Credit: Paste Magazine
. . . and conservative journalism isn’t news journalism
By Bill Adams
Mainstream news media has long been accused of having a “liberal bias.” Some studies have supported this belief. “Liberal bias” may be inherent in news journalism for reasons that aren’t flattering to conservatives.
Defining Liberal and Conservative. While political views are neither immutable nor binary, certain characteristics have remained relatively consistent. Broadly speaking, liberal policies support labor, equality and a strong social safety net, strong public institutions, progressive taxation, diplomacy and the avoidance of military conflict, and protection of the environment.
Conservatives emphasize protection of business interests, military strength, lower and flatter taxation, deregulation of the economy, and privatism. Even more generally, conservatives tend to emphasize “trickle-down” or supply-side economics and liberals in “trickle-up” or demand-side (or Keynesian) economics. Conservatism, in its definition, is conservation of the status quo. It tends toward preserving the existing economic and social hierarchy.
In contrast, the first definition of “liberal” in the Oxford Living Dictionary, means “[w]illing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one’s own; open to new ideas.” Liberalism is often focused on change to gain parity and rights for those who are disadvantaged by the existing hierarchy.
Why Good Journalism Has a Liberal Bias
To begin with, Journalism – particularly investigative or news journalism – is the investigation, understanding, and dissemination of facts and information via news media. The First Amendment – ensuring freedom of the press – was intended to act as a check on power and was uniquely made to empower the general public.
Similarly, the definition of “liberal,” with its emphasis on “respecting different opinions” and being “open to new ideas” is essentially what freedom of the press is all about; and what makes freedom of the press a threat to conserving the entrenched powers. Thus, to the extent that “liberal” has generally aligned with equality and “speaking truth to power,” journalism is an inherently a liberal endeavor.
A Washington Post opinion piece supported the conclusion that “more journalists tend to lean to the left politically than to the right,” quoting retired Indiana University journalism professor David H. Weaver. (For a countervailing journalist tendency, see “false balance.”) The piece ventured several theories for liberal bias, ranging from the source of new journalist hiring (liberal Northeastern colleges) to the location of major media outlets in “liberal” cities. Most of these reasons could be categorized as extrinsic causes and assume that but for these influences, journalism would appear more politically neutral.
However, the article missed perhaps the most obvious and significant reason for journalism’s appearance of liberal bias. Unlike the reasons ventured in the article, which likely have some merit, the most significant reason is intrinsic to journalism. The reason itself sounds biased: Good journalism and liberal/progressive values align more closely than do good journalism and conservative values. Good journalism is intrinsically a liberal endeavor.
The broad definition of journalism simply means “the occupation of reporting, writing, editing, photographing, or broadcasting news or of conducting any news organization as a business.” This definition includes tabloid journalism as well as truth or fact-based journalism.
However, with the evolution of news journalism, the profession came to adopt various codes of ethics. Wikipedia notes that these codes tend to have the following principles in common: truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness, and public accountability. Thus, the term “good” journalism is shorthand for journalism guided by journalistic ethics.
More in-depth understanding of issues inevitably leads to more nuanced and complex views, or views that challenge the status quo and conventional wisdom. More often than not, a fuller understanding of an issue will tend to align with liberal values. Consider the following categories:
Profiles of individuals or groups of people: A fuller understanding of a person or group, particularly those who are undergoing great difficulty, will typically result in some level of compassion. Additionally, compassion can temper or replace previously held prejudice or resentment. Thus, good journalism, to the extent it evokes compassion and challenges conventional prejudices through greater understanding will appear to have a liberal bias.
Environment: Scientific data consistently supports the need to preserve and restore the environment. Environmental conservation has consistently been more a liberal cause than a conservative one. Thus, fact-based journalism on this topic will appear to have a liberal bias.
Business and the Economy: While conservatives tend to think of themselves as economic pragmatists, the economy tends to be a much more neutral proposition. The arguments for Keynesian economic policies and Friedman or Supply-side economics don’t favor conservatives. Moreover, supply-side economic policies have a poor track record for balancing the national debt or balancing the budget. Regulations are another common target of conservatives. However, any serious discussion will acknowledge that regulations are also important to sustaining the economy, protecting competition, and preventing financial disasters. Thus, good journalism in topics of business and the economy should appear relatively neutral.
Sports: Perhaps the only topic in which reporting is generally deemed apolitical.
International Affairs and Conflict: Nationalism is a substantial part of most military conflicts. Nationalism, aka patriotism, most often comes from the conservative wing. At the same time, passivism has not proven to be a good defense against the military aggressions of other countries. Thus, journalism in this topic should appear relatively neutral. Nevertheless, decisions to engage in military conflict often involve behind the scene agendas that run contrary to the popular narrative. Additionally, the carnage and human toll of war undermine patriotic narratives of heroism and purity of purpose. These topics are central to reporting on military conflicts, and thus give the appearance of liberal bias.
Generally speaking, the “liberal mainstream media” has not had a liberal agenda dictated from its ownership or management – more often the contrary has been true. This circumstance has changed somewhat as media outlets have attempted to emulate the success of Fox News by repositioning themselves as its liberal equivalent, e.g., MSNBC.
However, for the most part, mainstream media has attempted to adhere to journalistic ethics of objectivity, neutrality, and seeking truth. Reporting has been influenced by public opinion and the topics of interest of the period. For example, in the 1980s when media often focused on topics that remain at the core of conservative beliefs – excess government spending (remember the $600 dollar toilet seats) or welfare cheats – they were still accused of having a liberal bias.
However, the perceived liberal bias emanates as much from the nature of journalism as anything else. At the time, those stories were as much about speaking truth to power, and thus liberal, as current reporting is about Trump’s excesses.
Thus, media entities which concern themselves with journalistic ethics, objectivity, and the pursuit of truth, will always appear to have a “liberal bias.”
Why Conservative Journalism, isn’t Journalism – at Least Not Ethical Journalism
If good journalism is inherently liberal, what is conservative journalism? This is not meant to be a rhetorical question because conservative journalism is not necessarily bad journalism. It can be sincere and high-level journalism, as in the case of the National Review or the Weekly Standard. It’s just not investigative or news journalism. It’s opinion and analysis. In these latter two publications, it’s not meant to be objective reporting any more than is Mother Jones or The Nation.
In almost all major conservative media outlets, the bias comes from on-high in the organization. All conservative bias in media is dictated from the top down. Objectivity is not part of the program.
Such media outlets come in different forms. There are the aforementioned conservative intellectual publications, which focus on opinion and analysis. Then there are populist and tabloid publications. The Murdoch (21st Century Fox and News Corp.) publications like Fox News and Wall Street Journal are particularly interesting. They pretend to be objective but adhere to a strict top-down conservative agenda. The opinion and commentary sections are obvious.
Less obvious is the news reporting, in which the bias is accomplished by filtering news that is reported so that it supports the conservative agenda. Fox is famous for its laughably false claim to be “fair and balanced.” The Wall Street Journal recently encountered internal dissension when management sought to influence the way its staff reported on Trump.
Fox News, in particular, has been extremely successful and profitable. It applies many of the strategies Rupert Murdoch learned in his Australian and British tabloid publications, The Daily Telegraph and The Sun. Murdoch, and his former Fox CEO Roger Ailes, recognized that these strategies could be successfully combined with a populist brand of conservatism by provoking white resentment and fears.
Thus, unlike the Weekly Standard and the National Review, Fox News seems less concerned with serving an ideology than with exploiting it for profit. The country and even the Republican Party’s agenda have paid dearly for Murdoch’s exploitation of populist conservatism.
As for publications like Breitbart or radio commentators like Rush Limbaugh or Alex Jones: no reasonable person goes to these outlets for news. They are ideological rallying sources.
Thus, in that “conservative journalism” intentionally – as part of its program – discards the journalistic ethical canons of objectivity and unvarnished truth, it is not journalism as we have come to expect from real news outlets.
So the next time you hear “liberal mainstream media” . . .
Freedom of the press is a liberal value. It preserves the right to “speak truth to power.” It is the common citizen’s check on the powerful. Conservatives endeavor mightily to reframe their cause as that of the common citizen against the elites. But that unnatural distortion is never sustainable.
The current alliance of Republican billionaires and the white working class attacks educators and subject matter experts (“elites”), people of color, and immigrants; and thus is still an alliance of the more privileged against the less privileged. In the end analysis, conservatives always support the existing privileged class; and it is the purpose of the First Amendment to check abuses of power by that class.
In the current political climate, populist conservatism is open in its disdain for academics and scientists as “intellectual elites,” and racial and cultural sensitivity as “political correctness,” and compassion as “bleeding heart” liberalism. Thus, now more than ever, good journalism – journalism that seeks truth and evokes understanding, tolerance, and compassion – is inherently liberal.
Bill Adams is the founder and chief editor of UrbDeZine. He is also a partner in the San Diego law firm of Norton, Moore, & Adams, LLP. He has been involved with land use and urban renewal for nearly 25 years, both as a professional and as a personal passion. He currently sits on the Boards of San Diego Historic Streetcars, The San Diego Architectural Foundation, The Food and Beverage Association of San Diego County, andThe Gaslamp Quarter Association Land Use Planning Committee.
At Large
Latest posts by At Large (see all)
- Future of Journalism is in Our Hands - December 13, 2018
- 30 Arrested at Border for Nonviolent Action in Support of Migrant Caravans - December 11, 2018
- The Dorn Effect | Remembering Bob Dorn - December 5, 2018
THX Bill, for telling me why I don’t drink from bottles marked with a skull & cross bones.
Thanks for an excellent article
Talk about tooting your own horn. Maybe we shouldn’t say “liberal mainstream media” because it’s so incredibly redundant. We should just say “mainstream media” from now on. The problem with the news media is that it’s SO bias that it affects the accuracy of the reporting. There was a Harvard study recently that looked at the composition of news channels. It found that over the course of a week or 2, CNN had 97 anti-trump contributors and 7 pro-Trump contributors. How is that fair and balanced? There’s a reason Fox News is by far the most popular new source. I’m not a huge fan of Fox News or Trump, but at least Fox News gives a pretty decent mix of liberal and conservative commentators. I feel like it leans right, but this doesn’t really affect the accuracy of the reporting very much. Furthermore, if freedom of the press and free speech is so important, why do liberal activists continually try to shut down conservative speakers? Why can you not have a conservative speaker at UC Berkeley without students and professional activists violently shutting it down with riots, property damage, and rage? Same with many other colleges. College, like the news media, is supposed to be a place where people get informed and challenged. They should be exposed to many different viewpoints. Isn’t that part of the value of diversity? At universities and in the media, it seems more and more like diversity is valued…unless it’s political. You have to tow the democratic party line or they’ll turn on you just like that. Also, your reasons for why conservative news isn’t legitimate are pretty much exaggerated democratic party talking points. Like most mainstream news media outlets, your article is, for the most part, merely commentary and not actual facts or news. I was interested in this article until it was so incredibly obvious that it was extremely biased. It’s hard for me to take it seriously. It’s nice when people keep an open mind and are open to different ideas, but it seems like you completely and unquestionably fall in lock step with the democratic party, which makes me wonder if any of this article is actually true or if it’s just a liberal rant. It was well written though.
Fair enough. Thanks for taking the time to make thoughtful comments. Yes, my own biases showed through in the article. Nevertheless, the core of the idea is that the principle of freedom of the press is intrinsically and definition-ally a liberal value. Speaking “truth to power” is by its very nature contrary to “conserving the status quo.” Thus on the macro level, “liberal bias” in the media is more often intrinsic and organic and “conservative bias” is more often programmed and by edict. Yes, there are many exceptions. But when conservatives criticize media as being liberally biased they are essentially attacking the nature of investigative journalism. As for what universities student bodies do, that’s a different topic entirely.
I think the division between political thinkers and journalists has closed significantly and, as with so many other professions, journalists are now viewed as partisan “liberals.” Think of teachers, and judges, doctors, too; within their trades they all work under ethical statements of purpose that involve words like sacrifice, concern for others, fairness, evidence, historical precedents. Where does corporate business feature these concerns (other than in ads for breath fresheners and “ask your doctor” sorts of commercials). Now, if your first concern is improving your own position and making lots of money you don’t have those ethical statements to make your work more complicated; you’re more free to act in your own interests. If you’re a journalist you need to follow the notion that what you’ve heard said publicly can be repeated in print. If what you’ve found in the county recorder’s office or a superior courthouse raises a question of fairness or conflict of interest you need to report it. This will seem “liberal” to the persons who will be embarrassed by the discovery of that information. It’s not “liberal” any more than eliminating Medicaid, sabotaging Obamacare, ignoring climate change, beating up protestors and all the rest of the violence and ignorance of human suffering can be considered “conservative.”
Exactly Bob. If you take all the relevant / news worthy facts in the world, and you rated them for politics, 75% would be “liberal.” Why, because to be relevant or news worthy, they tend to challenge the prevailing narrative. That’s what liberalism is.
While I agree with this article’s contention that news reporting is indeed more liberal today due to intrinsic qualities of liberalism versus conservatism, I absolutely disagree that the nature of journalism itself means it is liberal. All journalism needs to be “good” is neutrality and honesty, and these qualities are not inherently liberal or conservative.
Of course, every human brings their own bias to whatever they do/say/write. An honest reporter will acknowledge this and overcome it. But, deliberate slanting of journalistic writing happens on both sides of the political spectrum. This is one reason why editors review stories before publication. The fact that right-leaning “news” outlets are less factual than left-leaning ones simply reflects the nature of the people in those positions.
The people we call conservatives today — the ones who troll, who hack, who base federal policy on overturning, first The New Deal and, now Obamacare — are averse to information. Period. That is why journalists are regarded as “liberal.” After all, did Jeff Sessions answer questions in yesterday’s Senate Intelligence Committee hearing? No, he did not. Information to these so-called conservatives endangers them. Information is their enemy. Saying that all journalists are either liberal, moderate or conservative is like saying Fox News is fair and balanced.
Like / thumbs up / agree.
Conservatism & liberalism are philosophies that go back centuries. Today’s American journalism reflects neither. Most of our contemporary reportage is “pulp fiction” on a spectrum ranging from “Reactionary” to “Opportunistic” to “Progressive.” Buried within are conservative or liberal grunts used as blunderbuss weapons against one special interest or another. The American people are caught in the crossfire. Fairness is beside the point, especially when it comes to Emperor POTUS, who represents none of the political labels we toss around so blithely. He is sui generis, a homegrown authoritarian narcissist whose campaign cut across all political labels as an exercise in pure self-aggrandizement. WE the people have arrived at that point in our history as a republic that we naively thought would never come, the moment when we are called to confront the reality that the American people have installed a proto-dictator into the highest office in our land. Dictatorship is not subject to conservative or liberal description, nor is democracy. We have voted ourselves into an unprecedented crisis & the media was simply the handmaiden to our descent into darkness.
Yes, ALL media was complicit in 45s election and they are still all hanging on his every mid-night fart… i mean tweet. After all, even print media now has online presence and must join the 24-hour “news cycle”. So, “they have a lot of time to fill.”
But, I think the founders of our nation DID plan for the possibility of a would-be dictator. That’s why they made president instead of king and put the 3-way checks-and-balances into the constitution. And I’m confident that our nation will come through this test, too.
One of the myths of American history is our so-called fear of monarchy. Like today’s use of “conservative” or “liberal,” the accusation of “monarchist” was a stock in trade slogan for all parties during the early American republic. The Founders, however, did not fear King George III. Their complaints, as summarized in the Declaration of Independence, were against Parliament, arguably the most democratic legislative body in the world at the time. When establishing the Presidency, they invested the office with extraordinary powers that exceeded those of George III. POTUS was made commander in chief of all the armed forces. POTUS, with the stroke of the veto pen, was authorized to command a 2/3 majority for any Congressional legislative enactments. Finally, as if to drive the message home, our Founders installed as our first POTUS a man on horseback, aka General George Washington, who was also empowered to call out the militia in case of domestic rebellion. The impact of these extraordinary powers was enhanced by the simple fact that while Congress was seldom in session, POTUS was always on the job. Indeed, General Washington’s first dynamic action was to lead, in uniform, the US Army against the Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania. The Founders clearly feared the people, not the crown. The seed of dictatorship has been growing ever since.
The establishment of democracy was liberal. Freedom of the press is liberal. Information checking power is liberal. Capital is conservative. Privilege is conservative. Thus, fact based journalism will more often seem liberal than conservative, and that will be the case for the foreseeable future.
I think Bill and Philly Joe and I should discuss this more over a beer. Mr. Dorn, you can come too just for the flavor ;-)
Seriously, i think it’s not fear monarchy as much as didn’t want that no more. they feared the possibility of one infecting the democratic experiment.
and yes, the founders famously didn’t want the unwashed masses actually directly deciding anything.
and yes, they still invested the pres with great powers. but, it was less than kings had, and that was their only model.
but i disagree with the reasoning you state behind the choice of Washington as first pres. he was a natural at that time same way Ike was a lock for his presidency.
Haha! Who will argue the beer mug is half full, or half empty?
Monarchs are born, dictators are made, & we are in the process of making one now. We have already normalized what we call the “Imperial Presidency,” as well as the political dynasties that keep it going. Emperor POTUS’ first cabinet meeting introduced us to American version of “Adored Leader.” Millions of America’s “unwashed masses” march in lockstep behind the “Big Lie.” Hitler, Emperor POTUS is not, but our Founders gave us a blueprint of our own. The installation of POTUS Washington, based on a coerced by arms, elusive popular will of less than 2/3 of the people cannot be considered democratic or comforting. The precedent has been set, & craven groups of willful men are reactionary enough to see the possibilities that lie beneath the patina of American exceptionalism.
Correction: “elusive popular will of less than 1/3 of the people cannot be considered democratic or comforting.”
Adam, thanks for your article.
In my opinion there are some problems in the premise. Here are some of my thoughts:
The description of “Conservative” here, although true for many conservatives, is incredibly negative and insulting for the rest of us. I think, when liberals so casually and condescendingly refer to us in this way, it makes it clear that they have no intention of actually engaging us or trying to understand the reasoning and passions by which we reach our perspectives. It seems like the liberal’s distanced opinion of us is more true than who we are: Non-compassionate, attackers, privileged, anti-science? Do we really think that conservatives don’t information check power? Freedom of the press is liberal? The first amendment was initiate by Christians for religious freedoms. Also, the majority of us are not billionaires (though that is flattering). It’s really a shame that we are characterized so. We aren’t as hateful as we are portrayed, and certainly no more hateful than liberals have been lately (Trump severed head joke, Trump getting viciously stabbed to death in New York public play, Republican congressman getting gunned down today in Alexandria).
The article fails to mention that many of these traits fall on liberals as well. Hollywood is full of wealthy purveyors, and “conservative values” like sexism and racial stereotypes are continually prevalent in movies and other liberal media created by these people. Hillary’s campaign was financed by Mobile/Exxon and Monsanto among others. Are these people not privileged capitalists? Are all of the upper middle class liberal white kids and professors that seem to be currently defining our colleges not privileged? Are liberal law partners in San Diego law firms not privileged?
On the premise of the article: I feel the main issue here is that the article equates liberalism with truth. This is a really loose argument and is highly theoretical, if in fact logical at all. The argument seems to be that, since conservatism is about maintaining the status quo and liberalism is about progress, that liberals are more truthful because they have an open mind. I don’t think that is a logical equation. Can one not hold down the status quo with an open and creative mind? If this was truly the case then all judges, juries, pastors and political positions would be best served by liberals as they are more “truthful” and “open to facts”.
The inverse of your point is that, liberalism, taken to the extreme, results in instability and poorly vetted ideas in the name of progress. Also, hasty progress can actually bypass the democratic process and the mechanisms of free speech and press as we have seen with Obama’s (and now Trump’s) many executive orders and rapid fire, under the radar bills. The ACA could have been released a success if there was more quality assurance implementation and demographic study. So the nature of the liberals “open mind” can be problematic without being fact checked itself.
Thankfully our country handles this where the two parties each maintain different views on accomplishing goodness for our country. It is essential, when one party moves too far in a direction, thus threatening either progress or instability, that it must be balanced by the other. So both view points are equally responsible and able to hold truth. The same is true in media.
Finally, theory aside, the article’s concept isn’t playing out in reality. I have listened to countless proceedings, depositions, interviews etc., on CSPAN over the years and have found (increasingly so) that CNN and MSNBC (and many others) consistently report those events with partial information and slanted views, always at the expense of conservatives and always at the expense of the full truth. It is often not in any way what I would call “true”; It is what I would call politically charged based on clear motivations to diminish progress of right wing agendas.
Also, Fox News is low hanging fruit and lowers the standard of the argument here.
Thank you for your well considered (and civil) thoughts, Stephen. I agree with much of what you say. Also, I probably could have put more effort in characterizing the core principles of conservative ideology in a more unbiased fashion myself. However, I believe my core idea stands – the long term impression of liberal bias in the media has much to do with freedom of the press aligning more closely with liberal ideology through the ages than conservative ideology. This is neither a static nor a binary proposition. It’s a matter of percentages and shades. I’m also saying that, like conservative and liberal economics, conservative journalism tends to be more trickle down from ownership and liberal media more trickle up from the reporters. Yes, that has changed recently as MSNBC and CNN emulate Fox. But the basic premise is that, over time, there is a strong intrinsic reason for the appearance to conservatives of liberal bias in the media. That intrinsic reason is not the bias of the reporters or the media outlet. Rather it is the very nature of freedom of the press as it relates to conservative ideology.