By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - The three headed dragon against Obama

outlawauron on 15 May 2013
NintendoPie said:
Heavenly_King said:

I am not acquanted with US politics.

I feel like it's either two or four. Either way, I agree with you.

Presidents are limited to 2 four-year terms. He's done.



"We'll toss the dice however they fall,
And snuggle the girls be they short or tall,
Then follow young Mat whenever he calls,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows."

Check out MyAnimeList and my Game Collection. Owner of the 5 millionth post.

Around the Network
dsgrue3 on 15 May 2013
GameOver22 said:

I was going to leave this discussion alone, but now I have to respond.....Research on a liberal bias in the media is mixed, with more research suggesting that there is no systematic liberal bias. The claim has been around for a long time, and researchers have explored this question a lot. Things have changed a lot in the past 10-15 years though (and part of the reason for null finding could be measurment issues). If anything, studies suggests that the news media tends to respond to public opinion, meaning that the media gives more positive coverage to candidates with higher approval ratings among the public. Pew looked at this, and you can see how coverage of Obama becomes more negative after the first debate (where the public thought he had perfromed poorly).

Pew Research

Some other links if you have access:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02866.x/abstract

A meta-analysis from 1948-1996

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-polisci-040811-115123

Review of recent literature.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00336.x/full           

This just gives a summary of measurment issues.

http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/content/120/4/1191.short

This is the article that your link cites. The problem with the study is that ADA scores are not a good measure of ideology because they are determined by roll-call votes, and roll-call votes are not a represntative sample of the votes taking place in Congress. These votes are more highly partisan, so the results tend to overstate the polarization in Congress, meaning it overstates the liberalism of Democrats and the conservatism of Republicans, which would result in an overstatement of media bias. Many congressional scholars are moving away from roll-call votes for this very reason.

 

Oh, cool, someone new to play with.

Meta analysis from 1948-1996 is completely useless. It is in recent times that the liberal agenda became rampant.

Pew actually shows quite a substantial left-lean.

This is 13% how you can suggest that is not significant is beyond me. 

I don't have access to those journal site thing so I can't comment.

Oxford link: "Our results show a strong liberal bias"

So far you have enhanced my argument instead of your own. Thanks!

EDIT: Roll-call votes, if they overstate both sides, then what is the issue?

Bong Lover said:

Suppositions and nothing backing up my original point.


tl;dr and you already lost. Time to take your ball and go home.



Kasz216 on 15 May 2013
Bong Lover said:
Kasz216 said:
Bong Lover said:
 

Not that this is going anywhere, but the liberal media bias thing is a huge red herring that conservastives would do well to reject as soon as possible. They won't and they will cling onto the liberal media monster to explain away everything under the sun.

In reality, there is no liberal media bias. It's true that more jourtnalists identify as liberals then conservatives, and this is where this ongoing myth always goes to the well. It's based on statments like "Their political views will subconciously slant coverage" to more outright claim of a grand liberal agenda to mislead the public.

Instead of going by this kind of meta information, look up the actual research that is done on the subject and one sees that the coverage is almost completely even. There is nothing in the data of actual coverage that shows any significant liberal bias in US media. It just isn't there.

So where does the myth come from? The liberal bias myth is itself an example of bias, in this case confirmation bias. It's a theory many people want to believe, so they will give much more weight to information that supports the theory then information that denies it. An example of this is on display in the quoted post where an article from the Meda Research Center is presented as some sort of credible proof for a liberal media bias.


Actually... the research that's done on the subject often shows the same thing.  At least when looking at the content, rather then how much content exists.  For example... all the news networks are reporting about Benghazi... which would count under most studies as a "Conservative news story."   Though, is it when the reporters and guests all talk about how it's a non issue?

It's the same thing as stories about women in the Media... the actual numbers are fairly favorable... the content however?  Generally sort of dismissive and riddled with code words.

 

Most media will reach the center... but it's worth noting... that the actual media center is left of the actual center of peoples beliefs.

I mean, a decent example i'd say is gay rights.  I've supported gay rights longer then most people have... and it isn't hard to see that gay rights have gotten MUCH better media coverage over the years then the number of people who supported gay marriage would of suggested.  Why?  The meida is generally supportive of gay rights.   Therefore reports about "Gay's ruining morality" and other such bullshit only existed on fringe rightwing networks.... even when that was what the majority of Americans believed.   While things about people being discriminating against gays was often talked about... even when it was the law of the land... (and the popular law of the land.)

Outside of stories about how it's suddenly way more popular.  I'd argue that gay marriage coverage hasn't changed.  Which, I support gay marriage and seeing more conservative coverage of it would of made me want to bash myself in the head with a brick, but i'm not so myopic to pretend the cause in particular i supported got an advantage as far as how the media treated it.

 

Another example is abortion rights.  Most people are for abortion rights... but also for stricter limits on abortion.  News generally slants towards full choice (as most news reporters do) and a few right wing people go the whole "Pro Life" route.  Nobody argues or reports  for the middle ground most people wants.

Also, as for the Media Research Center.  It was simply a good summary of a bunch of research that does exist.

Just a couple of things:

Research on this type of thing does not simpy say that this topic is conservative and this topic is liberal and tally up the number of articles. They determine what they describe as tone, which is an attempt to establish the slant of the article. That means there will be a number of conservative leaning articles on Benghazi, and a number of liberal leaning articles on Bengazhi.

As for the Media Reserch Center, you should not use any of their material to try to make a point about media bias. It's a hyperconservative orgnization with just one agenda: Prove and counteract liberal bias in media. Their methodology is laughably unscientific and their 'research' is 100% partisan.

Finally. It's possible that the media strive towards a center that is slightly left of the true political center in the US. My point is that this shift is very small if there at all, and certainly this bias gap is much smaller than the bias people themselves have when reading the news. In short, the concept of a liberal media conspiracy is a dead end. There's no real proof for any significant bias and it's extremely dabatable how much impact this bias would have anyway.


Well first off, the last tone study I saw was during the presidential election... which showed obama getting slightly less negative press for most of the election... until things got to "even numbers" when suddenly Obama got WAY less negative numbers.

 

Secondly, again, even tone studies ignore codewords.  People tend to say women aren't miss treated in the media eitehr.  Yet they ignore codewords.

To put it in the terms of sexism.  One you'll be more willing to agree with....


Mr. Obama said he was upset today about claims linking him to a corrupt bank official.

Mrs. Clinton complained about claims linker her to a corrupt bank official.

 

Same tone... same content... yet a WORLD of difference to how most people read those two setnences.

 

Do most journalists pay exact attention to how they word EVERY sentence like this?  They don't when it comes to gender.  (Which they care about more then the average american).   They don't when it comes to race.  (Ditto).

Do they really do so when it comes to Republicans vs Democrats?  (Which, they care less about, being farther one side.)

This is the main push for why it's needed that there be more minority newscasters.  Can you come up with a credible reason why this would be the case for minority newscasters and not conservative ones?  Or do you disavow the claim that one needs minority newscasters to shape news stories better for minorties?

 

and... that it's only due to a lie told by republicans is a silly claim... since self identification studies by everyone show that is why it's the case... and why republicans think it's the case.

 

Oh, and as far as journalists identifying their bias and overcomensating... again, research shows that what journalists see as the middle is quite to the left of what actually is the middle.  So even if they try to be objective with all their ability, they can't... because what they view as objective... isn't.



Bong Lover on 15 May 2013
dsgrue3 said:
GameOver22 said:

I was going to leave this discussion alone, but now I have to respond.....Research on a liberal bias in the media is mixed, with more research suggesting that there is no systematic liberal bias. The claim has been around for a long time, and researchers have explored this question a lot. Things have changed a lot in the past 10-15 years though (and part of the reason for null finding could be measurment issues). If anything, studies suggests that the news media tends to respond to public opinion, meaning that the media gives more positive coverage to candidates with higher approval ratings among the public. Pew looked at this, and you can see how coverage of Obama becomes more negative after the first debate (where the public thought he had perfromed poorly).

Pew Research

Some other links if you have access:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02866.x/abstract

A meta-analysis from 1948-1996

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-polisci-040811-115123

Review of recent literature.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00336.x/full           

This just gives a summary of measurment issues.

http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/content/120/4/1191.short

This is the article that your link cites. The problem with the study is that ADA scores are not a good measure of ideology because they are determined by roll-call votes, and roll-call votes are not a represntative sample of the votes taking place in Congress. These votes are more highly partisan, so the results tend to overstate the polarization in Congress, meaning it overstates the liberalism of Democrats and the conservatism of Republicans, which would result in an overstatement of media bias. Many congressional scholars are moving away from roll-call votes for this very reason.

 

Oh, cool, someone new to play with.

Meta analysis from 1948-1996 is completely useless. It is in recent times that the liberal agenda became rampant.

Pew actually shows quite a substantial left-lean.

This is 13% how you can suggest that is not significant is beyond me. 

I don't have access to those journal site thing so I can't comment.

Oxford link: "Our results show a strong liberal bias"

So far you have enhanced my argument instead of your own. Thanks!

EDIT: Roll-call votes, if they overstate both sides, then what is the issue?

Bong Lover said:

Suppositions and nothing backing up my original point.


tl;dr and you already lost. Time to take your ball and go home.

Again, confirmation bias on display.

Meta analysis from 1948-1996 is completely useless because liberal bias started after 1996? So all the claims of liberal bias going back before 1996 were bogus, but they are true today?

Don't have access to the resources cited so they can't be considered.

Pick on of the graphs from the PEW link (after PEW was not deemed worthy of consideration earlier) to support your view, ignore that point that was made (that coverage follows public opinion and not some liberal bias narrative)

Claims Oxford link strengthens your own case, dfailing to realize it's talking about the same UCLA study you've referenced twice already.

No wonder I already lost in the face of such a brilliant display.



Bong Lover on 15 May 2013
Kasz216 said:
Bong Lover said:
Kasz216 said:
Bong Lover said:
 

Not that this is going anywhere, but the liberal media bias thing is a huge red herring that conservastives would do well to reject as soon as possible. They won't and they will cling onto the liberal media monster to explain away everything under the sun.

In reality, there is no liberal media bias. It's true that more jourtnalists identify as liberals then conservatives, and this is where this ongoing myth always goes to the well. It's based on statments like "Their political views will subconciously slant coverage" to more outright claim of a grand liberal agenda to mislead the public.

Instead of going by this kind of meta information, look up the actual research that is done on the subject and one sees that the coverage is almost completely even. There is nothing in the data of actual coverage that shows any significant liberal bias in US media. It just isn't there.

So where does the myth come from? The liberal bias myth is itself an example of bias, in this case confirmation bias. It's a theory many people want to believe, so they will give much more weight to information that supports the theory then information that denies it. An example of this is on display in the quoted post where an article from the Meda Research Center is presented as some sort of credible proof for a liberal media bias.


Actually... the research that's done on the subject often shows the same thing.  At least when looking at the content, rather then how much content exists.  For example... all the news networks are reporting about Benghazi... which would count under most studies as a "Conservative news story."   Though, is it when the reporters and guests all talk about how it's a non issue?

It's the same thing as stories about women in the Media... the actual numbers are fairly favorable... the content however?  Generally sort of dismissive and riddled with code words.

 

Most media will reach the center... but it's worth noting... that the actual media center is left of the actual center of peoples beliefs.

I mean, a decent example i'd say is gay rights.  I've supported gay rights longer then most people have... and it isn't hard to see that gay rights have gotten MUCH better media coverage over the years then the number of people who supported gay marriage would of suggested.  Why?  The meida is generally supportive of gay rights.   Therefore reports about "Gay's ruining morality" and other such bullshit only existed on fringe rightwing networks.... even when that was what the majority of Americans believed.   While things about people being discriminating against gays was often talked about... even when it was the law of the land... (and the popular law of the land.)

Outside of stories about how it's suddenly way more popular.  I'd argue that gay marriage coverage hasn't changed.  Which, I support gay marriage and seeing more conservative coverage of it would of made me want to bash myself in the head with a brick, but i'm not so myopic to pretend the cause in particular i supported got an advantage as far as how the media treated it.

 

Another example is abortion rights.  Most people are for abortion rights... but also for stricter limits on abortion.  News generally slants towards full choice (as most news reporters do) and a few right wing people go the whole "Pro Life" route.  Nobody argues or reports  for the middle ground most people wants.

Also, as for the Media Research Center.  It was simply a good summary of a bunch of research that does exist.

Just a couple of things:

Research on this type of thing does not simpy say that this topic is conservative and this topic is liberal and tally up the number of articles. They determine what they describe as tone, which is an attempt to establish the slant of the article. That means there will be a number of conservative leaning articles on Benghazi, and a number of liberal leaning articles on Bengazhi.

As for the Media Reserch Center, you should not use any of their material to try to make a point about media bias. It's a hyperconservative orgnization with just one agenda: Prove and counteract liberal bias in media. Their methodology is laughably unscientific and their 'research' is 100% partisan.

Finally. It's possible that the media strive towards a center that is slightly left of the true political center in the US. My point is that this shift is very small if there at all, and certainly this bias gap is much smaller than the bias people themselves have when reading the news. In short, the concept of a liberal media conspiracy is a dead end. There's no real proof for any significant bias and it's extremely dabatable how much impact this bias would have anyway.


Well first off, the last tone study I saw was during the presidential election... which showed obama getting slightly less negative press for most of the election... until things got to "even numbers" when suddenly Obama got WAY less negative numbers.

 

Secondly, again, even tone studies ignore codewords.  People tend to say women aren't miss treated in the media eitehr.  Yet they ignore codewords.

To put it in the terms of sexism.  One you'll be more willing to agree with....


Mr. Obama said he was upset today about claims linking him to a corrupt bank official.

Mrs. Clinton complained about claims linker her to a corrupt bank official.

 

Same tone... same content... yet a WORLD of difference to how most people read those two setnences.

 

Do most journalists pay exact attention to how they word EVERY sentence like this?  They don't when it comes to gender.  (Which they care about more then the average american).   They don't when it comes to race.  (Ditto).

Do they really do so when it comes to Republicans vs Democrats?  (Which, they care less about, being farther one side.)

This is the main push for why it's needed that there be more minority newscasters.  Can you come up with a credible reason why this would be the case for minority newscasters and not conservative ones?  Or do you disavow the claim that one needs minority newscasters to shape news stories better for minorties?

 

and... that it's only due to a lie told by republicans is a silly claim... since self identification studies by everyone show that is why it's the case... and why republicans think it's the case.

So the claim is that despite all the research showing no apparent (or very slight) bias, it's still there but hidden in coded language and loaded words that researchers don't pick up on? Sorry, but that just sounds like an excuse to not have to accept the research. I'd go ass far as to say it's anopther example of biased search for information, meaning that proof contradicting a held belief is subject to much stricter scrutiny than proof that supports the same belief. Either way, I won't accept this as fact unless you can show some reliable sources behind that claim.

And what's with the strawman for minority newscasters? Racial bias in US media is a different topic all together and I don't know anything about the research done on that subject.

As for your last claim, it is not disputed that journalists lean left politically in how they vote or identify, however research shows that this doesn't translate into significant bias in newsreporting (about politics).



Around the Network
dsgrue3 on 15 May 2013
Bong Lover said:

No wonder I already lost in the face of such a brilliant display.

Yep, it's okay - can't win 'em all champ!



GameOver22 on 15 May 2013
dsgrue3 said:
GameOver22 said:

I was going to leave this discussion alone, but now I have to respond.....Research on a liberal bias in the media is mixed, with more research suggesting that there is no systematic liberal bias. The claim has been around for a long time, and researchers have explored this question a lot. Things have changed a lot in the past 10-15 years though (and part of the reason for null finding could be measurment issues). If anything, studies suggests that the news media tends to respond to public opinion, meaning that the media gives more positive coverage to candidates with higher approval ratings among the public. Pew looked at this, and you can see how coverage of Obama becomes more negative after the first debate (where the public thought he had perfromed poorly).

Pew Research

Some other links if you have access:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02866.x/abstract

A meta-analysis from 1948-1996

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-polisci-040811-115123

Review of recent literature.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00336.x/full           

This just gives a summary of measurment issues.

http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/content/120/4/1191.short

This is the article that your link cites. The problem with the study is that ADA scores are not a good measure of ideology because they are determined by roll-call votes, and roll-call votes are not a represntative sample of the votes taking place in Congress. These votes are more highly partisan, so the results tend to overstate the polarization in Congress, meaning it overstates the liberalism of Democrats and the conservatism of Republicans, which would result in an overstatement of media bias. Many congressional scholars are moving away from roll-call votes for this very reason.

 

Oh, cool, someone new to play with.

Meta analysis from 1948-1996 is completely useless. It is in recent times that the liberal agenda became rampant.

Pew actually shows quite a substantial left-lean.

This is 13% how you can suggest that is not significant is beyond me. 

I don't have access to those journal site thing so I can't comment.

Oxford link: "Our results show a strong liberal bias"

So far you have enhanced my argument instead of your own. Thanks!

EDIT: Roll-call votes, if they overstate both sides, then what is the issue?

Bong Lover said:

Suppositions and nothing backing up my original point.


tl;dr and you already lost. Time to take your ball and go home.

A liberal bias has been claimed for a long time, hence, why the meta-analysis, but it's not like the recent research confirms your argument either....as I said, the research is mixed (check the 2013 annual review). Ummmmm.......the Oxford link is the very article your article cited, hence, why I included it.....so you might actually read it. The significant point about the Pew Research is the difference between the horse-race and non-horse race journalism. Obama had an advantage in horse-race journalism because he was the front-runner in the election. Non-horse race journalism didn't show a bias (you should read the analysis).

The problem with roll-call votes is that they are unrepresentative, meaning the results are biased towards finding support for the hypothesis of media bias (a Type 1 error).



dsgrue3 on 15 May 2013
GameOver22 said:

A liberal bias has been claimed for a long time, hence, why the meta-analysis, but it's not like the recent research confirms your argument either....as I said, the research is mixed (check the 2013 annual review). Ummmmm.......the Oxford link is the very article your article cited, hence, why I included it.....so you might actually read it. The significant point about the Pew Research is the difference between the horse-race and non-horse race journalism. Obama had an advantage in horse-race journalism because he was the front-runner in the election. Non-horse race journalism didn't show a bias (you should read the analysis).

The problem with roll-call votes is that they are unrepresentative, meaning the results are biased towards finding support for the hypothesis of media bias (a Type 1 error).

Sure seems to confirm it...in studies that actually attempt to identify it.

The Pew source you posted explicitly states the following:

"The study of the tone in news coverage is not an examination of media bias. Rather, it measures the overall impression the public is receiving in media about each candidate, whether the assertion is a quote from a source, a fact presented in the narrative that is determined to be favorable or unfavorable, including poll results, or is part of a journalistic analysis."

From my understanding a roll call vote is just a blank slate yes or no vote, so I'm struggling to understand why you think this is problematic.

If you can summarize what the journals say, I will read it.

I didn't notice any liberal media bias until the (first) Obama election, which is why I refuse to entertain the meta study from well before that time, although that isn't to say it didn't exist. It may have, it just seems to have shifted in recent times.



Kasz216 on 15 May 2013
GameOver22 said:
dsgrue3 said:
GameOver22 said:

I was going to leave this discussion alone, but now I have to respond.....Research on a liberal bias in the media is mixed, with more research suggesting that there is no systematic liberal bias. The claim has been around for a long time, and researchers have explored this question a lot. Things have changed a lot in the past 10-15 years though (and part of the reason for null finding could be measurment issues). If anything, studies suggests that the news media tends to respond to public opinion, meaning that the media gives more positive coverage to candidates with higher approval ratings among the public. Pew looked at this, and you can see how coverage of Obama becomes more negative after the first debate (where the public thought he had perfromed poorly).

Pew Research

Some other links if you have access:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02866.x/abstract

A meta-analysis from 1948-1996

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-polisci-040811-115123

Review of recent literature.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00336.x/full           

This just gives a summary of measurment issues.

http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/content/120/4/1191.short

This is the article that your link cites. The problem with the study is that ADA scores are not a good measure of ideology because they are determined by roll-call votes, and roll-call votes are not a represntative sample of the votes taking place in Congress. These votes are more highly partisan, so the results tend to overstate the polarization in Congress, meaning it overstates the liberalism of Democrats and the conservatism of Republicans, which would result in an overstatement of media bias. Many congressional scholars are moving away from roll-call votes for this very reason.

 

Oh, cool, someone new to play with.

Meta analysis from 1948-1996 is completely useless. It is in recent times that the liberal agenda became rampant.

Pew actually shows quite a substantial left-lean.

This is 13% how you can suggest that is not significant is beyond me. 

I don't have access to those journal site thing so I can't comment.

Oxford link: "Our results show a strong liberal bias"

So far you have enhanced my argument instead of your own. Thanks!

EDIT: Roll-call votes, if they overstate both sides, then what is the issue?

Bong Lover said:

Suppositions and nothing backing up my original point.


tl;dr and you already lost. Time to take your ball and go home.

. The significant point about the Pew Research is the difference between the horse-race and non-horse race journalism. Obama had an advantage in horse-race journalism because he was the front-runner in the election. Non-horse race journalism didn't show a bias (you should read the analysis).

 

Edit: Wait, this is a totally different survey then the one i thought it is.  Nevermind.



Kasz216 on 15 May 2013
Bong Lover said:
Kasz216 said:
Bong Lover said:
Kasz216 said:
Bong Lover said:
 

Not that this is going anywhere, but the liberal media bias thing is a huge red herring that conservastives would do well to reject as soon as possible. They won't and they will cling onto the liberal media monster to explain away everything under the sun.

In reality, there is no liberal media bias. It's true that more jourtnalists identify as liberals then conservatives, and this is where this ongoing myth always goes to the well. It's based on statments like "Their political views will subconciously slant coverage" to more outright claim of a grand liberal agenda to mislead the public.

Instead of going by this kind of meta information, look up the actual research that is done on the subject and one sees that the coverage is almost completely even. There is nothing in the data of actual coverage that shows any significant liberal bias in US media. It just isn't there.

So where does the myth come from? The liberal bias myth is itself an example of bias, in this case confirmation bias. It's a theory many people want to believe, so they will give much more weight to information that supports the theory then information that denies it. An example of this is on display in the quoted post where an article from the Meda Research Center is presented as some sort of credible proof for a liberal media bias.


Actually... the research that's done on the subject often shows the same thing.  At least when looking at the content, rather then how much content exists.  For example... all the news networks are reporting about Benghazi... which would count under most studies as a "Conservative news story."   Though, is it when the reporters and guests all talk about how it's a non issue?

It's the same thing as stories about women in the Media... the actual numbers are fairly favorable... the content however?  Generally sort of dismissive and riddled with code words.

 

Most media will reach the center... but it's worth noting... that the actual media center is left of the actual center of peoples beliefs.

I mean, a decent example i'd say is gay rights.  I've supported gay rights longer then most people have... and it isn't hard to see that gay rights have gotten MUCH better media coverage over the years then the number of people who supported gay marriage would of suggested.  Why?  The meida is generally supportive of gay rights.   Therefore reports about "Gay's ruining morality" and other such bullshit only existed on fringe rightwing networks.... even when that was what the majority of Americans believed.   While things about people being discriminating against gays was often talked about... even when it was the law of the land... (and the popular law of the land.)

Outside of stories about how it's suddenly way more popular.  I'd argue that gay marriage coverage hasn't changed.  Which, I support gay marriage and seeing more conservative coverage of it would of made me want to bash myself in the head with a brick, but i'm not so myopic to pretend the cause in particular i supported got an advantage as far as how the media treated it.

 

Another example is abortion rights.  Most people are for abortion rights... but also for stricter limits on abortion.  News generally slants towards full choice (as most news reporters do) and a few right wing people go the whole "Pro Life" route.  Nobody argues or reports  for the middle ground most people wants.

Also, as for the Media Research Center.  It was simply a good summary of a bunch of research that does exist.

Just a couple of things:

Research on this type of thing does not simpy say that this topic is conservative and this topic is liberal and tally up the number of articles. They determine what they describe as tone, which is an attempt to establish the slant of the article. That means there will be a number of conservative leaning articles on Benghazi, and a number of liberal leaning articles on Bengazhi.

As for the Media Reserch Center, you should not use any of their material to try to make a point about media bias. It's a hyperconservative orgnization with just one agenda: Prove and counteract liberal bias in media. Their methodology is laughably unscientific and their 'research' is 100% partisan.

Finally. It's possible that the media strive towards a center that is slightly left of the true political center in the US. My point is that this shift is very small if there at all, and certainly this bias gap is much smaller than the bias people themselves have when reading the news. In short, the concept of a liberal media conspiracy is a dead end. There's no real proof for any significant bias and it's extremely dabatable how much impact this bias would have anyway.


Well first off, the last tone study I saw was during the presidential election... which showed obama getting slightly less negative press for most of the election... until things got to "even numbers" when suddenly Obama got WAY less negative numbers.

 

Secondly, again, even tone studies ignore codewords.  People tend to say women aren't miss treated in the media eitehr.  Yet they ignore codewords.

To put it in the terms of sexism.  One you'll be more willing to agree with....


Mr. Obama said he was upset today about claims linking him to a corrupt bank official.

Mrs. Clinton complained about claims linker her to a corrupt bank official.

 

Same tone... same content... yet a WORLD of difference to how most people read those two setnences.

 

Do most journalists pay exact attention to how they word EVERY sentence like this?  They don't when it comes to gender.  (Which they care about more then the average american).   They don't when it comes to race.  (Ditto).

Do they really do so when it comes to Republicans vs Democrats?  (Which, they care less about, being farther one side.)

This is the main push for why it's needed that there be more minority newscasters.  Can you come up with a credible reason why this would be the case for minority newscasters and not conservative ones?  Or do you disavow the claim that one needs minority newscasters to shape news stories better for minorties?

 

and... that it's only due to a lie told by republicans is a silly claim... since self identification studies by everyone show that is why it's the case... and why republicans think it's the case.

So the claim is that despite all the research showing no apparent (or very slight) bias, it's still there but hidden in coded language and loaded words that researchers don't pick up on? Sorry, but that just sounds like an excuse to not have to accept the research. I'd go ass far as to say it's anopther example of biased search for information, meaning that proof contradicting a held belief is subject to much stricter scrutiny than proof that supports the same belief. Either way, I won't accept this as fact unless you can show some reliable sources behind that claim.

And what's with the strawman for minority newscasters? Racial bias in US media is a different topic all together and I don't know anything about the research done on that subject.

As for your last claim, it is not disputed that journalists lean left politically in how they vote or identify, however research shows that this doesn't translate into significant bias in newsreporting (about politics).

A) Because it's the same basic concept.  We're talking about how the unconsious mind effects reporting... if you don't think there are racial and sexual bias in the media.  Well fine then.

B) Except... social research about subconsious bias suggests that it does.  (As does all subconsious bias.)

C) Again, you've been focusing on tone on candidates and polticians.  I haven't seen anything as it relates to tone on issues.  You seemed to have zero complaints about the mention of the media leading public opinion on gay rights... can you think of any case the media led an issue ahead of public opinion to a republican end?

Gay rights, Abortion, Affirmtiive Action.  Would you argue the media hasn't led the public in the ways it reported these issuses?   I'm glad it has, but i'd think you'd have to be pretty willifully disengenious to claim this hasn't been the case.

And if so?  How does that effect polticians who hold the opposite opinion?

Makes them seem?  Out of touch?  Reminds me of a certain politcal party.

 

The only study i've seen that does take issues in account... is the Groseclose study mentioned.