Thank you! That’s good news indeed. Too often we hear (true) complaints about the left-leaning news outlets. I was so frustrated during the last election cycle that I did some of my own research. This was fairly simply to do, and anyone could test their favorite news source(s) using the same techniques. Here are the results (and methodology). Try it yourself on your favorite news sites:

http://churchvstate.blogspot.com/2008/09/do-popular-news-sources-lean-left.html

For an organization that promotes capitalism, AIM seems blissfully unaware of how capitalism works. Almost all news organizations are businesses. The more readers, listeners or viewers they have, the more profit the organization makes. At the moment, as indicated by the 2006 and 2008 elections, as well as recent polls, the majority of Americans are leaning left – although not very far. Naturally, the news business is appealing to the majority of its potential customers. Already you can detect that trend in the way Fox News is reshaping its news delivery and commentary.
There are exceptions, of course. Limbaugh, with his eight-year, $400 million contract is financially free to continue his usual line. But that contract may prove to be a burden to the contractor, if Limbaugh alienates too many listeners with his over-the-top comments. But only time will tell.
Political opinion in US history has been pendulum-like. At the moment, it has swung left. Eventually, although I suspect it won’t be for several years – even a decade or more – it will swing to the right again. As that happens, I expect that the news business will start swinging in that direction, too. That’s capitalism folks.

To Brian S., I’d say we live in vastly different realms.  My military training in journalism taught only to inform and if possible entertain devoid of all personal bias. I see the pendulum effect in voters operating more independent of common media bias.  Since before Walter Cronkite, media bias as a business and ideologically has been anti-conservative, anti-Christian, anti-capitalist, anti-Semetic. The demonstrations against capitalism in Europe didn’t just get staged overnight to swoon BO. The media deploys polls not to report existing trends so as to lead them: con people to believe we are aimlesslytrending left, and forgetting who we are.  Ergo the recent 61 percent approval rating of BO’s economics.  Bush 1&2, Reagan, Nixon, or Eisenhower never got their bottoms kissed the way the media has fawned over BO, Clinton(s), and Kennedys.  The left creates their own phony obstacles while the media makes capitalism, defense of democracy, sovereignty/self-reliance, religious tolerance, and living within a real budget ominously had agendas to push.  Rush has had 20 years to fall on his sword.  All irritating conceit aside, he puts rationality into a media way too threatened by their total lack of it.  Why else would the media and president consider him worth the clear reaction he provokes from them. Their bias, their fear, their agenda doesn’t sell itself without the media nuzzling it gets.

To Post #3:

Your comment, … “training in journalism taught only to inform and if possible entertain devoid of all personal bias” …

First of all, in terms of classical journalistic training, “to be objective” and “to entertain” would appear to be mutually exclusive.  Tapper oftentimes seems to be as objective as any reporter is capable of being; Limbaugh, a former disc-jockey made good (a la Howard Stern), is clearly employed as an entertainer (and, like Stern, is paid accordingly).

Second, and in spite of undergraduate and graduate training in Journalism possibly received from even the best of the higher-education schools (such as Newhouse, Columbia, etc.), there is no such thing as any human (including reporters, copywriters, editors, et al) being “devoid of all personal bias”.  The best journalists are trained to minimize bias and achieve that goal; the lesser journalists, not so much so.

To Post #2:

Your comment:

“Naturally, the news business is appealing to the majority of its potential customers. Already you can detect that trend in the way Fox News is reshaping its news delivery and commentary.”

Definitely true – but I do think the line between “information” and “entertainment” has been purposely blurred (to enhance the bottom line) since the advent of widespread cable TV in the ‘80s and the development of the Internet in the ‘90s – - and I also feel the former line once clearly separating the marketing/advertising and editorial elements of any journalistic media has also all but disappeared in that same time frame.

And, unfortunately, today, in many cases (including major media) it seems “informing” someone cannot take place without simultaneously also “entertaining” that someone.

Dear Mr. Denhman,
Your knowledge of the history of American journalism is very inaccurate. You can find this out for yourself. If you are willing to invest the time and energy, start doing some systematic reading of newspapers and news magazines on microfilm from the Eisenhower and Reagan administrations. Then read the coverage of Bush I during the Desert Storm/Desert Shield period and of Bush II during the period from 9/11 through the entry of American forces into Baghdad. Also, do the same for coverage of Clinton after the failure of his health care initiative and after the Lewinsky Affair became public. Judge for yourself how balanced or not all this reporting was.
As for this nonsense: “anti-conservative, anti-Christian, anti-capitalist, anti-Semetic.” 1) Start using a dictionary. Didn’t they teach you that when you studied journalism? 2) Read the Hearst Press from the 1920s through the 1960s. Hearst owned the largest chain of newspapers in the country in those decades. Again, judge for yourself. 2) In particular, do the same for the Luce publications, Time, Life and Fortune. Also do some systematic reading from the 1920s through the 1970s of the two most influential American newspapers: The New York Herald Tribune and The New York Times. (By the way, which candidate did the Times endorse for president in the 1960 election?)
Finally, correlate the Gallup Polls – which were and remain independent of any news organization polling – from their inception in the 1930s until today. Then comapre what those polls indicate with the editorial policies of the half-dozen or so American newspapers with the largest readership. The Gallup Poll was the first one to be created. So consult other polls as they came into existence post-World War II, as they reflected regional attitudes, with newspaper coverage in those regions.
If you are actually willing to do this – that is, if you are serious about testing your opinions of the past against the reality of those times – you will discover how mistaken your beliefs are. But to do such serious research will take you hundreds of hours. Are you really willing to put your false impressions to the test? I very much doubt it. I think you have made up your mind and that no evidence is likely to sway you. More to the point, do you have the discipline and seriousness to do the research I suggest?
As for Mr. Limbaugh: have you considered alternative explanations for the negative reactions he provokes? Mine arises from the fact that he frequently tells lies and that he is very poorly educated – at least judging from the bilge he spouts. Personally, I enjoy listening to him. But that enjoyment is similar to the perverse pleasure anti-Fascists derived from listening to Giovanni Ansaldo and anti-Nazis got from listening to Joseph Goebbels.
Brian R. Sullivan
P.S. Do you think military journalism is objective? You didn’t serve in Vietnam did you? I was stationed with the Eleventh Marines in Quang Nam Province for over a year starting on 8 June 1968. I supported the war. I still think it was necessary. But the distorted nonsense put out by the Armed Froces Network used to cause hilarity among the troops I commanded.

Brian S,

Based on your comments, are we all to assume you have done these “hundreds of hours” of research?  Are you actually suggesting the mainstream media is objective in their reporting based on all this research you’ve done?  The NYT endorsed JFK in 1960 and the last Republican they actually endorsed during a general election was Eisenhower in 1956.  The NYT has only endorsed 9 Republicans vs. 20 Democrats since 1860.  Is that what you consider to be objective?  Sure media coverage was generally positive to Bush I/II during Gulf War I, Afghanistan and the early states of Gulf War II.  However, once election season rolls around, note how quickly the mainstream media ramps up negative coverage of a sitting Republican President.  Now, I’m not of the belief that the entire mainstream media is hard left, but I will say the majority of it does lean left with Fox news being the only one leaning right.  We’ll see how the media treats Obama when he comes up for re-election.  My guess is they will minimize their reporting on his mistakes and exaggerate his accomplishments.  Time will tell.

Re: Post 6;

Your comment:

“The NYT has only endorsed 9 Republicans vs. 20 Democrats since 1860.  Is that what you consider to be objective?”

So – - using a different example – - if no sports-oriented print media has projected/supported the Chicago Cubs in any one baseball season over the last 100 years to win the World Series – - but, instead, have projected/supported the New York Yankees to win the World Series in 30 of those 100 years – - does that mean these media are “not objective”?

Is it not be true that the Yankees are generally considered by many (if not most) to simply and consistently be the “better” team compared to the Cubs?  And, wouldn’t “history” support that claim?

Your example of lack of objectivity does not really prove (or even show) any “lack of objectivity”.

Dear Mr. Charles,
The answer to your first question is “yes.” For proof, read the book I co-authored with the late Phil Cannistraro, “Il Duce’s Other Woman” (NY: William Morrow, 1993),especially the acknowledgements and chapters 23,25 and 26. But to fully appreciate my knowledge of the 20th century press, both American and European, you need to read the entire 565 pages of text and the 90 pages of endnotes. I put not hundreds but thousands of hours into the research in regard to newspaper issues.
It took us eight years each to write the book of which I did about 18 months cumulative on the press aspect of the story.
As to your other questions, I am puzzled by them. You don’t seem to have read my comments nos. 2 & 5 very carefully. Please do so again, several times if neccessary. Your questions indicate that you think I stated the exact opposite of what I actually did. If you still don’t understand my points, I suggest you consult a neurologist.
Brian R. Sullivan

Brian S,

Congrats on your book.  I’ll say you may not be the typical liberal that posts opinions based on pure speculation rather than actual facts.  You are rare breed amongst them.

I completely understand your points but I disagree with you.  Your comments suggest the media, whether it is television or print, shapes their content and delivery based on popular opinion of a particular region or audience.  Maybe that is what liberals believe, as long as the content adheres to their views, but it simply isn’t true.  The media influences public opinion with how and what they report.  Look at the coverage of the Iraq war from 2003 – 2007.  All you saw was death and destruction everyday on every major media network or paper.  Once the surge took affect and the war turned to our favor, you saw a dramatic decrease in coverage on Iraq.  Can you explain why?  The media successfully painted Bush as a failure in Iraq for years, but once things turned around, you certainly did not see them reverse their coverage to depict him as a hero.  You can use whatever polls you want to as evidence of public opinion, but we all know that polls are far more complex than what the final statistics actually reveal.  For example, and we’ve seen this in the last election, how questions are worded can easily skew the numbers to one side or the other of a particular poll.  So I’ll ask you this, in your research for your book, did you actually analyze each question that was asked by every poll to ensure it was objective in nature and exactly who was polled to determine an equal representation between liberals and conservatives?  I’ll stand-by for your answer.

Now, since you believe the media merely represents public opinion and you clearly are willing to take their reporting at face value, do you also consider what Fox News reports as representing public opinion?  Or is Fox News the fascist propaganda arm of the right-wing conservative movement like most liberals believe? 

Yes, Rush Limbaugh did not go to college and he frequently mentions this fact on his radio show.  For you do say he is “uneducated” is a bit of a stretch.  What qualifies as educated in your view?  A degree from Berkley, Brown, Harvard, Princeton or various other liberal leaning academic institutions?  Sure, Obama graduated from Columbia and Harvard, so he must be educated right?  How much of his time at Columbia did he actually spend attending class?  Or was he too busy snorting coke and getting high most of the time?  Why won’t they release his college transcripts from Columbia?  If he is so intelligent, what are they afraid of? 

Now, I will assume you are an educated man and with that assumption, I will say it is low class to resort to personal attacks of any nature when having a debate.  Your “neurologist” comment was not necessary to prove your point and, in fact, diminishes its impact.  I’ve seen many of your comments on this site and this appears to be your MO.  Surely you can rise above this behavior and conduct yourself in a more civil manner. 

TK,

Good attempt, but a very weak.  Comparing media endorsements of Sports teams to Presidential nominees is simply apples and oranges.  Try again.

Re: Post #9;

So – your definition of journalistic “objectivity” in relation to the reportage of “politics” or politically-related “news” is DIFFERENT from your definition of journalistic “objectivity” in relation to the reportage of “sports” events?

The definition of “objectivity” is EXACTLY THE SAME whether one is judging the quality of apples – or the quality of oranges – or the merits of competing baseball teams – or the merits of competing political candidates.

What’s “very weak” here is your effort to paint your own ideological bias as an expression of objectivity or intellectual honesty.  Your comments portray the same lack of objectivity that you’re complaining about!

Re: Post #9;

And – by the way – your comment … “I’ll say you may not be the typical liberal that posts opinions based on pure speculation rather than actual facts.  You are a rare breed amongst them” … seems to perfectly convey your own “lack of objectivity”.

And … how would your two sentences sound to you IF the word “liberal” was replaced by, say, “black guy”, or “woman”, or “Jew”, or “Hispanic”, or “Catholic”, or “Southern Baptist” … or … maybe “conservative”, or “partisan Republican”, or “right-wing rockhead”?

Objectively-speaking, Charlie, it sounds to me that you’re apparently just another very biased and partisan ideologue spreading right-wing talking points and propaganda while hiding behind some high-sounding, pseudo-intellectual veil.

(So, Charlie, do you think the Wall Street Journal, for example, is, like, W-A-Y more objective than the New York Times???  And, don’t you think it’s just awful how the once really objective Manchester Union-Leader has become such a propaganda instrument of the left now?)

Dear Mr. Charles,
I’m not a liberal. I’m a conservative and proud of it. I wonder, do you understand the difference between the two political philosophies? It seems that you don’t. I ask you to define the two terms.

As for your statements about how American journalism functions, they are simply wrong. You offer opinions based on how you interpret contemporary news coverage by some outlets. That’s understandable. But you don’t seem very well read in those regards. What you actually appear to do is only project your preconceptions onto reality as you perceive it. (“Maybe that is what liberals believe… All you saw was death and destruction everyday on every major media network or paper…  we all know that polls are far more complex than what the final statistics actually reveal… since you believe the media merely represents public opinion… is Fox News the fascist propaganda arm of the right-wing conservative movement like most liberals believe?… Once the surge took affect and the war turned to our favor, you saw a dramatic decrease in coverage on Iraq.  Can you explain why?”) 

Note your constructions: 1) “what liberals believe…” There are tens of millions of liberals in the US alone. They are not a monolithic group. Their beliefs differ. 2) “All you saw…” “All”? I saw and read a far greater range of coverage than you seem to have. 3) “We all know…” That’s a typical rhetorical ploy made famous by Lenin. How can you or anyone know what we all think? More to the point, we all don’t know any one thing. Think about that. 4)“Merely” Another rhetorical device and one that does not reflect what I have stated or implied. 5) “fascist… like most liberals believe…” This is pure drivel. My liberal friends, most of whom are rather well-educated, don’t think Fox News is fascist just biased and bigoted. And, again, note your use of “all.” 6) You don’t seem to have done any systematic study of the amount of news coverage of events in Iraq before and after the Surge. It is your perception that coverage decreased. That, I suppose, only reflects what you viewed or read. But if you really want to know what did happen, you will need to do some long hours of word counting.(By the way, what does “fascist” mean to you?)

What do you actually know about how journalism actually functions? Have you studied the subject in a serious way? Have you ever attended a school of journalism? What histories of American journalism have you read? Have you ever worked for a newspaper, a TV station or a news magazine? Have you ever made a systematic study of a historical event – say the 1956 Suez Crisis or student riots in Paris in the Spring of 1968 – then studied journalistic coverage of that event? I imagine not. Nonetheless, you offer opinions as if you you have immersed yourself in such matters. Tell me, how would you describe such a person – yourself in this regard?

You ask: “…  in your research for your book, did you actually analyze each question that was asked by every poll to ensure it was objective in nature and exactly who was polled to determine an equal representation between liberals and conservatives?  I’ll stand-by for your answer.”
My answers: 1) Read the book I co-authored and judge for yourself. 2) Yes, I did carry out such analysis. Why do you think that it took me thousands of hours to do that research? 3) No human being can be completely objective. Thus, to ask if I “ensure[ed] it was objective…” is to ask the impossible. I did the best I could.

You wrote: “For you do say he [Limbaugh] is “uneducated” is a bit of a stretch.  What qualifies as educated in your view?  A degree from Berkley [sic], Brown, Harvard, Princeton or various other liberal leaning academic…
institutions?”
Here again you seem to either misconstrue or deliberately distort my ideas. First, you rhetorically answer your own question and in a foolish way. To me, to be educated means learning how to think independently, how to analyse information as objectively as possible and finally, to know about the subject at hand. Limbaugh meets none of those qualifications. His formal education is very limited and it shows. He doesn’t seem to read serious books. He knows no foreign languages. For long periods, his mind was clouded by drug abuse and that showed, too. (Read transcripts of his programs in those days.) He has never served in the military, let alone been in combat. He certainly has never visited either Iraq or Afghanistan. He never worked in government. He is obviously very unfamiliar with the world beyond the borders of the US. Yet he spouts constantly on those and other subjects. That’s part of the reason I think he’s uneducated and ignorant.

Furthermore, what do you actually know about the education one receives at Berkeley, Brown, Harvard, Princeton? Did you attend any of those schools? How many people do you know who did? Have you ever even visited any of them or sat in a class in any of them? I doubt it. But you seem confident to describe their educational systems, political environment, faculty viewpoints and curriculum anyway. In fact, each American university hosts a range of poltical opinions, ranging from department to department and from professor to professor. At the best schools, such variety spans a broad philosophical and political range.
Other questions: where did you attend school? What degress do you hold? 

Finally, you close with: “I will say it is low class to resort to personal attacks of any nature when having a debate.  Your “neurologist” comment was not necessary to prove your point and, in fact, diminishes its impact.  I’ve seen many of your comments on this site and this appears to be your MO.  Surely you can rise above this behavior and conduct yourself in a more civil manner.” 
1) “Low class”? I am proud that I came from a very low class in terms of the education and income level of my family. I find the very notion of “class” abhorrent and un-American. 2) “Debate”? I’m not debating, I’m criticizing. 3) “Personal attacks”? When I have written clearly and someone – in this case, you – either can’t understand it or deliberately distorts it, I point that out in as painful a manner as I can. I try not to make attacks on the person in question but on their apparent inability to read and to think. 4) I used my neurologist comment in your regard as a spur. It obviously worked. Originally, you seemed incapable of understanding what I had written. What I wrote in reply to your distortion of my ideas seems to have motivated you to read more carefully. Good. 5)“Surely you can rise above this behavior and conduct yourself in a more civil manner.” I could but I won’t. “Rise above” is a value judgement. I don’t think that I share your values. And you ask this of me on AIM? Are you serious? I respond to AIM comments and to the people who accept them in the same manner as they write and appear to think. I’m not concerned about how you or anyone else rates my civility. I deliberately choose to bite and sting when I think it appropriate. In the case of addressing lies, character assassination, neo-McCarthyism, smears, innuendoes and the like, I hit back as hard as I can. If you don’t like that, too bad. As Woody Allen once observed, when one is dealing with Nazis, polite argument is inappropriate. The correct response is baseball bats. I don’t mean to imply that AIM is run by Nazis. My guess is that its management isn’t that sophisticated. But I respond in kind.

AIM is an enemy of true conservatism. The site degrades and disgraces conservative principles through its misrepresentations. While it claims to be conservative, it is, in fact, anything but. I’m not sure how to properly characterize it. But it employs the propaganda techniques developed by the Fascists and the Bolsheviks and perfected by the Soviets and the Nazis. This is one reason why I have asked you to define “conservative” and “liberal.” Please do so.
Brian R. Sullivan

charles to Brian Sullivan – (post #9)  <<” Now, I will assume you are an educated man and with that assumption, I will say it is low class to resort to personal attacks of any nature when having a debate.  Your “neurologist” comment was not necessary to prove your point and, in fact, diminishes its impact.)>>

That’s precisely Sullivan’s whole ‘modus operandi’ in his forum postings, namely, to demean anyone to the right of Karl Marx. He loves to slip in his insults at Conservatives within his long, boring, archaic postings. His claim to being a Conservative is hilarious as he has revealed in previous postings to being a supporter of LBJ’s Great Society programs and defending socialism, using England as an example of it’s success. But then again, Rush Limbaugh mentions how Liberals have to pretend not to be who they really are in order to infiltrate into areas where they would not normally be welcome and be taken seriously.
Don’t waste your time, charles, trying to dialogue with this cryptic Marxist bum and his pathetic ‘Obamabot’ sidekick, TK (who I think was accidently dropped on his head as an infant). Their only purpose in this forum is to harass, belittle, and intimidate, fine conservatives such as yourself!