Title: The Economics of Media Bias / It may soon be too costly to lean left.
Source: National Review Online
URL Source:
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_b...0406230852.asp
Published: Jun 23, 2004
Author: Bruce Barlett



A new poll from the Pew Research Center has again raised the issue of
liberal bias in the media. A growing body of academic research at top
universities supports it. Unfortunately, those in the major media still don'
t get it and are unlikely to change their behavior, resulting in further
declines in ratings and circulation.

Liberal bias is a tiresome subject, I know. We have been hearing about it
for at least 30 years. Although those who work in the media continue to deny
it, they are having a harder and harder time explaining why so many viewers,
readers, and listeners believe it.

This is the point of the Pew study. Whatever the media think about
themselves, there is simply no denying that a high percentage of Americans
perceive a liberal bias. The credibility of every single major media outlet
has fallen sharply among conservatives and Republicans, while falling much
less among liberals and Democrats.

This has affected viewing habits. Conservatives have drifted away from those
outlets they perceive as most biased, which has contributed heavily to an
overall decline in viewership. Among all Americans, those who watch the
evening network news regularly have fallen from 60 percent in 1993 to just
34 percent today. Among Republicans, 15 percent or less report watching the
evening news on ABC, CBS, or NBC.

One consequence is that conservatives are gravitating toward those outlets
that are perceived as exhibiting less liberal bias. These include Fox News,
talk radio, and the Internet. Ironically, academic studies view these not as
conservative, but as objective. Apparently, the effect of having a rightward
tilt only has the effect of moving "conservative" outlets to the middle,
owing to the extreme left-wing bias of the dominant media.

An interesting study in this regard was recently done by Tim Groseclose of
UCLA and Jeff Milyo of the University of Chicago. They devised a method of
measuring press bias based on the way members of Congress cite various think
tanks. By looking at their rating on a liberal/conservative scale based on
votes, they were able to determine which think tanks were viewed as
conservative or liberal. They then looked at how often these think tanks
were cited in the media.

The conclusion of the Groseclose-Milyo study is unambiguous. "Our results
show a very significant liberal bias," they report. Interestingly, they
found that the Internet's Drudge Report and "Special Report" on Fox News
were the two outlets closest to the true center of the political spectrum,
despite being widely viewed as conservative.

Groseclose and Milyo also look at the political orientation of journalists
relative to the population. They note that just 7 percent of journalists
voted for George H.W. Bush in 1992 versus 37 of the voting public. This
means that journalists are more liberal than voters in the most liberal
congressional district in the U.S., the 9th district in California, which
contains the city of Berkeley. Even there, Bush got 12 percent of the vote,
almost twice his support among journalists.

The curious question is why the media remain so persistently liberal.
Economic theory says that conservative news outlets should have come into
existence to serve that market. However, Prof. Daniel Sutter of the
University of Oklahoma points out that there are severe barriers to entry
into the news business that make it very difficult to start a new newspaper
or television network, thus allowing liberal bias to perpetuate itself.

Another answer comes from a study by Prof. David Baron of Stanford. He
theorizes that profit-maximizing corporations tolerate liberal bias because
it allows them to pay lower wages to liberal journalists. By being allowed
to exercise their bias, they are willing to accept less pay than they would
demand if they were in a business where bias was not tolerated.
Conservatives are perhaps less willing to pay such a financial price.

Writing in the summer issue of The Public Interest, Prof. William Mayer of
Northwestern suggests that conservatives have adopted talk radio, which is
overwhelmingly conservative, as an alternative news outlet. In other words,
a key reason for the popularity of people like Rush Limbaugh is that they
provide news and information not available elsewhere, not just conservative
opinion.

This helps explain why liberal talk radio has been such a dismal failure.
Listeners are not getting much they can't already get in the dominant media.
In Prof. Mayer's words, "Liberals, in short, do not need talk radio. They
already have Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, and Tom Brokaw - not to mention
NPR."

The dominant media is finally starting to realize that it has an economic
problem from having a perceived liberal bias, even though it steadfastly
denies any such bias. Editor & Publisher, an industry publication, is so
alarmed that it has begun a study of the problem.

Its a legitimate theory. IF the media is liberal, then they are alienating a
portion of the potential audience. That might explain why ratings for the big
3 network news shows are dropping and Fox is rising. But it also begs the
question whether the networks aren't rational capitalist organizations - viz,
why allow this situation to continue. Here is the Stanford/UCLA study (Doug,
potshots away):

http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/MediaBias.doc

An excellent, well reasoned response with research to back it up.
The reasons the networks aren't rational capitalists is because they are
liberally biased (that is: liberal). They cannot reason and driven by
self-loathing. Liberalism is the result of one or more mental disorders. In
our capitalist economic system they will suffer the rational outcome of
their bias - they will go belly up. The financial momentum of the news
leviathens just delay the day that they become fertilizer.



"Bobspirt" wrote in message
...
Its a legitimate theory. IF the media is liberal, then they are alienating
a
portion of the potential audience. That might explain why ratings for the
big
3 network news shows are dropping and Fox is rising. But it also begs the
question whether the networks aren't rational capitalist organizations -
viz,
why allow this situation to continue. Here is the Stanford/UCLA study
(Doug,
potshots away):

http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/MediaBias.doc

Maybe, but the news programs are only a part of the networks which are only a
part of the companies which own them (see Disney-ABC-Peter Jennings), and the
conglomerates act like rational capitalists. Leaves the question why they
allow their news shows to inject such editorial content. I think it just crept
in over time and only now with other sources showing the loss of viewership
will they realize the folly of their lax oversight.

The reasons the networks aren't rational capitalists is because they are
liberally biased (that is: liberal). They cannot reason and driven by
self-loathing. Liberalism is the result of one or more mental disorders. In
our capitalist economic system they will suffer the rational outcome of
their bias - they will go belly up. The financial momentum of the news
leviathens just delay the day that they become fertilizer.

True, if they exist only to make money. Remember tyrants exist throughout
the world, even in capitalist systems. Tyrants want to force others to live
in their own version of Nirvana rather than let others live for themselves.
The editorializing disguised as news is to control the conclusions of others
by presenting distorted and lopsided evidence. The quicker they go broke
trying to impose their sense of utopia on others the better.



"Bobspirt" wrote in message
...
Maybe, but the news programs are only a part of the networks which are
only a
part of the companies which own them (see Disney-ABC-Peter Jennings), and
the
conglomerates act like rational capitalists. Leaves the question why they
allow their news shows to inject such editorial content. I think it just
crept
in over time and only now with other sources showing the loss of
viewership
will they realize the folly of their lax oversight.

The reasons the networks aren't rational capitalists is because they are
liberally biased (that is: liberal). They cannot reason and driven by
self-loathing. Liberalism is the result of one or more mental disorders.
In
our capitalist economic system they will suffer the rational outcome of
their bias - they will go belly up. The financial momentum of the news
leviathens just delay the day that they become fertilizer.

Right. And, there are WMDs in Iraq and Annette has ears. What a moron.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
link.net...

bs deleted

Not only are you stupid, but you talk to sockpuppets.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
link.net...
Title: The Economics of Media Bias / It may soon be too costly to lean
left.
Source: National Review Online
URL Source:
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_b...0406230852.asp
Published: Jun 23, 2004
Author: Bruce Barlett



A new poll from the Pew Research Center has again raised the issue of
liberal bias in the media. A growing body of academic research at top
universities supports it. Unfortunately, those in the major media still
don'
t get it and are unlikely to change their behavior, resulting in further
declines in ratings and circulation.

Liberal bias is a tiresome subject, I know. We have been hearing about it
for at least 30 years. Although those who work in the media continue to
deny
it, they are having a harder and harder time explaining why so many
viewers,
readers, and listeners believe it.

This is the point of the Pew study. Whatever the media think about
themselves, there is simply no denying that a high percentage of Americans
perceive a liberal bias. The credibility of every single major media
outlet
has fallen sharply among conservatives and Republicans, while falling much
less among liberals and Democrats.

This has affected viewing habits. Conservatives have drifted away from
those
outlets they perceive as most biased, which has contributed heavily to an
overall decline in viewership. Among all Americans, those who watch the
evening network news regularly have fallen from 60 percent in 1993 to just
34 percent today. Among Republicans, 15 percent or less report watching
the
evening news on ABC, CBS, or NBC.

One consequence is that conservatives are gravitating toward those outlets
that are perceived as exhibiting less liberal bias. These include Fox
News,
talk radio, and the Internet. Ironically, academic studies view these not
as
conservative, but as objective. Apparently, the effect of having a
rightward
tilt only has the effect of moving "conservative" outlets to the middle,
owing to the extreme left-wing bias of the dominant media.

An interesting study in this regard was recently done by Tim Groseclose of
UCLA and Jeff Milyo of the University of Chicago. They devised a method of
measuring press bias based on the way members of Congress cite various
think
tanks. By looking at their rating on a liberal/conservative scale based on
votes, they were able to determine which think tanks were viewed as
conservative or liberal. They then looked at how often these think tanks
were cited in the media.

The conclusion of the Groseclose-Milyo study is unambiguous. "Our results
show a very significant liberal bias," they report. Interestingly, they
found that the Internet's Drudge Report and "Special Report" on Fox News
were the two outlets closest to the true center of the political spectrum,
despite being widely viewed as conservative.

Groseclose and Milyo also look at the political orientation of journalists
relative to the population. They note that just 7 percent of journalists
voted for George H.W. Bush in 1992 versus 37 of the voting public. This
means that journalists are more liberal than voters in the most liberal
congressional district in the U.S., the 9th district in California, which
contains the city of Berkeley. Even there, Bush got 12 percent of the
vote,
almost twice his support among journalists.

The curious question is why the media remain so persistently liberal.
Economic theory says that conservative news outlets should have come into
existence to serve that market. However, Prof. Daniel Sutter of the
University of Oklahoma points out that there are severe barriers to entry
into the news business that make it very difficult to start a new
newspaper
or television network, thus allowing liberal bias to perpetuate itself.

Another answer comes from a study by Prof. David Baron of Stanford. He
theorizes that profit-maximizing corporations tolerate liberal bias
because
it allows them to pay lower wages to liberal journalists. By being allowed
to exercise their bias, they are willing to accept less pay than they
would
demand if they were in a business where bias was not tolerated.
Conservatives are perhaps less willing to pay such a financial price.

Writing in the summer issue of The Public Interest, Prof. William Mayer of
Northwestern suggests that conservatives have adopted talk radio, which is
overwhelmingly conservative, as an alternative news outlet. In other
words,
a key reason for the popularity of people like Rush Limbaugh is that they
provide news and information not available elsewhere, not just
conservative
opinion.

This helps explain why liberal talk radio has been such a dismal failure.
Listeners are not getting much they can't already get in the dominant
media.
In Prof. Mayer's words, "Liberals, in short, do not need talk radio. They
already have Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, and Tom Brokaw - not to mention
NPR."

The dominant media is finally starting to realize that it has an economic
problem from having a perceived liberal bias, even though it steadfastly
denies any such bias. Editor & Publisher, an industry publication, is so
alarmed that it has begun a study of the problem.

Not only are you stupid, but you talk to sockpuppets.


And not only are you even more stupid for talking ABOUT sock puppets, but you
are first, incredibly WEAK, only pathetically able to absorb and mimic the
ridiculously uninformed collective viewpoint you are surrounded by without an
iota of independent thought, and second, so deep in the closet that you don't
even know it or otherwise so ashamed of yourself you can't admit your
sexuality. You're a mess.

"Bobspirt" wrote in message
...
Not only are you stupid, but you talk to sockpuppets.

and second, so deep in the closet that you don't
even know it or otherwise so ashamed of yourself you can't admit your
sexuality. You're a mess.

Bob, I had thought that you were above casting aspersions about sexual
leanings. The fact that you have dissappointed me need not concern you - as
my opinion is not relevant. Nevertheless, I must say that I feel
dissappointed. I was under the impression that you were a man of principle.



Regards


Donal
--

It seems many liberals and special interest groups are willing
to lose money regularly by funding newspapers, in order to
propogate their views.

It begs the question, "Who is actually paying to support
newspapers that consistently lose money, and why?

Perhaps it is a means of applying political pressure to ensure
the continuation of US funding for certain countries overseas.

We should investigate newspapers that are losing money,
write about outside groups that paying for propaganda,
and clearly expose the rational for such seemingly obsurd
behavior.

If it is indeed a means for special interest groups to serve their
own needs, and, indirectly funded by our tax dollars, then
then we should not allow it, or provide comparable funding
for contrary viewpoints.

Bart Senior

Bob Crantz wrote
True, if they exist only to make money. Remember tyrants exist throughout
the world, even in capitalist systems. Tyrants want to force others to
live
in their own version of Nirvana rather than let others live for
themselves.
The editorializing disguised as news is to control the conclusions of
others
by presenting distorted and lopsided evidence. The quicker they go broke
trying to impose their sense of utopia on others the better.



"Bobspirt" wrote in message
...
Maybe, but the news programs are only a part of the networks which are
only a
part of the companies which own them (see Disney-ABC-Peter Jennings),
and
the
conglomerates act like rational capitalists. Leaves the question why
they
allow their news shows to inject such editorial content. I think it
just
crept
in over time and only now with other sources showing the loss of
viewership
will they realize the folly of their lax oversight.

The reasons the networks aren't rational capitalists is because they
are
liberally biased (that is: liberal). They cannot reason and driven by
self-loathing. Liberalism is the result of one or more mental
disorders.
In
our capitalist economic system they will suffer the rational outcome of
their bias - they will go belly up. The financial momentum of the news
leviathens just delay the day that they become fertilizer.