The Deadly Irresponsibility of Newsweek Magazine

[IControlThePast]

Don't try to backpedal now. YOU cited Chomsky; moreover, you did it with arrogance - confident that dropping his most holy name would lend weight to your argument. It didn't. He is widely recognized as an asshole. But you, obviously, revere him (which explains a lot about you). Don't abandon him now. Don't try to use the general recognition that he is an asshole as some lame rationalization for your discredited point. Have the strength of your convictions!

Back away, I never supported him or his study. Read my posts :

Ah, I've already discussed that study elsewhere. There are quite a few studies done that say the media is biased both ways. Basically, you're not going to find the objective truth in a study.

I was just asked to cite a study that had different results from Kathianne's. I started out with the disclaimer you're not going to find truth in studies.

That's odd, since stopping libel and monopolies is precisely the effect the free market has had on the dissemination of news. When the MSM/DNC enjoyed a monopoly, they libeled, slandered, and assassinnated the character of their political enemies regularly and with impunity. The market is slowly and painfully teaching the Dan Rathers, Eason Jordans, and Newsweek Magazines that behaving like a scumbag is bad business. There's a new sheriff in town; it's a beautiful thing.

So you are saying you are for repealing the libel and slander laws?

You'd have to prove the MSM was liberal to argue that point, something which you haven't done and aren't able to do. It's always been fairly easy to establish a print medium to circulate with minimum costs, especially if it will sell. Does this "vast leftwing conspiracy" include all publishers in the world, and somehow prevent people from setting up their own press?

 

[IControlThePast]

Once again, which study. BTW, linguistics is NOT political science. He IS however clever with words.

http://web.mit.edu/linguistics/www/bibliography/noam.html

Your Stanford Study.

He teaches PoliSci classes too. His work with linguistics especially makes his analysis of the media accurate. The Stanford study tried to use linguistics to prove its point about identifying bias.

 

[musicman]

Back away, I never supported him or his study. Read my posts :

Back away yourself - you're good at it. I did read your posts; Chomsky is your little snookums. At least retain the pretense of intellectual honesty.

So you are saying you are for repealing the libel and slander laws?

Your preposterous, hysterical flights into unreality don't play well with grownups.

You'd have to prove the MSM was liberal to argue that point,

You're denying it - with a straight face? Watch the alphabet network news. Open a copy of Newsweek, the New York Times, or the Washington Post. Consume any of the fare offered up by what we all know as the "mainstream media", and tell me that the designation, "MSM/DNC" is not richly deserved. Flush what minimal credibility you've got left.

 

[wolverine]

Well, since Drudge has an accuracy problem.....
The wagon circling has started.

"Mike was told he would not be sacrificed, we are standing behind him 100%," a top magazine source told the DRUDGE REPORT. "We do not, I repeat, do not let this White House, any White House, make our staff decisions for us."

I think this is interesting:

White House staffers suspect Isikoff's source for the Quran report was from congress, not from the administration.

LINK​

 

[Bonnie]

Volverine, totally off topic but I like your avatar especially since I just saw Van Helsing.........


Good post as well :

 

[wolverine]

That's an off topic compliment I'll take anytime Bonnie.
And thanks for the good rep

 

[Annie]

Your Stanford Study.

He teaches PoliSci classes too. His work with linguistics especially makes his analysis of the media accurate. The Stanford study tried to use linguistics to prove its point about identifying bias.

He writes on political subjects, in very, very clever ways. MIT does NOT mention him with the poly sci dept. I was a poly sci major, never saw him referred to in any way other than a linguist.

 

[IControlThePast]

Back away yourself - you're good at it. I did read your posts; Chomsky is your little snookums. At least retain the pretense of intellectual honesty.

Your preposterous, hysterical flights into unreality don't play well with grownups.

You're denying it - with a straight face? Watch the alphabet network news. Open a copy of Newsweek, the New York Times, or the Washington Post. Consume any of the fare offered up by what we all know as the "mainstream media", and tell me that the designation, "MSM/DNC" is not richly deserved. Flush what minimal credibility you've got left.

What part of "you can't find truth in media studies" do you find confusing?

Right, my hysterical flights like my huge conspiracy theories I propose and then don't back up .

Any you're denying Crop Circles, the Pentagon 9/11 conspiracy, The Men on The Grassy Knoll, and Fnords with a strait face? I bet everything that went wrong in your life was caused by a conspiracy too . Adults accept consequences and responsibility. Children create conspiracy theories as a coping mechanism for the dissonance between their perception and reality. It's called the "Mean World Syndrome."

 

[IControlThePast]

He writes on political subjects, in very, very clever ways. MIT does NOT mention him with the poly sci dept. I was a poly sci major, never saw him referred to in any way other than a linguist.

I can tell you that he does teach PoliSci there. Were you just a PoliSci major or one at MIT?

 

[Annie]

AFter nearly 24 hours of your command to others to post links to credible sources, which I did, you then said that such sources were not good enough.

You said they had been 'debunked', but it seems that your idea of 'debunking' is right up there with your 'personal observations' of Drudge. You claimed that only 1/3 of his stuff was 'credible' then said that perhaps he was right as '80%'.

You set the parameters, move them at will, then say we're wrong? You are funny! :duh3:

 

[musicman]

What part of "you can't find truth in media studies" do you find confusing?

Right, my hysterical flights like my huge conspiracy theories I propose and then don't back up .

Any you're denying Crop Circles, the Pentagon 9/11 conspiracy, The Men on The Grassy Knoll, and Fnords with a strait face? I bet everything that went wrong in your life was caused by a conspiracy too . Adults accept consequences and responsibility. Children create conspiracy theories as a coping mechanism for the dissonance between their perception and reality. It's called the "Mean World Syndrome."

Wow - what a meltdown!

 

[Annie]

Wow - what a meltdown!

Are we detecting a pattern here? :coffee3:

 

[musicman]

Are we detecting a pattern here? :coffee3:

LOL - Valium at table one, please!

 

[IControlThePast]

AFter nearly 24 hours of your command to others to post links to credible sources, which I did, you then said that such sources were not good enough.

You said they had been 'debunked', but it seems that your idea of 'debunking' is right up there with your 'personal observations' of Drudge. You claimed that only 1/3 of his stuff was 'credible' then said that perhaps he was right as '80%'.

You set the parameters, move them at will, then say we're wrong? You are funny! :duh3:

It's not the source I disagree with. I commend you for trying to cite a study to prove your point. I wish people would do that more often. I fault not the source, for you picked a good one in Standford and Chicago, but the methedology. Now which part of my refutation of study methedology did you have a problem with? Here it is again for conveniency's sake:

The study omits 73% of Fox stories, because editorial opinion is not allowed to enter. I have a link for that if you want to see it (http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2005/narrative_cabletv_contentanalysis.asp?cat=2&media=5). That's not looking too good right there. Leaving things like editorials out have skewed the study and made it unrepresentative. If 73% of the news on FNC contains editorials, and was therefore omitted from the study, you're only getting a view of 27% of the stories. Even if you still won't believe me and my link look at how few think tanks Fox cited compared to the other sources. This is because most stories from Fox news were not included, and also because Fox cites less sources than the other news outlets (same link). Editorials are where a large amount of bias creeps into these stories.

There is, however, a more fundamental problem with the authors' analysis though one has to read the paper to see it. Their principal measure of "bias" is indirect; it consists of the number of times each media outlet cites news from a "think tank" that the authors have coded as "liberal" or "conservative." How do they know a "think tank's" political orientation? They cite the number of times liberal and conservative members of Congress cite the work of a given think tank. (Are you still following this?)

The problem is that most cited "liberal" think tanks are also the largest and best known institutions (e.g. Rand Corp.; Brookings Institution) that have a long-standing reputation for the quality of their work. The "conservative" think tanks are predominantly less well known and more overtly partisan in their missions. (e.g. Heritage Foundation, Right to Life, etc.)

There is a bias in the mainstream media. However, it's a bias that leads it to emphasize the views of well-known, established institutions such as the Rand Corp, and Brookings Institution (which the authors admit do work all over the ideological map) rather than seeking the view of institutions like the Heritage Foundation, and American Enterprise Institute that make no secret of their conservative agendas.

Since such think tanks are coded as "liberal" because they're more likely to be cited in Congress by moderates and liberals than by conservatives, the scoring for the news outlets reflects the bias of members of Congress.

In short, the study indicates that conservative members of congress disproportionately cite the views of conservative think tanks, most of which see their mission as pushing the Republican, conservative agenda. Moderate and liberal members of Congress cite the work of better known institutions such as Rand and Brookings. That leads the authors to classify the think tanks as liberal or conservative and to code the media according to the degree to which they (the media) cite the same sources.

You've also asked for more studies with different results from the Stanford one, so here is one by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=137

 

[Annie]

It's not the source I disagree with. [Thanks a lot.] I commend you for trying to cite a study to prove your point. I wish people would do that more often. I fault not the source, for you picked a good one in Standford and Chicago, but the methedology. [Why don't you drop them a line to tell them such? I did some of my undergrad work there. I'm sure they will respond to you.] Now which part of my refutation of study methedology did you have a problem with? Here it is again for conveniency's sake:

The study omits 73% of Fox stories, because editorial opinion is not allowed to enter. I have a link for that if you want to see it (http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2005/narrative_cabletv_contentanalysis.asp?cat=2&media=5). That's not looking too good right there. Leaving things like editorials out have skewed the study and made it unrepresentative. If 73% of the news on FNC contains editorials, and was therefore omitted from the study, you're only getting a view of 27% of the stories. Even if you still won't believe me and my link look at how few think tanks Fox cited compared to the other sources. This is because most stories from Fox news were not included, and also because Fox cites less sources than the other news outlets (same link). Editorials are where a large amount of bias creeps into these stories.

There is, however, a more fundamental problem with the authors' analysis though one has to read the paper to see it. Their principal measure of "bias" is indirect; it consists of the number of times each media outlet cites news from a "think tank" that the authors have coded as "liberal" or "conservative." How do they know a "think tank's" political orientation? They cite the number of times liberal and conservative members of Congress cite the work of a given think tank. (Are you still following this?)

The problem is that most cited "liberal" think tanks are also the largest and best known institutions (e.g. Rand Corp.; Brookings Institution) that have a long-standing reputation for the quality of their work. The "conservative" think tanks are predominantly less well known and more overtly partisan in their missions. (e.g. Heritage Foundation, Right to Life, etc.) Thus you are saying that the 'think tanks' that are measuring bias are liberal? They are the same ones that are criticising? Thus the Conservative sites, which are less well known, do not have the same weight? So are underrepresented?

There is a bias in the mainstream media. However, it's a bias that leads it to emphasize the views of well-known, established institutions such as the Rand Corp, and Brookings Institution (which the authors admit do work all over the ideological map) rather than seeking the view of institutions like the Heritage Foundation, and American Enterprise Institute that make no secret of their conservative agendas.

Since such think tanks are coded as "liberal" because they're more likely to be cited in Congress by moderates and liberals than by conservatives, the scoring for the news outlets reflects the bias of members of Congress. Sorry you failed to build a case, other than 'Congress uses them'. You truly wish to sit there and tell me Congress does not use Rand?

In short, the study indicates that conservative members of congress disproportionately cite the views of conservative think tanks, most of which see their mission as pushing the Republican, conservative agenda. Moderate and liberal members of Congress cite the work of better known institutions such as Rand and Brookings. That leads the authors to classify the think tanks as liberal or conservative and to code the media according to the degree to which they (the media) cite the same sources. Again, there is no reason here, just verbosity. You really do like Chomsky, right?

You've also asked for more studies with different results from the Stanford one, so here is one by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=137

Went to the fair site! LOL Here it is, there are many links to be found here:

A Special FAIR Report
The Most Biased Name in News: Fox News Channel's Extraordinary Right-Wing Tilt

Fox News Channel wraps itself in slogans of journalistic objectivity like "Fair and balanced" and "We report, you decide," but FAIR has found a dramatic right-wing tilt in the network's news. Our report, published in the August 2001 issue of Extra!, is in three parts:

The Most Biased Name in News: Fox News Channel's extraordinary right-wing tilt-- a comprehensive overview.


Fox's Slanted Sources: Conservatives, Republicans far outnumber others-- a study of Special Report with Brit Hume.

View the guest lists for Fox and CNN.

Bill O'Reilly's Sheer O'Reillyness: Don't call him conservative-- but he is
You can also read the press release.

 

[IControlThePast]

Went to the fair site! LOL Here it is, there are many links to be found here:

I am saying the "liberal" think tanks cited are more well known, moderate, and not about partisan single issues like "Right to Life" and therefore cited more often. Because these think tanks are well known, they are more likely to be cited by moderate and liberal members of Congress.

No I said Congress uses Rand more. The Congress uses them is crucial to the definition of whether the think tank turns out to be defined liberal or conservative. Using Congress is how the study classifies the think tanks.

Summation of Criticisms (any of these being correct would invalidate the study):

1. Think tanks are not a reliable way to determine bias. In addition neither is the very indirect scoring guideline proposed by the study.
2. The "liberal" think tanks mentioned really aren't, just prominent and therefore recieve more media attention than the single issue "conservative" ones mentioned.
3. There is no way the study is representative for the media in general. It leaves out almost 3/4 of the stories from one news source. It ignores editorials all together. Therefore the study's conclusions can't be applied to the media.

 

[Annie]

I am saying the "liberal" think tanks cited are more well known, moderate, and not about partisan single issues like "Right to Life" and therefore cited more often. Because these think tanks are well known, they are more likely to be cited by moderate and liberal members of Congress.

No I said Congress uses Rand more. The Congress uses them is crucial to the definition of whether the think tank turns out to be defined liberal or conservative. Using Congress is how the study classifies the think tanks.

Summation of Criticisms (any of these being correct would invalidate the study):

1. Think tanks are not a reliable way to determine bias. In addition neither is the very indirect scoring guideline proposed by the study.
2. The "liberal" think tanks mentioned really aren't, just prominent and therefore recieve more media attention than the single issue "conservative" ones mentioned.
3. There is no way the study is representative for the media in general. It leaves out almost 3/4 of the stories from one news source. It ignores editorials all together. Therefore the study's conclusions can't be applied to the media.

Excuse me for being 'anti-elitist.' You are posting lotsa info, but not saying diddly. You are trying to say that you wish to 'debunk' a study, BY A PROFESSOR WITH 'AS USUAL' GRAD STUDENTS ASSISTING. Because of the grad students, you wish to say it's not "credible." To assist your premise you claim there is no follow up and that it's available on the Web. Well golly gee, it's also available by journal. (You do KNOW what a journal is, right?)

Then you take us on a side trip to upper ed land, like we haven't been there. Excuse me, but I do believe I asked for your Curriculum Vitae. Maybe I missed it? Mine is:

BA U of I 1977 Sociology and Political Science-some completed at U of C.
post grad-Sociology U of C

History 1995 Elmhurst College, including teaching credentials.

Yours? Again, maybe I missed it?

Education post grad-University of St. Francis-administration/Education

Political Science-Southern Illinois

Yeah, I think I was following your train of thought.

 

[IControlThePast]

Excuse me for being 'anti-elitist.' You are posting lotsa info, but not saying diddly. You are trying to say that you wish to 'debunk' a study, BY A PROFESSOR WITH 'AS USUAL' GRAD STUDENTS ASSISTING. Because of the grad students, you wish to say it's not "credible." To assist your premise you claim there is no follow up and that it's available on the Web. Well golly gee, it's also available by journal. (You do KNOW what a journal is, right?)

Then you take us on a side trip to upper ed land, like we haven't been there. Excuse me, but I do believe I asked for your Curriculum Vitae. Maybe I missed it? Mine is:

BA U of I 1977 Sociology and Political Science-some completed at U of C.
post grad-Sociology U of C

History 1995 Elmhurst College, including teaching credentials.

Yours? Again, maybe I missed it?

Education post grad-University of St. Francis-administration/Education

Political Science-Southern Illinois

Yeah, I think I was following your train of thought.

I'm saying that a published book is more credible than an article. Books are much longer and take up more research. Do you wish to explain how your study is representative of the media if it includes only a small part of it?

Me, I've got BA and Ph D. from UVA in Sociology. Not really.
My resume is unimportant to this debate and so is yours (although I commend you for it). I've just got a tech school on mine. The Dr. with the UVA degree is the most liberal person I know.

 

[Annie]

I'm saying that a published book is more credible than an article. Books are much longer and take up more research. Do you wish to explain how your study is representative of the media if it includes only a small part of it?

Me, I've got BA and Ph D. from UVA in Sociology. Not really.
My resume is unimportant to this debate and so is yours (although I commend you for it). I've just got a tech school on mine. The Dr. with the UVA degree is the most liberal person I know.

I agree that the credentials are irrelevant, yet YOU keep bringing up issues on 'credibility' based on forum published. Major universities continue to publish in journals, but are also publishing heavily on the internet-see the Avalon Project from Yale, ongoing for years. You wish to claim that 'not credible?'

 

[IControlThePast]

I agree that the credentials are irrelevant, yet YOU keep bringing up issues on 'credibility' based on forum published. Major universities continue to publish in journals, but are also publishing heavily on the internet-see the Avalon Project from Yale, ongoing for years. You wish to claim that 'not credible?'

No, the Avalon project is quite credible. It is making these importantly published in print materials available on the web. I'm not saying something loses value because it is on the web, only that there is an inequality:

on web only < pub. article < pub. book . A book or document doesn't lose value for then being on the web, or an article. I'm saying a study in an article or paper is not as respected as a study also published in a book. You cited an article, I cited a book.