The Media Elite: America's New Powerbrokers is a non-fiction book written by Samuel Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman, and Linda Lichter, published in 1986. It details a social scientific study of the ideological commitments of 'elite' journalists in the United States, and the consequences of those commitments on both the reporting itself and on its reception by the public. [1] [2] The book states that because of the political opinions of journalists, the elite media has a liberal media bias.
One of the stated aims of the books is to comprehend social changes in elite rule in the USA in continuation to the famous study of C W Mills, titled The Power Elites. The book progresses from the idea that few people of similar social backgrounds and family ties hold the command positions or key positions in the power structure. The Power Elites control top positions in the corporate, federal government, and military organisations. The Media Elite are emerging due to the expansion of national media networks and they are challenging the traditional elites of the American society.
This section's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia.(November 2012) |
The book presents findings from a survey conducted in 1980, involving 238 journalists selected randomly from prominent news organizations in the United States. These organizations include ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal. The study utilized content analysis and audience reception studies to examine potential discrepancies between the views of journalists and those of the general public. The aim was to investigate whether such disparities influenced news reporting and subsequently shaped public beliefs.
Critiques have been raised regarding certain aspects of the methodology employed in the study, prompting academic debate between the authors and their critics in academic journals. [3] Critics have pointed out various purported issues with the methodology employed, including concerns about the sample size being relatively small, questions regarding the adequacy of randomization procedures, the absence of media owners, managers, or editors from the sample pool, potential biases in the formulation of survey questions, subjective classifications of viewpoints as conservative or liberal by the authors, insufficient measurement of public attitudes, and perceived shortcomings in the statistical analysis of the findings.
The survey revealed a group of individuals at once remarkably similar to one another in the background, status, and beliefs and strikingly different from the general public. In 1980, this "media elite" was predominantly white (95 percent), male (79 percent), college-educated (93 percent), and well paid. Four out of five had been raised in relatively affluent business or professional families; two out of three came from states in the Northeast or industrial Midwest.
In terms of beliefs, one distinctive characteristic was a strongly secular outlook. In marked contrast to a 1977 Gallup poll of the general population in which 94 percent of respondents professed a religious faith, 50 percent of the elite journalists listed their religion as "none." And while 86 percent of respondents from the general population said their religious beliefs are very or fairly important to them (and 42 percent had attended a religious service in the preceding week), an identical 86 percent of elite journalists said they seldom or never go to church.
Concerning political beliefs: 54 percent of the journalists described their views as left of center, 29 percent as "middle of the road," and only 17 percent as right of center. The authors argue that this ratio of more than three liberal journalists for each conservative contrasts sharply with the distribution among the American public: every relevant poll conducted in the decade from 1975 to 1985 found conservatives outnumbering liberals in the electorate, often by a ratio of three to two or more.
Of course, partisan or ideological labels provide only a very rough indication of political orientation. Thus one of the great strengths of the Media Elite survey is that it also included several sets of more precise questions about political attitudes and behaviors. One set asked how the journalists had voted in each of the last four presidential elections (i.e., 1964–1976). It produced what is now probably the most frequently quoted datum in the media bias debate: Among elite journalists who voted for a major party candidate, support for the more liberal Democratic contender ranged from 81 percent for George McGovern and Jimmy Carter, to 87 percent for Hubert Humphrey, to a high of 94 percent for Lyndon B. Johnson.
An additional set of questions elicited attitudes on 21 economic, political, and social issues. The responses showed little support for egalitarian socialist economics but strong endorsement of liberal social views in such areas as welfare, affirmative action, environmentalism, and, in particular, individual morality. For example, only 13 percent of the journalists agreed that large private corporations should be nationalized, while 86 percent endorsed the statement that "people with more ability should earn higher salaries." Similarly, fully 90 percent agreed that "it is a woman's right to decide whether or not to have an abortion," while only 25 percent agreed that homosexual sex is "wrong." Fewer than half (47 percent) agreed that adultery is wrong.
The authors also sought to provide insight into the future by conducting a separate survey of students at Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism, a principal training ground for prospective members of the media elite. They found that while the students were more diverse in race and gender than the existing elite they were even more homogeneous in background and beliefs. In particular, self-described liberals outnumbered conservatives 85 percent to 11 percent, a ratio of almost eight to one.
One specific issue the authors examined was nuclear power. Energy scientists, energy engineers, nuclear scientists, and science journalists were all surveyed – only 24% of journalists favored rapid nuclear development, compared with 69% of nuclear scientists, 70% of energy scientists, and 80% of the energy engineers. The content analysis showed that the overall coverage of nuclear power issues tended to overwhelmingly favor the views of the journalists ("at six out of seven media outlets, anti-nuclear stories outnumbered pro-nuclear pieces by a wide margin”). An analysis of the opinions expressed by scientists and engineers that were cited in media reports also overwhelmingly reflected the views of the journalists rather than the views of the scientists and engineers; media reporting suggested that the scientific community is sharply divided over the question of nuclear power, with a majority of scientists opposing the development of nuclear energy.
Media bias occurs when journalists and news producers show bias in how they report and cover news. The term "media bias" implies a pervasive or widespread bias contravening of the standards of journalism, rather than the perspective of an individual journalist or article. The direction and degree of media bias in various countries is widely disputed.
Philip Ernest Converse was an American political scientist. He was a professor in political science and sociology at the University of Michigan who conducted research on public opinion, survey research, and quantitative social science.
Conservatism in the United States is based on a belief in individualism, traditionalism, republicanism, and limited federal governmental power in relation to U.S. states. It is one of two major political ideologies of the United States. Conservative and Christian media organizations and American conservative figures are influential, and American conservatism is a large and mainstream ideology in the Republican Party and nation. As of 2021, 36 percent of Americans consider themselves conservative, according to polling by Gallup, Inc.
Claims of media bias generally focus on the idea of media outlets reporting news in a way that seems partisan. Other claims argue that outlets sometimes sacrifice objectivity in pursuit of growth or profits.
Antiscience is a set of attitudes that involve a rejection of science and the scientific method. People holding antiscientific views do not accept science as an objective method that can generate universal knowledge. Antiscience commonly manifests through rejection of scientific ideas such as climate change and evolution. It also includes pseudoscience, methods that claim to be scientific but reject the scientific method. Antiscience leads to belief in conspiracy theories and alternative medicine. Lack of trust in science has been linked to the promotion of political extremism and distrust in medical treatments.
The Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) is a self-described nonpartisan and nonprofit research and educational organization that is affiliated with George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia. It was founded in 1985 by political scientists Samuel Robert Lichter and his ex-wife Linda Lichter. It published a newsletter called Media Monitor from 1987 to 2010.
Samuel Robert Lichter is a professor of communication at George Mason University, where he directs the Center for Media and Public Affairs, which conducts scientific studies of the news and entertainment media, and formerly directed the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS), which works to improve the quality of statistical and scientific information in the news.
In philosophy, political science and sociology, elite theory is a theory of the state that seeks to describe and explain power relationships in society. The theory posits that a small minority, consisting of members of the economic elite and policymaking networks, holds the most power—and that this power is independent of democratic elections.
The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy is a book published by Smith College professor emeritus Stanley Rothman and Harvard researcher Mark Snyderman in 1988. Claiming to document liberal bias in media coverage of scientific findings regarding intelligence quotient (IQ), the book builds on a survey of the opinions of hundreds of North American psychologists, sociologists and educationalists conducted by the authors in 1984. The book also includes an analysis of the reporting on intelligence testing by the press and television in the US for the period 1969–1983, as well as an opinion poll of 207 journalists and 86 science editors about IQ testing.
Michael D. Shellenberger is an American author and journalist who writes about politics, the environment, climate change, and nuclear power. He is a co-founder of the Breakthrough Institute and the California Peace Coalition. Shellenberger founded the pro-nuclear non-profit Environmental Progress in 2016.
Public opinion on climate change is related to a broad set of variables, including the effects of sociodemographic, political, cultural, economic, and environmental factors as well as media coverage and interaction with different news and social media. International public opinion on climate change shows a majority viewing the crisis as an emergency.
A filter bubble or ideological frame is a state of intellectual isolation that can result from personalized searches, recommendation systems, and algorithmic curation. The search results are based on information about the user, such as their location, past click-behavior, and search history. Consequently, users become separated from information that disagrees with their viewpoints, effectively isolating them in their own cultural or ideological bubbles, resulting in a limited and customized view of the world. The choices made by these algorithms are only sometimes transparent. Prime examples include Google Personalized Search results and Facebook's personalized news-stream.
Motivated reasoning is a cognitive and social response in which individuals, consciously or sub-consciously, allow emotion-loaded motivational biases to affect how new information is perceived. Individuals tend to favor evidence that coincides with their current beliefs and reject new information that contradicts them, despite contrary evidence.
Academic bias is the bias or perceived bias of scholars allowing their beliefs to shape their research and the scientific community. It can refer to several types of scholastic prejudice, e.g., logocentrism, phonocentrism, ethnocentrism or the belief that some sciences and disciplines rank higher than others.
The political views of American academics began to receive attention in the 1930s, and investigation into faculty political views expanded rapidly after the rise of McCarthyism. Demographic surveys of faculty that began in the 1950s and continue to the present have found higher percentages of liberals than of conservatives, particularly among those who work in the humanities and social sciences. Researchers and pundits disagree about survey methodology and about the interpretations of the findings.
Conservatism in Russia is a broad system of political beliefs in Russia that is characterized by support for Orthodox values, Russian imperialism, statism, economic interventionism, advocacy for the historical Russian sphere of influence, and a rejection of late modernist era Western culture.
Political bias is a bias or perceived bias involving the slanting or altering of information to make a political position or political candidate seem more attractive. With a distinct association with media bias, it commonly refers to how a reporter, news organisation, or TV show covers a political candidate or a policy issue.
Political cognition refers to the study of how individuals come to understand the political world, and how this understanding leads to political behavior. Some of the processes studied under the umbrella of political cognition include attention, interpretation, judgment, and memory. Most of the advancements in the area have been made by scholars in the fields of social psychology, political science, and communication studies.
Political polarization is a prominent component of politics in the United States. Scholars distinguish between ideological polarization and affective polarization, both of which are apparent in the United States. In the last few decades, the U.S. has experienced a greater surge in ideological polarization and affective polarization than comparable democracies.
The Laurentian elite, also referred to as the Laurentian Consensus, is a Canadian political term used to refer to individuals in the upper class of society who live along the St. Lawrence River and watershed in major Central Canadian cities such as Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto, an area which represents a significant portion of Canada’s population. The term has been used to describe the belief that a general governing political consensus existed in Canada due to the influence of the Laurentian elite from Confederation until the early twenty-first century.