| Bong Lover said: 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. |
First off... It's a decisivly politcal first off. So it'd be rare to get a scientific consensus... yet we do have it on self identification.
We don't on bias... because nobody can even decide to agree on what bias is.
The ones that focus on issues. DO show bias. Like i've mentioned. You haven't really shown a counterpoint to that, as far as issues go... as far as i can tell.
The closest thing that does that shows no bias is the Shapiro study... except that only measures keywords.... and not tone.
In otherwords. My main contention with your position and the studies that you put forth... is that you are using a bad definition of bias.
It should be focused on the issues. Not any particular poltician. So as to get rid of the majority of sway caused by changes in popular opinion. (EX increase in negative Obama stories because he fucked up the first debate... or because he uses a zune! (real thing.) Negative story about Mitt Romney because he's rich... etc.
And again, arguements about confirmation bias regarded to poltiical positions seem to fall flat... when I specifically see bias the most... in the positions i agree with liberally.
