# Uh-Oh! Media bias confirmed by UCLA



## KenpoEMT (Dec 18, 2005)

Well, here it is in black and white:
http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664



> Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Is anyone actually shocked by this? What suprised me most is that Brit Hume was rated fourth most Centrist.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 18, 2005)

Theban_Legion said:
			
		

> Well, here it is in black and white:
> http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664
> 
> 
> Is anyone actually shocked by this? What suprised me most is that Brit Hume was rated fourth most Centrist.


 
It's the education level.  Most folks who write for these institutions are college educated and tend to lean left because of it.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 18, 2005)

> I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose,


 
It's a good thing that most *editors*, the people who supervise the reporters, tend to vote more Republican than Democratic. And the corporations which own the media, also tend to support more Republican positions than Democratic positions. 

God knows that if a reported becomes a 'Miss Run-A-Muck', she will only be able to publish her transcriptions on the *Front Page* of those biased newspapers. ("If your sources are wrong, you are wrong." - Unless, you actually approach people with knowledge, like the members UNMOVIC) .... Naaa .... just got to publish what Dick Cheney wants in the paper.


----------



## KenpoEMT (Dec 18, 2005)




----------



## FearlessFreep (Dec 18, 2005)

_
It's the education level. Most folks who write for these institutions are college educated and tend to lean left because of it._

I sorta assumed it was because certain personality types tended to  want to get into reporting and those kind of people also tended to lean left.

*and I don't mean that in a negative sense*  not meaning to say anything about reporters and/or political leanings, just that I've noticed that people with certain political leanings are more likely to tend toward certan kinds of jobs and 'reporter' and 'left' seem a good match to me.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Dec 18, 2005)

_
 It's a good thing that most *editors*, the people who supervise the reporters, tend to vote more Republican than Democratic. And the corporations which own the media, also tend to support more Republican positions than Democratic positions._

But therein is the problem    A good business owner is mostly focused on the bottom line of the business,...is the product selling.  The owner of a news outlet, especially one who owns several businesses or interests, is not going to care about the bias of the reporters he or she employs as long as the news sells.  So a liberal reporter rights a story with an inherent and natural bias and a conservative owner is going to let them as long as it moves papers or sells ad time


----------



## arnisador (Dec 18, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> It's the education level.  Most folks who write for these institutions are college educated and tend to lean left because of it.



That is my guess too. Certainly, I believe the effect is real.

Were we hoping for completely unbiased reporting? It's the ideal, but could it be achieved? I'd imagine not.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 18, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> It's the education level. Most folks who write for these institutions are college educated and tend to lean left because of it.


 Then why do celebrities tend to lean further to the left?  In point of fact, most reporters aren't that well educated.  They tend to take a degree in broadcasting or poly-sci, and they usually never reach graduate level work.  An associates are a bachelor's degree is usually as far as that goals.

No, the reason most reporter's lean to the left, is because it's a progressive field for people who want to change the world.   If you weren't out to change the world, why get in to media?  What's more, conservative views haven't traditional sold papers.  What sells papers is populist rhetoric.  The man on the street buys papers that play to his sense of alienation, and tells him that someone else is 'out to get him'.  

That's my 'fair and balanced' interpretation.


----------



## Xequat (Dec 18, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> It's a good thing that most *editors*, the people who supervise the reporters, tend to vote more Republican than Democratic. And the corporations which own the media, also tend to support more Republican positions than Democratic positions.


 
Yeah, and to upnorth's point, I could argue that most of _these_ people are college-educated and tend to vote Republican because of it, if what both of you are saying is right.  It's a non-sequiter (sp?) unless you are saying that colleges are liberal institutions as well, but I don't think you're making that accusation.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 18, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Then why do celebrities tend to lean further to the left?[/quote
> 
> Total fallacy. Most educated people are liberal does not imply that only educated people are liberal.
> 
> As an aside, reporters who study journalism may do so at the BA level or, as at Columbia, at the MA level as a first degree (similar to the MBA in that regard). However, it's true that many have a BA in some generic humanities or social science field, and that the political bias of education is less noticeable at the undergraduate level.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 19, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> sgtmac_46 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## mrhnau (Dec 19, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> It's the education level.  Most folks who write for these institutions are college educated and tend to lean left because of it.



Dude, I doubt I'm the only one that takes that as a total insult.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 19, 2005)

upnorthkyoso said:
			
		

> _It's the education level. Most folks who write for these institutions are college educated and tend to lean left because of it._





			
				mrhnau said:
			
		

> Dude, I doubt I'm the only one that takes that as a total insult.


 
Why? 

Studies have shown that people who attend college, generally, have higher incomes than those who do not. 

Would you argue with this statistic?

Studies also show that those with higher education levels have more liberal views than those who do not have higher education.

The studies, and their results are not secret. And they have been repeated many times. 

If you don't agree with the premise, or methodology, that's fine. Argue those points. But taking the results of the study as a personal insult is just weird.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 19, 2005)

Theban_Legion said:
			
		

> Is anyone actually shocked by this? What suprised me most is that Brit Hume was rated fourth most Centrist.


 
Here's something interesting ... not sure what I think of it yet.

How did this study determine a left/right leaning bias? 

"To compute this, we count the times that a particular media outlet cites various think tanks and policy groups, and then compare this with the times that members of Congress cite the same groups."​I am not sure this is an effective way to measure anything ... by the number of times members of Congress cite a think tank? 

Maybe I'll pay the ten bucks for the full article. Then again, maybe not.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 19, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Why?
> 
> Studies have shown that people who attend college, generally, have higher incomes than those who do not.
> 
> ...


 
Mike stole my rebuttle...:asian:


----------



## mrhnau (Dec 19, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Why?
> 
> Studies have shown that people who attend college, generally, have higher incomes than those who do not.
> 
> ...



What I DON'T like is the elitist view of the left, the insinuation that those not agreeing must be less intellegent. The insinuation that those "educated" would logically be left leaning. I'm a semester short of a PhD. Most of my PhD friends (those that are citizens anyways) actually lean to the right. They are some of the most educated and intellegent people I know. So, 52% of the US citizens that voted for Bush are uneducated? (forget exact %, correct if wrong). They could have presented someone who could have beat Bush (Lieberman. Shoot, I would have considered voting for him).

People have different views. Deal with it. Discuss the issues, but don't make clever posts insinuating "Intellegent people lean left". That adds nothing to the conversation and is entirely pointless.

Now, to your specifics. Yes, educated people on average make more money. However, that is irrelevant to the conversation.

Present your studies for "liberal views". I'd love to see the metric used for being a liberal, Thats a quite broad statement.

I'd love to argue the points. What I don't consider "arguing the point" is claiming "its logical, they are educated and intellegent, so they should lean left". That is not arguing the point.  Newspapers reporter demographics are not representing the demographics of the rest of the US.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 19, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> What I DON'T like is the elitist view of the left, the insinuation that those not agreeing must be less intellegent. The insinuation that those "educated" would logically be left leaning. I'm a semester short of a PhD. Most of my PhD friends (those that are citizens anyways) actually lean to the right. They are some of the most educated and intellegent people I know. So, 52% of the US citizens that voted for Bush are uneducated? (forget exact %, correct if wrong). They could have presented someone who could have beat Bush (Lieberman. Shoot, I would have considered voting for him).
> 
> People have different views. Deal with it. Discuss the issues, but don't make clever posts insinuating "Intellegent people lean left". That adds nothing to the conversation and is entirely pointless.
> 
> ...


 
I'll see if I can find some of these studies.  The big disconnet I see is the fact that Republicans certainly have more money then democrats and that since education costs money, they should be more educated.  Of course, the Republicans have increasingly become the part of Walmart, so this could reverse that trend.

However, since we are throwing out some anecdotes, I'd have to say that when I was in grad school, I was hard pressed to find a republican.  As an undergrad, it was even more difficult.  Most of my professors were leftists and I can probably name less then a hand full that were right-wingers.  I'm from MN though, and that state tends to lean left, so I suppose that probably makes a huge difference.


----------



## mrhnau (Dec 19, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I'll see if I can find some of these studies.  The big disconnet I see is the fact that Republicans certainly have more money then democrats and that since education costs money, they should be more educated.  Of course, the Republicans have increasingly become the part of Walmart, so this could reverse that trend.
> 
> However, since we are throwing out some anecdotes, I'd have to say that when I was in grad school, I was hard pressed to find a republican.  As an undergrad, it was even more difficult.  Most of my professors were leftists and I can probably name less then a hand full that were right-wingers.  I'm from MN though, and that state tends to lean left, so I suppose that probably makes a huge difference.



Location does make a big difference. I'm from NC, but I don't know any local NC residents in grad school here. I can find Dems here, but most of the people I spend time with are Reps (probably part of why I hang out with them). Indeed, anecdotes are not the whole truth, since its purely regional, but its still interesting conversation.

With regard to Republican money, that does seem a bit backwards, though I'd argue Reps do value education as much as Dems.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 19, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> What I DON'T like is the elitist view of the left, the insinuation that those not agreeing must be less intellegent. The insinuation that those "educated" would logically be left leaning. I'm a semester short of a PhD. Most of my PhD friends (those that are citizens anyways) actually lean to the right. They are some of the most educated and intellegent people I know. So, 52% of the US citizens that voted for Bush are uneducated? (forget exact %, correct if wrong). They could have presented someone who could have beat Bush (Lieberman. Shoot, I would have considered voting for him).
> 
> People have different views. Deal with it. Discuss the issues, but don't make clever posts insinuating "Intellegent people lean left". That adds nothing to the conversation and is entirely pointless.
> 
> ...


 
You seem to be confusing the term 'Intelligent' with 'Educated'. 
They are not synonyms. Yet you seem to be using the interchangably.


----------



## Brother John (Dec 19, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The big disconnet I see is the fact that Republicans certainly have more money then democrats and that since education costs money, they should be more educated.
> 
> I was hard pressed to find a republican. As an undergrad, it was even more difficult. Most of my professors were leftists and I can probably name less then a hand full that were right-wingers..


 
My first question: What facts can you sight to support your first premise.... that "Republicans certainly have more money than democrats". Just wondering if this is your presumption or some quantifiable fact. From my experience, it's the opposite.

second: The next section about your classmates and instructor's political 'leanings'.... how do you know? Honestly, not trying to be argumentative...I've got respect for you NYK, but I'm just trying to get a handle on how you'd know that much about That many peoples political beliefs without guessing.

Thanks

Your Brother
John


----------



## arnisador (Dec 19, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> THAT they are educated has nothing to do with the politics of reporters. They got the education they did because they leaned to the left.


 
I expect that's probably true--that the education is more of a correlation than a causation. Those who disagree with the prevailing viewpoint self-select out. The current Chronicle of Higher Education has an interesting article on schools of education and social work taking a more active stance--weeding out those who will not work for 'social justice' as they define it (that is, weeding out conservatives).



> Moreover, conservatives tend to avoid teaching positions in academia, for a whole host of reasons, a job seemingly preferred by liberal professors. In addition, those with a capitalist bent tend to flock to careers where money is to be made. Conservatives also tend to be overrepresented in mathmatics, engineering and hard sciences.


 
This is certainly true of those in engineering and business, but I think it's less true of mathematicians and scientists, who do after all come out of the liberal arts tradition. Still, they tend not to be as liberal as those in, say, the humanities.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 19, 2005)

http://www.dailylobo.com/media/paper344/news/2004/03/11/News/Study.Unm.Professors.Mostly.Democrats-631740.shtml?norewrite&sourcedomain=www.dailylobo.com



> The group released the results of a four-month study Wednesday that found 83 percent of registered professors at UNM are Democrats, 11 percent are Republicans and 6 percent are classified as other.


 
http://www.ncpa.org/iss/gov/2002/pd090502c.html



> A recent survey issued by the Center for the Study of Popular Culture and the American Enterprise Institute reveals that the overwhelming majority of college professors are registered Democrats, and that they teach in disciplines where politics matters the most. It has prompted considerable comment.
> 
> It found that:
> 
> ...


----------



## mrhnau (Dec 19, 2005)

Hard pressed to see those kind of statistics in other industries, except certain parts of the press. I wonder how things like that would line up with the Equal Opportunity crowd?

Great way to propogate your cause.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 19, 2005)

It's an embarrassment. We talk about cultural diversity all the time but no one strives for _intellectual _diversity of this sort. Having 80%+ of faculty Democrats when it's more like half-and-half in the general population is worrisome to me.


----------



## mrhnau (Dec 19, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> You seem to be confusing the term 'Intelligent' with 'Educated'.
> They are not synonyms. Yet you seem to be using the interchangably.



Not confusing, but indeed using interchangably. Though not synonymous, often related. Not always the case though. School is just one metric that can be used to gauge intellegence. Not the only, and not always accurate. Met a few brilliant people who had a hard time in high school. :asian:


----------



## ave_turuta (Dec 19, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> What's more, conservative views haven't traditional sold papers.  What sells papers is populist rhetoric.  The man on the street buys papers that play to his sense of alienation, and tells him that someone else is 'out to get him'.
> 
> That's my 'fair and balanced' interpretation.



I think it all depends on how you define "left" and "right." For the average European, all American newspapers can be considered center or center-right. I do not think there is a single newspaper that would be termed "leftist" by European standards. European newspapers are FAR from "populist rhetoric," as you term it, yet they still sell (I scan on average and because of my work through several newspapers daily, amongst them: La Vanguardia, El Pais, El Diario Montanes, ABC, El Periodico de Catalunya and El Mundo in Spain - occasionally I may read the basque journal GARA and others . of these, only El Pais and El Periodico are considered leftist, the rest are center to conservative, such as ABC or El Mundo); i also read The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph in the UK; Le Figaro and Le Monde in France; and Haaretz  (leftist) and the Jerusalem Post (conservative) rom Israel.  

Do I do this because I am "educated"? Actually, my level of education has nothing to do with it. My father is an unskilled, uneducated worker (he only finished elementary school). Yet every day two different newspapers entered our home: one conservative (published regionally), one progressive (published nationally). That's how I and many other Spaniards grew up. All my friends have the daily habit of buying the newspaper, two if they can afford it. At home, we also watched two newscasts: the 8:30 on a progressive channel; the 9:00 pm one on national TV, which was alternatively progressive or conservative depending on which government was in place at the time (still is this way). Citizens of Sweden, Finland, Germany and other European nations are used to buying newspapers on a daily basis, paying 1 euro or more for them (many also read them in bars, etc.) Europeans newspapers carry, surprisingly, news. The Washington Post, instead, is 35 cents worth of very brief columns that run for about one fifth of a page next to a gigantic hecht's commercial for their weekend sale. American media offers 24 hour continuous "news" coverage: symptomacially, though, stories like that of the "runaway bride" story was newscast over and over and over and over and oooooooooover again on all channels (fox, cnn, whatever); never mind that there are others, more important things to cover. As much as the average American may watch a lot of television or read a lot of stuff, I wonder if the overflow of information has not resulted in Americans reading more of the same instead of diversifying their sources. It seems to me much of the US media is preaching to the converted (you only need to compare the tough questions asked on BBC, for example, to the apparently aggresive but insubstantial converage of many similar programs on CNN or Fox News). I simply do not think the problem with US media is that it's "biased" (conservatives will say the media is too progressive, and progressives will make the argument it is too conservative). I just think the root of the problem is the increasing lack of diversity in the media across the nation.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 19, 2005)

ave_turuta said:
			
		

> I just think the root of the problem is the increasing lack of diversity in the media across the nation.


 
With the Clear Channel type of consolidation happening everywhere, the number of voices is being reduced.  Sure there are small outlets, but the big ones are the ones that make a difference.


----------



## mrhnau (Dec 19, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> With the Clear Channel type of consolidation happening everywhere, the number of voices is being reduced.  Sure there are small outlets, but the big ones are the ones that make a difference.



I tend to think the opposite is happening in the US. With the advent of the internet and alternatives to the standard m edia popping up everywhere, I think diversity is starting to emerge. Used to be that the big three (ABC, NBC, CBS) and a few large papers (NY Time, Washington Post, ect) had control of what 90%+ of all US citizens read. Media such as Limbaugh, Hannity, Fox News and blogs have all emerged as alternatives to the standard view on current events. I think thats good. You might not agree with some of the views being presented, but at least their voices are getting out there and opposing the historically liberal media. Its kind of refreshing... more extreme liberals have emerged as counter points, and I welcome them too. I'd rather have a choice of what I listen to/read. Blogs in particular are interesting, since they are hard to regulate and just about anyone can write one these days. now, you need to be careful of course, but its interesting to see what everyone thinks 

MrH


----------



## ginshun (Dec 19, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> It's the education level. Most folks who write for these institutions are college educated and tend to lean left because of it.




Right, because we all know that only illiterate, slack jawed, "I quit ma schoolin' in the 6th grade", rednecks are conservatives.

Certainly somebody that went to college couldn't be anything but a liberal.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 19, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> sgtmac_46 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 19, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> I tend to think the opposite is happening in the US. With the advent of the internet and alternatives to the standard m edia popping up everywhere, I think diversity is starting to emerge. Used to be that the big three (ABC, NBC, CBS) and a few large papers (NY Time, Washington Post, ect) had control of what 90%+ of all US citizens read. Media such as Limbaugh, Hannity, Fox News and blogs have all emerged as alternatives to the standard view on current events. I think thats good. You might not agree with some of the views being presented, but at least their voices are getting out there and opposing the historically liberal media. Its kind of refreshing... more extreme liberals have emerged as counter points, and I welcome them too. I'd rather have a choice of what I listen to/read. Blogs in particular are interesting, since they are hard to regulate and just about anyone can write one these days. now, you need to be careful of course, but its interesting to see what everyone thinks
> 
> MrH


 
Here is an opposing viewpoint from a guy whose in the business.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0407.turner.html




> Today, media companies are more concentrated than at any time over the past 40 years, thanks to a continual loosening of ownership rules by Washington. The media giants now own not only broadcast networks and local stations; they also own the cable companies that pipe in the signals of their competitors and the studios that produce most of the programming. To get a flavor of how consolidated the industry has become, consider this: *In 1990, the major broadcast networks--ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox--fully or partially owned just 12.5 percent of the new series they aired. By 2000, it was 56.3 percent. Just two years later, it had surged to 77.5 percent*.
> In this environment, most independent media firms either get gobbled up by one of the big companies or driven out of business altogether. Yet instead of balancing the rules to give independent broadcasters a fair chance in the market, Washington continues to tilt the playing field to favor the biggest players. Last summer, the FCC passed another round of sweeping pro-consolidation rules that, among other things, further raised the cap on the number of TV stations a company can own.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 19, 2005)

Brother John said:
			
		

> My first question: What facts can you sight to support your first premise.... that "Republicans certainly have more money than democrats". Just wondering if this is your presumption or some quantifiable fact. From my experience, it's the opposite.


 
From what I've been able to google, the information is pretty clear, on average Republicans make more money then democrats.  Many democrats are living below the poverty line and this more then offsets the "liberal elites" income.



> second: The next section about your classmates and instructor's political 'leanings'.... how do you know? Honestly, not trying to be argumentative...I've got respect for you NYK, but I'm just trying to get a handle on how you'd know that much about That many peoples political beliefs without guessing.


 
Either we talked about it or they did something that was a dead giveaway like wear a campaign pin.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 20, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Why?
> 
> Studies have shown that people who attend college, generally, have higher incomes than those who do not.
> 
> ...


 Wait, I thought Republicans were 'rich and mean'.  Now we're claiming that those with an education make the money, and most of them are liberal?  'Dude, that's weird'. :rofl:


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 20, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> It's an embarrassment. We talk about cultural diversity all the time but no one strives for _intellectual _diversity of this sort. Having 80%+ of faculty Democrats when it's more like half-and-half in the general population is worrisome to me.


 I think you folks are looking at this all wrong.  Who are you reliant upon for a pay check in academia?  What political parties promise to spend more on arts and education?  Therefore, if your paychecks and research money are reliant on government, who are you going to vote for, someone who promises to cut taxes and waste (regardless if they actually do) OR someone promises to RAISE taxes and spend more on art and education?  It's a simple equation, follow the money.

It's the same with government media, like Public broadcasting and NPR.  As those are funded by government, to a large extent, then they are going to support political groups that they believe will more likely support their programs in the future.  They are also going to oppose any political group that is supportive of free market, because government employees do not want to have to compete with the private sector.

Anyone who wants to see the effect of this outside the US, look at government controlled media in Canada (CBC, for example) or Great Britain (BBC).  That they lean left will be illustrated by the political leanings of the people who attack this post defending them as centrist and balanced. (But I digress).   That they receive government funding is a HUGE deciding factor on how far left they support candidates.  Left wing political parties will be supported by these groups, because they know that left wing parties that win elections, WILL support them with more tax dollars.  Again, follow the money.


This is why we ALSO hear so much complaining among public broadcasting news sources about 'Corperate control' of media.  Again, those who work for the government, mostly hate private competition.   In their world, 'Corperation' and 'Private enterprise' are four letter words.  

It's also why leftists in the US seem to admire the BBC and CBC so much...because it's a symbiotic relationship.  Leftists can count on public broadcasting to back the left, and public broadcasting can count on leftists to back them when they gain political power.  Isn't that right Garrison Keillor?


----------



## ave_turuta (Dec 20, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> Right, because we all know that only illiterate, slack jawed, "I quit ma schoolin' in the 6th grade", rednecks are conservatives.
> 
> Certainly somebody that went to college couldn't be anything but a liberal.



Well I hope you are kidding. I have had several years of teaching experience at an elite college. My partner has taught at a community college for mor ethan 7 years. The reality I have found is that today a sizeable part of the student body in colleges across America is staunchly conservative (I dare not mention statistics). 

As for my own experience: I am a progressive, and openly so. My students know it, and so do my colleagues. However, perhaps people should be more careful before accusing college professors of "liberal bias" and so on. I have had 400 plus students. Many of them were members of the College Republicans; two of them, actually, were at the forefront of the organization while taking my course (a course on middle east history, not exactly en easy or palatable topic if you are in charge of teaching it today). Well, these two students specifically requested to be assigned to my sections during the second semester because they had truly enjoyed my lectures during the first. I like to think of the educational process as a socratic enterprise, where dialogue and respect for each other´s views conform the basis of the acquisition of knowledge. My students (hopefully) will learn something from me, but I can tell you that I have learnt as much or even more from my interaction with them. I actively and knowingly encourage my students to be open about their views when and if it is relevant to the discussion at hand: nobody (neither them, not me) should be afraid of speaking their minds. That´s what we supposedly do in college. My assignments have very specific annotations on how the grading will be based on the **academic** probity and quality of their work, not on the ideas expressed in them. And most certainly, I make sure my students know that, if anything, the classroom is and should always remain a SAFE place for everyone to speak out their minds. I have had numerous students with whom I disagree politically ask me which other courses I am teaching, come after class and talk about very diverse topics, etc. etc. Never - I mean never - have I had a complain of bias. This in a class where we must tackle eveyrthing from 19th century colonialism to the Arab-Israeli conflict to the problem of terrorism and Islamism. It is a very encouraging experience to see kids who came into the classroom with an enormous amount of prejudices and biases (Muslim and Jewish students not wanting to talk to one another, etc.) and seeing how throughout the semester they gain a more grounded, humanist view of things. Sometimes tension arises: these are very emotional topics for many of the kids, but I try to make sure that everyone stays grounded on the historiographical debates at hand. And hey, at the end of the semester, we all eat nice American donuts. 

I cannot speak for any of my colleagues, but I can assure you that there are many professors out there who, no matter where their political ideas lie, are prodiving a sound education to college students regardless of political affiliation.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 21, 2005)

Well, i'd have to agree with you partially.  I had a college history professor who was a card carrying 1960's era 'hippie'.  He and I became pretty good friends, though we often disagreed.  His area of expertise was the Civil war era and the reconstruction era.  I thoroughly enjoyed his discussions, and he did his best to ensure that all sides of the issues were examined.

That having been said, I had a couple of psychology and sociology classes professored by leftists who were quite adamant that they were correct on every issue.  I bucked the system pretty hard, but still managed to walk out with A's in those classes.  

At any rate, we can always disagree, that's human, but I prefer it when we can do so with some level of civility.  :asian:


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 17, 2006)

Theban_Legion said:
			
		

> Well, here it is in black and white:
> 
> http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664
> 
> ...


 
Eric Alterman, author of the book 'What Liberal Media' has taken a closer look at this study. He has assembled a nice review of the 'methodology' used in the study, which point to a less-than-scientific quality to the work.

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=1347483



> For instance, the researchers looked at the news content of _The Wall Street Journal_s news pages  finding it the most liberal of the bunch  for a mere four months in 2002, while CBS News, which comes in as the second most liberal news organization, was studied for more than 12 years. One cant come to any other conclusion than that this huge discrepancy in length of study represents a major analytical flaw.


 
I mentioned earlier I thought the methodology sounded a bit wierd.... http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=470942&postcount=14 ... guess I was correct.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 17, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Eric Alterman, author of the book 'What Liberal Media' has taken a closer look at this study. He has assembled a nice review of the 'methodology' used in the study, which point to a less-than-scientific quality to the work.
> 
> http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=1347483
> 
> ...


 So someone who has written a book taking an opposite view, is attacking the validity of the research?  I'm shocked.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 18, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> So someone who has written a book taking an opposite view, is attacking the validity of the research? I'm shocked.


 
Spoken with the confidence of faith.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 19, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Spoken with the confidence of faith.


 Faith in your desire to debunk anything that runs contrary to your beliefs, regardless of any inconvenient facts to the contrary.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




As for the liberal media, it seems they're determined to follow the old saw 'The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he didn't exist.'  

I suppose it would be important to proclaim 'What liberal media bias?' at the top of their lungs.  Deny everything, demand proof, make counter accusations.  It's hard to persue an agenda, when someone pulls the curtain back and reveals the Great Oz is nothing....but a hack political agenda.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 19, 2006)

Do you care to discuss the 'validity of the research'? 

Research using different time periods of measure among subjects of study questions the validity of research. 

Wall Street Journal - 4 months
CBS News - 12 years
Time Magazine - 2 years
U.S. News & World Report - 8 years.



> "What are we to make of the validity of a list of important policy groups that doesn't include, say, the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the AFL-CIO or the Concord Coalition but that does include People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals?"


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 19, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Do you care to discuss the 'validity of the research'?
> 
> Research using different time periods of measure among subjects of study questions the validity of research.
> 
> ...


 If you're first define 'Fake, but accurate'.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 20, 2006)

OK ... so another "I'm not going to discuss what I don't want to discuss". 


By the way ... did you see the "Liberal" Chris Matthews, on the "Liberal" Hardball, compare Osama bin Laden to Michael Moore yesterday? 

Anectdotes are hardly useful in discussing a research study, but Liberal? Yeah, right.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 21, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> OK ... so another "I'm not going to discuss what I don't want to discuss".
> 
> 
> By the way ... did you see the "Liberal" Chris Matthews, on the "Liberal" Hardball, compare Osama bin Laden to Michael Moore yesterday?
> ...


 Kind of hard to discuss the media, without using 'anecdotes'....unless you know of a more 'objective' way of determining bias.  Of course, simply claiming that because you can't do it without 'anecdotes' certainly is a convenient way of dismissing it entirely.  

What you are, in fact doing, is simply altering the standards of the discussion to make it impossible to even agree on the baseline.  All your goal is, for your part, is obfuscate the issue.  What else is new.

I think the evidence, however, is pretty compelling that there exists a media bias.

As far as 'Hardball' and Michael Moore being like Bin Laden is considered, it is claimed that Chris Michael's is 'liberal' not entirely blind.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 21, 2006)

Actually, it would be possible to discuss the media using the facts presented in the research. Research is (or should be) based in the realm of science. Anectdotes live in a realm outside of science, which is why they are not appropriate to use in concluding whether a bias a) exists or b) is tilted in one direction of another. 

One of the principle understandings of science, one of the things that makes science 'objective' as opposed to 'subjective', is that subjects are treated equally. 

How can this supposedly objective, scientific study be considered legitimate when the sample period of the test subjects is so widely varied? 

How does asking this question obfuscate anything?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 21, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Actually, it would be possible to discuss the media using the facts presented in the research. Research is (or should be) based in the realm of science. Anectdotes live in a realm outside of science, which is why they are not appropriate to use in concluding whether a bias a) exists or b) is tilted in one direction of another.


 Obfuscate the truth, the whole truth, and tell nothing even resembling the truth.  Bury it all under a very convoluted argument.  



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> One of the principle understandings of science, one of the things that makes science 'objective' as opposed to 'subjective', is that subjects are treated equally.


 Oh, I know about the principles of science, though even that can be manipulated.  For example, your 'objective' standards aren't really objective at all.  It is necessary, when examining something 'subjective' like bias to arbitrarily determine a criteria for what is judged 'bias'.  Therefore, any standard we pick, is inherently subjective either way.  So, the very claim that you require any argument you disagree with to be 'objective' while ignoring the fact that the very research you agree with as being equally 'subjective', merely shows the real motive of your argument.  It's a wash. 



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> How can this supposedly objective, scientific study be considered legitimate when the sample period of the test subjects is so widely varied?


 It's as objective as the study purported to show NO media bias, no more no less.  Either way, they are founded are abitrarily determined points of research.  Each picked their own standard of 'bias' and worked from that point.  



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> How does asking this question obfuscate anything?


 Your entire purpose is to obfuscate any argument supporting an obviously biased media.  When statements made by 'entertainers' about the president become front page news, it's obvious that someone has an agenda, whether you acknowledge it or not.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10964067/

I note, with special emphasis, the need to add, when showing someone disagreeing with the president, that the person speaking is a 'former veteran'.  What that has to do with the discussion, I really don't know, but it does show a consistent agenda to elevate the speakers authority in some way.  It's clear this is consistent from the John Kerry 'Reporting for duty' to present.  Somewhere along the way, some public opinion expert decided that it was necessary to paint any opposition to the president or the war on terror as coming from a 'veteran'.  More anecdotes, but again, what you prefer are manipulated 'statistics' disguised as science.  I emphasize manipulated, as they are nothing more than a shell game made to appear to have the authority of science.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 21, 2006)

So, do you want to talk about the study or something else? 

Troll


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 22, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> So, do you want to talk about the study or something else?
> 
> Troll


 I have been talking about the study.  I've actually been talking about the study, and the study you cited as 'proof' that the original study was biased.  I made the clear assertion that you were mistaken in claiming that 'anecdotal evidence' is not admissable in this discussion, as ALL evidence pertaining to media bias is 'anecdotal'.  I further made the claim that any discussion of the issue is, of necessity, subjective on both sides, because any standard of measurement devised to test 'bias' is arbitrary, and hence, subjective.  I further stated that your pretention that you had some 'scientific evidence' about the nature of media bias was, in essence, bogus as any research on the method is subjective.  I think I made that clear.  If you disagree, please cite how.  

If, however, you want to simply fall back on childish name calling, I think this discussion has probably reached it's end.  

Good day to you, sir!!!   :rofl:


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 24, 2006)

Saw this list of Headlines collected by a blogger at the Huffingtonpost. It is very illuminating toward the 'Liberal Media'. 

_Bush presses case for spying ..................................._Chicago Tribune
_In defense of taps .................................................._Newsday
_Bush defends eavesdropping ...................................._Seattle Times
_Bush launches a bid to justify domestic spying ............_Boston Globe_
President opens offensive to defend domestic spying....._Houston Chronicle
_Bush Says Battling Terrorism Requires New Tactics ......_Bloomberg
_White House steps up defense of domestic spying ........_USA Today
_Dems rip Bush on wiretaps ......................................_Chicago Sun-Times
_I'M A TERROR TRACKER, NOT A SPY: BUSH .................._New York Post​Not a headline among them that explains possible violations of the law. We have a procedure to monitor communications in this country. It uses a court order to secure against violations of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. 

Mr. Eskow says that these two headlines are 'accurate' (as opposed to biased).

_Bush opens PR blitz on warrantless wiretaps..................._San Francisco Chronicle
_Bush Insists Warrantless Searches Are Legal And Vital ....._The Moderate Voice ​The President has by-passed the warrants required under the law. While knuckleheads like me can cry from the mountain-tops that it is obviously illegal, the responsible media in this country are not making that assertion. They recognize that question will be answered in Congressional Hearings, a Court of Law, or an Impeachment proceeding.

The fact is, the wire taps were undertaken without a warrant. There is no liberal spin in that headline. But, these last two headlines are accurate.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 18, 2006)

If it's Sunday, it's Conservative ... .

http://mediamatters.org/items/200602140002

Media Matters for America has recently reviewed and released this report. 

For those who really want to know.

http://mediamatters.org/static/pdf/MMFA_Sunday_Show_Report.pdf

http://mediamatters.org/static/pdf/MMFA_Sunday_Show_Report-Charts.pdf

Oh, yeah, and you don't have to pay to read this report.


----------



## Jeff Boler (Feb 20, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Saw this list of Headlines collected by a blogger at the Huffingtonpost. It is very illuminating toward the 'Liberal Media'.
> 
> _Bush presses case for spying ..................................._Chicago Tribune
> _In defense of taps .................................................._Newsday
> ...


 
What's amazing to me is that you would go to the Huffington Post looking for articles about media bias.  If there's ever been a site guilty of it one way or the other, that's it.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 20, 2006)

Jeff Boler said:
			
		

> What's amazing to me is that you would go to the Huffington Post looking for articles about media bias. If there's ever been a site guilty of it one way or the other, that's it.


 
The Huffingtonpost certainly has more liberal bloggers than conservative bloggers. The blog in question is not a news report. It is the *opinion* of the one blogger.

Take the opinions of the bloggers and weigh them against what you see. It's easy to attack the arguer, rather than the argument. 

Is the argument valid? 

The Fourth Amendment to the constitution says that 'No Warrants Shall Issue, except upon probable cause". The Administration, by searching without warrants, is violating the spirit of that Amendment, if not the actual letter of that Amendment.

Which headlines best represent the fact?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 20, 2006)

This I know is a bit off of the discussion, but the main stream media in the US today is not as motivated by liberal views or conservative views as it is motivated by sponsors. Bottom line, more viewers, more readers means more sponsors and more money. Truth and to some extent even politics have taken a back seat to the mighty dollar. 

Sensationalism sells, popular political views and extreme political views sell the days of Walter Cronkite are gone.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Feb 20, 2006)

_
 Which headlines best represent the fact?_

I thought the purpose of the headine was to sum up what the article was about?  If the article is not *about* something, why have the headline say that something, and if the article is not about what you want it to be about, that just means the article is written about some other facet of the total story that happened to be of focus for the writer.

It's like complaing about bias against Detroit because some stories about the superbowl don't mention Detroit


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 20, 2006)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> _Which headlines best represent the fact?_
> 
> I thought the purpose of the headine was to sum up what the article was about? If the article is not *about* something, why have the headline say that something, and if the article is not about what you want it to be about, that just means the article is written about some other facet of the total story that happened to be of focus for the writer.
> 
> It's like complaing about bias against Detroit because some stories about the superbowl don't mention Detroit


 
I'm not certain I gather the intent of your post. 

If the purpose of a headline is to "sum up" what the article is about, isn't accuracy an important part of that summation? 

By not accurately describing the dispute ... spying on Americans *without warrants* ... the argument is framed to generate a specific result.

I hope and expect that our government is taking prudent measures to find out what al Qaeda is plotting. We spend approximately one billion dollars a week on clandestine intelligence operations. I hope they are doing something with that money. 

However, I also expect the Constitution to be upheld and protected. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution says the government will not search my person or effects without a warrant. To do so is a crime. 

Without clearly conveying that fact, the headlines frame the argument as an unreasonable attack on President Bush, rather than a reasonable Defense of the Constitution.


----------



## tradrockrat (Feb 21, 2006)

This is one of the most disgustring threads I have ever read.

there is so little logic in these 4 pages of arguments that I don't know where to begin.  So forgive me for ignoring the main bulk of posts as I try to address the most stomach churning aspects I've read so far.

Education = liberalism.

First of all, I am a teacher with a bachelors, a masters, and four classes away from a second masters in education.  I also happen to believe wholeheartedly that there is a liberal media bias.  On top of that, I believe in moderate middle of the road politics (think McCain).  I am neither Democrat nor Republican.  I say this so that perhaps personal attacks upon my self and my politics can be avoided.  

Here are some of the points being made in this thread:

1. Education = Liberal.  Horse ****.  In fact the primary proof of this seems to be that educated people make money, and that liberals are rich.  Whatever.  I could have sworn that the rich were republicans - that's what I've been told my whole life by democrats.  This just shows that people make up whatever it is they want in order to justify their beliefs.

2. Teachers are Democrats, huh?  Well, yes- many are, but they live in an environment that depends upon the success of democratic party ideals and programs.  It's not education by itself that determines their politcal ideolgy but rather enlightened self preservation.  You'd loose your whole sense of teacher sterotypes if you knew how many private school teachers and non-public school teachers were Republicans.  If I was a public school teacher, I'd vote along lines that protect my union and my funding, wouldn't you?

3. Newscasters are educated?  Get a grip!  Sure they have an education, but that doesn't make them _*smarter*_.  

4. Colleges arouind the country are hotbeds of idealistic liberalism because they are all educated people.  Again - whatever.  This is simply not true, although citing a bunch of impressionable young citizens just learning about their political world as proof of you parties "righteousness" is pretty dumb if you ask me.  After all, many college students pick their party based on peer interaction, favorite professor, or any of a hundred other less than ideal inputs.  Not saying all of them do, but in my experience a substantial amount do.

5. This study is flawed.  Probably true, but do you really doubt the truth of media bias?  I guess some do.  


In short (too late, I know...) I get the distinct impression that a lot of the posts here are simply attacks and have very little  - if any - basis upon real opinions held by the posters.  In fact I really hope this is the case cause if not, some of you are just a few words off of some of the most fascist thinking it has ever been my misfortune to behold.

the Educatated are Liberals = the uneducated are conservative = the uneducated are of less value = conservatives are worthless = conservatives are a substandard group = uneducated are beneath us = those not like us are not our equals = those beneath us do not warrant equal rights = fetch wood for the fireplace, slave.

think about what you are implying here - please.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 21, 2006)

Well ... tradrockrat, thanks for your opinion. 

I am not certain that I have taken the same items from this thread as you have, and I question some of them. 

One thing I will say, is that John McCain is not a middle of the road Republican. He certainly is presented with that image, especially if you consider how popular he is on Sunday morning talk shows. But, when you examine his voting record, he is a pretty hard right conservative. He does speak his mind, and therefore has a great deal of respect across the American political spectrum. I am about as far left as you get on this board, and I have given money to his campaigns in the past. 

Also, as a Liberal Democrat, I do not think that being uneducated makes one a conservative. Nor do I think that being a conservative means one is uneducated. And I don't much care for the implication ... well, I guess you did more than imply, didn't you? 

As for Media Bias ... the right wing political machine decries it at every moment, not because it exists, but so that the media will "Balance" reports with hogwash. Think how many 'Evolution' discussions you've seen in the last year that didn't give weight to 'Intelligent Design'. Think how many stories have spun Abramoff's political donations into the Democratic Party ... (although Federal Records demonstrate Mr. Abramoff gave zero dollars to the Democrats). 

It's all about 'Working the Referees' ... or so says Eric Alterman. 

That most Americans don't have a ******** meter built into their heads, means that the Media Bias argument works ... diluting the real stories with the 'he said / she said' mentality.


----------



## tradrockrat (Feb 21, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Well ... tradrockrat, thanks for your opinion.
> 
> I am not certain that I have taken the same items from this thread as you have, and I question some of them.



And I thank you for a very thougthful reply.  As for the questions, i'm guessing that you address them in the rest of your post.

[quore]One thing I will say, is that John McCain is not a middle of the road Republican. He certainly is presented with that image, especially if you consider how popular he is on Sunday morning talk shows. But, when you examine his voting record, he is a pretty hard right conservative. He does speak his mind, and therefore has a great deal of respect across the American political spectrum. I am about as far left as you get on this board, and I have given money to his campaigns in the past. [/quote]

He does seem to have a solid reputation, doesn't he?



> Also, as a Liberal Democrat, I do not think that being uneducated makes one a conservative. Nor do I think that being a conservative means one is uneducated. And I don't much care for the implication ... well, I guess you did more than imply, didn't you?



Well, actually I was replying to this post:


> It's the education level.  Most folks who write for these institutions are college educated and tend to lean to left because of it.


 so I really didn't imply anything, just responded.  And believe me, I don't much care for the implication either.  The implication of this post is plain - educated = liberal.



> As for Media Bias ... the right wing political machine decries it at every moment, not because it exists, but so that the media will "Balance" reports with hogwash. Think how many 'Evolution' discussions you've seen in the last year that didn't give weight to 'Intelligent Design'. Think how many stories have spun Abramoff's political donations into the Democratic Party ... (although Federal Records demonstrate Mr. Abramoff gave zero dollars to the Democrats).



Here's where we disagree.  Spin is spin, bias is bias.  Both parties use spin (much to my regret), but I personally see a clear bias in reporting, regardless of what either side says.  I think that many confuse bias with fabrication or spin.  Here's my take on it:

Fabrication is outright lying - and you don't see that often in the news.

Spin is twisting the facts to make them seem to support your sides views.  It's a political thing - such as the fact that Abramoff is eminently attackable and defendable depending upon whos side you are on.  The news just reports the loudest spin.

Bias is choosing a side.  It's the thing that leads to otherwise respected newscasters releasing "news" that is unverified and ultimately untrue just because they* personally* disagree with the current political regime.  It also leads to very specific agendas and that leads to spin.



> It's all about 'Working the Referees' ... or so says Eric Alterman.
> 
> That most Americans don't have a ******** meter built into their heads, means that the Media Bias argument works ... diluting the real stories with the 'he said / she said' mentality.



I think that only those unwilling to question what they hear and unwilling to search for the motivation behind the story are the ones without that meter of yours.  I am not implying anything about you personally, but many people look for what supports their already existing beliefs and call all else ********, rather than approaching with a truely open mind, which is required in order for that meter to work properly.

What bothered me the most about this thread was the name calling and unreal mean spiritedness that I felt when reading so many of these posts.  I still feel that there is an elitest undertone to a significant portion of these posts, implying that if you aren't of one mind with the poster, you are somehow less.  I would love to find out I'm wrong, and I would love to have to apologize for the misunderstanding, but the first two pages of this thread...


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 21, 2006)

I will state it again. People with college educations tend to be more liberal in their political points of view. This is not my opinion. There are plenty of studies that demonstrate this. 

Being a journalist generally requires a college degree, which means that reporters, when surveyed personally would be fairly liberal. However, most of those reporters have editors who tend to be much more conservative. So, hopefully, within individual institutions, the biases negate themselves. 

Drawing an inference from these facts that somehow, conservative is 'less than' is offensive to me.


----------



## tradrockrat (Feb 21, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I will state it again. People with college educations tend to be more liberal in their political points of view. This is not my opinion. There are plenty of studies that demonstrate this.



I want to see them.  Could you cite them for me?  Specifically, I would like to see the long term study that differentiates between campus activism and long term party affiliation after graduation.  I've never seen one of those,  Just a bunch of self congratulatory articles wherein the media pats themselves on the back for being so "forward thinking" and educated.



> Being a journalist generally requires a college degree, which means that reporters, when surveyed personally would be fairly liberal. However, most of those reporters have editors who tend to be much more conservative. So, hopefully, within individual institutions, the biases negate themselves.



So editors don't need college degrees?  or lawyers, or doctors or any other professions that may contain educated Conservatives?  I say it again, their COLLEGE education has NOTHING to do with thier political leanings and to state otherwise is highly offensive to me!  I happen to teach American Government to high school seniors, and let me tell you something;  right there in black and white it states that studies in fact show that upbringing, environment, and LIFELONG EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS all play a part in political leanings and party affiliation.  Getting a college degree is nothing.  Not even mentioned.  Not once.  



> Drawing an inference from these facts that somehow, conservative is 'less than' is offensive to me.



Me too and that's my point!  Glad we agree on this at least.


----------

