NationStates Jolt Archive

While the Main Stream Media was orgasming over Cheney's hunting acident and interview of Fox, they essentially took a pass on a bit of REAL news that affects REAL people, not just in the US but Globally.

You see, the new Fed also had a little press conference where he hinted that interest rates might just have to go up.

Cheney the Dick could run around DC shooting politicians at random and have less real effect on the US & World economy than the Fed Chairman shoting his mouth off once.

Of course, it's much more fun to find ways to bash BushCo, isn't it?

Nope. No Media Bias. None at all. :rolleyes:

I love it how the media makes stories like this the biggest things, and puts the real stories in the proverbial dumpster. What about the government's subsidy cuts to the oil corporations, huh? That's why gasoline is so fucking expensive, not just for us, but for everyone on the planet. It's got nothing to do with a shortage (though there will inevitably be a shortage in the next few decades).

Just goes to show that the media cares about the gossip rather than the real deal.

While the Main Stream Media was orgasming over Cheney's hunting acident and interview of Fox, they essentially took a pass on a bit of REAL news that affects REAL people, not just in the US but Globally.

You see, the new Fed also had a little press conference where he hinted that interest rates might just have to go up.

Cheney the Dick could run around DC shooting politicians at random and have less real effect on the US & World economy than the Fed Chairman shoting his mouth off once.

Of course, it's much more fun to find ways to bash BushCo, isn't it?

Nope. No Media Bias. None at all. :rolleyes:

It's not like they do this sort of thing just for Bush and Cheney. Howard Dean could bust a cap in a friend of his and get this sort of press. In fact, I would love to see Dean do that just for the hell of it.

Any sort of public figure that makes any kind of mistake will get overanalyzed and overhyped simply because news outlets aren't focusing on real news any more. I really have a hard time accepting anything any news outlet reports anymore without independently verifying it myself.

It's not like they do this sort of thing just for Bush and Cheney. Howard Dean could bust a cap in a friend of his and get this sort of press. In fact, I would love to see Dean do that just for the hell of it.

Any sort of public figure that makes any kind of mistake will get overanalyzed and overhyped simply because news outlets aren't focusing on real news any more. I really have a hard time accepting anything any news outlet reports anymore without independently verifying it myself.

republicans hunt wildlife. democrats pop caps in peoples skulls.

That's an odd assumption to make.

Because CNN carried the press conference live.

Because the story about the press conference was pinned on the front page of Yahoo for most of yesterday.

And because it was widely reported.


Maybe the problem isn't with the media.

Maybe it's just that you can't focus on more than one story at a time.

Because I sure heard the news yesterday - from multiple sources.

It's not like having a new Fed Chairman sworn in is news or anything. Not compared to continuing to try to get BushCo on somthing.

That's an odd assumption to make.
Because CNN carried the press conference live.
Because the story about the press conference was pinned on the front page of Yahoo for most of yesterday.
And because it was widely reported.
Maybe the problem isn't with the media.
Maybe it's just that you can't focus on more than one story at a time.
Because I sure heard the news yesterday - from multiple sources.

And the proportion of coverage relative to its importance?

And the Talking Heads spent how much time discussing the importance?

No, it's much more important to talk about bird shot.

I had a good laugh when I first heard about the , but now who cares? Does anybody realize how many hunters shoot each other every year in South Texas?
Real news would be appreciated.



EDIT: Effing library filter blanks out shot if you put an extra "o" in it.

It's not like having a new Fed Chairman sworn in is news or anything. Not compared to continuing to try to get BushCo on somthing.


Errrr... he was sworn in on the 6th. YEsterday was just his first press conference as leader of the Fed.

Wow, not only do you miss the story when it's being WIDELY reported, you complain that you missed it and then get it wrong after finally hearing about it.

Oh yes, and the notion that Fox giving Cheney a friendly one-on-one non-confrontational interview to give his story represents MSM bias looking to attack BushCo?

Now THAT's frickin' hilarious!

No, the problem is not the media...... not in this case anyway.

While the Main Stream Media was orgasming over Cheney's hunting acident and interview of Fox, they essentially took a pass on a bit of REAL news that affects REAL people, not just in the US but Globally.

You see, the new Fed also had a little press conference where he hinted that interest rates might just have to go up.

Cheney the Dick could run around DC shooting politicians at random and have less real effect on the US & World economy than the Fed Chairman shoting his mouth off once.

Of course, it's much more fun to find ways to bash BushCo, isn't it?

Nope. No Media Bias. None at all. :rolleyes:
There's plenty of media bias. It's all in favor of sex, violence, and scandal. Remember how they treated Bill and Monica? This Cheney story has violence and if the press can spin it right, scandal too.

Now I agree with you that this isn't real news. It's another indication that our news outlets have become geared more toward providing entertainment rather than education about what's going on in the world.

And the proportion of coverage relative to its importance?

And the Talking Heads spent how much time discussing the importance?

No, it's much more important to talk about bird shot.

The talking heads for general news programin almost NEVER give much time to economic news. Thats why stations have special business reports, and why newspapers have a business section.

Why?

Because as true as it is that this is more life-affecting, the fact is that most viewers aren't really interested.

and the news is simply a business based on meeting viewer demand for content in order to sell advertizing.

Suggesting that the news channels as a rule don't give economic issues enough coverage is a fair compaint. I'd support that statement.


But suggesting that the Cheney story supplanted regular in-depth reporting on economic issues is bullshit.

Errrr... he was sworn in on the 6th. YEsterday was just his first press conference as leader of the Fed.

Wow, not only do you miss the story when it's being WIDELY reported, you complain that you missed it and then get it wrong after finally hearing about it.

Oh yes, and the notion that Fox giving Cheney a friendly one-on-one non-confrontational interview to give his story represents MSM bias looking to attack BushCo?

Now THAT's frickin' hilarious!

No, the problem is not the media...... not in this case anyway.
That's got to sting.

And Syniks, even if your analysis is correct, that there was far more attention paid to the Cheney shooting, that's not evidence of a liberal bias--that's evidence of a "if it bleeds, it leads" combined with "celebrity is news" bias. I know belief in a liberal media is an article of faith among conservatives (and spare me your "I'm a libertarian" denials, please), but political leaning is rarely if ever a factor in what gets covered. Ratings, and by extension, advertising rates, are the primary factor, and as long as news is a for-profit enterprise, they always be.

While the Main Stream Media was orgasming over Cheney's hunting acident and interview of Fox, they essentially took a pass on a bit of REAL news that affects REAL people, not just in the US but Globally.

You see, the new Fed also had a little press conference where he hinted that interest rates might just have to go up.

Cheney the Dick could run around DC shooting politicians at random and have less real effect on the US & World economy than the Fed Chairman shoting his mouth off once.

Of course, it's much more fun to find ways to bash BushCo, isn't it?

Nope. No Media Bias. None at all. :rolleyes:

Well rising interest rates point to a healthy economy... so it's not such a bad thing.

That's got to sting.

And Syniks, even if your analysis is correct, that there was far more attention paid to the Cheney shooting, that's not evidence of a liberal bias--that's evidence of a "if it bleeds, it leads" combined with "celebrity is news" bias. I know belief in a liberal media is an article of faith among conservatives (and spare me your "I'm a libertarian" denials, please), but political leaning is rarely if ever a factor in what gets covered. Ratings, and by extension, advertising rates, are the primary factor, and as long as news is a for-profit enterprise, they always be.
I understand that, but seriousy, since when does a softball interview on Fox about a non-issue warrant front page coverage in the Chicago Times, plus a 3/4 page spread, including analysis, where the FIRST Fed press conference gets a total of 18" spread between 2 pages in the business section?

I could understand if it was just another press conference later in his tenure, but hell, this was his First One - you know, "First Impressions are Everything" and all that.

And no, it doesn't sting, because there was so little available about Bernanke that I pulled the first available article from Yahoo (not exactly MSM that) that I found. And really, the fact that I missed the coverage of THAT event, when it plays so heavily into my industry, simply validates my point. The press has become an irrelevant arm of the DC establishment - and one that is rediculously and blatantly anti-Republican
(even if they are not anti-business) at that.

This reminds me of the memo passed through the British civil service om 9/11. It read "Today is a very good day to release bad news."

Here's some perspective. The Vice President of the United States of America shot a man in the face. No matter what else happens, that is still a news story. If it's a news story when it's some regular guy does it, it's damn sure to be a news story when the VP of the country does it. Stop whining about media bias. The Vice President shot a man in the face.

Sorry, I just had to post this pic.

http://i1.tinypic.com/nx28tj.jpg

That pic rocks.

Here's some perspective. The Vice President of the United States of America shot a man in the face. No matter what else happens, that is still a news story. If it's a news story when it's some regular guy does it, it's damn sure to be a news story when the VP of the country does it. Stop whining about media bias. The Vice President shot a man in the face.
Exactically (fuck, I'm catching a case of the Cat-Tribe). And frankly, I think the story would have died after a day if there hadn't been a 18-24 hour delay in getting the news out. It's the delay that makes both partisans and reporters alike think there's something else to the story. Remember, even if there's nothing to cover up, it's still the cover up that kills you.

There's plenty of media bias. It's all in favor of sex, violence, and scandal. Remember how they treated Bill and Monica? This Cheney story has violence and if the press can spin it right, scandal too.

What scandal? Guy was where he shouldn't have been at the wrong time. He didn't attempt to follow standard procedure. Cheney was leading the shot while watching the bird which is what you're supposed to do.

What scandal? Guy was where he shouldn't have been at the wrong time. He didn't attempt to follow standard procedure. Cheney was leading the shot while watching the bird which is what you're supposed to do.
Bullshit. I'm not even a hunter and I know standard procedure is to make sure no one is in your line of fire before you pull the fucking trigger, no matter what you're tracking. Even if Cheney's story is 100% accurate, he violated protocol by rotating 180 degrees before firing. You want to dismiss Cheney's actions as careless--you're probably right--but no way was this Whittington's fault.

What scandal? Guy was where he shouldn't have been at the wrong time. He didn't attempt to follow standard procedure. Cheney was leading the shot while watching the bird which is what you're supposed to do.
If the media can find a way to make people outraged about it then it will be a scandal. Don't think that they're not trying. Scandal is good for business.

Hahah continued interest rate rise. Inverted yield curve. Buwhahahah.

Kiss you housing "wealth" buh-by.

As bob dylan said: "It's a home, not a house."

It's just a pity his sock-puppet wasn't out on the hunt with him...

Bullshit. I'm not even a hunter and I know standard procedure is to make sure no one is in your line of fire before you pull the fucking trigger, no matter what you're tracking. Even if Cheney's story is 100% accurate, he violated protocol by rotating 180 degrees before firing. You want to dismiss Cheney's actions as careless--you're probably right--but no way was this Whittington's fault.

Ugh. Your an english prof. help me out.

What's that book about mid war england, where the lord of the manner is in a hunting party and he takes a shot below the tree line so he can get the most pheasants? (Which he is desperate to do because he is impotent or somesuch and wants to impress his wife, and show up her beau.)

Edit: Forget it, I remembered, it's called the shooting party. Anway, everyone should read it before discussing this.

Ugh. Your an english prof. help me out.

What's that book about mid war england, where the lord of the manner is in a hunting party and he takes a shot below the tree line so he can get the most pheasants? (Which he is desperate to do because he is impotent or somesuch and wants to impress his wife, and show up her beau.)
Doesn't sound familiar, but then again, I'm no great fan of British fiction of any time period.

Doesn't sound familiar, but then again, I'm no great fan of British fiction of any time period.

ANY time period?

Not even modern british novels?

Doesn't sound familiar, but then again, I'm no great fan of British fiction of any time period.

It was pretty good.

By british fiction, do you mean fiction about the british, or fiction written by the british?

ANY time period?

Not even modern british novels?
Well, I'm not a fan of most fiction written after the fifties anywhere, except in the SciFi genre, and even that is limited, especially literary fiction--that's some of the most tedious, self-indulgent shit out there as far as I'm concerned. There are exceptions, to be sure, but these days I'd rather read non-fiction than fiction any day. Jared Diamond, Malcolm Gladwell, James Suroweicki, Michael Kimmelman--that's the good stuff as far as I'm concerned.

But my speciality is poetry, not fiction, so that might have something to do with it.

Bullshit. I'm not even a hunter and I know standard procedure is to make sure no one is in your line of fire before you pull the fucking trigger, no matter what you're tracking. Even if Cheney's story is 100% accurate, he violated protocol by rotating 180 degrees before firing. You want to dismiss Cheney's actions as careless--you're probably right--but no way was this Whittington's fault.
Dick shot somebody and I didn't hear about it?! :D

Oh well. That's hilarious. I hope the guy that got blasted is okie-dokie.

Hahah continued interest rate rise. Inverted yield curve. Buwhahahah.

Kiss you housing "wealth" buh-by.

As bob dylan said: "It's a home, not a house."
Yeah. No way could what the Fed talks about be worth Front Page coverage. ;)

It's called protecting the government by insulting the politicians. By just calling Bush stupid, you protect the government from whatever horrible things they could be doing on a daily basis.

The media doesn't insult the politicians to make you dislike them, but to make you dislike the government less than it deserves.

While the Main Stream Media was orgasming over Cheney's hunting acident and interview of Fox, they essentially took a pass on a bit of REAL news that affects REAL people, not just in the US but Globally.

You see, the new Fed also had a little press conference where he hinted that interest rates might just have to go up.

Cheney the Dick could run around DC shooting politicians at random and have less real effect on the US & World economy than the Fed Chairman shoting his mouth off once.

Of course, it's much more fun to find ways to bash BushCo, isn't it?

Nope. No Media Bias. None at all. :rolleyes:

Your priggish rage might be a little less hypocritical if the Republican party had not spent most of the late 90s obsessing over Clinton's cock.

Your priggish rage might be a little less hypocritical if the Republican party had not spent most of the late 90s obsessing over Clinton's cock.With the majority of the Media loudly asking why the Republicans were making such a big deal about a private incident.

Now it's the media making a big deal over a private incident. Funny eh?

I'm not sure if I consider the an elected official as important as the Vice President of the United States of America shooting someone in the face a "private issue".

I'm not sure if I consider the an elected official as important as the Vice President of the United States of America shooting someone in the face a "private issue".
An accident while hunting is a public issue, but the President engaging in workplace sexual indiscretions with a subordinate IS a private matter.

Got it. :rolleyes:

An accident while hunting is a public issue, but the President engaging in workplace sexual indiscretions with a subordinate IS a private matter.

Got it. :rolleyes:

Okay you shot a friend in teh face accidentally while hunting... how likely are you to share that with family, friends or an online forum as a "guess what happened to me yesterday"?

another scenario, you cheated on your gf/wife by getting a bj from your secretary/classmate/hunting buddy... same question - how likely are you to share that with family, friends or an online forum as a "guess what happened to me yesterday"?


Now try to tell the truth here.

blatantly anti-Republican

Lol, I laughed so hard at that. Are you serious?

Okay you shot a friend in teh face accidentally while hunting... how likely are you to share that with family, friends or an online forum as a "guess what happened to me yesterday"?

another scenario, you cheated on your gf/wife by getting a bj from your secretary/classmate/hunting buddy... same question - how likely are you to share that with family, friends or an online forum as a "guess what happened to me yesterday"?


Now try to tell the truth here.
Um... last time I checked, in most States getting a blowjob from your secretary constitutes the crime of quid-pro-quo sexual harassment.

But be that as it may, my point is that there is inconsistancy in the way the Media handled the two events.

I happen to think that they are both private affairs (even the Lewinsky deal, since she did not prosecute under EEOC) and not worthy of the falderall - yet they are treated differently by the media.

Lol, I laughed so hard at that. Are you serious?
With the exception of Fox, which is blatantly pro Republican, the Media is usually pro business, pro government and anti republican in its spin. No, it is not a Liberal Conspiracy - there is too much pro business involved - but the Major Media is decidedly anti Republican in their coverage. Were it not, Fox would not have an audience, would they?

Um... last time I checked, in most States getting a blowjob from your secretary constitutes the crime of quid-pro-quo sexual harassment.

But be that as it may, my point is that there is inconsistancy in the way the Media handled the two events.

I happen to think that they are both private affairs (even the Lewinsky deal, since she did not prosecute under EEOC) and not worthy of the falderall - yet they are treated differently by the media.

Uh, last I checked, lying to a federal grand jury while under oath is a federal crime. Doesnt matter what the issue is, either a murder trial or getting a bj inthe office, he lied and broke the law. As the Dems say, no President is above the law. Including Clinton. (Oh and the guy Deep Throat too. Why he isnt hanging by his balls for his crimes defies me.)

Um... last time I checked, in most States getting a blowjob from your secretary constitutes the crime of quid-pro-quo sexual harassment.

Okay then you got it from your hunting buddy. sheesh. Besides you don't have to run yoruself in if your secretary gives you a bj.

But be that as it may, my point is that there is inconsistancy in the way the Media handled the two events.

I happen to think that they are both private affairs (even the Lewinsky deal, since she did not prosecute under EEOC) and not worthy of the falderall - yet they are treated differently by the media.

Okay I thought you were sayign the Clinton thing wasn't a private affair.

I dont remember the media overwhelmingly saying the media shouldn't be covering his bj out of respect for his privacy. I remember quite the opposite. There were a few saaying that yes, but they were mostly covering the Lewinsky thing non-stop and we had ever sordid detail as soon as they came out from pretty much every news station. But I don't know how you got your news at that time and it's pointless to argue over how you remember things so ... meh

Uh, last I checked, lying to a federal grand jury while under oath is a federal crime.Yes, it is. But I am talking about how there was outcry from the media that the sex was a private thing that should not be brought up all the time by the mean Republicans (admittedly while they were simultaneously ensuring those same Repubs got plenty of air time to bring up the Blue Dress :rolleyes:) But this time, somehow privacy is irrelevant.

With the exception of Fox, which is blatantly pro Republican, the Media is usually pro business, pro government and anti republican in its spin. No, it is not a Liberal Conspiracy - there is too much pro business involved - but the Major Media is decidedly anti Republican in their coverage. Were it not, Fox would not have an audience, would they?

The media is mostly apolitical in what they say, but leaning towards Republicans slightly (US media, that is). People watch Fox because it is blatantly pro-Republican. People watch some more Democratic channels because they are blatantly pro-Democratic. Overall, however, the networks are either neutral or slightly Republican in their outlook (that may change when/if the Democrats get in power, in which case it may be slightly pro-Democratic).

The media is mostly apolitical in what they say, but leaning towards Republicans slightly (US media, that is). People watch Fox because it is blatantly pro-Republican. People watch some more Democratic channels because they are blatantly pro-Democratic. Overall, however, the networks are either neutral or slightly Republican in their outlook (that may change when/if the Democrats get in power, in which case it may be slightly pro-Democratic).
Not really.

Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist

Date: December 14, 2005
Contact: Meg Sullivan ( msullivan@support.ucla.edu )
Phone: 310-825-1046

While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.

These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly.

"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."

"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.

The results appear in the latest issue of the Quarterly Journal of Economics, which will become available in mid-December.

Groseclose and Milyo based their research on a standard gauge of a lawmaker's support for liberal causes. Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) tracks the percentage of times that each lawmaker votes on the liberal side of an issue. Based on these votes, the ADA assigns a numerical score to each lawmaker, where "100" is the most liberal and "0" is the most conservative. After adjustments to compensate for disproportionate representation that the Senate gives to low‑population states and the lack of representation for the District of Columbia, the average ADA score in Congress (50.1) was assumed to represent the political position of the average U.S. voter.

Groseclose and Milyo then directed 21 research assistants — most of them college students — to scour U.S. media coverage of the past 10 years. They tallied the number of times each media outlet referred to think tanks and policy groups, such as the left-leaning NAACP or the right-leaning Heritage Foundation.

Next, they did the same exercise with speeches of U.S. lawmakers. If a media outlet displayed a citation pattern similar to that of a lawmaker, then Groseclose and Milyo's method assigned both a similar ADA score.

"A media person would have never done this study," said Groseclose, a UCLA political science professor, whose research and teaching focuses on the U.S. Congress. "It takes a Congress scholar even to think of using ADA scores as a measure. And I don't think many media scholars would have considered comparing news stories to congressional speeches."

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.

The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third.

"Our estimates for these outlets, we feel, give particular credibility to our efforts, as three of the four moderators for the 2004 presidential and vice-presidential debates came from these three news outlets — Jim Lehrer, Charlie Gibson and Gwen Ifill," Groseclose said. "If these newscasters weren't centrist, staffers for one of the campaign teams would have objected and insisted on other moderators."

The fourth most centrist outlet was "Special Report With Brit Hume" on Fox News, which often is cited by liberals as an egregious example of a right-wing outlet. While this news program proved to be right of center, the study found ABC's "World News Tonight" and NBC's "Nightly News" to be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found.

"If viewers spent an equal amount of time watching Fox's 'Special Report' as ABC's 'World News' and NBC's 'Nightly News,' then they would receive a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news," said Milyo, an associate professor of economics and public affairs at the University of Missouri at Columbia.

Five news outlets — "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," ABC's "Good Morning America," CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown," Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and the Drudge Report — were in a statistical dead heat in the race for the most centrist news outlet. Of the print media, USA Today was the most centrist.

An additional feature of the study shows how each outlet compares in political orientation with actual lawmakers. The news pages of The Wall Street Journal scored a little to the left of the average American Democrat, as determined by the average ADA score of all Democrats in Congress (85 versus 84). With scores in the mid-70s, CBS' "Evening News" and The New York Times looked similar to Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., who has an ADA score of 74.

Most of the outlets were less liberal than Lieberman but more liberal than former Sen. John Breaux, D-La. Those media outlets included the Drudge Report, ABC's "World News Tonight," NBC's "Nightly News," USA Today, NBC's "Today Show," Time magazine, U.S. News & World Report, Newsweek, NPR's "Morning Edition," CBS' "Early Show" and The Washington Post.

Since Groseclose and Milyo were more concerned with bias in news reporting than opinion pieces, which are designed to stake a political position, they omitted editorials and Op‑Eds from their tallies. This is one reason their study finds The Wall Street Journal more liberal than conventional wisdom asserts.

Another finding that contradicted conventional wisdom was that the Drudge Report was slightly left of center.

"One thing people should keep in mind is that our data for the Drudge Report was based almost entirely on the articles that the Drudge Report lists on other Web sites," said Groseclose. "Very little was based on the stories that Matt Drudge himself wrote. The fact that the Drudge Report appears left of center is merely a reflection of the overall bias of the media."

Yet another finding that contradicted conventional wisdom relates to National Public Radio, often cited by conservatives as an egregious example of a liberal news outlet. But according to the UCLA-University of Missouri study, it ranked eighth most liberal of the 20 that the study examined.

"By our estimate, NPR hardly differs from the average mainstream news outlet," Groseclose said. "Its score is approximately equal to those of Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report and its score is slightly more conservative than The Washington Post's. If anything, government‑funded outlets in our sample have a slightly lower average ADA score (61), than the private outlets in our sample (62.8)."

The researchers took numerous steps to safeguard against bias — or the appearance of same — in the work, which took close to three years to complete. They went to great lengths to ensure that as many research assistants supported Democratic candidate Al Gore in the 2000 election as supported President George Bush. They also sought no outside funding, a rarity in scholarly research.

"No matter the results, we feared our findings would've been suspect if we'd received support from any group that could be perceived as right- or left-leaning, so we consciously decided to fund this project only with our own salaries and research funds that our own universities provided," Groseclose said.

The results break new ground.

"Past researchers have been able to say whether an outlet is conservative or liberal, but no one has ever compared media outlets to lawmakers," Groseclose said. "Our work gives a precise characterization of the bias and relates it to known commodity — politicians."

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

Not really.


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

That's pretty interesting. Just a couple of points, though:


They used data from the past 10 years, which may not be representative of the media now.
According to the article, their results were based partially on how many times a reporter referred to political think tanks, and tallied that amount. If a reported said "this liberal think tank sucks," he would get a tally as a liberal.
If a media outlet displayed a citation pattern similar to that of a lawmaker, then Groseclose and Milyo's method assigned both a similar ADA score. That means if a super-liberal senator said something only slightly liberal and the media cited it, the ADA score would be averaged with that of the senator. A media outlet displaying a citation pattern of senator X, saying "we shouldn't have a military" and "9/11 was a conspiracy" would get the same score as a media outlet saying other citations of senator X, such as "gay marriage should be allowed" and "gun laws should be slightly stricter."
The grading system overall isn't very clear and may not accurately represent the actual politcal bias of a show, as is evidenced by what they say of the Drudge Report.

That's pretty interesting. Just a couple of points, though:


They used data from the past 10 years, which may not be representative of the media now.Up until the (very) recent departure of the Big Three talking heads, the Media of 10 years ago IS the media of today.
According to the article, their results were based partially on how many times a reporter referred to political think tanks, and tallied that amount. If a reported said "this liberal think tank sucks," he would get a tally as a liberal.And your basis for this counterintuitave supposition is what, exactly?
If a media outlet displayed a citation pattern similar to that of a lawmaker, then Groseclose and Milyo's method assigned both a similar ADA score. That means if a super-liberal senator said something only slightly liberal and the media cited it, the ADA score would be averaged with that of the senator. A media outlet displaying a citation pattern of senator X, saying "we shouldn't have a military" and "9/11 was a conspiracy" would get the same score as a media outlet saying other citations of senator X, such as "gay marriage should be allowed" and "gun laws should be slightly stricter." And since they did precicely the same thing for the Conservatives, your point is moot.
The grading system overall isn't very clear and may not accurately represent the actual politcal bias of a show, as is evidenced by what they say of the Drudge Report.
[/LIST]While I cannot be certain, I do not believe they judged the TV version of Drugde as much as the Website.
"One thing people should keep in mind is that our data for the Drudge Report was based almost entirely on the articles that the Drudge Report lists on other Web sites," said Groseclose. "Very little was based on the stories that Matt Drudge himself wrote. The fact that the Drudge Report appears left of center is merely a reflection of the overall bias of the media." Thus, while Matt Drudge's TV/Radio commentary programs (categorized as editorial, BTW, and therefore not judged as News) are decidedly Right slanting, his News aggrigator trends Left.

Somebody may have posted this already, but it's a pretty damn funny song.

Cheney's Got a Gun (http://www.bobrivers.com/audiovault/downloads/downloads.asp)

Somebody may have posted this already, but it's a pretty damn funny song.

Cheney's Got a Gun (http://www.bobrivers.com/audiovault/downloads/downloads.asp)
Not yet, but I heard that on the radio and about wrecked my car. Brilliant satire!

Thanks for the link.

Up until the (very) recent departure of the Big Three talking heads, the Media of 10 years ago IS the media of today.And your basis for this counterintuitave supposition is what, exactly?

The part in the article where it specifies how they were scored. It said that the number of times a conservative think tank was mentioned, a tally was added to the conservative side, and vice-versa.

And since they did precicely the same thing for the Conservatives, your point is moot.

Not at all. Maybe some conservates are not as extreme as liberals, extreme liberals are quoted more often than extreme conservatives, etc. Assuming absolute equality between conservative and liberal quoting would be wrong.

The part in the article where it specifies how they were scored. It said that the number of times a conservative think tank was mentioned, a tally was added to the conservative side, and vice-versa.



Not at all. Maybe some conservates are not as extreme as liberals, extreme liberals are quoted more often than extreme conservatives, etc. Assuming absolute equality between conservative and liberal quoting would be wrong.
:rolleyes: You really can't stand the idea that the research might just prove you wrong can you? Don't you think that a longitudinal study of this magnitude, done at a major university with NO special interest money just might be done properly and take into account rabid, reaching objections?

:rolleyes: You really can't stand the idea that the research might just prove you wrong can you? Don't you think that a longitudinal study of this magnitude, done at a major university with NO special interest money just might be done properly and take into account rabid, reaching objections?

Obviously, the article does not talk about every single aspect of the research. I had some questions as to the possible lack of accuracy of the experiment as portrayed in the article. It may be done as properly as can be yet still be flawed, since political leaning is hard to measure arbritarily. You still have not answered several objections.

And your basis for this counterintuitave supposition is what, exactly?
Gee, maybe because it says so?

Obviously, the article does not talk about every single aspect of the research. I had some questions as to the possible lack of accuracy of the experiment as portrayed in the article. It may be done as properly as can be yet still be flawed, since political leaning is hard to measure arbritarily. You still have not answered several objections.
Something you know full well that I cannot do because I have neither the complete report nor the methodology. For you to make assertions that you know I cannot address directly, then try to call my argument into question because, as you also know but want to imply otherwise, I cannot personally vouch for a Peer-reviewed study is both arrogant and fallacious. If you want answers about the study, beyond the quite clear press release, why don't you email the author at the UCLA link I posted?

Gee, maybe because it says so?
The supposition is that the researchers, against all common sense, ignored countervailing data. That would never fly in a peer-reviewed study.

:rolleyes: You really can't stand the idea that the research might just prove you wrong can you?

Arrogant and fallacious, anyone?

For you to make assertions that you know I cannot address directly

I was pointing out certain ambiguous details in the article that I felt did not adequately measure the Democratic/Republican leanings of the media. Perhaps you knew something beyond the article, I misinterpreted something and you could prove me wrong, etc. I pointed out several possible loopholes that may have tainted the results -- not put into question the entire methodology of a peer-review system or any such thing.

There's plenty of media bias. It's all in favor of sex, violence, and scandal. Remember how they treated Bill and Monica? This Cheney story has violence and if the press can spin it right, scandal too.
Don't discount the sex part just yet ...


http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200602160841.asp

February 16, 2006, 8:41 a.m.
"The Little-Noticed Order That Gave Dick Cheney New Power
Have you ever heard of Executive Order 13292?



In addition to discussing his hunting accident, Vice President Dick Cheney, in his interview on the Fox News Channel Wednesday, also pointed to a little-known but enormously consequential expansion of vice-presidential power that has come about as a result of the Bush administration's war on terror ..."

---
Look it up. I'll have a thread in a minute ...

Meanwhile, sex you might ask?
Yeah ... and guess who're the takers YET AGAIN?

:rolleyes: You really can't stand the idea that the research might just prove you wrong can you? Don't you think that a longitudinal study of this magnitude, done at a major university with NO special interest money just might be done properly and take into account rabid, reaching objections?
Look at the methodology of that study honestly and even you will admit it's a bullshit study. There were a half dozen threads on it a couple of months ago, and most of the conservatives on this forum acknowledged it was deeply, deeply flawed.

Not at all. Maybe some conservates are not as extreme as liberals, extreme liberals are quoted more often than extreme conservatives, etc. Assuming absolute equality between conservative and liberal quoting would be wrong.
It's more a case of conservatives calling liberals "foam at the mouth" and ranting batsh*t when one of them gets pissed enough to not pay attention to the catch they're in, whereas ANYONE who's EVER LISTENED to O'Reilly, Lim-blob or "Savage" Weiner knows that it's a matter of their personal make-up and temperment.
I think Jon Stewart from The Daily Show covered it well, when he was noting that the Republicans are in charge of basically EVERYTHING, and they're mad as hell and not gonna take it anymore!

Something you know full well that I cannot do because I have neither the complete report nor the methodology. For you to make assertions that you know I cannot address directly, then try to call my argument into question because, as you also know but want to imply otherwise, I cannot personally vouch for a Peer-reviewed study is both arrogant and fallacious. If you want answers about the study, beyond the quite clear press release, why don't you email the author at the UCLA link I posted?
Or, since I actually have access to journals and databases, you can ask me. The methodolgy is... interesting.

The authors of the study concluded that a Congressman who's ADA score (and the Congress in question is 1980) is 50.1 is right in the center of the field. They then combed through looking at how often various member of the center in Congress mentioned a "think tank" and then how often a news outlet mentioned the same think tank, the more mentions of a certain tank, the more liberal (if it was a liberal member), or conservative (if it was a conservative member), a news outlet was.

Now, while they took out editorials, I'm seeing a large hole in the study, namely that members of Congress are usually not in the habit of reporting the news (Indeed, they MAKE the news); whereas news outlets report on what these think tanks may have said about something that the limited list of 1980's Congressmen may not have commented on.

Hmm... the study has been out since Dec, I'm looking forward to it getting argued againt.

Sorry, Snyiks, this boat ain't floating.

I, for one, would like to see that data. Could you pitch a wadded up copy into the bin under your desk?

As for Cheney's bird hunting problem, well, what can you expect from someone who has to use a gun to catch a bird?

More than any of the shooting or media fluff, what bothers ME is this:
When Cheney Goes Hunting, Who Pays the Bill?
Vice President Dick Cheney went out of his way to stress that he was on a private trip when he accidentally shot his friend. So who paid for the vacation? Reason's Kerry Howley writes, "Under the 1989 Ethics Reform Act, President Bush and other heads of agencies are supposed to file reports with the Office of Government Ethics detailing who is paying for their travel, food, and lodging. Cheney's office doesn't. Why? The Vice President's Office, according to the Center for Public Integrity, labels all trips 'official travel.' It then bills taxpayers rather than accept private funds...Translation: Dick Cheney is never on vacation, and therefore you can pay for his non-vacation vacation." The full column is here:
http://www.reason.com/hod/kh021606.shtml

http://www.otwa.com/community/images/smilies/madcat.gif