Bias In The Media?

[Annie]

Shocking:

http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cach...gmu.edu/~atabarro/MediaBias.doc+drudge?&hl=en

Long, very long, but well documented:

The editors in Los Angeles killed the story. They told Witcover that it didn’t ‘come off’ and that it was an ‘opinion’ story. …The solution was simple, they told him. All he had to do was get other people to make the same points and draw the same conclusions and then write the article in their words.” (emphasis in original) Timothy Crouse, Boys on the Bus, 1973, p. 116.




Do the major media outlets in the U.S. have a liberal bias? Few questions evoke stronger opinions, and we cannot think of a more important question to which objective statistical techniques can lend their service. So far, the debate has largely been one of anecdotes (“How can CBS News be balanced when it calls Steve Forbes’ tax plan ‘wacky’?&#148 and untested theories (“if the news industry is a competitive market, then how can media outlets be systematically biased?&#148.


Few studies provide an objective measure of the slant of news, and none has provided a way to link such a measure to ideological measures of other political actors. That is, none of the existing measures can say, for example, whether the New York Times is more liberal than Tom Daschle or whether Fox News is more conservative than Bill Frist. We provide such a measure. Namely, we compute an ADA score for various news outlets, including the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, the Drudge Report, Fox News’ Special Report, and all three networks’ nightly news shows.


Our results show a very significant liberal bias. All of the news outlets except Fox News’ Special Report received a score to the left of the average member of Congress. Moreover, by one of our measures all but three of these media outlets (Special Report, the Drudge Report, and ABC’s World News Tonight) were closer to the average Democrat in Congress than to the median member of the House of Representatives. One of our measures found that the Drudge Report is the most centrist of all media outlets in our sample. Our other measure found that Fox News’ Special Report is the most centrist. These findings refer strictly to the news stories of the outlets. That is, we omitted editorials, book reviews, and letters to the editor from our sample.

 

[NATO AIR]

based on your political beliefs, you'll see bias in many places.

its a fact.

i don't really care, that's why i read the wall street journal, weekly standard, economist, newsweek and the nation, all in one shot, so i can get the breadth from the right to the left and make sense of it myself. if only others could do this and not take what they hear on TV or in one magazine to be the gospel.

now i have noticed this, the media has turned against bush. he's gotten a fairly free ride from them from the moment he started running for prez until about june 2003. they gave him a break after 9/11 especially. they helped pummel al gore into looking like a flip-flop idiot. they made the dems seem inept and foolish. nobody in a mainstream format even questioned the patriot act until weeks after the fact (i have a few problems with it, but i think its all in all good).

but the free ride is over... the very same media that got bush his presidency (along with nader's spoiler campaign) has now turned against him and may cost him his reelection. republicans, be wary. much of the media is at war with our president and he better step his game up if he wants to stay in office 4 years.

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by NATO AIR
based on your political beliefs, you'll see bias in many places.

its a fact.

i don't really care, that's why i read the wall street journal, weekly standard, economist, newsweek and the nation, all in one shot, so i can get the breadth from the right to the left and make sense of it myself. if only others could do this and not take what they hear on TV or in one magazine to be the gospel.

now i have noticed this, the media has turned against bush. he's gotten a fairly free ride from them from the moment he started running for prez until about june 2003. they gave him a break after 9/11 especially. they helped pummel al gore into looking like a flip-flop idiot. they made the dems seem inept and foolish. nobody in a mainstream format even questioned the patriot act until weeks after the fact (i have a few problems with it, but i think its all in all good).

but the free ride is over... the very same media that got bush his presidency (along with nader's spoiler campaign) has now turned against him and may cost him his reelection. republicans, be wary. much of the media is at war with our president and he better step his game up if he wants to stay in office 4 years.

I didn't write the working paper, did you read it? When was the media on Bush's side? Site something from say 99 or 2000?

 

[NATO AIR]

i miswrote that

i didn't mean YOU, i meant like YOU as in each person, each person will find bias wherever they go.

like i said, reading/listening to a variety from different political spectrums is much better than depending on one or two sources. i'd much prefer if these networks were honest about their leanings (fox is blatant) (cnn should be as well)

now as far as the 2000 election, this is just widespread belief. i find it to be true. gore screwed up his election, he ran a crappy campaign, he was a crappy candidate until about 3 days before the election, and the media did not like him at all. respectfully, if you actually think the media liked gore, why did they recycle these endless diatribes from the RNC about "inventing the internet" and all that other stuff... i mean c'mon, they had him looking pathetic in front of the American people for months. it finally came together in their head on election day, and bush won it because of that.

gore was a sorry candidate most of the way. bush was horribly inexperienced running for president in 2000. he had a caretaker governorship and no real experience before either. he's done good under horrific circumstances as president. he's my president. he's done well considering his limited experience. i'm not bashing him, i'm just saying that's how bad gore screwed up and that's how much the media despised him. and also look at the way bush was with reporters... bush was warm and charming, gore was wooden and often abrasive or annoying. as a reporter, c'mon, who are you gonna favor under those circumstances? bush of course.

 

[Annie]

Nato Air, see other post. Not playing this game anymore. Pick a position and go from there.

 

[NATO AIR]

that's the problem right now, you can't be balanced, people won't let you. they want to pigeonhole you, right or left, anti-bush or pro-bush, pro-war, anti-war, blah blazzy blah.

i won't do it.

i stand for sanity. my party has jumped to the far right, the opposition has crept to the center but still gets bashed for being liberal because of some of their more outspoken members. i'm a common sense centrist. i don't like abortion, gun control, faulty intelligence that's massaged, tax cuts that benefit the wealthy who don't need the extra money, dumb laws that cost us millions and waste our time (half the environmental laws on the books), doomsday speakers, racism and corruption. there's lots more. i think pakistan is a worse judas than saudi arabia, i believe north korea was and is a far bigger threat than iraq could ever be and that israel is dooming itself, just as the palestinians have for decades. the french are treacherous but their military is good to us, the germans are misled and misinformed. russia is not acting in our best interests, china is not our friend and won't be for god knows how long. on any one of these issues though i try to find common ground with people so we can build and reach an understanding or a better idea. i don't believe in rigid idealogy, that's why iraq is such a mess right now and the liberal dems are so pathetic.

now this bias business, my position is staked. CNN is for the left of centre, Fox for the right of centre, god knows who is in the middle. that's why you watch a little bit of everything and try to pick out the best reporters. the media is full of crap too much of the time anyway.

the soros business is heinous, they called the man a nazi collaborator. wtf is that? is there any ounce of proof behind that?

they called john ashcroft a slavery loving racist. wtf is that? is there one ounce of proof behind that?

i'm in the center, and god help me, a lot of people are left or right of me, and it seems many of them do not like that i am in the middle. i guess i'm screwing myself. i got a new name because i poisoned the old one with my emotions. i like debate, i don't want to be pegged as the temper losing fellow the whole time i'm here, but i also refuse to be forced to pick sides when there's good in both of em.

forgive me for the damn long explanation.

 

[Annie]

Nato

If you look at my posts you'll see I'm not far right, nor left, nor center on all issues. I'm basically conservative.

You talk of 'your party' moving to far right, while 'the other party' moves center. That is not unbiased, that is twisting. If I wasn't moderating I would put you on ignore, but I am, so I can't.

IF you choose to come out with where you stand, fine. Otherwise I will not directly engage with you.

BTW, you had best start linking to your 'pronouncements' pronto.

Have a good day.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Liberals never want to play the "game" of being honest about what they believe. Every layer of spin you peel off of them, just reveals a new set of lies, from a differenct direction.

Example:

Lib says: " This war was conducted poorly from the beginning, we have achieved nothing."

con says: "Actually, no military has ever taken so much ground with so few casualties on both sides in so little time."

Lib says: "well, who are we to enforce our way of life on them anyway."

con says: "Oh so THAT's your REAL problem. Why didn't you say so? Oh yeah cuz you're a liberal liar"


Nothing can be built on the shifting sands of demented liberal thinking.

 

[musicman]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Liberals never want to play the "game" of being honest about what they believe. Every layer of spin you peel off of them, just reveals a new set of lies, from a differenct direction.

Example:

Lib says: " This war was conducted poorly from the beginning, we have achieved nothing."

con says: "Actually, no military has ever taken so much ground with so few casualties on both sides in so little time."

Lib says: "well, who are we to enforce our way of life on them anyway."

con says: "Oh so THAT's your REAL problem. Why didn't you say so? Oh yeah cuz you're a liberal liar"


Nothing can be built on the shifting sands of demented liberal thinking.

That's because liberalism is a lie at it's very root. It rejects reason in favor of such vapors as the perfectibility of man, and a loving, one-world utopia, where all will work together for the betterment of humankind. It can only lead to the centralization of power ( i.e., tyranny ), and the death of individual rights. The only hard, immutable truth in liberalism is that whatever advances the agenda is good - in short, " situation ethics " as a blueprint for the acquisition of power. President Reagan stamped out this evil in the Soviet Union, but it's still going strong here at home.

 

[Annie]

This morning in WSJ:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110005278

Bad ACTors
If Dems want honest elections, why did a Soros-backed group hire criminals to get out the vote?

Monday, June 28, 2004 12:01 a.m.

When the Associated Press last week turned up evidence that America Coming Together, an anti-Bush group funded by $5 million from financier George Soros, had hired dozens of felons to go door-to-door and register voters in Florida, Missouri and Ohio, the defensive fire from ACT was swift and predictable.
First, ACT claimed it hadn't employed violent felons. Then when the AP reported that ACT employees included people convicted of assault and sex offenses, the group admitted it might also have hired felons in 14 other battleground states. It also promised to fire anyone guilty of "violent or other serious offenses." In some cases it won't have to; four felons it hired in Missouri have already gone back to prison, including one for endangering the welfare of a minor.

 

[Annie]

Just like MM, thanks McCain/Feingold. Seems to me that NYT is becoming an advocate and doing politicing for the DNC. If this isn't spin what is?

http://slate.msn.com/id/2103087/

kausfiles A mostly political Weblog.


NYT Falls to Lowest Point
Adam "Spider" Nagourney spins the Dem cocoon.
By Mickey Kaus
Posted Tuesday, June 29, 2004, at 12:34 AM PT


Spinning the Cocoon--The 13th Graf: Soxblog notes that a month ago, the CBS poll had Kerry up by 8 in a head to head with Bush (and up 6 with Nader in the race). This month, the NYT/CBS poll showed Kerry's lead had dropped to a single point in the head-to-head, and Bush was actually winning by a point with Nader included. Kerry dropped seven points in a month. So what do the Times' Nagourney and Elder lead their story with?

Bush's Rating Falls to Its Lowest Point, New Survey Finds

You don't find out until paragraph 11 that the candidates are essentially tied, and only in the 13th graf do Nagourney and Elder slip in the previous months poll results--without pointing out to readers the decline in Kerry's lead. ...

But the Times coverage isn't really that bad. It's worse! Soxblog also busts Nagourney and Elder for what appears to be dissembling. They report, in the very first sentence of their piece, that

President Bush's job approval rating has fallen to the lowest level of his presidency, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.

But if you look at the previous poll results listed in the Times web site, you learn that a month ago Bush's approval rating was a point lower and his disapproval rating was a point higher. Bush has actually gained in the past month. It doesn't appear to be, you know, true that his "approval rating has fallen to the lowest level of his presidency." It was worse last month. The same goes for Bush's favorability ratings, which were lower last month (36 favorable/47 unfavorable) than this month (39 favorable/45 unfavorable).

Nagourney and Elder seem to be relying on a technicality--that last month's poll was a "CBS poll" and not a "Times/CBS" poll. Note the Clintonian clause they sneak into this sentence:

he 42 percent of Americans who say they approve of the way Mr. Bush is handling his job is the lowest such figure in a Times/CBS News survey since the beginning of Mr. Bush's presidency in January 2001; 51 percent say they disapprove. [Emphasis added]

But does the presence of the Times name on this month's survey reflect any difference other than who funds it? Doesn't CBS' Kathy Frankovic do the poll either way? Does she conduct the "Times/CBS poll" differently from the plain old "CBS" poll? If so, why does the Times itself list both polls in the charts of its "New York TImes/CBS News poll" on its own site? Readers are supposed to read those charts for trends, but somehow Nagouney and Elder are allowed to ignore them in order to deceptively pluck out their anti-Bush theme. ...

P.S.: Note that even the technicality doesn't really save Nagourney and Elder's first sentence, which fails to deploy the "Times/CBS" disclaimer in a legalistically-airtight way. ...

P.P.S.: Andrew Sullivan once defended Nagourney by blaming the faults in his reporting on editor Howell Raines' meddling. Well, Raines is gone, and Nagourney is still spinning the Democrats' cocoon. He's become a national embarrassment. ...

P.P.P.S.: They're tied now. Won't Kerry fall behind if Bush's favorables have in fact bottomed out? Kerry's favorables have gone downhill since last month's poll--he's now viewed unfavorably by more people (39 percent) than view him favorably (29 percent). Dem Panic anyone? ... 11:17 A.M.

 

[William Joyce]

Originally posted by nato
i don't really care, that's why i read the wall street journal, weekly standard, economist, newsweek and the nation, all in one shot, so i can get the breadth from the right to the left and make sense of it myself.

That's not the full spectrum. That's from Jew on the left to Jew on the right! All the opinion you get is Jewish.

If you are looking for a white perspective on things, try reading:

http://www.nationalvanguard.org/

http://natall.com/

http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com