How can anyone believe that there is a left wing bias in the media?
I'm not exactly left wing, I mean I support the basic necessities being provided by the state where the state is most efficient to provide them, but I seem to come across many on the right side of spectrum who seem to think that the media has a left wing bias. I've not seen any evidence for this, indeed the three biggest selling newspapers in the UK are the Sun, the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph. None of those could be considered left wing by anyone who has even read just the front page.
I guess it could go back to the far right propaganda of the early 20th Century that suggested that the media was controlled by evil zionists in order to brainwash the population. Now, I highly doubt that Rupert Murdoch is a zionist, and given the Daily Mail's links to the Nazis in the 30s I doubt that Lord Rothermere is a zionist too.
Overwhelmingly though, many on the left belive that the media has a right wing bias and many on the right believe that the media has a left wing bias. The reason that I didn't ask about both sides in the title is because- well, it would make sense for the media to have right wing bias of some shape or form.
The left wing bias doesn't make any sense. Of course there are left wing media outlets, such as the Mirror or the Scottish Herald. There is also a growing market for online media outlets, many of which are left wing. The reason that I say it doesn't make any sense is that "the media", meaning the biggest selling papers and largest news networks, would use any bias that they have to maintain their position in the market, surely not to diminish it.
The only bias I can see the media having is a bias towards the powerful so I don't believe that the bias is left wing or right wing. As someone on the right side of the spectrum often alienated by others on the right for having principles that often align with the left (social justice, fairness, human rights) and as someone who has read up and researched the damaging effects of Plutonomy in society, it would make sense me to think that the media has a bias towards the powerful. It would also make sense for the media to have a bias towards the powerful, but it would not make sense for the powerful to use their power to brainwash the people into getting the powerful to share or even give up their power. It's just absurd.
I guess it could go back to the far right propaganda of the early 20th Century that suggested that the media was controlled by evil zionists in order to brainwash the population. Now, I highly doubt that Rupert Murdoch is a zionist, and given the Daily Mail's links to the Nazis in the 30s I doubt that Lord Rothermere is a zionist too.
Overwhelmingly though, many on the left belive that the media has a right wing bias and many on the right believe that the media has a left wing bias. The reason that I didn't ask about both sides in the title is because- well, it would make sense for the media to have right wing bias of some shape or form.
The left wing bias doesn't make any sense. Of course there are left wing media outlets, such as the Mirror or the Scottish Herald. There is also a growing market for online media outlets, many of which are left wing. The reason that I say it doesn't make any sense is that "the media", meaning the biggest selling papers and largest news networks, would use any bias that they have to maintain their position in the market, surely not to diminish it.
The only bias I can see the media having is a bias towards the powerful so I don't believe that the bias is left wing or right wing. As someone on the right side of the spectrum often alienated by others on the right for having principles that often align with the left (social justice, fairness, human rights) and as someone who has read up and researched the damaging effects of Plutonomy in society, it would make sense me to think that the media has a bias towards the powerful. It would also make sense for the media to have a bias towards the powerful, but it would not make sense for the powerful to use their power to brainwash the people into getting the powerful to share or even give up their power. It's just absurd.
Scroll to see replies
Like Wōden said, it isn't left wing bias, it's pro-establishment bias. You never see them calling for clamping down on tax loop holes for big businesses and the mega rich for example.
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/nrs-daily-mail-most-popular-uk-newspaper-print-and-online-23m-readers-month/
Based on list at link above UK print news is about 50/50 left/right. Bias to the left is much more pronounced in the US though:
http://www.ebizmba.com/articles/news-websites
of this list only 2 of the top 10 are right leaning (Fox & MO). Rest are all left.
Based on list at link above UK print news is about 50/50 left/right. Bias to the left is much more pronounced in the US though:
http://www.ebizmba.com/articles/news-websites
of this list only 2 of the top 10 are right leaning (Fox & MO). Rest are all left.
(edited 7 years ago)
You need to look at the broadcast media. The BBC, ITV, Channel 4 News, even Murdoch's Sky are slightly left of centre. Anti Corbyn, anti hard left, yes, but pro EU, pro multiculturalism, painfully politically correct, pro immigration, pro refugee, anti Trump.
The BBC has declared war on Trump, there is no other way to describe it.
The BBC has declared war on Trump, there is no other way to describe it.
The American media is overwhelmingly extreme left when it comes to things like immigration, multiculturalism, ethnic crime, gays, feminism etc. Fox is centrist but that's about the only one, only really with regards to Christian issues like Abortion could they be described as even vaguely "right wing". All of the (mainstream) American media is pro-Israel and pro-American imperialism, pro-war. Economically they vary from centre right to centre left (although by american standards, which is to say anywhere else it would be right wing to centre right wing)
The British media is basically the same except with perhaps more centerist perspectives on social issues, and obviously further to the left economically. BBC is the most "American"-esque British media org although not as pro-Israel.
But I don't think news orgs like the BBC and CNN will have much ideology over the next 4 years other than "Trump is bad"
The British media is basically the same except with perhaps more centerist perspectives on social issues, and obviously further to the left economically. BBC is the most "American"-esque British media org although not as pro-Israel.
But I don't think news orgs like the BBC and CNN will have much ideology over the next 4 years other than "Trump is bad"
(edited 7 years ago)
The best way to find out how BBC employees really feel is to look at their tweets. They are supposed to be politically neutral but often can't help themselves.
This exchange between two Beeboids is revealing of the mindset within the corporation...
Twitter saw an interesting contretemps this morning between Samira Ahmed and Justin Webb. Justin had been interviewing Joel Pollak, senior editor-at-large of Breitbart News, and things had got heated with Mr Pollak accusing Justin of making "inflammatory...libellous and defamatory" statements about Breitbart and Steve Bannon.
By general consent, the Today man came off worst. ("Oh great. Justin Webb just got owned by the guy from Breitbart", tweeted Dan Hodges.)
Here's a (tidied-up) transcription of what followed between the Newswatch host and the Today presenter on Twitter:
Samira Ahmed: Do news organisations understand how to prepare for giving airtime to the alt-right? Don't think so. Breitbart interview on #R4today 710am. It's as if news organisations have learned nothing from all those years of giving Islamists easy airtime. Eg Anjem Choudary. Not about censorship. About careful research, not acting superior or arrogant. Put them on with challengers not a solo spotlight. Maybe prerec.
Justin Webb: Not sure I acted superior or arrogant Samira? How so?
Samira Ahmed: You seemed unprepared for how he responded. I admire your calm, Justin, but he was in control of that whole interview.
Justin Webb: I think you misunderstand interviewing. They reveal. Not about smackdown. He had every right to say what he did.
Samira Ahmed: We don't disagree on what you're trying to do Justin. But I've had these arguments at C4 news too. Free PR isn't enlightening.
This exchange between two Beeboids is revealing of the mindset within the corporation...
Twitter saw an interesting contretemps this morning between Samira Ahmed and Justin Webb. Justin had been interviewing Joel Pollak, senior editor-at-large of Breitbart News, and things had got heated with Mr Pollak accusing Justin of making "inflammatory...libellous and defamatory" statements about Breitbart and Steve Bannon.
By general consent, the Today man came off worst. ("Oh great. Justin Webb just got owned by the guy from Breitbart", tweeted Dan Hodges.)
Here's a (tidied-up) transcription of what followed between the Newswatch host and the Today presenter on Twitter:
Samira Ahmed: Do news organisations understand how to prepare for giving airtime to the alt-right? Don't think so. Breitbart interview on #R4today 710am. It's as if news organisations have learned nothing from all those years of giving Islamists easy airtime. Eg Anjem Choudary. Not about censorship. About careful research, not acting superior or arrogant. Put them on with challengers not a solo spotlight. Maybe prerec.
Justin Webb: Not sure I acted superior or arrogant Samira? How so?
Samira Ahmed: You seemed unprepared for how he responded. I admire your calm, Justin, but he was in control of that whole interview.
Justin Webb: I think you misunderstand interviewing. They reveal. Not about smackdown. He had every right to say what he did.
Samira Ahmed: We don't disagree on what you're trying to do Justin. But I've had these arguments at C4 news too. Free PR isn't enlightening.
Original post by astutehirstute
The BBC has declared war on Trump, there is no other way to describe it.
The BBC has declared war on Trump, there is no other way to describe it.
Supposing for the sake of argument that this is true, this doesn't really make them "left-wing" when you consider the considerable number of right-wingers who opposed Trump. And not just moderate Republicans like McCain, Romney, etc. People like Ben Shapiro, Daniel Pipes, Tim Pawlenty, Jonah Goldberg, Glenn Beck, etc. These are people firmly on the right of the GOP.
Original post by anarchism101
Supposing for the sake of argument that this is true, this doesn't really make them "left-wing" when you consider the considerable number of right-wingers who opposed Trump. And not just moderate Republicans like McCain, Romney, etc. People like Ben Shapiro, Daniel Pipes, Tim Pawlenty, Jonah Goldberg, Glenn Beck, etc. These are people firmly on the right of the GOP.
THE BBC does not share the worldview of Daniel Pipes or Glenn Beck or (someone you didn't mention but also opposes Trump) Sam Harris.
BBC reporters emote over the bodies of refugees who drown on the shores of Europe. It refused for a long time to state the religious heritage of Muslim members of child grooming gangs in northern England.
Glenn Beck calls Syrian refugees a "Trojan horse," whilst both Pipes and Harris couldn't be more anti Islam, anti the acceptance of Muslim refugees.
Just because many people on the right despise Trump, that doesn't make the BBC (which also despises Trump obviously) on the right also.
It is achingly bien pensant and of the slightly (but not too) left.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by astutehirstute
THE BBC does not share the worldview of Daniel Pipes or Glenn Beck or (someone you didn't mention but also opposes Trump) Sam Harris.
I didn't mention Harris because he's not clearly a hard right figure like the others are. But my point isn't that they share their views, but rather than anti-Trump sentiment spans across the spectrum.
Depends whether you mean TV or print media. The latter are relatively open about their biases, and the UK print media has had a relatively pro-Tory bias for most of its history, with the exception of the Blair years. This isn't just a perception, it's observable - in every post-WW2 election except the three won by Blair, the Tory-endorsing press made up a larger (and usually significantly larger) proportion of paper circulation than Tory voters did of the electorate.
TV media's a bit more difficult. While I think it certainly does have biases and prejudices that determine its coverage, they're more nuanced than just simple right-left biases. But inevitably whatever the media do, someone will regard it as biased from some viewpoint or other, because it's kind of impossible to be simultaneously balanced, objective, impartial, accurate, and representative.
If they present what they perceive as an "equal" or "balanced" feature juxtaposing two options, A and B, then invariably both A and B will claim that their negatives were exaggerated and the other side's not scrutinised enough. A third option, C, will complain that the presentation of the debate itself was biased by presenting A on equal terms at all, and that a genuinely balanced feature would instead have shown the "real debate" between B and C, while a fourth, D, will claim that A and B are so similar as to be essentially the same viewpoint and that the "real debate" should be between a combined AB and D.
TV media's a bit more difficult. While I think it certainly does have biases and prejudices that determine its coverage, they're more nuanced than just simple right-left biases. But inevitably whatever the media do, someone will regard it as biased from some viewpoint or other, because it's kind of impossible to be simultaneously balanced, objective, impartial, accurate, and representative.
If they present what they perceive as an "equal" or "balanced" feature juxtaposing two options, A and B, then invariably both A and B will claim that their negatives were exaggerated and the other side's not scrutinised enough. A third option, C, will complain that the presentation of the debate itself was biased by presenting A on equal terms at all, and that a genuinely balanced feature would instead have shown the "real debate" between B and C, while a fourth, D, will claim that A and B are so similar as to be essentially the same viewpoint and that the "real debate" should be between a combined AB and D.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by anarchism101
I didn't mention Harris because he's not clearly a hard right figure like the others are. But my point isn't that they share their views, but rather than anti-Trump sentiment spans across the spectrum.
Yes it does.
The BBC represents the slightly left part of the anti Trump spectrum though.
Original post by anarchism101
Depends whether you mean TV or print media. The latter are relatively open about their biases, and the UK print media has had a relatively pro-Tory bias for most of its history, with the exception of the Blair years. This isn't just a perception, it's observable - in every post-WW2 election except the three won by Blair, the Tory-endorsing press made up a larger (and usually significantly larger) proportion of paper circulation than Tory voters did of the electorate.
TV media's a bit more difficult. While I think it certainly does have biases and prejudices that determine its coverage, they're more nuanced than just simple right-left biases. But inevitably whatever the media do, someone will regard it as biased from some viewpoint or other, because it's kind of impossible to be simultaneously balanced, objective, impartial, accurate, and representative.
If they present what they perceive as an "equal" or "balanced" feature juxtaposing two options, A and B, then invariably both A and B will claim that their negatives were exaggerated and the other side's not scrutinised enough. A third option, C, will complain that the presentation of the debate itself was biased by presenting A on equal terms at all, and that a genuinely balanced feature would instead have shown the "real debate" between B and C, while a fourth, D, will claim that A and B are so similar as to be essentially the same viewpoint and that the "real debate" should be between a combined AB and D.
TV media's a bit more difficult. While I think it certainly does have biases and prejudices that determine its coverage, they're more nuanced than just simple right-left biases. But inevitably whatever the media do, someone will regard it as biased from some viewpoint or other, because it's kind of impossible to be simultaneously balanced, objective, impartial, accurate, and representative.
If they present what they perceive as an "equal" or "balanced" feature juxtaposing two options, A and B, then invariably both A and B will claim that their negatives were exaggerated and the other side's not scrutinised enough. A third option, C, will complain that the presentation of the debate itself was biased by presenting A on equal terms at all, and that a genuinely balanced feature would instead have shown the "real debate" between B and C, while a fourth, D, will claim that A and B are so similar as to be essentially the same viewpoint and that the "real debate" should be between a combined AB and D.
Even senior BBC reporters themselves admit that their coverage on immigration, for example, was biased.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10551618/Nick-Robinson-BBC-made-a-terrible-mistake-over-immigration-debate.html
The thing is they admit it afterwards, but never at the time.
Here's a former DG of the BBC, whilst in post, making a very right wing analysis of the corporation he was in charge of...
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2001/jan/07/uknews.theobserver1
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2001/jan/07/uknews.theobserver1
I would ask this question:
Why does calling out someone from the right for lies, immoral behavior (that even the right vilify the left for), and hypocrisy make that particular media outlet left-wing biased? The same would go the other way around.
Responsible journalism and holding our politicians to account for their behavior is neither right or left wing biased. It is what we should expect from our media.
On the flip side, market driven journalism has changed the game and I would go so far as to say responsible journalism has been left far behind and the corporate side of media outlets now determine the slant of the news. The days of presenting facts with little, if any, emotive language and inflammatory rhetoric is gone and it is all about 'click bait'.
We should be more concerned about this than which slant a media outlet has. Sift through all the crap, find the facts - sometimes what little there may be - and go from there.
Why does calling out someone from the right for lies, immoral behavior (that even the right vilify the left for), and hypocrisy make that particular media outlet left-wing biased? The same would go the other way around.
Responsible journalism and holding our politicians to account for their behavior is neither right or left wing biased. It is what we should expect from our media.
On the flip side, market driven journalism has changed the game and I would go so far as to say responsible journalism has been left far behind and the corporate side of media outlets now determine the slant of the news. The days of presenting facts with little, if any, emotive language and inflammatory rhetoric is gone and it is all about 'click bait'.
We should be more concerned about this than which slant a media outlet has. Sift through all the crap, find the facts - sometimes what little there may be - and go from there.
Original post by Zargabaath
Like Wōden said, it isn't left wing bias, it's pro-establishment bias. You never see them calling for clamping down on tax loop holes for big businesses and the mega rich for example.
It;s almost like there is a right wing bias
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
It;s almost like there is a right wing bias
I wouldn't say that either, take the BBC for example. Definitely not a right wing bias there.
Both sides accuse the BBC of being biased towards the other which says to me that they're doing a pretty good job.
In terms of print newspapers the right has a stronger readership.
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/abc-figures-national-press-sees-june-brexit-vote-boost-in-print-and-online/
In terms of print newspapers the right has a stronger readership.
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/abc-figures-national-press-sees-june-brexit-vote-boost-in-print-and-online/
Original post by Zargabaath
I wouldn't say that either, take the BBC for example. Definitely not a right wing bias there.
"You never see them calling for clamping down on tax loop holes for big businesses and the mega rich for example."
The left are famous for such goals and the press so staunch in its support for higher corporate taxes.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- who is donald trump
- Germany: Marches against the far right draw over 200,000
- Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??
- K-Pop Chat Thread! :)
- Lee Anderson defects to reform
- A teacher wanted to cane me when I was 14 but I am 28 now
- How the radical left turned America's cities into slums.
- Realism 30 marker Help - sociology ALEVEL
- Question Everything
- Working Class / Left wing football clubs?
- De-banked for expressing alternative social views
- Politics
- Feel like I'm left out due to my political beliefs and my religious beliefs.
- Green Party supporting Left Wing Terrorist Jailed
- offers for leeds film photography/media or Edinburgh film and television?
- the official KPOP thread
- TSR opinion poll, Feb 2024: how would you vote in the general election?
- Do we have any stray kids fans (stays) here????
- Why does every guy choose my friend over me?
- AQA A-level Psychology Paper 3 (7182/3) - 5th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
