[dreilly1]

Here's an editorial by Orson Scott Card that appears on the Wall Street Journal's opinionjournal.com web site. It asks the question of whether there really is a leftist bias in the news media. Of course, considering the writer and the website, it concludes that there is a horrible leftward bias to the media, but actually tries to back up its assertion.

Now, I was never one who believed in the "liberal media" thing, but on the urging of some of my co-workers I've been analyzing the news that I consume and looking for inherent biases. What I've found is that a lot of news sources that claim to be objective, but do, in fact, tilt one way or another, and most of the time, that's to the left. I don't think this is done on purpose, though, as part of any "liberal media" conspiracy. I think that many journalists (especially younger ones) get their initial journalism training in the university system, which I find to be generally liberal, at least here in the US. Is it possible that these students, once they graduate and get jobs, tend to hold liberal viewpoints without even realizing it, and that viewpoint makes it into their writing, even when they're trying to be objective?

Anyeay, I think that Card does a good job in pointing out how even a totally factual article can have a hint of bias, visible through which facts it chooses to highlight and which ones it chooses to ignore. I certainly think I've seen every trchnique he talks about in at least one New York Times article in the past month. But I do think he over-estimates the impartiality of Fox News, which he seems to think is not tilted to the "right", but rather tilted to be "pro-American". (which is kind of funny, since an Aussie owns it...) And Card is clearly biased in the "conservative" direction, as anyone who has read his political writing in the past would know, but at least he's up front about it. (OTOH, I know people who insist the NYT is a "fair and balanced" news source, even as nyt.com solicits ads for the Kerry campaign alongside their stories...)

In any case, I thought this op-ed was an interesting read. Maybe you will, too.

[Spliffdaddy]

prepare for leftwing retaliation.

lots of direct hits scored with that article.

[AB^2=BCxAC]

I wish he had made his case using more examples other than the two or three from small local papers in the south. I agree when he maintains that the bias at Fox is only "pro-american", but when he concludes matter of factly that they "always" cover both sides of the issues, I really feel a bit mislead. The liberal bias in question that he cites seems more like the partisan mud slinging, or the promotion of science as doctrinal... both of which are serious journalistic errors. And I hate it when I see that, too. But to say that the left are doing the most damage and to characterise liberals as psychotic really doesn't help his arguments, because he makes his arguments mostly out of passion.

PS. I think the most unbiased journalism you can get on american politics is from Canada.

[BlackGriffen]

Card is a devout Morman. Of course he's going to complain of the media being to his left. Especially on cultural issues and siding with scientists.

I'm not sure why anybody is surprised by this.

Overall, I think that I agree with Al Franken's analysis in his Lying Liars book: the media tends to lean liberal on social issues, lean conservative on economic issues, and have a heavy bias for sensationalism and cheapness of coverage.

BlackGriffen

[CD Hanks]

Card is a talented writer, but otherwise he is flat out insane.

[dreilly1]

I thought it was an interesting article because of his analysis of the different news stories. I'm aware of Card's background, and the conclusion he came to didn't suprise me, but I thought it was interesting to see his thought process put down on paper.