The three headed dragon against Obama

[Bong Lover]

Kasz216 said:

Except I don't see the research saying that.  Even the things you linked don't really show that. 

There are some Metanalysis sure... but Meta Analysis are generally greatly overrelied on in academy because well... they're very easy to do, because you don't need to collect your data. 

However... multiple people doing the same meta analysis can get vastly different results...

because meta analysis all rely on how you connect the dots.  What you do to standardize the data between studies.

 

That and not all studies are treated equally.   I'll take a few studies that have fairly solid metholodgical backgrounds over a meta analysis any day of the week.

Outside the Meta Analaysis thing... you were complaining about the MCR... when they were just quoting studies... and yet you used a 4thestate study... they conducted themselves.

 

Outside which... while you think there is confirmation bias... if this was the case... wouldn't it make sense to see how independents thought of the coverage?  Or just republicans and demcorats in general?

Like you originally thought (but apparently are backing off of).   Republicans tend to think the media is more biased then Democrats.

The thing is... so do independents.

 

Again, i'd point out... most the studies talked about here... don't actually talk about issues.  Instead how positivly or negativly a candidate is treated.

 

Political issues... are mostly solid.

 

Positive or Negative reporting on candidates and politicians?


I'm guessing negative reporting about Obama has skyrocketed this week.  Because well... what the OP originally states.

 

Is that bias shifting?  Or the news simply reporting on a story.

 

Most of the studies your talking about...aren't actually focusing on bias.

 

The research, as has been pointed out, doesn't show bias either way. There's no scientific consencus on the issue of bias in media, not to mention a systematic liberal bias. 

True, more people think there is liberal bias then conservative bias, but this is easily explained by the study I referenced earlier that shows that while media coverage is pretty even, the continued reporting on claims of media bias increases peoples feeling of such bias being real.

So, my point is, if there is no scientific concensus you can't say that it is there. Especially not to the extent it is being reported from the right. It's basically saying that since it's not proven to not be true, it has to be true. A more honest approach would be to assume that such bias is not widespread, until there is proof that there is.