A New Yardstick for Media Bias

[nbcrusader]

Citation patterns to think-tanks and politicians.

While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.

These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly.

"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."

"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.

And the study was done with no grant money to avoid the appearance of bias.

 

[Irvine511]

[q]"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."[/q]



obviously i'll have to read the study, but as i've always said, all these charges of media bias are bullshit, for several reasons:

1. simply because one votes Democratic does not mean that one is liberal; likewise, just because one votes Republican does not mean that one is conservative

2. most reporters tend to live in urban centers -- this usually translates to having urban values, which isn't "liberal" in the way that conservatives mean liberal, and it might even mean that they are more economically conservative (i.e., free market oriented) than your average voter might be

3. to think that reporters define how news is presented is funny, because the presentation of news comes down to editors and producers and executives, none of whom are overwhelmingly liberal or conservative

4. there's the working assumption that if one is liberal, one is incapable of doing one's job

5. it's always been a crock of shit -- Bill Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, has admitted that he and a few other conservative thinkers completely made it up as a way of "working the refs" -- "The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."



there is no liberal media.

besides, the charge has always reeked of anti-Semetism.

 

[hiphop]

The Wall Street Journal featured some pretty good articles about the music industry. I quoted one of those in my thesis.

 

[deep]

And the study was done with no grant money to avoid the appearance of bias.

grants do not always = bias

and the absense of grants = does not insure objectivity

On February 24, 2004, for example, in a debate on the medical liability bill, the liberal Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut cited "a study conducted by the Rand Corporation and published in the New England Journal of Medicine last year [which concluded] that individuals received the recommended treatment for their condition in only 55 percent of the cases... "


For Groseclose and Milyo, Dodd's citation of the study counts as one piece of evidence that the Rand Corporation is a liberal think tank. In fact, their method assumes that there can be no such thing as objective or disinterested scholarship -- every study or piece of research, even if published in so august a scientific authority as the New England Journal, can be assumed to have a hidden agenda, depending on which side finds its results congenial to its political purposes.

Rand Corporation is liberal????

Served on Rand Board: Donald Rumsfeld, Condi Rice plus many more of their ilk.

i saw this on the DRUDGE REPORT and when it said DRUDGE was not bias, well

 

[financeguy]

VLWC

 

[deep]

Re: Re: A New Yardstick for Media Bias

DRUDGE was not bias, well

this story does not rate a headline or listing on fair and balanced DrudgeReport?

I think their capture made it?

'Dr. Germ,' others released in Iraq

By Jason Straziuso, Associated Press Writer | December 19, 2005

BAGHDAD, Iraq --About 24 top former officials in Saddam Hussein's regime, including a biological weapons expert known as "Dr. Germ," have been released from jail, while a militant group released a video Monday of the purported killing of an American hostage.

The first results of Thursday's parliamentary election were released, with officials saying the Shiite religious bloc, the United Iraqi Alliance, got about 58 percent of the votes from 89 percent of ballot boxes counted in Baghdad province.

Across Iraq, meanwhile, demonstrations broke out to protest a government decision to raise the price of gasoline, heating and cooking fuel, and the oil minister threatened to resign over the development.

An Iraqi lawyer said the 24 or 25 officials from Saddam's government were released from jail without charges, and some have already left the country.

"The release was an American-Iraqi decision and in line with an Iraqi government ruling made in December 2004, but hasn't been enforced until after the elections in an attempt to ease the political pressure in Iraq," said the lawyer, Badee Izzat Aref.

Among them were Rihab Taha, a British-educated biological weapons expert, who was known as "Dr. Germ" for her role in making bio-weapons in the 1980s, and Huda Salih Mahdi Ammash, known as "Mrs. Anthrax," a former top Baath Party official and biotech researcher, Aref said.

"Because of security reasons, some of them want to leave the country," he said. He declined to elaborate, but noted "some have already left Iraq today."

Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad, would say only that eight individuals formerly designated as high-value detainees were released Saturday after a board process found they were no longer a security threat and no charges would be filed against them.

Neither the U.S. military or Iraqi officials would disclose any of the names, but a legal official in Baghdad said Taha and Ammash were among those released.

The official, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the issue, said those released also included Hossam Mohammed Amin, head of the weapons inspections directorate, and Aseel Tabra, an Iraqi Olympic Committee official under Odai Saddam Hussein, the former leader's son.

 

[nbcrusader]

besides, the charge has always reeked of anti-Semetism.

That's a fairly loaded charge - care to expound?

 

[Irvine511]

That's a fairly loaded charge - care to expound?

the old paranoid idea of the Jews controlling most of the media -- you know, "The Jew York Times" -- and the fact that Jews, on the whole, are the most liberal-voting ethnic group in America, and they use the media to further their liberal/communist/Upper West Side agenda.

all this despite Rupert Murdoch -- hardly a liberal -- being Jewish.

distrust of the media and anti-Semitism have a long history.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I have never seen those sort of attitudes on the right blogosphere (okay not on Instapundit, Timblair, AndrewIanDodge.com, silentrunning.tv etc. - antiwar.com is apparently quite a right wing site, oh and there was Margo Kingston a lefty collumist decrying how Zionists control Australias political system and the media), I would say that in terms of media bias the opposite is considered true in these quarters.

 

[bonoman]

Are the people who did the research biased in anyway?

It is impossible to know if any study is unbiased because it can be manipulated to prove a host of points.

 

[nbcrusader]

the old paranoid idea of the Jews controlling most of the media -- you know, "The Jew York Times" -- and the fact that Jews, on the whole, are the most liberal-voting ethnic group in America, and they use the media to further their liberal/communist/Upper West Side agenda.

all this despite Rupert Murdoch -- hardly a liberal -- being Jewish.

distrust of the media and anti-Semitism have a long history.

I agree, there has been a long standing paranoia. But it is hardly a proper defense, absent facts to substantiate, that a study demonstrating a liberal bias is anti-semetic.

 

[Irvine511]

I agree, there has been a long standing paranoia. But it is hardly a proper defense, absent facts to substantiate, that a study demonstrating a liberal bias is anti-semetic.

i didn't say that all charges of liberal media bias are anti-semetic (they are pretty much bullshit).

i said that it has whiffs of anti-semitism and has firm roots in the mistrust of Jews by the WASP establishment.

 

[deep]

Re: Re: A New Yardstick for Media Bias

when it said DRUDGE was not bias, well

i apologize for harping



but when drudge or fox news is said not to have a right wing bias

i wonder if the person or group is capable of critical thinking


http://www.drudgereport.com/plame.htm

DRUDGE READERS: CAPTION THIS PHOTO



'PLAME POSES IN PAJAMAS'...

Have a better headline for Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame's Latest Photo? Send suggestions to drudge@drudgereport.com...

RESULTS...

 

[nbcrusader]

Re: Re: Re: A New Yardstick for Media Bias

i apologize for harping



but when drudge or fox news is said not to have a right wing bias

i wonder if the person or group is capable of critical thinking


http://www.drudgereport.com/plame.htm

Interesting how the claim of left-wing bias is dismissed as unfounded, and the dismissal is supported by the claim that certain outlets have an obvious right-wing bias.

 

[cydewaze]

Media bias, eh? Let's see...

The media is owned by corporations.

These corporations benefit from republican-driven tax cuts, and are owned/chaired by rich people who also benefit from republican-driven tax cuts.

These corporations benefit from republican-driven deregulation, and are allowed to grow larger and larger. Remember when Reagan killed the Fairness Doctrine (that required media to give equal time to both left and right) so that they could air more conservative-leaning programs?

What's in it for media to be liberally-biased? Certainly not the money, since corporate advertizers tend to prefer conservative policies.

The airwaves (both TV and radio) are teeming with right-wing apologists and conservative commentators, and in the rare instances the left is represented, it's by some weak, snivelling idiot who allows himself to be walked all over by his conservative counterpart (Alan Colmes? Bill Press?).

And in the rare cases where the left is equally represented (Carville? Begala?) the show is pushed to off-hours or flat-out cancelled.

Why has everyone heard of Gary Condit and Chandra Levy, but no one has heard of Lori Klausutis or what she has to do with Joe Scarborough?

Why is it that everyone knows about Ted Kennedy and the Chappaquiddick accident, but no one knows about Laura Bush and her Texas car crash?

Sorry, but we have thousands of cases of conservative media bias over the last decade, so it's going to take a lot more than "some study" to convince me otherwise.

 

[nbcrusader]

I think the analysis begins to fall apart with the assumption that media=corporations=conservatives That may be part of the liberal bias itself, or the need to demonize corporations as the common enemy.

There are plenty of wealthy liberals (actually, there are more of them if you believe the studies bantered about come election time about how liberal voters are wealthier and better educated). But, I digress.

Another factor overlooked is that there is just as much money behind liberal causes as there are conservative causes.

Yet another factor is an individual's sensitivity to opposing views. You could be hearing plenty of left leaning commentators all day long, but the conservative ones will stand out. A conservative will "miss" the right-leaning commentators when the liberal ones are aired.

 

[Irvine511]

Re: Re: Re: Re: A New Yardstick for Media Bias

Interesting how the claim of left-wing bias is dismissed as unfounded, and the dismissal is supported by the claim that certain outlets have an obvious right-wing bias.

i've gone through this so many times, i hardly have the energy.

but Fox News and Drudge will come out and say that, yes, they are biased. they will use things like "fair and balanced" which is really a method of taking the centrist media, and by positioning themselves as right-of-that-established-center, pushing the *perception* of CNN or whatever to the left, which actually does the work of bringing the entire discussion further to the right.

also, look into the Swift Boat fiasco/smear/pit of lies to understand just how effectively coordinated Fox News/Rush/Drudge are in taking a bogus story, batting it around the web and talk radio for weeks, creating a sense of hype, and then laughing all the way as the centrist media eats it up. the story had no validity, yet essentially discredited Kerry's greatest strength and appeal to voters -- that he was (and is) a hands-down war hero.

 

[cydewaze]

I think the analysis begins to fall apart with the assumption that media=corporations=conservatives

Except it's documented.

http://www.opensecrets.org/

It's well hidden, but the information can still be found. If you find out who each media outlet is owned by, you can see who they give to on opensecrets, and with a few exceptions, the corporate owners of the media (i.e. GE owning NBC, etc) strongly favor republicans.

On top of that, you have huge advertizers in the Oil, Tobacco, Pharmacutical, etc, industries, all of whom seem to favor republicans when it comes to giving money. And when they do give to democrats, it's either the moderate ones, or the ones who were recently elected, as "sorry, no hard feelings" gesture.

Sure, there's money behind liberal causes, but that has little effect on the media.

I think "liberal media" is something the right-wing willingly propogates. It allows them to push a right-wing agenda, then point at it and call it "liberal bias". The goal is to re-define what the center is and allow them to push further right agendas, agendas that would probably be rejected if a perception of liberal media bias did not exist.

It's ingenious, actually.

 

[Irvine511]

I think "liberal media" is something the right-wing willingly propogates. It allows them to push a right-wing adgenda, then point at it and call it "liberal bias". The goal is to re-define what the center is and allow them to push further right agendas, agendas that would probably be rejected if a perception of liberal media bias did not exist.

It's ingenious, actually.

and you're absolutely right.

i've already quoted Bill Kristol -- editor of the Weekly Standard -- who has admitted that they fabricated the charge.

i suppose myths die hard, and there are always those willing to latch on to anything that helps them hold onto precious, comforting certainty when their worldviews are challenged by an open media and vigorous jouranlism.

 

[nbcrusader]

I guess you can collect isolated facts to support such a contention.

And I think you can see the another break-down in the argument by citing an agenda driven organization like opensecrets.org

You could easily swap the statements to say "conservative run corporations" is something that the left-wing willingly propogates.....

 

[cydewaze]

And I think you can see the another break-down in the argument by citing an agenda driven organization like opensecrets.org

I find it amusing that providing data is considered agenda driven.

It's all public information. If you donate to a politician, that's public information. I googled my zipcode and found that one of my neighbors donated to one of our senators in 2002. Public info.

If facts appear to have a liberal bias, perhaps something else is wrong.

 

[Irvine511]

Rich Bond, RNC chariman in 1992: "There is some strategy to it [bashing the 'liberal' media].... If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is 'work the refs.' Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack on the next one."

James Baker: "There were days and times and events we might have had some complaints [but] on balance I don't think we had anything to complain about."

Pat Buchanan: "I've gotten balanced coverage, and broad coverage--all we could have asked. For heaven sakes, we kid about the 'liberal media,' but every Republican on earth does that."



also, are you discounting the influence of, say, Fox News, the Wall Street Journal editorial pages, the Washington Times, the New York Post, The American Spectator, The Weekly Standard, the New York Sun, National Review, Commentary, Limbaugh, Drudge, etc?

what distinguishes these pieces of media from the "liberal" media like CNN, MSNBC, the major networks, is that the ones listed above never include any pretense towards balance and comprehensive evaluation and represenatation of the facts. conservatives are extremely well represented in every facet of the mainstream media, which belies the point that even the genuine liberal media -- i.e., The Nation -- are not so liberal nor are they nearly as ferocious and commited compared to the massive, coordinated conservative media structure that determines the shape and scope of our political agenda.

 

[diamond]

it gives me great comfort while basking in the sure knowledge
that
the fym fourm of interfernce.com
contains the most impartail
well balanced
informed
clearheaded thinkers
of a grrreat
generation.

if only they would turn off their i-pods

 

[deep]

Re: Re: Re: Re: A New Yardstick for Media Bias

Interesting how the claim of left-wing bias is dismissed as unfounded, and the dismissal is supported by the claim that certain outlets have an obvious right-wing bias.

i do not dismiss that there are left wing media sources

i did read the report when I saw it listed on Drudge

i found some of it credible
and some of it way off

i did look into how the research was compiled

as a regular listener to public radio it has gotten more balanced in recent years
i also believe PBS if fairly balanced
they both have large corp. sponsors and depend on a more conservative congress for some of their funding

when I hear them assailed as liberal
it says more about the accuser than the stations

Pacifica public radio is liberal
the nation is liberal


to what extend abc, nbc and cbs are liberal is in the eye of the beholder
they sure joined the feeding frenzy on the Clinton/Monica so-called scandal

and pretty much let the Bush Admin set the news cycle in the 02 and 04 elections

i just found the study without merit
when they said Drudge was balanced
they can use the method of all stories linked on his page
to try and support that finding

But what leads in Bold, large type
does often set, or influence the news cycle

and there is a definite right slant
his advertisers prove that out.

 

[nbcrusader]

I find it amusing that providing data is considered agenda driven.

It's all public information. If you donate to a politician, that's public information. I googled my zipcode and found that one of my neighbors donated to one of our senators in 2002. Public info.

If facts appear to have a liberal bias, perhaps something else is wrong.

Selective provision of facts can be exceptionally biased.

 

[cydewaze]

Selective provision of facts can be exceptionally biased.

Obviously, but what does opensecrets omit? There are plenty of industries listed that are dem-friendly. I originally found out about opensecrets on Free Republic (a rigth-wing website) when they were using numbers from it to assail the gun control industry.

The numbers are based on search criteria the user specifies. I don't understand what's selective about it.

 

[deep]

Selective provision of facts can be exceptionally biased.

i can agree with that