| 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.
