A Detailed Look at News Media Bais
A relatively minor incident occurred at a CBS affiliate in Austin, Texas that reveals a much larger problem with the news industry’s left-wing bias.
According to an online article by the Daily Mail:
“CBS News Editor-in-Chief Bari Weiss is ‘fuming’ over a viral video that appears to show a CBS Austin (Texas) reporter being instructed to downplay coverage of a pro-Israel protest then occurring behind him.”
The video shows the reporter, Vinny Martorano about to interview participants in the protest. He then gets a call from the studio. He asks, “What does that mean?” To which a crew member says, “It means they don’t want us to focus on this.”
That is not surprising. The left-wing media has consistently downplayed the protests celebrating the death of the Iranian Supreme Leader – and praising President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu – in favor of coverage of the much fewer and smaller anti-war protests.
CBS has been righting (literally) its historic left-wing lean under new management. The network will soon be part of Paramount, owned by billionaire Larry Ellison, a Trump friend and ally. The local affiliate involved is owned by Sinclair Communications, a company that tends to be more conservative. Sinclair issued a statement that, “There was no directive to avoid or de-emphasize any particular perspective.”
Regardless, the dust-up does reveal the role of producers in influencing the news, In fact, it is the producers who have the most control over news content on a day-to-day, hour-to-hour basis on radio and television. And yet, they are invisible to the audience. Like bureaucrats in Washington, the operate out of sight and with relative impunity – accountable only to their bosses, and not always.
The incident in Austin reminded me of a conversation I once had with on of those producers. I demanded that he correct an obvious, provable and egregious error in their reporting, telling him that the people have right to know the truth. He responded, with emphasis on “I”, “I decide what the people have a right to see.” I do not grant producers that “right”, but they do have the “power” – and it is a huge problem when they abuse it.
It is a pervasive problem. We saw it when then-MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski let the truth slip from here lips, “It is our job to tell the people what to think.”
Everyone knows – or at least believes – that the news media is biased. Some more than others. As a person who covers the news media waterfront virtually every day, I see it in all its shades. Unlike most conservatives, I have never seen CNN as the worst example of news bias.
I have also applied some objected analysis before forming my opinions, literally logging hard information. Are there a variety of viewpoints among the anchors and hosts? Do the guests, panelists and interviewees represent differing views? Does the network cover a wide range of stories in all categories? Also applied a “lean” analysis. Where did the networks fit on the left to right political/philosophy scale?
Give my quasi-scientific approach, I have compiled a rating on a 1-to-10 scale, with 1 being the best and 10 being the worst. It came out like this. (I Even surprised myself in some cases).
In terms of fairness (no obvious bias), none of them got a 1 – or even a 2 or a 3.
FOX (cable and broadcast) and NBC earn 4s. Both lean – FOX to the right and NBC to the left. But if you watched them, you would see information across the spectrum – and a lot of news in other categories – sports, business, entertainment, science, etc. You would at least hear from all sides on controversial (political) issues — even if there is a pinky finger on the scale. If the three so-called late night comedians, Jimmy Fallon is the least biased, but still leans left.
CNN came in at 5. While conservatives have made CNN the whipping boy of biased left-wing media – the purveyor of “fake news” – I have never seen it that way. I see CNN as a counterbalance to FOX – a lean to the left, but not a complete capitulation.
CBS earned a 6 on the Horist Scale. Not terrible, but a decided to lean to the left. However, new management has been moving the network to the middle in the hope of reclaiming some footing in the ratings game. Also, CBS is being taken over by Paramount, and this is likely to bring about significant changes in programming. It will take a few months to make an updated judgment. The network’s major bias comes from late-night comedian Stephen Colbert. His departure will help.
ABC is at 8. They still provide a smidgeon of balanced journalism – but not obvious unless you go looking for it. The morning show and late might comedian Jimmy Kimmel are particularly egregious.
PBS earned a 9. It is not the worst, but it teeters on the edge of the far left. That should come as no surprise since government owned or influenced media generally support big government progressivism.
MS NOW is at 10 – and that is generous. Calling MS NOW a news station is a misnomer. It operates 24/7/365 as a radical left-wing propaganda network – and as such, it censors the opposition, creates false narratives, misrepresents the facts. And outright lies. Anyone who makes MS NOW their news choice will not be educated. They will be indoctrinated — gaslighted. This is the only news outlet I see producing “fake news.” Ironically, the old MSNBC had the best election analyst, Steve Kornacki – but he wisely stayed with NBC after the breakup.
I understand that it is not a fully scientific analysis (I wish someone would do one), but I did my best to set aside my own biases and look at the networks objectively. I also know those on the left will spin this commentary beyond recognition. Looking at things objectively is beyond their ability.
The bottom line is that news platforms tend to lean one way or the other – with some it is more than a lean. And if you want to know who is implementing it in real time, look to the folks in the control booth.
So, there ‘tis.
Larry, An interesting post, still I think the purpose of this was more about getting some extra spending money than anything really newsworthy. However, I do find it amusing that you left out one particular source (and I use the word source a bit tongue in cheek, but if you can honestly rate CBS news by factoring in Jimmy Kimmel, I think we can include this ‘news’ purveyor). What about the oracle of Boca? Based on your ratings (not that I totally agree with them), you certainly deserve at least a 9.5. Now a 9.5 in competitive diving is considered excellent, but on the Horist scale it clearly is ‘very biased’. You certainly fit that description. If someone doesn’t have an ‘R’ next to their name, forget the oracle ever writing anything but an admonishment of their actions-conversely, if they do have the coveted ‘R’ they can do no wrong. Not sure exactly the cause of this complex on your part, but I suspect it is because you blame the ‘D’s’ for your lifetime of failure rather than admitting that no one was buying what you were selling….
Mike f … Read my response to soulmate Frank. It applies to you, too.
Being totally biased, by career-choice, and consuming the “news” does not make one an expert.
Not many of us have made our living by preaching, supporting, and creating right-wing ideologies and concepts. Larry does and continues today. All of us watch, listen, read the media and have opinions.
From Larry’s resume he says he is a self-professed: “conservative writer and political strategist” that worked for “conservative icons as Steve Forbes and Milton Friedman. He has served as a consultant to the Nixon White House and travelled the country as a spokesman for President Reagan’s economic reforms.” He rarely writes a story without dinging liberals. His latest book: “The Long Sad History of the Democratic Party’s Oppression of Black Americans … to This Day” continues his life-long passion for bias to the right. That’s OK, but he should have recused himself from his story. He is not the expert on bias; he is an expert in bias.
As proof of this, look at his cherry-picking example for bias: “We saw it when then-MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski let the truth slip from here (sic, not my bais :>) lips, “It is our job to tell the people what to think.” He cherry-picks, edits, when the true context was from a discussion in 2017 about the Trump administration, where beyond the sound byte, Brzezinski said: “He [Trump] could have undermined the messaging so much that he can actually control exactly what people think, and that is – that is our job” referring to the media’s role in counteracting what she described as an attempt by the administration to “make up his own facts” and “undermine the media.” If he had reported the entire passage, not just his sound bite, in context of the discussion, he would have been objective; but he chose the snippet, he chose to introduce bias by leaving out the context.
Yes, Larry, everything and everyone has bias, is biased, and will display bias upon occasion. It’s called being human. Works that way with racism too.
My grandmother, born in Slovakia, a racially biased country if you ever saw one, was the most unbiased egalitarian ever. Once she told me: “there’s nothing worse than a dumb Polack.” Bwhaaaaat? I could not believe my ears. Took me years to ask what she meant and it turned out, in context, she meant when growing up, she was often called a “dumb Polack” and thought there’s nothing worse than that for a Slovakian (actually Czech back then). Took me a couple of years in which time I figured Polish jokes made sense. Context matters Larry. Bias can be introduced, like you did, without it, or when manipulating it. I choose you missed the context and would not manipulate it. Mika is biased, as are we all, but this was not an example of it. In context at least.
Then you conclude; ‘I understand that it is not a fully scientific analysis (I wish someone would do one), but I did my best to set aside my own biases and look at the networks objectively. I also know those on the left will spin this commentary beyond recognition. Looking at things objectively is beyond their ability.” Like I say, “He rarely writes a story without dinging liberals,” and this one is his stereotype as he dings liberals and blames them for more bias than conservatives. Once again, he picks a fight and blames the other guy for starting it. And even returns volley against liberals, for things not yet said, with his penchant for pre-emptive strikes of a capricious nature.
But Larry, dear Larry, there are many experts on bias, and they list their methodologies and attempts to follow a scientific method, along with examples, references, and even, user input. How could you tout expertise in this and not know that? Was this your laziness or stupidity; I choose lazy since a simple google on “media bias experts” would have done the job.
Here’s what real media experts say versus Larry. I have always used Media Bias/Fact Check; they have a six-segment scale from least biased (0) to extreme left or right at 6. Larry uses 10 segments. I have adjusted media bias to make the comparison apples-to-apples, and thus the action right of the decimal point. Their methodology is here: *https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/* FYI: There’s also Ad Fontes Media that uses a 64 point scale: * https://adfontesmedia.com/* Great chart. There’s also All Sides, they are kind of a mix between Ad Fontes and Media Bias. Also Media Bias Research. University of Michigan and Harvard dabble in this too. No, Larry, there are many experts attempting scientific methods to determine and rate bias. And I have sourced Media Bias many times on PBP, even linked them; you should read your own platform more.
Here’s a comparison of Media Bias and Larry. Would seem to confirm Larry’s right-sided bias. I include the factual reporting metric. I used both before sourcing many links and info.
PBS mb-1.66 factual reporting – high, larry-9,
FOX mb-8.3 fr-low, larry-4,
NBC mb-3.3, fr-high, larry-4
MS NOW mb-6.7, fr-mixed, larry-10
Larry differs a lot on PBS, FOX, and MS NOW with his views being more extreme for both sides. Point is there are a few folks doing this; their methodologies, unlike Larry’s are exhaustively covered, well defined, and generally they back their bias claims up with truth/reliability claims. I will use a biased source, if reliable. Less so as reliability falls. Many have “mixed” reliability, for those I double or triple source. It’s not that I am so anal retentive as to add the hyphen, it’s just that I really hate when my sourced “facts’ are proven wrong.
BUSTED for not knowing real experts exist. Cannot bust Larry’s opinions, even the creepy ones.
Frank Danger …. Poor little Frankie. You cannot overcome your making it all personal and nasty … and wrong. And you write as if you are informing someone. Who? LOL You must be pathetically obsessed with hatred. Why else the insults, the snide comments and the constant negativity? And worst of all, you lack knowledge and intellectual integrity. That is why I do not engage with you at any length … or feel obligated to refute your misinformation, disinformation, spinning and outright lies. Your writings are their own condemnation. Besides you have the fictional straw man Larry Horist of your warped imagination to engage with. I do not want to interfere with your mental masturbation. And I am amazed that you have time to respond so often and so looooong to me AND everyone else on PBP. So much time and energy for so little impact. But if it makes you feel like you are accomplishing something, enjoy. I have often said that to be happy and productive, people need to have a feeling of relevancy and accomplishment from what they do. From you, I have learned that even a false sense of relevancy and accomplishment works for some people. Look out the windows. Frank, there is a real world out there — and it is a pretty nice place.
Poor little Larry. You cannot overcome your making it all personal and nasty…
You accuse me of being nasty and snide for reporting the facts about you, the author, as it pertains to the tropic you broached. I am sorry you are thin-skinned, but I reported the facts, some are directly from your own resume. Show one off base and I will apologize off course. What happened to that “sense of humor” your resume touts. Your response has me rolling over almost in tears.
You then spend 200 words talking about me, only me, blaming, shaming, me.
Thanks.
Seeing the author could not refute the comments, he decided it must be spot on.
Why did you even bother? You say: “you write as if you are informing someone.” Uh, no duh, isn’t that why we are here? I would really love a discussion, but you be the best they got and if this is an example of conversation, it’s not even adequate.
–
Dunger you blab a lot and say nothing. You and Mike f as in fag should be attending Jesse Jackson’s funeral today. Plenty of race baiting there.
Uncle Dung: Thank you for your most inaccurate assessment. Frankly, I’m not sure you can read. I would have been honored to be invited to Jackson’s funeral. Glad to know you were there to see what you call “race baiting” Did you wear your sheet for the occasion?
Why would I wear a sheet? KKK assholes do that. Though there’s very little of them left nowadays.
Uncle Dung asks; “why would I wear a sheet?”
Ans: because your thong would just not do.
There are as many KKK as there are commies in America. How many commies do you claim? Like 150M? Ergo, must be 150m KKK. You call all liberals commies. That’s around 150m. Same number of commies as KKK says wiki.
Be sure to iron your sheet; you want that hood to point up. You know what the racists say about a limp
Hood.
When I first read PBP, I could not find them listed wherever good media could be found. I think i must have missed it. Today, I looked them up and found this: original date: 12/2/16 updated: 1/10/25. The passages are verbatim, but re-arranged because it’s freakin funnier. My summary:
P R I C E L E S S
Punching Bag Post does not produce original content and, therefore, has not been fact-checked but is borderline on the questionable list.
Overall, we rate Punching Bag Post Right Biased based on story selection that aligns with the right. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to a lack of transparency and poor sourcing.
These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy.
Dunger you and Jesse have something in common. You idiots see a klansman behind every tree. Same thing for so called rev Al.
Fyi; this was Media Bias/Fact Check’s rating on PBP; my bad for not noting it. Laughing too hard.
Ben Dung; do you and Uncle Dung get a hard on when you spew off topic and only have trash for me? Get a room already, take off your white sheets and get down.
You realize if you actually could debate me, or Tom F, you might cause an actual Geary attack. Won’t hold my breath due to your supreme inadequacy at mature discussion.
Fools of a feather spew together.