Could it be that the predominant reason for the constant carping over
a liberal bias in the straight news divisions of the mainstream media
is based on the elitist notion that "I [the carper] have the
intelligence and savvy to detect bias when I see it, but I fear that
the great unwashed mass of lesser beings is not so well attuned as I,
and therefore is apt to be dangerously misled"?

---

Clarification of Question by nautico-ga on 21 Jun 2004 04:11 PDT

All reasonable comments, but none of you met my question head-on. If
the carpers (and I can think of no better descriptor) thought that
others had the same facility as they to detect news bias, they'd have
no reason to complain about such bias, right? That's why I believe
it's their primary motive for such behavior. They feel compelled to
point out--nay, rail against--bias, because they see themselves as a
kind of Maginot line between the onslaught of liberally slanted news
and those lesser beings I spoke of in my original question. I, for
one, feel no need to be protected against the effects of the words I
read or hear from the media. I'm perfectly capable of distinguishing
bias, whether to the right or to the left, and I believe that most of
our citizenry are equally capable. Those who aren't probably don't
listen to NPR, watch CNN, or read the NY Times anyway!

nautico-ga: No, the reason is that 90% of the press correspondents in Washington
cheerfully admit they are liberal and voted for Clinton and Gore.

This is a very interesting discussion, especially due to the Hutton
Enquiry and other events that are well beyond the narrow American
perspective.

Regarding Nautico's original question, it is a question that asks if
it *could* be. Yes, it *could* be, among other reasons.

However, Nautico's model plays both ways, especially given that
theories on media and collective identity have been developed
originally by neo-Marxian theorists: "the media" supports certain
views because it assumes it "educates" the public for the elites, and
is in fact a tool of the elite to control and influence the public and
their views.

Moreover, some philosophers, like Gramsci, in fact viewed it as an
attribute of the media, without exception ("Left" or "Right" media),
and suggested using it for the revolutionary aims: changing people's
consciousness through media, art, cinema.

I perceived a liberal slant to the media a long time ago. So long ago,
in fact, that I was a liberal myself when I first noticed the
left-leaning tendencies of many news sources. At that time, of course,
I thought it was a good thing, since (as I then saw it) intelligent,
compassionate people were, almost by definition, lefties.

I shed my own leftist sentiments quite a while back, and I now see
that there are intelligent, compassionate people all across the
political spectrum, not only at my end. There are also, all along the
continuum, ignorant yahoos whose morals would fit into a thimble,
while leaving room for a sizeable finger.

Many of today's journalists seem to be stuck in adolescence, in a
political sense. It seems to me that the situation has become worse as
television journalism has become more entertainment-oriented and less
related to serious investigative issues.

nautico-ga: In my view, the manner in which  you framed your question
is in itself elitist. In effect you are saying that those who perceive
a liberal bias in the media (using the giveaway pejorative
*carpers*...you could use some practice in nuance) are presuming
others are less intelligent. The implication of course is that you,
personally, are more knowing than the carpers. I find that more than a
little pompous.
  Pinkfreud has it exactly right.
monroe22

A point I'd like to address briefly is the notion that it is "elitist"
for a person to recognize that he or she is more intelligent than his
or her peers. While such an acknowledgement may lead some individuals
to arrogant or intolerant  behavior, I see nothing elitist in
admitting that I'm smarter than most folks. I don't view my
intelligence as a personal achievement, and I don't think I am a
better human being because of my brainpower. But it's no more elitist
for me to view myself as more intelligent than most people than for
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar to view himself as taller than most people.

OK, I'll get off my Mensa soapbox now. ;-)

Monroe,

First of all, I concur that Pink's comments make sense, as they
usually do. I think, though, that you misunderstood my question as I
originally framed it.

I do believe that the neocon pundits who seem to be chronically
obsessed by what they perceive as a liberal bias in the straight news
stories are motivated primarily by a fear that a large segment of the
electorate will thereby be misled. For that reason, I believe they
feel compelled to counter that potential effect with a constant
barrage of "see! see!" from their op-ed pulpits. My point was that
such pundits wouldn't bother writing their anti-liberal screeds if
they thought others could see through all this alleged bias as well as
they do. There's be no need to do so, since they could then assume
that only neutrally reported news would be believed and all slanted
news, whether it be liberal or conservative, would be discounted as
sullied by a reporter's opinion. My second point, though, was that I'm
quite capable of detecting bias, as I'm sure most readers/listeners
are, and, therefore, don't need to be protected by these
self-annointed guardians of media objectivity. I fail to see the
pomposity in that.

Addendum to last in wake of Pink's most recent comment:

I don't think the conservatives' fear of the effects of a liberal bias
in news reporting has anything to do with a disdain of those who might
be misled by it because of a lack of intellect. I do think, however,
that they fear many otherwise intelligent people are vulnerable to
what they see as a constant barrage of liberal opinion disguised as
straight news reporting on the front pages of the national newspapers
of record (e.g., NY Times, Wash Post), and, therefore, fell compelled
to point it out ad nauseum. I think that while these pundits would
acknowledge the intelligence of the potentially misled, they believe
they lack the political savvy neccesary to see through bias. My point
was that I do not believe they lack that savvy, and I ask whether you
would agree.

And now I, too, will get off my Mensan soapbox. :)

nautico-ga: You are quite capable of detecting a bias? I am 76 years
old and have not yet acquired that talent, although I have tried
mightily. Could you perhaps put that skill in a bottle and sell it to
the rest of us? We need it,
desperately.
With great hope,
monroe22

Monroe, 

I think that detecting bias should be part of the school programme,
since there is bias is every piece of information that we read (except
this one, of course
:-) ). 

I am sure that even without knowing it, you're applying critical
thinking on what you read, and thinking "who are the people who write
this", "what is their interest in writing this", "why writing about
this and not about other issues/problems", etc.