Media Bias in The New York Times in the Labeling of Interest Groups, 1992-2001

xm177e2/LEXIS-NEXIS | 3/21/02 | xm177e2

[foreverfree]

bump

[xm177e2]

Institute for Policy Studies: 10/2/20%/0
Carnegie Endowment for World Peace: 27/0/0%/0

Very nice suggestions. They're think tanks, which is good (I want to be comparing like to like). These are perfect, they show a lot of bias when compared to conservative think tanks. If anyone knows of any other think tanks...

[xm177e2]

Oops, there's only 26 for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, one of those articles was about a different Carnegie Endowment.

[antaresequity]

I watch my local newpaper headlines all the time as well as the LA times. I am in California in the Bay Area.

The other day I pointed out the headlines to my friend who thinks I am nuts (he is liberal but not political). A classic example was the headline:

Bush Wages Terror War

I explained to him that the headline was blatantly biased. He couldn't see it until I explained the headline should read:

Administration Wages War on Terrorist, or

Bush Wages War on Terrorist...

The bells went off in his head...he saw it as plain as day.

[xm177e2]

Here's the updated table, with more entries:

Left-Wing Groups:	Total:	# Liberal:	% Liberal	# Left-Wing:
Alliance for Justice	23	10	43	0
American Association of University Women	23	0	0	0
American Civil Liberties Union	951	6	01	1
Americans for Democratic Action.	33	19	58%	0
Brookings Institution*	344	5	01	0
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace	26	0	0	0
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities**	105	46	44	0
Center for Law and Public Policy	6	0	0	0
Citizens for Tax Justice	35	14	40	0
Congressional Progressive Caucus	3	0	00	0
Democratic Leadership Council	134	8	06	0
Emily's List	44	2	05	0
Greenpeace	62	0	00	0
Human Rights Campaign	120	0	00	0
Handgun Control, Inc.	74	1	01	0
Institute for Policy Studies	10	2	20	0
Million Mom March	26	1	04	0
Natl. Abortion Rights Action League	59	0	00	0
Natl. Assn. for the Advancement of Color	591	6	01	0
National Education Association	143	1	01	0
National Organization for Women	149	1	01	0
People for the American Way	100	39	39	0
Planned Parenthood	279	5	02	0
Rainbow-PUSH Coalition***	71	1	01	0
Sierra Club	323	7	02	0
Southern Poverty Law Center	94	2	02	0
Violence Policy Center	33	0	00	0
Right-Wing Groups:	Total:	# Conservative:	% Conservative	# Right-Wing:
American Enterprise Institute	151	39	26	0
Cato Institute	63	21	33	0
Center for the Study of Popular Culture	6	4	66%	0
Christian Coalition	538	151	28	6
Citizens Against Government Waste	12	1	08	1
Citizens for a Sound Economy	18	5	28	0
Concerned Women for America	14	5	36	0
Empower America	39	28	72%	0
Family Research Council	176	92	52%	0
Federalist Society	27	23	85	1
Focus on the Family	68	25	37	0
Gun Owners of America	12	2	17	0
Heritage Foundation****	180	119	66%	1
Hoover Institution*****	45	8	18	1
Hudson Institute	57	31	54%	0
Institute for Justice	68	38	56%	0
Media Research Center	14	8	57%	1
Manhattan Institute	30	11	37	0
National Association of Scholars	4	2	50%	0
National Rifle Association	585	34	06	1
National Right to Life Committee******	197	12	06	0
National Right to Work Committee	2	0	00	0
National Taxpayers Union	31	7	23	1
Rutherford Institute	66	23	35	2
Young Americans for Freedom	7	5	71%	0

Two weeks from now I'll release an updated version of this, showing the number of his for liberal and conservative for the left- and right-wing organizations. I think I'll also use the search term "conservativ!" instead of "conserv!," I don't want to get false flags from words like "conservation"...

I'll also update this to check into the labeling of political figures...

[Valin]

Bias in the media? Shocking news I am at a loss of words. < /sarcasm>

Really good work. I hereby confer on you the highly coveted attaboy.
ATTABOY

[fnord]

great work! as long as you're crunching, how about just a total search for "Conservative" and "Liberal", even more so for "Right-Wing" vs. "Left-Wing". bet the RW phrase is used about 20 times as often as LW ...

My contention is that the use of labels, in and of themselves, generally have a negative connotation. Thus the widespread use of C or RW ("they're everywhere, and obviously they are a threat, hence the label") vs. L or LW ("sure, there are a few liberals, but not very many so they can't be as much of a threat"). Does that make sense?

[jalisco555]

Thanks for the ping. Of course, NPR laughs at the notion that they are biased.

[cactmh]

I have a friend who seriously doesn't think CNN is biased. I also have a Jewish friend who is a democrat but who says that CNN is most certainly biased against Israel in favor of the Arabs. As for me, I don't even know what CNN is...

[Dog Gone]

Good work.

[Graewoulf]

I believe that you have found the antidote to "Media Opinion Polls!"

You have actual FACTS!

Keep up the great work!

[RAT Patrol]

WOW! Very impressive.

[Whilom]

How is this possible? The progressive, liberal, left-wing Columbia University Journalism Review says the "facts" show there is no media bias.

[majordivit]

Thank you for providing this information and exposing more liberal bias in the so called mainstream press. Looking at the chart, it looks like most of the liberal organizations which appear more frequently in NYT articles are far less likely to have references as 'liberal' than liberal groups who appear infrequently. The converse is true of conservative groups except for the National Rifle Association and the National Right to Life which has relatively few references to being conservative in NYT articles. The reason must be that both the NRA and the National Right to Life have already been so demonized by the liberal media as being right wing extremist groups that it is unecessary to label them conservative.

One of my pet peeves with the New York Times is the difference with which they report bill passage in congress. If a bill passes with all liberal democrat support plus a couple of liberal republicans they consider it bipartisan support. However, if all the republicans vote for a bill (which means liberals and conservatives) plus 40 or 50 dems (which means moderates and some liberal support because only a handful of dems are conservative), the New York Times will proclaim is a partisan vote.

[Victoria Delsoul]

Thanks John. Good info.

[AmishDude]

Ever since conservatives began rallying against media bias, a strange cottage industry has sprung up on the left, dedicated to proving the media is really biased to the right.

Actually Chomsky was smart to have gotten in on the ground floor of this. His argument is that the media is owned by corporations and must, therefore, be conservative.

[Osage Orange]

You wrote:

" However, I'd sure like to see an effective debate on NPR rather than the one sided DNC propaganda that he is presenting."

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Frankly I'd rather see NPR...sink or swim. Take it off the government "cheese"...and die a natural death or float..on it's own.

FRegards,

[beckett]

Interesting stuff.

[Travis McGee]

GREAT WORK!

[maica]

Thanks. You are unlocking info that should be required reading on FreeRepublic!

Here are some more of my favorite 'non-partisan' interest groups:
----------Physicians for Social Responsibility
------------ACORN
-------------Children's Defense Fund
---------------The Union of Concerned Scientists

Slightly on a tangent - here is a question. We all KNOW that Richard Mellon Scaife is some kind of wealthy demon. Who would be a counterpart of his on the left? Ted Turner? Do we EVER hear of a wealthy liberal who funds attacks on conservatives?