Uh-Oh! Media bias confirmed by UCLA

[michaeledward]

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]

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.

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

 

[michaeledward]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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

Troll

 

[sgtmac_46]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.