By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - The three headed dragon against Obama

Kasz216 said:
Bong Lover said:
Kasz216 said:
Bong Lover said:
Kasz216 said:
Bong Lover said:
 

Not that this is going anywhere, but the liberal media bias thing is a huge red herring that conservastives would do well to reject as soon as possible. They won't and they will cling onto the liberal media monster to explain away everything under the sun.

In reality, there is no liberal media bias. It's true that more jourtnalists identify as liberals then conservatives, and this is where this ongoing myth always goes to the well. It's based on statments like "Their political views will subconciously slant coverage" to more outright claim of a grand liberal agenda to mislead the public.

Instead of going by this kind of meta information, look up the actual research that is done on the subject and one sees that the coverage is almost completely even. There is nothing in the data of actual coverage that shows any significant liberal bias in US media. It just isn't there.

So where does the myth come from? The liberal bias myth is itself an example of bias, in this case confirmation bias. It's a theory many people want to believe, so they will give much more weight to information that supports the theory then information that denies it. An example of this is on display in the quoted post where an article from the Meda Research Center is presented as some sort of credible proof for a liberal media bias.


Actually... the research that's done on the subject often shows the same thing.  At least when looking at the content, rather then how much content exists.  For example... all the news networks are reporting about Benghazi... which would count under most studies as a "Conservative news story."   Though, is it when the reporters and guests all talk about how it's a non issue?

It's the same thing as stories about women in the Media... the actual numbers are fairly favorable... the content however?  Generally sort of dismissive and riddled with code words.

 

Most media will reach the center... but it's worth noting... that the actual media center is left of the actual center of peoples beliefs.

I mean, a decent example i'd say is gay rights.  I've supported gay rights longer then most people have... and it isn't hard to see that gay rights have gotten MUCH better media coverage over the years then the number of people who supported gay marriage would of suggested.  Why?  The meida is generally supportive of gay rights.   Therefore reports about "Gay's ruining morality" and other such bullshit only existed on fringe rightwing networks.... even when that was what the majority of Americans believed.   While things about people being discriminating against gays was often talked about... even when it was the law of the land... (and the popular law of the land.)

Outside of stories about how it's suddenly way more popular.  I'd argue that gay marriage coverage hasn't changed.  Which, I support gay marriage and seeing more conservative coverage of it would of made me want to bash myself in the head with a brick, but i'm not so myopic to pretend the cause in particular i supported got an advantage as far as how the media treated it.

 

Another example is abortion rights.  Most people are for abortion rights... but also for stricter limits on abortion.  News generally slants towards full choice (as most news reporters do) and a few right wing people go the whole "Pro Life" route.  Nobody argues or reports  for the middle ground most people wants.

Also, as for the Media Research Center.  It was simply a good summary of a bunch of research that does exist.

Just a couple of things:

Research on this type of thing does not simpy say that this topic is conservative and this topic is liberal and tally up the number of articles. They determine what they describe as tone, which is an attempt to establish the slant of the article. That means there will be a number of conservative leaning articles on Benghazi, and a number of liberal leaning articles on Bengazhi.

As for the Media Reserch Center, you should not use any of their material to try to make a point about media bias. It's a hyperconservative orgnization with just one agenda: Prove and counteract liberal bias in media. Their methodology is laughably unscientific and their 'research' is 100% partisan.

Finally. It's possible that the media strive towards a center that is slightly left of the true political center in the US. My point is that this shift is very small if there at all, and certainly this bias gap is much smaller than the bias people themselves have when reading the news. In short, the concept of a liberal media conspiracy is a dead end. There's no real proof for any significant bias and it's extremely dabatable how much impact this bias would have anyway.


Well first off, the last tone study I saw was during the presidential election... which showed obama getting slightly less negative press for most of the election... until things got to "even numbers" when suddenly Obama got WAY less negative numbers.

 

Secondly, again, even tone studies ignore codewords.  People tend to say women aren't miss treated in the media eitehr.  Yet they ignore codewords.

To put it in the terms of sexism.  One you'll be more willing to agree with....


Mr. Obama said he was upset today about claims linking him to a corrupt bank official.

Mrs. Clinton complained about claims linker her to a corrupt bank official.

 

Same tone... same content... yet a WORLD of difference to how most people read those two setnences.

 

Do most journalists pay exact attention to how they word EVERY sentence like this?  They don't when it comes to gender.  (Which they care about more then the average american).   They don't when it comes to race.  (Ditto).

Do they really do so when it comes to Republicans vs Democrats?  (Which, they care less about, being farther one side.)

This is the main push for why it's needed that there be more minority newscasters.  Can you come up with a credible reason why this would be the case for minority newscasters and not conservative ones?  Or do you disavow the claim that one needs minority newscasters to shape news stories better for minorties?

 

and... that it's only due to a lie told by republicans is a silly claim... since self identification studies by everyone show that is why it's the case... and why republicans think it's the case.

So the claim is that despite all the research showing no apparent (or very slight) bias, it's still there but hidden in coded language and loaded words that researchers don't pick up on? Sorry, but that just sounds like an excuse to not have to accept the research. I'd go ass far as to say it's anopther example of biased search for information, meaning that proof contradicting a held belief is subject to much stricter scrutiny than proof that supports the same belief. Either way, I won't accept this as fact unless you can show some reliable sources behind that claim.

And what's with the strawman for minority newscasters? Racial bias in US media is a different topic all together and I don't know anything about the research done on that subject.

As for your last claim, it is not disputed that journalists lean left politically in how they vote or identify, however research shows that this doesn't translate into significant bias in newsreporting (about politics).

A) Because it's the same basic concept.  We're talking about how the unconsious mind effects reporting... if you don't think there are racial and sexual bias in the media.  Well fine then.

B) Except... social research about subconsious bias suggests that it does.  (As does all subconsious bias.)

C) Again, you've been focusing on tone on candidates and polticians.  I haven't seen anything as it relates to tone on issues.  You seemed to have zero complaints about the mention of the media leading public opinion on gay rights... can you think of any case the media led an issue ahead of public opinion to a republican end?

Gay rights, Abortion, Affirmtiive Action.  Would you argue the media hasn't led the public in the ways it reported these issuses?   I'm glad it has, but i'd think you'd have to be pretty willifully disengenious to claim this hasn't been the case.

And if so?  How does that effect polticians who hold the opposite opinion?

Makes them seem?  Out of touch?  Reminds me of a certain politcal party.

First of all, thanks for kepeing the exchange civil and keeping to the point.

So, as you have hopefully seen from the exchange, there is actually quite a bit of research done on this and the results are that there is no systematic liberal bias to be found. It is however established that a majority of journalists identify as liberals, or left of center in the US. By your assertion this will invieably show up as subconcious bias, this bias should be detectable in the research, which it is not. The only hiding place for this theory is in the supposed use of loaded language that frames the debate in a liberal light. As I said before, I have never seen any research on that, and I won't accept this as a fact without a solid source for it. As it stands it's basically your personal opinion about how the media leans left, it's not a fact. I don't agree, I don't think the general media landscape uses more loaded language on republican issues but without some real research on it, we are both at the mercy of our own perception and opinions.

I don't have a problem with the way the media reports on political issues in the US period. For the most part I think people can find reasonable coverage on the important issues of the day. I also don't think the media is leading public opinion the way you seem to think. Of the 'controversial' social issues you mention I have no problem finding sources for either side of the discussion, and that's how I feel about republican issues that are adapted by the public as well (the strong push for fiscal restraint and small government) that you see today for example.

The way I see the US media, the real bias is towards making money and they will go where they feel they get the most clicks for their buck.



Around the Network
dsgrue3 said:

Sure seems to confirm it...in studies that actually attempt to identify it.

The Pew source you posted explicitly states the following:

"The study of the tone in news coverage is not an examination of media bias. Rather, it measures the overall impression the public is receiving in media about each candidate, whether the assertion is a quote from a source, a fact presented in the narrative that is determined to be favorable or unfavorable, including poll results, or is part of a journalistic analysis."

From my understanding a roll call vote is just a blank slate yes or no vote, so I'm struggling to understand why you think this is problematic.

If you can summarize what the journals say, I will read it.

I didn't notice any liberal media bias until the (first) Obama election, which is why I refuse to entertain the meta study from well before that time, although that isn't to say it didn't exist. It may have, it just seems to have shifted in recent times.

Yet that is very similar to the definition that your article uses as a definition of bias....the number of times a newspaper cites a think tank's argument. It's just measuring the likelihood of a news source communicating a specified message, which is exactly what the Pew study is doing. The study isn't actually measuring whether each individual citation of a think tank is biased.....they just use ADA score to rank the news sources based on whether liberal or conservatives members of Congress cite the think tanks.

Here's a section of the abstract from the 2013 piece, "Although there are abundant opinions about the magnitude, direction, and even existence of media bias, producing a scholarly consensus on the issue has proven difficult for several reasons." (emphasis on no scholarly consensus). The article also provides three pages of tables breaking down recent research on bias. Long story short, some find a liberal bias, some find a conservative bias, others find no bias......mixed results.

I don't know when liberal bias became a common claim, but I know it was around during the Bush vs. Clinton election in 1992, where the analyses I've seen show the same finding as the Pew stuff. Clinton received more positive coverage, but it was because the public approved of Clinton more than Bush.

Roll-call votes are complicated. The problem is, roll-call votes are unrepresentative of the bills that are discussed in Congress. Many bills just get a voice vote and go unrecorded, so unanimous votes and near unanimous votes often do not get picked up by these votes. This results in an overestimation of polarization within Congress because only highly contentious, paty-line votes get roll calls. Roll-call votes are also often times on incredibly marginal issues, so there might be a vote for passing a bill, but there are also 10 more votes on amendments to that bill. The overall conclusion is that roll-call are probably not the best measure of ideology.

Frances Lee has a good book called "Beyond Ideology" on the subject, where she breaks down the types of issues that receive roll-call votes. Dan Lapinski and Joshua Clinton also have an article titled "Laws and Roll Calls in the U.S. Congress, 1891–1994", which also breaks down roll-call votes into their component categories and looks at which bills actually receive roll-call votes.



dsgrue3 said:
GameOver22 said:

A liberal bias has been claimed for a long time, hence, why the meta-analysis, but it's not like the recent research confirms your argument either....as I said, the research is mixed (check the 2013 annual review). Ummmmm.......the Oxford link is the very article your article cited, hence, why I included it.....so you might actually read it. The significant point about the Pew Research is the difference between the horse-race and non-horse race journalism. Obama had an advantage in horse-race journalism because he was the front-runner in the election. Non-horse race journalism didn't show a bias (you should read the analysis).

The problem with roll-call votes is that they are unrepresentative, meaning the results are biased towards finding support for the hypothesis of media bias (a Type 1 error).

Sure seems to confirm it...in studies that actually attempt to identify it.

The Pew source you posted explicitly states the following:

"The study of the tone in news coverage is not an examination of media bias. Rather, it measures the overall impression the public is receiving in media about each candidate, whether the assertion is a quote from a source, a fact presented in the narrative that is determined to be favorable or unfavorable, including poll results, or is part of a journalistic analysis."

From my understanding a roll call vote is just a blank slate yes or no vote, so I'm struggling to understand why you think this is problematic.

If you can summarize what the journals say, I will read it.

I didn't notice any liberal media bias until the (first) Obama election, which is why I refuse to entertain the meta study from well before that time, although that isn't to say it didn't exist. It may have, it just seems to have shifted in recent times.

This is pretty much what it boils down to. You're basing your argument on what you percieve, not what the research show. The fact of the matter is that there is no clear evidence of this liberal bias in the media that you hear about every day. To say otherwise requires a will to reject the science and base it on personal belief and feelings about what is going on. It's not all that different from people who are so convinced that evolution is false that they will gladly reject science that contradicts their view and latch on to anything that supports their belief, even going to the point where how they feel about it becomes relevant information.

Research doesn't support a clear liberal bias in US media, that is just fact. To claim that it exsists anyway is based not on sound resoning, but based on a strong belief in it being true anyway. But hey, faith promotes irrational thought so maybe I shouldn't be surprised that science is so easily discarded when it doesn't agree with what people believe.



GameOver22 said:
dsgrue3 said:

Sure seems to confirm it...in studies that actually attempt to identify it.

The Pew source you posted explicitly states the following:

"The study of the tone in news coverage is not an examination of media bias. Rather, it measures the overall impression the public is receiving in media about each candidate, whether the assertion is a quote from a source, a fact presented in the narrative that is determined to be favorable or unfavorable, including poll results, or is part of a journalistic analysis."

From my understanding a roll call vote is just a blank slate yes or no vote, so I'm struggling to understand why you think this is problematic.

If you can summarize what the journals say, I will read it.

I didn't notice any liberal media bias until the (first) Obama election, which is why I refuse to entertain the meta study from well before that time, although that isn't to say it didn't exist. It may have, it just seems to have shifted in recent times.

Roll-call votes are complicated. The problem is, roll-call votes are unrepresentative of the bills that are discussed in Congress. Many bills just get a voice vote and go unrecorded, so unanimous votes and near unanimous votes often do not get picked up by these votes. This results in an overestimation of polarization within Congress because only highly contentious, paty-line votes get roll calls. Roll-call votes are also often times on incredibly marginal issues, so there might be a vote for passing a bill, but there are also 10 more votes on amendments to that bill. The overall conclusion is that roll-call are probably not the best measure of ideology.

If anything.  The reasons you gave make it sound like rollcalls are the best measures of ideology.

 

Interstingly... you can see EXACTLY what roll call votes he used too... and get yourself a score.


http://www.timgroseclose.com/calculate-your-pq/

 

I ended up at 57.2  Which is about exactly where i was expecting.



Kasz216 said:
GameOver22 said:

Roll-call votes are complicated. The problem is, roll-call votes are unrepresentative of the bills that are discussed in Congress. Many bills just get a voice vote and go unrecorded, so unanimous votes and near unanimous votes often do not get picked up by these votes. This results in an overestimation of polarization within Congress because only highly contentious, paty-line votes get roll calls. Roll-call votes are also often times on incredibly marginal issues, so there might be a vote for passing a bill, but there are also 10 more votes on amendments to that bill. The overall conclusion is that roll-call are probably not the best measure of ideology.

If anything.  The reasons you gave make it sound like rollcalls are the best measures of ideology.

 

Interstingly... you can see EXACTLY what roll call votes he used too... and get yourself a score.


http://www.timgroseclose.com/calculate-your-pq/

 

I ended up at 57.2  Which is about exactly where i was expecting.

Why would it be the best measure of ideology? I'm kind of confused about that. If extreme votes are disproportionately represented on roll-calls, you are going to get biased estimates of true ideology because you won't pick up more moderate issues.



Around the Network
Bong Lover said:
Kasz216 said:
Bong Lover said:
Kasz216 said:
Bong Lover said:
Kasz216 said:
Bong Lover said:
 


Actually... the research that's done on the subject often shows the same thing.  At least when looking at the content, rather then how much content exists.  For example... all the news networks are reporting about Benghazi... which would count under most studies as a "Conservative news story."   Though, is it when the reporters and guests all talk about how it's a non issue?

It's the same thing as stories about women in the Media... the actual numbers are fairly favorable... the content however?  Generally sort of dismissive and riddled with code words.

 

Most media will reach the center... but it's worth noting... that the actual media center is left of the actual center of peoples beliefs.

I mean, a decent example i'd say is gay rights.  I've supported gay rights longer then most people have... and it isn't hard to see that gay rights have gotten MUCH better media coverage over the years then the number of people who supported gay marriage would of suggested.  Why?  The meida is generally supportive of gay rights.   Therefore reports about "Gay's ruining morality" and other such bullshit only existed on fringe rightwing networks.... even when that was what the majority of Americans believed.   While things about people being discriminating against gays was often talked about... even when it was the law of the land... (and the popular law of the land.)

Outside of stories about how it's suddenly way more popular.  I'd argue that gay marriage coverage hasn't changed.  Which, I support gay marriage and seeing more conservative coverage of it would of made me want to bash myself in the head with a brick, but i'm not so myopic to pretend the cause in particular i supported got an advantage as far as how the media treated it.

 

Another example is abortion rights.  Most people are for abortion rights... but also for stricter limits on abortion.  News generally slants towards full choice (as most news reporters do) and a few right wing people go the whole "Pro Life" route.  Nobody argues or reports  for the middle ground most people wants.

Also, as for the Media Research Center.  It was simply a good summary of a bunch of research that does exist.

Just a couple of things:

Research on this type of thing does not simpy say that this topic is conservative and this topic is liberal and tally up the number of articles. They determine what they describe as tone, which is an attempt to establish the slant of the article. That means there will be a number of conservative leaning articles on Benghazi, and a number of liberal leaning articles on Bengazhi.

As for the Media Reserch Center, you should not use any of their material to try to make a point about media bias. It's a hyperconservative orgnization with just one agenda: Prove and counteract liberal bias in media. Their methodology is laughably unscientific and their 'research' is 100% partisan.

Finally. It's possible that the media strive towards a center that is slightly left of the true political center in the US. My point is that this shift is very small if there at all, and certainly this bias gap is much smaller than the bias people themselves have when reading the news. In short, the concept of a liberal media conspiracy is a dead end. There's no real proof for any significant bias and it's extremely dabatable how much impact this bias would have anyway.


Well first off, the last tone study I saw was during the presidential election... which showed obama getting slightly less negative press for most of the election... until things got to "even numbers" when suddenly Obama got WAY less negative numbers.

 

Secondly, again, even tone studies ignore codewords.  People tend to say women aren't miss treated in the media eitehr.  Yet they ignore codewords.

To put it in the terms of sexism.  One you'll be more willing to agree with....


Mr. Obama said he was upset today about claims linking him to a corrupt bank official.

Mrs. Clinton complained about claims linker her to a corrupt bank official.

 

Same tone... same content... yet a WORLD of difference to how most people read those two setnences.

 

Do most journalists pay exact attention to how they word EVERY sentence like this?  They don't when it comes to gender.  (Which they care about more then the average american).   They don't when it comes to race.  (Ditto).

Do they really do so when it comes to Republicans vs Democrats?  (Which, they care less about, being farther one side.)

This is the main push for why it's needed that there be more minority newscasters.  Can you come up with a credible reason why this would be the case for minority newscasters and not conservative ones?  Or do you disavow the claim that one needs minority newscasters to shape news stories better for minorties?

 

and... that it's only due to a lie told by republicans is a silly claim... since self identification studies by everyone show that is why it's the case... and why republicans think it's the case.

So the claim is that despite all the research showing no apparent (or very slight) bias, it's still there but hidden in coded language and loaded words that researchers don't pick up on? Sorry, but that just sounds like an excuse to not have to accept the research. I'd go ass far as to say it's anopther example of biased search for information, meaning that proof contradicting a held belief is subject to much stricter scrutiny than proof that supports the same belief. Either way, I won't accept this as fact unless you can show some reliable sources behind that claim.

And what's with the strawman for minority newscasters? Racial bias in US media is a different topic all together and I don't know anything about the research done on that subject.

As for your last claim, it is not disputed that journalists lean left politically in how they vote or identify, however research shows that this doesn't translate into significant bias in newsreporting (about politics).

A) Because it's the same basic concept.  We're talking about how the unconsious mind effects reporting... if you don't think there are racial and sexual bias in the media.  Well fine then.

B) Except... social research about subconsious bias suggests that it does.  (As does all subconsious bias.)

C) Again, you've been focusing on tone on candidates and polticians.  I haven't seen anything as it relates to tone on issues.  You seemed to have zero complaints about the mention of the media leading public opinion on gay rights... can you think of any case the media led an issue ahead of public opinion to a republican end?

Gay rights, Abortion, Affirmtiive Action.  Would you argue the media hasn't led the public in the ways it reported these issuses?   I'm glad it has, but i'd think you'd have to be pretty willifully disengenious to claim this hasn't been the case.

And if so?  How does that effect polticians who hold the opposite opinion?

Makes them seem?  Out of touch?  Reminds me of a certain politcal party.

First of all, thanks for kepeing the exchange civil and keeping to the point.

So, as you have hopefully seen from the exchange, there is actually quite a bit of research done on this and the results are that there is no systematic liberal bias to be found. It is however established that a majority of journalists identify as liberals, or left of center in the US. By your assertion this will invieably show up as subconcious bias, this bias should be detectable in the research, which it is not. The only hiding place for this theory is in the supposed use of loaded language that frames the debate in a liberal light. As I said before, I have never seen any research on that, and I won't accept this as a fact without a solid source for it. As it stands it's basically your personal opinion about how the media leans left, it's not a fact. I don't agree, I don't think the general media landscape uses more loaded language on republican issues but without some real research on it, we are both at the mercy of our own perception and opinions.

I don't have a problem with the way the media reports on political issues in the US period. For the most part I think people can find reasonable coverage on the important issues of the day. I also don't think the media is leading public opinion the way you seem to think. Of the 'controversial' social issues you mention I have no problem finding sources for either side of the discussion, and that's how I feel about republican issues that are adapted by the public as well (the strong push for fiscal restraint and small government) that you see today for example.

The way I see the US media, the real bias is towards making money and they will go where they feel they get the most clicks for their buck.

Except I don't see the research saying that.  Even the things you linked don't really show that. 

There are some Metanalysis sure... but Meta Analysis are generally greatly overrelied on in academy because well... they're very easy to do, because you don't need to collect your data. 

However... multiple people doing the same meta analysis can get vastly different results...

because meta analysis all rely on how you connect the dots.  What you do to standardize the data between studies.

 

That and not all studies are treated equally.   I'll take a few studies that have fairly solid metholodgical backgrounds over a meta analysis any day of the week.

Outside the Meta Analaysis thing... you were complaining about the MCR... when they were just quoting studies... and yet you used a 4thestate study... they conducted themselves.

 

Outside which... while you think there is confirmation bias... if this was the case... wouldn't it make sense to see how independents thought of the coverage?  Or just republicans and demcorats in general?


Like you originally thought (but apparently are backing off of).   Republicans tend to think the media is more biased then Democrats.

The thing is... so do independents.

 


Again, i'd point out... most the studies talked about here... don't actually talk about issues.  Instead how positivly or negativly a candidate is treated.

 

Political issues... are mostly solid.

 

Positive or Negative reporting on candidates and politicians?


I'm guessing negative reporting about Obama has skyrocketed this week.  Because well... what the OP originally states.

 

Is that bias shifting?  Or the news simply reporting on a story.

 

Most of the studies your talking about...aren't actually focusing on bias.

 



Kasz216 said:

Except I don't see the research saying that.  Even the things you linked don't really show that. 

There are some Metanalysis sure... but Meta Analysis are generally greatly overrelied on in academy because well... they're very easy to do, because you don't need to collect your data. 

However... multiple people doing the same meta analysis can get vastly different results...

because meta analysis all rely on how you connect the dots.  What you do to standardize the data between studies.

 

That and not all studies are treated equally.   I'll take a few studies that have fairly solid metholodgical backgrounds over a meta analysis any day of the week.

Outside the Meta Analaysis thing... you were complaining about the MCR... when they were just quoting studies... and yet you used a 4thestate study... they conducted themselves.

 

Outside which... while you think there is confirmation bias... if this was the case... wouldn't it make sense to see how independents thought of the coverage?  Or just republicans and demcorats in general?


Like you originally thought (but apparently are backing off of).   Republicans tend to think the media is more biased then Democrats.

The thing is... so do independents.

 


Again, i'd point out... most the studies talked about here... don't actually talk about issues.  Instead how positivly or negativly a candidate is treated.

 

Political issues... are mostly solid.

 

Positive or Negative reporting on candidates and politicians?


I'm guessing negative reporting about Obama has skyrocketed this week.  Because well... what the OP originally states.

 

Is that bias shifting?  Or the news simply reporting on a story.

 

Most of the studies your talking about...aren't actually focusing on bias.

 

The research, as has been pointed out, doesn't show bias either way. There's no scientific consencus on the issue of bias in media, not to mention a systematic liberal bias. 

True, more people think there is liberal bias then conservative bias, but this is easily explained by the study I referenced earlier that shows that while media coverage is pretty even, the continued reporting on claims of media bias increases peoples feeling of such bias being real.

So, my point is, if there is no scientific concensus you can't say that it is there. Especially not to the extent it is being reported from the right. It's basically saying that since it's not proven to not be true, it has to be true. A more honest approach would be to assume that such bias is not widespread, until there is proof that there is.



GameOver22 said:
Kasz216 said:
GameOver22 said:

Roll-call votes are complicated. The problem is, roll-call votes are unrepresentative of the bills that are discussed in Congress. Many bills just get a voice vote and go unrecorded, so unanimous votes and near unanimous votes often do not get picked up by these votes. This results in an overestimation of polarization within Congress because only highly contentious, paty-line votes get roll calls. Roll-call votes are also often times on incredibly marginal issues, so there might be a vote for passing a bill, but there are also 10 more votes on amendments to that bill. The overall conclusion is that roll-call are probably not the best measure of ideology.

If anything.  The reasons you gave make it sound like rollcalls are the best measures of ideology.

 

Interstingly... you can see EXACTLY what roll call votes he used too... and get yourself a score.


http://www.timgroseclose.com/calculate-your-pq/

 

I ended up at 57.2  Which is about exactly where i was expecting.

Why would it be the best measure of ideology? I'm kind of confused about that. If extreme votes are disproportionately represented on roll-calls, you are going to get biased estimates of true ideology because you won't pick up more moderate issues.

Because it's the issues without cross contamination.

These are the issues less likely to have "Vote trading".

 

Also, by focusing on extreme issues.  It sort of makes bias ring clearer.   By picking the extremely polarized votes... you isolate the positions that are extremely polarized.

In otherwords, the ones in which reporting definitly should not be taking a side. 

 

It's not exagerrating bias' in the media... if there was any criticism of it... you would say it's not making enough differentiation in the "middle."

As a 48 and a 52 would be far more apart then you would expect.

 

What the Gloscuse study more or less does... is find out how most media outlets stand on the most extreme polarizing and divided issues.



Bong Lover said:
 

The research, as has been pointed out, doesn't show bias either way. There's no scientific consencus on the issue of bias in media, not to mention a systematic liberal bias. 

True, more people think there is liberal bias then conservative bias, but this is easily explained by the study I referenced earlier that shows that while media coverage is pretty even, the continued reporting on claims of media bias increases peoples feeling of such bias being real.

So, my point is, if there is no scientific concensus you can't say that it is there. Especially not to the extent it is being reported from the right. It's basically saying that since it's not proven to not be true, it has to be true. A more honest approach would be to assume that such bias is not widespread, until there is proof that there is.


First off... It's a decisivly politcal first off.   So it'd be rare to get a scientific consensus... yet we do have it on self identification.

 

We don't on bias... because nobody can even decide to agree on what bias is.

The ones that focus on issues.  DO show bias.  Like i've mentioned.  You haven't really shown a counterpoint to that, as far as issues go... as far as i can tell.

 

The closest thing that does that shows no bias is the Shapiro study... except that only measures keywords.... and not tone.

 

In otherwords.  My main contention with your position and the studies that you put forth... is that you are using a bad definition of bias.

 

It should be focused on the issues.  Not any particular poltician.  So as to get rid of the majority of sway caused by changes in popular opinion.  (EX increase in negative Obama stories because he fucked up the first debate... or because he uses a zune! (real thing.) Negative story about Mitt Romney because he's rich... etc.

 

And again, arguements about confirmation bias regarded to poltiical positions seem to fall flat... when I specifically see bias the most... in the positions i agree with liberally.



Kasz216 said:
Bong Lover said:
 

The research, as has been pointed out, doesn't show bias either way. There's no scientific consencus on the issue of bias in media, not to mention a systematic liberal bias. 

True, more people think there is liberal bias then conservative bias, but this is easily explained by the study I referenced earlier that shows that while media coverage is pretty even, the continued reporting on claims of media bias increases peoples feeling of such bias being real.

So, my point is, if there is no scientific concensus you can't say that it is there. Especially not to the extent it is being reported from the right. It's basically saying that since it's not proven to not be true, it has to be true. A more honest approach would be to assume that such bias is not widespread, until there is proof that there is.


First off... It's a decisivly politcal first off.   So it'd be rare to get a scientific consensus... yet we do have it on self identification.

 

We don't on bias... because nobody can even decide to agree on what bias is.

The ones that focus on issues.  DO show bias.  Like i've mentioned.  You haven't really shown a counterpoint to that, as far as issues go... as far as i can tell.

 

The closest thing that does that shows no bias is the Shapiro study... except that only measures keywords.... and not tone.

 

In otherwords.  My main contention with your position and the studies that you put forth... is that you are using a bad definition of bias.

 

It should be focused on the issues.  Not any particular poltician.  So as to get rid of the majority of sway caused by changes in popular opinion.  (EX increase in negative Obama stories because he fucked up the first debate... or because he uses a zune! (real thing.) Negative story about Mitt Romney because he's rich... etc.

 

And again, arguements about confirmation bias regarded to poltiical positions seem to fall flat... when I specifically see bias the most... in the positions i agree with liberally.

My stand is not that there are not biased outlets, my stand is that the general media landscape overall is not overly biased. You have all sorts of political hacks on both sides, but that doesn't mean the media in general is systematically biased. And I'm not using my defintion of bias, I am referencing what the litterature says. Part of it ofcourse is that it's difficult to establish consencus on where the center is, and researchers and their aides will bring their own bias to the table when assigning value to how biased something is. I fully get that the nature of the subject makes it difficult to objectivly measurre. The point is, if it's not possible to measurre something objectivly it's dishonest to claim an overwhelming liberal bias in media reporting as many tend to do.

The research that goes into this covers all sorts of metrics, from talking about the issues to individual races or primaries and everything. There is a pretty well established body of research, and the conclusions are still the same. The only way to hold onto the liberal media conspiracy is to reject what the science done on the subject says, and rather determine it by the eye test. Ofcourse, when trusting only our own faculties we are fully prisoners of our own cognative biases.

So, I am not saying that there is proof that no bias exsist, but there's no proof of it exsisting either so I don't think anyone can claim it. At the very least, the mixed results of the science indicate that if there is a tendency to bias, it is very small and hardly worth the amout of crying and gnashing of teeth that people do about it constantly.