Sign in to follow this  
Flagreen

Media: As Liberally Biased As Ever

Recommended Posts

From -http://www.mediaresearch.org/press/2004/press20040122.asp

MRC’s New Study of 2003 Coverage Proves Media as Liberally Biased as Ever

“The Al Frankens And Eric Altermans Of The World Made A Lot Of Money Last Year Selling The Myth That The National Media

Are Not Biasedâ€

  ALEXANDRIA, Va. --- A year-long study of the national media released today by the Media Research Center titled Still Liberal, Still Biased finds that the national media were as liberally biased as ever in 2003.

  “As a new election year begins, the news organizations that truly dominate the media landscape – such as the Big Three networks and influential newspapers such as the New York Times – remain what they have been for decades: allies of liberalism and enemies of conservative policies,†said Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center.

  “The Al Frankens and Eric Altermans of the world made a lot of money last year selling the myth that the national media are not biased,†Bozell said. “This month-by-month review lays out in stark detail how wrong they are.â€

Key Findings In The Year-Long Study Still Liberal, Still Biased

Economic Policy: All year, the media waged a campaign against taxpayers while pushing for ever-expanding government spending. The networks gave three times more airtime to liberal arguments against President Bush’s tax cuts than conservative rebuttals, emphasizing how “big†and “huge†those cuts were. But when the subject was a much larger federal handout for senior citizens, the same networks found critics who charged the giveaway of at least $400 billion was “still not enough.â€

Foreign Policy: The media showered skepticism on the elected defenders of American liberty, not the tyrants and terrorists who threatened us. Before the war in Iraq, journalists such as ABC’s Peter Jennings advertised their open hostility to President Bush’s policies. During the war, NBC had to fire one of its reporters for appearing on enemy-controlled Iraqi TV to declare the “failure†of the American war plan. After the war, journalists equated the alleged “quagmire in Iraq to the failed U.S. effort in Vietnam two generations ago. On the day of Saddam Hussein’s capture, Jennings pessimistically declared that “there’s not a good deal for Iraqis to be happy about at the moment.â€

Social Issues: The media marginalized believers in traditional values and celebrated the counter-morality of sexual progressiveness. On the 30th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, TV virtually ignored the well-attended March for Life. Supreme Court reporters contrasted “conservatives†with those supporting “gay rights,†as if conservatives were against “rights.†The networks also portrayed Gene Robinson, the first homosexual Episcopalian bishop, as a courageous pioneer.

Politics: The media showed extreme reluctance to portray liberal Democrats as ideologues and revealed their double-standard on character issues. Although he’s absolutely opposed to the war in Iraq and wants to reinstate the high tax rates of the Clinton era, numerous journalists rejected the notion that Howard Dean is liberal. As the California recall election approached, reporters such as Tom Brokaw – who refused to detail Juanita Broaddrick’s sexual assault charges against President Clinton – hypocritically confronted Arnold Schwarzenegger with last-minute groping allegations.

Comment - Some of the worst offenders are the wire services such as the AP and Rueters in my opinion. The Executive summary for the study can be found at the link above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering the "Media Research Center" is a conservative watchdog organization that was set up JUST to declare the media liberally biased, I guess I'm not to shocked that they put out press releases saying just that. From their own homepage:

The mission of the Media Research Center is to bring balance and responsibility to the news media. Leaders of America's conservative movement have long believed that within the national news media a strident liberal bias existed that influenced the public's understanding of critical issues. On October 1, 1987, a group of young determined conservatives set out to not only prove - through sound scientific research - that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values, but also to neutralize its impact on the American political scene. What they launched that fall is the now acclaimed --- Media Research Center (MRC).

Yawn, no news here people, move along...

Future Shock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Considering the "Media Research Center" is a conservative watchdog organization that was set up JUST to declare the media liberally biased, I guess I'm not to shocked that they put out press releases saying just that.  From their own homepage:

The mission of the Media Research Center is to bring balance and responsibility to the news media. Leaders of America's conservative movement have long believed that within the national news media a strident liberal bias existed that influenced the public's understanding of critical issues. On October 1, 1987, a group of young determined conservatives set out to not only prove - through sound scientific research - that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values, but also to neutralize its impact on the American political scene. What they launched that fall is the now acclaimed --- Media Research Center (MRC).

Yawn, no news here people, move along...

Future Shock

Attacking the messenger as opposed to the message aren't you?

Any comment as to the examples of bias which they give in the ariticle which I have quoted from above?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I looked at the actual study, and I have one question: it says that the results are based (at least for January) on "102 statements from reporters and sources on the ABC, CBS, and NBC evening newscasts, January 2-15, 2003." How was that sample of 102 statements selected? That is not specified anywhere that I see in the study. Is this listed elsewhere on the site? I admit I didn't search very long, but that information should really be at the start of the study: methodology is kind of key to any "sound scientific research."

Also of note, in "sound scientific research" one does not try to prove anything. One tests a hypothesis. But perhaps the PR writer for the site just doesn't know his ass from his elbow when it comes to "sound scientific research."

And let me be clear: until I fully understand the methodology, I consider the results to be interesting, but inconclusive of anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the full report it explains that what they did was track all of the braodcast news reports within a specific timeframe surrounding a particular story. The MRC report in other words is a compilation of several individual "reports" each surrounding the key news events of 2003.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

anybody that conducts such an experiment WITH AN EXPECTATION IN MIND is not to be trusted, period. proper scientists do not do that, neither should 'social analysts' or whatever they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course the media is baised.

The media also has to answer to the gov before letting some things loose. Our media is filtered.

People have their own biases.

"The media affects morale. It had to be controlled."

-Powell to PBS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I looked at the actual study, and I have one question:  it says that the results are based (at least for January) on "102 statements from reporters and sources on the ABC, CBS, and NBC evening newscasts, January 2-15, 2003."  How was that sample of 102 statements selected?  That is not specified anywhere that I see in the study.  Is this listed elsewhere on the site?  I admit I didn't search very long, but that information should really be at the start of the study:  methodology is kind of key to any "sound scientific research."

Also of note, in "sound scientific research" one does not try to prove anything.  One tests a hypothesis.  But perhaps the PR writer for the site just doesn't know his ass from his elbow when it comes to "sound scientific research."

And let me be clear:  until I fully understand the methodology, I consider the results to be interesting, but inconclusive of anything.

How on earth could one conduct a scientific inquiry into something as subjective as the political slant of a news story? Such a determination requires subjective evaluation on the part of those conducting the study - we're not talking about hair color or a person's height here.

Yes the author's of this study went into it holding the belief that the media had a liberal slant. But given that the subject of the study cannot be scientifically measured what difference does it make? In other words the study and it's subject are essentially matters of opinion - not fact. Nothing wrong with that provided that the authors do not attempt to pass it off as being anything other than what it is which in my opinion they do not.

So what is your opinion as to the poltical leanings of the media?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How on earth could one conduct a scientific inquiry into something as subjective as the political slant of a news story?

uh, by having a balanced panel?

Yes the author's of this study went into it holding the belief that the media had a liberal slant. But given that the subject of the study cannot be scientifically measured what difference does it make?

if you believe it cannot be objectively measured it why did you seek it out, read it, and post it? it's worthless. if people look specifically for evidence that they are right they're bound to find it.

So what is your opinion as to the poltical leanings of the media?

answer: i don't care. cnn seems liberal, fox seems conservative, other than that i don't really notice or care. i only monitor event reporting via google news, and i don't pay attention to (or care about) political pontifications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
uh, by having a balanced panel?

Oh? How do you select a "balanced" panel scientifically? It cannot be done. Yet it must be done if the work of the panel is going to be scientific.

if you believe it cannot be objectively measured it why did you seek it out, read it, and post it? it's worthless. if people look specifically for evidence that they are right they're bound to find it.

To me it has relevance as I agree with the authors idea of what is liberal and what is conservative as illustrated by the examples they give. In other words the study has meaning to me despite the fact that it is not scientific. Given that it is an opinion piece, it is no more worthless or worthwhile than is your opinion of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh? How do you select a "balanced" panel scientifically? It cannot be done. Yet it must be done if the work of the panel is going to be scientific.

you're being a tool. it's easy enough to get 10 people that consider themselves liberal and believe the media is conservative and 10 people that consider themselves conservative and believe the media is liberal. that would certainly be MUCH BETTER than having a 100% conservative-biased judgement panel.

Given that it is an opinion piece, it is no more worthless or worthwhile than is your opinion of it.

which is my point exactly. not worth mentioning or discussing, no more than what the 38 people that happen to be at the post office when i ship a package think about it. the fact that it was conducted and presented as a study is laughable to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you're being a tool. it's easy enough to get 10 people that consider themselves liberal and believe the media is conservative and 10 people that consider themselves conservative and believe the media is liberal. that would certainly be MUCH BETTER than having a 100% conservative-biased judgement panel.

Oh? I think not. Consider that one's own opinion of whether one is a conservative or a liberal is usually quite different than what others would describe him as being. In other words one own opinion of what one "is" - is also the result of a subjective evaluatuion. Therefore negating the possiblity of such a panel being scientifically chosen.

BTW - Do not refer to me as a tool again - ever.

which is my point exactly.  not worth mentioning or discussing, no more than what the 38 people that happen to be at the post office when i ship a package think about it.  the fact that it was conducted and presented as a study is laughable to me.

Your point is that your opinion is worthless? I disagree but then I may have a higher opinion of you that you do of yourself. But if you find posting in this thread to be a waste of your time by all means do not let me prevent you from leaving it all together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh? I think not. Consider that one's own opinion of whether one is a conservative or a liberal is usually quite different than what others would describe him as being. In other words one own opinion of what one "is" - is also the result of a subjective evaluatuion. Therefore negating the possiblity of such a panel being scientifically chosen.

if you will read the entire statement, you will see that i said that it would be much better, not that it would be 100% scientific. better is still better.

BTW - Do not refer to me as a tool again - ever.

lol, or what? would you like me to pm a map to my home so you can come get me mr. scary?

Your point is that your opinion is worthless? I disagree but then I may have a higher opinion of you that you do of yourself.

in the grand scheme of things, yes. perhaps of value to some people, but i certainly don't think it's worth making authorotative or debate-inducing posts about it. 'news: pepperoncinis and garlic olives are the best-tasting snack to eat this sunday.'

but i see no debate, only a waste of time by a bunch of biased individuals.

p.s. you can call me whatever you want

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if you will read the entire statement, you will see that i said that it would be much better, not that it would be 100% scientific. better is still better.

Methods are either scientific or they are not. There is no inbetween. Therefore that which you suggested has no more scientific value than the study which was done.

lol, or what? would you like me to pm a map to my home so you can come get me mr. scary?

No I said that because name calling is rude and unecessary. But considering that appeals to civility are likely to not have meaning to one such as yourself I chose to be direct rather diplomatic. Be advised however that I can make you burn inside until you puke if I chose to. And I will not hesitate to do so if need be. Let's be friends and not enemies. Life is too short.

in the grand scheme of things, yes. perhaps of value to some people, but i certainly don't think it's worth making authorotative or debate-inducing posts about it. 'news: pepperoncinis and garlic olives are the best-tasting snack to eat this sunday.'

Well then why on earth do you continue to post in this thread?

p.s. you can call me whatever you want

Well I prefer to be spoken to in a civil manner or not at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Methods are either scientific or they are not. There is no inbetween. Therefore that which you suggested has no more scientific value than the study which was done.

this is not an equation, it is a very human measurement. reducing bias increases the validity of the results. it would certainly be more credible.

i'm only going to pay attention to a study like this if it is done by an objective panel and it is not done with a point to make, only an observation. if it were a balanced panel, and the hypothesis was that 'the media has political bias', i would be much more willing to at least respect the results. if they found it did have bias, they could report which one it had. to say, 'i have a belief and i'm going to prove it' is no good for situations like these imho.

But considering that appeals to civility are likely to not have meaning to one such as yourself I chose to be direct rather diplomatic.

hollow orders followed by the word 'ever' are not appeals to civility, they are threats.

Be advised however that I can make you burn inside until you puke if I chose to. And I will not hesitate to do so if need be. Let's be friends and not enemies. Life is too short.

another threat.

Well then why on earth do you continue to post in this thread?

the same reason that the others with the same sentiments did: to illustrate the fact that 'studies' like these should not be given any credit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quick note: i was using this definition of tool: A person used to carry out the designs of another; a dupe.

the study is the design of the other, and you are the one attempting to carry it out. opinion citing opinion as evidence of 'fact'. it wasn't a blank insult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
this is not an equation, it is a very human measurement. reducing bias increases the validity of the results. it would certainly be more credible.

I disagree that you would have reduced the bias. In fact all that you would have done is introduce yet another unquantifiable variable into the mix - muddling the water yet further. The result may have appearence of being more credible but in fact it would have no merit to it than the original study did.

hollow orders followed by the word 'ever' are not appeals to civility, they are threats.

It was a demand and not an order. And I never said it was civil. It was intentionaly worded to be direct.

quick note: i was using this definition of tool: A person used to carry out the designs of another; a dupe.

the study is the design of the other, and you are the one attempting to carry it out. opinion citing opinion as evidence of 'fact'. it wasn't a blank insult.

If that is the case then I apologise. "Tool" also has another meaning as you know and short of an explanation as to one's meaning there is no way of knowing the way in which was intended when used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was a demand and not an order. And I never said it was civil. It was intentionaly worded to be direct.

so honestly, what is the best case scenario? you think i'm unable to respond to an appeal to civility, so you threaten me? how does that produce a positive outcome?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you even need to do a study? Just look at all the leftist causes that the Hollywood crowd always gives lip service to. Network news (CBS, NBC, ABC) is so biased (and shallow) that I would never watch it. During one portion of President Bush's speech the cameras cut away to a close-up of Ted Kennedy with a disgusted look on his face. Why? For what purpose? I don't agree with a lot of what Bush has done, but as a President during a State of the Union speech the media should at least have enough respect to keep the cameras focused on him. As for Kennedy, after Chappaquidick he should be in prison instead of sitting in the Senate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think you can have a 'balancced' view you're probably right. However the odds of that happening are next of none. Humans aren't machines, we have thoughts and feelings and it affects our judgement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree that you would have reduced the bias. In fact all that you would have done is introduce yet another unquantifiable variable into the mix - muddling the water yet further. The result may have appearence of being more credible but in fact it would have no merit to it than the original study did.

So, a study made to determine whether or not an opinion is true is just as credible of those doing the testing have already decided, or at least have a bias towards one side of the decision, as a study that has an equal number of people on either side of the fence? I'm not criticizing, I am asking.

Even without regard to the opinion of those doing the study, you cannot prove an opinion. If you could, it would not be an opinion. If it were declared as fact (i.e. "yes, the media is biased towards such and such philosophy" or "not it is not"), an endless cycle of getting nothing done would ensue, including definition debates, straw man counterexamples, etc. At best the final conclusion would be that some people agree that an individual station tends to, in certain time slots or with certain reporters/writers, have a slant towards some ideology, and that in other situations, that station may not in certain timeslots. It's like debating over the exact temperature of water that is considered "hot" vs. just "warm". Without a concrete and authoritative definition of hot and warm, the debate is meaningless, and without agreement on the definition, it has no authority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for Kennedy, after Chappaquidick he should be in prison instead of sitting in the Senate.

Is that all he is guilty of? Remember he has been a U.S. Senator for a really long time. :P

I agree that while the leader of country is talking.... the cameras should be on him/her. Very disrepectful. But common practice.

Everyone has a bias. I call it an "opinion"

I am heavily biased in my beliefs. That's why I believe them.

Open-mindedness is a separate issue -- not for here.

I would agree that a panel of folks with personal biases in both (all) directions would be better. It never ceases to amaze me that when decent biased people get together, they can find common ground and share some ideas. Phenomenal.

Sharing of ideas vs. agruing at range. Hmmmm

Objectively, one could measure the number of positive and negative remarks given in a particular story. You could measure the same for for liberal and conservative issues.

But then who would decide if being for an issue is really liberal or conservative?

Yep... another bi-biased panel. :lol:

You should not trust any single source of information. Consider it RAID5 on an intellectual level.

If you are missing pieces of a story from one source or another, go find the rest of the story (parity).

Damn I'm on a roll today!

Just remember there are three sides to a coin,

DogEared.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You should not trust any single source of information.  Consider it RAID5 on an intellectual level.

If you are missing pieces of a story from one source or another, go find the rest of the story (parity).

That was a ... really strange but surprisingly effective analogy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this