Why the Media Is So Liberal

 

media_biasI recall seeing a political cartoon that contrasted the way the media treated Tim Tebow versus how it treated Jason Collins, the first openly-homosexual NBA player. It depicted Tebow saying: “I’m a Christian,” and the reporter turns his back to him and walks away muttering: “Keep it to yourself.” Next to that picture, Collins is depicted saying: “I’m gay,” and the reporter lifts his microphone towards him and exclaims: “Tell me more, you big hero!!!”

Have you noticed a difference in the way the media covers liberals versus conservatives? When it comes to left-wing economic and social policies, do you find that the media functions more as advocates than reporters? In fact, the media bias is so rampant in this election cycle that Michael Goodwin of the New York Post was forced to write: “American journalism is collapsing before our eyes.”

Why are journalists so liberal? Or perhaps to put it more precisely: How can an institution that claims to be impartial and objective in its reporting turn out to be so blatantly biased?

There was a time that journalism embraced its role as political advocate. For most of the 19th century, print media was explicitly partisan in its perspectives, and openly sought to persuade an increasingly literate public to particular political positions and policies.

However, at the beginning of the 20th century, journalism, along with Western society as a whole, went through two fundamental changes reflective of a cultural turn towards secular liberal values.

First, journalists began to reimagine their craft as an extension of scientific rationalism which sought to analyze events objectively and impartially, irrespective of the preconceptions of the reporter. According to media historian Richard Kaplan:

Under objectivity, journalists adopt the pose of scientist and vow to eliminate their own beliefs and values as guides in ascertaining what was said and done. Supposedly avoiding all subjective judgments and analysis, the journalist strives to become a rigorously impartial, expert collector of information.[1]

This is why the journalist is never part of the story he or she is covering, since such an inclusion would violate the perception of objectivity. This “perceived absence” is a primary way in which journalists establish themselves as mediators of information comprised of data and facts.[2]

While the first change involved the journalist conception of knowledge, the second change involved the journalist orientation towards values. Scientific rationalism erects new boundaries of knowledge that effectively censor religions, traditions, customs, and cultures from the realm of what can be known. Indeed, scientific facts are considered objective precisely because they transcend the biases and prejudices innate to cultural values and norms. And so what emerges from this pre-commitment to scientific rationalism is what has been called a fact/value dichotomy: facts are objective while values are subjective, facts apply to all while values apply to only some. Thus, as the journalist transforms into an impartial observer of economic, political, and social events, he or she begins to view moral and religious sensibilities in terms of personal lifestyle values which are relative to individuals or cultures. Today, virtually every media outlet features prominently a “Lifestyles” section where we can learn about everything from the sex habits of entertainers to our horoscopes.

There is, I believe, an inescapable global consequence to these twin commitments of secular liberalism: inexorably, the secular liberal reimagines the world bifocally as comprised of those who embrace secular liberal values on the one hand and those who reject them on the other. Those who embrace secular commitments are by definition rational and liberal, while those who reject them are by definition irrational and repressive.

And when journalists transcribe this bifocality to the political arena, it is applied to two political parties: one which, through its support of abortion, LGBT rights, and strict separation between church and state, demonstrates its commitment to secular liberal values, while the other, through its insistence on traditional morality and social structures, demonstrates its resistance. Thus, one party is viewed consistently as rational and liberal while the other party is viewed as irrational and repressive. And when challenged on such a perspective, journalists can always fall back on objective and impartial ‘facts.’

And so, when you see the media calling Ryan Lochte who self-identifies as a crime victim a liar, while hailing Bruce Jenner who self-identifies as a woman a hero, well, now you know.


[1] Richard Kaplan, “The Origins of Objectivity in American Journalism,” in Stuart Allen (ed.), The Routledge Companion to News and Journalism (Routledge: New York, 2010), 25-37, 26.

[2] Mark Allen Peterson, Anthropology and Mass Communication: Myth and Media in the New Millennium (New York: Berghahn Books, 2003), 83.

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 26 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. I Walton Member
    I Walton
    @IWalton

    Third rate minds whose personal interests are served by central government, and being invited and trusted by insiders vital.

    • #1
  2. Songwriter Inactive
    Songwriter
    @user_19450

    All I know is that I have never seen or read a single completely accurate news story about any subject that I am knowledgeable in.  That can’t be happening to only me.

    My conclusion: Journalism is rife with lazy reporters, who prefer to tell a story than tell the facts.

    Add to that the fact that journalists are mostly left-leaning, and the combination is toxic to America.

    • #2
  3. Front Seat Cat Member
    Front Seat Cat
    @FrontSeatCat

    There is no question whatsoever – everything you mentioned is true – and it is driving certain agendas – scary – because isn’t that how societies become repressed before they even realize it? – control the flow of information, keep making inaccurate statements until they are perceived as truth, fill up the mind with so many distractions they can’t focus (cell phones), social media, and report before research instead of the other way around.

    • #3
  4. Full Size Tabby Member
    Full Size Tabby
    @FullSizeTabby

    A problem with a reporter thinking on the fact / value dichotomy that he can be a neutral observer of “facts” is that even deciding what facts to report involves value judgments.

    • #4
  5. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    “Objective” journalism is a 20th century American creation fueled partly by the rise of the electronic media and the FCC’s idea of “fairness” within a limited spectrum.

    The rise of alternative transmission (cable/satellite/internet) has made much of the justification for that argument obsolete.

    Then there was the Woodward and Bernstein hero worship and the rise of “consumer advocacy” reporting at local television. Suddenly information took a backseat to “making a difference.”

    • #5
  6. Quietpi Member
    Quietpi
    @Quietpi

    Songwriter:All I know is that I have never seen or read a single completely accurate news story about any subject that I am knowledgeable in. That can’t be happening to only me.

    My conclusion: Journalism is rife with lazy reporters, who prefer to tell a story than tell the facts.

    Add to that the fact that journalists are mostly left-leaning, and the combination is toxic to America.

    This has been my experience exactly.  And I have a lot of experience.

    I would mention that in some cases it isn’t so much the reporters’ laziness as it is that reporters lack the expertise to understand what lies in front of their very noses.  The vast majority of reporters have any expertise at all is in reporting – that is, writing something and getting it in by deadline.  Outside of the newsroom mechanics, they are at best no better off than a completely ignorant reader – and in many cases worse.

    • #6
  7. DocJay Inactive
    DocJay
    @DocJay

    Zombies infected by our schools.

    • #7
  8. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    Excellent post.

    I think another factor is the education system, which tends to promote like-minded liberal thinkers.

    The nation’s supply of writers and editors comes out of the nation’s liberal and creative arts education establishments. The people given top grades in our schools are the ones who end up in the media–all media. The people handing out the grades are left wing, so of course the students they promote are also. The left controls the education system.

    I’ve seen a lot of television series–Blue Bloods and Last Man Standing, for example–start out as largely conservative in their plot lines and dialogue but then turn decidedly left as they go on to later seasons.

    This problem–that even conservative media turns left over time–shows up elsewhere too. I visited Disney World in late May this year, and it was so left leaning in every way in terms of the messages and themes of all the attractions that it was quite stunning, considering how conservative Walt Disney was. But the more I thought about it, the more obvious the reason became. The media and the arts are all drawing from the same left-leaning talent pool of “creatives.” And that talent is coming out of our left-leaning schools.

    Indeed, the left-leaning kids are the ones who get into those schools in the first place.

    • #8
  9. Brian Watt Inactive
    Brian Watt
    @BrianWatt

    EJHill:“Objective” journalism is a 20th century American creation fueled partly by the rise of the electronic media and the FCC’s idea of “fairness” within a limited spectrum.

    The rise of alternative transmission (cable/satellite/internet) has made much of the justification for that argument obsolete.

    Then there was the Woodward and Bernstein hero worship and the rise of “consumer advocacy” reporting at local television. Suddenly information took a backseat to “making a difference.”

    EJ makes a salient point. The influence of hero worship of Woodward and Bernstein and the role they played in the current bias of the MSM should not be diminished. After Nixon’s resignation at the height of the Watergate investigation, schools of journalism in colleges and universities were swamped with students who wanted to achieve the same “heroic” status as the WaPo dynamic duo. The film “All the President’s Men” with Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford further helped to idealize the investigative reporters to an almost mythic status. Given that the academy was already leaning heavily Left, successive generations of student journalists marinated in Liberal/anti-conservative/anti-Republican ideology graduated and got roles as reporters on papers and on TV stations giving us the bias that has been so pervasive since and that we’ve had to deal with. It’s rare when a journalist or an investigative journalist breaks out the MSM mold. Sharyl Attkisson is a rarity and one wonders if allegedly being hacked by her own government may have opened her eyes a bit and pushed her further center if she had been Left of center previously.

    • #9
  10. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    I’d like to see someone write a thesis on this idea–I certainly don’t intend to–but I see a liberal to conservative horizontal “plane” of professions, the ends of which represent the direct dependency of one’s job on making a profit (the profit motive).  On the far left side, we have government employees and academics, whose positions are far removed from “profit.”  On the far right side, we have small business people and (mostly) entrepreneurs, whose livelihood depends on making a profit.

    From my experience, those who are in “big media”  are relatively insulated from the profit motive even if they work for public companies, either because they’re unionized or because someone is usually willing to subsidize media as a vanity project without much regard for the bottom line (e.g., Carlos Slim).  So journalists etc. can be liberal because they’re isolated from the practicalities that often make conservatives.  There’s also an element of selection bias, in that those inclined to avoid the “pressures” of a profit-making environment gravitate to these positions.  Is there, for example, a safer sinecure for journalists than a job at NPR (the intersection of media and government), where the profit motive is essentially nonexistent?

    • #10
  11. Bill Nelson Inactive
    Bill Nelson
    @BillNelson

    Let’s all stop whining. Media has never, ever, been impartial or bi-partisan. Going back several hundred years to Fleet Street, it was traditional that media (newspapers) were aligned with one party or group (Torys, Labour, labor, finance, etc…).

    So the media, for the most part, going to be liberal. A conservative, if they are hired, won’t last very long. And there is nothing that can be done until the people reject these sources and they suffer financially.

    • #11
  12. Songwriter Inactive
    Songwriter
    @user_19450

    Bill Nelson:Let’s all stop whining. Media has never, ever, been impartial or bi-partisan. Going back several hundred years to Fleet Street, it was traditional that media (newspapers) were aligned with one party or group (Torys, Labour, labor, finance, etc…).

    So the media, for the most part, going to be liberal. A conservative, if they are hired, won’t last very long. And there is nothing that can be done until the people reject these sources and they suffer financially.

    Great point.  And I honestly don’t understand how newspapers like The Tennessean manage to stay afloat. The paper is a poorly written, sadly edited, liberal rag.  It’s published in the heart of a conservative state – so they are deliberately poking over half their potential readership in the eye with their bias.

    • #12
  13. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Songwriter:

    Great point. And I honestly don’t understand how newspapers like The Tennessean manage to stay afloat. The paper is a poorly written, sadly edited, liberal rag. It’s published in the heart of a conservative state – so they are deliberately poking over half their potential readership in the eye with their bias.

    They are insulated.  They’re owned by deep pockets Gannett, and their only arguable competition is two other Gannett papers.

    • #13
  14. Gary McVey Contributor
    Gary McVey
    @GaryMcVey

    MarciN:Excellent post.

    I think another factor is the education system, which tends to promote like-minded liberal thinkers.

    The nation’s supply of writers and editors comes out of the nation’s liberal and creative arts education establishments. The people given top grades in our schools are the ones who end up in the media–all media. The people handing out the grades are left wing, so of course the students they promote are also. The left controls the education system.

    I’ve seen a lot of television series–Blue Bloods and Last Man Standing, for example–start out as largely conservative in their plot lines and dialogue but then turn decidedly left as they went on to later seasons.

    This problem–that even conservative media turns left over time–shows up elsewhere too. I visited Disney World in late May this year, and it was so left leaning in every way in terms of the messages and themes of all the attractions that it was quite stunning, considering how conservative Walt Disney was. But the more I thought about it, the more obvious the reason became. The media and the arts are all drawing from the same left-leaning talent pool of “creatives.” And that talent is coming out of our left-leaning schools.

    Indeed, the left-leaning kids are the ones who get into those schools in the first place.

    Because they’re the only ones who apply. Our kids are encouraged to go into STEM fields, business, the armed forces or the law. We don’t compete in culture, and until we do we’ll never win.

    • #14
  15. Knotwise the Poet Member
    Knotwise the Poet
    @KnotwisethePoet

    Bill Nelson:Let’s all stop whining. Media has never, ever, been impartial or bi-partisan. Going back several hundred years to Fleet Street, it was traditional that media (newspapers) were aligned with one party or group (Torys, Labour, labor, finance, etc…).

    So the media, for the most part, going to be liberal. A conservative, if they are hired, won’t last very long. And there is nothing that can be done until the people reject these sources and they suffer financially.

    My issue isn’t that the media has a bias.  My issue is the affectation of impartiality.  I prefer the 19th century way of doing things (mentioned by Dr. Turley in his article) in which papers were “explicitly partisan.”

    If 90-95% of everyone working in your newsroom is a registered Democrat or has voted Democrat in every Presidential election for the past few decades, of course your choice of what stories to report and how you report them is going to be influenced, consciously or not, by what you think is going to best help the Democrats’ electoral chances.  Just be up front about your agenda.

    Ricochet, and other sites like it, don’t claim to be impartial.  They’re clear about what political ideologies they are promoting and what ones they’re against.  I appreciate that.

    • #15
  16. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    Gary McVey: We don’t compete in culture, and until we do we’ll never win.

    a thousand likes!

    • #16
  17. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    As to @garymcvey and his arguments about competing in the culture:

    It’s not enough to have conservative kids who want to express themselves artistically and compete. Those people need funding, specifically more than one angel who is willing to take the financial risk.

    • #17
  18. Front Seat Cat Member
    Front Seat Cat
    @FrontSeatCat

    Bill Nelson – I can’t stop whining – as was mentioned on radio today, Clinton can sit back and do nothing and win because the media is her best advertising – they are anti-Trump and all in for her – she doesn’t have to talk or spend money – that is just plain not acceptable.

    • #18
  19. Gary McVey Contributor
    Gary McVey
    @GaryMcVey

    EJHill:As to @garymcvey and his arguments about competing in the culture:

    It’s not enough to have conservative kids who want to express themselves artistically and compete. Those people need funding, specifically more than one angel who is willing to take the financial risk.

    Of course, EJ. And it’s not enough for a few kids to make their films; they need the classic Hollywood tools of praise and attention. They need to earn honors and prove distinction. They need a whole support system of experienced attorneys of intellectual property rights, of shrewd agents and social media support. But it starts with typing a story and picking up a camera. And our guys seldom do it.

    • #19
  20. Bill Nelson Inactive
    Bill Nelson
    @BillNelson

    Songwriter:Great point. And I honestly don’t understand how newspapers like The Tennessean manage to stay afloat. The paper is a poorly written, sadly edited, liberal rag. It’s published in the heart of a conservative state – so they are deliberately poking over half their potential readership in the eye with their bias.

    Habit. People take the paper out of habit. My spouse does the cross word, I look at sports for local scores. And very little local sports.

    None of my children subscribe to the paper.

    • #20
  21. Goldgeller Member
    Goldgeller
    @Goldgeller

    Good post and good question. Some of it is self-selection and socialization. I think that has been discussed in the post but I agree with those posters.

    But I also think it is just market forces and business models. There are conservative news outlets and ways for conservatives to get the news. Just as there are liberal outlets. Then there are nonpartisan outlets, and then there are outlets that pretend to be nonpartisan but are secretly partisan in one way or another. It is just a marketing strategy. Now. Some people may legitimately think that CNN is nonpartisan. But the savy people know CNN is just a way of signaling. Its a business model.

    • #21
  22. James Lileks Contributor
    James Lileks
    @jameslileks

    Bill Nelson: A conservative, if they are hired, won’t last very long.

    Not quite right. We’re rare, but we exist.

    • #22
  23. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Dr. Steve Turley: First, journalists began to reimagine their craft as an extension of scientific rationalism which sought to analyze events objectively and impartially, irrespective of the preconceptions of the reporter.

    I love this explanation, because it also explains how “facts” are created without evidence by virtue of the “scientific rationalism” of the reporter. For example, global warming. Liberalism (leftism) is all about the intentions and virtue of the liberal (leftist). That’s why they’re incapable of “reporting.” Or governing, for that matter.

    • #23
  24. RyanM Inactive
    RyanM
    @RyanM

    Great post! Thanks!

    • #24
  25. Cow Girl Thatcher
    Cow Girl
    @CowGirl

    @knotwisethepoet

    Absolutely!! There is a myth that the “news” is impartial.  Most reporters do not even know that they aren’t, I think. They exist in an echo chamber. I’ve lived in several regions of the United States. All local news is exactly the same: the same gestures, the same tone of voice, the same enforced “diversity” on the set. The people mimic the national broadcasters as much as they can…most of them have never done anything at all except read news. They haven’t worked for a regular business, or held any other job. They grew up in a bubble; they went to a college that confirmed the biases they were fed in high school; they got hired by a news outlet that is extremely PC. They have no experience in Real Life. They move around from one regional market to another regional market, as they strive to get into a larger and more prestigious station.  They are always in their journalistic cocoons. It’s so obvious. They’ve never been exposed to any other point of view than the one that they see on T.V.

    • #25
  26. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    I’m thinking of John Stuart. Whenever he encountered a conservative point of view he was shocked shocked that there was such an opinion. He could study the news everyday and never encounter conservative ideology. Conservatives simply don’t have that option.

    • #26
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.