NPR Host Decries 'Fairness Bias' – When Media Overcompensate to Conservatives
NPR host Brooke Gladstone admits that journalists are generally more liberal than regular Americans, but she thinks they overcompensate for their bias by giving too much of a voice to conservatives. For instance, Gladstone believes conservatives do not deserve an equal voice with liberals in the global warming debate.
Gladstone, whose interview appeared on the blog of CNN's In the Arena, has voiced in the past that the media have a "tendency to bend over backwards to prove they aren't liberal." In the interview she clarified the media's over-reaction as "fairness bias."
Aren't those two words contradictory? Apparently not for Gladstone, who thinks the press can be "too fair" to conservatives in giving them more air-time than liberals, or granting them an equal voice when their argument doesn't warrant such a pedestal. According to her, this is the product of conservatives "hammering" the liberal bias of the media since the days of Nixon.
"I do not for a second advocate banning any voices from the air, but to give equal time to those who dispute say, global warming, merely muddies the water," Gladstone claimed. "The public is not served by hearing prolonged presentations of a nonsensical debate. Give them a voice, but not an equal voice. That's the same as lying in order to appear fair."
For the full interview on CNN's In the Arena blog, click here.
- Matt Hadro's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
we need more deregulation of media
Submitted by g00se99 on Wed, 06/01/2011 - 12:36pm.
The issue is not bias. Let every network be biased as long as we have the freedom to create all the networks we want. Then people can flip channels and hear every side to an issue. Trying to force fairness is an exercise in futility.
The NPR mantra when it comes
Submitted by Beukeboom on Wed, 06/01/2011 - 1:21pm.
The NPR mantra when it comes to conservatives and conservatism: "free speech for me but not for thee."
Give us credit
Submitted by Dave81 on Wed, 06/01/2011 - 1:29pm.
A "nonsensical debate"? Isn't that for us to decide, not her? It's not the journalist's job to determing what is right or wrong, what's good or bad, what's sensicle or nonsensicle, it's her job to report the news and give US, the viewers/readers/listeners the right to determine for oursevles what to do with the information. This REQUIRES equal time from both sides of a debate, no matter how much you agree/disagree with them, to argue their point. How are we to know it's "nonsnsical" if we only have half the story?
"A 'nonsensical debate'?
Submitted by classicliberal2 on Wed, 06/01/2011 - 2:33pm.
"A 'nonsensical debate'? Isn't that for us to decide, not her? It's not the journalist's job to determing what is right or wrong, what's good or bad, what's sensicle or nonsensicle, it's her job to report the news and give US, the viewers/readers/listeners the right to determine for oursevles what to do with the information."
It's the job of journalism to inform the public. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. Gladstone's argument--and she's quite correct--is that if journalism sacrifices, on the altar of "balance," any effort to try to get at the truth, journalism is misinforming the public it is charged with informing. One can certainly choose to "balance" scientific assertions about the earth with the claims of the Flat Earth Society, but that's a nonsensical "debate." It's a waste of time, and, insofar as the Flat Earthers are presented as having an equal claim to the truth, a blatant lie.
CL2,
Submitted by Agnostic on Wed, 06/01/2011 - 2:54pm.
Journalism is not sacrificed on the alter of balance but I do agree that the idea of balance in media is a joke that would stifle reporting and facts if attempted.
I see you are sticking with your flat earth examples to exaggerate your point but it really is not pertinent to the discussion. Global warming is a better example. The media has been reporting Global Warming/Climate Change as fact when it based on trends whose causes are debatable. Also, there are many that deeply believe in climate change, believe it to be the cause of man but disagree strongly with the strong arm style of government being proprosed to address the issue. These people are labled as 'Deniers' also for 'Cause'. Is that "fact based journalism" or is that preaching from a pulpit.
In almost every venue you have people that run the gamut on issues and every point can not be supported in the press. However, the media discounts most views based not on the facts but the political or social position represented by the person presenting ideas.
"All animals are equal, but
Submitted by robert108 on Wed, 06/01/2011 - 1:35pm.
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." - George Orwell
Gladstone?
Submitted by Agnostic on Wed, 06/01/2011 - 2:15pm.
Would that be any relationship to the Kaplan Glandstone that went from DNC job to media job?
That would be her husband. Well at least she admits to being liberal and that NPR is liberal. Even her 'manifesto' states that she believes in listening to all sides but only airing the ones she agrees with - sorry, I mean airing the ones that deserve to be aired.
What I don't know is what degree or field of study she has that allows her to tell many people with degrees in various subjects and decades of experience they are wrong and she is right.
"In the interview she
Submitted by classicliberal2 on Wed, 06/01/2011 - 2:34pm.
"In the interview she clarified the media's over-reaction as 'fairness bias.' Aren't those two words contradictory?"
No. What Gladstone is describing is the tendency to reduce coverage of an issue to a series of competing claims, without making any effort to ascertain which claim is right. This is done in the name of "balance," but it's a false balance, and the tendency one of the banes of allegedly serious journalism in the U.S. today. Her example is a perfect one. Climate change is only slightly more disputed within science as gravity, and if you give "equal time" to deniers (who are political people with zero expertise or knowledge of the subject), you are flat-out lying to the public you've been charged with informing. It's like countering the established science about the earth with religious zealots who claim the earth is only 5,000 years old, or that it is flat, or countering Holocaust survivors with those who say the Holocaust never happened. It's nonsense, and it's not only a complete waste of time but a massive lie, perpetuated because, in a medium charged with informing the public, trying to get to the truth has been sacrificed on the altar of some twisted notion of being "fair."
The Columbia Journalism Review ran an article some years ago on this problem; specifically, with regard to the way science is covered:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2010/01/15/blinded-by-sci...
So, how does one ascertain if
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Wed, 06/01/2011 - 2:35pm.
So, how does one ascertain if the person spouting has the "right" amount or type of knowledge?
CL2,
Submitted by Agnostic on Wed, 06/01/2011 - 2:43pm.
I agree with the meaning of your statement though not necessarily your implication. The media is so overwhelmingly liberal in their understanding of events they repeatedly demonstrate the lack of ability to understand the conservative pov. The inability to understand something does not make it wrong and is more likely evidence of the shortcomings of the 'journalist' than an actual verdict on what is right/wrong.
Journalist can not be experts on all things and no one expects them to be but it is very, very obvious that they understand one side of the argument and not the other. That in no way decides that either side is wrong - it is an indication that the journalist needs to do more research. Something journalist have failed to do since journalism became a crusade instead of job.
"I agree with the meaning of
Submitted by classicliberal2 on Wed, 06/01/2011 - 7:22pm.
"I agree with the meaning of your statement though not necessarily your implication. The media is so overwhelmingly liberal in their understanding of events they repeatedly demonstrate the lack of ability to understand the conservative pov."
Journalists are, by and large, lazy morons who don't understand ANY political pov. That's why this omnipresent "fairness bias" is such a plague in the first place. The notion that they have some liberal "understanding of events" is a comforting persecution fantasy, but isn't born out by what journalists actually do.
It IS worth noting, however, that conservatives are, as a rule, greatly overrepresented in the news media end-product; conservative public figures usually outnumber liberal ones and the conservative framing of major issues is usually accepted without skepticism. The idea of "bipartisanship" is virtually worshiped by much of the corporate press, but functionally, it's a notion of "bipartisanship" defined as Democrats doing what Republicans want, and not being "divisive." The situation has improved, to an extent--only a few years ago, for example, liberals were barely allowed on television at all (shows featuring a debate format would inevitably pit extremely conservative guests against moderates and even journalists). Lefty "media watchdogs" have documented all of this for years, and they're good at being systematic, whereas the MRC deals, almost entirely, in scattered anecdotes, many of them dependent upon a willfully negative interpretation, and dependent, for their effectiveness, upon the psychological impact of persistent repetition of that persecution fantasy (the unyielding liberalism of the press is treated as an established fact, and the scattered anecdotes used to confirm it). I don't find much of what goes on here particularly helpful as press criticism. I never see any recognition that the press plays an essential role in our democracy; here, it's mostly just treated as something that gets in the way of a conservative agenda (even when, in the real world, the better case can be made that it is helping that agenda along).
classicliberal says---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 06/01/2011 - 7:59pm.
"It IS worth noting, however, that conservatives are, as a rule, greatly overrepresented in the news media end-product; conservative public figures usually outnumber liberal ones and the conservative framing of major issues is usually accepted without skepticism."
Only a "classic liberal" would come on NewsBusters, whose avowed mission is 'exposing and combating liberal media bias', and post such utter bullshit as though it were the absolute truth and no one would call him on it.
I have yet to see a liberal, troll or no, who has his head so far up his own liberal butt.
What a time waster.
MD
Hey CL, step away from the
Submitted by redmike on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 10:14am.
Hey CL, step away from the crack-pipe.
A born denier ...
Submitted by NL207 on Wed, 06/01/2011 - 2:52pm.
"Climate change is only slightly more disputed within science as gravity"
Lets replace 'Climate Change' with 'Anthropogenic Global Warming' and your statement becomes false.
Who determines what it true?
Submitted by IdahoJim on Wed, 06/01/2011 - 3:12pm.
I disagree that the presenter should be the one who determines which side tells the truth. Journalists search for and present facts. They have to leave it up to the viewer/reader/listener to decide for themselves which side they are on. If you think neutrality on the part of the MSM is a waste of time then you must be one of those liberals that deride and insult anybody that does not agree with you. That you want to censor one side or the other based on your bias bothers me the most. I want to hear both sides.
Another point: there is far more evidence that the Earth is far older than 5,000 years, that the Holocaust happened, and overwhelming evidence that the Earth is not flat then there is evidence for anthropogenic global warming.
Q. What do environmentalist calling for central planning to control commerce , limit personal freedom, industry quotas, and more government intervention and regulations all in the name of stopping global warming have in common with socialism?
A. Everything. Each is a twin of the other.
IdahoJim
http://idahoandy.net
Wrong.
Submitted by Phryj1 on Wed, 06/01/2011 - 4:33pm.
First of all, no one is denying climate change. That's a strawman.
Second, it's AGW theory that's in dispute, which is why the eco-crusaders changed up their game and started conflating AGW with natural climate change. They are being intellectually dishonest.
Denying airtime to meteorologists and other scientists who would dispute AGW theory would be unscientific as well as journalistic malpractice. But the left has made it abundantly clear they are pushing for society-destroying CO2 limiting policies at any cost, even if they are completely unnecessary in addition to being provably ineffective.
Progressives seem to be completely averse to facts and logic. Apparently, reality has a conservative bias.
Media wall crumbling down
Submitted by vote24 on Wed, 06/01/2011 - 8:40pm.
J.C. lady! Noone who wrote, edited, or produced, this stuff, saw any problem!
Couldn't resist
Submitted by vote24 on Wed, 06/01/2011 - 9:12pm.
NPR host Brooke Gladstone admits that journalists are generally more liberal than regular Americans, I said "no s**t Sherlock" but She thinks they overcompensate for their natural leftist/marxist Democrat Party bias by giving too much of a voice to conservatives. For instance, Gladstone believes conservatives do not deserve air, or an equal voice with liberals in the global warming debate.
Gladstone, whose pseudo-interview appeared on the "blog" of CNN's The Arena of a Liberal Mind, has voiced "in the past" that the media have a "tendency to bend over backwards...and to bend over backwards to prove they aren't liberal, even though of course, they are" In the interview she "clarified" the media's over-reaction as "fairness bias!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Aren't those two words contradictory? I said "no s**t Sherlock, but apparently not for Gladstone, who thinks the press can be "too fair" to conservatives in giving them any air-time at all, or granting them an equal voice when their argument doesn't warrant such a pedestal, which is never. According to her, this is the product of conservatives "s**t-hammering" the liberal bias of the media since the days of completely selling out to elect Obama.
"I do not for a second advocate banning any voices from the air, well except consrvative voices, but to give equal time to those idiot bastards who dispute say, global warming, merely won't advance my career". Gladstone claimed. "The public is not served by hearing prolonged presentations of common sense. Give them a voice, but not an equal voice. According to me. That's the same as lying in order to appear fair."!???!!!?
With all due respect...
Submitted by beauxdog on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 12:02pm.
Purposely misquoting people, even in jest or "satire", makes you and the rest of us look stupid and totally discredits our efforts to show the bias of the press.
In my mind, there is nothing more violating and wrong than when a liberal puts ridiculous words in our mouths, then criticizes us for it. It doesn't help our cause for you to be doing the same thing.
Translation
Submitted by vote24 on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 2:14pm.
Ok point taken. But I was actually just translating for clarity. And I think this story is begging for satire. Funny is still funny, I thought using humor and ridicule might actually help our cause. i understand that you disagree.
Thank you.
Submitted by beauxdog on Fri, 06/03/2011 - 12:57am.
I appreciate you taking my criticism in good cheer.
Isn't there enough damning evidence?
Submitted by Less1leg on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 2:45am.
Its unbelievable trying to show person of a liberal point of view how outrageous they are to stiffling counter points of view to a liberal point of interest. It was shown on Liveleak how stupid and inconsistent liberals are towards others. Even to the point of signing a petition to remove Freedom of Speech from one person, and asking them verbally if they support Freedom of Speech in discussion.
There were quite a few university students who had no problem removing the rights of a Conservative person to Speak Freely and sign a petition to remove those person's Freedom of Speech. There were a number of people who saw through the hyprocracy of the question and siging the petition, so bravo to them! But I was surprised at the number of people who when questioned about denying one person's right to Free Speech. They had no problem taking it away from one as long as you were a liberal speaking freely wasn't a problem.
This seems to be a prevailing trait in our colleges and universities. Progressive liberal ideology of promoting a lefist perverted liberal ideal and trashing other points of view or the ability to even express them.
how many stories have we read about universities promoting liberalism to students. And any form of conservative viewpoints were ostrasized, and poor marks directed at that student. If you are a conservative minded person in any North American university, you are Public Enemy Number One in the eyes of social activist professors.