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.
