Two comments on your surprises. First, academic rarely respond to political challenges, especially outside their field. When they do, they often make fools of themselves, occasionally signing petitions whose aim is exactly the opposite of the one they thought they wanted to achieve. UCS is somewhat of an exception and they did try to make a difference in the last election. They were smeared just like everyone else who tells the truth about this administration (take a look at the smear jobs on Ford and Voinovich following the Bolton hearings--speaking of which: why is the media even printing these nonsensical accusations against them, supplied by known liars?!).

Last summer there was a clear professional polarization against W: UCS represented the view of the majority of scientists, certainly a very high majority of those who care in stating that the administration has used deceptive practices and false, anti-scientific information to bamboozle the press and the public on scientific issues; professional intelligence community quietly simmerred over the Iraq fiasco and other issues on which they were overridden by political desk jockeys--it only got worse when the purges began at the CIA; professional diplomats were up in arms, not just over the treatment of Wilson, but over many intentional missteps in foreign policy AND over an influx of people who had no diplomatic skills or credentials (e.g., John Bolton) into the State Department and foreign bureaus and embassies; professional educators and education researchers were aghast at the snow job on NCLB and the domination of the ED by Heritage Foundation flunkies and business executives with no input from the field, except those with vested financial interests in the decisions. Meanwhile "professional" media could not even out a fraud like Guckert, pandered to the WH press office in hopes of getting some rotten leftovers thrown to them, and was falling over itself to publish smear accusations not just against Kerry, but just about everyone who dared to offer any criticism.

Lately, with respect to the Bolton hearings, in particular, many bloggers have been commenting that it's all about winning. Wrong! It is not about winning, it's about destroying the opposition! We are not in a fascist state yet, but we are getting there.

The second issue is your claim that it is certainly surprising ... that even the most informed progressives rarely talk about [the lack of serious academic research] when discussing the media problem in the U.S. Please correct me if I misinterpreted your reference in the statement--that certainly seemed to be the point behind "this aspect", which is the part I replaced with the bracketed text.

I don't believe that this claim is factually accurate. First, we are dealing with social sciences here--namely, sociology. When it comes to "serious" academics who could possibly say anything on the subject, the research that is available is 1) surveys, 2) culling of published materials, 3) ethnographic/observational studies. The first two can be quantified, but they can also be manipulated. I'll get back to that in a bit. The last one would achieve exactly the opposite of its desired result--qualitative research is not accepted as a legitimate paradigm by the fascist right and they hammer this point home not just with the public, but with academics and professionals in other fields, in particular, the natural sciences and engineering. The media is also very likely to buy into this argument, assuming the "qualitative" means crunchy-granola progressive from the outset. So, instead of debunking the liberal bias myth, the studies would only serve to reinforce it--take a look at education reform debates if you want evidence.

Now, returning to the first two (quantitative) possibilities, I mentioned that these are easily manipulated. This creates a two-fold problem. First, it is just as easy to come up with studies that support the claim as ones that contradict it. I am not saying that both sets of studies would be equally valid, but just the fact that the alternative studies exist would be sufficient to take the fuse out of those that claim lack of liberal bias. Second, one can expect the hard right to make precisely the accusations against the studies with conclusions contrary to their claims (and to their agenda) that should be leveled against those that support them. This has been a classic tool of the current crop of Republicans--accuse the opposition of doing precisely what you are guilty of in order to preempt and defuse their potential weapons. Every accusation leveled against the Democrats and against opponents of the W-Cheney-Rove-DeLay regime in the last four years can be documented to reflect precisely the improprieties of which they and their allies are guilty of. What makes you think that this case would be any different?

But let me get to the final point. People buy into the claim of liberal media bias for a reason and it is not simply the lie being repeated often enough. People want to believe it, because they have absolutely no idea what "liberal" means! Carl Ford has now been portrayed as a "liberal Democrat" because he made some contributions to Kerry and other Democrats in the last election cycle. If I were an intelligent traditional Republican like Ford, I would have done the same thing--the neo-con wing and the crooked cabal that follows it cannot be dismantled from within the Republican party, so loyal Republicans can only hope for help from the opposition (whether this opposition has also been corrupted by neo-con influence is another matter).

So, let me throw out a possible Part N for this series: the reason people buy into the myth of liberal bias in X (where X can be media, academia, etc.) is because they have no idea what liberal means.

How many takes are y'all going to do? Are you trying to convince yourselves this is true? It would seem that you're preaching to the choir here. This is a Democrat friendly zone isn't it? Where is the creativity to come up with something new and inciteful. To preach something forward looking. where are the issues, progressive thoughts, things that need addressing? This media question gets boring.

Yesterday, on Air America, Randi Rhodes was talking about the lack of coverage on the war. Well CNN had the stories she was carping about on ever half hour, with live feeds from Iraq by Ryan Chilcot every hour. Network news WAS covering the story. She WAS railing about the lack of coverage. Maybe she should have listened or watched CNN instead of opening her mouth trying to incite the masses. The truth was there for the taking, open thy eyes. They covered everthing she was talking about, and more, more thoroughly. She tried to get cute with some reference to 'Popaluza'or 'Popathon', too much coverage of the new Pope. Over 48 million Roman Catholics in America, Kerry lost this segment by 13 points, you'd think you would want this segment of voters back in your fold. I guess not. By the way, she seems as shallow as Hannity, just a female version of Sean Hannity speaking from the 'other' side.

Congrats to Air America for breaking the 50 market barrier. Also congrats to William J. Bennett's "Morning in America" show being in 124 markets during the same period of time, including 18 out of the top 20 markets in America.

Buck,
Thanks as always for your thoughtful comments. My responses are below.

You said:
First, academic rarely respond to political challenges, especially outside their field. When they do, they often make fools of themselves...

Response:
Buck, you are mixing two issues here. The issue of media bias is not a politicial one per se - it has nothing to do with partisanship per se. It has *been* politicized by the Right but there is nothing much that the Right has not politicized (including evolution or global warming) - so that's not a reason to avoid this topic.
In fact, any academic research on this could and should be nonpartisan and involve as much feedback from credible sources on the left and the right as possible.

You said:
The second issue is your claim that it is certainly surprising ... that even the most informed progressives rarely talk about [the lack of serious academic research] when discussing the media problem in the U.S. Please correct me if I misinterpreted your reference in the statement--that certainly seemed to be the point behind "this aspect", which is the part I replaced with the bracketed text.

Response:
Your interpretation is largely correct. I am referring to the issue of having academics address the topic in credible ways.

You said:
I don't believe that this claim is factually accurate. First, we are dealing with social sciences here--namely, sociology. When it comes to "serious" academics who could possibly say anything on the subject, the research that is available is 1) surveys, 2) culling of published materials, 3) ethnographic/observational studies. The first two can be quantified, but they can also be manipulated.

Response:
Buck, no, this is not sociology. I am talking about something very simple - reporting facts. I am not talking about evaluating whether the media's *opinion* is correct or not. Did the media accurately report the facts on a particular issue? The sociology aspect comes in when we start about people's opinions on those facts. Anyone is allowed to have an opinion about anything - e.g., on evolution or on the media's reporting of evolution. That does not change the *known facts* about evolution.
At the bottom of every issue in the world are two things: facts and opinions. Facts are checkable. Opinions can be compared with known facts to judge their veracity. Some opinions ("abortion" in "murder" or "abortion" is "not murder") don't have much to do with facts, but even there it is a fact that some people opine one way and some opine the other way. The devil is in the details. I am trying to make people get away from a hazy 10,000 foot thinking about the media and focus on the details - the words, the information - the *facts*. Anything that can be cross-checked and validated. We can deal with the media's handling of opinions as well, but that's the *easier* part.

You said:
--qualitative research is not accepted as a legitimate paradigm by the fascist right

Response:
Actually what is true is that they don't want to accept any research *from the other side*. But they mouth claims of "liberal media" based on (fake) "qualitative research" done by their side, all the time. So, the claim that they don't buy into research is not valid. They just buy research that they agree with. No surprise there.

You said:
The media is also very likely to buy into this argument, assuming the "qualitative" means crunchy-granola progressive from the outset. So, instead of debunking the liberal bias myth, the studies would only serve to reinforce it--take a look at education reform debates if you want evidence.

Response:
First, the media has been buying (fake) "qualitative research" of "liberal media bias" from the Right for decades now.
Second, the challenge of making the media buy any research on its practices is high; but that should not deter such research. Moreover, if the media refuses to cover it, we can prove media bias by that alone (censorship) - and use friendly alternative channels (which I'll talk about when I discuss media reform) to air it.
Third, making the media buy something is also a function of who'se trying to sell it, how effective and clear they are in explaining the research, and being upfront about what is and what is not covered in the research. The media buys half-baked research every day. The only thing different about this is that this research is about the media itself.

You said:
First, it is just as easy to come up with studies that support the claim as ones that contradict it. I am not saying that both sets of studies would be equally valid, but just the fact that the alternative studies exist would be sufficient to take the fuse out of those that claim lack of liberal bias.

Response:
This is true of any research on any topic. That's why I mentioned the need for large volumes of credible peer-reviewed research. Over time, with critical analysis of the research, the reality will emerge - like on any other topic.

You said:
...one can expect the hard right to make precisely the accusations against the studies with conclusions contrary to their claims (and to their agenda) that should be leveled against those that support them. This has been a classic tool of the current crop of Republicans--accuse the opposition of doing precisely what you are guilty of in order to preempt and defuse their potential weapons. Every accusation leveled against the Democrats and against opponents of the W-Cheney-Rove-DeLay regime in the last four years can be documented to reflect precisely the improprieties of which they and their allies are guilty of. What makes you think that this case would be any different?

Response:
I'm not sure I completely understand this, but the answer is simple. We don't stop researching global warming because the Right keeps blaring that it is a "liberal" "hoax" or whatever. Academics can't and shouldn't set their own research agenda based on criticism by charlatans. The trick is to deal with the criticisms using *effective spokespersons* and finding effective ways to reach the public outside of the mainstream media filter (we'll discuss this when I get to media reform).

You said:
People buy into the claim of liberal media bias for a reason and it is not simply the lie being repeated often enough. People want to believe it, because they have absolutely no idea what "liberal" means! So, let me throw out a possible Part N for this series: the reason people buy into the myth of liberal bias in X (where X can be media, academia, etc.) is because they have no idea what liberal means.

Response:
Firstly, people may not know what "liberal" means because the media is not communicating to them what it really means. The word "liberal" has been tarred by the Right over the decades, with the media's connivance. That's one of the things that needs fixing.
Also, I agree people do buy into a lot of things because of pre-conceived notions. But again, this is true of everything in the world and there's nothing unique about media bias. Some people, today, still belive in a flat earth. A long time ago majorities believed that. So, we can't stop doing credible research bcause people are prejudiced. Without the research it is even harder to break prejudices. Moreover, as I said, prejudices are formed not only by repetition of myths but also lack of debunking of those myths. That's the point of doing credible research.

Peter,

I don't listen to Randi Rhodes so I can't comment on what she's saying.

But I'll answer your other question:
"Where is the creativity to come up with something new and inciteful. To preach something forward looking. where are the issues, progressive thoughts, things that need addressing? This media question gets boring."

Have you looked around and noticed there are thousands of websites where people on the Left are doing exactly what you are asking for? Issues, "forward looking" stuff, "things that need addressing"...etc.? Can you tell me that all of that made a great impact and Democrats won the WH, House and Senate in 2004?

I'm writing about the media because solving the media problem is fundamental to everything else we want to do. It's no use having the best candidates and issues and solutions in the world time and again, only to see them demolished by the media using Swift Boat Veterans. Get the point? (Incidentally, I've written about a lot of other issues at www.eriposte.com (go take a look if you are interested).)

Also, I'm not here to preach to the choir. I'm here to tell the choir why the kind of preaching we have been doing so far to other Americans has *not worked* and to propose and discuss how we should fix it. You can't solve the pervasive media problem by mouthing platitudes and complaining endlessly about it every day and hope for a miracle. It needs to be addressed systematically - every aspect, every detail. That's what I'm trying to do here. Provide the path to eventually lay out a clear strategy on how to solve the media problem.

The point of this series is to ALSO show that it is not sufficient to keep saying we need an "alternative media". That is 50000 ft thinking. An alternative media will help, but it's not going to solve the problem with the media that currently exists.

Of course, you can always skip any post which has the byline "eriposte". That will save you a lot of time too.

I'd like to follow-up on this for my Master's in Mass Communications thesis. Where/how can I get all this in text other than html?

Andrea,

Send me an email with what you are looking for (click on my name where it appears on the left side of The Left Coaster homepage, below the logo).

Thanks...

Maybe it's a romantic notion, but, wasn't the media/news of years ago more objective? The New York Times...all the news fit to print, CBS, ABC, NBC, didn't they present the news in a more balanced tone? I don't think I noticed the current tone until say 1999 or 2000, especially from ABC, I haven't been a fan of the others. We, of course feel differently as to which side of the fence they lean. What happened to them? Short answer only please. With the current makeup, I don't see how one can change their direction much. My hope was that with the embeding of many of the young reporters, they may grow more conservative and more objective, with some sympathies toward the military. Pardon me for thinking 'conservative' equals 'objective'.

I've read some observations elsewhere about coverage and believe it or not Fox seemed to be more balanced according to the observer, let me qualify, they weren't near where a balanced newscast should be, but there coverage of topics were broader than the other networks. They placed more importance on what was the big stories of the day when compared with the other networks. They got less pigeonholed. The observation I read was over at the 'burntorangereport.com' a few weeks/months ago. They were not in any way promoting FOX.

Peter,

I'm not sure I can answer your question because I don't quite understand it. Are you saying that media was "objective" prior to 1999/2000 and has changed to become "liberal" now or the reverse or ??

I've not seen any significant change in the media in the 1990s or now. The overall tilt has always been conservative during this entire time period, although in the late 2001 to mid 2003 period many of them were behaving as even more faithful stenographers for the Bush White House and the GOP - than usual.

Do you think they may have become more accepting as they did in the first Clinton Administration? They were more objective years ago, my notice was for ABC primarily.