Manufacturing right-wing bias


Erik Kain

Erik writes about video games at Forbes and politics at Mother Jones. He's the contributor of The League though he hasn't written much here lately. He can be found occasionally composing 140 character cultural analysis on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

22 Responses

  1. Avatar Michael Drew says:

    That is a pretty hilarious question for a poll when you think about it. Like they just transcribed it from a conversation overheard in a Phoenix bar or something.Report

  2. Avatar Aaron says:

    “Would you welcome immigration by dirty Mexicans who want to rape your daughter?”Report

  3. Avatar mike farmer says:

    “Then again Fox is considered ‘fair and balanced’ by right-wingers,”

    Compared to the liberal bias in most major news outlets, Fox is far more fair and balanced. CNN does a fairly good job. I watch all of them to see which ones present boh sides of current controversies and issues, and Fox does the best job of presenting both sides — in their news sections. But even the opinion shows like O’Reilly present both sides, even if in the end he leans one way or the other. I don’t like Hannity much, but the last few times I’ve watched he’s had liberal guests in a panel-like discussion, and the liberals have their say. I’ve been surprised at intelligent people charging Fox with bias. They actually report stories that other news outlets ignore or bury, usually stories unflattering to the adminsitration or some liberal cause, but when they report it, they’re careful to give the facts and report the reactions in a balanced way. They report stories unflattering to Republicans, and I’ve seen many segments when the reporting was straightforward and damaging to Republicans. The opinion shows have a bias and it’s stated upfront but they are good about getting the other side in the programs so they can have their say — but the news is superior to other outlets.Report

    • Avatar Aaron in reply to mike farmer says:

      @mike farmer, Talking about which cable news outlet is more fair and balanced is like talking about which episode of Home Improvement is the funniest. It might matter to someone, but who gives a shit? Cable news is a wasteland.Report

      • Avatar Mike Farmer in reply to Aaron says:

        Pretty soon, it’ll be a matter of getting your news from the government or from cable.Report

        • Avatar Barry in reply to Mike Farmer says:

          @Mike Farmer, ‘getting your news from the government or from cable’?

          Mike, please bow out. Serious people are talkingReport

          • Avatar Mike Farmer in reply to Barry says:

            Very good response, Barry. When all else fails, go ad hominem.Report

          • Avatar Mike Farmer in reply to Barry says:

            Barry, actually there’s nothing serious about people in an echo chamber criticizing people for being in an echo chamber. This modern liberal religion would be amusing if it wasn’t seriously affecting the economic stability of the country. The fashionable denigration of the “right”, as the “left” implodes, is the result of years of indoctrination which has limited the ability of a large part of the public to be objective. Did you see where Reuters cropped the picture of the flotilla incident to remove a picture of a knife possesses by a passenger? That’s serious. Talk about government subsidies for news outlets. That’s serious. Hammering Fox and praising the NYT, that’s not serious.Report

    • Avatar Simon K in reply to mike farmer says:

      @mike farmer, TV news is generally pointless. I can’t understand how anyone can sit through the end rigmarol of he-said/she-said, interviews with random members of the public who don’t know anything and tedious filler. I could read the NY Times from cover to cover in the time it takes CNN to cover the day’s headlines.

      The only criticism I’d make of Fox’s news coverage that doesn’t apply to much to the others is that they’ve enthusiastically embraced the old Murdoch trick of having their “editorial “side manufacture a story that their “news” side can then report on, and raise suspicions as to why no-one else is reporting it. Murdoch’s British newspapers are masters of this.Report

    • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to mike farmer says:

      @mike farmer,E.g. when Fox’s report about Jim Greer’s indictment talks about Charlie Crist more than about Greer, and includes the wonderfully unsourced “Political observers say the scandal reflects poorly on Crist, who brought Greer into power.” Yup, fair, balanced, and no agenda at all.Report

      • Avatar Simon K in reply to Mike Schilling says:

        @Mike Schilling, Exactly – the “news” reporters get to report what the “entertainment” side say as “political observers”.Report

      • @Mike Schilling,
        Well, it’s true that Greer reflects on Crist’s judgement, and observers pointed this out. You don’t won’t to get into a battle of examples of biased coverage. The think Fox is that they cover unflattering news regarding both political parties — that’s the definition of fair and balanced. It would be one thing if Fox buried or ignored news unfavorable to Republicans, but they don’t.Report

  4. Avatar Mike Farmer says:

    The irony in all this is that “closure” doesn’t apply to those who can’t give any credit to the other side when it’s due. I’ve seen moderates consistently attack conservatives even when the facts are on the conservative side, then accuse the conservatives of bias and closure. So far, the limited government conservatives have reflected the national movement away from progressivism, while the moderates and liberals have been hammering the conservatives and relatively quiet on progressivism. The disease destroying the economy and liberty is progressivism, not conservatism. Conservatives, for the most part, have let go of social issues and they are concentrating on issues which the country views as imprtant. The moderates and liberals are becoming irrelevant due to petty resentments against conservatives.Report

    • Avatar Aaron in reply to Mike Farmer says:

      @Mike Farmer, In general, I think arguing politics (either in person or on the internet) is a fairly foolish thing — people (myself included) have generally already made up their minds about whatever the subject might happen to be, and are very reluctant to change their views. I would say that’s probably as it should be — if your views can be changed by some random person on a comment board, they probably weren’t very deeply considered to begin with.

      Of course, I do all sorts of foolish things, and arguing politics on the internet is about the least of them. But I have to look at comments like the one above and shake my head. What on earth is the point of arguing with someone who describes a world that I absolutely, fundamentally, 100% do not understand or agree with?

      The world you describe is not the world I live in. The words you use to describe that world do not fit the definition of the words I use. I’ve always been amazed that people get so upset about the ideas of postmodernism and its concept of the subjectivity of views when you can see so clearly the way people make the world around them fit their own personal narratives.

      It would never occur to me to describe “conservatism” as a “disease,” or to imply that it’s “destroying” the economy or liberty, as if any of that meant anything. I consider myself a progressive, which in my mind means that I want to see the world get better, through the most effective means. I want to live my life as free from the encumbrance and dictates of others as possible. But I also want to live in a world where people do not die on the streets, where no one goes hungry, and where everyone has a warm place to sleep, some fun things to do, and a chance to better themselves (and not just materially). If we can do that through higher taxes, I say tax away! But if higher taxes are unproductive, and a different tax structure fits the overall goal of making life better for the most possible people, let’s go with that. Same with regulation. Does this regulation work? It does? Great, let’s do that, then. Is it not working? Why? Let’s modify it and see if the outcomes improve.

      What I don’t do is approach a situation with an established concept that the world must fit to — “least government is the best government.” Perhaps! But then again, maybe not. From where I sit, we already tried the “least government” option, and it was pretty much a disaster for everyone who wasn’t named Morgan, Carnegie and Rockefeller. But when we had high taxes (compared to now) and regulation, things really took off! There are lessons to be learned from that.Report

    • Avatar Simon K in reply to Mike Farmer says:

      @Mike Farmer, Where are these conservatives who’ve let go of social issues, Mike? Because I don’t see too many of them around here – the proposition 8 campaign was not a figment of my imagination. Nor were Meg Whitman’s anti-immigration TV ads. You’ll have to excuse me if Republican candidates largely disingenuous and hypocritical efforts to attract the votes of bigots at the expense of the lives of my friends and relatives bother me quite a bit more than the Disease of Progressivism, whose symptoms I having some trouble recognising.Report

      • Avatar Cascadian in reply to Simon K says:

        @Simon K, Count me in. I identify as a conservative, albeit a Cascadian conservative. I have no more time for socons than Hitch.Report

        • Avatar Simon K in reply to Cascadian says:

          @Cascadian, Awesome. As a matter of interest, how do you normally vote? I’d personally have a lot of trouble voting for conservative candidates once they start to run to the right to win the primary. Watching the – largely perfectly sane and reasonable – collection of silicon valley execs running for various positions in California pandering to their anti-Mexican, anti-gay “base” over the past few weeks has been positively depressing.Report

          • Avatar Cascadian in reply to Simon K says:

            @Simon K, Last election, I voted Paul in the primaries and Barr in the general. Locally, I usually vote the Dem. I like the liberal society in the NW and want to conserve and preserve it. I wish local Republicans would return to NW conservatism epitomised by Tom Mccall but usually their on board with the national/southern ilk which isn’t right for our area.Report

  5. Avatar Mike Farmer says:

    Conservatives are bigots who threaten the lives of your friends and relatives? This is what I’m talking about.

    Mostly, conservatives have not stressed the social issues. Social issues have been settled, for the most part. Immigration is an economic and national security issue. Conservatives don’t hate Mexicans, no more than progressives hate Mexicans — I’m sure there are haters everywhere. I’m not defending conservatives, mind you, just saying the hyperbolic attacks are unjustified. The progressive disease has to do with economic idiocy and the violation of individual rights, especially property rights. The progressive ideology is national suicide, and it’s bad for poor people — rich people will find a way to survive, but the poor are at the mercy of the progressive agenda, and there’s no mercy.Report

    • Avatar Simon K in reply to Mike Farmer says:

      National suicide, huh? How exactly does that work? Will they be handing out poison kool aid, or requiring we take it in turns to drive and throw ourselves onto the freeway? Hyperbole, much?Report