“When The Times covers a national presidential campaign, I have found that the lead editors and reporters are disciplined about enforcing fairness and balance, and usually succeed in doing so. Across the paper’s many departments, though, so many share a kind of political and cultural progressivism — for lack of a better term — that this worldview virtually bleeds through the fabric of The Times. As a result, developments like the Occupy movement and gay marriage seem almost to erupt in The Times, overloved and undermanaged, more like causes than news subjects.” – outgoing public editor of the New York Times, Arthur Brisbane
“In our newsroom we are always conscious that the way we view an issue in New York is not necessarily the way it is viewed in the rest of the country or world. I disagree with Mr. Brisbane’s sweeping conclusions… I agree with another past public editor, Dan Okrent, and my predecessor as executive editor, Bill Keller, that in covering some social and cultural issues, the Times sometimes reflects its urban and cosmopolitan base. But I also often quote, including in talks with Mr. Brisbane, another executive editor, Abe Rosenthal, who wanted to be remembered for keeping ‘the paper straight.’ That’s essential.” – executive editor Jill Abramson disputing the claim of bias
TexasLynn: I would submit to (Mrs. Ms) Abramson that what she considers “reflects it’s urban and cosmopolitan base” IS liberal/progressive bias.
A Margaret Sullivan, from the Buffalo News, will soon take over the position of public editor; but for some reason the job description has recently changed “to shift the job’s focus toward more engagement with the reader online and through social media.”
TexasLynn: Translation… “We’ll have no more of these public admissions of progressive bias.”
TexasLynn: I used to live in Houston and the Houston Chronicle was another left-wing rag that was very sensitive and defensive concerning claims of bias. I remember a few years ago they created one of these editors to “represent the reader”. It soon became apparent that his job wasn’t so much to take reader concerns to the editors/board as to explain to readers that they were wrong about their concerns. He was even nice for about the first month before he turned nasty and vindictive on the subject. I guess I would eventually get a bit testy if my job was to defend the indefensible.
Actually, I agree with what the outgoing editor said. I read the NYT regularly. It just has the best writing in America, and for that, I try to filter the far-left stuff over into mainstream Democrat/centrist independent territory.
I have noticed an enhanced engagement with centrist and conservative views, in the NYT comments section online, in just the past few months. It used to be that some of my critical comments didn’t get approved and posted; lately, they have been (and I’ll get 70 thumbs up and a dozen “you’re a crazy neanderthal conservative” comments — yes, ME). So, I’d say things are improving.
I’m just shooting from the hip here, but I wonder if there is a natural bias towards progressivism/liberalism in journalism because it’s an idealistic, educated, and low-paying profession (just like teaching and book publishing, which I dabbled in)? We’re the only dummies interested in this kind of work. A conservative would want to make a living wage, and not live with two other guys in a one bedroom apartment just to be in Manhattan (whee).
Unfortunately it’s only when the guy is leaving that he feels comfortable voicing the truth. And then the main editor simply denies any such thing is possible as opposed to… “maybe we should look into that”. But then what can she do? As the outgoing editor said, the problem is engrained in the culture of the company. You would have to fire at least a third of the people and replace them with conservatives that hardly exist in the industry.
I would have no problem with the NYT if they were honest about who/what they are.
“Hey, we’re the NYT from the North East for (redacted) sake. Of course you’ll have to filter through the hard-left stuff; and it’s to be expected that we’ll grill conservatives and give liberals a pass. Just know that before you buy our product.”
That’s not the product they advertise… Instead we get arrogant, condescending, denials of any bias what-so-ever.
Online comment sections are a nice place to vent; but have very limited reach. Much less so than say an actually published letter to the editor.
The bias in journalism is caused by several factors:
1. The idealistic, educated profession aspect of it (what you said)
2. The colleges that “teach” journalism are staffed with only progressives\liberals.
3. The industry is filled with leftist who ostracize the conservatives.
I don’t think the money (living wage) thing has anything to do with it. We conservatives will take on a low-paying career by choice. I gave up a six figure income in Houston to move back to East Texas.
I’m trying not to pull comparisons… so I’ll just leave it at this. Can a newspaper not have an agenda? And can its readers not sort that out for themselves?
Conservatives don’t tend to go into journalism for many reasons — money’s just an obvious one. I’d say respect is a bigger one, too — I’ve not heard many conservatives who respect the profession. Conservatives don’t tend be as interested in the humanities or the arts at a professional level, either. I don’t think that’s a purposeful bias, just what people are attracted to.
Most teachers, journalists, scientists, and even ministers (with major denominations that require master’s degrees) lean liberal. Most business people and attorneys lean conservative. Is there a conspiracy against liberals in business and law? Nah. But they do naturally grow into a culture that fosters what they’ve built upon, and that can turn into a bias.
I don’t think it’s conspiratorial… it’s just how it is.
>> Can a newspaper not have an agenda?
It could; if it had the proper commitment from management and the proper training of it reporters. That doesn’t exist at most newspapers. My complaint isn’t that the NYT is left-wing and biased; it’s that it has the balls to arrogantly insist that it’s not. This is also my complaint about the entire of the Main Stream Media. They sully the name and image and memory of good journalism.
>> And can its readers not sort that out for themselves?
I’m sure they can and do… thus the declining readership of newspapers across the country.
>> I don’t think it’s conspiratorial… it’s just how it is.
Unless you count lying about who you are conspiratorial; I don’t think so either.
Maybe there is a certain level of self-delusion here. (But I really don’t think so)
It does remind me of a letter to the editor I wrote to the Houston Chronicle many years ago. And to their credit they published it.
Every first Sunday of the year back then, their editorial page was filled with editorials from their board and directors about how unbiased they were and how those who thought they were, were crazy. You could tell they got a lot of that and it bothered them.
So I wrote in and said “OK, OK! You’ve convinced me! I now believe that each and every reporter and member of the editorial board at the Chronicle believes in their heart of heart that they are completely without bias. So I must now set aside my question of “Why is the Chronicle so biased”; and replace it with “How is such mass delusion even possible?”
Unless you count lying about who you are conspiratorial…
Where is either side lying about who they are?
Here’s the editorial board of the NYT. They’re East Coast educated liberals.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/opinion/editorialboard.html
Here’s the editorial board of the WSJ. They’re East Coast educated conservatives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wall_Street_Journal_editorial_board
Neither side needs to apologize or qualify their statements with the eternal “I’m human and have biases.” I think we all know what we’re getting from them, and we choose to read/listen to those that are most like ourselves. Partially that’s selection bias, and partially it’s because we’ve each made a decision that position X is largely wrong, and position Y is largely right — or at least right enough to get our mental support.
Journalists do that, too.
I was surprised to learn media companies financially support Democrats more than Republicans — even within NewsCorp:
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/donations-by-media-companies-tilt-heavily-to-obama/
I wonder what it’s like to be a liberal within NewsCorp… probably a lot like being one in Texas.
I don’t understand the purpose of the links. Neither link says anything about biases. No they aren’t lying in these links; but they’re not telling the whole truth either.
The NYT lies about who it is on a regular basis. I even quoted executive editor Jill Abramson lying (denying a progressive bias) in the post. And of course it’s not just the NYT… it’s the entire Main Stream Media. And we’re not just talking about editorial boards… We’re also talking about the people (producers, reporters, readers) who deliver the hard news; the stuff that’s supposed to be just the facts.
>> Neither side needs to apologize or qualify their statements with the eternal “I’m human and have biases.”
I disagree; because of the damage the left-wing-press does to this nation by what it exaggerates (on the right) and completely ignores (on the left). They do owe the public an apology and failing that a qualification of who they are.
>> I think we all know what we’re getting from them.
I don’t think so. I don’t think the general public really understands the disservice it receives from the Main Stream Media; particularly in the stories they choose to ignore. Thus my continued post to expose them.
>> I was surprised to learn media companies financially support Democrats more than Republicans — even within NewsCorp:
Ummm… I’m not.
>> I wonder what it’s like to be a liberal within NewsCorp… probably a lot like being one in Texas.
It’s not as bad as you think… We conservatives walk the walk on free speech and compassion.
Michelle Malkin has a good post on this subject and the harm having a liberal media does to the nation…
http://michellemalkin.com/2012/08/30/rnc-derangement-syndrome-and-the-demisedementia-of-the-neutrality-posers/
I don’t understand the purpose of the links. Neither link says anything about biases
My bad. To me, it’s obvious by their respective educations, backgrounds, and accomplishments which ones lean left, and which lean right.
For example, the first guy listed on the WSJ board, Paul Gigot, was a regular guest on The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer (which I love), appearing in the program’s weekly political analysis segment, opposite Mark Shields, the regular liberal pundit.
So, he’s a conservative. He’s made his living promoting/defending that perspective. He’s not claiming to be neutral. I would imagine he steers his stringers/beat writers in the direction he feels is sensible… conservatively.
the stuff that’s supposed to be just the facts
I think you have too pure an idea re bias. News has never been “just the facts,” except for a beat reporter wayyy down the food chain reporting on a bake sale. The facts one chooses to report or not report (as directed by editors), the order they’ve given, the time and resources they’re given, are, in themselves, persuasive points. There is no neutral communication.
Journalism is a business, not a public service. If the readers don’t like their product, they die. This is not a uniquely liberal problem. Even relatively conservative papers, like the Dallas Morning News, ignore issues that don’t fit their brand.
For example, they have a popular financial writer named Scott Burns. He has no education in finance, economics, or even a math-related field, and he’s never managed a portfolio, yet his advice is promoted by that paper, and in turn that influences lots of investors, for good or ill. When financial planners challenge him to debate his advice, he refuses. Is that lying? No. Is it damaging? I’d say that’s open to debate, at least… except it’s not, because he won’t debate, and his (mostly conservative) employers don’t care.
Is that evil? Nah. Even if they are the only surviving paper, I don’t have to read it.
We conservatives walk the walk on free speech and compassion.
*You* do.
Conservatives, by and large, have been rather hateful towards liberals for many years now, equating them with socialists, communists, atheists, questioning their patriotism, saying they can’t be Christian… just the most offensive crap imaginable.
That’s why I got pissed off when you called me “liberal” half a dozen times, because in conservative vernacular, that is a curse word, the equivalent of evil scum. I don’t deny that I have those positions… but the word has become so loaded, that it’s only safe to say if you *are* one. It’s the n-word of politics.
And yes, I know liberals do it the other way, too.
In the end, speaking with a bias towards a position is part of free speech. Giving a counterpoint is, too. Even being mocked is free speech.
In the end, FoxNews is #1, so I don’t know how one can claim the MSM (everyone else) is corrupting America. It seems the fight is fairly even, and we can choose who we want to listen to.
Michelle Malkin has a good post on this subject
That’s not a good post. She simply links to sites like “redstate.com” and calls liberals “unhinged, dement(ed), lapdogs.” Your blog is better than hers.
>> Journalism is a business, not a public service.
Fine… then don’t claim objectivity… otherwise you’re a lier and deserve to get called on it.
Journalism should be more than what it is. There should be more honor and integrity in the product being produced. There should be some sense of public service… like teaching or being a fire fighter. Journalists even claim that such a sense exists… so all I’m asking is TRY to live up to that standard OR publically denounce it. One or the other already!
>> If the readers don’t like their product, they die.
It’s called the marketplace of ideas. It’s why MSNBC and Current TV have practically no viewers and CNN is collapsing. It like I said before; their business model is selling ice to Eskimos.
>> We conservatives walk the walk on free speech and compassion.
>> *You* do.
I do think conservatives do a better job at this. The Juan Williams debacle is a perfect example.
>> Conservatives, by and large, have been rather hateful towards liberals for many years now.
I just don’t think we hold a candle to the left. To me, hate is practically the definition of the left… especially its upper management. The entire Obama re-election strategy is class hate and race hate.
>> Equating them with socialists, communists, atheists, questioning their patriotism, saying they can’t be Christian… just the most offensive crap imaginable.
I’m guilty. But I do believe that the agenda the left is pushing is the path to socialism and worse. Yes I think that is horrible and I think some leading the charge are evil people.
The rank and file is more akin to the German people enabling the Nazis; not evil themselves but enabling evil to do what it does. No, this is not calling the Democratic Party Nazis… it’s just an example of regular people allowing evil to happen through ignorance, delusion, and/or apathy.
>> just the most offensive crap imaginable.
Do the words starve children, steal from the elderly, warmongers… sound familiar
Just this week, the GOP and its members were called “Nazis”, “Hitler”, and “Goebbels” which I always find ironic since all three represent a political view (socialism) much closer to the left than the right.
And let’s not forget that we are “bigots” for not supporting the homosexual agenda. etc…
>> That’s why I got pissed off when you called me “liberal” half a dozen times, because in conservative vernacular, that is a curse word, the equivalent of evil scum.
And I’m sorry to have pissed you off. I mean to simply point out that your views seem to match those of the left; when you try to claim otherwise.
I mostly do this when I’m trying to point out that you are no more a libertarian than I am. I think the libertarians are absolutely right on fiscal issues; much more so than the Republicans. BUT they are nuts on foreign policy and social issues.
For the record, I do think you are a liberal (and if you prefer, I’ll try to use the terms progressive or Crustation American.
And for the record, I do not think you are evil. I do think you are wrong. And I do think that your views (amplified by those who share them) allow bad things to happen.
It’s not meant as a personal attack. And is it any different than how you see my views? If you think 2+2=5; I’m going to tell you that you’re wrong AND if you build a bridge or launch a rocket using that assumption bad things are going to happen. If you think leftist (and yes socialist) policy = good; I’m going to tell you…
And for the record, you obviously pissed me off when you called me a bigot for opposing the gay agenda. Just another n-word.
>> And yes, I know liberals do it the other way, too.
They do? I don’t see how. Conservative can only be used as a compliment?
>> In the end, Fox News is #1, so I don’t know how one can claim the MSM (everyone else) is corrupting America. It seems the fight is fairly even, and we can choose who we want to listen to.
Because when you are on top of the hill, there is no pleasure being dragged and pummeled by everyone below you.
Or in my case because “When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.”
>> Michelle Malkin… Your blog is better than hers.
I add more personal comments on the issues. I don’t have a family, kids, or a career at Fox News to contend with. She and I agree most of the time; and I’m not above name calling; especially when the shoe fits.
Obama is a big government prick and Biden his moronic yes-man toady. See?
I do think conservatives do a better job at this. The Juan Williams debacle is a perfect example.
It’s a selective example.
And for the record, you obviously pissed me off when you called me a bigot for opposing the gay agenda. Just another n-word.
Fair enough. I’m a liberal, and you’re a bigot. :p
(joke)
You think I’m wrong on certain issues, and I feel you’re wrong. We each feel the other position is bad for society. You think I’m illogical, and I think you are. We’re the ultimate odd couple! Cue music.