Liberal bias in the media, much like conservative bias in the media, will always be with us. Not a week goes by that someone doesn’t complain to this newspaper about it.
The coverage of the Iraq war brings a lot of such comments, but other topics generate them as well, including the campaign for the U.S. Senate between incumbent Democrat Bill Nelson and the leading Republican contender, U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris of Longboat Key.
One reader asked why the Times-Union has not been “giving readers wall-to-wall coverage of the Katherine Harris meltdown?” Reader Tim Simpson noted some newspapers, especially those closer to the candidate’s Sarasota-area congressional district, have had more much coverage. Simpson concluded this newspaper provided less about Harris because of “editorial bias which spiked it.”
In fact, the Times-Union reported Harris received illegal contributions from a defense contractor who also admitted bribing a California congressman. The paper reported that the day after the defense contractor’s admission.
Two days later, an 18-inch story about that and other controversial contributions to Harris ran on Page B-2. It was reported Harris did not know the contributions were illegal and gave them to a charity. More recent stories focused on speculation about whether she will stay in the race and her announcement she will spend $10 million she inherited from her late father on her campaign.
While some may fear a conservative bias led to the Harris story being played down, a concern of a different sort came from another side, possibly hinting at liberal bias.
“Katherine Harris is a reasonably attractive woman — so how come the picture you’ve been using rather often (Wednesday on B-5) makes her look angry? Upset? Doofy? But certainly not attractive!” wrote a woman who identified herself as Rita. Editors have used a variety of pictures, often the most recently available.
Just as political campaigns are heating up and rancor over the war is intensifying, a respected survey about public attitudes toward the media provides fodder for those on all sides who would praise or condemn the media. The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press recently released the findings.
The public sees the media as slanted, with 72 percent saying it favors one side over the other, up from 66 percent two years earlier, the study found. About 60 percent saw the press as politically biased, up from 53 percent two years earlier. Republicans and conservatives are more prone to feel that way than Democrats, the report said.
The percentage of people who have a generally favorable view of the media seems to be rising.
In December 2004, some 43 percent had a favorable view, but by February 2006, the number was 59 percent. For newspapers, as opposed to the media in general, 72 percent of those surveyed gave the newspapers they are “most familiar with” either a very favorable or mostly favorable rating.
The study found, again, that most journalists tend to be more liberal than the public at large, but the gap was not as wide for journalists at local newspapers, where 23 percent identified themselves as liberal, 61 percent said they were moderate and 12 percent said they were conservative.
Among the general public, 20 percent identify themselves as liberal, 42 percent moderate and 33 percent conservative. Among national journalists, about 34 percent identified themselves as liberal and only 7 percent as conservative.
The mere fact that a story is published says something about the values of the editors who use it. Bias appears when one side or view is treated unfairly or not represented.
While journalists work hard to produce a daily news report free of bias — and face severe internal criticism if they miss the mark — bias inevitably creeps in.
It can be liberal, conservative or otherwise, but the severity of the bias often depends on the eye of the beholder.
We can all agree on that, can’t we?
