Recall Republican Wisconsin Governor Walker status update thread

[cubby1223]

This is what happens when uneducated people vote. Sad really.

WOW this Robocall at told people who signed the petition that they don't need to vote reeks of voter fraud to me. Someone needs to investigate this.

...I wonder what happens when uneducated people post comments on internet forums...


In one statement you declare this election to be the result of uneducated people voting, which you oppose.

In another statement you imply that this election was tainted by removing uneducated people from voting, which you oppose, and is in direct conflict with your first statement.



That is pretty much the very definition of trolling, which is now firmly against the rules in the forum.

 

[werepossum]

Thanks weredude, an excellent post and an informative article.

Thanks! I wouldn't claim that study to be the last word on media bias, obviously, but I thought the idea of evaluating media outlets by comparison to politicians with respect to primary source citations to be quite clever, especially as it removes most of the observers' biases. The observers don't have to determine slant or correctness, they merely identify what primary sources the politician and the media outlet commonly references.

 

[fskimospy]

One more thing about media bias and I'll let Eskimospy rest.

-cut-

The actual published study is here. http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/pdfs/MediaBias.pdf
If you Google it, you'll surely drown in a turbulent river of foamy progressive rage and denial. If there's one thing proggies know (and let's face it, proggies know everything - that's why they are so suited to run your life) it's that only proggies can tell you if proggies are biased.

Just so you know, that study has been extensively discussed on here repeatedly in the past. It's a complete junk science failure. I am not surprised that when searching for articles on media bias you selected the one that you believed confirmed your already held beliefs and ignored the large quantity of other studies that discredit it. It does take some balls to ignore all the other data available and then accuse others of being in denial though, I'll give you that.

That study suffers from numerous, glaring methodological errors and extremely poor mathematical modeling that is simply bizarre in its assumptions. First, it didn't even evaluate all news sources over the same time period. That in and of itself is an insurmountable failure as in order to determine who is slanting the news you need to compare an identical set of world events. That's just basic research design.

Secondly, their method of devising who was 'liberal' and who was 'conservative' was hilariously bad. Not only were there clear balancing problems with how they rated agencies and how they failed to take into account issue asymmetry, but they rated the NRA as more liberal than the ACLU. If that doesn't tell you that perhaps their methodology is screwed up, I don't know what does.

You see what you want to see, because media bias is an article of faith for you. I'm sure none of this will bother you in the slightest.

 

[Bowfinger]

Just so you know, that study has been extensively discussed on here repeatedly in the past. It's a complete junk science failure. I am not surprised that when searching for articles on media bias you selected the one that you believed confirmed your already held beliefs and ignored the large quantity of other studies that discredit it. It does take some balls to ignore all the other data available and then accuse others of being in denial though, I'll give you that.

That study suffers from numerous, glaring methodological errors and extremely poor mathematical modeling that is simply bizarre in its assumptions. First, it didn't even evaluate all news sources over the same time period. That in and of itself is an insurmountable failure as in order to determine who is slanting the news you need to compare an identical set of world events. That's just basic research design.

Secondly, their method of devising who was 'liberal' and who was 'conservative' was hilariously bad. Not only were there clear balancing problems with how they rated agencies and how they failed to take into account issue asymmetry, but they rated the NRA as more liberal than the ACLU. If that doesn't tell you that perhaps their methodology is screwed up, I don't know what does.

You see what you want to see, because media bias is an article of faith for you. I'm sure none of this will bother you in the slightest.

Exactly. If I remember right, they also considered the Wall Street Journal to be liberal. That strongly suggests that either their definition of "liberal" is bizarre or their methodology was significantly flawed.

 

[thraashman]

Exactly. If I remember right, they also considered the Wall Street Journal to be liberal. That strongly suggests that either their definition of "liberal" is bizarre or their methodology was significantly flawed.

Fuck, read just what werepossum posted, they called Drudge Report slightly left of center.

 

[werepossum]

Just so you know, that study has been extensively discussed on here repeatedly in the past. It's a complete junk science failure. I am not surprised that when searching for articles on media bias you selected the one that you believed confirmed your already held beliefs and ignored the large quantity of other studies that discredit it. It does take some balls to ignore all the other data available and then accuse others of being in denial though, I'll give you that.

That study suffers from numerous, glaring methodological errors and extremely poor mathematical modeling that is simply bizarre in its assumptions. First, it didn't even evaluate all news sources over the same time period. That in and of itself is an insurmountable failure as in order to determine who is slanting the news you need to compare an identical set of world events. That's just basic research design.

Secondly, their method of devising who was 'liberal' and who was 'conservative' was hilariously bad. Not only were there clear balancing problems with how they rated agencies and how they failed to take into account issue asymmetry, but they rated the NRA as more liberal than the ACLU. If that doesn't tell you that perhaps their methodology is screwed up, I don't know what does.

You see what you want to see, because media bias is an article of faith for you. I'm sure none of this will bother you in the slightest.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the methodology, whether intentional or accidental. The study makes absolutely no attempt to rate the individual authorities. They are NOT saying the ACLU is more conservative than is the NRA. What they ARE saying is that Senators and Representatives who ARE considered liberal cited the NRA slightly more often than do those who are considered conservative, whereas politicians who ARE considered conservative cited the ACLU than did those who are considered liberal. Thus the NRA is considered slightly liberal and the ACLU slightly conservative only for purposes for comparing citation patterns. This is the whole reason for the study's methodology, a way to avoid assigning values to each according to the observer's own perception. One reason might be that a very liberal Senator might get more gravitas if he cites a point made by the conservative National Rifle Association than if he cites the same point made by the liberal ACLU; regardless of the validity of the point, one gets little credibility quoting a source accepted as being at one's own end of the political spectrum. But as an organization goes farther from the mainstream, politicians from the opposite end of the spectrum find it increasingly difficult to find something they can use. For instance, that same liberal Senator would find it much easier to find something from the intentionally non-partisan issue-driven NRA to justify his new government program than from the staunchly libertarian Heritage Foundation.

But regardless of the reasoning behind the ratings, the study made no attempt whatsoever to classify the different authorities as to conservative or liberal. Again, that was much of the point of the study. The ONLY metric assigned to the different authorities was the composite ADA score of the politicians citing them. In this way, the study compares the various media outlets to politicians using the same ADA scores. 'Conservative' and 'liberal' for purposes of this study are defined ONLY as related to the ADA's 50th percentile American voter. Absolutely no value judgments are made except as comparisons to the already-ranked politicians.

Honestly, that doesn't seem so hard to understand.

 

[fskimospy]

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the methodology, whether intentional or accidental. The study makes absolutely no attempt to rate the individual authorities. They are NOT saying the ACLU is more conservative than is the NRA. What they ARE saying is that Senators and Representatives who ARE considered liberal cited the NRA slightly more often than do those who are considered conservative, whereas politicians who ARE considered conservative cited the ACLU than did those who are considered liberal. Thus the NRA is considered slightly liberal and the ACLU slightly conservative only for purposes for comparing citation patterns. This is the whole reason for the study's methodology, a way to avoid assigning values to each according to the observer's own perception. One reason might be that a very liberal Senator might get more gravitas if he cites a point made by the conservative National Rifle Association than if he cites the same point made by the liberal ACLU; regardless of the validity of the point, one gets little credibility quoting a source accepted as being at one's own end of the political spectrum. But as an organization goes farther from the mainstream, politicians from the opposite end of the spectrum find it increasingly difficult to find something they can use. For instance, that same liberal Senator would find it much easier to find something from the intentionally non-partisan issue-driven NRA to justify his new government program than from the staunchly libertarian Heritage Foundation.

But regardless of the reasoning behind the ratings, the study made no attempt whatsoever to classify the different authorities as to conservative or liberal. Again, that was much of the point of the study. The ONLY metric assigned to the different authorities was the composite ADA score of the politicians citing them. In this way, the study compares the various media outlets to politicians using the same ADA scores. 'Conservative' and 'liberal' for purposes of this study are defined ONLY as related to the ADA's 50th percentile American voter. Absolutely no value judgments are made except as comparisons to the already-ranked politicians.

Honestly, that doesn't seem so hard to understand.

Right, and that's how they come to their conclusion of 'liberal media bias'. Did you even read your own study? (and by the way, the idea that the NRA is 'staunchly non-partisan' is hilarious) All things in this world are 'liberal' or 'conservative' as they relate to other entities. What their model is saying is that while the exact positions of the NRA and the ACLU are unknown, the NRA is more liberal than the ACLU. That is a preposterous conclusion, and should be sending up alarm bells for you left and right.

They are creating ADA scores for the various think tanks based on who cites them the most often. They are then using the ADA of those think tanks and looking at how often news outlets cite them. That's how they are determining the 'liberal bias' that they conclude exists, liberal meaning a position to the left of the median member of Congress. So no, they are explicitly labeling organizations as liberal based on their ADA scores. In fact, that's central to the entire point of the paper. If you aren't making a judgment on those think tanks as being liberal or conservative then you can't make any judgment as to whether or not news organizations are liberal or conservative. ie: you can't prove any media bias. This is clearly not the intent of the authors in any way, shape, or form, as they freely use their ADA scores for media outlets to label them as liberal or conservative.

Even outside their ridiculous rating system, as I outlined earlier the study has a number of glaring errors that would get a freshman student flunked such as their huge temporal issues.

 

[werepossum]

Right, and that's how they come to their conclusion of 'liberal media bias'. Did you even read your own study? (and by the way, the idea that the NRA is 'staunchly non-partisan' is hilarious) All things in this world are 'liberal' or 'conservative' as they relate to other entities. What their model is saying is that while the exact positions of the NRA and the ACLU are unknown, the NRA is more liberal than the ACLU. That is a preposterous conclusion, and should be sending up alarm bells for you left and right.

They are creating ADA scores for the various think tanks based on who cites them the most often. They are then using the ADA of those think tanks and looking at how often news outlets cite them. That's how they are determining the 'liberal bias' that they conclude exists, liberal meaning a position to the left of the median member of Congress. So no, they are explicitly labeling organizations as liberal based on their ADA scores. In fact, that's central to the entire point of the paper. If you aren't making a judgment on those think tanks as being liberal or conservative then you can't make any judgment as to whether or not news organizations are liberal or conservative. ie: you can't prove any media bias. This is clearly not the intent of the authors in any way, shape, or form, as they freely use their ADA scores for media outlets to label them as liberal or conservative.

Even outside their ridiculous rating system, as I outlined earlier the study has a number of glaring errors that would get a freshman student flunked such as their huge temporal issues.

Once again, they are NOT saying that the NRA is more liberal than is the ACLU. They are saying that the NRA is cited by more liberal politicians in speeches than is the ACLU. (Or more accurately, that the average rating of politicians citing the NRA is more liberal than is the average rating of politicians citing the ACLU.) They are saying ONLY that the media outlets are liberal or conservative under the same criteria as the ADA ranks our politicians, that they have similar patterns of communication. To rate the actual authorities according to their content inevitably requires a value judgment. (If for instance one rates the Brookings Institute as centrist or very slightly liberal and the Heritage Foundation as very far right conservative, then anything judged from that comparison will be slanted left because the left has been defined as the center.) The need to avoid such a value judgement is precisely why they defined the authorities ONLY by the scores of those who cite them, NOT by any relative content.

You and I would likely vary greatly in placing the Brookings Institute and the Heritage Foundation each's proper distance from the political center. However, we should be able to read the same speeches and count how many times the speeches cite the Brookings Institute and the Heritage Foundation as a source of authority. That's why they chose this particular metric; it requires no subjective judgment.

 

[fskimospy]

Once again, they are NOT saying that the NRA is more liberal than is the ACLU. They are saying that the NRA is cited by more liberal politicians in speeches than is the ACLU. (Or more accurately, that the average rating of politicians citing the NRA is more liberal than is the average rating of politicians citing the ACLU.) They are saying ONLY that the media outlets are liberal or conservative under the same criteria as the ADA ranks our politicians, that they have similar patterns of communication. To rate the actual authorities according to their content inevitably requires a value judgment. (If for instance one rates the Brookings Institute as centrist or very slightly liberal and the Heritage Foundation as very far right conservative, then anything judged from that comparison will be slanted left because the left has been defined as the center.) The need to avoid such a value judgement is precisely why they defined the authorities ONLY by the scores of those who cite them, NOT by any relative content.

Actually, they specifically are stating that these groups or news organizations are more liberal, and they are using Congress as a measuring stick for doing so. They do it repeatedly throughout the paper. This is in fact how they judge that the media is liberal. If you don't accept that their rankings relate to ideology, that's fine. That just means that your paper means absolutely nothing as to whether or not media bias exists.

You and I would likely vary greatly in placing the Brookings Institute and the Heritage Foundation each's proper distance from the political center. However, we should be able to read the same speeches and count how many times the speeches cite the Brookings Institute and the Heritage Foundation as a source of authority. That's why they chose this particular metric; it requires no subjective judgment.

This is also incorrect, it just substitutes ADA's subjective judgment for their own.

All I'm trying to tell you is that if you don't think this paper is trying to measure political ideology of its targets, that means it means nothing as to media bias.

 

[monovillage]

They'll never agree to it werepossum since it's to their political benefit to refute claims of media bias. You could cite countless books, studies, journals, etc. and they'd still deny it, so why bother arguing with the partisan chumps?

Just be happy about the Wisconsin recall election and do a little happy dancing !

 

[fskimospy]

They'll never agree to it werepossum since it's to their political benefit to refute claims of media bias. You could cite countless books, studies, journals, etc. and they'd still deny it, so why bother arguing with the partisan chumps?

Just be happy about the Wisconsin recall election and do a little happy dancing !

If you would like to get into a discussion of what the literature says about media bias I would love to have that discussion.

You may not enjoy it as much.

 

[Bowfinger]

They'll never agree to it werepossum since it's to their political benefit to refute claims of media bias. You could cite countless books, studies, journals, etc. and they'd still deny it, so why bother arguing with the partisan chumps?

Just be happy about the Wisconsin recall election and do a little happy dancing !

Whereas you, of course, aren't in the least bit interested in considering any information, no matter how factual or well-documented, that contradicts your emotional, purely faith-based beliefs. The difference between us is that we are at least attempting to have a reasoned discussion while you are simply pounding your chest and declaring yourself right.

Even one of that study's authors concedes that if one of their key assumptions is not true, that media and politicians choose citations for the same reasons, their extrapolation about bias is also inaccurate. That assumption is unsupported, and seems unlikely given the different focuses and goals of media compared to politicians. The analysis I linked delved into this more deeply, for those who are interested in forming educated opinions instead of emotional ones.

 

[monovillage]

If you would like to get into a discussion of what the literature says about media bias I would love to have that discussion.

You may not enjoy it as much.

Yes, you have a "peer reviewed study" somewhere, someplace that you have somehow cited sometimes.
Sure, too bad you didn't fucking cite it when asked about it before.

 

[PokerGuy]

Yes, you have a "peer reviewed study" somewhere

No doubt the "peers" who review the "studies" with the pre-determined outcome of "there can't possibly be a bias" are lib hacks as well.

 

[Bowfinger]

No doubt the "peers" who review the "studies" with the pre-determined outcome of "there can't possibly be a bias" are lib hacks as well.

No doubt that's what your faith tells you. Who needs facts and data and reason when emotional beliefs are so much easier and less intellectually challenging, right? Keep on yelling at the kid in the paper hat. Everything will be fine.

 

[PokerGuy]

Keep on yelling at the kid in the paper hat. Everything will be fine.

I have no idea what your fascination is with a kid in a hat, been reading too much cat in the hat or something?

 

[cybrsage]

So, now that we learned that Wisconson thinks Public Worker Unions are crap and must be smooshed, what states do you think will be next to crush them?

 

[RampantAndroid]

So, now that we learned that Wisconson thinks Public Worker Unions are crap and must be smooshed, what states do you think will be next to crush them?

Hopefully my state. Then Boeing won't move more jobs out of state.

Then again, my state is a bunch of hipster progressives wearing jeans so tight they can barely walk......nevermind. Not WA.

 

[ChopperDave]

I can't wait for the day when the Supreme Court fucks the Right over so I can listen to them whine. That's why it is imperative that President Obama gets a second term.

Ausm tears are yummy. Nom nom.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Ausm tears are yummy. Nom nom.

Be careful - he will complain to the Mods about such being personal attack.

He can not handle it when the mirror is placed in front of him.

 

[Ausm]

Be careful - he will complain to the Mods about such being personal attack.

He can not handle it when the mirror is placed in front of him.

LOL wut?? Awe did I hurt your feelings or something with all your built up angst?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Be careful - he will complain to the Mods about such being personal attack.

He can not handle it when the mirror is placed in front of him.

Yes...totally agree...be very careful especially with Ausm. Hope we can get the rule changed soon.

 

[Ausm]

Yes...totally agree...be very careful especially with Ausm. Hope we can get the rule changed soon.

Pot meet kettle?

 

[cybrsage]

Pot meet kettle?

Raciss...

 

[EagleKeeper]

LOL wut?? Awe did I hurt your feelings or something with all your built up angst?

Arrogant; overbearing; I am correct, know it all, My way is the only way, anyone that does not agree is stupid/idiot/asshole(pick and choose adjectives), holier than though, etc.

Explain why you file a complaint about your arrogance being put on display?