Does public radio have a liberal bias?

[mwebster]

I am NOT saying public radio has an inherent or deliberate liberal bias.

But many conservatives apparently believe so (and some others). There seem to be several reasons for this. Many conservatives have an ideological problem with government funding (not matter how small a proportion) for public radio. Public radio's culture is one which embraces liberal values such as diversity and "political correctness." This sometimes comes across in form and style, but not necessarily in substance or content, and might be perceived as bias.

I don't see evidence the public radio reporters and editors deliberately distort to advance a political agenda. But the culture and and workplace paradigms of public radio may influence news judgements. Others may disagree but I suspect any apparent bias in public radio reporting is unintentional and stylistic. But the result is the same as bias.

And journalists in public radio are afflicted with the same issues and the same operating methods as all journalists which often have caused the public at large to see journalists as untrustworthy (in polls, they rank at the bottom with lawyers).

I realize some will rush to defend public radio and wish to attack my motives for posting rather than deal with these questions. I think these are legitimate questions and this type of self-examination is something all journalists and broadcasters need to do from time to time. No human being can ever be completely objective, but we can be aware of our biases.

 

[Les]

This is gonna be a tough thread to keep from becoming a political
exchange. There's a lot to discuss here without left/right bickering.
Let's work at it to keep this thread on THIS board rather than see
it shifted to "Off The Air".

Yes, I have some thoughts on the subject but, since I moderate this
board, I'm gonna keep 'em to myself. I will say that those thoughts
will NOT influence any decision I might have to make about what's allowed.
ANY diversion into partisanship is not going to stand.

<P ID="signature">______________
"I am free of all prejudice. I hate everyone equally." --W.C. Fields</P>

 

[tbetz]

Most people don't think so.

From http://www.cpb.org/aboutcpb/goals/objectivity/pollsummary.html :

CPB-Commissioned National Opinion Polls

Public Perceptions of Public Broadcasting, December 2003

The Tarrance Group and Lake Snell Perry & Associates have conducted two nationwide public opinion surveys on behalf of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting during the last 12 months – one in July of this year and the other in November 2002. (i) The foremost objective of these research studies was to accurately measure the extent to which the American public believes there is bias embedded in the news and information programming on public television and public radio.

Upon completing the most recent survey, CPB commissioned both firms to conduct four focus groups (ii) to further explore the issue of bias, what exactly people perceive as bias, and whether or not bias is a significant concern.

The major findings from this latest survey are listed below in bold, with additional evidence outlined in the bulleted sub-points. When applicable, findings from the focus groups are referenced.

Both surveys confirm the same thing: The majority of the U.S. adult population does not believe that the news and information programming on public broadcasting is biased. The plurality of Americans indicate that there is no apparent bias one way or the other, while approximately one-in-five detect a liberal bias and approximately one-in-ten detect a conservative bias.

In the latest survey, 21% of respondents indicate that PBS news and information programming has a liberal bias, while 22% say the same thing for NPR.

My own opinion is that NPR news (like its commercial broadcast news counterparts) is too careful to give equal time to both of only two sides of any issue, instead of looking more deeply at the various perspectives that may exist, and evaluating the many positions offered.<P ID="signature">______________
also known as tombetz.</P>

 

[doc9464]

Tom Betz's post should probably but a topping on this cake....it was the CPB's own research that they commissioned with republican appointed leadership....i think we have a winner...i certainly cant refute those hard points made in the research....


> This is gonna be a tough thread to keep from becoming a
> political
> exchange. There's a lot to discuss here without left/right
> bickering.
> Let's work at it to keep this thread on THIS board rather
> than see
> it shifted to "Off The Air".
>
> Yes, I have some thoughts on the subject but, since I
> moderate this
> board, I'm gonna keep 'em to myself. I will say that those
> thoughts
> will NOT influence any decision I might have to make about
> what's allowed.
> ANY diversion into partisanship is not going to stand.
>

 

[tbetz]

> Tom Betz's post should probably but a topping on this
> cake....it was the CPB's own research that they commissioned
> with republican appointed leadership....

What's more interesting about it (to me, anyway) is that this research, conducted by a Republican polling firm, was suppressed by Kenneth Tomlinson for MORE THAN TWO YEARS because it did not support his political agenda, and was only published recently on the CPB web site after its existence was leaked by CPB staffers. The earliest reference to that poll information URL that I can find is from July 12 of this year.<P ID="signature">______________
also known as tombetz.</P>

 

[Les]

Caution to responders....

> What's more interesting about it (to me, anyway) is that
> this research, conducted by a Republican polling firm, was
> suppressed by Kenneth Tomlinson for MORE THAN TWO YEARS
> because it did not support his political agenda, and was
> only published recently on the CPB web site after its
> existence was leaked by CPB staffers. The earliest
> reference to that poll information URL that I can find is
> from July 12 of this year.

Thanks, all, for self-moderating your responses. I feel us edging
a bit toward possible temptation to go heavily political so only
want to ask that, as you respond within this thread to think it
through and re-read your prepared post through a second time
before clicking submitting.

Again, Thanks!
<P ID="signature">______________
In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality at any point.
--Friedrich Nietzsch</P>

 

[mwebster]

My take on the issue

Some qualifications:
I am talking about public radio news, talk and public affairs programming.
I don't think NPR reporters, writers, editors and news readers have an agenda or conscious political bias in their work. I think they strive to follow the rules of objective journalism.

That said, I do hear a "conventional wisdom" seemingly underlying much public radio journalism, and which accepts certain assumptions as givens. While these may "givens" within the culture of public radio, they are not necessarily "givens" for everybody.
Examples of such assumptions include:
Homosexuality is innate and not a choice.
Minorities should retain their language and culture and not assimilate.
Minorities are victims of deliberate oppression by the majority.

My purpose is not to challenge these positions. I am saying these are viewpoints not universally held.

As an example, in its coverage of the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, much public radio news and talk coverage I heard focused on the plight of Black victims and seemed based on the assumption that their plight was the result of racism.

Public radio often has a double-standard. For example, in coverage I have heard, public radio seems very sensitive in respecting the origin beliefs of some American Indians that their ancestors did not come from someplace else (i.e., Siberia), but does not show the same sensitivity to Creationists who hold to the origin beliefs of the Book of Genesis.

In their coverage of cultural and racial minorities, public radio often uses members of the group being covered as reporters and presents only the view of that group's leaderships leadership. Such coverage is generally non-critical and affirming. The same standard of coverage does not apply to mainstream groups or organizations.

I do not intend to attack public radio, or to start a left-right arguement. But I do think these are valid questions worth raising. NPR as an ombudsman and I take this as a sign NPR is committed to this kind of self examination. This web page provides some recent examples:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=2781901

 

[tbetz]

Re: My take on the issue

> I do hear a "conventional wisdom" seemingly underlying much public
> radio journalism, and which accepts certain assumptions as givens.
> While these may "givens" within the culture of public radio, they
> are not necessarily "givens" for everybody.
> Examples of such assumptions include:
> Homosexuality is innate and not a choice.
> Minorities should retain their language and culture and not
> assimilate.
> Minorities are victims of deliberate oppression by the
> majority.

I do not accept the premise of your thesis.

Please provide links to three examples each of such reporting.

Most of NPR's day is archived at npr.org. Certainly, if such assumptions are as prevalent in NPR reporting as you assert, you should be able to find nine examples of NPR reporters making these assumptions.

I'm talking about NPR reporters, now, not commentators or interview subjects.<P ID="signature">______________
also known as tombetz.</P>

 

[mwebster]

Re: My take on the issue

This the same ploy businesses use. "When I called yesterday I was told ___." "What was the name of the person you spoke to?"

No! I don't play that game. I have heard what I have heard. I am not going to waste time looking for examples. You provide examples to show I'm wrong if you feel like it.

If you want to try to refute my post with your own experience go ahead. But you don't make the rules around here.

What I proposed was an inquiry. That requires an open mind.

>
> I do not accept the premise of your thesis.
>
> Please provide links to three examples each of such
> reporting.
>
> Most of NPR's day is archived at npr.org. Certainly, if
> such assumptions are as prevalent in NPR reporting as you
> assert, you should be able to find nine examples of NPR
> reporters making these assumptions.
>
> I'm talking about NPR reporters, now, not commentators or
> interview subjects.
>

 

[tbetz]

Re: My take on the issue

> No! I don't play that game.

In other words, you've got nothing to back up your assertions.

It is as I suspected.

I've already posted a link to and an excerpt from the Tarrance surveys proving that your presumptions are unsubstantiated. Most people do not agree with you.


<P ID="signature">______________
also known as tombetz.</P>

 

[Les]

OK guys....

Let's get back to the issue and knock off the "he said/she said".

Note, I said "guys", in the plural.

Thank You.
<P ID="signature">______________
In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality at any point.
--Friedrich Nietzsch</P>

 

[tbetz]

Re: OK guys....

> Let's get back to the issue and knock off the "he said/she
> said".
>
> Note, I said "guys", in the plural.

I must be missing something here.

The subject of the discussion, the issue raised, is the perception of bias in NPR reporting. The long-suppressed Tarrance surveys show that most Americans do not perceive bias in NPR reporting, and the minority who do perceive bias perceive it almost equally in opposite directions.

Now along comes a guy who asserts that most people perceive bias in one direction, but offers nothing to support his assertion -- indeed, when offered an easy means and an opportunity to do so, he REFUSES to offer anything to support his assertion.

Should such foolishness not be pointed out, in as civil a manner as possible?

Is there something wrong with asking for supporting evidence for a fundamentally erroneous assertion, especially considering that I provided solid evidence contravening that assertion a couple of days ago, in the same discussion?<P ID="signature">______________
also known as tombetz.</P>

 

[mwebster]

Re: OK guys....

Sorry, Tom. I have been down this road before (mostly on the news-talk board).
Someone posts a point of view. Rather than replying with their own viewpoint or experience, someone else demands proof. A few times I could get my hands on it quickly and easily and I posted it. Then the quibbling starts: The source is not valid. The information is wrong. The interpretation is incorrect or out of context. If I wanted to write term papers I'd go back to school. If I wanted to research everything, I'd be a lawyer and make the big bucks. I come on a radio board to share ideas and viewpoints.

Apparently, you don't agree with my observation or my experience in this area. I'd be interested in hearing your's. I won't ask for proof. I won't debate. But I would like to hear how public radio sounds to you in this regard. That was my purpose in starting this thread.

Nothing is wrong with asking for evidence in a debate. That's just not the game I want to play. However, I am listening to public radio as I type. If I hear anything related to this thread, I will let you know.


>
> Is there something wrong with asking for supporting evidence
> for a fundamentally erroneous assertion, especially
> considering that I provided solid evidence contravening that
> assertion a couple of days ago, in the same discussion?
>

 

[tbetz]

Re: OK guys....

> Apparently, you don't agree with my observation or my
> experience in this area. I'd be interested in hearing
> your's.

http://www.radio-info.com/mods/board?Post=556181&Board=noncomm<P ID="signature">______________
also known as tombetz.</P>

 

[mwebster]

Re: OK guys....

> > Apparently, you don't agree with my observation or my
> > experience in this area. I'd be interested in hearing
> > your's.
>
ht> tp://www.radio-info.com/mods/board?Post=556181&Board=noncomm
>

Your observation about being "too careful to give equal time" is valid and probably applies to all broadcast news. It's been described as if someone says the world is round, you have to find somebody to say the world is flat.

I can't comment on the polls cited in the press release you provided without having access to the full report (including methodolgy and data tables). Apparently these studies are an example of the syndrome you describe: They hired one Democratic and one Republican political pollster to do studies (equal time again?). The fact that these are political pollsters (rather than bona fide social, academic or market research organizations) makes the whole process suspect. If research is an objective fact-finding and discovery process grounded in social science methodolgy, how can there be Republican or Democratic pollsters? The fact is these "pollsters" are consultants in researchers' clothing. Further, survey researchers or consultants-with-an-agenda are singularly unqualified to conduct focus groups (see qrca.org). However, it is nice when a client gets the research results they want. Everybody is happy and the consultant is likely to get future business.

 

[tbetz]

Re: OK guys....

> They hired one
> Democratic and one Republican political pollster to do
> studies (equal time again?).

And as the summary offers:

Both surveys confirm the same thing: The majority of the U.S. adult population does not believe that the news and information programming on public broadcasting is biased. The plurality of Americans indicate that there is no apparent bias one way or the other, while approximately one-in-five detect a liberal bias and approximately one-in-ten detect a conservative bias.

Both polls found the same results, pretty much obliterating your hinted accusation of polling bias.

The methodologies are documented in PDF files, downloadable here.

To avoid falling into the logical fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam, you may want to have a look at them.

> However, it is nice when a client gets the research results they want.

In fact, the client (Tomlinson) did NOT get the results he wanted, which is why the existence of these surveys was kept secret until somebody at the CPB leaked them this Summer.

<P ID="signature">______________
also known as tombetz.</P>

 

[mwebster]

The survey is flawed

Thank you for providing the link.

The two surveys (one in 2002 and one in 2003) were conducted jointly by the companies using the same questionnaires. These are not separate surveys conducted indpendently by two companies. Although, one of the files for each year is called "data," these are not raw data tables but a PowerPoint type presentation of results.

The questionnaire is flawed:

Throughout the questionnaire, respondents are asked to agree or disagree with consistently postive statements about public radio and television. Negative statements are not included. This introduces an agreement bias because survey respondents consistently are more likely to agree with statements than disagree. A well designed questionnaire includes both positive and negative agree/disagree statements to balance this out.

The survey also asks respondents whether they think various networks has "a liberal bias, a conservative bias or no apparent bias one way of the other." In this case, respondents can select a neutral response ("no apparent bias") and when this is the case, many respondents avoid the issue by chosing easy answer. This, of course, serves public broadcasting's purpose is sponsoring these surveys, which is to refute allegations of bias.

The questionnaire also tells repondents the the federal government spends $1.30 "for every man, woman and child" on public broadcasting...based on what the American public gets in return for this expenditure, do you think the amount ... is too much - about right - too little." This is a leading question and favors the clients' agenda. The outcome would likely be different in the question were based on the total figure, or did not include assumptions about what the "public gets in return." There are all sorts of ways to ask this question in a more neutral fashion, which could yield a different result.

Since the actual data tables are not included, it is not possible to determine to what extent the sample was partially self-selected and therefore not representative. Close to half the population is not available for telephone surveys due to unlisted numbers, busy/no answers and screening of calls. Ruling out this possible source of bias, what were the refusal rates for these surveys and what was the rate for people terminating the survey early (the survey goes on too long and people refuse to continue).

In addition, these consultants made the basic error of putting people who believed public broadcasting is biased in the same focus groups with those who do not hold that view. They should have been assigned to different groups. What you have instead of the chance to explore and understand each viewpoint in depth within a homogenous group, is the jury effect in which participants try to force a conclusion.

What is interesting is:
The finding that frequent listeners of NPR are MORE LIKELY to say NPR has a liberal bias.
Results on the bias questions are about the same for NPR and PBS as they are for Fox, CNN and the other networks. In effect, if these surveys disprove claims of NPR bias, they also disprove claims of Fox bias.

Bottom line: The survey proves nothing one way or the other, except that research can be (and often is) constructed to tell the clients what they want to hear. My source for this observation is 25 years in market, public opinion and political research.



> > They hired one
> > Democratic and one Republican political pollster to do
> > studies (equal time again?).
>
> And as the summary offers:
>
> Both surveys confirm the same thing: The majority of the
> U.S. adult population does not believe that the news and
> information programming on public broadcasting is biased.
> The plurality of Americans indicate that there is no
> apparent bias one way or the other, while approximately
> one-in-five detect a liberal bias and approximately
> one-in-ten detect a conservative bias.
>
> Both polls found the same results, pretty much obliterating
> your hinted accusation of polling bias.
>
> The methodologies are documented in PDF files, downloadable
> here.
>
> To avoid falling into the logical fallacy of argumentum ad
> ignorantiam, you may want to have a look at them.
>
> > However, it is nice when a client gets the research
> results they want.
>
> In fact, the client (Tomlinson) did NOT get the results he
> wanted, which is why the existence of these surveys was kept
> secret until somebody at the CPB leaked them this Summer.
>

 

[tbetz]

Re: The survey is flawed

> Bottom line: The survey proves nothing one way or the other,
> except that research can be (and often is) constructed to
> tell the clients what they want to hear.

Of course, as I have pointed out before, these surveys did not tell the client (Tomlinson) what he wanted to hear, and were suppressed until this summer, when CPB was forced to release them by the controversy raised by their leaking.

Thanks for your interesting analysis of the questions.<P ID="signature">______________
also known as tombetz.</P>

 

[Timothy]

Re: The survey is flawed

I must be reading the survey methedology differently than mwebster, it looks stacked against public broadcasting, ot the point of using push technology to get people to say they think NPR/PBS is biased. For instance, they offer a sub group of "NPR Consumers", I guess from some demographic ideal they get. Of those ideal consumers, large amounts never listen to NPR.

The survey is only flawed in that all surveys are flawed because you can't control the human reaction.

I found it interesting that over 40% of all respondents felt that NPR was more trustworthy than TV news media. That interests me becase bias is a relative term. If NPR is biased, more so than whom? Hardly anybody thinks they're more biased than the big four TV networks.

All I have is anecdotal evidence from a couple of NPR folks, one a VP at NPR, the other a former news anchor and long time notable name at NPR, they both said that NPR has for the last decade bent over backwards to report both sides, often giving more credence to the conservative side so as not to suffer the liberal tag.

Which is useless, as we can see. Renee Montagne could give a wet kiss to President Bush and people would still accuse NPR of liberal bias.

 

[uncamark]

Re: The survey is flawed

> All I have is anecdotal evidence from a couple of NPR folks,
> one a VP at NPR, the other a former news anchor and long
> time notable name at NPR, they both said that NPR has for
> the last decade bent over backwards to report both sides,
> often giving more credence to the conservative side so as
> not to suffer the liberal tag.
>
> Which is useless, as we can see. Renee Montagne could give
> a wet kiss to President Bush and people would still accuse
> NPR of liberal bias.

While on the other side, the far left is jumping up and down with glee to prove that NPR has sold out to evil corporate capitalist AmeriKKKa.

Which means, in my mind, that if NPR is angering the polar extremes in this country, then it's doing the job it's supposed to be doing.