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. |
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.
