There is a "liberal bias" in investigative reporting. The history of investigative reporting in the US really got its big push with Lincoln Steffans and the rest of the muckrakers at the turn of the 20th Century.

This started a tradition which continued with people like Upton Sinclair and "The Jungle" and has continued up to today with Seymour Hersh, for example.

The investigative reporters are motivated by a desire to see the problems with society corrected. This implies a dissatisfaction with the status quo.

The mainline media is controlled by big business which is generally happy with the way things are. That's why there are no "conservative" investigative journalists.

When several of the large newspapers were owned by single families they were able to balance the desire to make money with the desire to uphold the highest journalistic standards.

This was even the case with CBS and NBC which had strong founders with interests in social issues.

This has all changed now, only the New York Times has any meaningful degree of family ownership and control now.

So, to the extent that a news source is doing real investigative reporting, there is probably going to be a degree of "liberal" bias associated with this.

The condemnation of those uncovering the truth is nothing new. I.F. Stone was such a thorn in the side of the mainline media he was forced to operate his own newsletter.

Perhaps blogs will mature enough so that they start to uncover stories in addition serving has commentators.

What we need to be discussing is : Can the Bias be changed. If the answer is no, lets just get on with it. If it is yes, lets hear the plan. What will it take?

You say:

As I have always done in the past, the terms "liberal bias" or "conservative bias" are used to reflect the media's OVERALL bias on a particular issue.

You are rejecting the anecdotal evidence that Bozell thrives on. This is good.

You did not describe your methodology though. I am very curious about how you will determine the "OVERALL" bias. How exactly will you make this measurement?

You already seem to be signaling that the media has a conservative bias. I am sure my conservative friends will accuse you of choosing a methodology that will allow you to reach your pre-determined conclusion.

I hate this phrase, but it is probably appropriate here: the devil is in the details.

I am looking forward to the third part of your series.

The answer to corporate media is to not watch them. I have found free speech TV and love it. It is a channel that’s tells you what really is happening. King george take over of the WH with the help of is brother and Harris. How the family made their money, as well as Cheney having a map of Iraq with the oil sites. In the last 2 weeks I have finally real news. Today
Greg Palast is on. This is a real journalist who care.
HUSTLER: What has happened to the news media in this country? PALAST: I vomit every time I see Tom Brokaw. HUSTLER: And Dan Rather- PALAST: I feel sick at heart when I see Rather, because he's actually a journalist. He came on my program, Newsnight [in England] and said, "I can't report the news. I'm not allowed to ask questions. We're gonna send our children and our husbands into the desert now, and I can't ask a question, because I will be lynched."

Robert,

It's funny that you mention that investigative reporting is biased "liberal". What you are saying is that skepticism and truth are liberal values. I don't dispute they are, but a media reporting the truth is not a "liberal" media. It is what media is supposed to be. Just because conservatives might consider that liberal (if they indeed do that) doesn't make it so.

T2,

I can see you are impatient, but no one solved complex, large scale problems without understanding the real reasons for the problem and the degree/extent of the problem.

You say: "What we need to be discussing is : Can the Bias be changed. If the answer is no, lets just get on with it. If it is yes, lets hear the plan. What will it take?"

First of all, pretty much anything can be changed if you figure out the right way to bring about the change. Media bias is no exception.

Second, as for the "plan", this series is part of the plan. It's too easy to be caught in one's own echo chamber and assume that "just because I think the media is conservative, everyone who matters should believe it" and that there's therefore no reason to explore how the media behaves. The fact is that the bulk of the people who matter when it comes to bringing about change don't really understand how conservative the media is. So, the first step in change is making people aware of *WHAT IS*. That's what I'm going to do first.

Once I'm done with that, you will see the rest of the plan. Stay tuned.

Michael,

Looks like the server ate my response. Will respond again, later today.

I thought that putting "liberal" in quotes made it clear that this was just a label being applied by those in favor of the status quo.

The radical right has found that labelling something "liberal" resonates well with their followers so they apply it to whatever they perceive as a threat.

During the McCarthy era "communist" was used the same way and in the early 20th century it was "anarchist".

By slapping a label on things the right can energize their followers without having to address the issues.

I do think my point about there being no examples of conservative investigative journalists still is true. Why doesn't the WSJ, for example, spend more
time rooting out corporate corruption. Surely even capitalists want companies to obey the law.

Michael,

You said:
You did not describe your methodology though. I am very curious about how you will determine the "OVERALL" bias. How exactly will you make this measurement?

Response:
There are different ways to extract the overall bias, so I will ask you to review my approach and comment on it case by case. There isn't much *credible* research out there on media bias, as I have mentioned before. What I'm therefore forced to do is sift through what I can find in terms of quantitative research and address glaring omissions in coverage, which is an important aspect used in my examination of this subject. I cannot claim, by any stretch of the imagination, that what I'm about to blog here is the last word on media bias, but I hope to build a case will be convincing *enough* to force serious non-partisan people to at least take a serious look.

You say:
You already seem to be signaling that the media has a conservative bias. I am sure my conservative friends will accuse you of choosing a methodology that will allow you to reach your pre-determined conclusion.

Response:
Why do I suspect your conservative friends will say that even if I had the most comprehensive data in the world, stamped with the approval of every leading scientist? :-) After all, many conservatives deride human-induced global warming (or evolution) despite mountains of evidence.
Anyway, my mind is "made up" by the facts, not opinions and I've analyzed a lot of the stuff already and am just beginning to post it.

You say:
I hate this phrase, but it is probably appropriate here: the devil is in the details.

Response:
I love the phrase. The devil *is* in the details.

Look, my series will not appeal to anyone who is not open-minded. My target is those who have not made up their mind or those who are open-minded. I'm not going to serve magic. I'm a guy who does this in my free time (separate from my day job) - so I certainly don't want to give the impression that I'm about to break something earth-shattering here. I'm not. But it will be something that I hope will genuinely add to the media bias debate.

Robert,

Your points are well taken. I didn't mean to sound like I didn't get your point. I do. I was just saying that, sure, some conservatives will keep labeling anything they don't like as "liberal"....but that's not a reason to NOT find out the facts for ourselves and for those who want to know the truth.

And I don't think you disagree.