Arkady
President
There are, obviously, glaring differences in the scope of conservative versus liberal media. Setting aside ostensibly non-partisan corporate media outlets and just looking at those that wear their liberal or conservative convictions more or less openly, conservative outlets dwarf liberal ones. There's a huge network of right-wing websites, talk radio shows, and conservative-movement magazines and think tanks, and nothing even close to that scope on the left. That's pretty broadly acknowledged, but I wanted to bring up another key difference: intellectual honesty.
Liberal media outlets certainly spin information in favor of their views. But they seldom just flatly lie about it, the way conservative media outlets do. And liberal media outlets show a willingness to grapple openly with new information and analysis that challenges liberal preconceptions, whereas conservative media outlets shunt such material out of consideration entirely.
To give you a specific example, consider a recent study by a Harvard economist, which attempted to determine whether black criminal suspects really are subjected to rougher treatment by police than white ones. The findings were challenging to both the liberal and the conservative viewpoint. Challenging to conservatives was that it seems to show that blacks really are subjected to harsher non-deadly treatment:
Challenging to liberals was that it also seems to show that there's no statistically significant difference in how likely police are to shoot whites versus blacks.
Now, compare how that study was discussed in comparable liberal and conservative outlets:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dr...ts-police-shoot-whites-more-frequently-blacks
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437651/police-killings-racial-bias-not-proven
Mother Jones, the unabashedly liberal magazine, actually overstated the challenge posed by the study to liberal preconceptions. The Mother Jones link characterized it by saying "new study suggests police shoot whites more frequently." Only in a footnote does it clarify "The results weren't statistically significant, so technically Fryer's conclusion is that there's no difference between the shooting rate of whites and blacks."
The liberal columnist takes the challenging new information very seriously, and urges fellow liberals to do the same:
The National Review article, by comparison, focuses squarely just on the lethal-force finding (the one friendly to the conservative viewpoint). It handles the non-lethal-force finding (the one challenging to the conservative viewpoint) within a single parenthetical reference, announcing that it's outside the scope of the article and suggesting it's "weak."
The overall impression left by the two articles could hardly be more different. The National Review marginalizes the finding that's challenging to its perspective and overstates the one that's supportive of its perspective (not even mentioning the statistical significance issue). It's basically pre-digesting a new study and regurgitating it, so the right-wing baby birds won't choke on anything. It reads like a talking-points memo for conservative movement members. Mother Jones, instead, highlights the issue that's challenging to its readership, forcing them to really chew on it.
That's a very significant difference, and I think it's characteristic of liberal and conservative media. I believe it's a big part of why, when I argue with liberals, I generally find that they are well aware of the weak points in their side's arguments, and that they've really thought about them, whereas when I argue with conservatives, I so often find that even the most obvious challenging facts are landing on virgin ears. Liberal media may spin the facts to fit with their worldview, but they don't try to shelter their audience the way conservative media does. Liberal outlets don't bury tough new considerations in parentheticals or hand-wave them away: they confront those challenges directly.
Liberal media outlets certainly spin information in favor of their views. But they seldom just flatly lie about it, the way conservative media outlets do. And liberal media outlets show a willingness to grapple openly with new information and analysis that challenges liberal preconceptions, whereas conservative media outlets shunt such material out of consideration entirely.
To give you a specific example, consider a recent study by a Harvard economist, which attempted to determine whether black criminal suspects really are subjected to rougher treatment by police than white ones. The findings were challenging to both the liberal and the conservative viewpoint. Challenging to conservatives was that it seems to show that blacks really are subjected to harsher non-deadly treatment:
Challenging to liberals was that it also seems to show that there's no statistically significant difference in how likely police are to shoot whites versus blacks.
Now, compare how that study was discussed in comparable liberal and conservative outlets:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dr...ts-police-shoot-whites-more-frequently-blacks
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437651/police-killings-racial-bias-not-proven
Mother Jones, the unabashedly liberal magazine, actually overstated the challenge posed by the study to liberal preconceptions. The Mother Jones link characterized it by saying "new study suggests police shoot whites more frequently." Only in a footnote does it clarify "The results weren't statistically significant, so technically Fryer's conclusion is that there's no difference between the shooting rate of whites and blacks."
The liberal columnist takes the challenging new information very seriously, and urges fellow liberals to do the same:
"Food for thought. Fryer is a careful and highly respected researcher, and he was motivated to conduct this study by the events in Ferguson a couple of years ago. Both of his conclusions are worth taking seriously and warrant further study."
The National Review article, by comparison, focuses squarely just on the lethal-force finding (the one friendly to the conservative viewpoint). It handles the non-lethal-force finding (the one challenging to the conservative viewpoint) within a single parenthetical reference, announcing that it's outside the scope of the article and suggesting it's "weak."
The overall impression left by the two articles could hardly be more different. The National Review marginalizes the finding that's challenging to its perspective and overstates the one that's supportive of its perspective (not even mentioning the statistical significance issue). It's basically pre-digesting a new study and regurgitating it, so the right-wing baby birds won't choke on anything. It reads like a talking-points memo for conservative movement members. Mother Jones, instead, highlights the issue that's challenging to its readership, forcing them to really chew on it.
That's a very significant difference, and I think it's characteristic of liberal and conservative media. I believe it's a big part of why, when I argue with liberals, I generally find that they are well aware of the weak points in their side's arguments, and that they've really thought about them, whereas when I argue with conservatives, I so often find that even the most obvious challenging facts are landing on virgin ears. Liberal media may spin the facts to fit with their worldview, but they don't try to shelter their audience the way conservative media does. Liberal outlets don't bury tough new considerations in parentheticals or hand-wave them away: they confront those challenges directly.
