What Liberal Media

Argues that the nature of economic power has changed and that the U.S. must develop the will and the flexibility to regain its international leadership role.

A leading political science professor provides scientific proof of media bias in this sure-to-be-controversial book Dr. Tim Groseclose, a professor of political science and economics at UCLA, has spent years constructing precise, quantitative measures of the slant of media outlets. He does this by measuring the political content of news, as a way to measure the PQ, or "political quotient" of voters and politicians. Among his conclusions are: (i) all mainstream media outlets have a liberal bias; and (ii) while some supposedly conservative outlets—such the Washington Times or Fox News' Special Report—do lean right, their conservative bias is less than the liberal bias of most mainstream outlets. Groseclose contends that the general leftward bias of the media has shifted the PQ of the average American by about 20 points, on a scale of 100, the difference between the current political views of the average American, and the political views of the average resident of Orange County, California or Salt Lake County, Utah. With Left Turn readers can easily calculate their own PQ—to decide for themselves if the bias exists. This timely, much-needed study brings fact to this often overheated debate.

The “media” used to mean television, radio, newspapers, and magazines; but today it largely involves social media, which has swallowed up all of these other forms and is now controlled by a small group of Silicon Valley titans who decide what billions of people are able to see and hear online. The convergence of old technology and new has centralized unimaginable power into the hands of a few gigantic corporations that now dictate how we communicate with each other and perceive the outside world. Media analyst Mark Dice details how the rise of social media that tipped the balance of power regarding the production and distribution of information has also resulted in a massive backslash from those conspiring to regain the influence they once held. Now conservatives are experiencing widespread censorship as the tech giants scramble to put the genie back in the bottle. The liberal media has launched an information war against President Trump and his supporters, and are using their monopolies to manipulate public opinion in order to further their aims of a socialist revolution.

Refuting the claim that mainstream media has a liberal slant, the author exposes the fallacy of a left-wing conspiracy, arguing that it is corporate news structure that determines what the public sees and hears in broadcast or print media.

A study of how mainstream journalism transformed from 1960 to 1980. In the 1960s and 1970s, the American press embraced a new way of reporting and selling the news. The causes were many: the proliferation of television, pressure to rectify the news media’s dismal treatment of minorities and women, accusations of bias from left and right, and the migration of affluent subscribers to suburbs. As Matthew Pressman’s timely history reveals, during these tumultuous decades the core values that held the profession together broke apart, and the distinctive characteristics of contemporary American journalism emerged. Simply reporting the facts was no longer enough. In a country facing assassinations, a failing war in Vietnam, and presidential impeachment, reporters recognized a pressing need to interpret and analyze events for their readers. Objectivity and impartiality, the cornerstones of journalistic principle, were not jettisoned, but they were reimagined. Journalists’ adoption of an adversarial relationship with government and big business, along with sympathy for the dispossessed, gave their reporting a distinctly liberal drift. Yet at the same time, “soft news”—lifestyle, arts, entertainment—moved to the forefront of editors’ concerns, as profits took precedence over politics. Today, the American press stands once again at a precipice. Accusations of political bias are more rampant than ever, and there are increasing calls from activists, customers, advertisers, and reporters themselves to rethink the values that drive the industry. As On Press suggests, today’s controversies—the latest iteration of debates that began a half-century ago—will likely take the press in unforeseen directions and challenge its survival. Praise for On Press “The ultimate story behind all the stories. In tracing the evolution of news over the past half century, Matthew Pressman has produced an account that’s deeply historical and not a little troubling. In an age when the press is alternately villain or hero, Pressman serves as a kind of medicine man of journalism, telling us how we got from there to here and warning us what must change.” —Graydon Carter, former editor of Vanity Fair “Pressman helps us understand how we came to our current, troubled media moment with his deeply researched, engagingly written history of America’s press in the 1960s and ’70s. This is an important and original contribution—and a needed one.” —Margaret Sullivan, media columnist for the Washington Post

This book examines the challenges and pressures liberal journalists face in Putin's Russia. It presents the findings of an in-depth qualitative study, which included ethnographic observations of editorial meetings during the conflict in Ukraine. It also provides a theoretical framework for evaluating the Russian media system and a historical overview of the development of liberal media in the country. The book focuses on some of Russia’s most influential liberal national news outlets: "the deadliest" newspaper Novaya Gazeta, "Russia’s last independent radio station" Radio Echo of Moscow (Ekho Moskvy) and US Congress-funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. The fieldwork included ethnographic observations of editorial meetings, long interviews with editors and journalists as well as documentary analysis. The monograph makes theoretical contributions to three main areas: 1. Media systems and terms of reference. 2. Journalism: cultures, role conceptions, and relationship with power, culture and society. 3. Mediatisation of conflict and nationhood.

For the better part of 30 years, liberal bias has dominated mainstream media. But author and political journalist Brian Anderson reveals in his new book that the era of liberal dominance is going the way of the dodo bird.

Can a corporate media system be expected to tell the truth about a world dominated by corporations? Can newspapers, including the 'liberal' Guardian and the Independent, tell the truth about catastrophic climate change -- about its roots in mass consumerism and corporate obstructionism -- when they are themselves profit-oriented businesses dependent on advertisers for 75% of their revenues? Can the BBC tell the truth about UK government crimes in Iraq when its senior managers are appointed by the government? Has anything fundamentally changed since BBC founder Lord Reith wrote of the establishment: "They know they can trust us not to be really impartial"? Why did the British and American mass media fail to challenge even the most obvious government lies on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction before the invasion in March 2003? Why did the media ignore the claims of UN weapons inspectors that Iraq had been 90-95% "fundamentally disarmed" as early as 1998? This book answers these questions, and more. Since July 2001, Media Lens has encouraged thousands of readers to email senior editors and journalists, challenging them to account for their distorted reporting on Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Haiti, East Timor, climate change, Western crimes in Central America, and much more. The responses -- often surprising, sometimes outrageous -- reveal the arrogance, unaccountability and servility to power of even our most respected media.