Also, it's not the general rule, most articles I see use 'administration'.
And I don't think it's the media who has a leftward bias, rather the Republican Party has moved way way out on the fringe. If you look globally, the average Democratic office holder would be a right wing politician in most other countries.
Leftward bias has been repeatedly demonstrated in the literature.
Your belief that there is no media bias may in fact be evidence of your own biases. This too is supported in the literature. I.e., there is evidence that media which confirms our beliefs is viewed as higher quality than that which disconfirms.
There has been a definite shift to the fringe. Both in the plutocratic direction, with the one-dollar-one-vote philosophy, and also in just a general nutcase direction (see the NRA).
[0] https://qz.com/1580091/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-how-far-left...
Fair point.
>Your opinion of a "sensible position" on "gun control" is almost certainly different from mine.
A sensible position can be anywhere on a broad spectrum. It does not include arming teachers and does not include selling guns to diagnosed mentally unstable people.
>I would take the perspective that people openly supporting socialism is a much further-leftward lurch than any thing on the right. [0]
I would have to disagree. I think for-profit prisons, money-is-speech, on-your-own healthcare are three examples of extreme individualism and anti-social-ism that it seems the Republicans are proud of.
>You also brand the NRA as "fringe" and as "general nutcases", which is again unfair. Your political opinion is not the single source of truth or the center of the political spectrum.
The NRA is fringe, it has recently been shown how it has been hijacked over the course of a decade or more by the Russians to sow discord and destabilize your country. That's why I chose to use such inflammatory words.
>Your implication here is that the right has become fringe, but the graph linked above shows otherwise.
This may be true, I honestly did not have time to read the whole article. I don't disagree that the left has a bunch of issues and idiotic positions, hyper-sensitivity and a general vicious lack of tolerance for momentary lapses in judgement being the main ones in my opinion.
I'm guessing your frame of reference is left-of-center; mine is somewhat right. There is no "one true anchor" for who is where, so the best thing I can think to do is use the general center of American politics when we discuss America. I'd take many positions you'd generally disagree with, but others would call them sensible. Other opinions of mine are not generally regarded as sensible by most, and that's fine too.
> The NRA is fringe... it has been hijacked... by the Russians
The NRA operates with the approval of many Americans. I wouldn't call it's positions fringe, though the organization certainly has its failings. At some point, the Russians supported the election of a president; it's hard to call a figure such as that fringe. I'm not sure an endorsement by the Russians should damn and organization or person; the same thing is now happening to Tulsi Gabbard (non-interventionist policy is amenable to the Russians).
> This may be true, I honestly did not have time to read the whole article. I don't disagree that the left has a bunch of issues and idiotic positions, hyper-sensitivity and a general vicious lack of tolerance for momentary lapses in judgement being the main ones in my opinion.
Fair enough. The important part is the box-plot graph mid-way through the article, which shows a huge leftward lurch in the past few years. I would have linked directly, but the page overlays text on an image so it can't be linked.
No, it hasn't, and if it had, the Right wouldn't keep spinning findings of a predominance of Democratic Party membership among media employees as if it were the same thing as a finding of leftward bias.
This was a 2 minute search of Google Scholar:
^1 "...the mainstream press in America operate within a narrow range of liberal beliefs... only a narrow band of liberal thought is supported by the press"
^2 "Our results show a strong liberal bias"
[1] https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jim_Kuypers/publication...
[2] https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/120/4/1191/192...
Unfortunately, there is no more compromise in today's world. People just want to win because even giving up even a small amount of ground to an opponent is considered a complete failure.
This, of course, begs the question: how do you fix it? I don't know.
That's seems to be a sign of either extremely limited reading (biased to left-wing sources out of the mainstream) or extremely selective memory (rejecting or inventing facts to fit a right-wing narrative).
While both “Obama regime” and “Trump regime” seem to be used mostly originally by outside-the-mainstream media (the right and left fringes, respectively), the uses of the latter don’t even seem to get quoted much in mainstream sources, while the former (though not particularly frequently) do, at least from reviewing and, in the case of mainstream results, reading through results from the obvious phrase searches on Google News.