*Update*Campaign staffer fired for racial remarks and anti-semitism

[Pens1566]

Wow. PJ taking the Washington Post as gospel when it suits his argument. Color me shocked.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I hear the latest excuse is that macaca is Italian for clown. Granted, that's Washington Times (GOPie) apologist Tony Blankley talking.

The Italian word for clown is pagliacco. Babelfish doesn't handle this particular translation from English to Italian, but it works from Italian to English, and freetranslation.com's system works either way. Try it, yourself.

The real clown is Blankley, and yes, he is a lame Bushwhacko apologist. :thumbsdown: :frown: :thumbsdown:

 

[senseamp]

Damn Liberian Media.

 

[Pabster]

It's a damn shame how they're treating Michael Steele. The nonsense that has been going on the last few months is ridiculous.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Ok, one try to make a point and then I'll move on

Here we have a Democrat campaign staffer working for a Democrat candidate posting racist and anti-semetic remarks, and yet in the news article the only party mentioned is the Republican party.

Why didn't the write mention that Cardin was a Democrat once?
Why do we have to learn the party affiliation of the racist by reading into the line "Cardin's opponent, Republican Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, who is black, has said people threw Oreos at him during a 2002 debate as a slight directed at his race and political views." Why not just come right out and say "A worker for Democratic candidate..."???

Maybe the writer of the article falls for the idea that only Republicans are racists, as many on these forums like to say, and therefore a Democrat can not be a racist.

Eh, much ado about nothing.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Yet another Washington Post chat:
Media Backtalk with Howard Kurtz

Point of Rocks, Md.: Any comment on how The Post -- ever-pushing the "macaca" story in almost every George Allen story, often on the front page, didn't put much prominence in Maryland candidate Ben Cardin dropping a racist/anti-Semitic blogger from his staff? Democratic race gaffes are buried in the B-section? Isn't that obvious bias in the last weeks of a campaign?

Howard Kurtz: The Post's story yesterday on a junior staffer for Senate candidate Ben Cardin being dropped for using racial and ethnic slurs in a blog ran on Page C-6. I think it was underplayed. Obviously, the actions of a junior staffer are not comparable to the actions of the candidate himself, when it is George Allen using a word (the infamous macaca) for an Indian-American, something for which the senator has repeatedly apologized. Allen also had the misfortune of having his slur captured on tape and posted on YouTube by the campaign of his Democratic opponent. So while the two stories are hardly comparable, the Cardin story deserved a little more exposure.

Ok... so there might be a little bit of bias huh?

So let me see if I understand this...it's "bias" because the news that a Republican Senatorial candidate made a racist remark is treated as bigger news than a Democratic campaign staffer making a racist remark. In what kind of stupid ass news organization are the remarks of some anonymous campaign staffer of as much importance as the remarks of a man running for the United States Senate? Seriously, the stupidity physically hurts me.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Pabster
It's a damn shame how they're treating Michael Steele. The nonsense that has been going on the last few months is ridiculous.

Agreed...it IS a shame how he's been treated, but that's what politics has devolved into. I personally disagree with the man and wouldn't vote for him, but very few people deserve that kind of treatment.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Ok, one try to make a point and then I'll move on

Promises, promises. Please move on... ANYWHERE away from here.

Maybe the writer of the article falls for the idea that only Republicans are racists, as many on these forums like to say, and therefore a Democrat can not be a racist.

Maybe the OP of this thread falls for posting straw man arguments and other lame logical falacies instead of dealing with reality. :roll:

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Ok, one try to make a point and then I'll move on

Promises, promises. Please move on... ANYWHERE away from here.

Maybe the writer of the article falls for the idea that only Republicans are racists, as many on these forums like to say, and therefore a Democrat can not be a racist.

Maybe the OP of this thread falls for posting straw man arguments and other lame logical falacies instead of dealing with reality. :roll:

There is no such thing as reality, Straighttalker told me so himself. :shocked:

Ok, let?s talk about media bias as I see it, and the way I believe many people who research the media see it too.

It is not that the writer of the article is sitting there thinking ?how can I take a story about a Democrat acting bad and turn it into making a Republican looking bad?

It is more about people writing stories and editors/producers picking stories based on their own political beliefs. Essentially the idea is that the stories match the writers own bias.

It has been prove many times that a majority of journalists vote Democratic (see below for proof), that means they would lean to the left. Therefore these journalists will look at events and write stories that match their point of view. Just as people on this forum see the same events and watch the same news coverage but come up with very different ideas about what happened, or why it happened etc.
Now writers may try to act neutral and unbiased, but it is hard to put aside ones own personal views. A writer who believes in the concept of a right to privacy and therefore believes that abortion should be legal because of that right will cover the abortion issue very different that someone who does not believe that the right to privacy allows the right to abortion.

So when I post articles and mention them as showing media bias I am saying that the writer is showing his own personal bias or in the worse case their personal agenda.
For the life of my I can not understand how someone can write an article about a Democratic staffer acting badly and never mention that they are a Democrat.

Great Wikipedia article on Media bias.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias

Now onto proof that journalists vote Democratic.
Finding Biases on the Bus

When asked who would be a better president, the journalists from outside the Beltway picked Mr. Kerry 3 to 1, and the ones from Washington favored him 12 to 1. Those results jibe with previous surveys over the past two decades showing that journalists tend to be Democrats, especially the ones based in Washington. Some surveys have found that more than 80 percent of the Beltway press corps votes Democratic

Editors Realize Liberal Slant

Asked how they think the public perceives newspapers, 89 percent said "liberal" compared to a measly 1.2 percent who responded "conservative." Another 4.3 percent said moderate. Many editors were willing to concede the slant, with more than three times as many describing American dailies as liberal over conservative: 25.1 percent to 7.8 percent with 62.9 percent tagging papers as moderate.

But E&P didn?t reveal the most illustrative finding: how editors voted in the last two presidential elections. Investor?s Business Daily reporter Matthew Robinson obtained the full poll results which showed that a larger share of editors cast their ballot for Clinton than did the rest of the electorate. In 1992 when just 43 percent of the public picked Clinton, Robinson reported in a January 30 story, 58 percent of editors pulled the lever for the winner. Support for Clinton held steady through the President?s first term as 57 percent hung with him in 1996 while he captured only 49 percent of the American people.

"How often do journalists? opinions influence coverage?" While only 14 percent said "often," a solid majority of 57 percent conceded it "sometimes" happens, meaning 71 percent acknowledge the connection between personal views and coverage. Barely one percent insisted it "never" occurs with 26 percent saying it "seldom" happens

Media and business elites: still in conflict? - Statistical Data Included

Voting patterns among the cultural elites are quite the opposite. Three-quarters of elite journalists (76.1 percent) and seven of ten Hollywood elites (69.8 percent) voted for Michael Dukakis in 1988, and even larger percentages (91.3 percent of journalists and 82.7 percent of the movie and television sample) cast ballots for Bill Clinton in 1992.

Still claim that there is no media bias?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
...
It has been prove many times that a majority of journalists vote Democratic (see below for proof), that means they would lean to the left. Therefore these journalists will look at events and write stories that match their point of view.
...

Where is your proof of that? Their voting records mean nothing, your entire argument rests on this assumption that you've made...that journalists allow their personal political views to bias their reporting and yet you have NOTHING to prove it. That hardly qualifies as bullshit filler on the Sean Hannity show much less reasoned scientific argument. I realize the idea of impartiality, regardless of personal views, is a difficult one for a lot of people (which might also explain the deep mistrust of judges that almost always seems to come with the media bias ranting), but just because YOU can't understand journalism ethics doesn't mean they aren't there.

But hey, I'm open to a reasonable argument...let me know when you're going to make one.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
...
It has been prove many times that a majority of journalists vote Democratic (see below for proof), that means they would lean to the left. Therefore these journalists will look at events and write stories that match their point of view.
...

Where is your proof of that? Their voting records mean nothing, your entire argument rests on this assumption that you've made...that journalists allow their personal political views to bias their reporting and yet you have NOTHING to prove it. That hardly qualifies as bullshit filler on the Sean Hannity show much less reasoned scientific argument. I realize the idea of impartiality, regardless of personal views, is a difficult one for a lot of people (which might also explain the deep mistrust of judges that almost always seems to come with the media bias ranting), but just because YOU can't understand journalism ethics doesn't mean they aren't there.

But hey, I'm open to a reasonable argument...let me know when you're going to make one.

How about this as proof?

Newspaper editors realize the overwhelming majority of their readers view their papers as liberal while over half of 167 editors surveyed across the country provided fuel for that assessment, reporting they voted for Clinton. The January 17 Editor & Publisher magazine relayed the results of a December poll of newspaper editors conducted by the Technometrica Institute of Policy and Politics

Asked how they think the public perceives newspapers, 89 percent said "liberal" compared to a measly 1.2 percent who responded "conservative." Another 4.3 percent said moderate. Many editors were willing to concede the slant, with more than three times as many describing American dailies as liberal over conservative: 25.1 percent to 7.8 percent with 62.9 percent tagging papers as moderate.

So the of 167 editors asked in this poll 25% said that dailies are liberal, while only 7.8% said they were conservative. That is the editors themselves speaking, not me speaking for them. Now if the editors think American papers are liberal does that not give some credence to the argument that the media, at least the papers, is liberal and therefore biased away from conservatives?

Sounds reasonable to me.
Oh look... more evidence to back up the media is liberal charge:
"A Freedom Forum poll released in 1996 of Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents determined that 89 percent voted for Clinton in 1992. Just 15 percent of staff reporters at papers across the country identified themselves as conservative in a poll issued last year. The survey by the American Society of Newspaper Editors showed that 61 percent of their newsroom staffs considered themselves liberal."

15% of reporters are conservative, 61% are liberal... hmmm I guess you see that as balance.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Zorba
How many of these stupid threads are going to to start? The guy fired the staffer, he did the right thing.

It's the return of Rip, just waiting for the Anti-Abortion threads in 3....2.....1.....

ProfJohn = nearly 500 posts since joining 1-1/2 months ago. Christ, that's a full-time job.

Please don't take this reply as support in favor of this ridiculous thread, but that's only a 10 post per day average. Hardly a full time job.....especially compared to Conjob's 30 posts/day average.......

Still with the lame personal attacks and insults.

Bravo, Corn. Or should I stoop to your level and call you Cornhole?


:roll:

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
...
It has been prove many times that a majority of journalists vote Democratic (see below for proof), that means they would lean to the left. Therefore these journalists will look at events and write stories that match their point of view.
...

Where is your proof of that? Their voting records mean nothing, your entire argument rests on this assumption that you've made...that journalists allow their personal political views to bias their reporting and yet you have NOTHING to prove it. That hardly qualifies as bullshit filler on the Sean Hannity show much less reasoned scientific argument. I realize the idea of impartiality, regardless of personal views, is a difficult one for a lot of people (which might also explain the deep mistrust of judges that almost always seems to come with the media bias ranting), but just because YOU can't understand journalism ethics doesn't mean they aren't there.

But hey, I'm open to a reasonable argument...let me know when you're going to make one.

How about this as proof?

Newspaper editors realize the overwhelming majority of their readers view their papers as liberal while over half of 167 editors surveyed across the country provided fuel for that assessment, reporting they voted for Clinton. The January 17 Editor & Publisher magazine relayed the results of a December poll of newspaper editors conducted by the Technometrica Institute of Policy and Politics

Asked how they think the public perceives newspapers, 89 percent said "liberal" compared to a measly 1.2 percent who responded "conservative." Another 4.3 percent said moderate. Many editors were willing to concede the slant, with more than three times as many describing American dailies as liberal over conservative: 25.1 percent to 7.8 percent with 62.9 percent tagging papers as moderate.

So the of 167 editors asked in this poll 25% said that dailies are liberal, while only 7.8% said they were conservative. That is the editors themselves speaking, not me speaking for them. Now if the editors think American papers are liberal does that not give some credence to the argument that the media, at least the papers, is liberal and therefore biased away from conservatives?

Sounds reasonable to me.
Oh look... more evidence to back up the media is liberal charge:
"A Freedom Forum poll released in 1996 of Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents determined that 89 percent voted for Clinton in 1992. Just 15 percent of staff reporters at papers across the country identified themselves as conservative in a poll issued last year. The survey by the American Society of Newspaper Editors showed that 61 percent of their newsroom staffs considered themselves liberal."

15% of reporters are conservative, 61% are liberal... hmmm I guess you see that as balance.

I'm pretty sure that's not what I asked you to prove. This does not seem like a complex question, yet your inability to answer it leads me to believe you have no real argument.

But let's try this again. I'm willing to agree that as individuals and as a group, journalists are far more liberal than conservative. This is NOT media bias, personal political views do not, by themselves, prove ANY bias in how journalists perform their jobs. You seem to be implying that the political views of journalists biases their work, and I'm asking you to prove it. I am NOT asking you to prove that journalists are more liberal in their political views than the average population, I'm asking you to prove that this directly results in biased news coverage.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
But let's try this again. I'm willing to agree that as individuals and as a group, journalists are far more liberal than conservative. This is NOT media bias, personal political views do not, by themselves, prove ANY bias in how journalists perform their jobs. You seem to be implying that the political views of journalists biases their work, and I'm asking you to prove it. I am NOT asking you to prove that journalists are more liberal in their political views than the average population, I'm asking you to prove that this directly results in biased news coverage.

Personal views should not factor in for a real journalist. Unfortunately, there are very few of them left. So many have allowed their personal views to taint their reporting and coverage they really don't deserve to have the title "Journalist" any more (IMHO).

A recent example I'll cite (and hardly a rare occurence) was an interview I saw Charlie Gibson with President Bush. He immediately started with "Us war critics" interjecting himself and his personal belief right in to the heart of his interview. This happens on a regular basis and only further proves the point.

The media IS liberal, there is no denying that. I don't need any polls to figure that out.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Rainsford
But let's try this again. I'm willing to agree that as individuals and as a group, journalists are far more liberal than conservative. This is NOT media bias, personal political views do not, by themselves, prove ANY bias in how journalists perform their jobs. You seem to be implying that the political views of journalists biases their work, and I'm asking you to prove it. I am NOT asking you to prove that journalists are more liberal in their political views than the average population, I'm asking you to prove that this directly results in biased news coverage.

Personal views should not factor in for a real journalist. Unfortunately, there are very few of them left. So many have allowed their personal views to taint their reporting and coverage they really don't deserve to have the title "Journalist" any more (IMHO).

A recent example I'll cite (and hardly a rare occurence) was an interview I saw Charlie Gibson with President Bush. He immediately started with "Us war critics" interjecting himself and his personal belief right in to the heart of his interview. This happens on a regular basis and only further proves the point.

The media IS liberal, there is no denying that. I don't need any polls to figure that out.

That's great, but without scientific evidence it's just opinion. And while a lack of evidence does not always imply something, the fact that there are loads of anti-media people ranting about the "liberally biased media", and the fact that not a one of them has managed to produce so much as a shred of scientific evidence to support their claim, tells me that they are probably full of it. After all, while you may not feel you need crazy liberal things like "facts" and "evidence", they would make your case so much stronger...if it's so obvious and can't be denied, then producing some kind of PROOF shouldn't be too hard, should it?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
That's great, but without scientific evidence it's just opinion. And while a lack of evidence does not always imply something, the fact that there are loads of anti-media people ranting about the "liberally biased media", and the fact that not a one of them has managed to produce so much as a shred of scientific evidence to support their claim, tells me that they are probably full of it. After all, while you may not feel you need crazy liberal things like "facts" and "evidence", they would make your case so much stronger...if it's so obvious and can't be denied, then producing some kind of PROOF shouldn't be too hard, should it?

What "scientific" evidence do you need? There are plenty of polls taken from those in the field which suggest what I said to be true. Beyond polls, what evidence could possibly be presented? I suppose you are waiting for a Charlie Gibson to come on-air and announce he is a biased liberal Bush hater who works hard daily to present stories as unfavorable to the administration as possible? Get real.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Rainsford
That's great, but without scientific evidence it's just opinion. And while a lack of evidence does not always imply something, the fact that there are loads of anti-media people ranting about the "liberally biased media", and the fact that not a one of them has managed to produce so much as a shred of scientific evidence to support their claim, tells me that they are probably full of it. After all, while you may not feel you need crazy liberal things like "facts" and "evidence", they would make your case so much stronger...if it's so obvious and can't be denied, then producing some kind of PROOF shouldn't be too hard, should it?

What "scientific" evidence do you need? There are plenty of polls taken from those in the field which suggest what I said to be true. Beyond polls, what evidence could possibly be presented? I suppose you are waiting for a Charlie Gibson to come on-air and announce he is a biased liberal Bush hater who works hard daily to present stories as unfavorable to the administration as possible? Get real.

And that's the problem, media bias is very hard to prove in any sort of scientific way (polls? give me a break). Yet for some reason, a lot of people are totally and utterly convinced that there is a strong and persistant liberal bias in the media as a whole. Does that strike you as a little odd?

But as far as what I would consider scientific proof...how about this? We'll keep it limited to one news organization, say, The Washington Post, to make it simple. What would help convince me is a study that comes up with a well defined defintion of "liberal bias" and "conservative bias", selects some random sampling of Post articles, and reports how biased the random sampling was, a positive result (from your point of view) would be far more liberally biased articles than conservative ones. Of course the second part is easy, it's defining liberal bias that's difficult. But there are answers to that problem, my first suggestion would be to gather up all the anecdotal complaints of the anti-media folks concerning single articles and try and form some sort of overall picture of what liberal bias might look like.

If anyone has done that, I've yet to hear about it...

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Rainsford
That's great, but without scientific evidence it's just opinion. And while a lack of evidence does not always imply something, the fact that there are loads of anti-media people ranting about the "liberally biased media", and the fact that not a one of them has managed to produce so much as a shred of scientific evidence to support their claim, tells me that they are probably full of it. After all, while you may not feel you need crazy liberal things like "facts" and "evidence", they would make your case so much stronger...if it's so obvious and can't be denied, then producing some kind of PROOF shouldn't be too hard, should it?

What "scientific" evidence do you need? There are plenty of polls taken from those in the field which suggest what I said to be true. Beyond polls, what evidence could possibly be presented? I suppose you are waiting for a Charlie Gibson to come on-air and announce he is a biased liberal Bush hater who works hard daily to present stories as unfavorable to the administration as possible? Get real.

And that's the problem, media bias is very hard to prove in any sort of scientific way (polls? give me a break). Yet for some reason, a lot of people are totally and utterly convinced that there is a strong and persistant liberal bias in the media as a whole. Does that strike you as a little odd?

But as far as what I would consider scientific proof...how about this? We'll keep it limited to one news organization, say, The Washington Post, to make it simple. What would help convince me is a study that comes up with a well defined defintion of "liberal bias" and "conservative bias", selects some random sampling of Post articles, and reports how biased the random sampling was, a positive result (from your point of view) would be far more liberally biased articles than conservative ones. Of course the second part is easy, it's defining liberal bias that's difficult. But there are answers to that problem, my first suggestion would be to gather up all the anecdotal complaints of the anti-media folks concerning single articles and try and form some sort of overall picture of what liberal bias might look like.

If anyone has done that, I've yet to hear about it...

Here you go Rainsford:
Nice study on Media Bias:

As mentioned above, Tim Groseclose of UCLA and Jeff Milyo of the University of Missouri at Columbia ([3], the paper is now published on the Quarterly Journal of Economics) use think tank quotes, in order to estimate the relative position of mass media outlets in the political spectrum. The idea is to trace out which think tanks are quoted by various mass media outlets within news stories, and to match these think tanks with the political position of members of the U.S. Congress who quote them in a non-negative way. Using this procedure, Groseclose and Milyo obtain the stark result that all sampled news providers -except Fox News' Special Report and the Washington Times- are located to the left of the average Congress member, i.e. there are signs of a liberal bias in the US news media. However, the news media also show a remarkable degree of centrism, just because all outlets but one are located ?from an ideological point of view- between the average Democrat and average Republican in Congress.

Another one

Alan Gerber and Dean Karlan of Yale University use an experimental approach to examine not whether the media is biased (link to the paper: [9]), but whether the media influence political decisions and attitudes. They conduct a randomized control trial just prior to the November 2005 gubernatorial election in Virginia and randomly assign individuals in Northern Virginia to (a) a treatment group that receives a free subscription to the Washington Post, (b) a treatment group that receives a free subscription to the Washington Times, or (c) a control group. They find that those who are assigned to the Washington Post treatment group are eight percentage points more likely to vote for the Democrat in the elections.

Two nice quotes by members of the media on bias.

"The old argument that the networks and other 'media elites' have a liberal bias is so blatantly true that it's hardly worth discussing anymore. No, we don't sit around in dark corners and plan how we will slant the news. It comes naturally to most reporters"
CBS News correspondent Bernard Goldberg, Feb 13, 1996 Wall Street Journal op-ed.

and the granddaddy of TV newsmen, David Brinkley

"Well, it's there and it doesn't show itself in everything that is printed or broadcast but it is there, and I think we're all used to it, we discount it. Some of the press also is more conservative and it's just the way the action is in this country and I don't know any way to change it. You just have to live with it."

Exactly what I said, it is there, it is not intentional, but more of an effect of having ones personal beliefs reflected in their work.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
...
Here you go Rainsford:
Nice study on Media Bias:

As mentioned above, Tim Groseclose of UCLA and Jeff Milyo of the University of Missouri at Columbia ([3], the paper is now published on the Quarterly Journal of Economics) use think tank quotes, in order to estimate the relative position of mass media outlets in the political spectrum. The idea is to trace out which think tanks are quoted by various mass media outlets within news stories, and to match these think tanks with the political position of members of the U.S. Congress who quote them in a non-negative way. Using this procedure, Groseclose and Milyo obtain the stark result that all sampled news providers -except Fox News' Special Report and the Washington Times- are located to the left of the average Congress member, i.e. there are signs of a liberal bias in the US news media. However, the news media also show a remarkable degree of centrism, just because all outlets but one are located ?from an ideological point of view- between the average Democrat and average Republican in Congress.

Another one

Alan Gerber and Dean Karlan of Yale University use an experimental approach to examine not whether the media is biased (link to the paper: [9]), but whether the media influence political decisions and attitudes. They conduct a randomized control trial just prior to the November 2005 gubernatorial election in Virginia and randomly assign individuals in Northern Virginia to (a) a treatment group that receives a free subscription to the Washington Post, (b) a treatment group that receives a free subscription to the Washington Times, or (c) a control group. They find that those who are assigned to the Washington Post treatment group are eight percentage points more likely to vote for the Democrat in the elections.

...

Perhaps I should have revised my statement. I am not arguing that no one has made any attempt to prove media bias in a peer reviewed, scientific environment, I'm arguing that they have so far been able to do so.

Your second article is perhaps the most scientific in their approach, but you are drawing the wrong conclusion. They proved that your exposure to news almost certainly influences your voting pattern (duh), they did not prove any sort of media bias I can see. An alternative explanation (that there was no control for) is that the Post simply reported the unbiased facts and the Republicans simply happen to be on the wrong side of those...perhaps better informed people are more likely to vote Democrat. I also don't see what the 8 percentage increase is compared to...if it's the Washington Times readers averaged with the control group, that could indicate a Republican lean on the part of Times readers. Those are acceptable limitations given the stated goal of the project, but not in terms of proving any sort of bias in the media.

The first study actually seems to come the closest to proving your media bias theory, and I have to commend the researchers on an inventive way to measure bias, but I'm not sure it's really valid. Like virtually all of the anti-media folks, they have confused being nonbiased with being "balanced". "Balance" is the new mantra of the people who complain about media coverage being liberally biased, the idea being that a news organization is biased unless they give each side of an issue equal time. That is clearly the idea behind the Groseclose and Milyo study, deduce the political leanings of particular think tanks and then deduce the political leanings of various news organizations based on how much coverage they give to the ideas of those think tanks. But their methodology is flawed, as it assumes that everything said by every think tank is equally valid and deserving of equal coverage in a news story. In other words, that the media is liberally biased if, in a story about the Moon's composition, they quote a Center for American Progress study that says it's made of rock and ignore a study from the Heritage Foundation that says it's made of "some sort of candy". This is quite silly, as "bias" implies placing political views ahead of the truth...and striving for "balance" almost certainly would qualify as bias for that reason. The other problem with the study (and I can't believe I even have to point it out) is that the "average" member of congress leans Republican, there are more Republicans than Democrats in congress (duh). Even if "balance" was a way to prove or disprove bias, the idea of using the average congressman as a benchmark is fatally flawed.

As I said, trying to prove something like this is difficult...far more so than it would seem given how utterly covinced so many people are that the media is leaning really far to the left.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
As I said, trying to prove something like this is difficult...far more so than it would seem given how utterly covinced so many people are that the media is leaning really far to the left.

I don't think it leans FAR to the left, but it does lean a little.
Leaving out word "Democrat" in article about a Democrat staffer.
"When GDP growth is reported, Republicans received between 16 and 24 percentage point fewer positive stories for the same economic numbers than Democrats."
Stuff like that.

Of course our media is conservative as hell compared to the BBC, maybe you are from England?

BTW: Why do you ignore the two quotes from newsmen and the survey of paper editors, all three of these sources who are inside the buisness say there is some slant.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Rainsford
As I said, trying to prove something like this is difficult...far more so than it would seem given how utterly covinced so many people are that the media is leaning really far to the left.

I don't think it leans FAR to the left, but it does lean a little.
Leaving out word "Democrat" in article about a Democrat staffer.
"When GDP growth is reported, Republicans received between 16 and 24 percentage point fewer positive stories for the same economic numbers than Democrats."
Stuff like that.

Of course our media is conservative as hell compared to the BBC, maybe you are from England?

BTW: Why do you ignore the two quotes from newsmen and the survey of paper editors, all three of these sources who are inside the buisness say there is some slant.

Because right leaning newspeper editors will lie to make it look like the other papers are all liberal so that they can sell more newspaper