• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Harvard Study Finds "Conservative" press far more partisan than so called "Liberal" press

Crimson

Banned
Oct 11, 1999
3,809
0
0
Well no ****! The conservatives just ADMIT to it.. the libs don't.. Hope us taxpayers didn't pay for this study.
 

Jadow

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2003
5,962
2
0
Of course, by today's standards, JFK would be a republican, a pro life, pro tax cuts, tough on defense guy that he was.

 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,492
0
0
Nope, no bias here either!

"The paper, ?Whispers and Screams: The Partisan Natures of Editorial Pages,? was written by Michael Tomasky while he was a Fellow at the Shorenstein Center in the Spring of 2003. Tomasky has been a political columnist for the New York Observer, the Village Voice, and, most recently, New York magazine. "

Those bastions of journalistic neutrality...
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,137
1
0
While the responses to this thread pretty much support the theory, I wonder what news sources won't you conservative-types assassinate?
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,492
0
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
While the responses to this thread pretty much support the theory, I wonder what news sources won't you conservative-types assassinate?
"Village Voice" is very low on my list :) Most New York based press also. Washington Post is pretty good, Chicago and LA papers are decent, depends on the reporter of course. The major internet carriers are generally good.

But if you can't recognize this guy as a card carrying leftie...reset your contacts.

This is like Rush Limbaugh "conducting a study". Only I'll admit he's biased as hell. Why won't you do the same instead of trying to prop up these silly "studies"?

 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,388
1,013
126
Harvard Study Finds "Conservative" press far more partisan than so called "Liberal"
Perhaps it demonstrates more than the innate partisanship of writers at the paper. More likely, it demonstrates exactly what tone the paper views as reflecting the desires of its paying readership.
 

Lucky

Lifer
Nov 26, 2000
13,126
1
0
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: Nitemare
nuf said
Did you even read the PDF?
doubt you did, considering the page you linked to specifically said that the study focused on opinion pages only. Furthermore, the small sample size is, to say the least, completely laughable.

edit: OMG, the logic used in coming to the outcome they did is even more laughable. Talk about subjective!!!
 

MonstaThrilla

Golden Member
Sep 16, 2000
1,652
0
0
Originally posted by: alchemize

[...]
But if you can't recognize this guy as a card carrying leftie...reset your contacts.
[...]
Card carrying leftie? I wasn't aware that I had to carry a card to lean left. Or are you making a reference to the McCarthy-era name calling and witch hunting of those damn "card carrying commies"?
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,492
0
0
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Originally posted by: alchemize

[...]
But if you can't recognize this guy as a card carrying leftie...reset your contacts.
[...]
Card carrying leftie? I wasn't aware that I had to carry a card to lean left. Or are you making a reference to the McCarthy-era name calling and witch hunting of those damn "card carrying commies"?
It's a phrase. But apparently you're too infatuated with the "vast right wing conspiracy" (of which I'm a card carrying member) to recognize that the three newspapers he's worked for, the school he did this for, and the whole damn study is a joke. Show me a joke of a right-wing study, and I'll defame it also. But as Flav once said "you blind, man".

 

Lucky

Lifer
Nov 26, 2000
13,126
1
0
the more i read this "study" the more shocked I am at how terrible it's underlying research is.
 

MonstaThrilla

Golden Member
Sep 16, 2000
1,652
0
0
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Originally posted by: alchemize

[...]
But if you can't recognize this guy as a card carrying leftie...reset your contacts.
[...]
Card carrying leftie? I wasn't aware that I had to carry a card to lean left. Or are you making a reference to the McCarthy-era name calling and witch hunting of those damn "card carrying commies"?
It's a phrase. But apparently you're too infatuated with the "vast right wing conspiracy" (of which I'm a card carrying member) to recognize that the three newspapers he's worked for, the school he did this for, and the whole damn study is a joke. Show me a joke of a right-wing study, and I'll defame it also. But as Flav once said "you blind, man".
I didn't have any comment on the study. I took offense to your McCarthy-era allusion. The study IS a joke. It examines the editorial pages of two newspapers which try to put balance in their editorial pages (NY Times and Washington Post) and the editorial pages of two newspapers that are intentionally conservative. Of course the editorial pages with the exclusively conservative staffs are going to be more partisan than the pages with the somewhat balanced staff.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,492
0
0
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Originally posted by: alchemize

[...]
But if you can't recognize this guy as a card carrying leftie...reset your contacts.
[...]
Card carrying leftie? I wasn't aware that I had to carry a card to lean left. Or are you making a reference to the McCarthy-era name calling and witch hunting of those damn "card carrying commies"?
It's a phrase. But apparently you're too infatuated with the "vast right wing conspiracy" (of which I'm a card carrying member) to recognize that the three newspapers he's worked for, the school he did this for, and the whole damn study is a joke. Show me a joke of a right-wing study, and I'll defame it also. But as Flav once said "you blind, man".
I didn't have any comment on the study. I took offense to your McCarthy-era allusion. The study IS a joke. It examines the editorial pages of two newspapers which try to put balance in their editorial pages (NY Times and Washington Post) and the editorial pages of two newspapers that are intentionally conservative. Of course the editorial pages with the exclusively conservative staffs are going to be more partisan than the pages with the somewhat balanced staff.
Your reading far too much into my statements. Haven't you ever heard the phrase "card-carrying <insert union/political party/whatever here>"?

Here, google helps:
Card Carrying Democrat Reference
A Card Carrying GW reference
A Card Carrying Member of the ACLU
A Card Carrying Harry Potter Fan Reference
100's more

And a dictionary definition:
ADJECTIVE: 1. Being an enrolled member of a particular organization: a card-carrying Communist. (cool! they reference the McCarthy thing. Must have been the original source maybe?)
2. Avidly devoted to a group or cause: card-carrying fitness enthusiasts.

So while it might have came out in the 60's from McCarthy, it certainly has become much more of a broad adjective
 

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,159
0
0
Originally posted by: Lucky
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: Nitemare
nuf said
Did you even read the PDF?
doubt you did, considering the page you linked to specifically said that the study focused on opinion pages only. Furthermore, the small sample size is, to say the least, completely laughable.

edit: OMG, the logic used in coming to the outcome they did is even more laughable. Talk about subjective!!!
I also noticed that the study seems to fail to mention that the Wall Street Journal and The Washington Times are among the ONLY conservative papers out there, and their ranking in readership isn't nearly close to the total for liberal papers. Further, while the Washington Post is left-leaning, I have typically found their editorials to be relatively fairly balanced. If they want liberal editorials, they should have chosen the LA Times or the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (or Philadelphia Inquirer, or Boston Globe, or...).
 

Lucky

Lifer
Nov 26, 2000
13,126
1
0
Well, the WSJ is actually the 2nd largest circulation paper in the country, but the market it caters to is vastly different than most papers. Whereas any of the other three papers are mostly general news, the WSJ tends to focus (not suprisingly) on business-related issues. I subscribe to it even though I have nothing to do with Wall Street, but in general the WSJ does not hold appeal or cater to the same clientele that the other three papers too.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,712
3,518
126
Conservatives are the anchor on the ass of evolution. Naturally as we bounce along they are going to feel the shock more than the rest of the body. This will naturally make them sore.
 

Brie

Member
May 27, 2003
137
0
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Conservatives are the anchor on the ass of evolution. Naturally as we bounce along they are going to feel the shock more than the rest of the body. This will naturally make them sore.
Well the anchor helps if the country starts bouncing into the pits of hell. We may not need to conserve anything now but we will...give it 5 - 10 years. The cycle of politics will continue.

Edit:

BTW DUH!

Tomasky finds that conservative editorial pages are far less willing to criticize a Republican administration than liberal pages are willing to take issue with a Democratic administration.
You mean that conservatives wants to keep the status quo and are less willing to critize in general. CHILL OUT people this is why we are called CONSERVATIVES!!! Dont take this article as some personal insult. Maybe this is why there is such a predomance of liberal media. If liberal media is more likely to critize then more power to them!
 

Ferocious

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2000
4,584
1
71
Conservatives generally yell a lot more than liberals.

Heck radio talks shows are dominated by conservatives....because their yelling and constant whining comes across as quite entertaining.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY