NationStates Jolt Archive

What if a news agency was to take an estimated death toll created by a group of experts and then multiply that number by one thousand five hundread, and then use the new number in news stories. Well unfortunatley this is a true story. In 1996 CNN did a series of stories using very off base death toll estimates that were not created by a team of experts, even when a death figure created by a team of experts was present. The incident was the Chernobyl disaster, the United Nations Report put the death toll at 2000 including all those who would die from long term side affects. CNN in 1996 used the figure of 300,000. Inflation of the facts has just gotten out of hand. The media somehow needs to be responsiable for being something close to accurate. We just can not allow the meida to contine to presnet the world they want it to be, or the way that they think will sell the most commercials. I am a very strong supporter of the freeodom of the press but blatent exadurations of the truth, and trying to pass them off as fact is just not acceptable what so ever! How many other things does the press exadurate that we do not catch? What are we not being told? We are fools if we say that it must be an isolated incident; yet we are even greater fools if we say that it will not happen again. We must act if we are to ever get back closer to the truth.

Indeed, the press does need to start focusing more on the truth than just delivering what sells. Otherwise it's very function becomes redundant.

Exaggerate btw ;)

Luckily, there are multiple news agencies, and chances are that more will be right (or close) than wrong. News that is known for its unreliability will not get many viewers, or last for long.

Luckily, there are multiple news agencies, and chances are that more will be right (or close) than wrong. News that is known for its unreliability will not get many viewers, or last for long.

*nods* Self-regulating industry.

Luckily, there are multiple news agencies, and chances are that more will be right (or close) than wrong. News that is known for its unreliability will not get many viewers, or last for long.
Not in the free market anyway. Unless they decide not to bother doing any research, and rely on what other's have found/used. Nothing can boost a network's credibility more though than exposing another network's facts to be false.

The press can rarely be too free.

Unless their freedom is somehow causing harm to others - and this harm is large enough to warrent curtailing the freedom - the press should be left the heck alone.

Self regulation is unfortunatley not enough. Right now in the television industry there is fierce competition to get viewers, so some short sighted people are willing to change the facts to make their story better. With regards to self regulation and other networks exposing flaws. That would work aside from the fact that when people become panicked about something they will stay tuned unless credibility is absurdly low, such as if the news network was known for distorting the facts all of the time. So I am thinking that it might be neccessary for the Fedral Communications Commission (FCC) or to impose laws stating that it is illegal to broadcast blatenly false information and try to pass it off as fact, and impose fines for violators. I think that may be one of the only ways to discourage sever factual distortion. I am curious what do others think about this?

Luckily, there are multiple news agencies, and chances are that more will be right (or close) than wrong. News that is known for its unreliability will not get many viewers, or last for long.

Not true. At least in North America, more and more media outlets are being taken over by huge corporations. It is very rare to get news from independent sources not controlled by these corporations.

Not true. At least in North America, more and more media outlets are being taken over by huge corporations. It is very rare to get news from independent sources not controlled by these corporations.
People are still going to find out when news agencies screw up, and then those news agencies are going to lose viewers.

Self regulation is unfortunatley not enough. Right now in the television industry there is fierce competition to get viewers, so some short sighted people are willing to change the facts to make their story better. With regards to self regulation and other networks exposing flaws. That would work aside from the fact that when people become panicked about something they will stay tuned unless credibility is absurdly low, such as if the news network was known for distorting the facts all of the time. So I am thinking that it might be neccessary for the Fedral Communications Commission (FCC) or to impose laws stating that it is illegal to broadcast blatenly false information and try to pass it off as fact, and impose fines for violators. I think that may be one of the only ways to discourage sever factual distortion. I am curious what do others think about this?
That's very dangerous. How false is "blatently false"? Who is going to be in charge of the regulation? How do we know that the people regulating are more trustworthy than the media outlets?

I have trouble accepting that CNN would exaggerate that much and get away with it. Right-wingers would be all over it using it as proof of this "liberal media" that they always rant about.

That's very dangerous. How false is "blatently false"? Who is going to be in charge of the regulation? How do we know that the people regulating are more trustworthy than the media outlets?
I understand that the wording "blatently false" is very dangerous, that is why I did not make an attempt to define it, I would wnat a judge to devine and interpuit that. My general idea was that blatently false would only apply to events that were not still taking place and had been over for quite some time, also there would have to be a well known offocial report that had been available for atleast two months before the news was published, and the news sources figures would have to be off by something significant such as 20% from the highest or lowest of official reports, carried out by parties not who did not stand to benifit in any way shape or form from the conclusions reached in the report.

For the most part, it's just a matter of being able to read the news and spot the bullshit. Actually, many newspapers are pretty good about pointing out bullshit within the first several words. At least for American newspapers, it's a dead giveaway that when anything starts with "according to a reliable source" whatever it is that follows is bullshit.

I understand that the wording "blatently false" is very dangerous, that is why I did not make an attempt to define it, I would wnat a judge to devine and interpuit that. My general idea was that blatently false would only apply to events that were not still taking place and had been over for quite some time, also there would have to be a well known offocial report that had been available for atleast two months before the news was published, and the news sources figures would have to be off by something significant such as 20% from the highest or lowest of official reports, carried out by parties not who did not stand to benifit in any way shape or form from the conclusions reached in the report.
By that time, the damage would have been done.

I have trouble accepting that CNN would exaggerate that much and get away with it. Right-wingers would be all over it using it as proof of this "liberal media" that they always rant about.
One thing that you must remember is the right wingers where not having such a fit over the news media ten years ago, as they are today. Also what average person would go and look for the UN report and of those who had read it very few would remember it because it was published ten years before the CNN report.

By that time, the damage would have been done.
Putting a murder in jail does not revive his victim, yet it is a detruant. Fines would serve as a deterant for the media.

The press is a free industry, and unless it caused harm to some person or violates the constitution, it can report whatever it likes. Its not the government's job to keep us from blindly believing everything the press tells us.

Putting a murder in jail does not revive his victim, yet it is a detruant. Fines would serve as a deterant for the media.
So do lower ratings. Probably more so.

Hmmm... I think you have a misunderstanding, Kuzmiera. After flipping through Wikipedia, there is indeed a figure of 300,000 people, but they were the ones relocated as a result of the incident. The U.N. estimates that 4,000 people died. I really don't think anyone would forget if CNN made such a huge mistake.

Hmmm... I think you have a misunderstanding, Kuzmiera. After flipping through Wikipedia, there is indeed a figure of 300,000 people, but they were the ones relocated as a result of the incident. The U.N. estimates that 4,000 people died. I really don't think anyone would forget if CNN made such a huge mistake.
Yes, in the most current UN report it is 4000, but that one was not published at the time that CNN used those figures, the one at the time ws 2000(1986 report). just figured I would add this for clarification

Unless it causes harm to people, the press should be able to print what it wants.

Yes, in the most current UN report it is 4000, but that one was not published at the time that CNN used those figures, the one at the time ws 2000(1986 report). just figured I would add this for clarification
I don't see what difference that makes.

Yes, in the most current UN report it is 4000, but that one was not published at the time that CNN used those figures, the one at the time ws 2000(1986 report). just figured I would add this for clarification
But I don't think that CNN ever actually said that 300,000 people were killed. They were probably reporting about how 300,000 people were relocated, which is completely accurate. I think you have your facts mixed up.

*nods* Self-regulating industry.
*Shakes head, points to mining disaster and supposedly rescued miners*

*Shakes head, points to mining disaster and supposedly rescued miners*
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that the mining companies fault? As far as the press knew, the miners were alive.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that the mining companies fault? As far as the press knew, the miners were alive.
The problem was that it was essentially a rumour. When one station picked up on it, no other station wanted to be seen to be lagging behind, so they reported it too.
Same thing as with the first Bush election, where Fox called it for Bush, and everyone else followed, without having checked the facts themselves.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that the mining companies fault? As far as the press knew, the miners were alive.

And they admitted the mistake afterwards.

But I don't think that CNN ever actually said that 300,000 people were killed. They were probably reporting about how 300,000 people were relocated, which is completely accurate. I think you have your facts mixed up.

Hmmm... I think you have a misunderstanding, Kuzmiera. After flipping through Wikipedia, there is indeed a figure of 300,000 people, but they were the ones relocated as a result of the incident. The U.N. estimates that 4,000 people died. I really don't think anyone would forget if CNN made such a huge mistake.

Well first that was not the case, secondly CNN was not the only one who took part on the disaster over statements. Looks like we have a classic case of denial by Equable Peoples, He first says he has confirmed my facts then starts denying them. Just by denying the facts does not make them wrong.

If you would like my source, here have it. www.michaelcrichton.com/speeches/complexity/complexity.html

Well first that was not the case, secondly CNN was not the only one who took part on the disaster over statements. Just by denying the facts does not make them wrong.

If you would like my source, here have it. www.michaelcrichton.com/speeches/complexity/complexity.html
and its by Michael Crichton yet. This gets better and better.

The problem was that it was essentially a rumour. When one station picked up on it, no other station wanted to be seen to be lagging behind, so they reported it too.
Same thing as with the first Bush election, where Fox called it for Bush, and everyone else followed, without having checked the facts themselves.
It's still not the presses fault.

and its by Michael Crichton yet. This gets better and better.
Yes, some people may not agree with his views, but we must remember he has factual backing for everything he says. No matter how much we dislike the truth we must never deny it.

I am a republican but i dont deny the fact that Bush's deficit spending is getting out of hand. Why must you deny what you do not agree with. Remember if the theory does not fit the facts change the theory not the facts.

It's still not the presses fault.
It's their fault for not checking the facts properly. "Self-regulating industry" would require that the media was actually interested in bringing out the best news. Instead, they worry about all sorts of things (like speed of delivery, or "entertainment"), but factual accuracy.

And besides, the damage in this particular case was done, wasn't it? The tragedy was made a lot worse, even though eventually some sort of self-correction may have occured.

Which is not so say that I am actually taking a stance either way in this issue. I also always found this one the most difficult to answer for my nation.

It's their fault for not checking the facts properly. "Self-regulating industry" would require that the media was actually interested in bringing out the best news. Instead, they worry about all sorts of things (like speed of delivery, or "entertainment"), but factual accuracy.

And besides, the damage in this particular case was done, wasn't it? The tragedy was made a lot worse, even though eventually some sort of self-correction may have occured.

Which is not so say that I am actually taking a stance either way in this issue. I also always found this one the most difficult to answer for my nation.
Thankyou, that is the point that I have been trying to get accross. I am glad to see that someone else feels the same way that I do about this issue.

Yes, some people may not agree with his views, but we must remember he has factual backing for everything he says. No matter how much we dislike the truth we must never deny it.

...wow:rolleyes:
I am a republican but i dont deny the fact that Bush's deficit spending is getting out of hand.
It has already been out of hand, and gone straight to insane.

Thankyou, that is the point that I have been trying to get accross. I am glad to see that someone else feels the same way that I do about this issue.
There is a price to be paid for freedom, and it is constant vigilance. If you blindly accept what you're told, you have no freedom to begin with. By censoring the news, you only hurt those who are intelligent enough to see through falsities and compare news sources before acknowledging something as fact.

The problem with the press is not a matter of whether or not it is too free to print false information, it is a matter of it's being taken over by corporate interests and allowed to be consolidated into the fold of only 9 companies. Tens of thousands of what used to be independent sources of news and information are now completely controlled by a small number of corporate boards whose best interest is served not by competition, but by market share, and earnings per share. News is the bait, and advertising is the bottom line.
The solution...1) busting up these conglomerates and limiting the number of outlets they can have much more severely. 2) Professional and Ethical standards for JS professors. 3) The removal of "proof of malice" from current standards in cases of slander. 4) FCC regulations enforcing the prominate identification of editoral comment and editing of origional content obtained by newswire services. 5) Criminal prosecution for acts of accepting payment for "advertising and publicity" presented as a news item.

It has already been out of hand, and gone straight to insane.

When looking at his deficit spending we must also look at the way that the deficit spending got started. First there was the stock market .com buble burst. Almost any ecomomist will tell you that in a recession it is always a good idea to do deficit spending. The other time that it is acceptable by most economists, to do deficit spending is during war time. For a while Bush had both of those problems. He had to finance the war on terror :mp5: and do deficit spending to stimilate the economy. Now that the economy is bounding back it is time for him to cut back his defict spending, but he still does have a war. Oh and by the way the Deomcrats are not any better. They try their hardes to prevent any bill to reign in spending and pork barrel projects. I say lets just give the President line item veto, yeah we will have unhappy special intrests, but who cares. The line item veto will free America from the bondage of special intrests in politics. I think this is somehting that republicans and democrats (at least the ones not recieving stuff from special inrest groups) want and can agree on.

The problem with the press is not a matter of whether or not it is too free to print false information, it is a matter of it's being taken over by corporate interests and allowed to be consolidated into the fold of only 9 companies. Tens of thousands of what used to be independent sources of news and information are now completely controlled by a small number of corporate boards whose best interest is served not by competition, but by market share, and earnings per share. News is the bait, and advertising is the bottom line.
The solution...1) busting up these conglomerates and limiting the number of outlets they can have much more severely. 2) Professional and Ethical standards for JS professors. 3) The removal of "proof of malice" from current standards in cases of slander. 4) FCC regulations enforcing the prominate identification of editoral comment and editing of origional content obtained by newswire services. 5) Criminal prosecution for acts of accepting payment for "advertising and publicity" presented as a news item.
I commend you for your superb recomendations.

When looking at his deficit spending we must also look at the way that the deficit spending got started. First there was the stock market .com buble burst. Almost any ecomomist will tell you that in a recession it is always a good idea to do deficit spending. The other time that it is acceptable by most economists, to do deficit spending is during war time. For a while Bush had both of those problems. He had to finance the war on terror :mp5: and do deficit spending to stimilate the economy. Now that the economy is bounding back it is time for him to cut back his defict spending, but he still does have a war. Oh and by the way the Deomcrats are not any better. They try their hardes to prevent any bill to reign in spending and pork barrel projects. I say lets just give the President line item veto, yeah we will have unhappy special intrests, but who cares. The line item veto will free America from the bondage of special intrests in politics. I think this is somehting that republicans and democrats (at least the ones not recieving stuff from special inrest groups) want and can agree on.
We can discuss this some other time.

The problem with the press is not a matter of whether or not it is too free to print false information, it is a matter of it's being taken over by corporate interests and allowed to be consolidated into the fold of only 9 companies. Tens of thousands of what used to be independent sources of news and information are now completely controlled by a small number of corporate boards whose best interest is served not by competition, but by market share, and earnings per share. News is the bait, and advertising is the bottom line.
The solution...1) busting up these conglomerates and limiting the number of outlets they can have much more severely. 2) Professional and Ethical standards for JS professors. 3) The removal of "proof of malice" from current standards in cases of slander. 4) FCC regulations enforcing the prominate identification of editoral comment and editing of origional content obtained by newswire services. 5) Criminal prosecution for acts of accepting payment for "advertising and publicity" presented as a news item.
Somewhat more reasonable. I still don't think we need to tamper with the press any more then we have to though.

It seems that conservatives, generally hating large government, are fine when they curtail civil liberties. Thats just one person's view, however. Sad, though.

The irony is that the Media is there to make money, so theyll lie to make money. As long as theres freedom, theres corruption. So either were free and we'll have some liars, or we lose our freedom and we kill all liars.

It seems that conservatives, generally hating large government, are fine when they curtail civil liberties. Thats just one person's view, however. Sad, though.
I think that it is absurd to say that they enjoy to deprive you of your civil liberities. I think that conservatives though do believe in the common good above the good of one person. To many liberals this is a alien concept, that you would do something so that the majority would benifit while a few people would be annoyed.

The irony is that the Media is there to make money, so theyll lie to make money. As long as theres freedom, theres corruption. So either were free and we'll have some liars, or we lose our freedom and we kill all liars.
Just wondering Third Frontier, which one of those are you in favor of?

The irony is that the Media is there to make money, so theyll lie to make money. As long as theres freedom, theres corruption. So either were free and we'll have some liars, or we lose our freedom and we kill all liars.
Falsehoods can never truly be eliminated.

To many liberals this is a alien concept, that you would do something so that the majority would benifit while a few people would be annoyed.
Exactly. Now, who wants to start the great communist revolution with me?

It seems that conservatives, generally hating large government, are fine when they curtail civil liberties. Thats just one person's view, however. Sad, though.
There are many conservatives who feel the same way you do, myself included.

I think that it is absurd to say that they enjoy to deprive you of your civil liberities. I think that conservatives though do believe in the common good above the good of one person. To many liberals this is a alien concept, that you would do something so that the majority would benifit while a few people would be annoyed.

Government regulation of media is a good thing?

Besides, your base argument is wrong. Who wants socialism/communism? Who wants welfare, free healthcare, taxes to pay for things for the whole, etc? Its not the conservatives.

Government regulation of media is a good thing?

Besides, your base argument is wrong. Who wants socialism/communism? Who wants welfare, free healthcare, taxes to pay for things for the whole, etc? Its not the conservatives.
I am sorry I conveyed my point incorrectly, the thing I was refrencing with the common good was I was hinting at and trying to justify the NSA wiretaping program. By no means what so ever was I trying to suggest a move towards socialism, or free health care. In fact I am a strong conservative who is stauchly oppposed to those ideas. I appologise for any confusion that I may have created, as a result of being vague.

Somewhat more reasonable. I still don't think we need to tamper with the press any more then we have to though.

You are right, if it were the press that we would be tampering with. The things I menitoned are for the most part things that used to be in place but eliminated through the tampering with the law by corporate interests, their lobby, and political hacks. During the late 60's and early 70's we saw a corporate take over begin that has never been equaled in history. Most just never got to see it because it was never reported on of course. I got to see it first hand and witnessed almost every single daily newspaper in the US be taken over by a hand full of conglomerates. At the same time the very same thing was happening with radio. TV held onto its already viselike grip on the airwaves until cable became established at which time they were allowed to expand into that area under the guise of being affiliated with other companies, without media holdings.

I was hinting at and trying to justify the NSA wiretaping program.
With which our civil rights are raped in exchange for our being more "secure".
I'll take my chances with the terrorists, thanks.

In fact I am a strong conservative who is stauchly oppposed to those ideas.
But you see the schism in your opinions, right? US-Conservatives are telling us that we should be free in our economic life, but that our actions are irresponsible in our private life, and need to be regulated. US-Leftists tell us the opposite.

But it's still hypocrisy either way, coming from the seemingly senseless associations you usually see between the free market and social conservatism and "socialism" and social liberalism.

You are right, if it were the press that we would be tampering with. The things I menitoned are for the most part things that used to be in place but eliminated through the tampering with the law by corporate interests, their lobby, and political hacks. During the late 60's and early 70's we saw a corporate take over begin that has never been equaled in history. Most just never got to see it because it was never reported on of course. I got to see it first hand and witnessed almost every single daily newspaper in the US be taken over by a hand full of conglomerates. At the same time the very same thing was happening with radio. TV held onto its already viselike grip on the airwaves until cable became established at which time they were allowed to expand into that area under the guise of being affiliated with other companies, without media holdings.
Well, your plan has more logic to it than having the FCC censor our news for "blatently false" content at any rate.

I am sorry I conveyed my point incorrectly, the thing I was refrencing with the common good was I was hinting at and trying to justify the NSA wiretaping program. By no means what so ever was I trying to suggest a move towards socialism, or free health care. In fact I am a strong conservative who is stauchly oppposed to those ideas. I appologise for any confusion that I may have created, as a result of being vague.

Trying to justify the NSA wiretapping? Who does it help, when the president can already wiretap anybody he pleases, 72 hours in advance of getting a warrant, with blank-check courts? The only time he would need to go above the courts is when they wouldn't approve of a tap, and they approve almost all of them, so the illegal wiretapping really only allows him to go after people who shouldn't be wiretapped in the first place.

Its a decent argument for wiretapping, and one most people agree with. Doing it above the courts is another story.

Trying to justify the NSA wiretapping? Who does it help, when the president can already wiretap anybody he pleases, 72 hours in advance of getting a warrant, with blank-check courts? The only time he would need to go above the courts is when they wouldn't approve of a tap, and they approve almost all of them, so the illegal wiretapping really only allows him to go after people who shouldn't be wiretapped in the first place.

Its a decent argument for wiretapping, and one most people agree with. Doing it above the courts is another story.
Does anybody else feel like the New York Times writer who published the story about the NSA wire tapping should be locked up since he was told that the information was top secret, so he sat on the story for one year. Then he published it. I think that though he may have been trying to protect peoples civil liberties. I am suprised he has not been tried as a traitor yet, because what he did would legaly classify him as a traitor even if the program that he exposed was illegal, which is yet to be decided, exposing top secret information on our inteligence program to the enemy is a traitorous act.

Anyone think the guy will be tried? if so what do you think the outcome of his trial will be?

...exposing top secret information on our inteligence program to the enemy is a traitorous act.
That would first require a mindset in which the population (and specifically the readers of the paper) are the enemy.

Does anybody else feel like the New York Times writer who published the story about the NSA wire tapping should be locked up since he was told that the information was top secret, so he sat on the story for one year. Then he published it. I think that though he may have been trying to protect peoples civil liberties. I am suprised he has not been tried as a traitor yet, because what he did would legaly classify him as a traitor even if the program that he exposed was illegal, which is yet to be decided, exposing top secret information on our inteligence program to the enemy is a traitorous act.

Anyone think the guy will be tried? if so what do you think the outcome of his trial will be?
Tried? The man should be given a medal. When the government is doing something wrong, it's your duty as a citizen to let everyone know. If we stop doing that, we've lost the ideals of our founders.

Well, your plan has more logic to it than having the FCC censor our news for "blatently false" content at any rate.

If even 2 or 3 of the recommendations I stated were to be established the entire content of what is presented as news would change for the better. Both in what is reported as news and the degree of honesty within it. To allow the FCC to censor news would simply lead us in a different direction of misinformation ala Pravda.

To allow the FCC to censor news would simply lead us in a different direction of misinformation ala Pravda.
That is the most legitimate statement of the entire thread.

Tried? The man should be given a medal. When the government is doing something wrong, it's your duty as a citizen to let everyone know. If we stop doing that, we've lost the ideals of our founders.

Way too soon to come to that conclusion!

But you see the schism in your opinions, right? US-Conservatives are telling us that we should be free in our economic life, but that our actions are irresponsible in our private life, and need to be regulated. US-Leftists tell us the opposite.

But it's still hypocrisy either way, coming from the seemingly senseless associations you usually see between the free market and social conservatism and "socialism" and social liberalism.

Partly it's an artefact of the extremely small number of representatives at the national level compared to the population's size; coupled with a first past the post system. (Consider Germany with 600 odd members in its parliament, with the US's 435).

The national level parties end up cobbling together alliances of disparate interests, and single issue voting blocks, in order to gain and hold seats. So you end up with 'classic' liberals in bed with the christian right, (Economic freedom meet christian fundamentalism), basically because those are the issues each block is most prepared to compromise on.

I would imagine if the number of reps was increased to european level (say around 2000), and maybe a PR system used, the parties would fragment reasonably quickly and become less hypocritical.

The political culture of the english speaking world doesn't help either.

Does anybody else feel like the New York Times writer who published the story about the NSA wire tapping should be locked up since he was told that the information was top secret, so he sat on the story for one year. Then he published it. I think that though he may have been trying to protect peoples civil liberties. I am suprised he has not been tried as a traitor yet, because what he did would legaly classify him as a traitor even if the program that he exposed was illegal, which is yet to be decided, exposing top secret information on our inteligence program to the enemy is a traitorous act.

Anyone think the guy will be tried? if so what do you think the outcome of his trial will be?

Unless I remember incorrectly, I thought a traitor had to have intent to aid and abet?

Also, tap-danced around the issue.

I have trouble accepting that CNN would exaggerate that much and get away with it. Right-wingers would be all over it using it as proof of this "liberal media" that they always rant about.

Mind you this is 10 years ago.....

Ha, I remember when the world news media said 100,000 people had been killed by the Serbs in Kosovo, when the true figure was under 10,000. They only admitted it quietly of course, well after the war.

.News that is known for its unreliability will not get many viewers, or last for long.FOX/CNN/BigUSmedia are still here are they not?

Ha, I remember when the world news media said 100,000 people had been killed by the Serbs in Kosovo, when the true figure was under 10,000. They only admitted it quietly of course, well after the war.Stuff like this will make it out.. ONLY after the Iraq War is over.
And they are still fighting in Afghanistan.

Is the press too free?most of the US Press is not free. (we are no longer level with the BBC/AFP/EFE/etc)

It used to be "American Free press" during the Vietnam War years..

Today "American Free press" is an OXIMORON.

Way too soon to come to that conclusion!
Well, I was exaggerating, but there's no way the man should face criminal charges.

FOX/CNN/BigUSmedia are still here are they not?
Which goes to prove that, when it counts, they're right more often than wrong.

Which goes to prove that, when it counts, they're right more often than wrong.so there is a time to hide the Truth? There is a time to tell Lies.. War time maybe?

Media organizations which consistantly misreport, distort, or exaggerate the news eventually go the way of the dodo.

so there is a time to hide the Truth? There is a time to tell Lies.. War time maybe?
No, truth in journalism should be practiced all the time.I simply mean that the amountof mistakes/lies made by the press are pale in comparison to the amount of valid journalism.

If you're American and you chose this option: "Yes I think It should be Illegal to do this" SHAME on you! :(

Media organizations which consistantly misreport, distort, or exaggerate the news eventually go the way of the dodo.
I don't see fox going down anytime soon.

I don't see fox going down anytime soon.
Exactly. :D

Media organizations which consistantly misreport, distort, or exaggerate the news eventually go the way of the dodo.would you care to give us names of these Media-Orgs .. you are talking about.

would you care to give us names of these Media-Orgs .. you are talking about.
Names? Hmm. How about the Randolph Hearst chain? True, some of them are still around, but in a radically altered format.

You have to trust the people to discern when they are being lied to. Any other option is anti-democratic.

Names? Hmm. How about the Randolph Hearst chain? True, some of them are still around, but in a radically altered format.

You have to trust the people to discern when they are being lied to. Any other option is anti-democratic.Rudolph what?.. never heard of that..

I am sure the Thread creator is Talking about Mainstream media.
the Big Media that can.. and does influence the minds of the general US poulation.

It's the modern Yellow Journalism.

I don't agree with it, especially since CNN is one of the larger media modules, however people will always do what sells. You can't really make it illegal because that infringes on Freedom of Speech however, I do think they are going to far.

Although, that's why you always check your sources before believing the crap the media feeds you.

Names? Hmm. How about the Randolph Hearst chain? True, some of them are still around, but in a radically altered format.

You have to trust the people to discern when they are being lied to. Any other option is anti-democratic.

It was both William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer that fed the flame of Yellow Journalism during the Spanish-American war. Also, Hearst sold his paper to Pulitzer during the middle of the war, which meant Pulitzer was the main person behind YJ.

Rudolph what?.. never heard of that..

I am sure the Thread creator is Talking about Mainstream media.
the Big Media that can.. and does influence main-street USA .
During its heyday, the Hearst chain (http://www.time.com/time/archive/printout/0,23657,820426,00.html) was the influential media organization in America.

I don't agree with it, especially since CNN is one of the larger media modules, however people will always do what sells. You can't really make it illegal because that infringes on Freedom of Speech however, I do think they are going to far.

Although, that's why you always check your sources before believing the crap the media feeds you.
Makes a good argument for C-SPAN, yes? At least with them, you get "raw" coverage. Then it's up to you to draw your own conclusions.

Makes a good argument for C-SPAN, yes? At least with them, you get "raw" coverage. Then it's up to you to draw your own conclusions.

It sure does. That's why I always look at 3 or so different sources when I hear news because, especially during 9/11, there was so much misinformation that it just became frusterating.

It sure does. That's why I always look at 3 or so different sources when I hear news because, especially during 9/11, there was so much misinformation that it just became frusterating.
Very wise of you. :)

i dont think the press is free enough. they are never allowed to call bullshit on anyone

the big news anchors probably weep with envy when they see jon stewart look at the camera and say "they must think we are retarded" when the government has put out some particularly stupid story.

or the clip he showed on the daily show the other day when the whitehouse press secretary claimed that the un inspectors wouldnt have been allowed to talk to the prisoners at guantanamo bay because "they are trained to give false information" and stewart laughed and quipped that the press sec is a natural at it.

Media organizations which consistantly misreport, distort, or exaggerate the news eventually go the way of the dodo.

The new york times has been doing it since at least WWI (that I know of, probably longer).

They are now the 'paper of record'.

Sadly, most people read the news not to learn what's going on, but to have their own 'knowledge' confirmed,

Well first that was not the case, secondly CNN was not the only one who took part on the disaster over statements. Looks like we have a classic case of denial by Equable Peoples, He first says he has confirmed my facts then starts denying them. Just by denying the facts does not make them wrong.

If you would like my source, here have it. www.michaelcrichton.com/speeches/complexity/complexity.html

Excuse me? Are you not able to comprehend English? I never confirmed your "facts", the entire time I was trying to say that CNN never claimed 300,000 died, but they may have said that 300,000 were relocated which is completely true. This whole inflation of facts never happened.

The press can rarely be too free.

Unless their freedom is somehow causing harm to others - and this harm is large enough to warrent curtailing the freedom - the press should be left the heck alone.

The job of the press is to report events. It is not to make money. The press these days however is sliding towards the making money end of things. The press should not be allowed to publish infomation as truth that they know is inacurate.

One has to look at the "wonderful" reporting done by the media on Hurricane Katrina.
"10,000 DEAD!"
"Babies getting raped in the Superdome!'
"They Are killing and raping in the Superdome!"

These are some the headlines seen in my newspapers during the coverage. Then when none of these were true, the media just went, "Oh, um.. well, we uh, oh boy...."

How about Dan Rather and the fake documents scandal? People jumped on it like it was God's truth. Then when it was proven false, "Oops! Sorry!"

Names? Hmm. How about the Randolph Hearst chain? True, some of them are still around, but in a radically altered format.

You have to trust the people to discern when they are being lied to. Any other option is anti-democratic.

Some of them are still around? The Hearst "chain" is now the Hearst Corporation having consumed 12 daily newspapers including the Houston Chronicle (bought from Rice University) the San Francisco Chronicle and Albany Times. They now own 19 US magazines, 19 UK magazines and an additional 100 magazines in 100 different countries. They now have 28 US television stations, not including the numerous cable holdings they have aquired through loopholes in FCC regulations. Such networks as Lifetime, ESPN Inc (partnership with DIS), King Features, Cosmopolitian, and A&E. They have holdings in 30 different interactive media compaines and operate an additional 20 business to business publications.

By way of the dodo bird indeed. Once again, the issue is not a matter of freedom of the press. It is a matter of limiting the degree of control corporations have in limiting the number of sources of information avaliable. The consolidation that was allowed to happen eliminated any chance for competition to regulate the integrity of the media, as the term "Stratigic Partnership" is just a very nice way of saying "Collusion".

Rudolph what?.. never heard of that..

I am sure the Thread creator is Talking about Mainstream media.
the Big Media that can.. and does influence the minds of the general US poulation.

The Hearst Corporation is in the second tier of the big 9 corporations that control virtually all media, along with CBS, Comcast, NY Times Co, and Gannett.

when words are spoken about someone (negative in nature) that the speaker knows to be false, it's called slander.

when such things are printed, it's called libel.

i don't think that the press should be able to lie. It's one thing to simply be wrong, but when they know they're wrong and print it anyway, well, if it damages someone's reputation then it's libel.

The job of the press is to report events. It is not to make money. The press these days however is sliding towards the making money end of things. The press should not be allowed to publish infomation as truth that they know is inacurate.
Trouble is, you are walking a very fine line between restrictions and government-censored media.

Some of them are still around? The Hearst "chain" is now the Hearst Corporation having consumed 12 daily newspapers including the Houston Chronicle (bought from Rice University) the San Francisco Chronicle and Albany Times. They now own 19 US magazines, 19 UK magazines and an additional 100 magazines in 100 different countries. They now have 28 US television stations, not including the numerous cable holdings they have aquired through loopholes in FCC regulations. Such networks as Lifetime, ESPN Inc (partnership with DIS), King Features, Cosmopolitian, and A&E. They have holdings in 30 different interactive media compaines and operate an additional 20 business to business publications.

By way of the dodo bird indeed. Once again, the issue is not a matter of freedom of the press. It is a matter of limiting the degree of control corporations have in limiting the number of sources of information avaliable. The consolidation that was allowed to happen eliminated any chance for competition to regulate the integrity of the media, as the term "Stratigic Partnership" is just a very nice way of saying "Collusion".
The point still stands: you have to trust the people to decide what is and is not reliable news reporting. What alternative do you have? Censorship? By whom? On what basis?

I have trouble accepting that CNN would exaggerate that much and get away with it. Right-wingers would be all over it using it as proof of this "liberal media" that they always rant about.

proof of what many Republicans have known for years (their controls for in-study bias are excellent):

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

please read it... while the overall findings are fairly predictable, there are some interesting nuances.

While at the ultra-liberal UW-Madison, I took a Media Research Methods class, and we studied bias in the media. Our research was not nearly as controlled as this study's, but we found more or less the same things. And most of my classmates were not just democrats, but far left democrats.

One has to look at the "wonderful" reporting done by the media on Hurricane Katrina.
"10,000 DEAD!"
"Babies getting raped in the Superdome!'
"They Are killing and raping in the Superdome!"

These are some the headlines seen in my newspapers during the coverage. Then when none of these were true, the media just went, "Oh, um.. well, we uh, oh boy...."

How about Dan Rather and the fake documents scandal? People jumped on it like it was God's truth. Then when it was proven false, "Oops! Sorry!"
The question is, is that an intentional campaign of misinformation by the press in order to make profit and influence the public opinion, or is it an honest mistake?

when words are spoken about someone (negative in nature) that the speaker knows to be false, it's called slander.

when such things are printed, it's called libel.

i don't think that the press should be able to lie. It's one thing to simply be wrong, but when they know they're wrong and print it anyway, well, if it damages someone's reputation then it's libel.
But how do you know if the press is simply making an honest mistake?

Luckily, there are multiple news agencies, and chances are that more will be right (or close) than wrong. News that is known for its unreliability will not get many viewers, or last for long.


What about Fox News?

The point still stands: you have to trust the people to decide what is and is not reliable news reporting. What alternative do you have? Censorship? By whom? On what basis?

People cannot decide what reliable news reporting is when there are only 9 choices for the source of information, and the tiny group of people running them sit on each others board of directors. It is anti competitive, and insures that the information being presented for the public to decide on is essentially the same no matter what source you go to.
Censorship is of course not ever the solution. Meaningful competition is. You know you have a bad situation when someone can say, "I always use 3 different sources for the information I choose to belive." But there is every possibility that the 3 different sources for that information may very well be the official position of a single corporation or that of a strategic partnership.
While I am not as a rule a big fan of the JS school at Columbia, I'd strongly recommend that people take a few minutes and investigate "Who Owns What" at http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/.

What about Fox News?
What about it?

Media organizations which consistantly misreport, distort, or exaggerate the news eventually go the way of the dodo.would you care to give us names of these Media-Orgs .. you are talking about.
Names? Hmm. How about the Randolph Hearst chain? True, some of them are still around, but in a radically altered format.

The Hearst Corporation is about to "go the way of the dodo."??

I dont think so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearst_Corporation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Randolph_Hearst

Citizen-Kane 's Legacy is very much alive and kicking.


You have to trust the people to discern when they are being lied to. Any other option is anti-democratic.I do NOT have to trust these Media Magnates, Murdoch types, I do NOT have to trust these Citizen-kane-types.

What about it?No matter how much they deform the War reporsts.. no matter how politically biased they are...

They are still here.. and they still say "we are FAIR AND BALANCED..just trust us" :D :D

No matter how much they deform the War reporsts.. no matter how much they Lie..

They are still here.. and they still say "we are FAIR AND BALANCED..just trust us" :D :D
Got some proof?

Got some proof?You may be new around here.. I do not get into that "Prove-it" game.

But I do invite you to google "FOX fair and balanced" or "FOX lies"
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22fair+and+balanced%22+FOX&prssweb=Search&ei=UTF-8&fr=moz2&x=wrt

when words are spoken about someone (negative in nature) that the speaker knows to be false, it's called slander.

when such things are printed, it's called libel.

i don't think that the press should be able to lie. It's one thing to simply be wrong, but when they know they're wrong and print it anyway, well, if it damages someone's reputation then it's libel.

The laws against slander and libel are great to protect groups from spreading false information about a group of people. These laws are not effective when it comes to groups spreading false information about a technology or a disaster. The CNN incident has contributed significantly to the bad name that has been given to peaceful nuclear technology

You may be new around here.. I do not get into that "Prove-it" game.

But I do invite you to google "FOX fair and balanced" or "FOX lies"
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22fair+and+balanced%22+FOX&prssweb=Search&ei=UTF-8&fr=moz2&x=wrt
All I seem to be finding are liberal sites.

The laws against slander and libel are great to protect groups from spreading false information about a group of people. These laws are not effective when it comes to groups spreading false information about a technology or a disaster. The CNN incident has contributed significantly to the bad name that has been given to peaceful nuclear technology
There is a difference between a mistake and an intentional lie.

But how do you know if the press is simply making an honest mistake?

that is why we have lawyers to sort it out. hehe

if i'm not mistaken, in a slander/libel case, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.... they have to prove (reasonable-person standard?) that slander/libel was committed.

There is a difference between a mistake and an intentional lie.They always say "it was a mistake".. Politicians, Generals, Media Magantes always have that same answer.

I do NOT have to trust them.

No matter how much they deform the War reporsts.. no matter how politically biased they are...

They are still here.. and they still say "we are FAIR AND BALANCED..just trust us" :D :D
right now I am not sure whe can truly know which news soruces are fair and blanced. Fox was made famous because they rode the "liberal media" bandwagon and they came in claiming they are the blanced news source. Fox says they are, and all the other major media conglomerates say that Fox is not fair or balanced. The way tha the way that people come ot believe that fox is not fair and balanced is that the other news sources are trying to convey to them that fox is not fair and balanced. If it is true that the media aside from Fox did have even a mild liberal leaning then Fox would be serious threat and would cause all the liberal news agencies to want tot get rid of Fox. Who can we trust? I guess only time will tell.

What about Fox News?

FOX news was a marketing coup by Rupert Murdoch who exploited the void created by the overwhelming dissatisfaction with the apparent agenda of the liberal media, most noticably Time Warner, CNN and Ted Turner.
While you may not like the message that FOX news puts out with it's more conservative perspective, it is the only major network that has not been racked with the outright fraud that has plagued other major media sources over the past decade. Ted Turner himself is as much responsible for this small degree of competition as his agreement with Sadam to use the network as a propaganda tool for Iraq, in exchange for greater access caused a backlash that has FOX news in control of 8 of the top 10 news programs in television, despite the fact that Time Warner is the largest media conglomerate in the world. FOX news, has no meaningful competition in the media world and their key to success is as simple as taking the opposite view of the rest in their sector.

They always say "it was a mistake".. Politicians, Generals, Media Magantes always have that same answer.

I do NOT have to trust them.
But you have to make that distinction.

right now I am not sure whe can truly know which news soruces are fair and blanced. Fox was made famous because they rode the "liberal media" bandwagon and they came in claiming they are the blanced news source. Fox says they are, and all the other major media conglomerates say that Fox is not fair or balanced. The way tha the way that people come ot believe that fox is not fair and balanced is that the other news sources are trying to convey to them that fox is not fair and balanced. If it is true that the media aside from Fox did have even a mild liberal leaning then Fox would be serious threat and would cause all the liberal news agencies to want tot get rid of Fox. Who can we trust? I guess only time will tell.

Special Report With Brit Hume (Fox News Channel) is far more balanced than outlets like The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, and CBS Evening News:

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


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-

MS580

that is why we have lawyers to sort it out. hehe

if i'm not mistaken, in a slander/libel case, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.... they have to prove (reasonable-person standard?) that slander/libel was committed.

No, they have to prove malicious intent, which is virtually impossible.

They always say "it was a mistake".. Politicians, Generals, Media Magnates always have that same answer.

I do NOT have to trust them.
But you have to make that distinction.distinction about?
No Comprendo :confused:

distinction about?
No Comprendo :confused:
mistake vs. lie

No, they have to prove malicious intent, which is virtually impossible.

yeah, malicious intent is part of the slander/libel definition.... lying negatively about someone. (as opposed to positive lying... hehe... "President Bush can bench press 500 pounds")

mistake vs. lie

yes... this pops up in certain other topics, like WMD topics.

proof of what many Republicans have known for years (their controls for in-study bias are excellent):

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

please read it... while the overall findings are fairly predictable, there are some interesting nuances.

While at the ultra-liberal UW-Madison, I took a Media Research Methods class, and we studied bias in the media. Our research was not nearly as controlled as this study's, but we found more or less the same things. And most of my classmates were not just democrats, but far left democrats.
The point isn't whether there is a liberal media or not, though. The point is that CNN didn't lie about Chernobyl. While that's an interesting article, the media isn't inflating facts and figures as horribly as the topic post suggests.

The point isn't whether there is a liberal media or not, though. The point is that CNN didn't lie about Chernobyl. While that's an interesting article, the media isn't inflating facts and figures as horribly as the topic post suggests.
seconded

You need to realize that the press is just another industry, like any others you can think of. They create a product, and sell it.

People aren't forced to use this product. Its their choice. If you don't like the lies from the media, don't listen to it. Or write to the companies. Why should they not be allowed to print what they want? If you don't like it, don't use it.

Honestly, though, I get all my news from The Daily Show, so....

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.


That is an appalling assumption, bordering on downright foolishness, because of the vast numbers of American citizens that are not represented in such a sample. Congress pays attention only to voters vital to reelection and to those with especially deep pockets, not the people who most skew the "political position of the average U.S. voter" left or right. If Congress paid attention to what the average U.S. voter had to say, we'd have had universal health 30 years ago, rather than the current policy that benefits only the insurance industry.


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.

How exactly was this done? How did they assign values for left or right? Is the ACLU left or right, since it argues both for expanded free speech rights, but also expanded gun rights? How many units of value to the left is the American Communist Party, for instance, than the NAACP?

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.
And people from UCLA, poli-sci people no less, are basing their study on this, the idea the politics is liberal vs. coservative?
Their study is worthless.