Ted, > I read the weekend Seattle Times to get the news and not because it reflects my ideology.
I didn't accuse you of reading newspapers only out of ideology.
You might want to start with the following Wiki article, especially the section entitled "Scholarly treatment of media bias in the United States and United Kingdom":
en.wikipedia.org
Many of the positions in the preceding study are supported by a 2002 study by Jim A. Kuypers: Press Bias and Politics: How the Media Frame Controversial Issues. In this study of 116 mainstream US papers (including The New York Times, the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle), Kuypers found that the mainstream print press in America operate within a narrow range of liberal beliefs. Those who expressed points of view further to the left were generally ignored, whereas those who expressed moderate or conservative points of view were often actively denigrated or labeled as holding a minority point of view. In short, if a political leader, regardless of party, spoke within the press-supported range of acceptable discourse, he or she would receive positive press coverage. If a politician, again regardless of party, were to speak outside of this range, he or she would receive negative press or be ignored. Kuypers also found that the liberal points of view expressed in editorial and opinion pages were found in hard news coverage of the same issues. Although focusing primarily on the issues of race and homosexuality, Kuypers found that the press injected opinion into its news coverage of other issues such as welfare reform, environmental protection, and gun control; in all cases favoring a liberal point of view.
I don't agree with Kuypers findings. I think he is biased. Here is just one example........he is saying the media turned on Bush shortly after 9/11:
"Kuypers’ third book in this framing trilogy is Bush’s War: Media Bias and Justifications for War in a Terrorist Age. According Kuypers, "The idea [in the book was to] look for themes about 9-11 and the War on Terror that the President used, and then look at what themes the press used when reporting on what the president said. After identifying themes, I determine how those themes are framed. Through this comparative analysis, we can detect differences in the frames presented to the American people, and determine the nature of any press bias." [7] What Kuypers found was that the news media echoed the president’s themes and the framing of those themes immediately following 9/11. But just eight weeks later, the press had changed its manner of reporting, was actually framing Bush as an enemy of civil liberties, and was actively helping critics of the president."
Its BS. If Kuypers is telling the truth, how did Bush get papers as big as the NY Times to support his invasion of Iraq on the flimiest of evidence? It was the first time the US attacked another country without provocation. At the time I was still a political novice and was shocked that alleged liberal stalwarts like the NY Times and the WA Post were lining up behind Bush and his crazy war. It made no sense to me. It was then I turned to the London papers to get the truth. Later, I realized that 'liberal stalwarts' is not a name you can give most American papers. Its another myth created by the Republican right in this country...fueled by people like Kuypers with their supposed research.
I repeat.......the US is a center right country. On most political spectrums, presidents like Obama and Clinton are just right of center. Bush, Reagan, et al were further right. Everything is out of skew in this country because the Republicans have controlled the dialogue for decades.....primarily through the newspapers and other media....and convinced many Americans and apparently you that the media is left. At best some American media is center left. Most are center or center right.
Talk to any person outside the US and they will say the Rs in this country are acting outrageously over this debt ceiling issue. Yet, I have not seen one American newspaper make that claim. They make give voice to individuals who are angry but we are not seeing whole articles that make that claim nor editorials.
Its a ridiculous subject on which I have wasted too much time discussing. Calling the MSM liberal suits the purposes of your overlords. And by now, most Americans have bought into it and I don't have a clue how to reverse their misconceptions. |
