By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
GameOver22 on 15 May 2013
Edit Thread
dsgrue3 said:
Bong Lover said:

If you care to look outside the liberal media bias echo chamber you can easily find many studies that shows no real bias, slight conservative bias or slight liberal bias. As one would imagine, when looking at metastudies, the various bias outlets balance each other out and there is virtually no net bias in overall media. This is not to say that there are not liberal leaning and conservative leaning news outlets, but the notion that there is a clear liberal slant in media as a whole is not supported by facts.

Since you obviously will ask again. Here's one exapmple of a study of coverage of the 2012 presidential campaign and who got more positive and negative mention in the news media:

http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/cr

So, no one had less favorable coverage than Obama, does that mean the media has a conservative bias? No, it only shows that in 2012 Obama got a lot of negative coverage. In reality, media has a much stronger finacial bias than political bias, they will report to fit the 'general mood' of their consumers.

And more bullshit.

Did you even read your own source? It does nothing to support your claim. It addresses a very confined event, the republican primary. To form a fair assessment, you would have to include the democratic primary in such a study to address both ends of the spectrum. This is logic 101.

Start reading:

http://scholar.harvard.edu/barro/files/04_0614_liberalmedia_bw.pdf

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/media-bias-is-real-finds-ucla-6664.aspx

And here is Jake Tapper admitting the liberal bias:

http://www.aim.org/don-irvine-blog/jake-tapper-media-helped-tip-the-scales-towards-obama-in-2008/

Devotion to inanity much? I mean learn to read some actual studies, not ones that don't address your point at all.

 

I was going to leave this discussion alone, but now I have to respond.....Research on a liberal bias in the media is mixed, with more research suggesting that there is no systematic liberal bias. The claim has been around for a long time, and researchers have explored this question a lot. Things have changed a lot in the past 10-15 years though (and part of the reason for null finding could be measurment issues). If anything, studies suggests that the news media tends to respond to public opinion, meaning that the media gives more positive coverage to candidates with higher approval ratings among the public. Pew looked at this, and you can see how coverage of Obama becomes more negative after the first debate (where the public thought he had perfromed poorly).

Pew Research

Some other links if you have access:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02866.x/abstract

A meta-analysis from 1948-1996

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-polisci-040811-115123

Review of recent literature.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00336.x/full           

This just gives a summary of measurment issues.

http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/content/120/4/1191.short

This is the article that your link cites. The problem with the study is that ADA scores are not a good measure of ideology because they are determined by roll-call votes, and roll-call votes are not a represntative sample of the votes taking place in Congress. These votes are more highly partisan, so the results tend to overstate the polarization in Congress, meaning it overstates the liberalism of Democrats and the conservatism of Republicans, which would result in an overstatement of media bias. Many congressional scholars are moving away from roll-call votes for this very reason.