Media Bias Revealed - Part XXIV

[Fairweather]

UCLA Study

[olyclimber]

Part what? That is a common tactic: using previously stated "facts" which have been either disproven or proven unreliable....so now we are on part XXIV! Wow! It must be true! You of course need this hyperbole to distract from the actual statement being made.

 

1. Hmmm....care to guess on the voting record of the authors of this "study"?

 

2. Their measurement methodology is unreliable. You find data to support anything if you already know what your results are when you start looking.

 

3. They are clearly out of step of with the speaking points. They are currently supposed to be calling anyone who who is critical of the current administration "Nazi sympathsizers".

[olyclimber]

those are the liberal talking points. now lets hear the conservative talking points.

[olyclimber]

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2534

 

"This approach is based on the problematic notion that politicians cite the think tanks that they most agree with rather than the ones whose citation will be the most politically effective—a problem the researchers acknowledge when they attempt to explain away some curious anomalies that their method produces. (The National Rifle Association comes out as a centrist group; the Rand Corporation turns out to be left-leaning.)"

 

but the koolaid does taste good.

[foraker]

As a scientist, these stupid little press releases often raise more questions than they answer.

 

I like how they say "Most of the outlets were less liberal than Lieberman". It's funny, too, since Lieberman is widely viewed as Bush's liberal lap dog. That's basically saying most outlets are centrist or slightly right of center....

 

The other fun point is noting that NPR is not nearly as liberal as the right claims it to be. Of course, if this study has bias to the right, that makes NPR even more centrist/slightly conservative in reality (mattp is vindicated on this one)

 

How did they "compensate for disproportionate representation"?

 

They're counting the Drudge Report as news?

 

It's odd that one of their primary metrics is references to thinktanks in articles and in speeches. Since the right controls Congress and the Whitehouse, there's no real reason for conservative think tanks to be quoted. Typically, the news is looking for reactions to lawmakers decisions. Thus, one would indeed expect that given the current balance of power in DC for the last 10 years, it's not surprising that reporters are seeking commentators from opposing views, in this case the left in order to provide 'balance'. In my view, this is kind of a zero sum game. The mention of a conservative piece of legislation and comment by the sponsor should balance the comment by some liberal think tank. Anyway, these details aren't given. Perhaps they were more sophisticated. Still, if true, the numbers don't indicated that the media is as strongly liberal as the right is constantly trying to impute.

 

"If viewers spent an equal amount of time watching Fox's 'Special Report' as ABC's 'World News' and NBC's 'Nightly News,' then they would receive a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news,"

 

Yes, all equally bad. :-P

 

It'd be interesting to see their statistics and experimental protocols. Did they have multiple people evaluating the same article in order to check for observer bias?

 

If anyone finds it and reads it, let us know.

[Fairweather]

Part what? That is a common tactic: using previously stated "facts" which have been either disproven or proven unreliable....so now we are on part XXIV! Wow! It must be true! You of course need this hyperbole to distract from the actual statement being made.

 

 

My "part 24" title simply mocks the fact that this subject has come up here many, many times before. Nothing more, Mr knee-jerk administrator.

Edited September 3, 2006 by Fairweather

[Fairweather]

If a study that comes from eduaction inc. doesn't hold water with you - one of the corporation's finest products - then I doubt anything will. Do you ever question or scrutinize the methodology of studies that provide comfort to and re-enforce your political mindset?

[olyclimber]

Part what? That is a common tactic: using previously stated "facts" which have been either disproven or proven unreliable....so now we are on part XXIV! Wow! It must be true! You of course need this hyperbole to distract from the actual statement being made.

 

 

My "part 24" title simply mocks the fact that this subject has come up here many, many times before. Nothing more, Mr knee-jerk administrator.

 

Page 1, Chapter 1 of the Conservative Talking Points Handbook: Keep saying it over and over again till you believe it is actually true. Others will too.

 

 

[Fairweather]

Page 1, Chapter 1 of the anti-establishment liberal talking points handbook: If you can't refute the facts, then attack the source.

[olyclimber]

"facts"

i did mention that the methodology they used is suspect. read the report yourself, and how they responded to the criticism....I'm sure you agree that the NRA is a "centrist" org, right?

[olyclimber]

But I bow to your superior debating skill and off to play with the kid before he starts his first day school. Have a good one Fairweather.

[foraker]

Sorry to disappoint Fairweather but you're simply bumping up against my scientific credentials, not any inherent ideological bias. Whenever I read studies like this, especially when announced in 'press releases', they instantly raise more questions than not. Do I question anything that bumps up against my ideological mindset? Sure I do. You might have heard of it. It's often referred to as 'critical thinking'. You might try it sometime. Except for one instance, you've been pretty bull-headed about your opinions. Do you have some particular problems with the questions that I raised or do you simply have problems with the fact that I asked them? Anyone interested in seeing such a study validated would be interested in seeing such questions answered. I think you are being a trifle over-defensive. If a controversial study actually solidly proved, after much scrutiny, that bias indeed exists then I'd be the first one to quote it. At this point, the article hasn't even been published yet. The fact that it made it through peer review isn't 'proof' that the results are valid. Doesn't the fact that I'm interested in reading it and getting other's opinions indicate an open mind on the issue? I still think my point about the amount of bias indicated by the study is likely to be small even if, as claimed by the authors, it is 'statistically signficant'. That would depend on their survey methodolgies, their statistical methods, etc. Why don't you try something for me: try looking at evidence of your own biases a little more critically for a change. Try looking at this study a little more critically, ask some hard questions about it rather than just swallowing it because it validatees your prejudices. You wouldn't believe the things I have on my bookshelf that I buy because they purposely challenge my thinking (though I admit I will never own anything by Ann Coulter or her ilk, or Al Franken for that matter). You ought to try it sometime.

[Crux]

And now for a sample message from the real liberal media:

 

"Dem Candidate Has Guts To Run Ad DCCC Pulled"

[Fairweather]

The difference between us, Foraker, is that I freely admit my biases, while you go on spouting ad nauseam about your critical thinking skills, science background, advanced degrees, and open-mindedness. Of course, JayB and Catbirdseat's academic talents are put aside (even mocked) when your biases butt up against their admittedly more balanced arguments. Other than you constantly telling us all about these critical thinking skills - which I'm sure you both possess and apply in your field - could you please demonstrate where you've ever shown any political reflection here? I just don't recall. As for me, again, so you'll understand; I am politically biased to the right. And I think its time that you faced your own biases and stop spouting this critical thinking self-assuredness - or give a demonstration thereof. It's called politics, Foraker, and although there's a degree available, we both know that it ain't really science.

[Crux]

Recommended reading:

 

Books:

 

Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking (8th Edition), by Browne & Keeley

 

A Concise Introduction to Logic (9th Edition), by Patrick Hurley

 

Websites:

 

The Foundation and Center for Critical Thinking

 

Evaluating Information -- Applying the CRAAP Test

 

:

[Fairweather]

Still waiting for you to post a Trip Report....or anything apolitical for that matter. Maybe when you're done polishing Foraker's knob, eh?

[foraker]

Only readable if you have a PhD, obviously....

 

(Translation: only interesting to those who are worried about scientific methodology, not those who are more interested in reading the titles and short abstracts of articles that validate their biases)

 

Shouldn't you be spending less time here and more time over on Ascensionist being Adamson's toady? I'm sure he misses you when you aren't drooling in his lap.

Edited October 6, 2006 by foraker

[tvashtarkatena]

When my friends bring up the subject of media bias, my response is "who cares?".

 

All media, by nature, have some bias embodied in both what they choose to report and how they choose to report it. Any human endeavor does.

 

I try to resist my natural tendency towards being a dumb-ass by triangulating news from those sources that maintain high journalistic standards. These publications (not much on TV that fits this category) vett their stories, frown upon reporter opinion, go in depth, offer a array of viewpoints on their Op Ed pages, and don't dumb down their stories so your cat can understand it. The quality of a publication, however, doesn't absolve the reader from consuming it with a critical eye.

 

The US is the best place on earth to find any kind of news you want, from Al Jazeera to the New Republic. Ultimately, it's the consumer's choice as to how well informed they want to be.

 

Having said this, I think we should do two things regarding media:

 

1) Enforce a resonable journalistic standard (for news) for media that control a public resource via an FCC license. Note that cable doesn't apply here.

 

2) Protect our free press at all costs. Without it, we'd never know WHAT our government is doing! The current wiretapping program has targeted foreign journalists, several of which have filed suit. Not a good democratic precedent.

 

Trying to 'reform' media is a bottomless rathole. Buyer beware. An activist's time would be much better spent on more specific and doable projects, such as getting out the vote, or, of course, spraying on this forum.

[Fairweather]

 

1) Enforce a resonable journalistic standard (for news) for media that control a public resource via an FCC license.

2) Protect our free press at all costs.

 

 

 

 

Brilliant! Your proposal will 'protect freedom of the press at all costs' and impose a government standard? An absolutely amazing proposal, Trash. I think you, of course, should write the standard. Hey, do you still think we should jail producers and editors like your friend, Crux, wants to do?

[lI1|1!]

bump for perceived great injustice

[chucK]

Washington Post "Fact checker" gives Moveon.org ad three Pinnochio's.

 

[ClimbingPanther]

tvash, you're forgetting that point #1 would do away with such fine establishments as the Weekly World News, which of course would break poor Dru's little heart!

[mattp]

When my friends bring up the subject of media bias, my response is "who cares?".

 

All media, by nature, have some bias embodied in both what they choose to report and how they choose to report it. Any human endeavor does. ...

 

I think I agree with your recommendations that follow, Tvash, but I can't at all agree with the intro. The shameful state of the American media is not only a disgrace, but it is a threat to democracy if you assume that a democracy is based on an informed public. How else do you explain the fact that some fairly intelligent people, including our dear friend Fairweather or even my card-carrying ACLU member of a father did not "get it" that Bush lied to take us into Iraq?

 

As we all know, the media presented the stories about how there was no uranium purchase in Africa, the aluminum tubes could not be used for a centrifuge, the meeting in Prague never happened, the intelligence was being systematically misrepresented in a manner favoring stories supporting invasion, the international inspectors were very clear there was no nuclear weapons program, etc. etc. etc. However, the fact that these stores were reported but overlooked by most Americans - even those who would otherwise be predisposed to be suspicious of a war plan such as this one - indicates that the manner in which they were presented was biased. Nobody with even a shred of intelligence failed to realize that Saddam had nothing to do with 911 and almost all the 911 hijackers came from Saudia Arabia, so I don't think you can just pass it off as a post-911 fog.

 

To take a more recent example: the news talked about Gonazlez' resignation for one day. I watched the Seattle paper for several days and saw no follow up; it was not even mentioned in that weeks "Week in Review" section of the New York Times. By contrast, the return of Hsu's campaign donations by Hilary Clinton was in the paper and on the radio every day for a week and a half. Maybe the bias here is not so much as liberal/conservative as it is incumbent/opposition candidate -- or in the case of the Iraq invasion just simply in favor of the sitting Administration (though it didn't seem to be that way when Clinton was in office) - but there is clear bias along side just poor quality and it distorts our view of events to such an extent that the American voter really can't be expected to make informed choices.

[Fairweather]

bump for perceived great injustice

 

Looks like most of the senate agrees with.....me. Dems included. MooovOn.org crossed the line.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297498,00.html

 

Should they be banished/banned? Hell no! Unlike brotha Matt, I think an informed public can decide for themselves.

 

 

Edited September 20, 2007 by Fairweather

[KaskadskyjKozak]

bump for perceived great injustice

 

Looks like most of the senate agrees with.....me. Dems included. MooovOn.org crossed the line.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297498,00.html

 

Should they be banished/banned? Hell no! Unlike brotha Matt, I think an informed public can decide for themselves.

 

 

The best part of this whole scandal is how the "fair and balanced" NYT offered a heavily-discounted rate for this ad. No, there's no bias there whatsoever.