Don’t Tell Me The Media Isn’t Biased. Just. Don’t.
November 18, 2008 / 11:49 am • By Dr. Melissa ClouthierHow do Republicans have an ice-cubes chance in hades when the media creates voters like this via Moonbattery:
See this isn’t the voters fault. They’re just parroting what the press told them. It is the press’ unrelenting, vicious, intentional, biased pap that passes for journalism these days. In a sound-bite culture, the media creates the narrative and the narrative NEVER favors the conservative ideology. Ever.
John Ziegler of How Obama Got Elected says:
Because obviously interviewing a relative handful of Obama voters, while interesting, is hardly scientific proof of anything, we also commissioned a Zogby telephone poll which asked the very same questions (as well as a few others) with similarly amazing results.
Zogby Poll
512 Obama Voters 11/13/08-11/15/08 MOE +/- 4.4 points
97.1% High School Graduate or higher, 55% College Graduates
Results to 12 simple Multiple Choice Questions
57.4% could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing)
81.8% could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing)
82.6% could NOT correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing)
88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)
56.1% could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).
And yet…..
Only 13.7% failed to identify Sarah Palin as the person on which their party spent $150,000 in clothes
Only 6.2% failed to identify Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter
And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her “house,” even though that was Tina Fey who said that!!
Only 2.4% got at least 11 correct.
Only .5% got all of them correct. (And we “gave” one answer that was technically not Palin, but actually Tina Fey)
Comforting, isn’t it? The average voter is completely ignorant and the media is why.
UPDATED:
Zogby takes on the “push poll” rumors.
23 Responses to “Don’t Tell Me The Media Isn’t Biased. Just. Don’t.”
By Ryan on Nov 18, 2008 | Reply
The media is biased to both the left and the right. Fox leans right, MSNBC left. AM radio is certainly more right leaning than left. Print media tends to lean left rather than right. Blaming the media for Americans being retarded, however, confuses causation with correlation. Americans are generally stupid because they’re not taught how to process information in a reasoned manner. Kids have been raised watching more TV than they have been reading books. Standards in school have been exchanged for feelings. Intelligence in the public space has been demeaned and villified as some sort of “elitism.” When being smart isn’t “cool” anymore, it’s no surprise you’re going to have a nation of morons. So, blaming the newsmedia for America’s lack of general braininess is the wrong answer - the issue is way bigger.
By Dr. Melissa Clouthier on Nov 18, 2008 | Reply
Ryan,
Fox isn’t network, it’s cable. The rest of the networks are decidedly left. The papers are left. But most people don’t read. They make sound-bite decisions. They are ignorant and they vote based on vague notions.
By Mat on Nov 18, 2008 | Reply
Ryan,
I would agree with you. It’s way bigger than just the media. I would say education is a much bigger factor. The fact is that the leftist Boomers who fought and mostly lost the culture war in the 60’s turned around and got doctorate degrees. They then leveraged themselves into positions of power throughout the 80’s. By the 90s, they were (and still are) controlling the entire educational process from kindergarten to graduate school. When you have 20 years of spoonfed leftist crap thrown around, some of it will inevitably stick. That is what has happened with the Millenial generation, which is why it leans so heavily leftist.
However, the media has its share of the blame. AM talk shows are mostly conservative, but actual stations, such as NPR, are very leftist. FOX is but one station competing against any number of left-leaning broadcast organizations (it’s not just MSNBC, though that’s one of the most guilty). So yes, I think the Dr. has a valid point. When people turn on the TV and see a broadcast world that is probably 95% leftist, then they will probably think leftist (with help from education).
It takes critical thinking to have an ideal democratic environment. I see very little to no critical thinking done these days. That’s because education is interested more in making good socialists than having truly democratic citizens.
Bottom line: media is partly to blame in a short-term sense. I think that education is mostly to blame in a long-term sense.
By Louis on Nov 18, 2008 | Reply
Media is definately biased. Question isn’t AM is conservative, ABC is liberal; its what’s reported as normal informative non-politacal news that’s the problem. AM has clearly identified pundits that loudly declare their point of view. It’s when the “news” chooses to over report Palin’s dresses and not report Obama’s position on the coal industry or 57 states gaffe that is bias. The video demonstrates what the voters took away from their news sources. Ethics in journalism should have prevented this. It doesn’t matter how educated the person is if they don’t get the info to process to begin with. Fox news isn’t right, although it has achieved that status through repetition. The station itself may be seen as right because it has commentators like O’Reilly and Hannity. Once again, these commentators are clearly expresssing their opinion on news rather than presenting their slots as objective news shows. The video and the poll speak for themselves.
By Ryan on Nov 18, 2008 | Reply
I think it’s important to remember that the whole idea of left/right is relative to where you think you stand in the grand scheme of things. Just like everyone is an above-average driver, most people think of themselves as center-something, and therefore their view of what’s progressive and what’s conservative is skewed. I like to check the hate meters: if you read huffpost, Tom Brokaw is reviled for being a conservative lackey, but if you read NRO, Brokaw was a puppet of the liberal media elite. This probably means he’s centrist. This tool works all over the media. I’ll give you that print media leans left, but that’s an outgrowth of the fact that conservatives don’t major in Journalism or English, they get business degrees.
Mat, to your comments about there being some overall “leftist” strategy to take over education, I think you’re giving a little too much credit. People don’t become English teachers because they want to advance a progressive agenda, they do it because they like literature. History and Political Science professors don’t do it to create future Democrats, they do it because they find history and political science fascinating.
If the youth of America lean left, it’s arguably more a cultural phenomenon of a younger generation creating new societal norms than it is anything else. When we’re young we’re idealistic - what 17 year old doesn’t have all the answers? They rebel against the norms of society and create their own agenda. today’s Millenial youth came of age during the rise of Christian Conservatism, of Focus on the Family, of Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh and James Dobson. Those are the established values they’re bucking against.
As far as getting information from just one source - we’re in an age of information overload these days. Cable, Network, Print, and the ubiquitous internet make finding information less important than knowing how to sift and sort it. I mean, you guys seem to be aware of everything that’s going on on both sides of the aisle. The question comes back to whether or not people possess the critical thinking skills and attention spans required to process all the data.
By Mat on Nov 18, 2008 | Reply
Ryan,
I work at a university, so I am well aware of what I’m saying. In the science areas, no there’s not a lot of leftist ideology. Well, I take that back. They are liberal, but it’s not like you can be a liberal scientist or a conservative scientist. You’re a scientist.
However, in the Humanities areas (such as english and poly-sci), oh yeah, there is definitely social-brainwashing going on. Cripes, my student workers told me that their professors were telling them they should vote for Obama (one of these professors isn’t even American). That’s just at this university and I cannot believe this situation is unique. Read any campus newspaper (and the professors talking in articles) and it has a decidedly leftist tint to it. I’m not talking liberal, I mean almost Marxist stuff word-for-word.
Professors don’t usually pull that stuff in Grad School (I never really had that problem in my major outside of one class), but my Education School experience (again grad school) was one long rant of ideology.
I’m sorry, but you’re wrong on the educational aspect. The professors are very much leftists for the most part and they have no problem indoctrinating the next generation with their ideology. Indeed, they think that is why they are there in the first place. The undergraduates are eating it up. They have not learned critical thinking skills in pre-college and they are not learning it during college.
By Jess on Nov 18, 2008 | Reply
My father-in-law never celebrated New Year’s outside the living room because he said “That’s when all the amateur drunks come out.”
Perhaps we can say the same about November 4 and all of these amateur voters.
By Trish on Nov 18, 2008 | Reply
One point, Melissa:
FOX IS network. I do not have cable or satellite tv at the present time, and I still get FOX.
By Matt K. on Nov 19, 2008 | Reply
People will seek out media outlets that generally agree with their worldview. If they’re conservative, they’ll listen to talk radio and Fox; if they’re liberal they’ll go to the web or MSNBC. It’s no surprise to me that Obama supporters couldn’t answer poll questions pertaining to issues that were only raised in right-wing media outlets since, as lefties, they don’t listen to those outlets. I suspect that most McCain voters, as righties, wouldn’t be able to answer questions based on Olberman’s show or Huffington’s website.
As for education, I agree that the greatest threat to our democracy is a disturbing lack of critical thinking skills in the general population. I’m a PhD student in history, and after grading thousands of essays from 18-22 year olds over the past four years, I can tell you that no one is teaching these kids how to think. I blame No Child Left Behind for completely perverting the educational process and giving us a generation that doesn’t know anything except how to take a multiple choice exam.
Finally, I agree that humanities faculties are dominated by liberals, and I believe there are two explanations for this. It could be that liberals are somehow drawn toward careers in the academy while conservatives are not, but I’m not sure why this would be. On the other hand, several studies have shown that Americans become more liberal as they attain more education. Since humanities professors are among the most educated in our society, it follows that they tend to be liberal.
Plus, all of the conservative professors are teaching in the business school:)
By Dr. Melissa Clouthier on Nov 19, 2008 | Reply
The reason No Child Left Behind came into being is because teachers refused to teach the most basic material and children could graduate High School functionally illiterate.
It was wrong. The legislation was brought about to inject accountability.
Do teachers withe under the federal lash? Yes. But they do it from a tenured position so I don’t feel too badly for them.
As for critical thinking skills…you can’t teach what you don’t possess.
There are phenomenal teachers out there. I know some. And these teachers, freed from constraints, would be even more transformational, possibly. More likely, these excellent teachers are excellent no matter the rules. It’s the underachievers who are frustrated.
The focus on feelings over facts, self-esteem over honorable action, belonging over achievement, entitlement over hard work has created a populace swayed by someone who makes them feel good about being a mediocre, entitled person.
By Mat on Nov 19, 2008 | Reply
Matt K.
It depends on what you consider to be educated. At my university, I know of at least one professor in the history department who has only an Education degree (nothing else). His only qualification for history is a few odd papers about slavery in South Carolina that he wrote for a couple of institutions (which I consider highly suspect). If that’s what you consider to be “super educated” on the subject, so be it. Last time I checked, I thought you had to go through a super-rigorous process (which actually involved, omg, in getting at least a Masters in History and perhaps the odd PhD in the same subject area).
The fact is that leftists in the university will hire fellow leftists if they follow the ideology, no matter what their qualifications are. A person who is a conservative with better qualifications already has a strike against them. And yes, it does happen far more than people think. That’s not paranoia, that’s reality.
If someone can get into a History Department and regularly teach students at a major University with only a few odd papers on slavery in one state (not to mention has no history degree whatsoever), then there is a serious problem with education.
By Ryan on Nov 19, 2008 | Reply
Well, rather than enact bad legislation in NCLB, why not abolish mandatory participation in Teacher’s Unions and start punishing the less able teachers in the system? (oh yeah, that’s political suicide, my bad) Instead of managing all teachers in the US from some office in DC, why not empower individual administrators at the local level to make decisions which they feel will best serve the needs of their students? (Personal responsibility!? Oh noes!)
Mat, as far as your University experience with your less-than-stellar co-worker, I would argue that that is not a realistic reflection of the higher US education system. If Academia were solely dominated by some “leftist” faction, then you wouldn’t have any conservative political theories. The folks that work at the Heritage Foundation and the National Center for Public Policy didn’t just pop out of the ether. They matriculated through the US education system, same as everyone else.
By Mat on Nov 19, 2008 | Reply
Ryan,
Most conservative thinking was in spite of, not due to, the American educational system. I didn’t come to be a conservative due to my educational experience, but in spite of it. I was able to ask hard questions when I was in Education School that the professors didn’t like. That’s why I was essentially booted from the program despite the fact that I outperformed my classmates in understanding history (which should be but isn’t a critical part of social studies). And yet, the stupid people were the ones who graduated because they swallowed the ideology hook, line and sinker. These are the people who are teaching in today’s pre-college schools. People like my classmate, who called me up one early evening to ask me if I knew where the Ohio River was (she was doing a geography project for her student teaching the next day). People who know little to no history or geography are now teaching the next generation. Talk about the blind leading the blind.
The reason for this is because social studies is an interpretive subject. In math or science, there are hard laws that one simply cannot ignore. There is no ideological way to get around the Pythagorean theorem. It’s there and it has to be adhered to.
However, English and Social Studies are highly subjective. History is written by the victors, so to speak. The leftists won that battle decades ago, so they decide what goes into the history books. If you don’t believe me, then explain why BC (Before Christ) and AD (Anno Domini or the year of our Lord) are now BCE (Before Christian Era) and CE (Christian Era). To put things in perspective, I am not religious at all, but it does seem rather creepy that the powers that be are changing things gradually to fit an ideological agenda. Those terms (among others) now inundate history books written by history scholars.
The same thing is happening with English. English teachers, in their haste to try to teach the students anything in order to get them to read, now leave out basic grammar and spelling skills (again, if you don’t believe me, just look at any reply post on blogs and you’ll see plenty of evidence). But English is also a “white” language, so we don’t want to teach students that. That’s racist. Try Ebonics instead. Yes, there are cultural implications to this subject as well.
Obviously, I can throw facts at you until I’m blue in the face and I’m not getting through. So be it. If you want to bury your head in the sand, then that’s what you’ll do.
By Ryan on Nov 19, 2008 | Reply
Mat,
I’m not burying my head in the sand, I’m trying to reconcile the experiences I’ve had in higher education with the experiences you’re describing. The experiences I’ve had in political science classes and history classes has not been wholly leftist, and when I’ve encountered professors who I disagree with, I have generally enjoyed a hearty debate over things. My grade certainly never suffered because I disagreed ideologically with my professors; I’d even argue that it made my papers better because I had to ensure that my arguments were near bulletproof. But I digress.
I would certainly agree that history is written by the victors, but I think that saying the “left” had won years ago is just silly. History can be interpreted, but Napoleon still lost at Waterloo in 1815, Hitler was still a monster, and Pearl Harbor still spurred US involvement in WWII. There’s no leftist conspiracy there. Saying the swap from BC to BCE is indicative of a leftist agenda is making a mountain of a mole hill. From an academic standpoint, perhaps they thought that the evidence for Christ was slim, but the evidence of a Christian Era was pretty strong. It’s not an ideological assault, it’s a simple redefinition based on evidence. Or maybe they just felt like unbolting the Gregorian calendar from Christ because 75% of the world doesn’t believe he was the son of God. That seems like a rational decision, no?
Your condemnation of the public education system as it relates to English literacy is correct in its statement that the execution is often flawed, but blaming that on the left is nonsensical. If it were solely a leftist problem, then why is the staunchly conservative South generally last in educational development? Why is the ultra-liberal Northeast highest? What’s up with West Virginia? Pretty conservative, not known for educational excellence. Are you going to tell me there’s some sort of leftist agenda to keep educational standards down in states which would traditionally support conservative candidates?
By Matt K. on Nov 19, 2008 | Reply
I’m not saying public school teachers shouldn’t be held accountable, I’m saying that standardized testing is a terrible way to determine how much history someone knows. Standardized testing is killing our youngest generation’s ability to think critically and communicate competently.
My sister teaches 5th grade in Kansas, and in that grade they are tested on reading. So, guess what. From the first day of school through about mid-April, when the tests are administered, she has been instructed by her principal and superintendent to teach nothing but reading comprehension. No math (they get that in 4th grade), no social studies (sixth grade), no science (7th grade) until after the tests, with about five weeks of school left. What is particularly troubling about this is that her school was recognized by the federal government in 2006 for being one of the best 200 elementary schools in the US based solely on test scores. And in the meantime the children in that school are being primed to fail by this ridiculous system.
I don’t know which four year college or university hires history professors who don’t have a PhD in history (not education), but if that’s the case then that professor was probably hired decades ago. In fact, it is becoming increasingly rare for 2 year colleges to hire history professors who aren’t at least ABD.
Graduate programs in history are very rigorous; it takes the average student 7.8 years to complete a PhD. I’m currently four years into a program, and I easily have four years left. Believe me when I tell you that no one would go through this process if they could get a job without a PhD.
By Matt K. on Nov 19, 2008 | Reply
Unless you go out of your way to make it known, no hiring committee for a job in history will know your political views. The likelihood of weeding out conservative candidates is pretty small unless they arrive at their interview sporting a Limbaugh t-shirt.
By Matt K. on Nov 19, 2008 | Reply
Dr. Clouthier,
None of us are born with critical thinking skills. We all have to be taught, and that is what our public education systems should be focused on. As others have already pointed out, an educated, critical electorate is the only hope for any democracy.
By Mat on Nov 19, 2008 | Reply
Matt K,
Actually, hiring committees do ask questions to potential prospects that may seem innocuous, but end up telling the committee volumes on their ideas. I’ve seen it firsthand. One doesn’t need to wear a Rush Limbaugh t-shirt. A committee can simply ask around (I mean one does have a history, right?) to see how the person acted before. That’s pretty basic in any hiring process, period. To say otherwise is simply silly.
By Mat on Nov 19, 2008 | Reply
Ryan,
Congrads on your grades. Like I said, I got bounced from my Education School because I asked uncomfortable questions that went against
ideology. Even in the Masters degree that I got, Library Science, I got a D in a class because I disagreed with a professor making political comments that had no purpose in the classroom. Sorry, but I don’t buy your argument. David Horowitz wrote a pretty good book on this problem called “The Professors.”
Ok, regarding history, let’s use your examples to illustrate my point. Yes, Napoleon lost at Waterloo, but who won (or one could even ask how and why Napoleon lost)? Was it Wellington and the British, who withstood French attack after attack, or was it the timely arrival of the Prussians? Depending on who you ask, you’ll get different answers. Also, bear in mind the actual name of the battle itself is open to interpretation. Wellington coined it Waterloo because it sounded British. The Prussians called it the Battle of La Belle Alliance to signify that it was an allied victory. The French called it the Battle of Mont St. Jean. Who’s right? Who’s wrong?
To say that Hitler was a monster is one thing, but compared to what? As bad as Hitler was, Stalin was arguably much worse. Certainly more people died under Stalin than Hitler (though Stalin didn’t let race get in his way of slaughtering millions). Let’s face it, everyone talks about Hitler (and they should), but no one ever talks about Stalin. That goes back to leftist academia. Anything regarding Soviet Russia from the 60s through the 80s was met with a curtain of silence. Read through history journals of that period and there is very little on it. However, during the same time period (and even now) there are plenty of articles lambasting this country and all of its evils. Cripes, look at the 80s when academia had their panties in a bunch with Reagan. If one listened to them, Reagan was the anti-Christ. We hear a lot about American evil in Vietnam, but next to nothing on the Soviets in Afghanistan (or for that matter the North Vietnamese handling of the South after 1975).
Pearl Harbor might have brought the US into the war, but there are many ideas of how Pearl Harbor came about. Some say that the Japanese were just aggressive and we were just in the way. Others say that we had it coming (kind of like the leftists said after 9/11) because we threatened a trade embargo on Japan. Who’s right? Who’s wrong?
One does not necessarily have to literally turn history on its head. It can be changed in many tiny ways so that certain truths are hidden (this is true on both sides) and forgotten.
Come on, the BCE thing occurred because most professors are generally leftist in nature and to use BC goes against their ideology. I would argue that the world wasn’t majority Christian, well, ever (it still isn’t). But it didn’t seem to be a problem then. Why change it now and what is the real purpose of that change?
Ok, let’s take a look at what your state and region argument. I live in a Northeast state and I can tell you that there are major educational problems. I think the idea of NE good/ S bad is outdated. One also has to remember that Virginia, North Carolina and Florida went to the Democrats this year (the start of a trend, perhaps?) and even traditionally midwestern states (cuz they’re such “yokels” too) such as Indiana and Ohio went Democratic. Also, you simply look at presidential results. Who are the state senators or even representatives? I think that gives a clearer answer than simply red versus blue. I think the picture overall for education is pretty bad, so I won’t limit it to a region or a state.
By Matt K. on Nov 19, 2008 | Reply
Mat,
You can’t compare the hiring process in academia with the private sector, and I assure you that if a person keeps their politics to themselves, there is no reliable way for a hiring committee to get at that sort of information. To suggest otherwise only exposes your ignorance of how professors are hired.
Fortunately, at the university I attend graduate students are very involved in the hiring process, and I honestly couldn’t tell you with any certainty anything about the political views of the 15-20 job candidates I’ve seen give job talks.
By Mat on Nov 19, 2008 | Reply
Matt K,
Whether you want to call me names or not is irrelevant. Hiring practices are pretty generalized even if slightly different. You’re saying that academia has a super-secret cool and better way of hiring someone? I find that difficult to believe. Simply calling me ignorant does not change the situation. I’m glad your university does that. However that is not the case with all of them.
By Matt K. on Nov 19, 2008 | Reply
Mat,
I didn’t mean to suggest that you’re ignorant any more than I’m sure you meant to suggest that I am silly.
I’m only saying that it seems to me that you don’t really know much about this, which is fine. There are many topics about which I am ignorant also (some would say politics is one of them).
If you did know about it, you would understand that the hiring process in academia is remarkably uniform. If you’ve had experience or been around the process of hiring professors, then I happily recant.