The three headed dragon against Obama

[Kasz216]

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.