A definite liberal bias
by Matt Worley

Working in the vicinity of the media, I am always mystified by the so-called media bias everyone talks about. As if news stories contained great amounts of character or editorial content. News stories, as a rule, are written from a passive observer--the only bias in the news section of newspapers is whether or not to run a story. And since the national stories that appear in individual newspapers are virtually identical (the only difference being which wire service they come from), it's not as if there's a lot of choice as to what story to run.

This column, of course, is totally biased. It's based on my experience, what I read, what I think and the other strange babblings that wander through my consciousness every week. So when I say something, everyone should realize a few things: 1. I think the First Amendment was aptly named. 2. I listen to "kid" music--or pop music. 3. I think the government should keep out of people's private lives--so long as a person's actions don't directly affect anyone else. 4. I think it's insane we talk about impeachment of a president who did what virtually any other guy in the United States would do if he was brought in front of a court and asked if he cheated on his wife. 5. My favorite Seinfeld is the one entitled "The Deal," where Jerry and Elaine talk about "This, that, and the other."

There are other guidelines I live by, but that's enough for now. I mean, this column isn't really about me, it's about you (well, that's what I tell everyone anyway). While running through wire stories last week, I stumbled upon an interesting study. A group of scholars at the University of Minnesota decided to test a theory about the so-called media bias. And the results, while not surprising to me, might be a little bit ticklish to the rest of you. As a preface to this hallowed information, I almost called this column: Lemmings--The Real American Way. But I don't want to get too bitchy too early in the column.

Here's how the study was run. Polls were taken, researched, added up and analyzed--whatever they do with polls. And in addition, stories about the last three Presidential Campaigns (1988, 1992, 1996) were read by a computer and determined whether the story (and individual paragraphs) was biased to the Democratic or Republican candidate. Here's a rundown:

In 1988, 12% of poll respondents thought there was liberal media bias. The computer found that in 1988, Michael Dukakis received 50.3% of all the favorable paragraphs, compared to 49.7% for George Bush.

In 1992, 27% believed there was a liberal media bias. At the same time, Bill Clinton received 54% of the favorable press, compared to 46% for Bush. While the gap widened a bit, it was still pretty damn close (Perot was not included in the study--nobody is quite sure if he's liberal or conservative or just nutty).

In 1996, 43% believed there was a liberal media bias, compared with 33% who believed the coverage was evenhanded, and 18% who thought there was a conservative bias. Clinton received 50.6% favorable paragraphs to 49.4% for Bob Dole.

The marked difference from 1988 to 1996 as far as liberal bias claims were attributed to one thing: bitching by the candidates and political talk show hosts. In 1988, Bush made 14.7% of all quoted allegations of media bias. In 1992, he made 24.7% of quoted allegations. In 1996, Dole made 56.5% of the allegations.

The study concluded that increases in the public perception of media bias were far more likely to be driven by elite (read: candidates or political pundits) claims of bias than by any actual biases.

So what does this mean? It means that if you're going to have an opinion on a subject, you should listen to more than one person. Just because they're on TV or the radio or standing in front of thousands of banner waving fans, doesn't mean they know everything. It also means that most Americans choose who to believe, not what to believe.

Of course, you shouldn't just take my word for it. And it should be noted that I only used one study to back up my claims, so this whole column could be a ruse. Read a newspaper sometime. It doesn't take long, and they've got a full page of comics when the dense grayness of type gets to be too much.

Matt Worley doesn't believe in conspiracies, he believes in stupidity.

return to the Shut up, I'm talking page
return to the LIES home page
return to the A&A home page