Re the supposed liberal bias of the media:
"this is a frequent lament for those on my side of the aisle. And it will not be an easy one to give up when it ceases to be true."

Do you think Clinton and Gore benefited from liberal media bias? I think your statement above is accurate, except it should be recast with "ceased to be true at least a decade ago".

Obviously, this is a subject of controversy, at least in part for political reason, as you admit. You might consider pointing to the growing literature from Alterman and so forth disagreeing with you.

I think one thing the "conservative media" will have to do to supplant, or at least effectively counteract, the "liberal media" is to figure out how to play it straight. A lot of people who aren't liberal read the New York Times because it contains enough straight, unbiased news to make up for the barely-disguised-editorializing elsewhere in the paper. Most conservative journalists don't even try to play it straight, in part because they see the "liberal media bias" as more blatant than it truly is and in part because they seem to believe that wearing your ideology on your sleeve 24/7 is preferable to the appearance of neutrality. Some of that is because I think a lot of conservative journalists don't have a J-school background (which, admittedly, you don't need to be a good journalist; however, you do need the experience of being a college newspaper writer that usually comes hand-in-hand with going to J-school).

In other words, Fox and their pals need to learn the value of subtlety. (It probably wouldn't hurt on the credibility scale if the second-most-famous right-wing newspaper in the country was owned by someone other than the Moonies either.)

Foolish moderation! Don't stop while you've got the momentum. Clearly if you keep hammering and hammering and hammering on this inane theme, people will overcompensate more and more and more, until the very existence of liberal slant in any coverage will be anathema. Meanwhile the very existence of conservative slant in any coverage will be considered mature, nuanced, and de rigeur.

Get a grip folks. The liberal media myth is just that - a myth sold by the right wing media to their gullible adherents. Repeat it enough times and they'll believe it.

There is a left/liberal counterpart to Fox, Rush, The Free Republic, et. al. but it's composed of The Nation, Mother Jones, Harpers, Pacifica (RIP). It's not CNN or ABC. Not by a long shot.

Daniel's right: Quit your friggin' belly aching and quit blaming your problems on somebody else.

Where does the idea of a liberal media come from? Well, look at what happens when Bernie Goldberg writes a book about "liberal media bias"?

He'll get to go on:

• The Rush Limbaugh show where they'll say conservatives have no voice in the media.
  
• The Bill O'Reilly show where they'll say conservatives have no voice in the media.
  
• The Sean Hannity show where they'll say conservatives have no voice in the media.
  
• The Eva Von Zahn show where they'll say conservatives have no voice in the media.
  
• The Belway Boys where they'll say conservatives have no voice in the media.
  
• The Brit Hume show where they'll say conservatives have no voice in the media.
  
• The Tony Snow show where they'll say conservatives have no voice in the media.
  
• The Juan Williams show where they'll say conservatives have no voice in the media.
  
• The Mara Liason show where they'll say conservatives have no voice in the media.
  
• The McLaughlin Group where they'll say conservatives have no voice in the media.
  
• The Chris the Screamer show where they'll say conservatives have no voice in the media.
  
• The G. Gordon Liddy show where they'll say conservatives have no voice in the media.
  
• The Laura Schlessinger show where they'll say conservatives have no voice in the media.
  
• The Michael Medved show where they'll say conservatives have no voice in the media.
  
• The Sam & Cokie show where they'll say conservatives have no voice in the media.
  
• Meet the Press with Tim Russert where they'll say conservatives have no voice in the media.
  
• Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer where they'll say conservatives have no voice in the media.
  
• The John Hockenberry show where they'll say conservatives have no voice in the media.
  
• The Ollie North show where they'll say conservatives have no voice in the media.
  
• The Neil Bortz show where they'll say conservatives have no voice in the media.
  
• The Robert Novak show where they'll say conservatives have no voice in the media.
  
• The Paul Weyrich show where they'll say conservatives have no voice in the media.
  
• The Brian Williams show where they'll say conservatives have no voice in the media.
  
• The Wolf Blitzer show where they'll say conservatives have no voice in the media.
  
• The Don Imus show where they'll say conservatives have no voice in the media.
  
• The John Stossel show where they'll say conservatives have no voice in the media.
  
• Reliable Sources with Howie Kurtz where they'll say conservatives have no voice in the media.

Then,

Isn't it a shame that the radical right-wing has no way to get their message out?

...and Mr. Goldberg?
He's going to make millions selling red meat to the dittoheads

the above courtesy of Bartcop - Bart says that I can steal his stuff, so I will.

“And it will not be an easy one to give up when it ceases to be true.”

I agree with everything Brian Anderson says in his article. My world may existentially come unglued in the relatively near future, and I will have to quit whining about the liberal media. Oh well, I’m still angry at the gods of the universe for providing Michael Jordan with the ability to outplay me on the basketball court. Where’s John Rawls when you really need him?

The Internet is greatly responsibility for making sure that Liberals earn everything they get. There could indeed be an equal playing field by 2008. Nonetheless, the Big Three TV networks and “mainstream” newspapers currently remain in the hands of the liberals. David Brooks admittedly does have a column with the New York Times---but he’s still greatly outnumbered. No, I will be able to justify my self pitying ways for at least a little bit longer.

“The Democratic candidates are kicking the ass of the Republicans in terms of Presidential campaign blogging, and use of the Internet generally. Dean especially.”

Paradoxically, the Internet is soon likely to be perceived as a curse by the Democrats. The far left of center have taken over this medium. They are making it virtually impossible for any Democrat candidate to shun McGovernism. Howard Dean, the likely winner, will also not be able to revert back to the political middle during the general election. On top of that, Dean needs to learn from Ronald Reagan in how to be charming. The man always looks like he enjoys strangling helpless kittens.

uh clem, your plagiarized screed doesn't address the actual issue, that being the bias of the mainstream network and large city press.

But thanks for playing.

If anyone would care to read some thoughts on this issue (and reader comments) from a J-School prof, I'd recommend taking a look at PressThink. The author is the Dept. Chair in Journalism at NYU.

Also an entry with the subhead: "Tim Graham, director of media analysis for the Media Research Center, a conservative watchdog group, decided to answer my six questions. Hmmm."

Note the overall flavor is media and journalism and less political than this site usually is, but covers relevant topics I believe.

Disclosure: I work with the author - and have worked on the site. But there's no ads or other revenue, and it's actually related. So take a look if you're interested...

McGovernism, that's rich! Please bring back the alternative: Nixonism.

Sure, the mainstream inside-the-beltway/northeastern based mass media is culturally liberal (fiscally it's pretty conservative, in the sense of stingy/ pro-business/ pro-wealth/ pro-celebrity/ pro-power), but as pointed out above, it's hardly left or even strictly partisan, the way the right-wing media "alternative" is.

It's true that the media elite can no longer dismiss formerly fringe right-wing or even libertarian ideas the way they used to, but they can still dismiss fringe left-wing or "collaboratarian" (made-up word) ideas, determine in advance that Kucinich's ideas are beyond the pale but Forbes's (say) aren't, and so on.

Bush has gotten way more of a pass from the so-called liberal media than Gore or Clinton ever got although Clinton did get it during the primary, when he made good copy, because the real bias of the mass media is toward whatever increases marketshare and maximizes the bottom line.

spoke xian: "because the real bias of the mass media is toward whatever increases marketshare and maximizes the bottom line"

I think this is a huge part of the issue that gets way less attention. Very few discussions on this topic seem to give much thought to the situation in purely marketing terms - it's mentioned in passing, but then goes on to more "heady" issues.

It seems pretty clear to me that the flashier, more "exciting" visual presentation and tone of Fox News is a huge part of its success -- especially with a much younger generation brought up on MTV and such - I don't think to many kids under 25 have been "saturated" or "bombarded" with relentless liberal ideas from years of watching the "elites" -- they simply haven't or don't watch or read that much news by that age (no I have no stats, just a general sense) to be rebelling or tired of the 'liberal hegemony'.

Clearly the subject matter and ideas presented can and probably do influence presentation - and reception - "calling a spade a spade" (mentioned in the City piece) is a more invigorating news show than somber discussion of the various sides of an issue, and not casting judgement -- calling out the spade.

So I think a big part of the gain is in shifting (probably cyclical) public tastes in entertainment and "news consuming" style - which Fox has clearly won by a mile. Not just computer graphics and the "whoosh" sound, but the pace, the loud voices, (the hot blondes), and presenting a clear opinion and team to cheer for.

Perhaps I'm being an elitist blue-state liberal here, but I think these shifts in presentation style have a huge impact on people. Of course the country is roughly 50/50, but as many have mentioned Fox and Co. have not just picked up the "underserved conservatives", but have gained viewers from across the spectrum. I think they've developed the most gripping and attention-getting format and delivery. Maybe some of their founders/employees care deeply about getting other views across - but make no mistake, it's a business. It's about making money.

It's the other way around, right? That is, the side favored by elite media (like the side favored by elite judges) is at a disadvantage, not an advantage, in elections. The elite-favored side tailors its message to that elite, and in doing so is more vulnerable than its foe to being viewed as snooty, out-of-touch, etc.

For more on this, see the post at my blog http://eastmania.blogspot.com.

...meanwhile, back at the actual topic. Mr Anderson's article is right on target: The Reagan-Democrat's have sired "South Park Republicans".

Which most likely means they were faking all of their 'empathy' in order to secure their fat union pensions.

Confidential to our Buzzflash colleagues: Step away from the computer, and start printing placards - You've got a little more than 12 months and a lot of work ahead of you.

Gingrich wrote in To Renew America that liberalism in the major media is not a problem; it is a fact. It is how you deal with it that is the problem.

One other factor, 'the bubble' that allowed Clear Channel to gobble up 1200 radio stations overnight. Then agressively promote the low cost/high yield culture of belligerence.

It is written:

uh clem, your plagiarized screed doesn't address the actual issue, that being the bias of the mainstream network and large city press.

OK, I'll pick this up.

What do you want to bet that a survey of city-level newspapers and television will discover a major conservative outlet in each and every city and a clear majority for conservatives altogether? I'll bet any sum you like.

Let's start with three of the most liberal cities in the United States, as measured by votes of the local citizenry: New York City, Boston, and D.C.

In those cities, you can read: New York Post,
Washington Times, Boston Herald. And, if you're in D.C., you can also read the Washington Post, whose editorial pages are AT LEAST half conservatives. Novak, Will, Hoagland, etc. The Post editorial board has supported the war, and the President. These are the LIBERAL cities, and this is what hegemony looks like?

What do you think we'd find in: Dallas and Houston, Kansas City, San Diego, Jacksonville, Salt Lake City, etc., etc. To say nothing of the many smaller cities in which a good part of the American population lives.

PS: as to elite national print media, does it get more elite than the WSJ? Is that a liberal paper, too?

Anyone here want to comment on the study published a couple of weeks ago that measured peoples' accurate (or, as it turns out, not so accurate) impressions of world events based on where they get their news?

IIRC, those who get most if not all of their news from FoxNews had something like a 23% accuracy rate -- they believed Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks, that WMD had been used against American soldiers in Iraq, and so on. And viewers of the mainstream news channels fared little better. NPR viewers ranked highest in accuracy -- a whopping 71%.

Come on, that was due to liberal media bias. Besides, that was asking about trivial things - WMD possession and use.

Commentators on this subject tend to conflate the "trivialization of everything" aka OVERHYPE! - OVERHYPE! - PAY ATTENTION TO ME NOW! - NEWS AT ELEVEN! - with bias.

Overhype and bias are two different things. They often overlap, which makes it easy to confuse them. But they really are different.

When newsie jobs depend on the most recent ratings, they peddle whatever they can. Whatever is going on at the moment is the most important thing ever because it is what they are reporting right now.

This has a well-poisoning aka "tragedy of the commons" effect similar to that of bias. The market just stops paying attention and eventually stops listening/reading/buying.

There really is bias, but IMO it too is overstated, though mostly because it is confused with the more neutral, ratings-oriented, over-hyping and trivialization of everything.

Two words refute the right's claims of liberal bias in the press. FAIRNESS DOCTRINE.

Does any sentient creature think that conservatives would have killed the Fairness Doctrine three times in a decade (one edict, two vetoes) if they honestly thought the media was biased against them?

Just lies and more lies from the lying liars.

I dunno, maybe they killed it because they thought it was an intrusion on the freedom of the press. Novel idea, I know...

Haw Haw Haw*cough*cough* freedom of the press *cough*cough*...

good one, Chris. Tell me how this "freedom of the press" thing works in terms of controlling what the press is allowed to cover during a war of questionable value. Like, say, how "freedom of the press" translates to "you see what we want you to see, you report what we want you to report, and you sure as hell don't report on coffins coming home from Ira"

hal amherst asks:

Does any sentient creature think that conservatives would have killed the Fairness Doctrine three times in a decade (one edict, two vetoes) if they honestly thought the media was biased against them?

Sure, if they disliked who was going to determine "fairness."

There's been some distracting noise here, but the point is that (some) conservatives believe that the mainstream media, which deliver what is supposed to be straight news are biased to the Left, even as they supposedly already follow the Fairness Doctrine. They want their own outlet, to present their side of the story, without having someone else tell them how to spend their broadcasting resources. Hence hostility to the Fairness Doctrine, which proves nothing unless you first assume that without right-wing talk shows, etc., the media are completely balanced. In other words, Mr. Amherst begged the question.

It's worth noting that nothing precludes the Left from having their own print and broadcast channels, to unabashedly present their side of the story. And when they do, they aren't limited by the Fairness Doctrine, either -- it can be all-Kucinich, all the time, just as long as you have the listeners. Which seems perfectly fair to me, and avoids spurious and pointless legal wrangling over the very topic that we are all yakking about here. I mean, really, can't we resolve our disagreements without dragging in lawyers?

Of course, odds are that unabashedly right- and left-wing media won't really change anyone's mind; people will listen to "their" side to (at best) get details supporting their point of view, or else to just listen to things they like to hear. The problem happens when media bias begins to affect reporting presented as straight news, or even talk programs where a supposedly "neutral" host begins to take sides.

(Natually, that in itself is quite subject to interpretation. A few weeks ago, I was listening to an NPR anchor asking a representative of an Israeli government about some calls in the Knesset for killing Arafat. The anchor asked something along the lines of, When members of Parliament begin openly calling for the death of a leader of another nation, doesn't this signal a societal breakdown? He might thought this a perfectly reasonable, neutral question, but I really flipped out: since when is Arafat a "leader" of a "nation," and how on earth does discussion of killing a terrorist signal a breakdown? The assumptions of the host were radically different from my own, and I perceived a bias -- which existed, not because the host was trying to propagandize, but because he was a human being with assumptions and premises different from my own. I still think the question was inappropriate, and the host should have thought about what he was implying. Instead of asking a leading question, he might simply have asked, "What do the parliament's calls for killing Arafat signal about the state of Israeli society?")

I'm not sure that there's any way to correct for biases -- real or imagined -- that come from any reporter's or journalist's need to work off some set of axioms. I'm guessing that the core of the conservative complaint is that for too many reporters and journalists, that core set of assumptions is more left-wing than they'd like. The solution isn't for the reporters to censor themselves, but rather to look for a diversity of viewpoints among reporters and editorial staffs. Fox contributed to this diversity, and the viewers responded.

And so we come to the whole flap on reporting from Iraq. Contrary to what some thought or implied, neither the Bush team nor the pro-war side is complaining about the reporting of U.S. casualties from Iraq. The networks all seemed to think -- or imply, at any rate -- that the Bush administration was trying to shut them up about U.S. casualties, but that simply wasn't the case. The problem isn't that there is too much reporting of bad news -- it's that there is virtually no reporting of good news to present a balanced picture. Watch, listen, or read the combined body of news reports out of Iraq, and it sounds like all the U.S. military is doing there is sitting around, getting yelled at by protestors, and waiting to get shot. Any stories about Iraq not dealing with the military all seem to concentrate on what isn't working, with nary a single one talking about what has improved, how lives are better, etc. We can't see Iraq for ourselves, so it's important to get the complete picture -- good news and bad; yet the media concentrate on the bad, making it seem like there is nothing redeeming in the situation, to the surprise of most locals, many troops, and even Democrat congressmen who actually see the place for themselves. Imagine trying to learn about hospitals from reporters who confine their stories to the morgues and the malpractice lawsuits -- might this frustrate you as a doctor? What the Bush administration has been calling for is more reporting, not less -- hence the accusations of "filtering," not lying. It's a crucial distinction, and I believe the point is valid. I'm all for giving the public all the facts, but that is precisely what the media have not been doing: instead, they distort the picture by reporting on nothing but deaths and the occasional protest.

(They do let the occasional interesting tidbit through. For example, on today's Morning Edition, NPR's Iraq correspondent mentioned in conversation with Bob Edwards that the recent suicide bombings and attacks on Iraqi police have, contrary to Bob's expectation, resulted in far greater numbers of Iraqis joining the police force, hoping to help eradicate the terrorism. This is a crucial fact, yet she blurted it out and then quickly moved on to the usual Bad News.)

One more point in response to SurelyYourJest:

Like, say, how "freedom of the press" translates to "you see what we want you to see, you report what we want you to report, and you sure as hell don't report on coffins coming home from [Iraq]"

First, they can report on coffins all they want. They just weren't allowed to film the coffins -- which is perfectly acceptable, as the military is not required to give access to this particular activity, and I'm sure that they didn't want a swarm of ghouls with cameras hoping to get a shot of one or two coffins coming into the U.S., so they can get ratings from equally ghoulish viewers. I can say with certainty that I wouldn't want a freaking media circus for my own friends or family members in similar circumstances. Their right to make their last trip in dignity trumps your "right to know" just what a military coffin looks like.

And no, this isn't censorship, nor is it suppression. The public doesn't lose any important information this way: you already know that the soldier died; the details of his burial are simply none of your business. Unless, of course, you take pleasure in seeing all the details, or are just looking to use someone's tragedy for your own propaganda. So you can spare us the *cough* *cough* all-knowing sarcasm.

Gee. Mr. Nough has hit upon the solution to claims from the left and the right of bias.

The three mainstream networks (thought biased to the left by the right) should just declare themselves unabashedly liberal and move left of mainstream.

Nough gives explcit permission: " . . . nothing precludes the Left from having their own print and broadcast channels, to unabashedly present their side of the story. . . Which seems perfectly fair to me, and avoids spurious and pointless legal wrangling over the very topic that we are all yakking about here."

Tom, Peter, Dan -- free at last, free at last!