NationStates Jolt Archive

Recently, I stumbled on this rather old study of bias in the news, conducted by the political science department of UCLA (ie, it's objective). Although outdated, I found it extremely interesting. Here's the link:

http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm

One of the things that struck me the most was:

Survey research has shown that an almost overwhelming fraction of journalists are liberal. For instance, Elaine Povich (1996) reports that only seven percent of all Washington correspondents voted for George H.W. Bush in 1992, compared to 37 percent of the American public. Lichter, Rothman and Lichter, (1986) and Weaver and Wilhoit (1996) report similar findings for earlier elections. More recently, the New York Times reported that only eight percent of Washington correspondents thought George W. Bush would be a better president than John Kerry. This compares to 51% of all American voters. David Brooks notes that for every journalist who contributed to George W. Bush’s campaign, 93 contributed to Kerry’s.

This seems to categorically dispel any doubts of the media not being biased towards liberals.

Recently, I stumbled on this rather old study of bias in the news, conducted by the political science department of UCLA (ie, it's objective). Although outdated, I found it extremely interesting. Here's the link:

http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm

One of the things that struck me the most was:



This seems to categorically dispel any doubts of the media not being biased towards liberals.

Just because they voted one way or another doesn't make them biased in their reporting.

Studies by conservatives tend to uncover a liberal bias in the news, while studies by liberals tend to uncover a conservative bias in the news. I think this makes a fairly good case for the media being roughly neutral.

Just because they voted one way or another doesn't make them biased in their reporting.

No, and the study acknowledged that fact and used another standard to gauge how liberal or conservative a news agency was: namely, the ratio of liberal to conservative think tanks cited.

Did the study show that the reporters' liberal beliefs worked their way into the facts of the story? Does not voting for Bush make you a liberal? There are conservatives out there who don't particularly like Bush and question his conservative credentials. If the journalists in Washington who pay attention to this nation's politics for a living overwhelmingly funded and voted for Bush's opponent, what does that say about our president?

If the journalists in Washington who pay attention to this nation's politics for a living overwhelmingly funded and voted for Bush's opponent, what does that say about our president?

That he's a man of the people and not an elitist liberal?

Hey, we Liberals paid a lot of good money for the Media, they better be biased towards us! And come on, you Conservatives win the elections, you can't leave us the Media? Gotta have everything, sheesh. :rolleyes:

since they are journalists they probably are all better informed than the average American public.

Just because they voted one way or another doesn't make them biased in their reporting.

This leads me to a question, because I completely agree with this statement. Why is it generally assumed that reporters will leave their personal bias at home and report down the middle, favoring neither side, while at the same time it is assumed that judges are incapable of the same ability?

So, uhm...
...
What do you all want? Seriously. How the HELL do you want to change any "bias"?! Should the Execs of all news corporations fire half of their employees FOR NOT DOING ANYTHING, and painstakingly interview all new hirees to make sure that they are properly Conservative? Would this make you happy?! Should they refuse FULLY QUALIFIED PEOPLE because they're not Conservative enough to meet your little fantasy reality that you have constructed?

Do you have any idea of how mindblowingly STUPID that sounds? IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, DON'T WATCH IT, OR TURN ON A MORE CONSERVATIVE STATION! Seriously, people! Just flip the TV to Fox. That's all you have to do. That's how our economy works!

Recently, I stumbled on this rather old study of bias in the news, conducted by the political science department of UCLA (ie, it's objective). Although outdated, I found it extremely interesting. Here's the link:

http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm

One of the things that struck me the most was:



This seems to categorically dispel any doubts of the media not being biased towards liberals.One thing you can't read out of that is how stongly biased these people are. Everyone is biased, but some people seek out their own bias and work against it.

This leads me to a question, because I completely agree with this statement. Why is it generally assumed that reporters will leave their personal bias at home and report down the middle, favoring neither side, while at the same time it is assumed that judges are incapable of the same ability?

Well, it all depends. Many washington journalists who report news are generally reporting a story off of a teleprompter etc. Private ones you can expect to be biased, because well, they're private.

That he's a man of the people and not an elitist liberal?

The uninformed people maybe.

That he's a man of the people and not an elitist liberal?

The people are elite New England born into a political dynasty family, rich, well connected and handed things like oil companies and baseball teams?

Man, I've been robbed!

Ok, lets go do an interview of how many people who never went to college voted for Bush and how many voted for Kerry then we can conclusively prove anyone who voted for Bush is an uneducated simpleton.

Recently, I stumbled on this rather old study of bias in the news, conducted by the political science department of UCLA (ie, it's objective).

What makes you think that study hammered out by a humanities department at some college has any claim to objectivity?

since they are journalists they probably are all better informed than the average American public.
That's highly unlikely.

A survey of Canadian journalism schools determined that NONE of them teach a single class on statistics, even though many news stories are based entirely upon statistics. Like medical scares, or the economic claims of politicians, or really anything that's measured on a large scale. And yet there's no evidence that the journalists themsleves have any idea what they're talking about.

Of course the majority of the media is liberal (with the exception of FOX, no doubt); you needed the UCLA to tell you that?

This is why like NS issue #178, particularly choice one.

Ok, lets go do an interview of how many people who never went to college voted for Bush and how many voted for Kerry then we can conclusively prove anyone who voted for Bush is an uneducated simpleton.

:cool: I like the cut o' your jib, man.

No, and the study acknowledged that fact and used another standard to gauge how liberal or conservative a news agency was: namely, the ratio of liberal to conservative think tanks cited.

Why didn't you lead with that, since it would have been your stronger point? Since I haven't checked it yet all I have are theories as to why...

Why didn't you lead with that, since it would have been your stronger point? Since I haven't checked it yet all I have are theories as to why...

Well, it didn't seem nearly as powerful and convincing as the number of liberal reporters. Come on -- 93 to 1 in favour of the Democratic campaign? That's blatantly skewed to one side. The other stuff was perhaps more scientifically accurate, but lacked punch.

The study you cite is one among countless others. To imply or openly state it's the definitive word on the complex topic of media bias and that it's truly objective is an error in thinking.

There are other studies that use different criteria and come to far different conclusions, including some that are sounding the alarm about the growing number of radio stations controlled by corporate giants like ClearChannel. Corporations like ClearChannel (and who would argue they aren't decidedly conservative?} have been scooping up radio stations across America ever since the FCC changed the rules of the game in their favor several years ago.

My take on it is that both conservatives and liberals are well represented in print media, that talk radio is disproportinately conservative, and that TV news is largely a waste of time because it lacks depth. Print is the best available news source and you can find any slant you want that appeals to your political sensibilities..

The study you cite obviously appeals to your conservative nature, so you've embraced it and seem to be saying it's the complete and final word on the subject. The study lends strong support to your opinion about media having a liberal slant, but it's far from emperical evidence.

Ok, lets go do an interview of how many people who never went to college voted for Bush and how many voted for Kerry then we can conclusively prove anyone who voted for Bush is an uneducated simpleton.

Are you seriously suggesting that or are you just using it as an example of logic that is equally flawed as that in the study? If it is the former, it is complete bullshit. If it is the latter, your assertion has no tangence to the article cited.

*I was expressing my doubts about the existence of the word 'tangence' here, and was wrong. mea culpa.*

"Liberal media bias" is a myth.

Fact one.

A completely neutral Virginia Commonwealth University study of these newspapers:

. ABC News /ABC Radio
2. Associated Press /AP Broadcast News
3. Bloomberg News
4. CNN
5. Knight-Ridder Newspapers/Tribune Information Services
6. Los Angeles Times
7. NBC News
8. New York Times
9. Reuters America, Inc.
10. Time
11. USA Today/USA Weekend
12. Wall Street Journal
13. Washington Post
14. Washington Times

had these results:

Q#22. On social issues, how would you characterize your political orientation?
Left, 30% Center, 57% Right, 9%

Q#23. On economic issues, how would you characterize your political orientation?
Left, 11%, Center, 64%, Right, 19%


Fact two.

These are list of all nationally-syndicated weekly politically-based talk show hosts in the United States:

Conservative pundits: Pat Buchanan, Fred Barnes, John McLaughlin, David Gergen, Robert Novak, William F. Buckley, Jr., George Will, William Safire, Cal Thomas, Jonathon Alter, Joe Klein, Robert J. Samuelson, James Kilpatrick, Rush Limbaugh, and hundreds of other conservative radio talk-show hosts.

Centrists (self-described): Sam Donaldson, Mark Shields, Michael Kinsley, Morton Kondrake, Al Hunt, Jack Germond, Hodding Carter.

Progressive pundits: Jim Hightower (cancelled), Barbara Eirenreich, Molly Ivins.

Fact three.

Here is a quote from Adam Meyerson, chief of the conservative Heritage Foundation, admitting and bragging about conservative bias in the media:

"[Pundit] journalism today is very different from what it was 10 to 20 years ago. Today, op-ed pages are dominated by conservatives… We have a tremendous amount of conservative opinion, but this creates a problem for those who are interested in a career in journalism after college… If Bill Buckley were to come out of Yale today, nobody would pay much attention to him. He would not be that unusual… because there are probably hundreds of people with those ideas [and] they have already got syndicated columns."

Fact four.

Here is an analysis of every nationally-syndicated political talk show in the United States, on average.

Total number of local Conservative programs: 149
Total number of radio stations that broadcast local Conservative programs: 142
Weekly broadcast hours of local Conservative programs: 2,349

Total number of national Conservative programs: 19
Total of affiliates for national Conservative programs: 3,394
Weekly broadcast hours of national Conservative programs: 39,382

Total weekly broadcast hours of local and national Conservative programs: 41,731


Total number of local Progressive programs: 49
Total number of radio stations that broadcast local Progressive programs: 36
Weekly broadcast hours of local Progressive programs: 555

Total number of national Progressive programs: 19
Total of affiliates for national Progressive programs: 250
Weekly broadcast hours of national Progressive programs: 2,487

Total weekly broadcast hours of local and national Progressive programs: 3,042

More facts:
-The Washington Post donated $100,000 to GW Bush's re-inauguration.
-A four-month study by the Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting group reported that, in an analysis of NAFTA-related articles, pro-NAFTA authors and articles outnumbered anti-NAFTA authors and articles FOUR TO ONE.
-While the media ran with the "swiftboat" story of Kerry instantly and dramatically, they failed to point out several factual errors in accounts given by former Vietnam servicemen that had served with Kerry. They did not, however, point out that George W. Bush had never been to Vietnam. Dan Rathers lost his career and credentials over Bush's military medical records, which have still not been factually proven to be fraudulent, but nobody said a word when it was revealed that some of the "swift boat" group members had never actually served anywhere near John Kerry in Vietnam.

Thanks to eriposte.com for most of the information.

http://media.eriposte.com/4-1.htm#4_1A_2FOOTNOTE]

AIM-ChrisRay6000

Ok, lets go do an interview of how many people who never went to college voted for Bush and how many voted for Kerry then we can conclusively prove anyone who voted for Bush is an uneducated simpleton.
You mean the statistics? Well, Bush got 49% of the college educated vote and Kerry got 49.4%. So, not much is really proven about how people who voted for Bush are uneducated considering that there is a very small difference.

Statistics (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html)

Well, it didn't seem nearly as powerful and convincing as the number of liberal reporters. Come on -- 93 to 1 in favour of the Democratic campaign? That's blatantly skewed to one side. The other stuff was perhaps more scientifically accurate, but lacked punch.

Having now scanned most of that report and looked at the results I see it's because the report itself dismisses what you sight as evidence and the statistical analysis hardly shows the dramatic bias that you'd like to think that it does. Proving that they site 'liberal' think tanks slightly to the right of Joe Liberman doesn't exactly knock me off my feet...and then there is what Apollyna posted.

I also take umbrage with the nature of the study as it starts off begging the question, "How liberally biased are news organizations?" when the question should be "What bias and how much?" Having looked at the study, the methods and the results, I remain unimpressed.

That he's a man of the people and not an elitist liberal?

Elitist liberals aren't people now? Sorry, a supposed "back country hick" cannot relate to me any better than the supposed "elitist liberal" could.

Namely, we compute an ADA score for various news outlets, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, USA Today, the Drudge Report,... I was under the impression that the Drudge Report is a blog...

Our results show a strong liberal bias. All of the news outlets except Fox News’ Special Report and the Washington Times received a score to the left of the average member of Congress.left of the average member of congress does not particularly display a liberal bias any more than it suggests that Congress is more heavily conservative. I also must ask, how are they doing these ADA scores? They state
As a simplified example, imagine that there were only two think tanks, one liberal and one conservative. Suppose that the New York Times cited the liberal think tank twice as often as the conservative one. Our method asks: What is the typical ADA score of members of Congress who exhibit the same frequency (2:1) in their speeches? This is the score that we would assign to the New York Times.
So they are comparing speeches by members of congress, which are designed to be persuasive, in a Republican controlled congress, to news stories, which are designed to be neutral and informative? The method fails because of an inherant flaw.

Now we get to the real flaw.
A feature of our method is that it does not require us to make a subjective assessment of how liberal or conservative a think tank is. That is, for instance, we do we need to read policy reports of the think tank or analyze its position on various issues to determine its ideology. Instead, we simply observe the ADA scores of the members of Congress who cite the think tank. This feature is important, since an active controversy exists whether, e.g., the Brookings Institution or the RAND Corporation is moderate, left-wing, or right-wing.
So congressmen and newspapers are being scored off of which think tanks they cite. These think tanks are being scored off of which congressmen cite them. That is circular and non-objective.

However, sometimes in the process of describing such actions, the journalist or legislator would quote a member of the think tank, and the quote revealed the think tank’s views on national policy, or the quote stated a fact that is relevant to national policy. If so, we would record that quote in our data set. For instance, suppose a reporter noted “The NAACP has asked its members to boycott businesses in the state of South Carolina. `We are initiating this boycott, because we believe that it is racist to fly the Confederate Flag on the state capitol,’ a leader of the group noted.” In this instance, we would count the second sentence that the reporter wrote, but not the first.
So they can state what the NAACP has done, but cannot state why they did it, or even who they represent? And here I thought that was being informative.
Basically, this says that it is okay to say "The APA has increased membership by 200 members", but not okay to say "The APA has increased membership by 200 members. Currently, the APA represents the majority of American psychologists". That isn't bias, that is information vital to the article.

Because, at times, there is some subjectivity in coding our data, when we hired our research assistants we asked (i) for whom they voted or would have voted if they were limited to choosing only Al Gore and George Bush. We chose research assistants so that approximately half our data was coded by Gore supporters and half by Bush supporters. It should have been a random sample of statisticians. By picking and choosing, you are actually more likely to create a bias. Voting for Gore doesn't make one liberal, and voting for Bush doesn't make one conservative.

While Lieberman is left of center in the U.S. Senate, many would claim that, compared to all persons in the entire world, he is centrist or even right-leaning. And if the latter is one’s criterion, then nearly all of the media outlets that we examine are right of center.Quite interesting.

This seems to categorically dispel any doubts of the media not being biased towards liberals.
What are you going to do, install affirmative action for Republicans in the journalism trade?

That he's a man of the people and not an elitist liberal?
Well he's not liberal, but he's not a man of the people (how does anyone think this, I can't understand) and he's elite.

That's highly unlikely.

So Joe Bloggs knows more?

How dishonest can you be? Journalists are obviously more informed, their job is watch what's going on in the world, which is something that most people don't do.

What are you going to do, install affirmative action for Republicans in the journalism trade?

No, I believe in the free market -- I believe that the media can be as liberal as it wants to be. Hell, it can even preach communist ideology (it's pretty close to doing that already). However, I just think that it is necessary for people to acknowledge that the media does not represent the American mainstream.

No, I believe in the free market -- I believe that the media can be as liberal as it wants to be. Hell, it can even preach communist ideology (it's pretty close to doing that already).
How is it near preaching communist ideology? Do you think that the American left is more extreme than the European left? Do you know what communism is? There is no market in communism, and the US media staunchy supports the market.

You're giving every indication that everything you say is based on ignorance.

However, I just think that it is necessary for people to acknowledge that the media does not represent the American mainstream.
What is that? Are you going to tell me that Democrats are "non mainstream"?

No, I believe in the free market -- I believe that the media can be as liberal as it wants to be. Hell, it can even preach communist ideology (it's pretty close to doing that already). However, I just think that it is necessary for people to acknowledge that the media does not represent the American mainstream.

did you even read your own source? First you quote a part that it disregards, then you claim that it is close to preaching communist ideology, when it actually concludes that the New York Times is as liberal as Joe Lieberman.

did you even read your own source? First you quote a part that it disregards, then you claim that it is close to preaching communist ideology, when it actually concludes that the New York Times are as liberal as Joe Lieberman.
I'm sick of this dishonest, disingenuous and just plain stupid lie that liberals are similar to communists.

No, I believe in the free market -- I believe that the media can be as liberal as it wants to be. Hell, it can even preach communist ideology (it's pretty close to doing that already). However, I just think that it is necessary for people to acknowledge that the media does not represent the American mainstream.We've already got a clown on NSG and his name is Loonatic Goofballs :p

This study has already been blown out of the water.

As pointed out, his basis is to look and count when a story mentions what is considered a liberal or conservative source. This is used to bracket Congressmen, but fails with media. Why? Simply put, media have an obligation to report news. Congressmen do not (They usually made news).

If NAACP says that it has elected a new president, this is news and is reportable. Congress usually doesn't bother to note this.

When the president makes a speech, this is news, and reportable. Balaced journalism calls for the media to go seek out both Republicans and Democrats for their reaction, this isn't bias, this is reporting to make sense of what the president just said.

There's a reason WHY journalism scholars haven't used his method, because it obviously makes no sense when applied to the media.

I'm sick of this dishonest, disingenuous and just plain stupid lie that liberals are similar to communists.

Yeah, because your idea of a perfect society is not communistic at all. It simply has loads of welfare benefits, anti-business politics, redistribution of wealth, etc.

Yeah, because your idea of a perfect society is not communistic at all. It simply has loads of welfare benefits, anti-business politics, redistribution of wealth, etc.
It's all about balance we need an economy but we need to give people a chance to suceed. saying liberalism= communism is like saying conservativism= facism

Oh dear, not THAT old "study" again.....

Let's see..... I KNOW I saved the link to the refutation of it somewhere...

Right!

here it is! (http://mediamatters.org/items/200512220003)

Using the incredibly flawed calculations that these bozos put together it turns out that if you apply it to the press statements of the ACLU and the RAND corporation, the ACLU comes out as conservative and RAND as liberal.

Their calculations also made the Wall Street Journal the most liberal newspaper in America!

And that is about all you need to know about the value of it.

Yeah, because your idea of a perfect society is not communistic at all. It simply has loads of welfare benefits, anti-business politics, redistribution of wealth, etc.

which "liberal" are you using?

if its the actual meaning of "liberal", then you're entirely off in your assertions.
If you mean American liberal, then it is socialist, not communist.

Additionally, there are shades to it. But you can read Unlucky_and_unbiddable's post for that.

saying liberalism= communism is like saying conservativism= facism

It's true -- conservatism is quite close to fascism, only it is considerably more democratic and free. Similarly, liberalism is close to communism, only considerably more democratic and more free.

No, I believe in the free market -- I believe that the media can be as liberal as it wants to be. Hell, it can even preach communist ideology (it's pretty close to doing that already). However, I just think that it is necessary for people to acknowledge that the media does not represent the American mainstream.

...
If they are "outside of the mainstream", how are they still in business, I wonder? Surely more "mainstream" stations would arise, and would crush our current news stations in the ratings? You know, because they're so out of touch?

This is a free market, after all. The American people get the services and goods that they want. It would seem to me that the American people are perfectly happy with their news providers, and would not like you speaking for them.

This POS study again? The one we discredited the last five times people posted it here like it actually said something? The one with the shittiest methodology known to man? Hah!

Recently, I stumbled on this rather old study of bias in the news, conducted by the political science department of UCLA (ie, it's objective). Although outdated, I found it extremely interesting. Here's the link:

http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm

One of the things that struck me the most was:



This seems to categorically dispel any doubts of the media not being biased towards liberals.
The first that struck me is this study cannot possibly prove anything whatsoever about media bias if their stated methodology accurately discribes how the study was conducted.

What they did was compare who was cited by whom, simply by correlating the cited organisations with particular views and tabulating how often these groups were cited and by whom they assigned some rating to those doing the citing. What a load of crap.

You want media bias, how 'bout looking at what doesnt get reported?

http://www.projectcensored.org/newsflash/ap_bias.html (http://www.projectcensored.org/newsflash/ap_bias.html)

What makes you think that study hammered out by a humanities department at some college has any claim to objectivity?

It's from the Political Science department, not the Humanities department. UCLA is not just "some school".

As to it's objectivity, read the paper. It is based on data and uses mathemetical formuls.

Additionally, they cite three other studies with similar findings:

However, contrary to the prediction of the typical firm-location model, we find a a systematic liberal bias of the U.S. media. This is echoed by three other studies—Hamilton (2004), Lott and Hasset (2004), and Sutter (2004), the only empirical studies of media bias by economists of which we are aware.

Ok, lets go do an interview of how many people who never went to college voted for Bush and how many voted for Kerry then we can conclusively prove anyone who voted for Bush is an uneducated simpleton.

Not everyone who goes to college is intelligent. I ran into a pretty average spread. And not all who haven't gone to college are simpletons.

Recently, I stumbled on this rather old study of bias in the news, conducted by the political science department of UCLA (ie, it's objective). Although outdated, I found it extremely interesting. Here's the link:

http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm

One of the things that struck me the most was:



This seems to categorically dispel any doubts of the media not being biased towards liberals.


Errr... you'd have done better if you'd quoted these sections:

To compute our measure, we count the times that a media outlet cites various think tanks and other policy groups.[1] We compare this with the times that members of Congress cite the same think tanks in their speeches on the floor of the House and Senate. By comparing the citation patterns we can construct an ADA score for each media outlet.



As a simplified example, imagine that there were only two think tanks, one liberal and one conservative. Suppose that the New York Times cited the liberal think tank twice as often as the conservative one. Our method asks: What is the estimated ADA score of a member of Congress who exhibits the same frequency (2:1) in his or her speeches? This is the score that our method would assign the New York Times.



A feature of our method is that it does not require us to make a subjective assessment of how liberal or conservative a think tank is. That is, for instance, we do we need to read policy reports of the think tank or analyze its position on various issues to determine its ideology. Instead, we simply observe the ADA scores of the members of Congress who cite the think tank. This feature is important, since an active controversy exists whether, e.g., the Brookings Institution or the RAND Corporation is moderate, left-wing, or right-wing.

Data



The web site, www.wheretodoresearch.com lists 200 of the most prominent think tanks and policy groups in the U.S. Using the official web site of Congress, http://thomas.loc.gov, we and our research assistants searched the Congressional Record for instances where a member of Congress cited one of these think tanks.



We also recorded the average adjusted ADA score of the member who cited the think tank. We use adjusted scores, constructed by Groseclose, Levitt, and Snyder (1999), because we need the scores to be comparable across time and chambers.[12] Groseclose, Levitt, and Snyder (1999) use the 1980 House scale as their base year and chamber. It is convenient for us to choose a scale that gives centrist members of Congress a score of about 50. For this reason we converted scores to the 1999 House scale.[13]



Along with direct quotes of think tanks, we sometimes included sentences that were not direct quotes. For instance, many of the citations were cases where a member of Congress noted “This bill is supported by think tank X.” Also, members of Congress sometimes insert printed material into the Congressional Record, such as a letter, a newspaper article, or a report. If a think tank was cited in such material or if a think tank member wrote the material, we treated it just as if the member of Congress had read the material in his or her speech.



We did the same exercise for stories that media outlets report, except with media outlets we did not record an ADA score. Instead, our method estimates such a score.

Our Definition of Bias



Before proceeding, it is useful to clarify our definition of bias. Most important, the definition has nothing to do with the honesty or accuracy of the news outlet. Instead, our notion is more like a taste or preference. For instance, we estimate that the centrist U.S. voter during the late 1990s had a left-right ideology approximately equal to that of Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) or Sam Nunn (D-Ga.). Meanwhile, we estimate that the average New York Times article is ideologically very similar to the average speech by Joe Lieberman (D-Ct.). Next, since vote scores show Lieberman to be more liberal than Specter or Nunn, our method concludes that the New York Times has a liberal bias. However, in no way does this imply that the New York Times is inaccurate or dishonest—just as the vote scores do not imply that Joe Lieberman is any less honest than Sam Nunn or Arlen Specter.

Interesting. Voting for Democrat = liberal. Voting for Republican = non-liberal. I'm glad the world of politics is actually so simple, for a while I thought people might be more complex or something.

A percieved bias in the media is directly related to one's own position on the left right spectrum.

If someone has to look right to see Randy Rhodes of course the media is just a bunch of right wing nut jobs.

If someone however, thinks Ann Coulter is too soft on crime then the media is just a bunch of elitist snobs.


Trouble is, no one will admit it.

A percieved bias in the media is directly related to one's own position on the left right spectrum.

If someone has to look right to see Randy Rhodes of course the media is just a bunch of right wing nut jobs.

If someone however, thinks Ann Coulter is too soft on crime then the media is just a bunch of elitist snobs.


Trouble is, no one will admit it.

I've admitted it before, but I also argue that for most of the news media, there's not a political bias at all. Fox News is an obvious exception to that rule.

What most of the media is is corporate, and primarily concerned with profit. That colors the stories they cover and the way they cover them, and is the primary reason why we have more stories on Suri Cruise and missing white women than we do on the war in Afghanistan, for instance. That's not liberal or conservative bias--that's sensationalism and cheap reporting costs.

To the extent that there's a political bias, I think it's based on which party is most willing to do favors for the industry. Lately, that's been Republicans, but if there were a major power shift, the media would shift with it.

That's highly unlikely.

A survey of Canadian journalism schools determined that NONE of them teach a single class on statistics, even though many news stories are based entirely upon statistics. Like medical scares, or the economic claims of politicians, or really anything that's measured on a large scale. And yet there's no evidence that the journalists themsleves have any idea what they're talking about.i'll bet if you did a survey on politicians you'd find no evidence that they themselves have any idea what they're talking about. Our PM at the moment publicly admitted before his election he had no ideas on international politics, never took a single class in his Uni days is my guess.

Yeah, because your idea of a perfect society is not communistic at all. It simply has loads of welfare benefits, anti-business politics, redistribution of wealth, etc.
It also has market capitalism and political freedoms. I'm not anti-business.

Conservatives have nationalism, huge military spending, and domestic spying, just like the Soviet Union.

It's true -- conservatism is quite close to fascism, only it is considerably more democratic and free. Similarly, liberalism is close to communism, only considerably more democratic and more free.
Liberalism isn't close to communism. Conservatism isn't really close ot fascism, though what Republicans are turning it into does resemble fascism.

Hey, we Liberals paid a lot of good money for the Media, they better be biased towards us! And come on, you Conservatives win the elections, you can't leave us the Media? Gotta have everything, sheesh. :rolleyes:

lol....you can have all the media you want...well except Fox.

Studies by conservatives tend to uncover a liberal bias in the news, while studies by liberals tend to uncover a conservative bias in the news. I think this makes a fairly good case for the media being roughly neutral.

:p Well said.

Just because they voted one way or another doesn't make them biased in their reporting.

ROFLMAO!!! Riiiight! Dream on.

ROFLMAO!!! Riiiight! Dream on.

Hmmm. Ignore the inconvenient posts, and agree with those that serve your purpose. Nice to see nothing's changed in your absence, Eut.

Recently, I stumbled on this rather old study of bias in the news, conducted by the political science department of UCLA (ie, it's objective). Although outdated, I found it extremely interesting. Here's the link:

http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm

One of the things that struck me the most was:



This seems to categorically dispel any doubts of the media not being biased towards liberals.

One question. Have you ever watched fox new? Maybe it is just liberals are able to present the fact in a better non biased way than conservatives. Because fox news is the most bias media i ever had the sad privilege to stumble upon and i am pretty sure it is conservative.

I'm sick of this dishonest, disingenuous and just plain stupid lie that liberals are similar to communists.

Well if you take traditional right and left. Communism is the far left and fascism the far right. Why dont we insinuate conservatives are fascists from now on.

This is a joke i am not serious i know plenty of intelligent non fascist conservatives. I know plenty dumb ones to though.

One question. Have you ever watched fox new? Maybe it is just liberals are able to present the fact in a better non biased way than conservatives. Because fox news is the most bias media i ever had the sad privilege to stumble upon and i am pretty sure it is conservative.
Quit watching the conservative commentators and watch the actual news.

You do understand there is a difference between news commentators and news reporters don't you?

Quit watching the conservative commentators and watch the actual news.

You do understand there is a difference between news commentators and news reporters don't you?Precious little, to be honest. There's a focus on issues that cater to a conservative audience and the reports will ignore important details in favor of making the audience hear things it wants to hear.

Hmmm. Ignore the inconvenient posts, and agree with those that serve your purpose. Nice to see nothing's changed in your absence, Eut.

Your ability to insult without crossing the fine line into flaming is duly noted. Why, pray tell, should I do otherwise??

One question. Have you ever watched fox new? Maybe it is just liberals are able to present the fact in a better non biased way than conservatives. Because fox news is the most bias media i ever had the sad privilege to stumble upon and i am pretty sure it is conservative.

Aaaaand ... your proof for this would be???

Aaaaand ... your proof for this would be???During the Lebanese conflict, Fox made sure to post Israeli structures hit by missiles as its teaser. Nothing wrong with that, but showing the parts that had less substantial damage showed whose side they were on.
The choice of words and the connotations they carry with them is another indicator that fox news is heavily biased towards a right-wing agenda. McCain and Powell were referred to as "renegades" (which by all accounts they were going by the dictionary definition of the word) when they opposed the President on that anti-torture bill just recently.

The media is not "liberal" or "conservative." As a business, it's foremost goal is making money. Therefore, it adopts whichever stance it feels will generate the most money. If "liberalism" is the popular view of the day, you'll see a liberal slant, and vice versa. They're ready to change their views at the drop of a hat, if it means higher ratings.

The media is not "liberal" or "conservative." As a business, it's foremost goal is making money. Therefore, it adopts whichever stance it feels will generate the most money. If "liberalism" is the popular view of the day, you'll see a liberal slant, and vice versa. They're ready to change their views at the drop of a hat, if it means higher ratings.Let's not overgeneralize media here. Not all media is a business in the sense that you're alleging. ;)

Let's not overgeneralize media here. Not all media is a business in the sense that you're alleging. ;)

lol

lolI'm not kidding. We have publicly funded channels in Germany that don't rely on commercials and advertisements for the big part of their revenue. This effectively reduces the influence of ratings and thus the need to tailor programs (such as the news broadcasts) for as many people as possible. Incidently, the public channels have the best news programs.

Incidently, the public channels have the best news programs.
Same in Oz, SBS and the ABC are the only worthwhile channels here.

But the Americans have the PBS, which is at least partly publically funded, isn't it? And the Jim Lehrer Newshour (SBS shows that as well) seems pretty good.

Recently, I stumbled on this rather old study of bias in the news, conducted by the political science department of UCLA (ie, it's objective). Although outdated, I found it extremely interesting. Here's the link:

http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm

One of the things that struck me the most was:


Survey research has shown that an almost overwhelming fraction of journalists are liberal. For instance, Elaine Povich (1996) reports that only seven percent of all Washington correspondents voted for George H.W. Bush in 1992, compared to 37 percent of the American public. Lichter, Rothman and Lichter, (1986) and Weaver and Wilhoit (1996) report similar findings for earlier elections. More recently, the New York Times reported that only eight percent of Washington correspondents thought George W. Bush would be a better president than John Kerry. This compares to 51% of all American voters. David Brooks notes that for every journalist who contributed to George W. Bush’s campaign, 93 contributed to Kerry’s.

This seems to categorically dispel any doubts of the media not being biased towards liberals.

I guess it just means that journalists are smarter than the average American. Maybe they have a better grasp of current events? Seriously, journalists consist mostly of decently to well-educated people who have a good understanding of politics and the issues of our time. Maybe *gasp* THEY CAN SEE PAST SOME OF THE REPUBLICAN BULLSHIT.

And yes, I'm trying to be offensive in this post. Sure.

While I admit I'm tempted to jump on this study as proof of what so many have suspected for a while now, it is just one study, and a political science (a soft science) study. I'd like to see confirmation of these findings before drawing conclusions.

If this is true, it does not mean journalists are smarter than the average person, it means that they allow their personal views to interfere with their work.

I don't have cable/sat so I can't say anything about Fox News.

Socialism, in its many forms, is a left thing.

Ok, lets go do an interview of how many people who never went to college voted for Bush and how many voted for Kerry then we can conclusively prove anyone who voted for Bush is an uneducated simpleton.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

VOTE BY EDUCATION
BUSH
KERRY NADER

(Bush's numbers on top, Kerry's on bottom)
TOTAL
No High School (4%)
49%
+10
50% 0%
H.S. Graduate (22%)
52%
+3
47% 0%
Some College (32%)
54%
+3
46% 0%
College Graduate (26%)
52%
+1
46% 1%
Postgrad Study (16%)
44%
+0
55% 1%

While I admit I'm tempted to jump on this study as proof of what so many have suspected for a while now, it is just one study, and a political science (a soft science) study. I'd like to see confirmation of these findings before drawing conclusions.

If this is true, it does not mean journalists are smarter than the average person, it means that they allow their personal views to interfere with their work.

I don't have cable/sat so I can't say anything about Fox News.

Socialism, in its many forms, is a left thing.
The methodology of this study is a joke. This thing could have come out saying the media is irretrievably biased toward conservatives and I wouldn't buy it because it's so hopelessly flawed. And it's not like this is the first time this "study" has been mentioned around here. All this crap was pointed out when it was first reported on a year or so ago.