo and wanted to "counter the image of liberal bias" in his media empire.
Anyone with a brain and the knowledge of the 32/32 Dem/Rep split on the new pro-life poll could tell you how liberal the media is. Even MSNBC is reporting this as an actual shift in public opinion. Stupid.
Sorry, Nate, the reason for preferring Center-Left blogs to screaming Right-Wing blogs is not numerical. It is the same as the reason for preferring fact-checking to Truthiness, as taught in Journalism school. (Thank you, Stephen Colbert.) Except when the foaming at the mouth is the story.
Also, could you parse out your phrase, "the usually smart Hot Air"? I looked and saw nothing but hot air.
Dude, I thought you were on vacation?? No posting. We need our uber-geek well-rested and refreshed upon his return.
Left wing Hacks read Marky Mark
Left wing Hacks read Marky Mark
Left wing Hacks read Marky Mark
who as usual hits the nail on the head
To add to SquirrelRunningAcrossAKeyboard's comment, the MSM quotes Center-Left blogs because they (a) have more intelligent things to say (i.e., the reporter feels safer quoting them) and (b) are usually more accurate (ibid). Begin with the assumption that the media is made up of lazy, overworked, underpaid, chickensh*t reporters who'll get called onto the carpet if they make too many mistakes or cut enough corners on the truth. Which side are they more likely to quote?
gbthrone -
Of course a "liberal bias" will be detected in the blogosphere. Since there has been a liberal bias documented in the MSM (several times, and reported upon as such), what blogs would the MSM tend to read and cite? People tend to go for what reinforces their current beliefstext
Nate's post addresses that conjecture, and argues logically against it.
If you think Nate's reasoning is wrong, present evidence that it is wrong.
MarkyMark -
I think there are decent conservative blogs, and I am sure as the criticisms of Obama become more obvious ans serious, so there will be more and more of them.text
Why do you assume that criticism of Obama is necessarily associated with being "conservative"?
Glen Greenwald is the most intelligent critic of Obama that I am aware of.
I don't think of Obama as perfect - I have plenty of criticisms of him. There are things I like about him, too, of course.
Because a person criticizes Obama on some issue does not require that they adopt the reality-denying far right ideology that is currently referred to in the US, inaccurately, as "conservative".
Just because one option is imperfect, does not mean that the completely insane option is better.
Humm maybe its time to take another page from recent history and come up with a better name than conservative just like liberals magically came progressive
I hope you agree it goes both ways. Most "progressives" I hope don't actually believe the Daily Kos Olbermann, Rachel Maddows of the world.
Its so humorous to watch. If you compare 2000 to 2008 almost the exact same actions are occuring except the parties are in reverse. In 2001 all the articles were Democratic party collapsing, there is no leader, how will Ds answer talk radio. Who knows what the new medium is going to be. Perhaps twitter and conservatives are crushing progressives in that medium. Whatever it is conservatives will propably dominate it and then naturally overreach and by the time 2020 rolls around it will be 2008 all over again.
It's a similar dilemma to the one the media faced during the election. Obama was turning out great crowds, doing well in debates, organizing powerfully. McCain could barely draw a crowd, people were deserting the GOP in droves.
So, the MSM reports the news and the GOP wails "You're giving more positive coverage to Obama!" Well, duh! Positive things were happening there, and largely negative ones to McCain. That was what the story was! To give positive coverage to a losing candidate requires careful avoidance of the reporting of actual events!
McCain won only among aged voters. Should we really be surprised that there are fewer conservative voices on the web?
Novamiddleman -
If you compare 2000 to 2008 almost the exact same actions are occuring except the parties are in reverse. In 2001 all the articles were Democratic party collapsing, there is no leader, how will Ds answer talk radio. Who knows what the new medium is going to be. Perhaps twitter and conservatives are crushing progressives in that medium. Whatever it is conservatives will propably dominate it and then naturally overreach and by the time 2020 rolls around it will be 2008 all over againtext
Just because the Democrats came back doesn't mean that the Republicans will.
Early in the Bush era, I thought it might be a "give 'em enough rope" situation.
I think that's what it turned out to be.
nova_middle_man -
For the most part, I can't stand television news. Even when it doesn't show a blatant partisan bias, it's sensational to the point of sacrificing accuracy. That said, my friend watches a decent bit of MSNBC, so, on occasion, I get to share the experience. Olbermann and Maddow *are* pushing a left wing agenda, and that makes me uncomfortable.
I'm a lefty, but I believe that a fair representation of the facts should bear out my positions. Propaganda is inherently dishonest and completely aside from the fact that it risks alienating people who see through the spin, I'd like for folks of my political persuasion to actually abide by a set of ethics. I'm a scientist at heart, and I believe that if you have to lie or obfuscate to support your beliefs, then your beliefs probably aren't worth supporting.
There is, however, a huge difference between what Olbermann and Maddow are doing, and what O'Reilly, Hannity and Beck are doing. Olbermann and Maddow often focus on right-wing missteps and abuses to the exclusion of those made by the left. (And if they do criticize the left, chances are that it's for not being liberal enough.) They will also, on occasion, blow things entirely out of proportion, making a fascist mountain out of a conservative molehill. But while this is a distorted representation of the facts, it isn't outright lying. In that regard, at least, the folks at MSNBC have a lot more integrity than the folks over at Fox. Similarly, I've never seen Olbermann or Maddow bully guests the way O'Reilly does, or barrel over them the way Hannity does. I also don't see the same level of hypocrisy from them that I do from Fox (who basically went from saying that if you question the president then you're being anti-American to supporting protests and agreeing with folks who talk about the need for a revolution).
And I see those same sort of differences in a site like this (which often seems to actively look for an angle to support a liberal agenda) and those that tend to be more conservative (that focus solely on things that support them and completely ignore or dismiss everything else). It's the difference between calling a glass half full (that is, looking on the bright side) and claiming it's entirely full because the air doesn't count (which is just pathological).
WV = sawed. "I sawed how dem boys from the Fox channel done lied ta me."
We all know you want to defend your status as accurate and unbiased left-wing blogger. but you're on holiday. go back to enjoying yourself.
Also, if you're in london as your tweet would suggest, I recommend the curzon soho if you're looking for a good cinema, the portrait gallery if you're looking for a good museum, and la porchetta pollo on old compton street if you're looking for good food.
Whenever "liberal bias" or "conservative bias" come up, I find myself struggling to understand exactly what is meant.
Here's how I think of it: there are some things that are simply a matter of fact or are settled from a collection of facts: eg, something can't have an "anti-creationism" bias because it's not real anyways, so who cares? On the other extreme there are things that are purely a matter of opinion: I suppose you could have a "purple" bias if that were your favorite color, but then again, who cares? I content that politics are somewhere in the middle. Using available facts and reasoned argument, you can find conclusions about what's the right way to do things. As far as I can see, it's only the merits of those arguments that count at all. "Bias" is referenced to some arbitrary middle that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what's right anyways.
If you compare 2000 to 2008 almost the exact same actions are occuring except the parties are in reverse.I don't see this. In 2000, the Republicans won an election with a minority vote, and lost the Senate in 5 months. In 2008, the Republicans couldn't get one of our greatest war heroes elected, even when he was running against a guy with an Arabic/African name. There just isn't any comparison.
"I admit it -- the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures." - Bill Kristol.
Nate, do you have data to support the idea that liberal blog traffic is younger than the general public? I have never seen actual empirical evidence for any such thing, and in fact I have data to the contrary (from the 2008 CCAP survey). Not only are liberal blog readers not statistically different from non-readers when it comes to age, conservative blog readers aren't either. You are correct that liberal blog readers are more educated than non-readers, but that is true of conservative blog readers as well. (And I should add that I'm talking about [liberal blog] readers, not liberal [blog readers].)
Bloggers and their audience do tend to be younger and more educated. Literacy is a necessary condition for utilizing blogs, whereas of course it is not for radio.
The blog world is liberal and progressive mostly (at least anything taken seriously) because it's really hard to muster a credible argument based on sound bites and half-truths, and we left-wing hacks detest willful ignorance. Where's the Doc when ya need him? (Of course, I'm talking about Eric Alterman). "What Liberal Media" is a must read and very germaine to this topic, though written farther back in theevolution of the "Blog".
Someone aptly pointed out the differences b/w MSNBC and Fox (at least prime time- Scarborough and Buchanan are no lefties). This is largely true, Olbermann and Maddow are countering conservative misinformation more than half the time. THAT has become the story, because the misinformation is making its rounds on the 24hr news cycle and SOMEONE has to call this bullshit for what it is. You can't trust CNN-there too much into the equivalency game, as are the other networks, aside from you know who- Fox, who is feeding the echo chamber most of the time: this supposed flap over Pelosi "knowing" about waterboarding is a perfect example- they're running with that like there's nothing else.
No one gives much air time to Amy Goodman (she's not even playing that game anyway), so Rachel and Keith can't sleep unless they give their viewers a little glimpse of the truth. The fact is, yes, Blogging has a liberal bias, as do facts (Thank you Colbert).
There's an information war that the Center/Left has an inherent advantage in, not because ALL of their ideas are better, but because the Right has embraced fallacy and innuendo and all of those trappings. For generations, up until Web 2.0, the Right and all of it's allies (unwilling or not) had the upper hand because the information was consolidated and dished out by corporate media almost exclusively. Now, the tables are turning and the information is almost going in reverse. Does this mean we're heading toward a socialist utopia? Yeah, um, get my Lenin cap out, Glen Beck, you bipolar nincompoop.
This is what I mean: Eric Boehlert
Doesn't get any better than this.
Interesting, really, that I can know all about what goes on on TV without owning a TV. Thank you, Al Gore, for bringing us the internets.
Overall, I don't think the media can be called liberal or conservative. There are certain media outlets that do have either a liberal or conservative bent, but for the most part the media is pretty objective politically. However, if there is an overall media bias it is toward sloppiness, sensationalism, competitiveness at the expense of fact checking, lack of true investigative strategy and the race for ratings/readers/audience.
Blogs on the other hand are not necessarily journalistic enterprises and as such need not even lay claim to objectivity, nor should they, unless that particular blogger feels so compelled.
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
gucci replica handbags
men gucci shoes
Gucci men sneakers
Gucci men moccasins
gucci women sneakers
gucci women boots
Gucci men boots
Gucci
Gucci shop
Gucci bags
Gucci shoes
Replica GUCCI SHOES
wholesale gucci shoes
cheap Gucci handbags
Gucci ON sale
Gucci Belts
Gucci small accessories
Gucci hats & scarves
Gucci wallets
Gucci Handbags
Women Gucci shoes
Men Gucci shoes
discount gucci shoes
cheap Gucci shoes
hamam böceği
hamam böceği
hamam böceği
hamam böceği
hamam böceği
hamam böceği
kalorifer böceği
kalorifer böceği
kalorifer böceği
kalorifer böceği
kalorifer böceği
kene ilaçlama
kene ilaçlama
kene ilaçlama
kene ilaçlama
kene ilaçlama
ilaçlama
ilaçlama
ilaçlama
ilaçlama
fare ilaçlama
fare ilaçlama
fare ilaçlama
fare ilaçlama
fare ilaçlama
fare ilaçlama
haşere ilaçlama
haşere ilaçlama
haşere ilaçlama
pire ilaçlama
pire ilaçlama
pire ilaçlama
pire ilaçlama
pire ilaçlama
pire ilaçlama
Post a Comment