www.fair.org/reports/journalist-survey.html
Economic Policy Issues: Comparing Journalists' Views and the Public 1. INTRODUCTION The idea that the mainstream media have a "liberal bias" has long been conventional wisdom. At various times, public figures from Richard Nixon to Newt Gingrich have all taken refuge in the claim that the "liberal" media were out to get them. A legion of conservative talk show hosts, pundits and media-watch groups pound away at the idea that the media exhibit an inherently "liberal" tilt. But the assertion is based on remarkably little evidence and is repeatedly made in the face of contradictory facts. In particular, the conservative critique of the news media rests on two general propositions: journalists' views are to the left of the public, and journalists frame news content in a way that accentuates these left perspectives. Researchers and analysts have discovered persuasive evidence against the latter claim. Content analyses of the news media have, at a minimum, shown the absence of any such systematic liberal/left tilt; But even some progressives have been willing to cede to conservatives the first point: that journalists' views are to the left of the public. Professionals in general, they observe, often have "liberal" leanings on social issues and there is no reason to expect journalists to be any different. However, they have also argued convincingly that the norms of "objective journalism" and the powerful corporate interests which own and sponsor the news media ensure that news content never strays too far, for too long, from protecting the status quo. You don't understand the corporate ideology of General Motors by studying the personal beliefs of the assembly-line workers, the argument goes. Ideological orientation is introduced and enforced by those high in the organizational hierarchy who have the power to hire and fire, to reward and punish. Working journalists, despite their sometimes high visibility, usually do not call the shots in the nation's media corporations. Such an analysis of organizational dynamics is fundamental to understanding the news process. It, indeed, is a crucial argument that kicks the legs out from the conservative critique and gets at the more fundamental structural elements that set the news agenda. Still, this approach begs the question: are journalists really to the left of the public? This element of the conservative critique has not been adequately addressed; The small amount of current data on this issue may be due, in part, to journalist's resistance to answering surveys lest results somehow compromise their professional stance of objective "neutral" observers. Still, despite the methodological hurdles, this question is an interesting one and this report describes the results of one effort to examine this essential underpinning of the "liberal media" claim. METHODOLOGY In consultation with the Survey and Evaluation Research Laboratory at Virginia Commonwealth University, a 24-question self-administered survey was sent by mail to Washington-based journalists (n = 444) as specified below. The initial mailing was followed by a reminder postcard. A second copy of the questionnaire was later sent to non-respondents. Finally, reminder phone calls were placed to remaining non-respondents and replacement surveys were mailed as requested. Data was gathered from late February through April 1998. The Survey Journalists were asked a range of questions about how they did their work and about how they viewed the quality of media coverage in the broad area of politics and economic policy. They were asked for their opinions and views about a range of recent policy issues and debates. Finally, they were asked for demographic and identifying information, including their political orientation. The Target Population of Journalists This survey was targeted at Washington bureau chiefs and Washington-based journalists who cover national politics and/or economic policy at US national and major metropolitan outlets. The intent was to represent the breadth of available media outlets, while realistically focusing on the largest and most influential of these national and major metropolitan outlets. The journalists surveyed (who were not bureau chiefs) were chosen based on the following criteria: 1. They were listed in the Spring 1998 News Media Yellow Book. They were based in the Washington, DC area as indicated in their Yellow Book listing by a telephone area code of either 202 (Washington), 703 (northern Virginia), or 301 (Maryland). They worked for a national or major metropolitan US news organization that potentially reaches the general public. The bureau chiefs surveyed in this project were chosen based on the following criteria 1. They were listed in the Spring 1998 News Media Yellow Book. Their position was listed as "bureau chief" or its equivalent. They were based in the Washington, DC area as indicated in the Yellow Book listing by a telephone area code of either 202 (Washington), 703 (northern Virginia), or 301 (Maryland). They were at a US news organization that potentially reaches the general public and that has a listing in the Yellow Book with at least 10 staff people (including the bureau chief). These criteria yielded a targeted population total of 33 bureau chiefs and 411 other journalists (total n = 444). Questionnaires were mailed to the entire targeted population. Media Organizations Represented The targeted population represents a broad range of news outlets, while at the same time focusing on the largest and most influential of these outlets. The criteria used for targeting journalists meant that smaller and less influential news outlets were not over-represented, a problem found in earlier research on Washington-based journalists. The criteria outlined above were successful in both generating significant breadth (journalists at 78 different news organizations were surveyed) while keeping the emphasis on the largest and most influential media (half of the surveys were sent to journalists at 14 news organizations). The 14 news organizations that received more than 10 surveys each were (in alphabetical order): 1. Knight-Ridder Newspapers/Tribune Information Services 6. Washington Times Appendix A contains a list of all media organizations to which surveys were mailed. For confidentiality reasons, exact numbers of surveys mailed are not indicated, but ranges are listed to give the reader a clear sense of the final distribution of surveys. The Respondents Of the 444 questionnaires mailed, 141 were returned for a response rate of 32%. In terms of type of position held by the journalist, type of media outlets, and general size of media outlet, there was no statistically significant difference between respondents and non-respondents. As Table 1 shows, the percentage of bureau chiefs, editors/producers, and journalists among the respondents was similar to their percentage in the targeted population as a whole. Thus, each level of the organizational hierarchy was adequately represented among the respondents. CAPTION: Table 1 Type of position Targeted Population % Respondents % Washington bureau chiefs 7% (33) 6% Editors or producers 23% (100) 19% (27) Reporters, correspondents and other 70% (311) 75% (105) *Some individuals hold more than one title. They were classified in the response numbers based on their self-identification (see Question #18). They were classified in the sample numbers by the "higher" of the positions in their title. Thus, each type of media outlet was adequately represented among the respondents. CAPTION: Table 2 Type of media outlet Targeted Population % Respondents % Wires/news services 19% (86) 14% (20) TV 19% (84) 17% (24) Radio 5% (20) 6% Newspaper 41% (180) 46% (65) Magazines, periodicals and other 17% (74) 17% (24) Finally, because of their larger staffs, larger news organizations had more journalists who received surveys than did smaller news organizations. The number of journalists receiving a survey at a particular news outlet serves as a rough indicator of the size of that news organization. Based on the rough breakdown used in Appendix A and summarized in Table 3, there was no significa...
|
http://csua.com/feed/