NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664


No Shit.

More like an example of someone trying to publish, no matter how silly the thesis. Counting times that a think tank is referred to determines bias? That's just silly.

Move along now, nothing to see here.

http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664
No Shit.

If I were more confrontational, I'd say "Yes shit."

The number of times something is mentioned is no gauge of their support. If I say a name all the time, but always follow it by "idiot," "menace" or "enemy of the people," that ain't support.

There is very little liberal bias in the big media-do hippies and tree-huggers own the big news corporations?

I suppose that this is part of the whole picture of media alignment, and should be taken into account. That said, the whole picture needs to have many more factors explored than just this.

It's not such a simple question as most would have you think.*

* I'm given to thinking that there is a moderate social liberalism in the mainstream media, having to do as much with a feeling that conservatives have wronged the media many times with restrictions to rights to report. I also wouldn't in the least bit be suprised if the media had a right-wing bias on economic issues, being corporation run.

If I were more confrontational, I'd say "Yes shit."

The number of times something is mentioned is no gauge of their support. If I say a name all the time, but always follow it by "idiot," "menace" or "enemy of the people," that ain't support.

There is very little liberal bias in the big media-do hippies and tree-huggers own the big news corporations?

Ted Turner did own CNN for how long, and he is a wee bit left of center, to say the least.

Ahh this myth again.

Ahh well. I could post Melkor's response to this myth but I doubt it would do any good.

Ahh this myth again.

Ahh well. I could post Melkor's response to this myth but I doubt it would do any good.
It rarely does.

Erm who cares? British media outlets are biased and no-one really cares, they just buy the paper that fits them , in my case The Independent. What is the obsession in proving that a company has its own political agenda when its blatant that they do.

To me all this shows is how skewed the positioning of the "centre" is in politics, particularly in the US. I would imagine that conservatives would decry the Sydney Morning Herald as "liberal" or "leftie latte sipping," but to me it's reactionary bullshit...

Anyway, obviously the news sources are biased, thats why you have to have your wits about you.

Ted Turner did own CNN for how long, and he is a wee bit left of center, to say the least.

Yes, a lone, out-of-date example really makes your point.

That's why you read more than one source; I read the New York Times, the WSJ, and The Economist so I'm usually pretty well able to sift out the bias from the actual facts.

That's why you read more than one source; I read the New York Times, the WSJ, and The Economist so I'm usually pretty well able to sift out the bias from the actual facts.
Not to mention picking out the odd, fabricated story that shows up in the NYT from time to time.

Not to mention picking out the odd, fabricated story that shows up in the NYT from time to time.

Yeah, those are like scavenger hunts...except instead of a prize I'm wasting money.

Something interesting about that "study." They used a liberal think tanks scores on a limited number of issues to make their determination about a media company's liberal bias.

Here's the thing--if you look at the ADA's scores for 2004, you come up with some interesting information on their rankings that show just how flawed the overall system is. (This is the same type of thing practically every advocacy group does when they grade congresspeople--cherry pick votes and then slam those they dislike.)

For instance, according to the 2004 ADA rankings, Republican Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota was more liberal than Democratic Senator John Kerry of Massachussetts. So were Republican Senators John McCain, Lisa Murkowski, Mike DeWine, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, George Voinovich, Gorton Smith, Arlen Specter, and Lincoln Chaffee. Tying Kerry were Republican Senators Liddy Dole, Lindsay Graham, and Jim Campbell. In all, 13 Republican Senators were graded as equally or more liberal than the Democratic Presidential candidate by this system.

That should give you some idea of how flawed the system the professor who did this story used.

Yes, a lone, out-of-date example really makes your point.

Sorry dumbo, but that example is in response to the poster.

Douche pa excellance!

"Liberal" Media Bias
http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/explode.gif

There is definitely a "left of center" bias in mainstream media, the problem is, there really is no objective form of media to turn to. There are newspapers (at least in the US) that are definitely a liberal bias, and a few that are definitely a conservative bias, so you have to pick and choose accordingly. I am not opposed to reading a story from the New York Times, but I remind myself as I go that there is going to be an obvious left slant, so you have to take that frame of reference when reading.

Sorry dumbo, but that example is in response to the poster.

Douche pa excellance!

And it'as a single and out-of date answer. How many "liberals" own or run media corporations now? Overwhelingly, and quite logically, corporations are owned and operated by pro-corporation individuals who are, by definition, "right."

The media is neither liberal nor conservative. They'll adopt whichever stance they think will give them the highest ratings.

And it'as a single and out-of date answer. How many "liberals" own or run media corporations now? Overwhelingly, and quite logically, corporations are owned and operated by pro-corporation individuals who are, by definition, "right."

It was still a good answer. I'm sorry, did I mess with your reality?

Two down, bottom of the ninth, full count, bases loaded and I just knocked it outta the park on ya and you don't know what to say. I'd get off the mound if I were you and go to the club house.

Two down, bottom of the ninth, full count, bases loaded and I just knocked it outta the park on ya and you don't know what to say. I'd get off the mound if I were you and go to the club house.
That's pretty cheeky for someone who really didn't say anything other than "There used to be a guy working at a place who some might consider left-ish, therefore the entire media has teh liberal bias!"

That's pretty cheeky for someone who really didn't say anything other than "There used to be a guy working at a place who some might consider left-ish, therefore the entire media has teh liberal bias!"


When did I say there was a liberal bias?

You want to go for a frosty one?

It was still a good answer. I'm sorry, did I mess with your reality?

Two down, bottom of the ninth, full count, bases loaded and I just knocked it outta the park on ya and you don't know what to say. I'd get off the mound if I were you and go to the club house.

Dude, that was a weak popup that dropped into the catcher's glove in foul territory.

There is definitely a "left of center" bias in mainstream media, the problem is, there really is no objective form of media to turn to. There are newspapers (at least in the US) that are definitely a liberal bias, and a few that are definitely a conservative bias, so you have to pick and choose accordingly. I am not opposed to reading a story from the New York Times, but I remind myself as I go that there is going to be an obvious left slant, so you have to take that frame of reference when reading.

No, there's a right-wing bias to the media.

Oh geez, I just made a baseless assertion. Well, that makes 2 of us.

i dont think the liberal media bias thing is true. generally, the media will be bias against whoever is in government, and the level of biasness is determined by the amount of readers/viewers they can get.

Dude, that was a weak popup that dropped into the catcher's glove in foul territory.


The catcher dropped it. Sun in the eyes. Mayo on the chin.

When did I say there was a liberal bias?
Well you didn't, but it looked like you were suggesting it nonetheless. But fair enough, we'll call it a misunderstanding.

You want to go for a frosty one?
Always.

Something interesting about that "study." They used a liberal think tanks scores on a limited number of issues to make their determination about a media company's liberal bias.

That should give you some idea of how flawed the system the professor who did this story used.
The shame is that it was published in a peer-reviewed journal. And a respectable one, at that. What kind of voodoo science do economists study, that this kind of silliness can get published as an article?

The catcher dropped it. Sun in the eyes. Mayo on the chin.

Yeah, but the next pitch was a changeup that caught you way out front.

New York Times-Liberal
CNN-Liberal biased I mean come on when the conservative they put on the air agrees with everything the democrat or liberal is saying thats not giving the real view of the other side
(All other major news outlets liberal biased)
Fox- Only TV news outlet that is more moderate
USA Today-Moderate
(local news tends to be either conservative or liberal)

Fox is about as moderate as Mussolini.

Yeah, but the next pitch was a changeup that caught you way out front.
Damn, I miss baseball. Is it spring yet?

Well you didn't, but it looked like you were suggesting it nonetheless. But fair enough, we'll call it a misunderstanding.


Always.


Thank you. Now you know why they say never to ASSUME! ;)

The shame is that it was published in a peer-reviewed journal. And a respectable one, at that. What kind of voodoo science do economists study, that this kind of silliness can get published as an article?:D

No Fox is the most moderate your goin to get. They have a liberal for every conservative they put on the air (Hannity and Colmes for example). Fox only seems conservative because the rest of the media has a deffinate left slant.

For example CBS and CNN both had to tell the people on set to keep their cheers down everytime Gore won a state in 2000. Also most of the major news outlets supported Clinton against the "Vast right-wing conspiracy" in the whole impeachment trial (FYI Clinton was found guilty in the civil trial and has had his law practicing liscense revoked for 12 years).

They also supported Clinton in his bombing of Yugoslovia in the 1990's to end "ethnic cleansing" for which there has been found no proof that it happened on the massive scale that Clinton claimed it did (Investagators found 200 bodies only in any kind of mass grave which could have been called ethnic cleansing, America and the international community would kill around 2,000 civilians in the air raids.) While they blast Bush for invading Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction ( A possiblity of weapons of mass destruction having a more direct consequence to America and its allies then "ethnic cleansing" in Albania and Kosovo). It is also known that Saddam Hussien did indiscriminatly slaughter thousands of his own people (The kurds a massacre of 15,000 in the 90's).

The liberal media does not make a big deal about our soldiers still being in Kosovo (After nearly 10 years) and have made a big deal about our soldiers in Iraq (only 2 years).

New York Times-Liberal
CNN-Liberal biased I mean come on when the conservative they put on the air agrees with everything the democrat or liberal is saying thats not giving the real view of the other side
(All other major news outlets liberal biased)
Fox- Only TV news outlet that is more moderate
USA Today-Moderate
(local news tends to be either conservative or liberal)

And then you're going to proceed to tell me that WorldNetDaily is a finely balanced and nuanced source with incredible writing.

No Fox is the most moderate your goin to get. They have a liberal for every conservative they put on the air (Hannity and Colmes for example). Fox only seems conservative because the rest of the media has a deffinate left slant.

For example CBS and CNN both had to tell the people on set to keep their cheers down everytime Gore won a state in 2000. Also most of the major news outlets supported Clinton against the "Vast right-wing conspiracy" in the whole impeachment trial (FYI Clinton was found guilty in the civil trial and has had his law practicing liscense revoked for 12 years).

Putting a liberal stiff next to their conservative "star" does not make them balanced.

And then you're going to proceed to tell me that WorldNetDaily is a finely balanced and nuanced source with incredible writing.
You must be thinking of Newsmax. Didn't Drudge get an honorable mention in the 'research'?

I try to completely bypass the "bias in the media" argument by only getting news from sources which tell me that the're fake. That way I know not to take anything they say seriously and usually take it as satire. (The Onion rules.)

No Fox is the most moderate your goin to get. They have a liberal for every conservative they put on the air (Hannity and Colmes for example). Fox only seems conservative because the rest of the media has a deffinate left slant.

For example CBS and CNN both had to tell the people on set to keep their cheers down everytime Gore won a state in 2000. Also most of the major news outlets supported Clinton against the "Vast right-wing conspiracy" in the whole impeachment trial (FYI Clinton was found guilty in the civil trial and has had his law practicing liscense revoked for 12 years).
People make this mistake all the time. The Fox network carries news and it carries feature shows. Hannity, O'Reilly, Fox and Friends, etc are not news. They aren't required to be fair, unbiased, or even nice. I have never read of a case where a news show on Fox was ever determined to show bias in the presentation of the news. That's more than we can say about 60 Minutes, which does bill itself as a news magazine.

More like an example of someone trying to publish, no matter how silly the thesis. Counting times that a think tank is referred to determines bias? That's just silly.
So you wouldnt agree with this, then: "Only Fox News' 'Special Report With Brit Hume' and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter."

No never even heard of 'em those aren't mainstream media outlets but they probably have more accurate reporting then the Times (The Times had to fire a well known reporter because he was found making up interviews which his subjects that he was supportedly interviewing could not remember his ever visiting them, he was also caught stealing stories from a newspaper in California).

...Fox only seems conservative because the rest of the media has a deffinate left slant...
http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/laughoutloud.gif
I'll repeat my theory about why American Conservatives think they are being persecuted by some sort of leftist (please read up on what "Liberal" means) media.

There are two main reasons for why the Right thinks the media is biased:

1) Vietnam.
All American heroes fight patriotic war. Then media walks in and reports about it. There is no discernible bias in the way in which it is reported - but it does vary significantly from the known official US Propaganda Broadcasts from WWII and Korea.
People die, people commit crimes, and the war isn't being won - and the media reports it. So the patriotic (of course anti-communist/right-wing) American looks at this and thinks "Why are they telling us this? They must hate the war...ergo they must love Communism!".

2) Civil Rights Movement.
Same time, same sort of phenomenon. Media reports about the actions of civil rights activists, about retaliation by KKK etc and so on. The patriotic (particularly Southern) White American looks at this and thinks "I don't want to know about this! Why are you telling people about this? You must have it in for me!".

And eversince people like you have been clutching to straws in order to prove that reporting about things you don't like constitutes bias.

Fox is about as moderate as Mussolini.
i am ashamed to say i was born in the same state as Rupert Mudoch

So you wouldnt agree with this, then: "Only Fox News' 'Special Report With Brit Hume' and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter."
I might agree. But that doesn't mean that the method that they used has any validity. They did say that the WSJ was a left-leaning periodical, didn't they?

In fact, I don't have cable, so I've rarely seen Special Report.

Actually during the veitnam war and civil rights movements the media for once weren't biased toward's the Democrats. Reasons being a Democrat started the Veitnam War (conflict whatever you want to call it to be specific). And the Democrats opposed civil rights from the time of the Civil War (The Democrats were the White Southerners, that passed Jim Crow laws,segregation laws, and the republicans were the ones that fought to free the slaves, give the blacks citizenship, and to let the blacks vote.Thats why it was known as the "Solid South" because it always vote democrat)

(Learn History)

Something interesting about that "study." They used a liberal think tanks scores on a limited number of issues to make their determination about a media company's liberal bias.

Here's the thing--if you look at the ADA's scores for 2004, you come up with some interesting information on their rankings that show just how flawed the overall system is. (This is the same type of thing practically every advocacy group does when they grade congresspeople--cherry pick votes and then slam those they dislike.)

For instance, according to the 2004 ADA rankings, Republican Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota was more liberal than Democratic Senator John Kerry of Massachussetts. So were Republican Senators John McCain, Lisa Murkowski, Mike DeWine, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, George Voinovich, Gorton Smith, Arlen Specter, and Lincoln Chaffee. Tying Kerry were Republican Senators Liddy Dole, Lindsay Graham, and Jim Campbell. In all, 13 Republican Senators were graded as equally or more liberal than the Democratic Presidential candidate by this system.

That should give you some idea of how flawed the system the professor who did this story used.
You know ... I do believe that's the most cogent argument I have seen you post yet! Kudos! :D

Actually during the veitnam war and civil rights movements the media for once weren't biased toward's the Democrats. Reasons being a Democrat started the Veitnam War (conflict whatever you want to call it to be specific). And the Democrats opposed civil rights from the time of the Civil War (The Democrats were the White Southerners, that passed Jim Crow laws,segregation laws, and the republicans were the ones that fought to free the slaves, give the blacks citizenship, and to let the blacks vote.Thats why it was known as the "Solid South" because it always vote democrat)

(Learn History)
thats what i mean. the media isnt biased, only when it sells

You are mentally retarded. I want some names of some liberal anchors or reporters. And if they are liberal, I want proof that they are liberal. Not your silly little minded opinion. Come on now. Think. I know it's hard.

Lynx stand by your argument don't just back out and down and lie about what you meant because I beat your argument with historical fact.

Actually during the veitnam war and civil rights movements the media for once weren't biased toward's the Democrats. Reasons being a Democrat started the Veitnam War (conflict whatever you want to call it to be specific). And the Democrats opposed civil rights from the time of the Civil War (The Democrats were the White Southerners, that passed Jim Crow laws,segregation laws, and the republicans were the ones that fought to free the slaves, give the blacks citizenship, and to let the blacks vote.)

(Learn History)
Right back at you.

The media forced the U.S. out of Vietnam. The bad press that LBJ got over the war forced him to 'retire'. That is he wouldn't run for re-election because he knew he was toast. Don't ever imply that they favored Democrats during the '60s. Part of the problem with the media today, is that they are reliving their glory days as opponents of an unjust war. That's another issue, altogether.

You are mentally retarded. I want some names of some liberal anchors or reporters. And if they are liberal, I want proof that they are liberal. Not your silly little minded opinion. Come on now. Think. I know it's hard.
Ok, Mods. I wanna see if this guy is going to be reprimanded. If *I* had said something like this, you'd be on me like white on rice! :p

You know what I just remembered this site:

www.stateofthenewsmedia.org

It has some good info on it. For this discussion if you goto Cable TV under Content Analysis and scroll down to "Story Frames on Cable, Select Story Types" there is a little part called "Differences Among Cable Channels" that has some interesting info in it. Although not specificaly pertaining to Bias it is nice to note the difference in Journolistic Opinion.

Ok, Mods. I wanna see if this guy is going to be reprimanded. If *I* had said something like this, you'd be on me like white on rice! :p

I thought you were a mod, Eut.

Thats because the Democrats weren't the more liberal party in the 60's, the media is liberal not neccesarily democrat or republican. They're communist. They supported North Veitnam in the Veitnam War and they supported the party that wanted black civil rights in the civil rights movements (The Republican Party). BEcause when racism was gone it would be good yes but also a step towards communism. The Republican Party and the Democrat Party underwent role-reversals (except on the position of race, Affirmitave Action is racism its telling blacks and other minorities that they aren't as good as Whites so they have to have qouta's to get them into good schools, and welfare keeps them down and poor and easy to control) so the media began to support the Democrats more and the Republicans less. (The media supports the Democrat position on race because the media wants BIG government.)

Lynx stand by your argument don't just back out and down and lie about what you meant because I beat your argument with historical fact.
okay, this is the way i see it: the media wants to sell papers/get viewers/listeners. they choose the most topical thing of today, and they will blast you with it. generally, it would be politics, because that seems to be the thing that gets people rilled up. within that, they see picking faults within goverments, and sensationalising them, usually sells the most. if it sells the most, that's the way they are going to go. i know over here in australia, it doesnt matter who is in, they are going to be picked for their short-commings, because the media knows it sells.

Actually during the veitnam war and civil rights movements the media for once weren't biased toward's the Democrats. Reasons being a Democrat started the Veitnam War (conflict whatever you want to call it to be specific). And the Democrats opposed civil rights from the time of the Civil War (The Democrats were the White Southerners, that passed Jim Crow laws,segregation laws, and the republicans were the ones that fought to free the slaves, give the blacks citizenship, and to let the blacks vote.Thats why it was known as the "Solid South" because it always vote democrat)

(Learn History)

Well did a democrat "start" the war. If you are going to say LBJ, you are mistaken.....

No JFK started sending troops and "advisors" over to Veitnam. He probably would have sent more, but he was killed.

You know what I just remembered this site:

www.stateofthenewsmedia.org

It has some good info on it. For this discussion if you goto Cable TV under Content Analysis and scroll down to "Story Frames on Cable, Select Story Types" there is a little part called "Differences Among Cable Channels" that has some interesting info in it. Although not specificaly pertaining to Bias it is nice to note the difference in Journolistic Opinion.
It is interesting, but I got lost in the methodology of determining the slant. I'd rate it a little higher than using ADA ratings, if only that they put some more thought into it.

I like how you mentioned the civil war era in this. As long as were on the subject its nice to note that not long after reconstruction the republicans abandoned the south to the democrats effectivly supporting racism. Although thats a very pessimistic and extreem way to look at it.

They had to abandon the south as you put it as part of the compromise of President Rutherfurd B. Hayes election. Hayes probably won anyways but Tilden(Democrat) got close and rose a stink, so in order to settle it they compromised.

Conditions of the Compromise:
1. Hayes becomes President
2. Hayes must remove Federal Troops from the south ending reconstruction
3. Hayes must appoint Democrats to his cabinet in the spoils system

This is a little less than coherent. But I'll try and see what gets through.

Thats because the Democrats weren't the more liberal party in the 60's, the media is liberal not neccesarily democrat or republican. They're communist.
Oooookay...

They supported North Veitnam in the Veitnam War and they supported the party that wanted black civil rights in the civil rights movements (The Republican Party). BEcause when racism was gone it would be good yes but also a step towards communism.
Oooookay...

I think we've got ourselves some sort of McCarthyist here.

(The media supports the Democrat position on race because the media wants BIG government.)
And why does "the media" (apparently some sort of collective brain) want the government to get its greasy fingers into its profit margins?

And what does "Big Government" even mean?

Ah yes hayes the person who had with the uncontested electoral vote 19 less electoral votes then the democrat of the time, Tilden, and was able to get the remaining 20 contested electoral votes after an Electoral Commisson that had 8 republicans and 7 democrats got into offfice.

Although really this has nothing to do with the argument because you cannot judge what is the preset today with what happend in the past.

Big Government means communism/Socialism. And mostly the media (Liberal outlets, CBS,CNN,ect) want a big government because the government will in turn (they hope) use them to broadcast its propaganda and they will become very powerful in the government and become very wealthy(Much like former Soviet News outlets)(Some are more equal then others).

Actually Nukefall if you look at the electoral map (Hayes needed only 2 electoral votes to win, and Tilden needed all 20) of the election Tilden would have probably have gotten 3 of the contested 20 where as (Because three southern states were still in reconstruction and therefore would have gone to the republicans because they were deepsouth states where blacks outnumbered whites and because blacks would vote republican not democrat) Hayes would have won the other 17. And it does have a revelancy because someone brought up the Civil Rights movement and the Civil Rights movement started after the Civil War (IT would just take about another 100 years for the blacks to get all of them because of the constant blocking by Southern White Democrats)

Big Government means communism/Socialism. And mostly the media (Liberal outlets, CBS,CNN,ect) want a big government because the government will in turn (they hope) use them to broadcast its propaganda and they will become very powerful in the government and become very wealthy(Much like former Soviet News outlets)(Some are more equal then others).

Please use backup for your tinfoil hat arguments. :rolleyes:

Ok well the fact that the liberal media ignored or covered up (And sometimes flat out denied) the fact that the Soviet Union was creating man-made droughts and famine and killing millions of its own people (I think thats an unfair baised towards communism), the fact that it upholds Cuba's "excellent civil rights", and the fact that many of them openly praised North Veitnam on the air for its war against America.

Actually I believe my figures are correct... (I have a map and an artical on it right next to me)

Too lazy to argue other point right now just finished essay...

Ok well the fact that the liberal media ignored or covered up (And sometimes flat out denied) the fact that the Soviet Union was creating man-made droughts and famine and killing millions of its own people (I think thats an unfair baised towards communism), the fact that it upholds Cuba's "excellent civil rights", and the fact that many of them openly praised North Veitnam on the air for its war against America.

No sources, no care.

The figures of the contested number of electors is right but when you look at Louisana (can't remember the other two). You have to remember that those three states would have been under reconstruction and every southern state under reconstruction voted republican. (American Pageant map, takin AP American we just got done with that a few weeks ago)

A Politically Incorrect Guide To American History Neuronia (Can't find the book so can't tell ya the name of the author sorry)

A Politically Incorrect Guide To American History Neuronia (Can't find the book so can't tell ya the name of the author sorry)

No sources, no care. I'm not going to go out of my way to purchase a book that may or may not even be what you're talking about.

well those that choose not to read have no advantage over those that can't read. ( And it does have the topic we're discussing in it)

well those that choose not to read have no advantage over those that can't read. ( And it does have the topic we're discussing in it)
And you can't repeat any of the points made in this book (which sounds a lot like the typical Right-Wing "Why don't sensible people agree with me!!!" sort of book)?
And unless this book has some very good arguments in it, it doesn't count anyways. Just because it's written on paper by someone hardly makes it a proper source. There needs to be evidence.

And please...use the quote-function so we know who you're talking to at any given time.

For instance, according to the 2004 ADA rankings, Republican Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota was more liberal than Democratic Senator John Kerry of Massachussetts. So were Republican Senators John McCain, Lisa Murkowski, Mike DeWine, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, George Voinovich, Gorton Smith, Arlen Specter, and Lincoln Chaffee. Tying Kerry were Republican Senators Liddy Dole, Lindsay Graham, and Jim Campbell. In all, 13 Republican Senators were graded as equally or more liberal than the Democratic Presidential candidate by this system.

That should give you some idea of how flawed the system the professor who did this story used.
Why is that flawed? Kerry is a closet conservative, that's why I didn't vote for him. The entire DNP is turning Republican-Lite, McCain would've been a better Democratic nominee than Kerry...not that I'd have voted for him either, just sayin'. :P

As for the whole "is there a bias"...duh. Anything written by humans will have a bias. If it's excessively liberal, that's because liberalism sells, an exciting prospect if we could get people to get out and vote...

Dros im in AP right now in school, I have my book right next to me those numbers I supplied are the exact figures from the book...

The shame is that it was published in a peer-reviewed journal. And a respectable one, at that. What kind of voodoo science do economists study, that this kind of silliness can get published as an article?
Beats the shit out of me. If the article originally posted gave an accurate description of how the study was conducted, I'd say the editors of that journal have some explaining to do.

No JFK started sending troops and "advisors" over to Veitnam. He probably would have sent more, but he was killed.

Almost. Advisors were sent before JFK. Even the first american death happened before JFK.

I saw an interview he did and he ranted about what a mess VietNam was going to be and he was going to get us out of there even if it meant firing everybody his cabinet.....

That may be so of newspapers in major cities but it is not the case with radio in more rural parts of the U.S. and btw that guy's research was pure govno, even with newspaper I question it, as there are many newspapers which have gone away, newspapers try to be bland and not offend anyone. This is done in the name of 'balance' and 'journalistic objectivity'. It is also how to keep advertisers.

Almost. Advisors were sent before JFK. Even the first american death happened before JFK.

I saw an interview he did and he ranted about what a mess VietNam was going to be and he was going to get us out of there even if it meant firing everybody his cabinet.....
Yep--much like George H. W. Bush handed Clinton the Somalia mess, Ike gave JFK not only Vietnam, but a wonderful little plan called the Bay of Pigs. It's a wonder JFK didn't walk into the office, say "WTF?" and call Ike up and tell him to get the shit cleaned up.

The media is obviously biased to the left. You don't need some stupid professor who "researches" the topic and writes a paper about it to figure that out. You just have to pick up some magazine like Newsweek or watch MSNBC and it's amazing how far they bend everything to the left.

The media is obviously biased to the left. You don't need some stupid professor who "researches" the topic and writes a paper about it to figure that out. You just have to pick up some magazine like Newsweek or watch MSNBC and it's amazing how far they bend everything to the left.

You might want to look up who owns the media outlets before you make that claim.

The news is about keeping people's attention so they will run with whatever does that......

The media is obviously biased to the left. You don't need some stupid professor who "researches" the topic and writes a paper about it to figure that out. You just have to pick up some magazine like Newsweek or watch MSNBC and it's amazing how far they bend everything to the left.In other words, toss reason and intellect out the window, forget intellectual honesty, and go with your gut?

And just in case you get the wrong idea, I don't agree with you. I pointed out a major flaw in the study on the first page.

You are mentally retarded. I want some names of some liberal anchors or reporters. And if they are liberal, I want proof that they are liberal. Not your silly little minded opinion. Come on now. Think. I know it's hard.

After his retirement, didn't Walter Cronkite specifically state he was a liberal and that it had colored his reporting?

You might want to look up who owns the media outlets before you make that claim.

The news is about keeping people's attention so they will run with whatever does that......

The news is about reporting facts. It is amazing how much they are distorting facts just to get people's attention. For some reason, it is "cool" to be anti-American and blame everything on the president, because that's what most of the stupid college kids do. So, to appeal to those "left" viewers, the news distorts the facts to a point where many people are no longer getting the truth when they watch the news. That is not good for a country, especially one that is at war.

After his retirement, didn't Walter Cronkite specifically state he was a liberal and that it had colored his reporting?
Don't know, but something like that ought to be pretty easy to source, huh?

Let me say this--it wouldn't surprise me if he did say it. What I'm saying is that Cronkite is a big enough figure that a statement like that would be chronicled everywhere anyone who wants to make a case for a liberal media could use it.

The news is about reporting facts. It is amazing how much they are distorting facts just to get people's attention. For some reason, it is "cool" to be anti-American and blame everything on the president, because that's what most of the stupid college kids do. So, to appeal to those "left" viewers, the news distorts the facts to a point where many people are no longer getting the truth when they watch the news. That is not good for a country, especially one that is at war.
Ah, you poor naive child. One day you will learn the true meaning of the news media.

In other words, toss reason and intellect out the window, forget intellectual honesty, and go with your gut?

And just in case you get the wrong idea, I don't agree with you. I pointed out a major flaw in the study on the first page.

No, in other words, sometimes you have to pull your nose out of the book and see the obvious truth.

Since I've started posting here, all I've had to do is identify the rabid Libs, the rabid Conservs, see what they are both bitching about, and research it. Presto! Instant unbiased news. :D

Since I've started posting here, all I've had to do is identify the rabid Libs, the rabid Conservs, see what they are both bitching about, and research it. Presto! Instant unbiased news. :D
And yet you always manage to sound like a right wing nutjob--how ever do you manage it?

And yet you always manage to sound like a right wing nutjob--how ever do you manage it?
You're a real ass sometimes, ya know it? Ever hear of a thing called difference of opinion? It's actually quite a healthy human phenomenon.

Unless you let it rule every facet of your existence. Then it makes you an extremist.

Your a real ass sometimes, ya know it? Ever hear of a thing called difference of opinion? It's actually quite a healthy human phenomenon.

Unless you let it rule every facet of your existence. Then it makes you an extremist.
Difference of opinion is one thing--calling someone unAmerican without reason and then refusing to apologize for it when called out is another. I have plenty of healthy conversations with people on this forum with whom I share almost no opinions in common--they treat me with respect and I treat them with respect. Apologize, quit being a douche, and maybe we'll find that level. Until then, you get treated as you have treated me.

Big Government means communism/Socialism. And mostly the media (Liberal outlets, CBS,CNN,ect) want a big government because the government will in turn (they hope) use them to broadcast its propaganda and they will become very powerful in the government and become very wealthy(Much like former Soviet News outlets)(Some are more equal then others).

I hate to tell you this Droskianishk, but we're not a hive mind, you know. 'The media' is comprised of a whole lot of PEOPLE, whether journalists, editors, cameramen, and so on, and like any other bunch of people, we each have our own opinion.

I am a lefty (socialist, though at least one person here has accused me of being a social democrat), and therefore I think the news media is slanted to the right. My opinion is worth exactly the paper it is currently printed on. Mr X sitting next to me may be a conservative, so he will believe the same media is biased to the right. Essentially, no media outlet will print the news EXACTLY as one person wants (yes, even if that person is Rupert Murdoch) and so in the eyes of the interested reader/viewer, is biased. Big deal.

As for my apparent ambition to rise high in the government through spewing its propaganda, well, thanks for letting me know. And here was I thinking that I actually do this because I like writing and also quite like getting paid to do something I like. Oh, evil Marxist me, then.

We are not a hive mind, we are a bunch of people, with varying opinions, who do our job the same as anyone else. We learn what our editors want us to write fairly early in our careers (if we want to continue being paid) and we write it. We don't plug into the mothership once a day to discuss our progress in toppling capitalism.

Difference of opinion is one thing--calling someone unAmerican without reason and then refusing to apologize for it when called out is another. I have plenty of healthy conversations with people on this forum with whom I share almost no opinions in common--they treat me with respect and I treat them with respect. Apologize, quit being a douche, and maybe we'll find that level. Until then, you get treated as you have treated me.

Hold on a second... where is this un-American without reason junk. There's definately enough reason for you to be called un-American.

Also, all you do is yell at people and say they're stupid and demand THEM to apologize to YOU. THAT is a bunch of junk. I bet the only "healthy" conversations you have are with wimps that suck up to you.

Ted Turner did own CNN for how long, and he is a wee bit left of center, to say the least.

Dont get me started on CNN, it is weak, and doesnt get to the story ever.. but how bout fox news? aren't they just a tad to the right.. just a tad? People!! They attack socialist and liberals 24/7, have debates with a conservative against a conservative... Nice "balanced and fair" media!! Go to europe people, watch the news their, now THATS news.. Even BBC is a paradise compared to this stuff.

Dont get me started on CNN, it is weak, and doesnt get to the story ever.. but how bout fox news? aren't they just a tad to the right.. just a tad? People!! They attack socialist and liberals 24/7, have debates with a conservative against a conservative... Nice "balanced and fair" media!! Go to europe people, watch the news their, now THATS news.. Even BBC is a paradise compared to this stuff.

Well, i've seen some pretty crazy far left wackos on Fox news being shot down by O'Rielly and Hannity. So, it's going a bit far to say that it's conservative against conservative debating. Also, the BBC is beyond extreme left biased. It is paradise compared to nothing in the US.

The news is about reporting facts. It is amazing how much they are distorting facts just to get people's attention. For some reason, it is "cool" to be anti-American and blame everything on the president,


You forget the shrub does make this easy to do.....

because that's what most of the stupid college kids do. So, to appeal to those "left" viewers, the news distorts the facts to a point where many people are no longer getting the truth when they watch the news. That is not good for a country, especially one that is at war.

Ahh but it also appeals to the right as it gives them something to bitch about.

People don't care about the truth. Why is it only death and suffering the items of news? This attitude is not new as it happened long before the shrub.....

Well, i've seen some pretty crazy far left wackos on Fox news being shot down by O'Rielly and Hannity. So, it's going a bit far to say that it's conservative against conservative debating. Also, the BBC is beyond extreme left biased. It is paradise compared to nothing in the US.
Ive seen worse than the BBC (depends what you think worse is). I think news media is unfair in the sense that they are scared of being sewed if they show anything controversial... I do believe that they need to be more balanced, and less bias, but id support a news station that has one liberal report, and than one conservative report on the same issue.
I am more of a liberal, and enjoy liberal news, but then again i have conservative friends and I get along with debating them a lot. I enjoy seeing their perspective.

After his retirement, didn't Walter Cronkite specifically state he was a liberal and that it had colored his reporting?

And yet he was considered the second most trusted Newsman in the business.

Dont get me started on CNN, it is weak, and doesnt get to the story ever.. but how bout fox news? aren't they just a tad to the right.. just a tad? People!! They attack socialist and liberals 24/7, have debates with a conservative against a conservative... Nice "balanced and fair" media!! Go to europe people, watch the news their, now THATS news.. Even BBC is a paradise compared to this stuff.
I'll grant you that Fox news has a right slant. But they aren't FULL right. There are plenty of Liberals on there. I watch it every day. There are people from boths sides pissing me off daily.

You forget the shrub does make this easy to do.....



Ahh but it also appeals to the right as it gives them something to bitch about.

People don't care about the truth. Why is it only death and suffering the items of news? This attitude is not new as it happened long before the shrub.....
So you're trying to tell us about bias as you call the President of the United Sates "the shrub?"

Classic. :D

Hold on a second... where is this un-American without reason junk. There's definately enough reason for you to be called un-American.

Also, all you do is yell at people and say they're stupid and demand THEM to apologize to YOU. THAT is a bunch of junk. I bet the only "healthy" conversations you have are with wimps that suck up to you.
Whose puppet are you again? :rolleyes:

Whose puppet are you again? :rolleyes:

Not yours

Also, the BBC is beyond extreme left biased. It is paradise compared to nothing in the US.
Here is their website: http://news.bbc.co.uk/

Show me where they are being extreme leftists.

Then also check this: http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/
And this: http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage

It's easy to claim things (particular if you don't actually use any of these sources), but it's hard to back them up, hey?

Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist

Oh... my God...

They have Political Scientists now?

GET THE SHOT GUNS AND HOLY WATER JOHNNY! THE END TIMES ARE COMING!:sniper:

But seriously folks the media has always been bias always has been, odds are always will be.. so unless you want our good driod friend HK-47 reading us the nightly news at 9(As funny as that would be) I would suggest a 2 step plan to over come the recent 'OMG bias!!!!111' scare;

1. Find out which stations have what bias.
2.adjust your interpretation to the facts...

In other words do what Danmarc is doing..:p
.

Hold on a second... where is this un-American without reason junk. There's definately enough reason for you to be called un-American.

Also, all you do is yell at people and say they're stupid and demand THEM to apologize to YOU. THAT is a bunch of junk. I bet the only "healthy" conversations you have are with wimps that suck up to you.
As i recall, even Eutrusca has qualified at least one of Nazz's posts as cogent (NOTE: get your dictionaries, mouthpieces), and it was pertinent to unreasonable influence of special interests on the courses of political "integrity" in the U.S. So do you think you're disrespecting Eutrusca, in his agreeing with Nazz, to the extent that you would liken Eutrusca's opinion to "un-American"?
Go ahead, i dare you. I'm fairly certain a few posters here wouldn't have a problem notifying him of your peculiar SLANT on things.
Furthermore, the best that you and that other guy calling Nazz "un-American" do is basically just what you're talking about ... wimps who suck up.

EDIT: See post #29 of NY Times Columnist Calls Out Bill O'Reilly

That is not good for a country, especially one that is at war.
That's why so many people are speculating on who we're going to invade next, since it keeps us in a state of perpetual war, suspending the integrity of checks and balances of all kinds in this nation.
I suspect it'll be Eastasia next.
And for humanitarian reasons, to be sure ... so long as we ignore the Janjaweed.

EDIT: Furthermore, who has the culpability of calling this war?
"The terrorists!"? Yes, the almost ALL Saudis, NONE of whom were Iraqis? They declared this war?
If you say Bush declared war, it's a good thing he's being investigated for his "intelligence" usage, for which i'll direct you to the Duelfer Report, the Butler Report, and the MI:6 Downing Street Memos, as well as the German's latest report about what information was reasonable from the intelligence that Bush & co used. You should also note how it wasn't just democrats who noted the unwholesome nature of Patriot Act extensions for Sections 215, 213 and 218.
Also, with Bush's latest admission, it's come to light that there has only been 3 subpoenas the current administration ... two of which to the Superfund issue and one over Katrina;
the amount issued by same folk totaled 1,052 subpoenas between '97 and '02, costing more than $35 million in largely sprurious investigations into democrat dealings.
(note: i don't think the dems were squeaky clean - i just know the difference between who dies for what)

Once again, it seems that Conservatives/Righties seem to think "the marketplace of ideas," works perfectly to bring people what they want and need except for the lone case of the media. Every business, it seems, is able to self-regulate except the media business.

What a load of malarkey.

To me all this shows is how skewed the positioning of the "centre" is in politics, particularly in the US. I would imagine that conservatives would decry the Sydney Morning Herald as "liberal" or "leftie latte sipping," but to me it's reactionary bullshit...

Anyway, obviously the news sources are biased, thats why you have to have your wits about you.

People do, the difference between the Herald and the Australian, for example is incredible - I read both almost everyday, particular the letters and opinion section. I wonder if both papers think they are both centered?

The shame is that it was published in a peer-reviewed journal. And a respectable one, at that. What kind of voodoo science do economists study, that this kind of silliness can get published as an article?
As my stats professor was so fond of saying, that's why we don't change the world on just one study.

It'll be interesting to read the actual paper and see how it's responded to, and torn apart.

No, in other words, sometimes you have to pull your nose out of the book and see the obvious truth.
Ok... I'd like to know how old you are and how you managed to understand anything without knowing why any science, even the fuzzy ones, do not rely on seeing "the obvious truth".

Ok... I'd like to know how old you are and how you managed to understand anything without knowing why any science, even the fuzzy ones, do not rely on seeing "the obvious truth".
Seconded. *nods*

http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664


No Shit.

OMG, teh Lib3rulzz!!!1!1

:rolleyes:

Multiple news sources are your friend. :)

So you're trying to tell us about bias as you call the President of the United Sates "the shrub?"

Classic. :D

Well it's simple actually.

Liberal Media Bias is a myth.

My "bias" against the shrub is not a myth.

Beats the shit out of me. If the article originally posted gave an accurate description of how the study was conducted, I'd say the editors of that journal have some explaining to do.
There's the weak link. We're reading a reporter's version of the study.

It looks to me that the inital 'calibration' of the opinions of the senate is very very subjective based on what the Authors consider to be liberal/conservative. Given that a fairly large republican majority in the senate gives a score of 50.1 - i.e. as many liberal results as conservative ones. This is obviously rubbish and it would seem the 'centre' in this case is delibrately set quite a long way to the right
Thus making any centre arguements in the news count as liberal - and even some conservative results will be considered liberal due to the 'centre' being placed to the right. It also means that any conservative results in the news will contribute less to the 'rightness' than a liberal result would contribute to the 'leftness'.

Not that anyone will pay any attention but Melkor posted this ast time this shit came up. Interesting little read...

Also, the myth of a liberal bias in the media is something of a misnomer. Do any of you happen to know who owns these media outlets? Here's the skinny:

ABC is owned by Disney
NBC is owned by General Electric --who, by the way is the largest defense contracter in the world
CBS is owned by Viacom and Reuters [This is probably the most likely netowrk to actually have a perceivable liberal bias, since Viacom's owner is one of those bleeding heart, self-hating capitalist types]
CNN is owned by Time freaking Warner
And we all know who owns Fox.

The news is about reporting facts. It is amazing how much they are distorting facts just to get people's attention. For some reason, it is "cool" to be anti-American and blame everything on the president, because that's what most of the stupid college kids do. So, to appeal to those "left" viewers, the news distorts the facts to a point where many people are no longer getting the truth when they watch the news. That is not good for a country, especially one that is at war.



FYI, those campus-pinkos don't watch TV.

And most serious lib'rals I know don't really own TVs.

Well, i've seen some pretty crazy far left wackos on Fox news being shot down by O'Rielly and Hannity. So, it's going a bit far to say that it's conservative against conservative debating. Also, the BBC is beyond extreme left biased. It is paradise compared to nothing in the US.


Let's be clear - O'Reilly and Hannity have to bring "wackos" on their shows so they can look OK.

Any serious, honest, reasonable, well-versed person from either side of the aisle could tear each of them up.

PErsonally I don't give two shits about the bias, I know that 'The telegraph' is Troy and the Guardien is Left wing.

OMG, teh Lib3rulzz!!!1!1

:rolleyes:

Multiple news sources are your friend. :)
Trite.

for what it's worth, I bet if you asked all US journalists (whether print, radio, web or TV) to tell you whom they vote for (generally), probably the vast majority would answer:

Democrats

There's the font of the bias: even if you try really hard not to be biased, it's nearly impossible to keep personal bias out of a story.

(now someone says, "But these multinational capitalist-pig companies own all major media outlets, so they obviously edit the content of what is said or printed..." To which I answer: That's not how journalism works. The house is divided in half: Advertising/Sales/Circulation and News/Editorial/Production. As long as ads are being sold and the money is pouring into the owners' coffers, the multinational corporations don't give two shits about what's being said or written.)

Not that anyone will pay any attention but Melkor posted this ast time this shit came up. Interesting little read...
[Who owns who deleted]
Why are we supposed to automatically assume a link between the opinions of corporate ownership and the news desk?

It doesn't much matter if your a hive or not (referring to individuals that work at the station). Your paid to say what the editors decide what you will say. A very small circle of people control the whole news station (or paper). The owner usually has the last word about what gets printed and what doesn't.

If I were more confrontational, I'd say "Yes shit."

The number of times something is mentioned is no gauge of their support. If I say a name all the time, but always follow it by "idiot," "menace" or "enemy of the people," that ain't support.

There is very little liberal bias in the big media-do hippies and tree-huggers own the big news corporations?

IMO you are wrong, there is a ton of liberal bias in the media. There is also, incidently, a ton of conservative bias in the media. Each network, or show, actually, plays to their core audience.

It's not in the media's interest to broadcast peaceful, serene muzak fluff pieces, because thew average citizen will change to the broadcast that is screaming out at them about death and destuction, lies and deceit, since that just seems more important. Often, that comes across as a bias towards whoever is in power, because it makes it seem like they only promote a darker side of life, etc.

[Who owns who deleted]
Why are we supposed to automatically assume a link between the opinions of corporate ownership and the news desk?

Because the corporate owners tend to involve themselves in the running of their companies. The goal is profit; not ideologe agendas that don't acomplish that goal.

Now if you want to label the media a profit biased then I agree with that......

Because the corporate owners tend to involve themselves in the running of their companies. The goal is profit; not ideologe agendas that don't acomplish that goal.

Now if you want to label the media a profit biased then I agree with that......
I don't think that the scale of the corporations will make it easy for the CEO or BoD to exert any influence. I think it's a hard link to prove. The news director is going to exert a lot more influence.

I don't think that the scale of the corporations will make it easy for the CEO or BoD to exert any influence. I think it's a hard link to prove. The news director is going to exert a lot more influence.Actually, if you compare commercial channels' and non-profit channels' news shows, the link between profit and program becomes rather clear.
Commercial channels tend to go for the entertainment factor to get people to watch the commercials while waiting for the news. The news tends to reflect what is assumed the audience wants to hear and not necessarily what (or how it) happened.
Non-profit channels that don't have to worry about commercials don't play the infotainment card as much.
The difference is a lot easier to see in Germany, since we have two major national channels that are publicly funded.

Actually, if you compare commercial channels' and non-profit channels' news shows, the link between profit and program becomes rather clear.
Commercial channels tend to go for the entertainment factor to get people to watch the commercials while waiting for the news. The news tends to reflect what is assumed the audience wants to hear and not necessarily what (or how it) happened.
Non-profit channels that don't have to worry about commercials don't play the infotainment card as much.
The difference is a lot easier to see in Germany, since we have two major national channels that are publicly funded.
Maybe so, maybe not. I find NPR focuses on irrelevant stories because they can show off their 'art'.

But that still doesn't link a news company to the parent corporation. I think that's a harder case to make than just claiming that corporate owners want to control their holdings.

More like an example of someone trying to publish, no matter how silly the thesis. Counting times that a think tank is referred to determines bias? That's just silly.

Agreed. Silly "study."

for what it's worth, I bet if you asked all US journalists (whether print, radio, web or TV) to tell you whom they vote for (generally), probably the vast majority would answer:

Democrats

There's the font of the bias: even if you try really hard not to be biased, it's nearly impossible to keep personal bias out of a story.

(now someone says, "But these multinational capitalist-pig companies own all major media outlets, so they obviously edit the content of what is said or printed..." To which I answer: That's not how journalism works. The house is divided in half: Advertising/Sales/Circulation and News/Editorial/Production. As long as ads are being sold and the money is pouring into the owners' coffers, the multinational corporations don't give two shits about what's being said or written.)

That's how journalism used to work. Now the corporate bigwigs concern themslves with content more and more and more.

well those that choose not to read have no advantage over those that can't read. ( And it does have the topic we're discussing in it)

I'm not sure how more plainly I have to make this to you.

No sources, no care. I want you to find me sources that I do not have to go out and purchase (i.e, waste my damn money) to back you up.

Until that point, your arguments are all invalid.

Trite.

Pot. Kettle. Black. :rolleyes: