Is the media heavy sided to the left?

  • It's been a few years for me now watching politics from the left and right, and despite my personal stance, i cant help but see how biased the mainstream media is towards the left.

    Everything i watch outside of Piers Morgan shows how sensitive people are towards daft topics such as the supposed "pay gap", and it just seems like a lot of them are just bending to a certain side, simply to stay safe to the whole debate.

  • Neo left as I would call it, it's simply not the left anymore I used to believe in, but yes, definitely.

  • I just can't believe how many UK shows I've watched recently where the Guest has shown legitimate issues or highlighted blatant facts, but the hosts have gone out there way to ignore or make light of what's said in order to maintain some moral high ground.

  • If you aren't willing to recognize the evidence for subjects like the pay gap, chances are you're sided to the right.

  • I don't know about the UK but in the US Fox News pretty much has a monopoly on mainstream right wing news.. and I think they want to keep it that way. Contrary to what some think the broadcast networks CBS, NBC, ABC are all pretty middle of the road in terms of biases.. and then you have MSNBC and CNN that are more left leaning

  • I follow mostly US news and I definitively wouldn't say that is the case, especially with the mindless rhetoric that is so common in american politics against anything socialism, and then of course you have fox news whose partisanism is ridiculous

    In my own country, it might seem that way but only to the extend that things don't go too far off criticising the oligopolies and the "traditional values" of religious people.

  • It entirely depends on where you go, in the UK I feel that the BBC, ITV & Sky news do a decent job of getting fact based nonpartisan news out there. Of course they'll never be perfect but it's nowhere near as bad as it is in somewhere like the US.

    If you want specialised opinion pieces through the lens of the right you've got places like the Daily Mail, the Telegraph and the Express. On the left you've got places like the Guardian, the Mirror and the Independent.

  • Bias is every where.

  • @TOPHATANT123 I agree with ITV and Sky but the BBC is very left leaning.

  • Global Moderator

    Media will always have bias towards a side or another, hence why I always try to check a bunch of different sources on news, both english and swedish.

    I also just want to remind everyone that in threads like these it is VERY easy to start going towards politics and different views, which quickly can derail. Its completely fine so far, but if it happens, please take it easy :)

  • @Lotias I promise I won't start anything here.

  • I think media is generally biased towards the side that isn't in power, though admittedly that might just be because I grew up watching stuff like The Daily Show when Bush was in office, kinda zoned out on that stuff in high school when Obama was elected and only really started noticing it again recently with Trump entering office. Couldn't speak for how it is in other countries that said.

  • This is a complex topic.

    "The media" has been a very easy target for the far left and the broad majority of the right in the US because it tends to dial its reporting, hires, and more towards a sort of middle-left standard. This means even your opposing partisan columnists and commentators are selectively chosen and sparingly used in order to present "both sides" to some issues. Fox News has its two or three primary Democrats and will have the short scream matches between its hosts and liberal representatives. But the content is aimed specifically at stroking the right-wing viewer's opinions.

    Then we have CNN and MSNBC. The former loves to see itself as objective. I would agree if every one of their commentators was like a Jake Tapper (a real journalist with integrity, in my view) instead of a Cillizza, Cuomo, or Dana Bash. MSNBC does not even try with hosts like Maddow and O'Donnell. They love to purposefully pick anti-Trump conservatives as their "other side", like John Podhoretz (who I actually respect) and pander to their far left viewership.

    Let's see Maddow -- the headliner of MSNBC. Hear about Russia? No? Watch her show. She cannot stop.
    "The Intercept conducted a quantitative study of all 28 TRMS episodes in the six-week period between February 20 and March 31. Russia-focused segments accounted for 53 percent of these broadcasts.

    That figure is conservative, excluding segments where Russia was discussed, but was not the overarching topic.

    Maddow’s Russia coverage has dwarfed the time devoted to other top issues, including Trump’s escalating crackdown on undocumented immigrants (1.3 percent of coverage); Obamacare repeal (3.8 percent); the legal battle over Trump’s Muslim ban (5.6 percent), a surge of anti-GOP activism and town halls since Trump took office (5.8 percent), and Trump administration scandals and stumbles (11 percent)."
    alt text]

    It is an undeniable fact that the media is overwhelmingly aimed towards the left. The reporting on Republican vs. Democratic presidents and candidates should prove this.

    Presented is a basic comparison of the polar opposite media well-before President Trump.

    alt text

    And now for the general tone across sources. This is all from Pew Research, as I believe them to be fairly non-partisan.
    alt text

    alt text

    alt text

    The liberal spin on bad coverage for the Republicans can be best covered by this snide remark: "The truth has a liberal bias" -- meaning that the press is mostly accurate in its reporting and tone which would naturally lead towards more leftwing positivity. Of course, this is of no importance to the subject.

    I think this is view is snarky and wrong. Even if the media can be alleged to be truthful and only reporting more favorably on leftwing matters, the fact is that the other Republican presidents never faced such a backlash as Trump and the current GOP has. Even if they are factually worse, I cannot concede that this is reason enough for the bias to be so heavily slanted against the right.

    Now for my final bit of complexity -- the variable of business. The real truth is that "journalistic ethics" ("Democracy Dies in Darkness", as an example) and "sources say" are pandering for a specific benefit: money. There is money in clickbait, hatred, and shocking details. When your president is a bombastic personality with... ahem... a repertoire of the "best words" and the mind of a "stable genius"... clicks are coming in big. Money is made in polarized and breaking news cycles. Washington Post was broke and going under in the last 5 years until Jeff Bezos bought it. Thanks to Trump, subscriptions are sky high for both it and other newspapers, like the NYT.

    I ask you this: do IGN editors like making Top 10 articles? Are they list-obsessed millennials? Or do they create them because people click them and make them good for business? Are review scores actually good or just good for business or beloved? There is a level of sheer bias here from newsheads who are left-leaning and also an attention towards the gobs of money in Trump coverage.

    Combine market incentives andbias. Voila -- America, 2018.

  • The issue I have with the "news" nowadays is that it isn't news anymore. It's opinions. Every if they aren't explicitly stating "this is the correct interpretation" (which they do a lot), the media will still add emphasis to stories. There is of course a place for opinions, but it's completely blended now. A standard technique is to interview a bunch of well-lit experts for one side of a story, then have one slovenly person on the street give the other side for 5 seconds. And then there's the classic "the opposition says this, BUT..."

    As for left-leaning, it definitely is in Canada. If you want the most blatant example of opinions as news, watch CBC. And Global National has a feminist streak, with the female anchors sometimes FLAT OUT stating their opinions. And don't get me started on the clickbait headlines of Maclean's magazine...

    I get most of my international news from RT (Russia Today). Pretty much the entire western media dismisses it as "Russian propaganda" and "a Kremlin mouthpiece", but they report actual on-the-ground facts that nobody else does. There are giant chunks of the Syria situation in particular that the western media leaves out entirely in favor of the "Assad is gassing babies" narrative. If you ask me, after WMDs and the Hillary slant, the western media has some gall calling RT biased and inaccurate.

  • The media pushes whatever gets them clicks. Doesn't matter which side, that's why they can't be trusted.

  • @zylowolfbane said in Is the media heavy sided to the left?:

    The media pushes whatever gets them clicks. Doesn't matter which side, that's why they can't be trusted.

    It might be true to a point, but unfortunately there is a certain side that appears to benefit them more than the other. The average person out there is more susceptible to emotion and feelings than they are fact, especially as most are actually ignorant to the facts. Things have escalated a lot just recently, especially with the recent shootings and the way in which the media have been using emotional children in order to push their gun control agenda, and I'm just sick of how overly sensitive and cautious the general media wants to remain.

  • @sheria and it's getting them clicks but what's your agenda.

  • they're called the regressive left or authoritarian left. Yeah and i hate it

  • These days you kind of just have to watch a little bit of everything and then put it together like a gigantic jigsaw puzzle, cause no one out there is going to tell you the whole truth.

  • Culture in general has pretty huge tilt to left and worse yet to the far left. Try to talk about certain scientifically verified facts that don't fit the progressive leftist ideology and you will get shouted down by a mob. I'm not saying the right is perfect, but its the left that has lost the plot in recent years.