14 ms·

My anecdata suggests conservative outlets tend to acknowledge their bias, as a counterweight to liberal bias in the "mainstream" media, whereas liberal outlets

My anecdata suggests conservative outlets tend to acknowledge their bias, as a counterweight to liberal bias in the "mainstream" media, whereas liberal outlets tend to believe themselves to be unbiased. Given how much liberal outlets scoff at the notion of there being a pervasive liberal bias in the MSM, I suspect they legitimately just don't see it as they're surrounded by people with the same political views and so are predisposed to believing that's what "normal" is.

hackuser 10y ago
> pervasive liberal bias in the MSM The biggest cable news channel, the most popular newspaper (I think WSJ leads; EDIT: and certainly it dominates the business world), and almost all talk radio are highly conservative. They try to paint themselves as underdogs, but it's a little silly.
- redthrowaway 10y ago
  Yes, the big ones are conservative, because every other one is liberal. Conservatives flock to places like Fox and WSJ because they're a refuge from the liberal bias that pervades the rest of the media. If you're a liberal and you want to watch news that doesn't offend you, you can choose from any of the major networks save Fox. If you're a conservative and want the same, you're stuck with Fox.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    > every other one is liberal I don't agree. First, there are plenty of smaller conservative ideological publications (two were listed in the original comment, plus endless more: RedState, Daily Caller, Breitbart, etc.). Almost all talk- radio, as I mentioned, is conservative. Also I said in another comment, there is plenty of apolitical journalism. (!conservative) != (liberal) The ideologues adopt a Manichean, binary view of the world: With us or against us. They say everyone is ideological and anyone who doesn't agree with them must be in the 'other' camp. They seek ideological conflict, to justify their beliefs and behavior. But the world is more complex than that and everyone is not ideological (most are not). There are leftist ideologues, and they say the NY Times is conservative and there is no difference between the parties (as incredible as that sounds). Either you share their ideology, or you are in the 'other' camp. The right-wing ideologues are the same: They define any journalism as not ideologically conservative as liberal. (They also call themselves outsiders when the control the 2/3 of the states and both houses of Congress). But it's not the case.
    - pythia__ 10y ago
      >there is plenty of apolitical journalism Could you name three major sources of it, preferably not personal blogs? I am asking out of curiosity and disbelief.
      - hackuser 10y ago
        I think the real issue is to consider why many people have such a strong emotional reaction to the idea. I think it undermines their worldview that everyone is an angry ideologue, necessary to justify their own behavior.
        pythia__ 10y ago
        I think to focus on the angry ideologues is actually to divert the attention from the real issue, to the extent there is one; namely, that neurotypical humans, whether happy or angry, have a strong, automatic in-group bias. If you are one you can't really stop having an in-group; the best you can do is try to give out-group ideas a fair shake. Now, this ability appears to be quite rare. I wouldn't be surprised if, worse yet, the kind of personality needed to do it made you less likely to become a journalist. In short, I doubt you could staff a newsroom full of people receptive to out-group ideas. (And if you think that you, yourself, aren't biased this way without very strong evidence for it I would suggest you take an outside view, per https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Outside_view https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Outside_view) Because of all of this I'd appreciate a genuine answer to my question even if I end up disagreeing with it.
        hackuser 10y ago
        > If you are one you can't really stop having an in-group; the best you can do is try to give out-group ideas a fair shake. > Now, this ability appears to be quite rare. I disagree that it's nearly so difficult or rare. The U.S. rarely has been this polarized, and everyone used to share the same news sources (major network nightly news - which probably still are the leading sources). Again, I think this approach is just the justification of those who want ideological war rather than finding ways, as so many have done so often in history, to bring people together. > the kind of personality needed to do it made you less likely to become a journalist You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but I have no reason to believe this statement is accurate.
  - soundwave106 10y ago
    Personally, I will say that the notion of news "offending" due to editorial stance strikes me as an awful attitude to have. I am only "offended" by poorly thought out, sensationalist, over-emotional reporting that is devoid of facts and plays on fears (this type of "reporting" occurs on both sides, unfortunately). I may disagree with a well thought out opinion, but a well thought out opinion being actually offensive? What an awful thing to think! At any rate, even back in the old days of media there certainly were many choices for conservative news. Jim Lehrer's PBS Newshour on TV, many regional newspapers, and business papers for instance. Populism had a few non-gossip national tabloids like the New York Post; talk radio too. It is true that a lot of media was dominated by a modest-left stance (talk radio being the exception), but I don't find bias a problem per se (we all are biased after all). I lean modest liberal personally, but back when I actually watched TV news I thought the PBS Newshour was the best of the lot, as it seemed to avoid some of the scare story traps the "big three" occasionally worked themselves up over. Of course, these days, thanks to the web, you have every opportunity to silo yourself in one bias you are not "offended by" if you want.
    - hackuser 10y ago
      Thanks; those are excellent points IMHO. One important nit: > poorly thought out, sensationalist, over-emotional reporting that is devoid of facts and plays on fears (this type of "reporting" occurs on both sides, unfortunately) I think it's important to point out that this is a false equivalency. The conservative outlets that do reporting like this, such as Fox, Rush Limbaugh, the WSJ (it's editorial page, at least) etc. have far more audience than the liberal equivalents (the Huffington Post might be one, but I think even they are better than the three I mentioned). If we try to be extra fair and say it's equivalent, we hide from what I think is the U.S.'s and world's biggest problem.
  - wwweston 10y ago
    > Yes, the big ones are conservative, because every other one is liberal. How would one measure this? How would one know if what they're detecting is not an opposing bias, but a lack of reinforcement of one's personal bias? > Conservatives flock to places like Fox and WSJ because they're a refuge from the liberal bias that pervades the rest of the media That's the story, anyway.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    The big corporate old media (including the so-called MSM) has a conservative bias overall, individual outlets ranging from the rightward half of the space covered by the Republican Party through the rightward half of the space covered by the Democratic Party. The far right considers everything but the most right-wing fringe of that to be the "liberal" mainstream media
- gmarx 10y ago
  Your statement is actually a lot of evidence that it isn't silly. They dominate AM radio has been something the liberals have been claiming as evidence against media bias for years. I'd say if the only place those people could get their views aired was AM radio it kind of proved the point that the mainstream media (TV, every newspaper and magazine except for those which are specifically conservative) accepts the slightly left of center as normal
sgeisenh 10y ago
From the perspective of an American, the American MSM has a liberal bias. From the perspective of a citizen from most other first-world countries, the American MSM has a hardcore conservative bias.
- talmand 10y ago
  That's because it's comparing apples to oranges. Liberal/Conservative in America is not necessarily the same as Liberal/Conservative elsewhere.
  - sgeisenh 10y ago
    That's literally the point I was trying to make. I don't think it's valuable to place media outlets on an isolated spectrum. Global information sharing is a reality. I gather my news from sources situated in various countries. And I judge their bias according to a somewhat global spectrum. The American spectrum is so perverted (mostly due to religious beliefs) that I often find it hard to place international sources within it.
    - talmand 10y ago
      >> American spectrum is so perverted As compared to what?
- CM30 10y ago
  From the perspective of this non American, the America mainstream media seems to have more of a 'pro corporation/pro establishment' bias than anything else. Why else would it be so eager to criticise both Trump and Sanders?
  - tremon 10y ago
    A "pro establishment bias" is a conservative bias.
howlingfantods 10y ago
Reality has a notorious liberal bias. Look at climate change, which went from scientific position to liberal position.
- talmand 10y ago
  I'm going to have to remember this one.
- jerf 10y ago
  Just so you know, I read "Reality has a $MY_POSITION bias" as "I've completely epistemically closed myself by reading only what I agree with". Perhaps not something you really want to advertise quite so loudly.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- redthrowaway 10y ago
  Parroting lines from the Daily Show/Colbert Report only makes you seem credible to other young lefties. You're not going to win any converts from the other side; we'll tend to roll our eyes and dismiss the speaker.
  - drewrv 10y ago
    The line stuck so well because it was so poignant when Colbert said it. This was a time when Karl Rove was criticizing people in the "reality based community" who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." Since then the republican party has gone even further off the deep end.
    - redthrowaway 10y ago
      >Since then the republican party has gone even further off the deep end. Which you say, sincerely, because you're a liberal and the GOP is the other "team" or "tribe". There are plenty of us who don't think of ourselves as Democrats who see plenty of insanity on the left--look at the resurgence of socialism or the social justice crowd on campus and in the media. Both parties have completely lost touch with voters, which is why we saw populist insurgencies in both. If there were more candidates in the Democratic primaries, we could just as easily have seen a Sanders nomination as we did a Trump one. Claiming that political insanity is endemic to only one side ignores the batshit lunacy emanating from both camps.
mcphage 10y ago
> My anecdata suggests conservative outlets tend to acknowledge their bias "Fair and Balanced"?

hackuser 10y ago

> pervasive liberal bias in the MSM The biggest cable news channel, the most popular newspaper (I think WSJ leads; EDIT: and certainly it dominates the business world), and almost all talk radio are highly conservative. They try to paint themselves as underdogs, but it's a little silly.

redthrowaway 10y ago
Yes, the big ones are conservative, because every other one is liberal. Conservatives flock to places like Fox and WSJ because they're a refuge from the liberal bias that pervades the rest of the media. If you're a liberal and you want to watch news that doesn't offend you, you can choose from any of the major networks save Fox. If you're a conservative and want the same, you're stuck with Fox.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > every other one is liberal I don't agree. First, there are plenty of smaller conservative ideological publications (two were listed in the original comment, plus endless more: RedState, Daily Caller, Breitbart, etc.). Almost all talk- radio, as I mentioned, is conservative. Also I said in another comment, there is plenty of apolitical journalism. (!conservative) != (liberal) The ideologues adopt a Manichean, binary view of the world: With us or against us. They say everyone is ideological and anyone who doesn't agree with them must be in the 'other' camp. They seek ideological conflict, to justify their beliefs and behavior. But the world is more complex than that and everyone is not ideological (most are not). There are leftist ideologues, and they say the NY Times is conservative and there is no difference between the parties (as incredible as that sounds). Either you share their ideology, or you are in the 'other' camp. The right-wing ideologues are the same: They define any journalism as not ideologically conservative as liberal. (They also call themselves outsiders when the control the 2/3 of the states and both houses of Congress). But it's not the case.
  - pythia__ 10y ago
    >there is plenty of apolitical journalism Could you name three major sources of it, preferably not personal blogs? I am asking out of curiosity and disbelief.
    - hackuser 10y ago
      I think the real issue is to consider why many people have such a strong emotional reaction to the idea. I think it undermines their worldview that everyone is an angry ideologue, necessary to justify their own behavior.
      - pythia__ 10y ago
        I think to focus on the angry ideologues is actually to divert the attention from the real issue, to the extent there is one; namely, that neurotypical humans, whether happy or angry, have a strong, automatic in-group bias. If you are one you can't really stop having an in-group; the best you can do is try to give out-group ideas a fair shake. Now, this ability appears to be quite rare. I wouldn't be surprised if, worse yet, the kind of personality needed to do it made you less likely to become a journalist. In short, I doubt you could staff a newsroom full of people receptive to out-group ideas. (And if you think that you, yourself, aren't biased this way without very strong evidence for it I would suggest you take an outside view, per https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Outside_view https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Outside_view) Because of all of this I'd appreciate a genuine answer to my question even if I end up disagreeing with it.
        hackuser 10y ago
        > If you are one you can't really stop having an in-group; the best you can do is try to give out-group ideas a fair shake. > Now, this ability appears to be quite rare. I disagree that it's nearly so difficult or rare. The U.S. rarely has been this polarized, and everyone used to share the same news sources (major network nightly news - which probably still are the leading sources). Again, I think this approach is just the justification of those who want ideological war rather than finding ways, as so many have done so often in history, to bring people together. > the kind of personality needed to do it made you less likely to become a journalist You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but I have no reason to believe this statement is accurate.
- soundwave106 10y ago
  Personally, I will say that the notion of news "offending" due to editorial stance strikes me as an awful attitude to have. I am only "offended" by poorly thought out, sensationalist, over-emotional reporting that is devoid of facts and plays on fears (this type of "reporting" occurs on both sides, unfortunately). I may disagree with a well thought out opinion, but a well thought out opinion being actually offensive? What an awful thing to think! At any rate, even back in the old days of media there certainly were many choices for conservative news. Jim Lehrer's PBS Newshour on TV, many regional newspapers, and business papers for instance. Populism had a few non-gossip national tabloids like the New York Post; talk radio too. It is true that a lot of media was dominated by a modest-left stance (talk radio being the exception), but I don't find bias a problem per se (we all are biased after all). I lean modest liberal personally, but back when I actually watched TV news I thought the PBS Newshour was the best of the lot, as it seemed to avoid some of the scare story traps the "big three" occasionally worked themselves up over. Of course, these days, thanks to the web, you have every opportunity to silo yourself in one bias you are not "offended by" if you want.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    Thanks; those are excellent points IMHO. One important nit: > poorly thought out, sensationalist, over-emotional reporting that is devoid of facts and plays on fears (this type of "reporting" occurs on both sides, unfortunately) I think it's important to point out that this is a false equivalency. The conservative outlets that do reporting like this, such as Fox, Rush Limbaugh, the WSJ (it's editorial page, at least) etc. have far more audience than the liberal equivalents (the Huffington Post might be one, but I think even they are better than the three I mentioned). If we try to be extra fair and say it's equivalent, we hide from what I think is the U.S.'s and world's biggest problem.
- wwweston 10y ago
  > Yes, the big ones are conservative, because every other one is liberal. How would one measure this? How would one know if what they're detecting is not an opposing bias, but a lack of reinforcement of one's personal bias? > Conservatives flock to places like Fox and WSJ because they're a refuge from the liberal bias that pervades the rest of the media That's the story, anyway.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  The big corporate old media (including the so-called MSM) has a conservative bias overall, individual outlets ranging from the rightward half of the space covered by the Republican Party through the rightward half of the space covered by the Democratic Party. The far right considers everything but the most right-wing fringe of that to be the "liberal" mainstream media
gmarx 10y ago
Your statement is actually a lot of evidence that it isn't silly. They dominate AM radio has been something the liberals have been claiming as evidence against media bias for years. I'd say if the only place those people could get their views aired was AM radio it kind of proved the point that the mainstream media (TV, every newspaper and magazine except for those which are specifically conservative) accepts the slightly left of center as normal

sgeisenh 10y ago

From the perspective of an American, the American MSM has a liberal bias. From the perspective of a citizen from most other first-world countries, the American MSM has a hardcore conservative bias.

talmand 10y ago
That's because it's comparing apples to oranges. Liberal/Conservative in America is not necessarily the same as Liberal/Conservative elsewhere.
- sgeisenh 10y ago
  That's literally the point I was trying to make. I don't think it's valuable to place media outlets on an isolated spectrum. Global information sharing is a reality. I gather my news from sources situated in various countries. And I judge their bias according to a somewhat global spectrum. The American spectrum is so perverted (mostly due to religious beliefs) that I often find it hard to place international sources within it.
  - talmand 10y ago
    >> American spectrum is so perverted As compared to what?
CM30 10y ago
From the perspective of this non American, the America mainstream media seems to have more of a 'pro corporation/pro establishment' bias than anything else. Why else would it be so eager to criticise both Trump and Sanders?
- tremon 10y ago
  A "pro establishment bias" is a conservative bias.

howlingfantods 10y ago

Reality has a notorious liberal bias. Look at climate change, which went from scientific position to liberal position.

talmand 10y ago
I'm going to have to remember this one.
jerf 10y ago
Just so you know, I read "Reality has a $MY_POSITION bias" as "I've completely epistemically closed myself by reading only what I agree with". Perhaps not something you really want to advertise quite so loudly.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
redthrowaway 10y ago
Parroting lines from the Daily Show/Colbert Report only makes you seem credible to other young lefties. You're not going to win any converts from the other side; we'll tend to roll our eyes and dismiss the speaker.
- drewrv 10y ago
  The line stuck so well because it was so poignant when Colbert said it. This was a time when Karl Rove was criticizing people in the "reality based community" who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." Since then the republican party has gone even further off the deep end.
  - redthrowaway 10y ago
    >Since then the republican party has gone even further off the deep end. Which you say, sincerely, because you're a liberal and the GOP is the other "team" or "tribe". There are plenty of us who don't think of ourselves as Democrats who see plenty of insanity on the left--look at the resurgence of socialism or the social justice crowd on campus and in the media. Both parties have completely lost touch with voters, which is why we saw populist insurgencies in both. If there were more candidates in the Democratic primaries, we could just as easily have seen a Sanders nomination as we did a Trump one. Claiming that political insanity is endemic to only one side ignores the batshit lunacy emanating from both camps.

mcphage 10y ago

> My anecdata suggests conservative outlets tend to acknowledge their bias "Fair and Balanced"?