Liberal or Conservative Media Bias

[GraceAbounds]

Media Bias

Since ICOF last covered media bias in April 1998, a U.S. Court of Appeals eliminated the last vestiges of the Fairness Doctrine.The public's opinion of the American press is not flattering. Surveys indicate that the pubic increasingly distrusts journalists and considers members of the media, especially the national press corps, to be arrogant, dishonest and cynical. A chief criticism is that the press is not objective; an overwhelming majority of the public believes that the press presents news from a biased viewpoint and in an unbalanced manner.
Criticism of the media is nothing new. While the First Amendment's guarantee of a free press has long been defended as an essential element of democracy, few political leaders in U.S. history have shied from claiming that the press presents partisan and distorted news coverage. But in recent years, criticism of the press has become increasingly harsh and far more prevalent among the public. In February 1997, 67% of Americans said that the press tended to favor one side over another when covering political and social issues, compared with 53% who said the same in 1985, according to polls by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.
One of the most enduring criticisms of the press since the early 1970s has been that members of the media are liberally biased. Traditionally, it has been Republicans who have lambasted the press for allegedly portraying conservative views on issues such as abortion and homosexuality in a negative light, while giving positive emphasis to liberal viewpoints. Republican politicians and their supporters contend that the media's liberal slant serves to undermine their efforts to gain public support for their political goals. Former Senate Majority Leader Robert Dole (R, Kan.), for example, blamed the "liberal media" for helping to sink his 1996 presidential bid. Dole pointed to surveys showing that members of the press overwhelmingly vote Democratic and tend to be more liberal overall than the public at large.
Conservatives are no longer alone in perceiving a liberal press bias--43% of the public considers the press to be biased toward the liberal side, compared with only 19% who say it has a conservative bias. Surprisingly, even liberals agree. Among self-described liberals, 41% say the press has a liberal bias, compared with 22% who perceive a conservative bias.
Yet most journalists deny claims that the media harbors a liberal bias and defend their news coverage as objective, fair and reliable. They maintain that their personal political beliefs do not undermine their ability to report news stories objectively and note that they have relentlessly scrutinized Democrats such as President Clinton (D), as well as Republicans. Some liberal observers say that the press may actually have a conservative and "pro-business" bias since media outlets are increasingly owned by large conglomerates whose leadership tends to hold conservative views.
Besides the common complaint that the media holds an ideological bias, there is also a rising cry over the apparent cynicism and inaccuracy of the press. Some observers blame increasing competitive pressure among news organizations to acheive high audience ratings for what they regard as the erosion of media integrity. They criticize what they say is a growing tendency among media professionals to exaggerate negative news such as violent crime, to intrude upon people's privacy and to dwell in sensationalism.

See Next Post

 

[GraceAbounds]

While journalists generally acknowledge such problems, there is wide disagreement over what, if anything, can be done to solve them. Some favor new regulations or laws that would force the media to become more accountable to the public. Others insist that such proposals are a threat to free speech and would likely be unconstitutional. Still others contend that the responsibility for making changes in the media falls on the shoulders of the public, who as the consumers of media must begin to demand better news coverage.
The Early Partisan Press

The idea that the press has a public responsibility to report the news fairly and objectively is often taken for granted today. Yet the notion of an objective press emerged only in the beginning of the 20th century. Until then, most of the nation's major newspapers were owned by political parties, businessmen or even politicians who used them to spout partisan rhetoric and attack political adversaries.
The partisan sniping and rumor-mongering among early newspapers was often ferocious. Even Thomas Jefferson, who helped pen the guarantee of a free press contained in the Constitution, grew sharply critical of the press over his lifetime. During Jefferson's presidency (1801-1809), the opposition press relentlessly attacked his credibility and spread rumors that he had extramarital affairs. "Advertisements," an embittered Jefferson commented after his presidency, "contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper."
Sometimes politicians established cozy ties with the press to better control criticism. President Andrew Jackson (1829-1837), for instance, paid the salaries of nearly 60 news reporters and editors so that they would write positive news stories about him and his administration. But by the end of the 19th century, newspapers had largely gained their independence from political groups and were becoming increasingly loyal to the public. Newspapers also started reaching a mass audience for the first time as a result of an increasingly literate public and the advent of new technologies that lowered the cost of newspaper printing. As their readership became larger and more politically diverse, the nation's major newspapers slowly became less partisan.
At the turn of the 20th century, two journalistic trends began to develop that would each have a lasting impact on the media. In large cities such as New York and Chicago, fierce competition for readers led to the creation of a new kind of reporting known as "yellow journalism." The forerunner of today's sensationalistic tabloid press, yellow journalism focused on gossip and exaggerated and shocking news accounts of crime and political scandal to attract readers.
A second trend was the emergence of a class of journalists known as the muckrakers. Muckrakers such as Ida Tarbell, Lincoln Steffens and Upton Sinclair wrote often scathing articles on social and political evils of the time. Their exposés on topics such as child labor, racism and conditions in meat-packing plants galvanized public support for new consumer protections, labor laws and safety regulations. They helped to establish the media's role as a watchdog institution--one that works on the public's behalf to scrutinize business, government and other bodies that hold power.

See Next Post

 

[GraceAbounds]

Vietnam, Watergate and the Press

By the middle of the 20th century, however, the adversarial relationship between the press and those who held power largely faded away. Politicians and businessmen generously courted the press, and the press's reporting of politics was generally respectful and cordial. "Then the vast majority of journalists covering national affairs in the capital were trusting and uncritical of the ways of government," recollects Don Oberdorfer, a retired Washington Post reporter. Referring to his work as a journalist in the late 1950s, he recalls, "There was a certain coziness, a degree of intimacy and civility, between most of the press corps and the people they covered."
That atmosphere of trust began to dissipate during the late 1960s as a result of the U.S.'s increasing involvement in the Vietnam War. The conflict, daily played out for many Americans on the television news, was extensively and vividly covered by the media. Graphic images of dead soldiers, napalm bombings and frightened Vietnamese children helped to fuel the growing controversy over the U.S.'s role in the war.
Many political and military leaders, including both Presidents Lyndon Johnson (D) and Richard Nixon (R), partly blamed press coverage of Vietnam for undermining the war effort and fueling anti-war sentiment. Accusing the media of presenting the war in a sensationalized and overly critical manner, they claimed that the press weakened troop morale and jeopardized military security. Many analysts today continue to blame the media for "losing the war" in Vietnam and building public pressure for the withdrawal of U.S. troops, which occurred in 1973.
Many media analysts, however, contend that the press was not shaping public attitudes toward the war but was merely chronicling the public's attitude shift against the war that had already begun in the late 1960s. In defending their wartime news coverage, journalists argued that they were providing more accurate news about the war than was the U.S. government. They accused the government of trying to conceal information and mislead the public about the conflict.
Nixon's personal distaste and scorn for the press also weakened the trusting relationship between the media and government. Nixon regarded the press as excessively liberal and negative towards his policies in Vietnam. Vice President Spiro Agnew, Nixon's chief press liaison, repeatedly rebuked members of the media for their allegedly one-sided coverage, calling them the "nattering nabobs of negativism." It was later revealed that Nixon kept an "enemies list" of the names of people, including many journalists, who were targeted for special scrutiny by his administration.
The press also grew to distrust Nixon and was instrumental in uncovering the so-called Watergate scandal. The scandal began to break in June 1972, when members of Nixon's campaign staff were arrested for breaking into the Watergate building in Washington, D.C. An investigation into the burglary uncovered widespread graft and political abuses linked to Nixon officials. As his public support dwindled and his personal involvement in Watergate crimes became evident, Nixon resigned from office in August 1974.
Watergate and Vietnam had an enduring effect on journalism. The press's distrust of government was heightened, and the media became much more aggressive in its pursuit of political wrongdoing. Whether such changes have been beneficial or harmful continues to be debated. Some observers contend that the press has become too jaded and cynical with regard to politicians, a predicament that they say undermines public trust in both the press and government. But others insist that the media's adversarial approach is healthy for a democracy and that its close scrutiny of the nation's leaders helps to deter political wrongdoing.
The 'Fairness Doctrine'

One of the key battles over media regulation during the 1980s involved the so-called fairness doctrine. The doctrine was a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rule that required radio and television stations to give balanced viewpoints on all controversial political issues. The FCC, which regulates television and radio broadcasting, first adopted the rule in 1949, but Congress passed it into law in 1959.
The goal of the fairness doctrine was to ensure that the public had the opportunity to hear a balanced presentation of both sides of an issue during disputes of public importance. Anyone whose views or records were attacked on the air had a right to use the same airwaves to respond. Furthermore, newscasters who made editorial commentary on the air were required to give people with opposing viewpoints the opportunity to reply.
Broadcasters had long opposed the fairness doctrine, contending that it violated their First Amendment right to determine the content of their own broadcasts without government intervention. Yet the Supreme Court upheld the doctrine's constitutionality in a 1969 case, Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission. The court ruled that in giving broadcasters licenses to use the public airwaves, the federal government could impose the obligation that they present a variety of perspectives on public issues.
President Ronald Reagan (R) opposed the fairness doctrine, however, and during his administration (1981-1989), he appointed like-minded commissioners to the FCC. In a 1985 report, the FCC assailed the doctrine as an infringement of the First Amendment that created an "unnecessary cost burden" for both broadcasters and regulators (print media were exempted from the rule). The FCC argued that because of the law, broadcasters might avoid politically controversial topics for fear that the treatment of such issues might prompt some viewers to sue them. The FCC also said the law was no longer necessary since the proliferation of new broadcasting outlets ensured that a variety of political viewpoints would be aired.

See Next Post

 

[GraceAbounds]

In June 1987, the Supreme Court declined to review a lower court decision that ruled that the FCC could repeal the fairness doctrine without congressional approval. In August of that same year, the FCC voted to abolish the doctrine. Although many broadcasters applauded the FCC's decision, various civil rights and advocacy groups called the action a significant setback that could be used to muffle minority viewpoints. Some groups continue to press for a revival of the fairness doctrine, contending that it would help eliminate press bias and restore public faith in the media.
Charges of Liberal Bias

Since the Nixon administration, accusations of "liberal media bias" have become a constant refrain from conservative groups and politicians. They contend that the press gives short shrift to traditional conservative topics such as religious issues and family values while giving disproportionate attention to liberal positions on issues such as abortion, feminism, gay rights and the environment.
Is the media liberal? Studies do indicate that people who work in the media tend to hold personal political beliefs that are far more liberal than those of the rest of the country. In their seminal 1986 study, The Media Elite, researchers S. Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman and Linda Lichter found that 54% of journalists identified their political position as "left of center," while only 17% said they leaned toward the conservative side of the spectrum. The study concluded that, compared with the general pubic, members of the media were more liberal, more highly educated, wealthier and more alienated from traditional social institutions such as religion.
Although The Media Elite was written more than a decade ago, other studies since then have largely supported its conclusions. In The People, the Press & Their Leaders, a 1995 study by the Times Mirror Center for the People & the Press, pollsters found that only 5% of the national press corps considered themselves to be conservative, while 22% saw themselves as liberal. In comparison, 39% of the public identified themselves as conservative and 19% as liberal. The values of the media and public differed most dramatically on the subject of homosexuality. While an overwhelming 83% of the national press said that the homosexual lifestyle should be accepted, only 41% of the public agreed.
Critics of the media contend that journalists' personal ideologies often influence how they select, edit and write about news stories. "Few reporters can put their prejudices aside when they sit down before a word processor or stand before a microphone," says Joseph Goulden, director of media analysis at Accuracy in Media (AIM), a conservative group that tracks liberal bias in the press. In the Times Mirror study, a majority of the public, 66%, agreed that the personal beliefs of journalists make it difficult for them to write objectively on issues such as religion and family values.
Some of the most strident criticism of liberal media bias comes from national political leaders, including House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R, Ga.) and former Sen. Dole. Dole has repeatedly accused the liberal media establishment of undermining his political aspirations. During his 1988 presidential campaign, Dole charged that the press used a "double standard" for dealing with Republicans because they "can't help but see the world through liberal-colored glasses." He returned to that theme during his 1996 presidential bid, lashing out at reporters for harboring a negative bias against his campaign and neglecting full coverage of Clinton's alleged ethical improprieties as president.
Conservatives said that Dole had reason to be concerned about liberal bias and pointed to the media's overwhelming support of Clinton in the 1992 elections. In a poll released in April 1996 by the Freedom Forum Media Studies Center and the Roper Center for Opinion Research, 89% of the Washington, D.C.-based journalists who were polled had voted for Clinton in the 1992 election. In comparison, Clinton received only 43% of the popular vote in that election.
Defending Press Objectivity

Most journalists defend themselves against charges of liberal bias and deny that their personal ideologies influence their reporting. They contend that reporters, especially those who cover hard news stories, are well-trained in sorting out fact from opinion and guarding against personal bias in their writing. They say that they often go to great lengths to report on all sides of major issues and seek out a variety of perspectives.
Some media analysts also take issue with the notion that journalists who hold liberal personal views cannot be objective. "How journalists vote [in political elections] isn't important" in assessing the integrity of their work, says Kathleen Hall Jamieson, dean of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. "It's what you see in print that counts." Others note that there is nothing preventing those who hold conservative views from becoming journalists.
Bernard Shaw, chief anchor for the Cable News Network (CNN), says that many critics of the media fail to recognize the distinction between media commentary, in which journalists espouse their own analysis of news, and traditional news reporting, which focuses on reporting events and other people's opinions. During a speech at the Radio-Television News Directors Association, Shaw adamantly defended the integrity of hard-news reporting, saying, "I defy you to find patterns of slanting in reporting in the hard-news columns of newspapers and magazines and hard [radio and television] newscasts."
Some observers contend that the press may actually have a conservative slant. Longtime Washington Post journalist David Broder argues that, despite claims of media bias, "the editorial pages of the American press have been consistently more Republican than the country as a whole." In spite of Dole's claims that the media were biased against his presidential bid, for instance, 111 daily newspapers endorsed his campaign, while only 65 backed Clinton's, according to a straw poll conducted by Editor & Publisher shortly before the 1996 election.
Liberals contend that the news has a conservative bent because major segments of the media are run and owned by large corporations that tend to favor conservative viewpoints. Eric Alterman, a media columnist for The Nation, says, "Reporters do not decide what gets in the paper or on the seven o'clock news; editors, publishers and producers do. These people are among the most conservative members of society."
Many liberal groups contend that the greatest threat to objective journalism is the increasing concentration of media ownership. As a result of a flurry of mergers in the 1980s and early 1990s, a handful of large companies now control large portions of the media, including the publishing, television and film industries. Walt Disney Co., for instance, owns the ABC television network; CBS Corp. (formerly Westinghouse Electric Corp.) owns CBS, and General Electric Co. owns NBC. According to some media critics, the ownership of the media by such corporations has a chilling effect on journalism by making reporters less likely to cover potentially negative news about the products or management of the network's parent companies.

See Next Post

 

[GraceAbounds]

Media Accuracy and Sensationalism

Another criticism of the media involves its apparent negativity and sensationalism. The press's need to attract viewers and readers, and thereby increase its advertising revenues and profits, some observers say, is creating a pressure for the media to dwell more heavily on shocking and sensationalized stories. They feel that the media, and especially television news programs, are now overly focused on negative news. The media have become increasingly willing to exaggerate news stories or highlight violent crime in order to draw viewers, they contend.
In one of the most blatant examples of media distortion, in November 1992, NBC aired footage showing the explosion of a General Motors Corp. (GM) pickup truck upon impact with another vehicle. The tape was aired on the television program "Dateline NBC" as part of an investigation into the safety of GM trucks. An inquiry into the collision, however, found that NBC officials had staged the incident by rigging the pickup with toy rockets to ensure that it would explode. NBC apologized to GM for the incident and three NBC employees who were closely involved with the program were pressured to resign.
Critics point to the GM truck incident as evidence that even major news outlets have allowed their pursuit of viewers and higher ratings to cloud their news judgment. "The true crisis in journalism is that reporters and producers are in the entertainment business, responding to market pressures by replacing facts with emotions and, too frequently, seeking heat rather than light," says Richard Cohen, a Washington Post correspondent and syndicated columnist.
Journalists have also faced an onslaught of criticism over their reporting of scandalous and celebrity-focused news stories in the past few years, including the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, in September 1997 and the double murder trial of former football star O.J. Simpson in 1996. The various allegations of sexual misconduct dogging Clinton have also sparked a wave of sensational media stories. Some critics say that in their drive to attract readers and to be the first to break the latest scandal, the media have compromised journalistic standards by becoming too willing to violate people's privacy and report unverified information and rumor. [See 1997 Celebrity Privacy]
Are News Councils an Answer?

What can be done to address the public's apparent loss of faith in the trustworthiness and integrity of the press? Some observers believe that the solution may lie in creating a national news council, comprised of journalists and community leaders, that would monitor public complaints over media fairness. News councils would not have the ability to censor or regulate media, but by publicizing unbalanced or irresponsible journalism, they could place pressure on news organizations to adhere more closely to traditional journalistic standards.
At the state level, Minnesota is one of three states that currently use a news council to monitor the media, according to Editor & Publisher. The Minnesota Council seeks to promote fairness in the news media by "giving members of the public who feel damaged by a news story an opportunity to hold the news organization accountable without going to court." Gary Gilson, executive director of the council, says that by encouraging discussion over media ethics, news councils can help to dismantle the "stone wall that the media has erected" between themselves and the public.
A national news council was formed in 1973 but it received little support from journalists and folded 10 years later. But now some journalists want to revive the national council, saying that it could help improve the press's faltering image in the eyes of the public. One of the most vocal proponents of news councils is Mike Wallace, a correspondent for the CBS news program "60 Minutes." Says Wallace, "I'm convinced that more state news councils, regional news councils, and/or a renewed national news council could strike a blow for a better public understanding in a time of skepticism about us [journalists], of who we are and what it is we do."
Yet many other journalists, including the editorial boards of the New York Times and Washington Post, as well as free-speech activists, are strongly opposed to news councils. They contend that the councils would have a chilling effect on a free press and open the door to new restrictions on free speech. "We have a deep concern that voluntary regulation can lead, bit by bit, to more serious kinds of regulation," warns Joseph Lelyveld, executive editor of the New York Times, in the Columbia Journalism Review. Others say that appointments to news councils would become heavily politicized and a national council would eventually develop its own biases and political agenda.
There is widespread public support for news councils, however, with 85% of Americans saying that they would support the creation of such councils at the national or local level, according to the Pew Research poll. Seventy percent of the public also backs proposals that would allow courts to impose fines for "inaccurate or biased reporting." And a solid majority, 84%, supports the revival of some sort of fairness doctrine that would require the press to cover all sides of controversial issues.
Despite public support for such reform measures, many analysts do not believe that new regulations on the press will be implemented anytime soon. They doubt that voluntary measures would be effective since it would be difficult, if not impossible, to get all members of the media to comply with them. As a result, they say, securing universal compliance to new press regulations would require the passage of laws. But opponents warn that such laws would be unlikely to pass constitutional muster under the First Amendment's guarantee of a free press.
Many journalists, meanwhile, emphasize that members of the public--as the consumers of news and information--also have a role to play in encouraging better reporting. Because of the recent proliferation of media outlets, from cable television news channels to the Internet and talk radio, the public can easily choose an alternative news source if traditional media outlets become too biased or sensationalized. The public must begin to demand better news coverage or threaten to get their news somewhere else, they say. Others warn, however, that there is always the risk that rather than switch to a more objective and informative news source, the public may simply tune out.

See Next Post

 

[GraceAbounds]

Bibliography

Alter, Jonathan. "The Media's Meaty Meal." Newsweek (February 3, 1997): 31.
Baker, Russ. "The Squeeze." Columbia Journalism Review (September/October 1997): 30.
Cohen, Richard. "Extra! The Press Is Liberal (So What?)" The Nation (May 26, 1997): 10.
Hernandez, Debra. "Newt Meets the Press." Editor & Publisher (June 1, 1996): 16.
Knecht, Bruce G. "Big Retail Chains Get Special Advance Looks at Magazine Contents." Wall Street Journal (October 22, 1997): A1.
Kurtz, Howard. "The Shock Market: It Puts Bad News on the Map." Washington Post (March 3, 1997): C1.
Leo, John. "A Great Story Never Told." U.S. News & World Report (December 2, 1996): 24.
Levine, Daniel. "The Truth About TV News." Reader's Digest (November 1993): 88.
Levite, Allan. "Bias Basics." National Review (October 28, 1996): 63.
Maitre, Joachim, H. "The Tilt of the News: Liberal Bias in the Media." Current (March/April 1994): 4.
McClellan, Steve. "Shaw Wants Media to Defend Themselves." Broadcasting & Cable (October 21, 1996): 34.
Miller, Mark. "Free the Media." The Nation (June 3, 1996): 9.
Nussbaum, Bruce. "The Myth of the Liberal Media." Business Week (November 11, 1996): 34.
Parenti, Michael. "Methods of Media Manipulation." The Humanist (July/August 1997): 5.
Rappleye, Charles. "Cracking the Church-State Wall." Columbia Journalism Review (January/February 1998): 20.
Stein, M. L. "News Councils: Threat or Salve?" Editor & Publisher (October 18, 1997): 15.
Winerip, Michael. "Looking for an 11 O'Clock Fix." New York Times Magazine (January 11, 1998): 30.
Wittes, Benjamin. "Why We Publish Leaks." Washington Post (February 13, 1998): A25.
Wright, Jim. "Privacy, the Press and the Presumption of Innocence." Liberal Opinion Week (March 2, 1998): 4.
Additional Sources

Additional information about media standards can be found in the following sources:
Bagdikian, Ben. The Media Monopoly. Boston, Mass.: Beacon Press, 1997.
Fallows, James. Breaking The News: How the Media Undermines American Democracy. New York City: Pantheon Books, 1996.
Kurtz, Howard. Hot Air: All Talk All the Time. New York City: Random House, 1995.
Lichter, Robert S.; Rothman, Stanley; Lichter, Linda. The Media Elite. Bethesda, Md.: Adler & Adler Publishers, Inc., 1986.
Contact Information

Information on how to contact organizations that are either mentioned in the discussion of media bias or can provide additional information on the subject is listed below:
Accuracy in Media (AIM)
4455 Connecticut Ave. N.W., Suite 330
Washington, D.C. 20008
Telephone: (202) 364-4401
Internet: Accuracy In Media - For Fairness, Accuracy and Balance in News Reporting.
Center for Media & Public Affairs
2100 L St. N.W., Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20037
Telephone: (202) 223-2942
Internet: Center for Media and Public Affairs
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR)
130 West 25th St.
New York, N.Y. 10001
Telephone: (212) 633-6700
Internet: Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting
Media Research Center
113 S West St., 2nd Floor
Alexandria, Va. 22314
Telephone: (703) 683-9733
Internet: Media Research Center Home Page - 6/29/2007 11:18:17 AM
Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
1150 18th St., Suite 975
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: (202) 293-3126
Internet: The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

Media Bias Update

Since ICOF last covered media bias in April 1998, a U.S. Court of Appeals eliminated the last vestiges of the Fairness Doctrine. Among the key events:

• On October 11, 2000, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had to eliminate two regulations that required television and radio broadcasters to offer free air time to politicians and other individuals to respond to personal or political attacks or endorsements. The regulations were the "political editorial" rule and the "personal attack" rule, and were the last remaining vestiges of the Fairness Doctrine, a federal policy that had required stations to cover all sides of major controversial issues and to give free air time to any individual or group mentioned in media reports. Edward Fritts, president of the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), hailed the ruling as a victory for First Amendment rights, but FCC Chairman William Kennard criticized it, and said that his agency would continue to scrutinize television and radio stations to determine whether the rules did in fact hinder free speech. The court's ruling allowed the FCC to enact new regulations to ensure that media coverage of controversial issues was fair. [See 2000 Facts On File: Media--Court Throws Out Fairness Regulations]
• The question of media bias came into particular prominence in early 2002, when an expose entitled Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News became number one on the New York Times best-seller list. The book, by former CBS news reporter Bernard Goldberg, charged that network news reporters consistently view the news from a liberal perspective while assuming that their own views are "middle of the road" and hence accepted by most people. Commentators and journalists widely debated the book’s merits in both print and broadcast media, thus stimulating broad public interest in the issue.

Sorry for the length, but I don't think you guys will be able to access the link to this report as it comes from a college library - but here it is anyway:
Off Campus Connection
That is why I posted it all as I did.

The overall issue of media bias came up in another thread. After reading an article posted by Tim and resources I found at my college, I got to thinking this would be a good subject to talk about. Personally, I believe it depends on the issue as to which side the media leans heavily on.

As far as overall biased, there are papers and channels that lean way to the right and also papers and channels that lean way to the left. I tend to believe more of the article that I have posted than what Tim posted just because I know that the research I posted came from the library of an institution of higher learning.

So what do you think? What's your opinion? Do think it depends on the issue at hand? Do you think overall the media leans to the left or the right? Why?