I simply have no idea what you are talking about or what your point is. Maybe i've been awake for too long, ...or maybe you should be more direct.
Doc Savage Fan
Lifer
- Nov 30, 2006
- 15,456
- 389
- 121
Surely you came across other studies while data mining that did not support you're assertion...why do you cast a blind eye to recent studies like these?
Even Harvard Finds The Media Biased
A study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy
See the problem with that is you are using a few month period in one particularly unfavorable climate towards republicans to make your point. That's why meta-analysis is useful, along with studies that cover decades or better.
I think something that most everyone can agree on right now is that the political climate for Republicans sucks. The study and the point you are trying to make is that at all times regardless of how circumstances in the country are, that coverage should be roughly equal between the two parties in quantity and tone. That does not accurately reflect reality. Most of the issues that they are associated with at the moment are negative, (Iraq, the economy, health care, etc.) and they appear poised to lose the White House. Not only that but their candidates were, even by Repubilcans' own admission, a weak field. The Democrats on the other hand have an advantage on the issues and two highly interesting candidates.
There is an interesting analysis of that study that I will try to find for you. To say that the media is reporting on them more negatively in the last few months does not seem to indicate bias, it seems to indicate reality.
Doc Savage Fan
Lifer
- Nov 30, 2006
- 15,456
- 389
- 121
What are you talking about? I guess the Harvard Center For Finding Out Incredibly Obvious Things is working overtime. Alert the media! They released a report that says "When events trend negative for the GOP, news reports trend negative for the GOP". Amazing! This is why you don't try to base broad opinions on the nature of American media off of a 6 month news cycle.
If you want to say that over the last 6 months or so the media has protrayed the Democrats more favorably then the Republicans I would agree. My next question would be, so what? Are you seriously going to try and argue with me that over the last 6 months the issues that are most prevalent in the presidential election are favorable to Republicans? If not, then it would only be reasonable for the media to have more stories that ended up being favorable to Democrats then Republicans. Things are going better for them.
If you want to accuse the media of being biased, you should probably look for some more rigorous institutional studies instead of a news program analysis over a few months. Just a tip for you.
PS: Another interesting note is that this study accuses different outlets of being biased then the other study that TLC noted. When that sort of thing happens it usually means someone's methodology is flawed. Shocking.
Doc Savage Fan
Lifer
- Nov 30, 2006
- 15,456
- 389
- 121
You've obviously made up your mind and selectively chose your "facts" to justify your preconceived worldview. Look...if you want to believe the Harvard study is fundamentally flawed...go for it. If you want to believe that there's no media bias...go for it. If you want to live in a fantasy world...go for it.
PS: Agree, the study TLC cited appears to be very controversial. However, please note that the Harvard study appears to be generally accepted. I guess that would be "shocking" to those who don't like the results of the Harvard study.
Dude, I'm not disagreeing with the Harvard study's conclusions. What I'm saying is that it's not a good idea to take an analysis of a particularly unfavorable news cycle for the Republicans and try to make broad assertions from it. The other studies I posted examined thousands of sources over decades. The Harvard study examines a few sources over a period of a few months, and only within the context of presidential candidates.
Did you read the study you are citing? The researchers in the study didn't make anything resembling the claims you are making based on it. In fact, they made claims that are very similar to mine. Check out the conclusion: http://www.journalism.org/node/8198 They are saying that the weak Republican candidates, and the high interest in Democratic candidates are the reasons for the disparity, not some sort of liberal media bias.
So honestly, the stories you cited reinforce what I was saying.
Doc Savage Fan
Lifer
- Nov 30, 2006
- 15,456
- 389
- 121
Look at the data tables dude...HUGE disparitites in amount of coverage as well as positive vs negative coverage. Like it or not...that's the facts. You can spin this anyway you want...but it sure looks like media bias to me. Res ipsa loquitur - The thing speaks for itself.
You are attempting to quote a study in support of your media bias theory, when the people that did the study disagree with your interpretation.
That's not a very good argument.
You know that saying "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics."? What you're trying to do right now is giving truth to that saying.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Don't even waste your time with this tool, DSF. He'll twist, distort, finagle, and engage you in his usual intellectual dishonesty. He does it in his last reply to you claiming that the findings of the study back him up when it really doesn't. The study actually finds a disparity amongst the coverage, but eskimospy just ignores that fact and responds by being selective about what he quotes, as usual.
This is the same eskimospy that claims "hundreds" of studies have found there to be no media bias that swings to the left. Yet, when asked to produce evidence of those studies he pulls this little sleight of hand and provides two links; links that you have to subscribe to in order to actually see the study. Odd how out of those hundreds that's all he can manage to come up with, eh?
Apparently he thinks he's being clever but anyone that knows his modus operandi can plainly see otherwise. He's all smoke and mirrors.
This is the same eskimospy that claims "hundreds" of studies have found there to be no media bias that swings to the left. Yet, when asked to produce evidence of those studies he pulls this little sleight of hand and provides two links; links that you have to subscribe to in order to actually see the study. Odd how out of those hundreds that's all he can manage to come up with, eh?
Apparently he thinks he's being clever but anyone that knows his modus operandi can plainly see otherwise. He's all smoke and mirrors.
How many sites am I supposed to go through to appease your stupidity? You need subscriptions to them because these studies are posted in academic journals... you know, the places where respectable research is published. Sorry if you don't have access to them. Maybe you should go to a library once in awhile, you can read them to your heart's content there. Nice try though, I told you before I linked them that I would link articles if you had JSTOR access. You then whined that if I had links I should post them. So I did. Now you're whining that I DID post them. Why? Because you know what they say already and are desperately trying to spin and twist away from them.
I'm sure you don't care what actual scientists say, because someone did an opinion poll and found out 70% of people think something!
If you read the conclusion of the Harvard study... you know the part where they interpret their data and provide what they have determined it to mean, you would see that the study explicitly states some of the same reasons that I've given for this. Nowhere in the conclusion does it state that this presentation is due to any sort of ideological bias.
Don't be mad because I always beat you up so badly.
Doc Savage Fan
Lifer
- Nov 30, 2006
- 15,456
- 389
- 121
The conclusion of the study offers possible explanations for the the huge disparity in how the media covers Democrats and Republicans as follows:
"There are other factors that may have tipped the press? gaze more toward Democrats."
"As for the more critical tone for Republicans, there are various possible explanations."
"A good deal of the negative coverage of other Republican candidates may well have resulted from press skepticism about their chances for the nomination."
Note the bolded words...this is all obviously speculation and there's zero substantiation of these possible explanations supported by the study.
Dude...I'm amazed at how cavalier you are in twisting and distorting information to fit into your extremely partisan worldview. The data speaks volumes and it screams media bias. You're obviously intelligent...yet you totally waste it. It appears that you've lost your ability to be objective and intellectual honest in your pursuit to defend your extremist ideology. That's a hell of a price to pay...not worth it IMHO.
No propaganda here. Just a few tinfoil hats :laugh:
The fact of the matter is this: Hillary's camp DID circulate a photo of Obama wearing a head scarf, in an attempt to portray him as Muslim and scary. No "right wing propaganda" is necessary here.
The fact of the matter is this: Hillary's camp DID circulate a photo of Obama wearing a head scarf, in an attempt to portray him as Muslim and scary. No "right wing propaganda" is necessary here.
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,914
- 2,359
- 126
OrByte
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2000
- 9,302
- 144
- 106
So, you rely on this study that YOU provided to confirm with certainty that the disparity between media coverage between the Ds and the Rs "may have," and or "possibily have" other explanations other than current media and politcial events within a 6 month period?
and these "may have" and or "possibly have" reasons are because of long standing libral bias?
I'm trying to follow here...
Hey, Doc Savage Fan:
HOW COULD I FORGET!
Dr. Michael Savage AKA Michael Alan Weiner - the Jew with the curiously strong pro-Christian views.
Propaganda Technique Used: Pretending not to be Jewish on a talk show to appeal to a large Christian audience.
Reality in Context: Oy Vey!
...and now to acknowledge work of one of talk-radio's less known right-wing conservative bullshit artists
Propaganda: Once criticized the Clinton administration for the USS Cole bombing, saying that it was policy under Clinton to take weapons off-line when entering another nations port. Had the weapons been active, he argued, the Cole could have blown the little boat with explosives out of the water as it approached.
Propaganda Technique Used: card stacking
Reality in Context: It is common practice for navy vessels to put weapons off line when entering another nations port to refuel. This is not something new under Clinton, it has been done for almost a century. Second, the boat approaching did not even appear hostile. Sailors on board thought it was a garbage boat and even waved to the terrorists on board.
HOW COULD I FORGET!
Dr. Michael Savage AKA Michael Alan Weiner - the Jew with the curiously strong pro-Christian views.
Propaganda Technique Used: Pretending not to be Jewish on a talk show to appeal to a large Christian audience.
Reality in Context: Oy Vey!
...and now to acknowledge work of one of talk-radio's less known right-wing conservative bullshit artists
Propaganda: Once criticized the Clinton administration for the USS Cole bombing, saying that it was policy under Clinton to take weapons off-line when entering another nations port. Had the weapons been active, he argued, the Cole could have blown the little boat with explosives out of the water as it approached.
Propaganda Technique Used: card stacking
Reality in Context: It is common practice for navy vessels to put weapons off line when entering another nations port to refuel. This is not something new under Clinton, it has been done for almost a century. Second, the boat approaching did not even appear hostile. Sailors on board thought it was a garbage boat and even waved to the terrorists on board.
They do, its just not that common. The problem is that left-wing liberals on the radio are so far left they can be considered delusional. Take Amy Goodman for example or Michael Moore. The left-media (the REAL left media, not CNN) does not have even a fraction of the audience that talk radio has and is too tiny to have any impact on public opinion.
Propaganda does not have to be lies. You can cherry-pick true facts and paint a dishonest picture with them.
This is very true. You can pretend, for example, that known facts that lead to incomprehension, fatigue or subtle expression, are applicable in cases where in fact there is a psychological motivation not to understand. For example, you can't tell a racial bigot he is a bigot because his whole mindset is based on the fact that this or that race is objectively bad and anything you tell him hits against that bias and immediately makes your points look false. As they say: 'You can tell a bigot, but you can't tell him much.
What I have basically done in my posts to you is to show you your thinking reflected back at you. You announce that things are propaganda by naming them as such, as if the naming itself made it true, and I have named your posts propaganda similarly. You don't seem to agree with me so why should I agree with you.
I said earlier that it is important to understand propaganda theoretically, to study how it words, what kinds of feelings it plays on, but just to announce that something is an example of this or that propaganda technique is insufficient as persuasion and is propaganda itself, name calling.
If the effects of propaganda could be eliminated by theoretical knowledge the world could be immunized to it by formal education, but in fact, the elimination of the power of propaganda can happen in the self only with the elimination of the emotions propaganda hooks. To be free from propaganda one must die to the ego because the ego is built from it. You are your own delusion, an attachment to false beliefs.
If the conclusions are so obvious why did this team of Harvard researchers miss it? There is exactly as much substantiation for their ideas as to what caused it as there is to your idea. If I had to guess why they didn't mention leftist media bias in their list of possible explanations it would be because so many studies have shown it doesn't exist. What you're trying to say is that correlation equals causation here, and we both know that's not true.
You are then trying to argue that because the study doesn't definitively prove its conclusions that yours must be right... when yours is no more proven then theirs is. Remember also that this is a single study that you've provided as evidence towards your case when I can find many many studies that support mine. (I will offer you the same deal as I offered TLC, if you don't have JSTOR access I can cut and paste you some abstracts and conclusions)
That's fine if you want to think that people who don't believe the media are biased to the left have lost their ability to be intellectually honest, etc. That means that the majority of people conducting scientific studies are being intellectually dishonest as well. Maybe it's Liberal Science teaming up with The Liberal Media?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 11K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 8K
-
Facebook
Twitter