"Proof" that republicans are racist

[Grizlaw]

Here's a recent study done by UCLA that does confirm there is a left leaning bias in the media.

http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664

Ok, I know I said I was going home for the night, but I saw this post, read the UCLA "study," and had to respond.

Stevi, have you actually read and thought about the methodology behind the study, and what it means? Because if you do, I think you'll agree that it's ridiculous.

For those who don't feel like reading it, here's how these geniuses apparently conducted their study: they counted the number of times each news outlet cited the studies of certain think tanks over a period of time (i.e., the Heritage Foundation, the NAACP, etc.), and compared that with the number of times "liberal" and "conservative" lawmakers cited studies by the same think tanks. Based on that, they concluded that the media outlets held views similar to those of lawmakers who had similar citation patterns.

Now, keeping in mind the reasons why lawmakers generally cite studies by think tanks, and comparing that with the reasons why media outlets often cite such studies, can anyone not see the glaring flaw in the logic here?

If you don't see where I'm going with this, let me offer an example: suppose the Wall Street Journal writes an article about an affirmative action program. The article may be clearly critical of the program (or at least not endorsing it), but it makes reference to a study that was done by the NAACP. According to the logic behind this study, the fact that the author referred to a study by the NAACP makes the WSJ a more liberal newspaper than it would be had it not mentioned the study? Please...

Ok, now I'm going home. For real.

--GL

[SonomaCat]

Actually, that would make most of the liberal blogs show up as right wing publications by that methodology, as they usually quote right wing figures, and then rip on them. Ditto for conservative blogs (think O'Reilly). Every single thing he quotes is a liberal source (generally taken out of context and not even read in its entirety).

[longhorn_22]

"Since [the Democrats] think it is their job to run the plantation, it shocks them that I'm actually willing to lead the slave rebellion," Newt Gingrich told the Washington Post on October 20, 1994.

Ok, I'm not sure how much the media has changed since 1994 considering I was 8 years old, but today, the media is vastly not in favor of the Republicans. Virtually every major newspaper would have the Republicans ass if that were said right now. Not to mention the hell that Jessie Jackson, the NAACP and the ACLU would give them.

Methinks that such opinions generally come from listening to the media that is "vastly not in favor" of Democrats.

The fact is, virtually the exact same quote has been used in the modern political era (8 years old? Good lord!) by members of both parties, so the suggestion that a Republican would be treated differently is a pure straw man argument (that I've incidently heard advanced by many members of the "vastly and explicitly not in favor of Democrats" media that have major media exposure in every market in America) that doesn't hold true.

Here's a recent study done by UCLA that does confirm there is a left leaning bias in the media.

http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664

There doesn't need to be a study for this. It is obvious.

[longhorn_22]

Ok, I'm not sure how much the media has changed since 1994 considering I was 8 years old...

Geezus, I'm feeling old. I was a college freshman in October of 1994...

(And yes, I also just turned 30 last week. Ugh...)

Alright, I'm going home from work for the night.

Later,

--GL

I am 19 so please don't think of longhorn as 8 when you read my posts!

[SonomaCat]

I agree. I was watching Fox News the other day, and they even told me so.

It is true that more journalists are registered Democrats than Republicans, but I think the assertion that the reporting done by serious journalists (meaning nothing by most cable networks) is biased is a bit of a myth in nearly every case. Both sides seem to think that the media is biased against them (it's the "corporate-controlled media" if you are on left and the "liberal mainstream media" if you are on the right), so that tells me that they must be doing their job just about right. If neither side is happy with you, it's a sign of objectivity.

I know I personally get plenty of bad news about both sides from the mainstream media when I choose to listen to it/watch it, so it's doing its job for me.

[SonomaCat]

I am 19 so please don't think of longhorn as 8 when you read my posts!

I can't make any promises. When you school me in a debate, I just might try to bribe you a chocolate chip cookie to just be quiet and play with your toys.

[longhorn_22]

I am 19 so please don't think of longhorn as 8 when you read my posts!

I can't make any promises. When you school me in a debate, I just might try to bribe you a chocolate chip cookie to just be quiet and play with your toys.

You've already been schooled. Where's my cookie!?

[SonomaCat]

Why I oughta...!

[shaking my fist in your direction with one hand, leaning on my cane with the other, and madly running my lips over my toothless gums]

[briannell]

Listen here boys!!! I am surrounded by testosterone. I'll bust your balls and smile while I do it I've had years of practice.

OK, I'll step out of dominatrix mode now. It doesn't really suit me.

okay, granted I came in way too late in the game on this thread - but hold fast, there are only like 4 of us that post on here regularly against all these men. we need every advantage we can get !

[Grizlaw]

Actually, that would make most of the liberal blogs show up as right wing publications by that methodology, as they usually quote right wing figures, and then rip on them. Ditto for conservative blogs (think O'Reilly). Every single thing he quotes is a liberal source (generally taken out of context and not even read in its entirety).

Exactly! And if you read the study, that's exactly how it turned out. The very first sentence tells us that, per the study, the Wall Street Journal is more liberal than the New York Times. The Drudge Report also "tilts left," according to the study.

What's scary, though, is that people publish a study like this, throw a title on it that indicates that it "proves" that there is a bias in the media, and most people just accept it as true without actually reading the study and thinking about how it was done. It was done by UCLA economists, so it must be true, right?

[ChiOCat]

Katie, Matt, Al, and Ann - much as I like to watch them are definately left leaning. As are most of the Evening News anchors. Do I know this from a study? No. I know this because I am usually disguisted when I'm done watching. I don't agree with their portrayal of events.

Yes, there are many right leaning programs, but I they are not the mainstream network programs. Aside from Fox News, most are talk radio programs.

[Ponycat]

IMHO those that don't see a left leaning bias in the majority of major news outlets are left leaning and hate Fox News.

I, a conservative, know Fox News is conservative but don't try to deny it. ITs nothing to be ashamed of but don't act like its not there.

[Hell's Bells]

wow

i missed this yesterday!!!!



BTW Happy Bday grizlaw...

[Stevicat]

Here's a recent study done by UCLA that does confirm there is a left leaning bias in the media.

http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664

Ok, I know I said I was going home for the night, but I saw this post, read the UCLA "study," and had to respond.

Stevi, have you actually read and thought about the methodology behind the study, and what it means? Because if you do, I think you'll agree that it's ridiculous.

For those who don't feel like reading it, here's how these geniuses apparently conducted their study: they counted the number of times each news outlet cited the studies of certain think tanks over a period of time (i.e., the Heritage Foundation, the NAACP, etc.), and compared that with the number of times "liberal" and "conservative" lawmakers cited studies by the same think tanks. Based on that, they concluded that the media outlets held views similar to those of lawmakers who had similar citation patterns.

Now, keeping in mind the reasons why lawmakers generally cite studies by think tanks, and comparing that with the reasons why media outlets often cite such studies, can anyone not see the glaring flaw in the logic here?

If you don't see where I'm going with this, let me offer an example: suppose the Wall Street Journal writes an article about an affirmative action program. The article may be clearly critical of the program (or at least not endorsing it), but it makes reference to a study that was done by the NAACP. According to the logic behind this study, the fact that the author referred to a study by the NAACP makes the WSJ a more liberal newspaper than it would be had it not mentioned the study? Please...

Ok, now I'm going home. For real.

--GL

GL,
You have a very good point. I did read the study and it was something that initially concerned me. The following statements did make me feel better about the survey, however...

Since Groseclose and Milyo were more concerned with bias in news reporting than opinion pieces, which are designed to stake a political position, they omitted editorials and Op‑Eds from their tallies. This is one reason their study finds The Wall Street Journal more liberal than conventional wisdom asserts.

The researchers took numerous steps to safeguard against bias — or the appearance of same — in the work, which took close to three years to complete. They went to great lengths to ensure that as many research assistants supported Democratic candidate Al Gore in the 2000 election as supported President George Bush. They also sought no outside funding, a rarity in scholarly research.

I know it's not perfect and I guess my own bias thinking that the media is left leaning makes me feel comfortable with it.

[Hell's Bells]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Pr ... eorge+Bush

for the conspiricy theorist in all of us i found these websights at the following google search i did...30 seconds before posting this

www.bushorchimp.com
www.votetoimpeach.org
www.toostupidtobepresident.com/

i was inclined just to read this and not comment but i just have to comment now.

is the media biased..well yes but then again it is hard not to publish anything that excludes your internal biases, especially within a reporting piece that you are working on that is LIVE ON TV.

that being said if you dont like the way they report...do like me and ignore it

www.drudgereport.com
www.orbusmax.com

those are good websights to get news from if you are a concervative. although drudge did first break the entire "bush = dui" thing

[Grizlaw]

GL,
You have a very good point. I did read the study and it was something that initially concerned me. The following statements did make me feel better about the survey, however...

Since Groseclose and Milyo were more concerned with bias in news reporting than opinion pieces, which are designed to stake a political position, they omitted editorials and Op‑Eds from their tallies. This is one reason their study finds The Wall Street Journal more liberal than conventional wisdom asserts.

The researchers took numerous steps to safeguard against bias — or the appearance of same — in the work, which took close to three years to complete. They went to great lengths to ensure that as many research assistants supported Democratic candidate Al Gore in the 2000 election as supported President George Bush. They also sought no outside funding, a rarity in scholarly research.

I know it's not perfect and I guess my own bias thinking that the media is left leaning makes me feel comfortable with it.

Yeah, I did notice that they excluded editorials (which is correct for a study like this, since editorials really aren't news). I guess for me, though, the bottom line with regard to this study is that you really can't logically correlate a lawmaker's citation to a study with a journalist's, regardless of whether the citation appears in a news piece or in an op-ed piece. This is true because, when a lawmaker cites a study, he or she is nearly always citing it because they agree with it, whereas a citation by a journalist often does not indicate agreement, and often indicates the opposite. Thus, I just don't see this study as indicating much of anything, frankly.

Just so we're clear, too -- I'm only disagreeing with the methodology of this study; I'm not necessarily saying that there's no bias in the media. I know that most media sources do have slant one way or the other. My newspaper of choice is the Wall Street Journal, which definitely has a conservative slant to it (although I think its reporting of the facts is as objective as it can be). I also occasionally read the NY Times, which certainly does have a liberal slant to it (though again, I think they also do a good job of sticking to the facts and not editorializing too much, though I do prefer the Journal, which is why I subscribe to the WSJ over the NYT). I guess my point is that I can acknowledge that most of the media has a slant one way or the other; my only point here is that this particular study doesn't really prove anything.

Sorry to ramble so much to make a very small point. Back to work...

--GL

P.S. Thanks for the happy birthday wishes, HB. It's too bad you couldn't be here for the party; it was pretty wild -- a dinner of Brazilian food, followed by an Irish pub, followed by a club. Gotta love the fact that bars & clubs in NYC are open till 4 am.

[ChiOCat]

a dinner of Brazilian food, followed by an Irish pub, followed by a club. Gotta love the fact that bars & clubs in NYC are open till 4 am.

OK, now I really don't like you I would kill for a little Brazillian food. Who am I kidding, a lot of Brazillian food. Did you have a caipirinha or some Skol to accompany your meal? Mmmmmmmm. Now I'm hungry.

[Grizlaw]

OK, now I really don't like you I would kill for a little Brazillian food. Who am I kidding, a lot of Brazillian food. Did you have a caipirinha or some Skol to accompany your meal?

Both, along with many other adult beverages. I actually had a lot more to drink that night than I've had in a long time.

Let me put it this way: the following is a line from the invitations that I sent out:

"Friends, on Friday (Jan. 20), I am turning 30...and on Saturday (Jan. 21), I plan to prove that, even at 30, I can still out-party all of my friends, both older and younger. What say you?"

--GL

[ChiOCat]

OK, now I really don't like you I would kill for a little Brazillian food. Who am I kidding, a lot of Brazillian food. Did you have a caipirinha or some Skol to accompany your meal?

Both, along with many other adult beverages. I actually had a lot more to drink that night than I've had in a long time.

Let me put it this way: the following is a line from the invitations that I sent out:

"Friends, on Friday (Jan. 20), I am turning 30...and on Saturday (Jan. 21), I plan to prove that, even at 30, I can still out-party all of my friends, both older and younger. What say you?"

--GL

Sure, at 30 we can still out-party them. But only for one night One of my girlfriends had a great 30th bday party last year. We got on a Karst Stage bus at the Grantree, then hit The Korner Klub, Norris, Pony, Three Forks, and I think we ended at (what used to be) the R Bar.