If conservatives prefer conservative media, and there is plenty of that available, their media needs would be met without reading or watching a neutral source, even if those sources are available.
My understanding of their position was that right wing people avoid non-partisan media sources because they are at odds with their world view, even if the media source was ultimately neutral. They listed reasons why they thought that up above too, citing various things they thought a non-partisan paper might report that conservatives would still object to.
Conservative politicians have spent the last decade lambasting the "main-stream media", which may explain a uniquely conservative aversion to non-conservative media.
It sounds like liberals have a bias towards the mainstream media while conservatives have a bias away from the mainstream media. And an audience effect could certain explain a partisan slant in reporting. But it could also be:
However all that said, @Typhoon don't always view this as "liberal bias". Think about it - if you were in charge of a news outlet your goal would be to attain as many clicks, reads and shares as possible. Whats currently trending and what do people tend to click on? DRAMA. ANGER. SHOCKING NEWS. CONTROVERSY.
Edit: And remember, they did the same thing to Obama around the clock (especially regarding national deficit and obamacare), and would always find a photo of him mid-syllable, so that he looked as sad and pathetic as possible.
And that's what they feed people. TBH, taking breaks from it creates a much less stressful work day.
This topic has become indicative of the root problem: Factual Observable Testable truths are not what consumers of the media want. The media is full of people who slant left or right, but ultimately the system as a whole is sliding into the cesspit of yellow journalism. And the right has pretty much abandoned reality for a friendly perception of reality, one where experts and people who study things are really only interested in protecting their jobs and stealing a right wing guy's guns.
Which is pretty dumb because I know plenty of lefties who like to hunt and eat chili and go to church. But it doesn't matter because living in a bubble is easy and institutions are as flawed as the people who run them.
A controversy and clickbait focus could certainly explain the distrust of the media. But the only reason why the media as a whole would be liberal-leaning in that vein would be based on the quantity of news sources read by one side or the other. And at what point is the readership due to bias versus just more focus from one side on fewer news sources?
The MSM has a left wing bias just look at the "fake news" hysteria they have whipped up to try to censor right wing news like Breitbert, Heatstreet, InfoWars, and so on just for doing the exact same things the MSM outlets like LA times and New York Post engage in such as click bait titles.
That was published originally by a university professor. So is it really correct to imply that it was created — "whipped up" — by the media?
It honestly blows my mind that otherwise intelligent people can even question this, over the years I have seen everything from Noam Chomsky (Some call the father of progressivism), the Chinese intelligence community, academics from all over the world, and even ISIS talking about the West's MSM leftist bias.
I find this strange because there is a lot of discussion saying that the US is further to the right than the majority of the rest of the world. Maybe when you include Europe into the picture as well, but European media is somewhat of a different ballpark from US media.
In my opinion there is a Liberal bias in the Main Stream media that is owned by the 6 parent companies, that feed propaganda to the general American public.
I'm perfectly fine with this point in terms of GE, Disney, Time Warner, and CBS. But I have yet to see this for Viacom (which could just be a factor of lack of exposure), and it seems actively incorrect for Newscorp.
@Typhoon: You didn't answer the inherent question. Can you provide details as to how this applies to Viacom and Newscorp?
In my opinion there is a Liberal bias in the Main Stream media that is owned by the 6 parent companies, that feed propaganda to the general American public.
I'm perfectly fine with this point in terms of GE, Disney, Time Warner, and CBS. But I have yet to see this for Viacom (which could just be a factor of lack of exposure), and it seems actively incorrect for Newscorp.
One of our presidential candidates this year, Donald Trump, has espoused that the media is biased against him. And this is not an uncommon rhetoric amongst conservatives over the past decade plus. Daily Show host (at the time) Jon Stewart had this to say on the matter in an interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News back in 2011:
"I think that there is probably a liberal bias that exists in the media that is because of the medium in which it exists. I think that the majority of people working in it probably hold liberal viewpoints. But I don't think that they are as relentlessly activist as the conservative movement that has risen up over the last 40 years. And that movement has decided that they have been victims of a witch hunt. And to some degree they're right. People on the right are called racist and they're called things with an ease that I am uncomfortable with. And homophobic, and all those other things. And I think that that is absolutely something that they have a real right to be angry about and feel that they have been vilified for those things."
Is there a serious bias towards liberalism in the media? How much does said bias, if it exists, affect our country's public discourse and public opinion? And is it reasonable to expect non-partisan media to be the universal and uphold standard?
It sounds like liberals have a bias towards the mainstream media while conservatives have a bias away from the mainstream media. And an audience effect could certain explain a partisan slant in reporting. But it could also be:
A controversy and clickbait focus could certainly explain the distrust of the media. But the only reason why the media as a whole would be liberal-leaning in that vein would be based on the quantity of news sources read by one side or the other. And at what point is the readership due to bias versus just more focus from one side on fewer news sources?
That was published originally by a university professor. So is it really correct to imply that it was created — "whipped up" — by the media?
I find this strange because there is a lot of discussion saying that the US is further to the right than the majority of the rest of the world. Maybe when you include Europe into the picture as well, but European media is somewhat of a different ballpark from US media.
@Typhoon: You didn't answer the inherent question. Can you provide details as to how this applies to Viacom and Newscorp?
I'm perfectly fine with this point in terms of GE, Disney, Time Warner, and CBS. But I have yet to see this for Viacom (which could just be a factor of lack of exposure), and it seems actively incorrect for Newscorp.
"I think that there is probably a liberal bias that exists in the media that is because of the medium in which it exists. I think that the majority of people working in it probably hold liberal viewpoints. But I don't think that they are as relentlessly activist as the conservative movement that has risen up over the last 40 years. And that movement has decided that they have been victims of a witch hunt. And to some degree they're right. People on the right are called racist and they're called things with an ease that I am uncomfortable with. And homophobic, and all those other things. And I think that that is absolutely something that they have a real right to be angry about and feel that they have been vilified for those things."
Is there a serious bias towards liberalism in the media? How much does said bias, if it exists, affect our country's public discourse and public opinion? And is it reasonable to expect non-partisan media to be the universal and uphold standard?