T Nation

Another Study Finds Liberal Media Bias

BB (and the right wingnuttery),

You are in way over your head with this topic.

MSM caters to their corporate masters.

Faux News is the organ grinder for the GOP.

Get over it.

That is why I never watch network television.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I see most of the MSM leaning left and FoxNews leaning right.

Does that mean I am objective or not objective?[/quote]

No one cares…get over it.

[quote]hspder wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
I find your apoplexy over the fact that someone would even try to measure the political leanings of the media to be puzzling, to say the least.

Well, I find people creating pre-conceived notions silly, short-sighted and dangerous. If you’re reading a newspaper with a pre-conceived notion that it leans to the left or to the right, you’re going to add your bias to the equation, making objective analysis harder, not easier. And don’t tell me it’s that different from creating a bias in regards to race or gender or on anything for that matter. They have the same basic principle behind it.

Why is it something that gets me so riled up? Well, two main reasons:

Professional, because I’ve had multiple discussions with Stanford’s Admissions office in regards to this, and there have been multiple occasions where their use of averages, medians, and gross generalizations has gotten them to make decisions that I question to this day, and probably robbed me of some pretty great students, while letting some complete morons get in. Their excuses sound much like yours, and, honestly, I’m tired of it. I just hope they don’t end up like Berkeley, which is dying exactly because of years of asinine admission criteria.

Personal, because my wife’s two PhD’s are in the area of Statistics, and for several reasons she’s a particularly strong advocate against the kind of studies that these guys did, and some of her (scientific) arguments are very compelling… So I tend to be her proxy on that…
[/quote]

BOOYAH!

hspder,

You really are a piece of work.

Why do the liberals feel so threatened by this study? This isn’t news by the way. It seems like the only surprised individuals are the extreme left individuals like yourself.

And Marmadogg,

None of your posts even deserve a response. The lack of any coherent thoughts and semblance of intelligence in your posts is sad. Keep posting, your making a great name for anyone who calls themself a liberal. TSB!

[quote]randman wrote:
Why do the liberals feel so threatened by this study? This isn’t news by the way. It seems like the only surprised individuals are the extreme left individuals like yourself.[/quote]

a) I am not “threatened” by this study specifically. I never said I was. I do disagree with a lot of things specific by this study, but none of them threaten me. What I am very threatened by is ANY generalization or labeling, for the reasons I clearly explained above, none of which are specific to this study

b) I am far from surprised. At which point did I give you the impression I was?

c) You do realize that by continuing to label me as “extreme left” you are making my whole point, right?

I’d love to hear your wife’s critique of the study once it’s published (or if she wants to read the whole thing on the website link above).

[quote]randman wrote:
hspder,

You really are a piece of work.

Why do the liberals feel so threatened by this study? This isn’t news by the way. It seems like the only surprised individuals are the extreme left individuals like yourself.

And Marmadogg,

None of your posts even deserve a response. The lack of any coherent thoughts and semblance of intelligence in your posts is sad. Keep posting, your making a great name for anyone who calls themself a liberal. TSB![/quote]

Translation: You are a stupid liberal!

Response: If that tired cliche makes you feel better then by all means…wear it out some more.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

BostonBarrister wrote:
I find your apoplexy over the fact that someone would even try to measure the political leanings of the media to be puzzling, to say the least.

hspder wrote:

Well, I find people creating pre-conceived notions silly, short-sighted and dangerous. If you’re reading a newspaper with a pre-conceived notion that it leans to the left or to the right, you’re going to add your bias to the equation, making objective analysis harder, not easier. And don’t tell me it’s that different from creating a bias in regards to race or gender or on anything for that matter. They have the same basic principle behind it.

But the problem is they’re not creating any notions. They’re simply measuring behaviors and tendencies on an organizational level. You’re essentially taking the position that the measuring is in itself a bad thing. The data is just a tool, and the application of the tool can be a good or a bad thing, but it doesn’t make the data itself bad.

BTW, w/r/t race/gender etc., the problem isn’t the averages/means, the problem is that using them in certain ways violates peoples’ individual rights. There aren’t the same concerns in every case. Generally, I think we can agree that the more individual data you have on a particular item, the less applicable general information is – and that is how individual people should be evaluated, with information specific to the person, because of their individual rights. But again, I think that’s an inapplicable critique here.

Why is it something that gets me so riled up? Well, two main reasons:


Personal, because my wife’s two PhD’s are in the area of Statistics, and for several reasons she’s a particularly strong advocate against the kind of studies that these guys did, and some of her (scientific) arguments are very compelling… So I tend to be her proxy on that…

I’d love to hear your wife’s critique of the study once it’s published (or if she wants to read the whole thing on the website link above).[/quote]

mmmkay…

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I’d love to hear your wife’s critique of the study once it’s published (or if she wants to read the whole thing on the website link above).[/quote]

I’ll pass that along… I’m pretty sure she won’t want to use this specific medium though (it’s very limited, especially for Mathematicians, who refuse to use anything but tools like LaTex and gnuplot to write anything), but maybe I can convince her to write a short paper on it, convert it to pdf and put it somewhere that you can access. I’ll let you know.

I found the following rankings in this ‘research’ paper:

* [b]National Rifle Association of America (NRA) scored a 45.9[/b], making it "conservative" -- but just barely.

* [b]RAND Corporation[/b], a nonprofit research organization (motto: "OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS. EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS.") with strong ties to the Defense Department, [b]scored a 60.4, making it a "liberal" group.[/b]

* [b]Council on Foreign Relations[/b], whose tagline is "A Nonpartisan Resource for Information and Analysis" (its current president is a former Bush administration official; its board includes prominent Democrats and Republicans from the foreign policy establishment) [b]scored a 60.2, making it a "liberal" group.[/b]

* [b]American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)[/b], b?te noire of the right, [b]scored a 49.8, putting it just on the "conservative" side of the ledger.[/b]

* [b]Center for Responsive Politics[/b], a group whose primary purpose is the maintenance of databases on political contributions, [b]scored a 66.9, making it highly "liberal."[/b]

* [b]Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a defense policy think tank whose board of directors is currently chaired by former Representative Dave McCurdy (D-OK), scored a 33.9, making it more "conservative" than AEI and than the National Taxpayers Union.[/b]

The authors have previously received funding from the three premier conservative think tanks in the United States: the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI), The Heritage Foundation, and the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace. Groseclose was a Hoover Institution 2000-2001 national fellow; Milyo, according to his CV (pdf), received a $40,500 grant from AEI; and, according to The Philanthropy Roundtable, Groseclose and Milyo were named by Heritage as Salvatori fellows in 1997. In 1996, Groseclose and Milyo co-authored a piece for the right-wing magazine The American Spectator, titled “Lost Shepherd,” criticizing the then-recently defeated member of Congress Karen Shepherd (D-UT) and defending her successor, Enid Greene (R-UT); when the piece was published, Greene was in the midst of a campaign contribution scandal and later agreed to pay a civil penalty after the Federal Election Commission found (pdf) that she violated campaign finance laws.

Let’s wait for a peer review of this research article before it gets sighted as gospel.

More toilet paper from Scaife’s goons.

Boston:

Another very informative post and I thank you. However, at this point it should come as no surprise that there is a real media bias toward the left.

The only people who are now denying it are usually those who are on the far left and just hate the idea that the media has once again been “caught” read handed tilting to the left once again!

Apparently any media outlet that dares to do anything but echo line for line exactly what the administration feeds them is liberal.

Why can’t just ONE liberal on this thread just admit/confirm these findings? I don’t get it. If roles were reversed and most news outlets tilted conservative for many years and then there was this objective study to prove it; I would just react by saying “interesting” or “I guess my suspicions were right”. Why can’t ONE liberal just agree or confirm these findings??? I really am perplexed.

Although pretty unscientific to say the least, the liberalish folks I run with gladly admit that the mainstream media tilts left - and they defend it by saying it should be.

Now, a handful of my friends saying so is not a nationwide regression analysis, but I appreciate their honesty that, yes, it is liberal and, yes, it should be liberal.

But we considered a theory over drinks to explain why some shrieking Lefties are convinced the MSM is tilted to the right: the left-wing, so eager to believe every innuendo or conspiracy in the name of advancing their agenda, is so convinced of the truth of every story that bashes Bush, etc. - no matter how implausible or ridiculous - that when the MSM chooses not to report it, it therefore must be because the MSM is a tool of the right.

While I do think the MSM is biased in its news reporting, I think a problem bigger than political bent is lack of quality - the quality of news reporting, regardless of bias, sucks.

Just curious, does anyone know if globally there is a left bias in the media (excluding countries with dictatorships or other reasons to not go against the government)? I feel like there would be naturally, as media tends to be provacative and inflammatory for ratings purposes at least. Also, I would think a lot of journalists become journalists to create change in a progressive sense, or to fight injustice, etc.

[quote]veruvius wrote:
Just curious, does anyone know if globally there is a left bias in the media (excluding countries with dictatorships or other reasons to not go against the government)? I feel like there would be naturally, as media tends to be provacative and inflammatory for ratings purposes at least. Also, I would think a lot of journalists become journalists to create change in a progressive sense, or to fight injustice, etc.[/quote]

While I can’t speak to global media biases, I think you bring up a good point, on that my aforementioned friends brought up as well.

Wannabe journalists go into the field because they have something they want to accomplish. No one goes into journalism to simply report that the sun will yet again rise in the East again or somesuch - they want to seek out a story that shows an injustice or other ‘bad’ so they can shine a light in a dark place so it produces awareness and change, thereby helping their fellow man.

Nothing wrong with that on its face.

However, journalists have to be careful how they define what is bad and what is injustice, etc. because they are charged with the job of reporting to the people. They are supposed to be a little more neutral and judge the importance of a story by its context in the public it serves - and a little less motivated by what they personally think is important. I don’t think this can be done with mathematical precision, but if there is anything that truly exists called “journalistic integrity”, the journalists must hug the bank of neutrality as much as possible.

And, higher education doesn’t do much in the way of informing a great many of these journalist-trainees what is “bad” - the dogmatically driven curricula of the humanities creates a class of journalists who only speak the language of class/race/gender and of “speaking truth to power”. This is what their tuition pays for, and that is what they take into the world with them.

The other problem is that news reporting is fact and evidence based - tell what happened, who said what, and let people see the thing for what it is. When news reporters start applying their own analysis to the facts and evidence, they have ceased doing the job they are paid to do.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

While I do think the MSM is biased in its news reporting, I think a problem bigger than political bent is lack of quality - the quality of news reporting, regardless of bias, sucks.
[/quote]

Amen

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:

While I do think the MSM is biased in its news reporting, I think a problem bigger than political bent is lack of quality - the quality of news reporting, regardless of bias, sucks.

Amen[/quote]

I’ll third that!

The right wingnuttery has been working the ref for decades and liberals are finally starting to catch on.

Question to the right wingnuttery on this forum:

When doing a new segment on the Holocaust does the MSM have the responsibility of discussing an opposing viewpoint?

FYI - There is no opposing viewpoint for facts. Belief does not make something a fact.

Happy Holidays!