The mainstream media has a liberal bias

In the previous rounds of the debate, academic studies showed that mainstream media news sources had a heavy liberal bias, with the UCLA study showing 18 or 20 to be left of center. Con argues that the conventional definition of "news source" used by UCLA should be broadened to include opinion programs, so that conservative talk radio and Fox News commentary can be included. In this round I will show that if that definition is adopted, the bias is still overwhelmingly liberal. For example, the viewership of the liberal-biased network evening news is by itself more than all of Fox News and conservative talk radio combined, and when everything is totaled there is more than three times as much liberal bias. Here are the numbers: The evening news programs on the three major networks have a combined total viewership of 20.3 million http://www.mediabistro.com... The three network's morning shows, which are produced by their news departments, total 12.3 million viewers. http://www.mediabistro.com... Total circulation of the top 100 big-city newspapers is roughly 20 million http://en.wikipedia.org... From the UCLA study, we can reasonably estimate that about 90% have a liberal bias. Looking at the list of newspapers, only the New York Post (circulation 500K) stands out as obviously conservative. The Wall Street Journal, we know from the UCLA study, has liberal news reporting despite conservative editorial policies. So 18 million circulation is in the liberal bias column. In prime time, Fox News has an average of about 2.3 million viewers. CNN and MSNBC total about 2 million http://www.stateofthemedia.org... The article does not give the number for their Headline News directly, but from the proportions watching specific shows that are given, a reasonable estimate is about 0.6 million. Talk radio audiences are computed on a weekly basis, so Limbaugh's estimated audience of 14.25 million translates to 2.9 million daily. Hannity has about 2.7 million, Savage 1.7 million, and Ingraham 1.1 million. http://www.washingtonpost.com... Limbaugh sometimes claims 20 million, but that's only in peak weeks, not the averages. Talker's Magazine's list of hosts http://talkers.com... shows that liberal talk radio programs equal conservative programs after the 15th position in audience size. For positions five through 15 audience size varies from about 1 million to about 0.7 million. Two programs have little political content. Figuring 0.85 million for ten programs, the total excess for all of conservative talk radio is 2.9 + 2.7 + 1.7 + 1.1 + 8.5 = 16 million. The Daily Show has about 2 million nightly viewers and the Colbert Report 1.5 million. http://www.nofactzone.net... Letterman, featuring ridicule of conservative on virtually every program, has about 2 million viewers. Public Television has a mix of programming, outside of their official news programming, that is predominantly liberal. the total is probably around 2 million, based on scattered info on the PBS web site. The major networks are now featuring specials devoted to adulation of the Obama Administration, and there are a wide assortment of left-leaning entertainment programs like Saturday Night Live and South Park. So for liberal media, the total viewership is about 20.3 + 12.3 + 18 + 2.6 + 2 + 1.5 + 2 + 2 = 60.1 million, plus uncounted additional numbers from network news specials, and entertainment like SNL and South Park. For Conservative media, the totals are 2 + 2.3 + 16 = 20.3 million. The liberal bias, based upon Con's expansive definition of "news sources" is about 3:1 over conservatives, not even counting all the liberal media entertainment bias. On other issues raised in the debate: 1. O'Reilly's claim is that he has the highest rated show on the cable news channels, not that his show is a news program. The most read page in a newspaper might be the comics, that doesn't make the comics news. 2. The notions that Fox sponsored or "over-exaggerated" stories on the tea parties are false. Fox News took no part in funding or organizing the programs. Anti-war protests have 10% of the participation had more coverage on network news. Con cites mediamatters.com, an ultraleft media "watchdog." Media Matters has a fit that Fox has conservative commentary, but they never object to, say, the relentless hatred expressed nightly by Olbermann and Maddow. The one comment by a Fox News anchor that was cited was an accurate characterization of the protests. 3. Con provided no objective support for his negative contention that if Limbaugh et al where counted and compared to the liberal media broadly construed, that there would be a balance. His unsupported assertion is not true. 4. I argued that liberals claim that diversity is required for balance in every area area of intellectual endeavor other than news, and thus we should expect bias to result from journalists being overwhelming liberal. Con made no rebuttal. 5. Only the far left viewed the 2000 election as about liberal versus conservative issues. Bush ran as a "compassionate conservative" and followed through by expanding entitlements at a rate greater than had Clinton. There were few foreign policy issues as both Parties were content with the post-Cold-War peace dividend. Terrorism had not emerged as an issue, and Bush was arguably centrist based on his past record. Gore was penalized by the Clinton scandals (no doubt unfairly) and by his transcending boredom (no doubt fairly). Even so, the 56% negative stories for Gore barely edged the 49% for Bush. Liberal journalists did not much like either candidate. 6. Reagan was not an evangelical, rarely attended church, and mentioned religion less than Clinton. It is not true as he was viewed as "spiritual." Born-again Carter is the apt comparison to Palin. 7. Perhaps as Con claims, more trashing of Palin came from entertainment shows that news broadcasts. Nonetheless the press coverage was grossly biased, ignoring Biden's gaffes and playing up Palin's. If entertainment is counted, the liberal bias is still three to one. 8. It's far more telling that rumors of John Edward's scandal were ignored by the mainstream media than that his expensive haircuts were featured. In contrast, The Times published false rumors of a McCain scandal. No matter whether the UCLA definition of mainstream media news is used, or Con's broad definition of news sources, the liberal bias is overwhelming. The resolution is affirmed.