| Bong Lover said: This is pretty much what it boils down to. You're basing your argument on what you percieve, not what the research show. Research doesn't support a clear liberal bias in US media, that is just fact. To claim that it exsists anyway is based not on sound resoning, but based on a strong belief in it being true anyway. But hey, faith promotes irrational thought so maybe I shouldn't be surprised that science is so easily discarded when it doesn't agree with what people believe. |
Lol what? I posted research backing up that point...you posted nothing of the sort showing yours. I think it's clear which person is being objective about this. Faith does indeed promote irrational thought, so I wouldn't be surprised at all to find out that you're a flat-earth christian fundamentalist.
| GameOver22 said: Yet that is very similar to the definition that your article uses as a definition of bias....the number of times a newspaper cites a think tank's argument. It's just measuring the likelihood of a news source communicating a specified message, which is exactly what the Pew study is doing. The study isn't actually measuring whether each individual citation of a think tank is biased.....they just use ADA score to rank the news sources based on whether liberal or conservatives members of Congress cite the think tanks. Here's a section of the abstract from the 2013 piece, "Although there are abundant opinions about the magnitude, direction, and even existence of media bias, producing a scholarly consensus on the issue has proven difficult for several reasons." (emphasis on no scholarly consensus). The article also provides three pages of tables breaking down recent research on bias. Long story short, some find a liberal bias, some find a conservative bias, others find no bias......mixed results. I don't know when liberal bias became a common claim, but I know it was around during the Bush vs. Clinton election in 1992, where the analyses I've seen show the same finding as the Pew stuff. Clinton received more positive coverage, but it was because the public approved of Clinton more than Bush. 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. Frances Lee has a good book called "Beyond Ideology" on the subject, where she breaks down the types of issues that receive roll-call votes. Dan Lapinski and Joshua Clinton also have an article titled "Laws and Roll Calls in the U.S. Congress, 1891–1994", which also breaks down roll-call votes into their component categories and looks at which bills actually receive roll-call votes. |
I'm just posting what it says.
I even used that study to further my point about liberal bias.
I mean this is a huge difference between arguably the most polarized bias in the media. It shows devotion on both sides to discredit the candidate with opposing views, but also shows more of a devotion from the left - a staggering 25% more hate on articles with tone.
There is an overwhelming majority of democrats in journalism, so it only makes sense that this is the case with most of the mainstream media. I believe the number was close to 80%.
And here we see that MSNBC doesn't care to post factual stories and is fine posting incessant op-ed pieces, which essentially confirms a bias, whereas Fox actually deals with a near even split, along with CNN.
All I see is constant ammunition for me to make the objective statement that there is left-lean to most media outlets and thus there is a left-lean as a whole.
