What you have to understand is that Fox is 1 (ONE) outlet vs. the rest. All the other news outlets have well documented liberal biases. Additionally, htese are rating for CABLE news and are small compared to the Big Three, ABC, CBS, NBC in terms of viewership. I can't ever remember the BIg Networks ever being called conservative!

Greg, you're absolutely correct. Particle, let me respectfully suggest that you're less correct than Greg. Historically, the media has always been conservative -- moderate at best, but generally conservative. The media we have in today economic landscape, where news outlets are owned by corporations and operated as P&L centers rather than platforms for journalism, is no different.

CBS Colleagues Admit Bias:

"I think Dan is transparently liberal. Now he may not like to hear me say that. I always agree with him, too. But I think he should be more careful." --CBS 60 Minutes Commentator Andy Rooney on Larry King Live, July 28, 2002

"Everybody knows that there's a liberal, that there's a heavy liberal persuasion among correspondents." --Walter Cronkite, former CBS anchor, at the annual Radio and Television Correspondents Association dinner, March 21, 1996.

"I believe that most of us reporters are liberal...we are inclined to side with the powerless rather than the powerful. If that is what makes us liberals, so be it." --Walter Cronkite in his syndicated column, August 6, 2003.

"Journalists should denounce government by public opinion polls." --Dan Rather in The Humanist, November/December 1990.

"Several poll questions also indicate the American public wants an end to the investigation of the President's private life, including the Ken Starr investigation of the Monica Lewinsky case. But as CBS's chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer reports, Kenneth Starr made it clear today by word and deed that he couldn't disagree more." --Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, April 2, 1998.

"In a CBS News poll out tonight just 29 percent believe Starr is conducting an impartial investigation of President Clinton. And 57 percent want Starr to drop his investigation of the President's personal life." --Dan Rather CBS Evening News, May 8, 1998.

I find it interesting how much Fox News dominates (FOX out ranks all the other cable programming combined) that cable landscape in similar fashion to how Rush dominates the radio news, yet I continually hear about this thing called liberal media.

And to suggest that somehow NBC, CBS, and ABC have enough programming clout to out 'liberal' FOX is silly. Anyone who has studied television knows that the big three are not called that anymore because their ratings have suffered from the massive expansion of cable networks, including MSNBC, CNBC, CNN, and FOX.

Now that FOX and Rush own the media (as it were) does that mean I can start foaming about the "conservative media"? Now that there is evidence to suggest the "liberals" are loosing the news war, can I start to blame societies problems on Bill O'Reily?

Or can we stop blaming everything on the media?

A couple points: First, there's "media" and there's news. It's becoming a blurry line, but Rush Limbaugh or Chris Matthews are not news, they are opinion, and to their credit they have never pretended not to be. If idiots choose to take what comes out of either of these guys' pie holes as news, that's just a measure of their lack of active gray-matter. Secondly, it's a great leap of questionable logic to think that whatever Dan Rather (or Walter Cronkite or Tom Brokaw, etc.) may personally believe, their belief somehow significantly shapes the overall strategy of what and how things are presented on their programs. In today's age, "news" is a packaged entertainment product, run by huge corporations whose prime agenda is making money, period. GE, who owns NBC, is the nation's largest defense contractor. They could have Jesse Jackson as their news anchor and it would still be ludicrous to suggest the corporation, will all factors laid on the table, displays anything resembling a liberal bias. Anyone who really thinks American media is left-leaning has either never traveled outside the country to anywhere but Cabo San Lucas or has somehow squeezed their world-view through such a narrow lens that the distortion must be truly severe. If you find it comfortable in there, good on ya, but I'd suggest getting outside more and stretching your head a bit.

I think this says it all...
From MRC
"Back in February, the three broadcast networks were obsessed with the story of President Bush’s National Guard service. But when John Kerry’s former Navy colleagues from Vietnam charged that Kerry’s tales of heroism as a Swift Boat commander were highly exaggerated, those same networks acted as if their job was to bury the news, not report it."
The lack of reporting of Kerry's stories of being in Cambodia has shown the Big Three's bias. They hoped the story would just die. Then weeks after the story broke they were forced to eat crow and start their coverage. There were cartoon satirizing the story in newspapers before the newspapers had decided to cover the sory. Imagine a cartoon satirtiring an event that had not been covered yet. Odd...to say the least.

I may be Canadian, but I know he's right. Oh, but wait, I might be a 'Liberal', so my opinions are automatically nulified.

I consider myself a liberal, and I usually find myself agreeing with the way news is presented, leading me to believe that the sources I watch/listen to/read are of the same mindset as myself. I'm sure other sources of news would not portray news in the same light. Any presentation of information will contain some sort of bias, so there's no reason to be labeling the media as "liberal" or "conservative".

If by liberal you mean they value free thought and progress as opposed to the blind patriotism, ethnocentrism, and an overbearing christian value set which are held by the conservatives, then I think the media SHOULD have a "liberal bias".

Well, I'm sure most of you have seen it, but if you're interested in the topic of a media bias then you may enjoy (or enjoy being outraged at) the Fox News Channel documentary "Outfoxed".

Greg, I agree not all conservatives are nut jobs and if they can back up their political ideaology without using jesus and their political agenda is not financially self serving I am more then willing to hear them out and respect their point of view. Unfortunately, I believe current our president fits both the molds above.

What's interesting about Fox vs. the other outlets is that it's a conscious programming decision on the part of Fox.

The obviously slanted talk shows like Rush, Hannity and O'Reilly (and Air America and its 9 listenters) just play to the base (and among them really only O'Reilly is disingenuous about which set he claims).

But who cares, it's all just a reflection of the simple fact that the US is more politically conservative than it was 20 or 30 years ago.

Once you leave the better parts of the US and head out for the red portions of the country, you largely leave behind tolerance and the level of introspection we used to demand from ourselves as individuals.

Enter the great SUV Nation where no one gives a second thought how much gas is going to cost in 20 years or what kinds of wars we'll have to fight then to the keep the pumps flowing. (Who cares, I just don't want to have to drive around Kansas City in a fuel-conserving station wagon and feel like a pussy.)

Conservativism in the US right now is just another way of saying fuck the rest of you, you're a bunch of asshats.

Enter the America where it is our divine right to do what we want. We earned this divine right somewhere along the way... and don't muddle our flow by asking us how exactly we were so fortunate to be born Americans in the first place--that, my friend, took much hard work and was by no means purely chance...

I used to watch Fox on UK cable but now I just can't switch that channel on as I get so angry. Fox (for me) is such a republican biased news channel.

There news stories are about as accurate as the stories 'Comical Ali' gave in Iraq months ago.

I lost most respect when they aired this:

http://blugg.com/stuff/foxs_view_of_the_bbc_player.htm

The most inaccurate garbage I have ever witnessed on a 'Western' television station.

OFCOM even got involved:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/bulletins/prog_cb/pcb_11/upheld_cases?a=87101

Just goes to show that everyone should get their news from varied sources and make up their mind what it all means.

I don't think anyone is denying that Fox is more conservative than ABC, NBC, CBS. If you find yourself thinking the New York Times and Washington Post are not very left of center, wake up, you are dreaming.

GE, who owns NBC, is the nation's largest defense contractor

Tom, you nailed it. To suggest that mega corporations like the major networks are interested in anything other than status quo politics is ridiculous. Although they all have leanings, none of the networks take a very large step to either side. It's called market-driven politics, and the candidates are very hip to it. This is why the difference between them is in reality very slight. (e.g., Kerry doesn't actively oppose the war, he just thinks it's mismanaged; and he voted for it).

The rest is just noise that divides and distracts us from the fact that this country (and world) is on the wrong track and the politicians and corporations are driving the train.

NON cable = non-24 hour news coverage. They can't compete. News happens faster than once a day at dinnertime.

Just for fun, how about a bit of forensic analysis. Instead of just calling a media outlet 'liberal' or 'conservative' based on warm and blurry recollection, how about we look at a few of the biggest news stories from the last six or seven years, then think about whether the coverage of these stories was really liberal or conservative or neither. Humor me. Here's a list of some of the biggest news stories—of interest to all Americans—plucked from recent memory:

1. The War in Iraq
2. The War in Afghanistan
3. Reagan's Funeral
4. September 11th
5. The Disputed 2000 Election
6. Clinton's Impeachment Sex Scandal

Could someone please [rationally] explain how the coverage of these stories by non-Fox media outlest could be characterized as 'lliberal'?

Xavier and John Glover, well said.

Also, the point about the US being far more right wing than they know (in comparison with the rest of the world) is very true.

In fact, as I see it, the US Right is (especially with having some of those Christian Fundamentalists in the goverment) bordering on extreme right, while the so-called US Left is actually more in the center, or just a tad to the left of center (no more than a tad though).

To illustrate my point, we can have a look at CNN. There are two versions: an US one and an International one. While in the US it's probably seen as kindof liberal, in the rest of the world it's certainly not (rather right of center). And that's even with the International version being a lot more liberal than the US version!

Seeing what tripe FOX spews about the BBC, it should be even worse - that is - more conservative (or are you calling that un-liberal now?).

I don't believe that there's another place on earth where CBS, NBC, or ABC would be considered "liberal". When the major networks report the news they aren't following ideological guidelines. In fact, they are trying so hard not to be seen as being to the left they seem to bend over backwards to seem impartial. If a member of the press admits they are a democrat does that mean that they can't report issues fairly? Can a born-again president ever be fair to those of a different persuasion?

Fox News *is* a special case because it was created and directed by Roger Ailes, long-time conservative attack-ad creator. Fox News reports everything from a ideological standpoint in order to counteract their perceived bias the other way. This was Ailes' stated intention from day 1.

A question: if we have such a liberal media why do we have a republican run senate and house, presidency, and supreme court?

The bigger issue is that the media, in its race for ever declining market share, has confused its role in the process: they think they're all stars and *players* and don't have time to fill their historic role as watchdogs. Nobody wants to be the next Helen Thomas who, after sitting in the front of every Presidential press conference since Eisenhower suddenly found herself moved to the back row because she had the audacity to hold Bush's feet to the fire.

Pity on us that we willingly choose to believe the pablum that is fed to us and argue about whether it's liberal or conservative, losing the forest for the trees.

It's all about money not political ideology, and Tom Dolan is right that Fox is exploiting a market opportunity to create information entertainment without significant competitors in tone or style. Fox's Roger Ailes (not the cash-strapped blogger Ailes) got his start as a producer for the Mike Douglas show for Chrissake. It's TV... just keep telling yourself that. It's just TV. And TV is about aggregating eyeballs to sell ads to make money. Period.

Besides, Rupert Murdoch's "politics" may seem conservative, but he has very little interest in social policy or the Republican party or any real political agenda. He's a self-serving libertarian who wants as little government as possible, as few rules as possible... so he can make speedy progress in owning the world. That's all he cares about. James Fallows, writing in The Atlantic Monthly: “...Murdoch seems to be most interested in the political connections that will help his business … In short, some aspects of News Corp's programming, positions, and alliances serve conservative political ends, and others do not. But all are consistent with the use of political influence for corporate advantage. In the books I read and interviews I conducted, I found only one illustration of Murdoch's using his money and power for blatantly political ends: his funding of The Weekly Standard. The rest of the time he makes his political points when convenient as an adjunct to making money,” Fallows wrote. Fallows points out that while Murdoch’s US news outlets were attacking Clinton in the late 1990’s they were backing the UK Labour Party leader, Tony Blair against the incumbent conservatives.

Business is the business of the media, not politics.

This list doesn't prove anything -- except that more people are watching more middle to conservative leaning news channels.

Personally, from experience with the media, they can lean a story any way that they want to. I was misquoted many times in my 15 minutes with them. Due to that experience, I don't trust them at all.

I read the blogs, search for the truth and look for real FACTS instead of a blurb here or a blurb there from the media's (which ever way they lean) point of view.

I don't know if we have gotten so lazy or just so over exposed with information that we just believe what is thrown in our faces rather than looking for the truth. Anyway, I find that many of my friends just believe whatever they are told ("oh, i heard that he did this on cnn or foxnews") rather than actually looking for the whole story -- and the whole story really makes a difference.

Ok, let's discuss Talk Radio now. ;)

It's not what the top stories are, but how they are presented to you. If you can tell me that Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, and Peter Jennings are right wingers with a straight face, you need a straight jacket.

The fact that journalists are liberal could very well cause them to over-praise the conservative side so as not to appear biased. Making the point that the majority of journalists are liberal, pretty much a moot one considering its how they spin the news thats important, not how they see it personally.

Mike, how about a response to my point above concerning [what I'm sure you must have seen] the liberal bias in the coverage of the decades' largest news stories? Or does liberal bias only happen on the little stories?

I still say the media are whores. All of them. What ever story is going to bring in the biggest ratings, more advertising revenue is the story they are going to run with and beat it into the ground until the next one comes along. As for bias, it's the same story, they will use the same bias that it takes to get more people watching and a higher rating.

I think the only form of media that might have some small exception to this rule are newspapers. In some (perhaps most) cases, newspaper happily parade their bias.

Mike, how about a response to my point above concerning [what I'm sure you must have seen] the liberal bias in the coverage of the decades' largest news stories? Or does liberal bias only happen on the little stories?

Read the 4th post immediately above your several more times, then read it again.

Fox News is so far to the right, I would probably diagnose the network with Peyronie's disease...

What disappoints me is the lack of intellectual curiosity that plagues the average American.

Sometimes I think people WANT to believe what they are fed by the media because they are too lazy to question it.

A quote:

"Bush operatives constantly whine about the media but Bush is benefiting from the mock sophistication of journalists who, striking a world-weary stance, say of his campaign dishonesty, "It was ever thus in American politics." Even if that were true, it would be no excuse, and it isn't true. This is extraordinary. Today honerable conservatives feel the sort of fury felt by honerable conservatives 40 years ago when Joe McCarthy was giving anticommunism a bad name."

— George Will

(Noted conservative media personality writing about the lie & smear campaign orchestrated against Bob Dole by George H.W. Bush in 1992. What are we seeing today? Some of the same lies and same smears uttered by the same people. If it ain't broke don't fix it, eh?)

If the media is so liberal, how come Michael Moore isn't taking Tom Brokaw's seat when he retires?

College dropout Micheal Moore is not a journalist, for starters.

Just like some people are more insane than others, some people are more liberal than others. Fact: the media is more liberal than it is conservative. I don't know how else to say it.

Okay, Mike — crawl back under your rock. Just like some people are more asshat than others, some people are more conservative than others. The fact that you're using a collective like "the media" as Ross Perot used a collective like "those people" [and assuming you can really place some meaning in the phrase] simply demonstrates how narrow and torqued out your worldview is. Debate with a fundamentalist isn't really possible.

The fact that you're using a collective like "the media" ... simply demonstrates how narrow and torqued out your worldview is.

Condescending and elitist, all in one sentence! I wouldn't expect anything else from 'you people'!

Bill, you're right and I apologize Mike. Bill, you actually state (much more amiacably and well phrased) what I was trying to say, that an opinion that "the media is more liberal than it is conservative" is a difficult statement to back up with convincing evidence—at the very least I think any rational debate would acknowledge that there is much evidence that supports the opposite, such as the stat that Greg led off this post with, for instance. Frankly, I think it's an impossible assertion to make with any degree of certainty, so in the end it's just a statement of opinion which says more about the speaker than the media. "Chocolate cake tastes good," is not a fact, it's an opinion (no matter how widely shared).

People who hold 'fundamentalist' beliefs do so even in light of evidence to the contrary, or the legitimacy of skeptical arguments. Belief in a liberal media has become a trope of conservative talk radio, and an undeniably useful device within the movement.

Mike, with due respect, 'evidence' provided by a group with a clear agenda is at best incomplete, and at worst misleading. I'm sure you'd say the same thing if someone on the liberal end presented Fahrenheit 9-11 as 'evidence' of a mainstream media that was complicit with the Bush War agenda. This doesn't mean that a partisan source has nothing valid to provide, it just means that any reasoned judgement needs to evaluate evidence from across the spectrum. A lot of evidence to support one side means nothing in isolation, as there may be just as much evidence to support the other side.

Simply put, the concept that "the media is more liberal than it is conservative" is logically refutable in two ways: 1) There is no such demonstrable thing as a monolithic "media" — at the very least simple, unassailable statistics bear this out. There are media vehicles that have undeniably have a liberal slant, and media vehicles that have a conservative slant. If there is no such thing as a monothilic, homogenous media then it makes no sense to talk about "liberal media" in any way except as a faction of the larger media, and then the question is simply of ratio and dominance. 2) Addressing the issue of how much of the totality of media is liberal-leaning and how much of it is conservative-leaning is complex, and [wrongfully] assumes monolithic attitudes within individual media organizations. But, with the simplest of measures, one could put forth the following evidence:

The world's most popular talk-show host with a daily audience of over 20 million listeners is a strident conservative. The Wall Street Journal, arguably the nation's most influencial newspaper, is strongly conservative and has backed the Bush administration on almost every instance. The most popular cable news network is not shy about its conservative bias, and delivers it's programming into more homes than the rest of the cable news outlets combined. Even if these three examples where the ONLY examples of a robust conservative media faction, one would be hard-pressed to argue that liberal media is dominating them. It's perhaps an easier argument that conservative media has become the dominant force, and is gaining ground (using the "liberal media" fallacy as an effective rallying cry to their faithful). At the very least, one would think that an objective view would admit bias on both sides, and admit that what they see as 'non bias' might just be the bias they prefer to swallow.