Liberal Bias

Warning: What follows is assertion more than argument. Argument seems to be almost pointless on this subject. If you actually believe that CBS News is biased but Fox News tells it straight, our common ground of perceived reality is too small to rumble in. There are all sorts of possible standards for and definitions of bias. There is even a respectable view that Fox News is a terrific innovation in open bias. In fact, that's close to what I believe, though I can also appreciate the view that Fox and CBS are both unacceptably biased, or that CBS is acceptable—B-plus for effort—but Fox is not. What I can't conceive is a serious test of bias that Fox would pass but CBS would flunk. Anyway, for what it's worth, here's what I believe—undefended, but sincere.

1. Are most journalists—on balance, with many exceptions both within and among individuals—inclined to be politically liberal? Sure. Just as most major corporate executives tend to be Republican. In both cases the reasons are fairly easy to speculate about, mostly involving the psychology of people who are attracted to and do well in these different careers, though in the case of top businesspeople the nexus between political views and self-interest is more obvious.

2. Which has more impact on the shape of society and even the direction of politics: the liberal tendency of journalists or the conservative tendency of business executives? Probably the business folks (through lobbying … campaign contributions … advertising and PR … the general allure of large piles of money), possibly it's a tie. Unlikely that it is the journalists. Furthermore, even within journalism, the influence of reporters, producers, even anchors is diluted by that of the pundits, the owners, the editorial pages, all of which tend, on average, to be conservative.

3. There is a difference between having an opinion and having a bias. Polls revealing the political preferences of journalists are beside the point. An intelligent and patriotic citizen ought to have informed opinions on the issues of the day, and those opinions—with occasional exceptions—ought to be consistent with one another and with some underlying set of values. Journalists are, by and large, intelligent and patriotic and not exempt from the obligations of citizenship. They also—on average, with exceptions, etc.—tend to be more engaged, both professionally and by disposition, in the issues of the day. So, it is neither practical nor desirable to expect journalists to be ideological eunuchs.

4. The definition of bias depends on the particular institution and the journalist's particular duties. What is bias at a newspaper like the Washington Post might not be bias at a magazine like Time or Newsweek—or a whatever we are at Slate. What would be bias at Slate might not be at an overtly political journal like The Nation or the National Review. What is bias for a White House correspondent is proper or even obligatory behavior for an editorial writer. "Liberal bias" obsessives often overlook these distinctions as well as other practical realities of journalism. (The main piece offers some examples.)

5. Most journalists of all political stripes do a pretty good job of preventing their opinions from leading to bias. But no one is perfect and some folks are far from perfect. Since journalists are disproportionately liberal, the bias that creeps in is probably disproportionately liberal as well.

6. Whatcha gonna do about it? If it is wrong for journalists to be disproportionately liberal, what is the proper situation? There are three possible answers, all inadequate. a) Journalists should be ideologically neuter—neither realistic nor desirable, as explained above. b) Journalists should be disproportionately conservative. Many conservative press critics might like this situation, but I cannot imagine a persuasive justification for it. c) The politics of journalists should roughly reflect those of the general population. There is actually an interesting case to be made for this, which I've never seen made. If journalists tend to be disproportionately liberal, achieving ideological balance would require giving hiring preference to conservatives—allowing politics to trump individual merit, if merit is defined as the best possible assessment of a person's potential as a journalist. Actually, I believe that a lot of this goes on already. The constant drumbeat of "liberal bias" has mau-maued many media institutions into actively hiring conservatives. But it's not surprising that conservatives have hesitated to make this argument explicitly, as it inevitably raises the question why they oppose affirmative-action-style favoritism for other underrepresented groups. Somewhat less inevitably, it also raises the question why there shouldn't be favoritism for underrepresented liberals in corporate executive suites.

7. Bottom line: Yes, as a gross generalization, there is some liberal bias in the media. But not nearly enough to explain or justify the obsession with it. Given all the mitigating and complicating and countervailing factors—and assuming that they don't have the stomach for 6 c—liberal-bias obsessives should calm down and learn to live with it. It's really no big deal.

So, that's what I think.