The three headed dragon against Obama

[Kasz216]

Bong Lover said:

Kasz216 said:

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.

My stand is not that there are not biased outlets, my stand is that the general media landscape overall is not overly biased. You have all sorts of political hacks on both sides, but that doesn't mean the media in general is systematically biased. And I'm not using my defintion of bias, I am referencing what the litterature says. Part of it ofcourse is that it's difficult to establish consencus on where the center is, and researchers and their aides will bring their own bias to the table when assigning value to how biased something is. I fully get that the nature of the subject makes it difficult to objectivly measurre. The point is, if it's not possible to measurre something objectivly it's dishonest to claim an overwhelming liberal bias in media reporting as many tend to do.

The research that goes into this covers all sorts of metrics, from talking about the issues to individual races or primaries and everything. There is a pretty well established body of research, and the conclusions are still the same. The only way to hold onto the liberal media conspiracy is to reject what the science done on the subject says, and rather determine it by the eye test. Ofcourse, when trusting only our own faculties we are fully prisoners of our own cognative biases.

So, I am not saying that there is proof that no bias exsist, but there's no proof of it exsisting either so I don't think anyone can claim it. At the very least, the mixed results of the science indicate that if there is a tendency to bias, it is very small and hardly worth the amout of crying and gnashing of teeth that people do about it constantly.

I feel like you didn't actually read the post I wrote... as you actually adressed hardly anything relating to it.

Outside which... when you do look at research talking about the actual issues... the research does seem to all point into certain way.

 

To claim that to hold on to the liberal bias rejects what science done on the matter says is to not really understand science.   Or at least not social science.  Would you perhaps have studied in a Physical Science field? 

What you are simply doing is hiding behind a nebulous meta study to ignore actually discussing what makes a good study on bias... and studying specific research studies... and their faults. Which is the heart of social science. 

I state that issue based studies are the best... for specific reasons... and you have presented no arguements for why that isn't the case... but have instead said... "When you add a whole bunch of the inferior stuff too, it shows there is no bias."

You aren't appealing to science... your appealing to authority... without actually discussing the various methods of the science, or showing an understanding of it.

 

 

Well, that and what Badgenome said.