Trends in Watching, Reading and Listening to the News

U.S. Politics & Policy

IN CHANGING NEWS LANDSCAPE, EVEN TELEVISION IS VULNERABLE

Section 1: Watching, Reading and Listening to the News

Television continues to be the public’s top daily news source. In the current survey, 55% say they watched the news or a news program on television yesterday. That is little changed from recent news consumption surveys. In the 1990s, however, far more Americans said they watched television news yesterday.

The percentages saying they listened to radio news and read a newspaper yesterday have steadily declined over the past two decades. Currently, 33% say they listened to radio news, while 29% say they read a newspaper yesterday.

Nearly four-in-ten (39%) got news online or on a mobile device yesterday, including cell phones and tablets. In 2010, 34% got news online; this did not include those who got news on a mobile device. In 2004, just 24% said they got news online during the previous day.

When other online and digital news sources are added in – including seeing news on a social network or Twitter, getting news from email and listening to podcasts – the percentage getting news digitally yesterday approaches the share watching television news (50% vs. 55%). In 2010, 44% got news from one or more digital platforms yesterday.

Traditional and Digital News Platforms

Despite the rapid growth of digital news, more Americans continue to get news from traditional news platforms than from digital platforms. Seven in ten (71%) say they watched television news, read a print newspaper or listened to radio news yesterday. That compares with 50% who got news from one or more digital platforms.

By wide margins, Americans 50 and older continue to rely more on traditional news sources than digital sources. But the differences are more modest among those 25 to 50. And among the youngest Americans – those younger than 25 – substantially more get news digitally than from traditional news sources (60% vs. 43%).

Moreover, since 2010 there has been a sharp decline in the proportion of Americans who got news yesterday only from a traditional news platform – from 40% then to 33% currently.

As previous Pew Research news consumption surveys have found, a plurality of Americans gets news from both traditional and digital news sources – 38% currently, up from 34% in 2010. And the percentage relying only on digital platforms for news also has increased, from 8% to 12%.

Notably, the falloff in the use of just traditional news sources has not come just among young people. Among those 40 to 49, just 24% say they got news yesterday only from televis

ion, print newspapers or radio, down from 40% in 2010. Two years ago, about as many people in this age group said they got news only from traditional platforms yesterday as from both traditional and digital platforms (40% vs. 39%). Today, nearly twice as many of those in their 40s blend digital and traditional sources as get news only from traditional sources (47% vs. 24%).

Many Young People Go Newsless

In spite of an expanding variety of ways to get news, a sizable minority of young people continues to go newsless on a typical day. Fully 29% of those younger than 25 say they got no news yesterday either from digital news platforms, including cell phones and social networks, or traditional news platforms. That is little changed from 33% in 2010.

Older Americans are less likely to go newsless: 19% of those between 25 and 39, and smaller percentages of older age groups, say they got no news yesterday. These figures have changed little over the years.

Young people also consistently spend less time with the news than do older Americans, which is in part attributable to the relatively large share that gets no news on a typical day. In the current survey, those younger than 30 spent an average of 45 minutes getting news yesterday. Older age groups spent an hour or more with news, on average, with those 65 and older spending an average of 83 minutes with the news yesterday. Age differences in time spent with the news have changed little since the 1990s.

People Spend More Time with TV News than Online/Mobile Sources

While the proportion of Americans who get news from any online or mobile source now rivals the share watching television news, people spend far more time with television news than online news.

On average, television news viewers spent 52 minutes watching TV news yesterday; fully half (51%) watched television news for an hour or more. Online and mobile news consumers spent 40 minutes on average with news online, and just 30% spent an hour or more. About half (49%) of those who got online or mobile news yesterday spent less than 30 minutes getting news from those sources.

In fact, people spent more time on average getting news from radio than getting news online. And while just 30% of online news consumers spent an hour or more getting news from online and mobile sources, 41% of radio news listeners did so.

News and Daily Life

Far more older Americans get news on a typical day than engage in a variety of other routine activities. Higher percentages of those 50 and older got news yesterday than visited with family or friends, called a friend or relative just to talk, or watched something other than news on television.

But for young people, news faces stiff competition from a number of other daily pursuits, particularly social networking. Among those younger than 25, as many used Facebook or another social networking site yesterday as got news from all sources combined (76% vs. 71%).

More young people go on social networking sites than watch news or entertainment programs on television; just 40% of those younger than 25 watched something other than news on TV yesterday. Even among those 30 to 49, nearly as many used social networking sites (49%) as watched entertainment television (55%).

Gaming also has become an increasingly popular daily activity. In 2006, 17% played games on a computer or video game console yesterday; in the current survey, 33% say they played a game yesterday on one of these formats or on a mobile device. Among those younger than 30, more played a game yesterday than watched TV news.

Daily and Regular News Consumption

The long-term trends in regular news consumption are generally similar to trends in where people got news yesterday. Among television news sources, the percentage saying they regularly watch local TV news has dipped below 50% for the first time (48%). And the percentage watching cable news channels has fallen five points since 2010 and 2008, from 39% to 34% currently.

The regular audience for nightly network news, which declined markedly through the 1990s, has changed little in recent years. Currently, 27% say they regularly watch the nightly network news on CBS, ABC or NBC. This percentage has not varied by more than a point or two since 2006.

As in previous news consumption surveys, more say they regularly read a newspaper than say they read a newspaper yesterday. Nearly four-in-ten (38%) say they regularly read a daily newspaper, which is largely unchanged since 2010 (40%) but down eight points from 2008.

The proportion of Americans who get news online at least three days a week has leveled off, after a period of dramatic growth. Currently, 46% say they get news online or on a mobile phone or device at least three days a week, unchanged from 2010 (when the question only asked about getting news online). About a third (32%) of the public gets news online every day.

Profiles of Regular News Audiences

As the 201o news consumption survey found, there are substantial demographic and political differences among regular news audiences. In general, most audiences for individual news outlets are older than the public generally, but there are exceptions. Among 24 news outlets asked about on the survey, news comedy programs – the Daily Show and Colbert Report – attract the largest percentages of young people.

About four-in-ten regular viewers of The Colbert Report (43%) and the Daily Show (39%) are younger than 30. Among the general public, 23% are younger than 30. In contrast, audiences for cable talk shows skew much older than the public: 42% of regular Sean Hannity viewers are 65 and older, as are 40% of regular Bill O’Reilly viewers. Among the public, just 17% are 65 and older.

Business publications draw a heavily male audience: 73% of those who regularly read magazines such as the Economist and Bloomberg Businessweek are men, as are 71% of regular Wall Street Journal readers. Women comprise relatively large shares of the regular viewers of daytime talk shows, such as The View or Ellen DeGeneres (73%), and morning news shows (62%).

The cable talk shows and news comedy programs continue to attract highly ideological audiences. Fully 78% of regular Sean Hannity viewers, and about seven-in-ten Rush Limbaugh listeners (71%) and Bill O’Reilly viewers (69%), are conservatives. Slightly more than a third of all Americans (35%) describe their political views as conservative.

Rachel Maddow is the only program whose audience is more than half liberal: 57% of regular Maddow viewers are liberals. Among regular Hardball watchers, 48% call themselves liberal. Additionally, about four-in-ten Daily Show (43%) and Colbert viewers (40%) are liberals. Among the public, just 22% say they are liberals.

Pagination

Trends in News Consumption: 1991-2012

Pew Research Center News

In Changing News Landscape, Even Television is Vulnerable

Trends in News Consumption: 1991-2012

Overview

The transformation of the nation’s news landscape has already taken a heavy toll on print news sources, particularly print newspapers. But there are now signs that television news – which so far has held onto its audience through the rise of the internet – also is increasingly vulnerable, as it may be losing its hold on the next generation of news consumers.

Online and digital news consumption, meanwhile, continues to increase, with many more people now getting news on cell phones, tablets or other mobile platforms. And perhaps the most dramatic change in the news environment has been the rise of social networking sites. The percentage of Americans saying they saw news or news headlines on a social networking site yesterday has doubled – from 9% to 19% – since 2010. Among adults younger than age 30, as many saw news on a social networking site the previous day (33%) as saw any television news (34%), with just 13% having read a newspaper either in print or digital form.

These are among the principal findings of the Pew Research Center’s biennial news consumption survey, which has tracked patterns in news use for nearly two decades. The latest survey was conducted May 9-June 3, 2012, among 3,003 adults. For more on the growth of mobile technology, see the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism report: “The Explosion in Mobile Audiences and a Close Look at what it Means for News,” released Oct. 1, 2012.

The proportion of Americans who read news on a printed page – in newspapers and magazines – continues to decline, even as online readership has offset some of these losses. Just 23% say they read a print newspaper yesterday, down only slightly since 2010 (26%), but off by about half since 2000 (47%).

The decline of print on paper spans beyond just newspapers. The proportion reading a magazine in print yesterday has declined over the same period (26% in 2000, 18% today). And as email, text messaging and social networking become dominant forms of communication, the percentage saying they wrote or received a personal letter the previous day also has fallen, from 20% in 2006 to 12% currently. There has been no decrease in recent years in the percentage reading a book on a typical day, but a growing share is now reading through an electronic or audio device.

While print sources have suffered readership losses in recent years, television news viewership has remained more stable. Currently, 55% say they watched the news or a news program on television yesterday, little changed from recent years. But there are signs this may also change. Only about a third (34%) of those younger than 30 say they watched TV news yesterday; in 2006, nearly half of young people (49%) said they watched TV news the prior day. Among older age groups, the percentages saying they watched TV yesterday has not changed significantly over this period.

The changing demographics of the TV news audience are particularly noticeable in the audiences for local and cable news. The overall share of Americans saying they regularly watch local television news has slipped from 54% in 2006 to 48% today – and in that regard it remains one of the news sources with the broadest reach. But the number of 18-to-29 year-olds regularly watching local news has fallen from 42% in 2006 to 28% today.

Over this same period, the regular audience for cable news also has aged. In 2006 and 2008, there were only modest age differences in regular cable news viewership. But in the current survey, more than twice as many of those 65 and older as those younger than 30 say they regularly watch cable news (51% vs. 23%).

CNN’s Losses Continue

Among individual cable news outlets, CNN’s regular audience has declined since 2008. Four years ago, nearly a quarter of Americans (24%) said they regularly watched CNN; that has fallen to 16% in the new survey.

Regular viewership for both Fox News and MSNBC has not changed much in recent years.
About one-in-five Americans (21%) say they regularly watch Fox News, while about half as many (11%) say they regularly watch MSNBC.

Print on Paper: Going, Going …

While Americans enjoy reading as much as ever – 51% say they enjoy reading a lot, little changed over the past two decades – a declining proportion gets news or reads other material on paper on a typical day. And there is new evidence in the survey of a shift in reading to electronic platforms.

In the new survey, only 29% say they read a newspaper yesterday, with just 23% reading a print newspaper. Over the past decade, the percentage reading a print newspaper has fallen by 18 points (from 41% to 23%). Somewhat more (38%) say they regularly read a daily newspaper, although this percentage also has declined, from 54% in 2004. Figures for newspaper readership may not include some people who read newspaper content on sites that aggregate news content, such as Google News or Yahoo News.

Over the past decade, there have been smaller declines in the percentages of Americans reading a magazine or book in print (six points and four points, respectively) than for newspapers.

Just as online newspaper readers make up an ever-greater share of all newspaper readers, so too are more magazine readers and book readers abandoning the printed page for tablets, digital books and other devices. In the current survey, 9% of those who said they read a magazine yesterday, and 20% who read a book, read them in a non-print format.

And substantial percentages of the regular readers of leading newspapers now read them digitally. Currently, 55% of regular New York Times readers say they read the paper mostly on a computer or mobile device, as do 48% of regular USA Today and 44% of Wall Street Journal readers.

By contrast, most readers of such magazines as Harpers, the Atlantic and the New Yorker still read them in print. But even for these magazines, nearly a quarter of regular readers (23%) say they read them mostly on a computer or digital device.

Online News: More Mobile, More Social

While traditional news platforms have lost audience, online news consumption has been undergoing major changes as well. Nearly one-in-five Americans (17%) say they got news yesterday on a mobile device yesterday, with the vast majority of these people (78%) getting news on their cell phone. Among smartphone owners, nearly a third (31%) got news yesterday on a mobile device.

The second major trend in online news consumption is the rise of news on social networks. Today, 19% of the public says they saw news or news headlines on social networking sites yesterday, up from 9% two years ago. And the percentage regularly getting news or news headlines on these sites has nearly tripled, from 7% to 20%.

In part, this is a byproduct of the explosive growth in social networking. In the current survey, 41% of all adults, including 47% of online adults, say they used Facebook or another social networking site yesterday. (For more on social networking, see surveys conducted by the Pew Internet & American Life Project.)

On top of the increase in social network use, the poll finds that news is also more prevalent on social networking sites. The share of users who saw news there yesterday nearly doubled from 19% to 36% between 2010 and 2012.

The increasing use of these sites for news has not just occurred among young people. In fact, those in their 30s are nearly as likely as those 18 to 24 to say they saw news or news headlines on Facebook or another social networking site yesterday (30% vs. 34%). And about a quarter of adults in their 40s (23%) saw news yesterday on social networks, up from just 8% in 2010.

The two trends in online news consumption – growing numbers getting news via mobile devices and the increasing use of social networks – are complementary. Overall, 55% of Americans access the internet on a mobile device, such as a cell phone or tablet; among this group, 30% say they saw news on social networking sites yesterday. That compares with just 9% of Americans who are online but do not access the internet on a mobile device.

Getting News on Twitter

While news gathering is very common among Twitter users, the overall reach is limited because the audience remains relatively small. About one-in-ten Americans (13%) ever use Twitter or read Twitter messages. By comparison, more than half (54%) ever use other social networking sites, such as Facebook, Google Plus or LinkedIn.

As a result, far fewer people get news on Twitter than on other social networking sites. Just 11% ever see news on Twitter, while 3% got news there yesterday. Nearly half of adults (47%) ever get news on Facebook and other social networking sites and 19% got news on one or more of those sites yesterday.

Nonetheless, Twitter users are increasingly getting news on the site and sharing news stories with others. Overall, 83% of Twitter users ever see news on Twitter and 26% saw news there yesterday; both percentages are up considerably from two years ago. And most Twitter users (59%) tweet or retweet news headlines on Twitter. About the same percentage of users of Facebook and other social networks (61%) use those sites for sharing news or news headlines.

Pagination

Media Intentionally Hides Republicans’ Economic Failures And Democrats’ Success

Media Intentionally Hides Republicans’ Economic Failures And Democrats’ Success

By: Rmuse more from Rmuse

 

Monday, February, 23rd, 2015, 9:47 am

There was a time when the media, once called the Fourth Estate, was tasked with reporting the facts and truth to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable” with the goal of providing a voice for the powerless masses. Of course those days are long gone. In fact, the converse is particularly true in 21st Century America.  It is likely that because American media is owned and operated by the comfortable, and that afflicted Americans are incapable of comprehending that Republicans actively work against their best interests, journalists report anything but the glaring truth; Republican policies are failures and the reason the number of “afflicted” Americans is growing. It is true that Republican policies are why Americans are rapidly losing economic ground to the few wealthy elites, but the media is not only culpable, they are facilitating this country’s slide into oligarchy by perpetually campaigning for the rich and powerful. 

 

It is interesting to see the media give inordinate attention to public figures intent on demeaning the President of the United States by questioning his love for America instead of why Republican-led states are in debt and cutting services for their residents. This is particularly true of Sunday political programs that provide some Americans with the only ‘news’ about their politicians’ viewpoints and opinions on why their constituents are suffering. However, the majority of Americans get their news from local sources that are as beholden to corporate advertising as the major networks pandering to conservative economic ideology. Democrats are just as guilty of failing to cite Republicans’ economic failings in states they control and it certainly contributes to why voters sat out the last midterm elections; they were unaware why their states are in economic distress or how to correct the problem. A problem, by the way, that a majority of Americans actually know exactly what it takes to correct.

The really sad fact is that there is an abundance of empirical data proving that every state controlled by Republicans is suffering economically, and conversely how Democratically-controlled states are succeeding and leading the nation in economic growth. However, these statistics never make the evening news, or Sunday political talk shows and it is further proof that the media is actively campaigning to impose conservative economic failings on the entire population. In what is a telling narrative, recent polling demonstrates that Americans overwhelmingly agree with the economic policies that allow Democratic states to grow their economies, pay down Republican debt and deficits, and create jobs. It is likely why the media is concealing the key to Blue states’ success; taxing the rich and investing in people.

A recent Associated Press-GfK poll that found that the majority of Americans agree with President Obama’s proposal to raise taxes on the richest income earners. This is a stark contrast to the economic policies being imposed in Republican states, or proposed by Koch Republicans in  Congress, cutting taxes on the rich and raising them on the poor and middle class. Republicans continue to claim, like they have for over thirty years, that cutting taxes on the rich grows economies, creates jobs, and provides incredible revenue streams to invest in much-needed state programs.

Of course, the thirty year experiment in ‘trickle down’ economics is a monumental failure, and there are no better examples than most Republican-led states suffering massive debt, job losses, and revenue shortfalls affecting everything from education funding to road repair. Conversely, there are just as many examples of Democratic-controlled states that rejected Republican economics and raised taxes to increase revenue, create jobs, reduce deficits, and allow for investment in areas important to the people; roads, schools, law enforcement, healthcare and social services for the people.

For example, main stream media is deliberately concealing several Republican-controlled states that drastically cut taxes for the rich that led to unsustainable debt and deficits leading to greater cuts in education, services, transportation, healthcare, and lost jobs. The same Republican states, like Koch Republicans in Congress, have either proposed, or are already, increasing taxes on the poor and middle class to increase tax relief for the rich and still are suffering revenue shortfalls.

Just a sampling of Republican-controlled states that cut taxes for the rich leading to budget deficits are; New Jersey – $2.7 billion deficit, Pennsylvania – $1 billion deficit, Kansas – $1 billion deficit, Wisconsin – $2.2 billion budget deficit, Arizona – $1.5 billion deficit, Alaska – $3.5 billion deficit, Alabama -$950 million deficit, Louisiana – $1.6 billion deficit, Alabama – $700 million deficit, Michigan – $454 million deficit, North Carolina – $445 million deficit, and Oklahoma – $600 million deficit. Now, none of these numbers are theoretical, conjecture, or ideological; they are hard numbers that main stream media cannot be bothered to report on the national level any more than the overwhelming economic successes being experienced in Democratic-led states like California.

After twelve years of Republican economics in California, the state was left with a $42 billion deficit and high unemployment with massive program and social service cuts unable to save the state’s economic demise. As is usually the case on the national level, the people elected a Democratic governor and legislature that went to the people for permission to raise taxes and save the economy. The people had the same sentiment the recent AP/GfK poll revealed most Americans have and they voted to raise taxes and the results are indisputable; and not reported by the main stream media. California’s deficit is falling rapidly, the state is investing in education, law enforcement, healthcare, road repair, social services, leading the nation in jobs created, and posting a $4 billion budget surplus this year.

This economic success should be the leading economic news across the nation and yet, even in most California media the reports are that Obama and Democrats are intent on continuing to destroy the nation’s economy, and jobs, by proposing higher taxes on the very richest Americans. Sadly, even low-intellect Californians beholden to bible-conservative ideology believe the media and oppose the same Democratic economic policies they are benefitting from; more jobs, services, greater healthcare access, more law enforcement, and social services that are the reason they flock to the Golden State to receive. Part and parcel of the dumbing down of Americans is due to conservative media that is likely the only ‘education’ stupid California transplants, like the Confederate states they left, will ever  experience.

Many Americans are perplexed by idiot voters’ habit of perpetually electing Republicans to enact economic policies that are detrimental to their supporters’ self-interests. It is likely it is because the stupid have no idea that there are proven economic successes in Democratically-controlled states the media never reports any more than the Republican failures ravaging red state economies across the nation.

Republicans are responsible for the gross income inequality killing off the middle class and sending poor people deeper into poverty, but they would not have such an easy time without a willing media facilitating enactment of failed Republican economic policies. The sad fact is that journalists would not have to explain anything to their audience; just provide a list of red states in economic distress and blue states experiencing budget surpluses, job growth, and increased services. However, that would entail contradicting Republicans. If Americans have learned anything over the past decade, it is that the media will not do anything contrary to the whims and wishes of their Republican masters because it would mean afflicting the comfortable.

Media Intentionally Hides Republicans’ Economic Failures And Democrats’ Success was written by Rmuse for PoliticusUSA.

© PoliticusUSA, Mon, Feb 23rd, 2015 — All Rights Reserved

Why serious people discount Fox News

Leonard Pitts Jr.: Why serious people discount Fox News

By LEONARD PITTS JR.

 

Miami HeraldJanuary 25, 2015 

 

 

Tucker Carlson said on Fox that more children die of bathtub drownings than of accidental shootings. They don't.

Steve Doocy said on Fox that NASA scientists faked data to make the case for global warming. They didn't.

Rudy Giuliani said on Fox that President Obama has issued propaganda asking everybody to "hate the police." He hasn't.

John Stossel said on Fox that there is "no good data" proving secondhand cigarette smoke kills nonsmokers. There is.

So maybe you can see why serious people - a category excluding those who rely upon it for news and information - do not take Fox, well ... seriously, why they dub it Pox News and Fakes News, to name two of the printable variations. Fox is, after all, the network of death panels, terrorist fist jabs, birtherism, anchor babies, victory mosques, wars on Christmas and Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi. It's not just that it is the chief global distributor of unfact and untruth but that it distributes unfact and untruth with a bluster, an arrogance, a gonad-grabbing swagger, that implicitly and intentionally dares you to believe fact and truth matter.

Many of us have gotten used to this. We don't even bother to protest Fox being Fox. Might as well protest a sewer for stinking.

But the French and the British, being French and British, see it differently. And that's what produced the scenario that recently floored many of us.

There was Fox, doing what Fox does, in this case hosting one Steve Emerson, a supposed expert on Islamic extremist terrorism, who spoke about so-called "no go" zones in Europe - i.e., areas of Germany, Sweden, France and Great Britain - where non-Muslims are banned, the government has no control and sharia law is in effect. Naturally, Fox did not question this outrageous assertion - in fact, it repeated it throughout the week - and most of us, long ago benumbed by the network's serial mendacities, did not challenge Fox.

Then, there erupted from Europe the jarring sound of a continent laughing. British Prime Minister David Cameron called Emerson an "idiot." A French program in the mold of "The Daily Show" sent correspondents - in helmets! - to interview people peaceably sipping coffee in the no-go zones. Twitter went medieval on Fox's backside. And the mayor of Paris threatened to sue.

Last week, Fox did something Fox almost never does. It apologized. Indeed, it apologized profusely, multiple times, on air.

The most important takeaway here is not the admittedly startling news that Fox, contrary to all indications, is capable of shame. Rather, it is what the European response tells us about ourselves and our waning capacity for moral indignation with this sort of garbage.

It's amazing, the things you can get used to, that can come to seem normal. In America, it has come to seem normal that a major news organization functions as the propaganda arm of an extremist political ideology, that it spews a constant stream of racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, paranoia and manufactured outrage, and that it does so with brazen disregard for what is factual, what is right, what is fair, what is balanced - virtues that are supposed to be the sine qua non of anything calling itself a newsroom.

If you live with aberrance long enough, you can forget it's aberrance. You can forget that facts matter, that logic is important, that science is critical, that he who speaks claptrap loudly still speaks claptrap - and that claptrap has no place in reasoned and informed debate. Sometimes, it takes someone from outside to hold up a mirror and allow you to see more clearly what you have grown accustomed to.

This is what the French and the British did for America last week.
For that, Fox owed them an apology. But serious people owe them thanks.

ABOUT THE WRITER

Leonard Pitts Jr., winner of the 2004 Pulitzer Prize for commentary, is a columnist for the Miami Herald, 3511 N.W. 91 Avenue, Doral, Fla. 33172. Readers may write to him via email at lpitts@miamiherald.com.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/01/25/254265/leonard-pitts-jr-why-serious-people.html#storylink=cpy

15 Things Americans Would Know if There Were a "Liberal Media"

 MEDIA  

Daily Kos / By akadjian

15 Things Americans Would Know if There Were a "Liberal Media"

If we have a "liberal media," as conservatives absurdly claim, why isn't it flooded with stories about US prisons, wealth inequality, outsourcing?

Photo Credit: Shutterstock.com/ Artisticco

August 7, 2013  |  

Reince Priebus (and apparently many others) still thinks there's a liberal media.

While I share Reince's frustration with the media, as a liberal, I'd like to go on record and state that the media isn't focusing on issues I care about. They seem to be far more focused on entertainment and making money.

Don't believe me?

If you know anyone who still believes in a "liberal media," here's 15 things everyone would know if there really were a "liberal media" (inspired by Jeff Bezos' purchase of The Washington Post):

1. Where the jobs went.

Outsourcing (or offshoring) is a bigger contributor to unemployment in the U.S. than laziness.

Since 2000, U.S. multinationals have cut 2.9 million jobs here while increasing employment overseas by 2.4 million. This is likely just the tip of the iceberg as multinational corporations account for only about 20 percent of the labor force.

When was the last time you saw a front-page headline about outsourcing?

Click to enlarge.

Source: Wall Street Journal via Think Progress.

2.  Upward wealth redistribution and/or inequality.

In 2010, 20 percent of the people held approximately 88 percent of the net worth in the U.S. The top one percent alone held 35 percent of all net worth.

The bottom 80 percent of people held only 12 percent of net worth in 2010. In 1983, the bottom 80 percent held 18 percent of net worth.

These statistics are not Democrat or Republican. They are widely available to reporters. Why aren't they discussed in the "liberal" media?

Click to enlarge.

Source: Occupy Posters

3. ALEC.

If there was a corporate organization that drafted laws and then passed them on to legislators to implement, wouldn't you think the "liberal" media would report on them?

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is such an organization. Need legislation drafted? No need to go through a lobbyist to reach state legislatures anymore. Just contact ALEC. Among other things, ALEC is responsible for:

• Stand Your Ground laws
• Voter ID laws
• Right to Work laws
• Privatizing schools
• Health savings account bills which benefit health care companies
• Tobacco industry legislation

Many legislators don’t even change the proposals handed to them by this group of corporations. They simply take the corporate bills and bring them to the legislative floor.

This is the primary reason for so much similar bad legislation in different states.  

Hello ... "liberal media" ... over here!

They're meeting in Chicago this weekend. Maybe the "liberal media" will send some reporters.

4. The number of people in prison.  

Which country in the world has the most people in prison?

You might think it would be China (with more than one billion people and a restrictive government) or former Soviets still imprisoned in Russia.

Wrong. The United States has the most people in prison by far of any country in the world. With 5 percent of the world’s population, we have 25 percent of the world’s prisoners – 2.3 million criminals. China with a population 4 times our size is second with 1.6 million people in prison.

In 1972, 350,000 Americans were in imprisoned. In 2010, this number had grown to 2.3 million. Yet from 1988 – 2008, crime rates have declined by 25 percent.

Isn't anyone in the liberal media interested in why so many people are in prison when crime has dropped? WTF "liberal media"?

Click to enlarge.

Source: Wikipedia/Justice Policy Institute Report.

5. The number of black people in prison.

In 2009, non-Hispanic blacks, while only 13.6 percent of the population, accounted for 39.4 percent of the total prison and jail population.

In 2011, according to FBI statistics, whites accounted for 69.2 percent of arrests.

Numbers like these suggest a racial bias in our justice system.

To me, this is a much bigger story than any single incident like Travyon Martin. Or, at the very least, why didn't the "liberal media" ever mention this while covering the Martin story?

6. U.S. health care costs are the highest in the world.

The expenditure per person in the U.S. is $8,233. Norway is second with $5,388.
Total amount of GDP spent on health care is also the highest of any country in the world at 17.6 percent. The next closest country is the Netherlands at 12 percent.

As a liberal, I’d like to ask why the market isn’t bringing down costs. I’d think a "liberal" media might too.

7. Glass-Steagall.

Glass-Steagall separated risky financial investments from government backed deposits for 66 years.

The idea is simple. Banks were prohibited from using your federally insured savings to make risky investments.

Why is this a good idea?

Risky investments should be risky. If banks can use federally insured funds, there is no risk to them. If they win, they win. If they lose, we cover the cost.

Elizabeth Warren did a great job explaining this to the "liberal news" desk at CNBC.

8. Gerrymandering.

When was the last time you saw a front page headline about gerrymandering?

Before the 2010 election, conservatives launched a plan to win control of state legislatures before the census. The idea was to be in power when national congressional districts were redrawn in order to fix them so Republicans would win a majority of districts.

The Redistricting Majority Project was hugely successful. In 2012, Barack Obama was elected President by nearly 3.5 million votes. In Congressional races, Democrats drew nearly 1.4 million more votes than Republicans yet  Republicans won control of the House 234 seats to 201 seats.

How is this possible?

By pumping $30 million into state races to win the legislatures, Republicans redrew state maps in states such as Arizona, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Texas, Florida and Ohio to place all of the Democrats into just a few districts.
In this manner, Democrats win heavily in a couple districts and lose the rest.

In North Carolina, the statewide vote was 51 percent Democrat and 49 percent Republican yet 9 Republicans won and only 4 Democrats.

Where is your coverage of this vote stealing, "liberal media"? You're willing to cover voter ID laws, why can't you cover real vote stealing?

Click to enlarge.

Source: Mother Jones.

9. The number of bills blocked by Republicans in Congress.

The filibuster has been used a record number of time since Obama was elected President. From 2008-2012, 375 bills weren’t even allowed to come to a vote in the Senate because Republicans threatened the filibuster.

In 2013, during the first 6 months, Congress has only passed 15 bills that were signed into law. This is 8 fewer than in the first 6 months of 2012 and 19 fewer than 2011.

Also, until the Senate recently threatened to reform the filibuster, the GOP had succeeded in holding up 79 of President Obama’s picks to the U.S. Circuit Court and Courts of Appeal. They’re blocking these appointments regardless of qualification.

Where's the coverage? Where are the reporters asking why nothing is getting done?

* crickets *

10. The Citizens' United Supreme Court decision.

In a 2011 Hart poll, only 22% of those polled had actually heard of the Citizens’ Uniteddecision before taking the survey.

If 77% believe that corporations have more control over our political process than people, why isn't the liberal media talking more about the Citizens’ United decision?

11. Nixon’s Southern Strategy.

The Southern Strategy is a strategy for gaining political power by exploiting the greatest number of ethnic prejudices. Kevin Philips, Republican and Nixon campaign strategist, speaking about this strategy in a 1970 interview with the New York Times:

From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that...but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.

This strategy has been used since President Johnson and Democrats in Congress passed the Civil Rights Act to build the Republican party.

Examples of this strategy were evident as recently as 2008 and 2012 as Republicans took up their assault on Medicaid, Social Security, labor unions, and Obamacare – programs which, though they benefit more white seniors, retirees, women, and children, have been sold to many Americans as handouts to lazy, undeserving blacks and minorities.

Yet you never hear the "liberal media" (at least since the 1970 NY Times) talking about the use of this strategy. At least not like this:

"P (President) emphasized that you have to face the fact that the whole problem is really the blacks. The key is to devise a system that recognizes this while not appearing to." - H.R. Haldeman's diary, President Richard Nixon’s White House Chief of Staff

12. Tax cuts primarily benefit the wealthy.

A progressive tax program is designed to tax people very little as they are starting out and progressively increase their rates as they do better.

Republican plans seem designed to do exactly the opposite: shift the tax burden off of the wealthy and onto working people.

Take the repeal of the estate tax. In Ohio this was recently repealed by Republicans. The benefit is only realized by people with estates larger than $338,000 (as the first $338k was exempt) and realized most by people with even wealthier estates.

This also explains why Republicans want to shift the system from income taxes to consumption taxes. Consumption taxes are paid most by those at the bottom as basic consumption remains the same regardless of income.

It also explains why capital gain taxes are so low. Income through capital gains is only taxed at 20% (increased from 15% in 2012) instead of at the rate of other income (closer to 35%).

It also explains why Republicans were so willing to let the payroll tax cut expire. The payroll tax cut benefited people who were getting paid, not those issuing the paychecks. How much fight did you see to save this tax cut?

While tax cuts are sold to us as benefiting everyone, they really benefit a select few at the very top.

If everyone knew who tax cuts really benefit, would so many people vote for them?

13. What's happening to the bees?

40-50% of commercial U.S. bee hives were lost this year to colony collapse disorder.

This seems like an odd one to include, why is this important?

The Agriculture Department says a quarter of the American diet depends on pollination by honeybees.

Dating from 2006, colony collapse disorder is a relatively new problem. More "liberal media" coverage might push the urgency of the issue.

Instead here's a typical media story about bees: Thousands of Bees Attack Texas Couple, Kill Horses.

14. The impact of temporary workers on our economy.

The number of temporary workers has grown by more than 50 percent since the recession ended to nearly 2.7 million.

If freelancers, contract workers, and consultants are included, the number is nearly 17 million workers not directly employed by the companies who hire them. This equals 12 percent of the workforce.

What's the impact of a "just in time" workforce on workers and our economy? How about that for a story "liberal media"?

15. Media consolidation.

Six corporations - Time Warner, Disney, News Corporation, Viacom, Comcast, and CBS -control roughly 90% of the media in the U.S.

These companies are in business to make a profit.

This is why you'll find plenty of advertisements in the media. Entertainment? Check. Sports? Definitely. Weather? Yep.

You'll also find plenty of "if it bleeds, it leads" stories designed to hook you in. Vendors, witnesses recall Venice hit-and-run horror. Fort Hood trial turns bizarre as shooter grills witnesses.

There's also plenty of political bickering: Democrats said this, Republicans said that. We let you decide (but we never weigh in with any facts or fact-checking).

What won't you hear? You won't hear the "liberal media" discuss the corporate media.

What to make of this:

If the media were "liberal," it would serve the public interest and shine a light on issues like the ones above.

More people would also have a better understanding of global warming, peak oil, population growth, political lobbying, government's role in a functioning economy, how much we spend on the military, and countless other issues.

What you’re more likely to see in the media, however, are stories designed to get you to buy their paper, or watch their show, or listen to their radio station. If it bleeds, it leads. This is why the media is concerned with scandal, celebrities, gossip, and fear.

If anything, our news consists of paid advertisements and outlets too scared of offending anyone to publish much of substance. Investigative journalism is also expensive; entertainment is cheap.

The way this corporate media behaves may not be surprising. I apologize if you feel any of this is beating you over the head.

This Buzzfeed-style list wasn't intended to introduce this idea as new (others have done a much better job), but rather to highlight the sheer absurdity of a "liberal media" for an audience who may not see it.

One way to approach the topic is to simply ask: If we have a "liberal media," where are the liberal stories?

ORIGINALLY POSTED TO AKADJIAN ON WED AUG 07, 2013 AT 05:02 AM PDT.