Whenever a conservative starts to say there is a liberal bias in the media, a chorus of voices immediately rises up to deny it. No matter how many studies show that people in journalism self-report their politics as left of center, that their political preferences trend very strongly left, that, when they are allowed to donate, their donations are hugely toward the Democrat party, none of this serves to convince some people that there is a bias in the media.

Now, let me clarify a little bit. When I say there is a media bias, I do not mean that the media reports only good about Democrats and only bad about Republicans. There are many influences besides party preference. First, as juicy scandal is too tempting to pass up regardless of party. Scandals make careers, and ignoring it gives the opposition a chance to scoop you, so reporters do not ignore really interesting scandals no matter their political preference. Second, there is a built in preference for bad news. Stories of impending disaster always sell better than "everything is ok", so the media has a preference for negative tales. Third, strong public interest in a story means the media cannot ignore it, so some stories that innate bias might make unattractive to the press are still covered due to public interest in them.

But, given all those factors, the press does exhibit a bias in favor of the left end of the political spectrum. As I said, it is not absolute, but they have a tendency to give Democrats the benefit of the doubt while being much harder on Republicans. They tend to respond to problems by asking what laws should be passed, which is, itself, a liberal position¹. They generally have a tendency to view big, activist government as something benign and necessary, while viewing corporations with distrust. In short, they generally have a world view that makes them more comfortable with the ideas promoted by the left-wing rather than the right.

I do not know why this is such a contentious idea. The fact that certain professions self-select for ideology is not an unusual one. If I were to say most social workers tend to the left politically², no one would dispute it. Likewise if I said most people in law enforcement tend to the right³, it would not surprise anyone. Similarly, whether due to self-selection  or due to the criteria applied by those granting tenure, or an interaction of the two, it would surprise no one if I said college professors tend toward the left, nor if I added that the amount of bias varies with department.

If we can accept that there is a political bias among the members of other professions, why do so many refuse to believe there could be one among reporters?

It makes a lot of sense if you think about it. People tend to study journalism as they either want to "change the world" or "expose corruption". Both attitudes tend to appeal to a certain type. They tend to be idealists, with a confrontational perspective, who think that public pressure,  and maybe legal pressure, is needed to solve problems. Given that perspective, I would be surprised if journalism majors were not heavily skewed to the left.

And, of course, once such a bias is introduced, it begins to reinforce itself. As professors of journalism, and those already in the profession come from the left, they have a tendency to prefer those of a like mind.⁴ Even if they do not explicitly prefer left wing beliefs in hiring, the environment is such that it is unlikely those of differing beliefs will either speak out, or remain long, and those on the fence, seeing the prevailing orthodoxy, will tend to move to the left as well.

Of course, this does not mean that everyone in journalism is on the left, there are obviously exceptions in journalism, as in any profession with a prevailing political bent. And, with the appearance of a few more right-leaning outlets, those with a differing set of beliefs have found a few safe havens. It is not enough of a trend yet for the right wingers to have insinuated themselves into schools of journalism or most of the mainstream media, but there is a very slow movement to the right.⁵

But, at present, the bias still clearly exists. It is not the sole determinant of what will be reported, or how, but it clearly plays a part.

----------------------------------------------------------

1. Some comment is almost certainly going to make reference to George Bush and big government projects and try to argue that both parties like big government. This is a mistake for two reasons. First, just because Republicans have done something does not make it conservative. The Republican party is saddled with a number of liberal members, making it a bad idea to confuse the two majority parties with the two wings of the political spectrum. (With the expulsion of Lieberman and the defection of many old time southern Democrats, the Democrats have very few conservatives to provide a parallel.) Second, George Bush is in many ways one of those liberals. So, just because he has been conservative on some issues, it does not mean his big government plans are characteristic of conservatives. But, having said all that, I will still probably get the post I described, so this was all probably wasted effort.

2. From my experience as an employee of social services, new social workers tend to start out very far left, and then slowly move to the right as they see the abuses of the system as well as the destructive incentives built into the "safety net".

3. The exception to this rule is the officers who reach the upper echelons of city police forces and the executives of the police unions, both of whom are left of most police officers. The reason for the union officials being to the left is obvious. The upper officers tend to the left as they are political appointees (for the most part) and most big cities are still run by the Democrat machines that have run them for decades. It is not so much that left-wingers are attracted to the upper echelons of the police force, but that one who is not left-wing would have less chance to be appointed to such a post.

4. The same applies to other professions, obviously. Police officers with too much of a "bleeding heart" are often mocked by co-workers, for example. I am not saying that this office orthodoxy is in any way unique to journalism.

5. I am a bit puzzled from where the right wing journalists come. As I said, the reasons most enter journalism strongly favor left wing politics. Admittedly there have always been a few on the right who choose journalism (the WSJ editorial page, for example), but with the expansion of more right leaning news outlets, it seems we need more conservative journalists than I would have thought to exist. Of course, some may be those who lean left, but take jobs in conservative media as they either need the job, or the conservative channels offer them a better position (eg. Geraldo Rivera on Fox, or Greta van Susteren, neither of whom is particularly conservative, or the many who bounce between Fox and CNN, jumping from one end of the spectrum to the other). Or perhaps there are more silent conservatives in the media than I thought. It is difficult to tell what the truth is in this case.