Perhaps you’ve heard people say this before. The ‘liberal media.’ What does it mean, who says it, and how do they support their arguments? There are also some, less often heard in mainstream media, who claim a conservative media bias. Before we even attempt any kind of answer, we should first go over some relevant terms, like media, liberal, conservative, and bias.

Media

This would refer to a form of communication. Since we’re basically talking about communication to potentially large numbers of people, we’ll call it mass media. This includes various forms of media:

• Print (books, newspapers, magazines)
• TV (satellite, cable, network, TiVo)
• Cinema
• Internet (could include radio, video, too)
• Computer (video games, books, gameboy, playstation, software, etc. Do you see how these are forms of media?)
• Radio
• Social media (where many younger generations get most of their news now)

So when we talk about ‘the media,’ it’s always a good idea to be more specific if we can–to which kind of medium are you referring?

Liberal and Conservative–comparing gross generalizations

What does it mean to be liberal? Here are a few things to consider:

• Party affiliation. Liberals are more associated with the democratic party (versus republicans, who are more likely conservative)
• One state, two state, red state blue state, and the ‘big sort.’ Certain parts of the country are considered more conservative, certain parts more liberal. Pres. Trump has politicized even the coronavirus pandemic, suggesting it’s a ‘blue state’ problem (in this map, go to ‘deaths by population’ for updated county-level data). By state, we sometimes refer to the more conservative states as ‘red states,’ and the less conservative as ‘blue states’ based on voting records (the links above are to maps that show how political views often get divided up geographically). There are pretty clear patterns, if you look at the maps. Or so it seems–some states are blue, others are red. Of course, reality is somewhat more complicated–for instance, in Oregon and Washington, the east side of the state votes conservative, the west side more liberal. So the ‘red state / blue state’ distinction may actually conceal a lot of purple (mixed states), in the end–turns out differences have more to do with where someone lives in the state, and the whole notion that people are easily categorized as ‘red’ or ‘blue’ seems seriously flawed. But it’s convenient, an easy math problem.
• There are also rural and urban differences. Oregon is a good example of this. The three-county area around Portland–where over 40% of the population resides–votes democratic, the rest of the state more republican. This does not mean everyone in those three counties votes democratic. At the county level, voting looks a lot more, well purple. But that doesn’t mean everyone in rural counties votes republican. When you re-size areas of the country in proportion to their populations (i.e., the larger the county population, the larger the size), you get this. Meaning, the ‘red state blue state’ is a gross oversimplification, one of many perpetuated by mainstream, commercial news media.

More recently, journalist Bill Bishop and sociologist Robert Cushing have identified what they refer to as the ‘big sort.’ The US has become more polarized, they say, in terms of who votes for what party, and it follows in many cases along rural/urban lines. Are we just naturally polarizing ourselves, living closer to people with whom we agree, or do media have some role to play in polarizing the electorate?

• Right and left–Media often portray political issues and controversies as representing differences between the ‘right’ and the ‘left.’ If you think of politics along a spectrum, to the extreme right are the fascists–heavily into law and order, very autocratic and militaristic, with few civil liberties. Examples of fascist governments with militaristic police states would be Nazi Germany, Pinochet’s Chile, Videla’s Argentina, the Shah’s Iran, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, etc. Examples to the extreme left would be communists. There haven’t been any real communist regimes in the sense that Karl Marx envisioned them, but the Soviet Union and its satellite states (the ‘Eastern Bloc’) are the most well-known examples. Cuba has been a communist state for over 50 years. It is a poor nation, but well educated and healthy because wealth is distributed in ways that benefit the masses more equitably. What this means is that professionals are underpaid relative to their skills (e.g., doctors, engineers, teachers). In the Soviet Union example, this meant that most everyone was poor, but equally poor, except for government bureaucrats and athletes, artists, etc., who often received special privileges (in other words, there was still a powerful ruling class, as there is in the US, but in the Soviet Union power was concentrated in the communist party). ‘Socialism’ is a more common real-world example of a left-leaning system, where taxes are higher to pay for education, retirement pensions, and universal health care. Many European countries are a mix of socialism and capitalism, but private property prevails. So “left” is often associated with liberal and democrat, and “right” with conservative and republican. But these are just stereotypes–the way they’re presented in the media. Think of it as shorthand, really–giving people just enough context to understand which side(s) they’re talking about.
• Race, ethnicity, gender, age, culture, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, etc.. Views can vary along these lines as well. In the US, minorities are more likely to vote democratic, women tend to vote democratic more often than men. Republicans depend mostly on white males to carry elections. As people age and have more formal education, their views tend to become more liberal. But as they age and their income increases (this is a fairly standard occurrence, you should be happy to know), their views become more conservative. Why would higher income tend to affect one’s political views? Go figure . . .
• Issues that separate conventional ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ views. Here are a few (here’s a table):
  • Role of government: Conservatives prefer that government play a small role–too much government is a corrupting and wasteful influence. Private property and capitalism work best when government stays out of the way. Especially the Federal Government–they are more likely to support authority at the local or state level. Liberals tend to think that government is necessary to curb the excesses of capitalism and the private sector, and to ensure that all citizens are entitled to basic fundamental rights. The federal government has often intervened when states, for instance, were discriminating against minority groups. The liberal viewpoint is that taxes are necessary to support the society and care for the disadvantaged. Conservatives believe that people know better than the government what to do with their money. But they do tend to like things like prisons, police departments, etc. Education, roads, social services, management of public lands, regulatory agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency or the Securities and Exchange Commission (sort of the police force for corporations) are there to ensure that private corporations aren’t fleecing their customers or shareholders, or aren’t polluting and killing citizens located near their factories, etc.
  • Morality: Conservatives generally just have more conservative ideas about what morality is, or should be. Their ‘social construction’ of morality is more conservative than liberals’. Conservatives may be more likely to attend church, especially more conservative Christian Churches (Baptists, LDS, Jehovah’s Witness). The conservative view is that declining marriage, increasing divorce and co-habitation, acceptance of gay relationships and gay lifestyles, etc., are corrosive influences on society. They stress the importance of ‘family values’ (the ideal type being two parent heterosexual). Liberals stress tolerance, point to how ‘family values’ in the 1950s co-existed with severe racial and sex discrimination, and contend that those who are considered ‘deviant’ should not be, and have as much right to public space and public resources as majority, dominant groups (white, male, protestant, heterosexual . . . ).
  • Poverty: Conservatives generally think of poverty as an individual problem. Those in poverty are unmotivated, have no work ethic, or are single parent. If you look at the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 (appropriately titled the ‘Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act), promotion of marriage is a key feature, as is abstinence-only sex education. Getting people off of welfare and into low-wage work is also a central feature. Welfare recipients, so many conservatives say, have grown dependent on welfare, and what they need is some ‘tough love’ to embrace the work ethic and work their way up the socioeconomic ladder. Welfare benefits should be less attractive than the lowest-paying, least secure jobs. A more liberal view would say that poverty is not an individual problem–it’s a huge social problem, and at any given time, even with antiquated definitions of poverty, there are 35 million people who fall below the poverty line. People near the margins are constantly in and out of poverty, losing work, health benefits, using up savings, running up charge cards, etc. Add a global pandemic and this ‘churning’ process increases dramatically, pulling in millions more people and businesses. Most people have little opportunity to pursue the American dream–many go to underfunded schools with the least qualified teachers paid the lowest, and have few if any expectations about going to college and if they do are likely not to be prepared to compete well with their peers. Poverty is for liberals a structural problem, and the government has an obligation to address it. The “means-tested” programs that poor qualify for (in other words, you have to prove you qualify, there is a ‘test’ for eligibility) make up a small portion of the budget–maybe 6% at most–while mandatory spending on social security, Medicare and defense makes up a much larger percentage. In fact, a more liberal view suggests that a key function of welfare is to subsidize employers who do not pay their workers a living wage (which for a family of four would be probably at least $15/hr–the minimum wage in Oregon is $11.50/hr and making its way up to $13.50, $15 in Portland and large cities).
  • Environment. Conservative views tend to focus on economic development and markets–encouraging use and extraction of natural resources (especially fossil fuels), less stringent regulations on pollution. If there is a market for ‘clean’ technologies, solar energy, etc., those who value it will invest. Liberals are more likely to support government regulation of industry, protection of habitats, policies on issues like global warming, reductions in pollution, government subsidies to develop renewable fuels, greater vehicle fuel efficiency, etc. Corporations may pollute to cut costs and increase profits, and markets won’t prevent them from doing this, especially if consumers don’t know. They would say government has a ‘watchdog’ role to play, and the watchdog must have teeth (ability to levy fines, for instance). Liberals are more likely to say that climate change needs to be addressed, even if it will mean painful transitions in the economy. Conservatives would say that economic concerns should come before environmental concerns (unless the extinction of the species seems a possibility …).

Bias

What does this mean? Presenting distorted views, in this case that represent certain political points of view, to the exclusion of others. This is especially important when considering news coverage. Are we getting biased news? And if so, is it a liberal, or a conservative bias, or of some other nature?

Keep in mind, we’re simplifying the liberal/conservative dichotomy. Which is pretty much what politicians expect us to do, and news media play into the narrative. Why? Because it helps them identify an audience to target with content, presumably tailored as much to peoples’ values and beliefs as to guiding journalistic principles. There are plenty of republicans who are pro choice, don’t attend a place of worship, and advocate for gun safety, and there are plenty of democrats who are pro-life, attend a place of worship and own guns, as an example. But that’s exactly what news media do–anything more complicated and complex risks reducing audience size, and that would reduce advertiser interest, and that would reduce income and profit, so there are incentives to keep it simple, sometimes even cartoonish, portray the news within the context of a competition, even a sporting match if you will, get people to support their ‘team,’ and identify where the target audience lies on that left-right political spectrum.

So . . . is there a liberal bias in the media? That story’s coming up after these important announcements from our sponsors