Often the left thinks we conservatives exaggerate the size and influence of the media, made up of the Legacy New, TV, and Hollywood. I for one often mention their bias, dominance, and effect on social issues, and political races.
An example of their social impact is how they have slowly changed the attitudes towards homosexuality in the nation over the last decade. A political example is their support and election of Barack Obama. With a balanced media (TV, Hollywood, News) un-beholden to a liberal ideology neither of these things would have occurred.
If you’re on the left; all of this is just fine. You can even pretend that the bias is exaggerated and this is just the natural flow of society. If you’re on the right (like me) this is insidious.
Main Stream Media Bias
But to the point, is the media dominance on the left exaggerated? After all, we on the right have Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, and Rush Limbaugh; three very profitable, and popular behemoths of TV News, Print News, and Talk Radio.
“The left currently controls 90+ percent of the media right now.” – Texas Lynn
“I don’t see how you can say that, unless by percentage you mean “number of outlets,” which would be a silly measurement. Fox News is the dominant TV news, WSJ is a dominant paper.” – Liberal Friend
Notice the immediate attention to Fox News; the bane of the left’s existence. 
It’s true that Fox news dominates the cable TV market and is profitable and successful as opposed to the leftist news networks who might eek out a profit. But that’s just Business 101. If you have a market evenly split (say 52/47) between the left and right; and you have ten vendors vying for the lefts business and one for the rights business. The one is going to dominate the ten. The same applies to the Wall Street Journal.
BUT overall, the number of people, effort, and dollars seeking the hearts and minds of the American people is heavily… HEAVILY skewed to the left today. Is it 90%? Who can say for sure; but it’s obvious that number isn’t too far off. The only silver lining in all of this is; it used to be a lot, lot worse!
Skeptical? Great! Trust but verify, I always say.
Hypothesis: The media (News, TV, Hollywood) is skewed to and dominated by the left.
Test: Research and document the daily patronage (the number of people they reach) of the various media vendors and compare those numbers to ascertain the degree of dominance if any.
I broke the media vendors into five categories.
- TV News
- Radio News/Talk
- Print News
- Television
- Hollywood/Movies
Media Dominance by Left
(Click to Enlarge)
- Notes on Numbers:
- TV News: The numbers for the various networks was from Neilson. For Fox news I took the peak viewership in Prime Time News so as to be sure and not skew the number in favor of Fox.
- Radio News/Talk: The talk radio number was hard to come by. I took the peak of 14 million (weekly number… they don’t track daily) and calculated a 25% repeat and crossover listener factor. If you go by the leftist blogs and reports, my number would be inflated. Of course they have an interest in reporting that we conservatives are less numerous than thought.
- Print News: The WSJ, NYP, NYT, and USA Today are in the National Top 50 Newspapers. The Remaining Top 50 Newspapers are the total circulation of the remaining 46 City Newspapers in the country. To give you an idea of the city size represented. The Fort-Worth Star Telegram was number 50.
- Television: While not all television shows are leftist, the TV industry definitely is and pushes that agenda. Name some very leftist TV Shows: Glee, Modern Family, 30 Rock, Parks and Recreation, It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, The Family Guy… Now name some very conservative TV Shows: … … they don’t exist.
- Hollywood/Movies: Hollywood rarely if ever produces conservative movies. Even Oscar winning Braveheart had to go outside the system to be made. Conservative Hollywood actors brave enough to come out of the closet can just about be counted on one hand. Compared to the vast number of movies out there; the few independent conservative movies are negligible. The “daily” movie viewership number is taken from the estimated 2012 yearly number and divided by 365.
- And Yes, debating whether or not the vast majority of these have a liberal bias (as indicated) is like debating the innocense of O.J. Simpson. Please spare me tedeous ordeal of defending the obvious.
Conclusion:
So when you look at the actual numbers (people) compared to the Big Three broadcasters… Fox News, barely scratches the surface (5-10% depending on overlap). Newspapers are better, but still the clear dominance is on the left. TV and Hollywood? We conservatives don’t even have a dog in the hunt; the left totally controls and dominates the medium.
The only category where we hold an advantage in is Talk Radio and then just barely after being forced to subsidize the opposition.
Liberal Media Bias and Dominance? You Bet Your Sweet Ass!
If the liberal media changed the national attitude towards homosexuality, then let us all praise the liberal media as a force for good.
Will you also credit them for the civil rights movement, womens’ suffrage, and the emancipation proclamation? Or were those things conservatives would have gotten to, eventually, in your fantasy America?
I have no idea what a ‘conservative’ movie would be. Please expound. No gays, minorities, women, unmarried couples, or sex? Oh… you mean ‘Westerns.’
>> If the liberal media changed the national attitude towards homosexuality, then let us all praise the liberal media as a force for good.
Exactly what I said in the posting: “If you’re on the left; all of this is just fine. You can even pretend that the bias is exaggerated and this is just the natural flow of society.”
>> Will you also credit them for the civil rights movement, womens’ suffrage, and the emancipation proclamation? Or were those things conservatives would have gotten to, eventually, in your fantasy America?
I won’t even dignify that with a response…
>I won’t even dignify that with a response…
I think you should. If you truly believe the liberal media shaped society in a progressive direction, rather than simply responding to it in the marketplace of ideas which support it with eyeballs and $, then why limit their impact to the last decade?
It is a fact of history that every time we have made social progress as a society, it has been the conservatives who resisted the change — whether appealing to the Bible, nature, or just keeping the status quo.
Today’s conservatives, who are not racists, are simply the liberals of 50 years ago — like Romney’s dad, who was run out of the GOP on a rail by Goldwater and his supporters for his socially progressive agenda. Today’s conservatives, like Romney Sr, now support equal rights regardless of race… but not sexual orientation.
I mean, gosh — how far will this crazy “freedom” thing go? We must put the brakes on at some point, right? If it weren’t for the media and Hollywood and Satan, gays would still be in their place — silent, hidden, occasionally roughed up. Yeah, those were the days!
>> It is a fact of history that every time we have made social progress as a society, it has been the conservatives who resisted the change — whether appealing to the Bible, nature, or just keeping the status quo.
There is no rational debate we could have on this. I just don’t have the time, patience or will right now. So you live in your fantasy America and I’ll live in mine.
OK. But I really want you to understand this. I do not think you are a bigot. I simply think you’re ignorant about the true nature of homosexuality.
Like CS Lewis said, people who burned witches were not evil. They were just ignorant.
The way I see it, today’s social conservatives accept the victories of the previous generations of social progressives, but want to go no further. If that’s not true, I’d need to be shown why.
And as you say, this has nothing to do with the bad behavior of the other side. Obviously there are race-baiters on the left, and homosexuals who are not good examples of the gay population (like crazy naked folks in San Francisco). That’s irrelevant. Marriage inequality is the last major institutionalized social injustice in America that I’m aware of (well, maybe the ongoing abuses of the Natives, too). We need to overcome it. I’m not talking about polygamy or bestiality or any of that nonsense. I’m talking about equal legal protections, financial benefits, and adoption rights, for gays as for straights. I think if we can achieve that, it’ll be real progress for American society.
p.s. And no, I don’t think the church has to recognize gay couples or perform weddings for gays. That’s a completely separate thing. This is a legal issue. I can get married without a church, and pass on survivor benefits, etc. That’s all I’m talking about. Not turning the church/temples into gay marriage supporters.
>> The way I see it, today’s social conservatives accept the victories of the previous generations of social progressives, but want to go no further.
Exactly why there is no need to go into this. That statement is absurd. And nothing I say is going to convince you otherwise (and vice versa) and I just don’t have the fortitude to even try.
Dam It! Why am I going into this?
>> I do not think you are a bigot. I simply think you’re ignorant about the true nature of homosexuality.
Yes! That’s exactly our problem. We have the same opinion of each other. You think I’m ignorant of the true nature of homosexuality and I think you have chosen to believe falacies about the true nature of homosexuality.
You think homosexuality is the same as skin or eye color. I see it as a free will issue, we are all genetically predispositioned to bad behavior but can choose not to give in to that.
I freely admit my religious beliefs have helped shape my belief. I think you have close friends or relatives who are homosexual and can’t stand the thought that they had some choice in the matter. I have had (and may have today) close homosexual friends; but somehow I have chosen to set that aside in forming my opinion.
We’re at an impasse and always will be.
>> And no, I don’t think the church has to recognize gay couples or perform weddings for gays.
I’m glad… religious freedom is commendable. But how far does it go?
What about me as an individual? Should I have the right to deny a homosexual a job in my company; or the rent of my house simply because of my religious or moral views on the practice? You say it’s a legal issue; does the legal definition go as far as race?
>> This is a legal issue. I can get married without a church, and pass on survivor benefits, etc. I’m talking about equal legal protections, financial benefits, and adoption rights, for gays as for straights.
>> I’m not talking about polygamy or bestiality or any of that nonsense.
I sorry, but I think I understand your position perfectly. I agree 100% that it’s a legal issue. But were still on opposite sides of what the law should do.
Survivor Benefits: (When you say survivor benefits, I think you’re thinking about stuff like social security.) Homosexuals shouldn’t be able to pass government benefits along any more than me. Should I as a single heterosexual male be able to enter into a contract (not marriage) with someone (male or female) and pass along my government benefits?
On a side note what is the monetary value of that?
To the right person, it would have to be in the 10s or 100s or thousands!
eBay Auction: Government Survivor Benefits. Seller is Male, Upper 40s, Average (at best) Health, has worked his whole life and is fully vested in Social Security. Seller is offering to enter into a marriage equivalent contract with highest bidder.
Conditions:
– Winning bidder will be named as “spouse” and eventual survivor in order to receive all social security and other government benefits upon my death.
– Pre-nuptial will stipulate that winning bidder receives NOTHING other than social security and other government benefits.
– All transactions will be handled by seller’s attorney. We will never meet and you will never even know who I am. (Never be worth more dead than alive; especially to someone who might be willing to kill you.)
– If state requires consummation; contract is null and void!
Back to Reality…
Legal Protections: What do you mean by this? It’s already illegal to harass, or beat up, or kill or maim… anyone. So that can’t be it. Are you talking about employment, and housing, and such like? In which case you’re saying me as a Christian will be required by law to ignore my religious objections. I disagree.
Financial Benefits: Again, don’t quite know what you mean. Insurance and the like? That should be up to the private/public company on whether or not to offer those; which is how it is today. Local governments can decide on a local level, States on a state level and the Feds on a Federal level. For my city, county, State (Texas) and the U.S. I vote NO.
Adoption Rights: Nope. We agree that polygamist shouldn’t be allowed to adopt (I think), and those who practice bestiality shouldn’t be allowed to adopt. I say that homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to adopt for the same reason as the other two. You say I am wrong because my grouping of homosexuals in with the other two is invalid.
So we’re back to the very beginning. It all comes down to you and I disagreeing where the moral line is; and we’re never going to agree.
>You think homosexuality is the same as skin or eye color. I see it as a free will issue, we are all genetically predispositioned to bad behavior but can choose not to give in to that.
Yes. It’s genetic. And it’s only bad in a religious context, not an ethical one. If you’re going to retreat into that tired old position that solid science, showing how homosexuality is genetic, is part of some liberal agenda, then you can dismiss any science that bothers you. And that’s too bad. Science isn’t supposed to comfort us, or support the Bible. It’s supposed to expose truth. It can’t do that if, every time it says something that contradicts Leviticus, you say “You shall not pass!”
I won’t split hairs over this. My position is very simple. If we treat homosexuals differently than heterosexuals, we are committing an injustice. If they pay taxes, they should get the same Social Security benefits. If they’re financially and emotionally able, gay couples should be allowed to adopt.
If God has a problem with that, tell him to stop making gay people. But that’d be a real shame, and you’d sure miss all the musical theater.
Exactly my point from the very beginning. You don’t respect my religious beliefs, and I don’t trust your science; and neither of us is going to give an inch… so why bother.
Because religion is not as respect-worthy as science on social issues. Religion says, “What will please our God?” Science says, “What’s actually happening here?”
I do not hate religion. If I did, I wouldn’t feel conflicted, and life would be very simple for me. But I do hate it when it steps out of its element as a voluntary, personal/social activity, and tries to force everyone to follow its path by force of law. That’s unethical, and ultimately undermines the credibility and worthiness of faith.