badgenome said:
Not really. I mean, you made the assertion that, "The way I see the US media, the real bias is towards making money and they will go where they feel they get the most clicks for their buck." That seems patently obvious, at least to me, but did you do pore over academic studies of the issue before coming to that conclusion or just arrive there based on your own observation? If the latter, that doesn't make you dishonest. The same holds true for claims of political bias. Bias is an incredibly difficult thing to quantify, or even define. And, of course, most people who set out to study media bias in the first place aren't exactly doing so with a disinterested eye. They want to find what they want to find, and usually do. You've admitted all of this already, so it would be nice if you could stop calling everyone who disagrees with you either a liar (since this may be their honest perception of things) or the intellectual equivalent of a creationist (as the science of measuring bias is not even in the same ballpark as hard evolutionary science). |
The research as it's been pointed out shows that media is biased towards the current mood of the consumers. So yes, a bias towards appealing to as many people as possible thus a bias towards making money. I didn't pore over this research, but the conclusion is from the same research that I've seen on the lack of/exsistence of liberal bias.
Still, end of the day is that claiming widespread liberal bias is not supported by any real findings. There is no basis for claiming it as a fact.
I never called anyone a liar.
I agree that the parallell to creationists is weak at best.
