Bush comment...

I htink there's bias in the media on both sides, but the right wing spin is far more obvious. The recent Kerry fundraiser is a good example.

NY Post story previous post story


newsday report on same story

prior story


now read the

fox news version




If you read the Post stories and compare them to the Newsday sotries, the Post versions sound almost like editorials. You have to read between the lines ot figure out Newsday's bias. the Fox news version is somewhere in between.


No, Murdoch is not at all subtle -- so much for Fox's claim to be fair and unbaised.
 
FiK - What's your take on this, then? Study of Media Bias It's a report of a study undertaken by Stanford & UCLA to try to measure media bias. In the study itself, it says "Our results show a very significant liberal bias."
 
Originally posted by faithinkarma
. Listen carefully to how the stories are phrased...which adjectives are used in describing people...which interjections are slipped in so carefully.


That is just what I was thinking about posting here, do it while you are watching Peter Jennings, Dan Rather, and Tom Brokaw. They are slipped in and slanted all over the place. I agree that Fox news is much more conservative and they will always have a place for Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and the like because they have opinion shows, and unless I moved to China, we are allowed to voice our opinions here are we not?
 
we are allowed to voice our opinions here are we not?

I don't believe anyone has suggested no one is allowed to express an opinion



Jimbo, I am reading, not ignoring you. I will answer.
 

You're "proof" of a liberal bias in the media has more than a few problems.

First, the study determines "bias" by "count[ing] the times that a media outlet cites various think tanks."

That, in itself, is hardly a holistic picture of what would or would not be considered "bias." You don't have to site liberal think tanks to be biased.

Second, it's also interesting that the researchers only identify these three main weaknesses of their study:

"The back-of-the-envelope estimates are less than optimal for at least three reasons: (i) they do not give confidence intervals of their estimates; (ii) they do not utilize the extent to which a think tank is liberal or conservative (they only record the dichotomy, whether the think tank is left or right of center); and (iii) they are not embedded in an explicit choice model. We now describe a method that overcomes each of these three deficiencies."

IMO, their definition of what constitutes a "liberal" or "conservative" news report is very flawed and thus the research shouldn't be given too much weight. Unless, of course, you support the whole "liberal media conspiracy theory," right Jimbo! ;)
 
Originally posted by jennyanydots
I htink there's bias in the media on both sides, but the right wing spin is far more obvious. The recent Kerry fundraiser is a good example.

NY Post story previous post story


newsday report on same story

prior story


now read the

fox news version




If you read the Post stories and compare them to the Newsday sotries, the Post versions sound almost like editorials. You have to read between the lines ot figure out Newsday's bias. the Fox news version is somewhere in between.


No, Murdoch is not at all subtle -- so much for Fox's claim to be fair and unbaised.

They claim to be fair and balanced, not unbiased. I was surprised to see a more conservative bent out of the Post than usual. Fox had more quotes or as I like to call them facts to support that this was an inappropriate display.
 
Originally posted by ThreeCircles
You're "proof" of a liberal bias in the media has more than a few problems.

First, the study determines "bias" by "count[ing] the times that a media outlet cites various think tanks."

That, in itself, is hardly a holistic picture of what would or would not be considered "bias." You don't have to site liberal think tanks to be biased.

Second, it's also interesting that the researchers only identify these three main weaknesses of their study:

"The back-of-the-envelope estimates are less than optimal for at least three reasons: (i) they do not give confidence intervals of their estimates; (ii) they do not utilize the extent to which a think tank is liberal or conservative (they only record the dichotomy, whether the think tank is left or right of center); and (iii) they are not embedded in an explicit choice model. We now describe a method that overcomes each of these three deficiencies."

IMO, their definition of what constitutes a "liberal" or "conservative" news report is very flawed and thus the research shouldn't be given too much weight. Unless, of course, you support the whole "liberal media conspiracy theory," right Jimbo! ;)

OK...you said it for me. I would add that I have a problem with any report that praises the Drudge report.
 
/
Originally posted by Microcell
They claim to be fair and balanced, not unbiased. I was surprised to see a more conservative bent out of the Post than usual. Fox had more quotes or as I like to call them facts to support that this was an inappropriate display.

unbiased

adj 1: characterized by a lack of partiality; "a properly indifferent jury"; "an unbiased account of her family problems" [syn: indifferent, unbiassed] 2: without bias [syn: unbiassed]

how is unbiased different from fair and balanced?
 
Again I say to you...wait for the news next week. There will be not just statements but memos from the brass at FOX instructing how to present the news. The house is about to come tumbling down.

And not a moment too soon. Just because a source says what you want to hear doesn't make them "fair and balanced". How anyone can watch Faux News and call them an unbiased source is beyond me.

They claim to be fair and balanced, not unbiased.
:rotfl:

Could you possibly tell me the difference between "fair and balanced" and "unbiased"? While you're at it, please explain how one can be "fair and balanced" and "biased" at the same time.
 
It should be interesting on both sides

I completely agree...and I want the lies exposed no matter which side is doing it. The press in the US has much to answer for. Try reading some of the press around the world, and see the difference.

We all have become too complacent and accept too easily. Look how we all celebrated at the pictures of the throng of "thousands" tearing down the statue of Sadaam. And then long angle camera shots revealed the thousands to be fewer than 200.

Sometimes I feel like the people no longer have any voice at all. We are all just slaes to a media that distorts.
 
A senior FOX NEWS executive tells DRUDGE: "We have enough ammunition to nail both MSNBC & CNN."

Not that you can ever believe Sludge, but is this the best Fox can do?

Apparently even according to Sludge there won't be anything that disproves that Faux News intentionally slants their reports to fit the Republican agenda, simply a retailiation move that reportedly will show that 2 other news outlets are biased as well.

Fine with me. My point has never been than other news sources weren't biased, simply that Faux news is as or more biased than any of the others.

In my experience, there are a great many conservatives who believe if Faux News says it, it must be true. Apparently they're as bad as anyone else when it comes to being accurate.

Looks like we can kiss "fair and balanced" goodbye.
 
Originally posted by ThreeCircles
You're "proof" of a liberal bias in the media has more than a few problems.

First, the study determines "bias" by "count[ing] the times that a media outlet cites various think tanks."

That, in itself, is hardly a holistic picture of what would or would not be considered "bias." You don't have to site liberal think tanks to be biased.

Second, it's also interesting that the researchers only identify these three main weaknesses of their study:

"The back-of-the-envelope estimates are less than optimal for at least three reasons: (i) they do not give confidence intervals of their estimates; (ii) they do not utilize the extent to which a think tank is liberal or conservative (they only record the dichotomy, whether the think tank is left or right of center); and (iii) they are not embedded in an explicit choice model. We now describe a method that overcomes each of these three deficiencies."

IMO, their definition of what constitutes a "liberal" or "conservative" news report is very flawed and thus the research shouldn't be given too much weight. Unless, of course, you support the whole "liberal media conspiracy theory," right Jimbo! ;)
First of all, it's not "my" proof. It's the proof of a professor at the University of Chicago's School of Public Policy, and a professor at Stanford's Political Science department and UCLA's graduate business school.

And your opinion is that their method is flawed and shouldn't be given much weight. Well, who would know better than you, right? :rolleyes:

My opinion is that it's a well researched, scholarly paper with plenty of citations. And that their method does overcome the deficiencies that they cited. And that, overall, the media has a significant liberal bias.
 
Originally posted by faithinkarma
OK...you said it for me. I would add that I have a problem with any report that praises the Drudge report.
How did it praise the Drudge Report? It said it's left of center, but it also said that "all data for the Drudge Report comes from links to articles on other web sites. These other web sites included many liberal media outlets, including the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and USA Today. Therefore, it is not so surprising that the Drudge Report leans left."

As much as the liberals on this board despise the Drudge Report, his website is basically simply a page of links, is it not? And I see links to Ann Coulter and Jonah Goldberg, but also links to Joe Conason and Sidney Blumenthal. And everybody in between.
 
I get it now... saying someone is left of center means that you are praising them.
 
know what? There is more than one way to determine if reporting is accurate. By taking a look at the stories that are not reported. For example: which news networks are carrying the following stories?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/iraq/abughraib/swornstatements042104.html?g

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200407/s1150938.htm

http://pub.tv2.no/nettavisen/english/article249696.ece


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/afp/canada_saudi_us

or how about the "hints" claiming Kerry is profiting from the Heinz Ketchup dynasty which is alledged to outsource etc. This leading to the production of W ketchup so people can avoid Heinz and dip their freedom fries in good ole W ketchup which cost 12 bucks for 4 bottles plus 7.95 shipping?

Turns out that Kerry's wife has only 4% of the Heinz business. Plus, 98% of money contributed to political causes by Heinz went to the republicans http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.asp?strID=C00336040

Obviously we are never going to agree on this subject. But, for the record, my belief is that very soon much is going to be exposed and we will be shaking our heads in wonder that we could have been so easily misled.

If I am right, you heard it here first. If I am mistaken, I will be the first to say so.
 
Originally posted by Jimbo
And your opinion is that their method is flawed and shouldn't be given much weight. Well, who would know better than you, right? :rolleyes:

Perhaps this should clue you in...

Has the paper ever been published in a peer-reviewed, academic journal?

And, as I said, the most glairing flaw is the way that the researchers "define" bias. Something is only biased if they quote a liberal or conservative think tank?

It's also interesting to note that the researchers went to great lengths in metioning that they used an equal number of Gore voters and w voters in reading and determining their bias. And yet, they make no mention of their own political inclinations of affiliations. How strange.


My opinion is that it's a well researched, scholarly paper with plenty of citations. And that their method does overcome the deficiencies that they cited. And that, overall, the media has a significant liberal bias.


Yeah. I guess you could make the argument that this paper has merit. As if "plenty of citations" equals good research! :rotfl:
 
The two professors are presenting their study at the American Political Science Association in September. Is that a group of clowns?

Face it, if they had found no bias you'd think this was the greatest thing ever. When it goes the other way, it's for clowns.

You are the clown here. :rolleyes:
 
ok.....you guys want to sit around and toss insults, I am out of this one.
 
Um, no.

I'm not the one presenting this material as "proof" that there is a liberal bias in the media. I'm also not ignoring glaring holes in the research simply because it supports my position, as you seem to do.

The researchers, by their own admission, are not measuring media bias but rather the number of times a liberal or conservative think-tank is cited in various articles.

You're certainly free to believe anything you wish Jimbob, but you really should look into what you consider quality research.
 

PixFuture Display Ad Tag












Receive up to $1,000 in Onboard Credit and a Gift Basket!
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE








New Posts







DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter

Back
Top