The Media's Liberal Bias

[Annie]

For Dr. Grump.

This is why academics do come up with 'theoretical models' for measurement' others may subsequently attempt to refute or confirm the results, but it all depends on the parameters, variables, and time:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/blog/2005/12/measuring_media_bias.html

Measuring Media Bias
It is very rare that an article in The Quarterly Journal of Economics finds its way into the mainstream media. But an article in its recent edition, by Tim Groseclose and Jeffrey Milyo, entitled "A Measure of Media Bias," did just that last week.

Most of the reports I read were based upon the press releases that announced the article's publication. Much of the details of the article, which is 46 pages in length, went largely unnoticed. Having just finished reading this piece, I thought I might comment upon it.

The authors theorize that the mainstream press is (a) more leftist than the average member of Congress and (b) more leftist than the average American voter. This is an argument that many have made in the past, but rarely has it been done systematically, i.e. with some kind of objective measure of bias. The authors of this article develop such a measure.

What they do, in essence, is compare the frequency with which members of Congress reference think tanks in House or Senate speeches to the frequency with which 20 news sources reference think tanks in their news reports. The theory behind this test is that a conservative member of Congress will probably mention the same think tanks that a conservative media outlet will mention - and a liberal member of Congress will probably mention the same think tanks that a liberal media outlet will mention. If you have an objective measure of liberal/conservative among members of Congress (and Groseclose and Milyo use each members' Americans for Democratic Action voting score - a standard measurement in academic work), you can then develop a measure of liberal/conservative for media outlets.

In their words:

As a simplified example, imagine that there were only two think tanks, and suppose that the New York Times cited the first think tank twice as often as the second. Our method asks: what is the estimated ADA score of a member of Congress who exhibits the same frequency (2:1) in his or her speeches? This is the score that our method would assign the New York Times.

As has been reported, they found that most think tanks are more liberal than the average member of Congress from the same period.

What has gone relatively under-reported are two interesting findings. First, the results of Groseclose and Milyo tend to go against the arguments made by people like Eric Alterman and Neal Gabler that the media has a corporate, and therefore conservative or pro-business, bias. One result that they find, for instance, is that News Night with Aaron Brown and Time magazine have different ADA scores, with the former being about 9 "points" more conservative than the latter. Yet, both are owned by Time-Warner. This does not amount to a strong refutation of the theory of "conservative bias" but nevertheless the result is problematic for those who advocate that idea.

Another point that has gone under-reported is that almost all media outlets are more liberal than the average Republican member of Congress and more conservative than the average liberal member of Congress. The media outlets that are measured would, if they were members of Congress, be mostly Democratic - but also mostly conservatively Democratic. So, it is important not to overstate the scale of bias they find. The direction of the bias is left, but the strength of the bias is not overwhelming.

One argument that Groseclose and Milyo make that I think is overstated is the argument that we now know that the media is more leftist than the average American voter. They make this argument by inferring what the average voter's ADA score is. They estimate the average member of Congress's ADA score -- weighting it to account for factors like gerrymandering, population variance among senatorial constituencies, and the absence of congressional representation for Washington DC -- and use this estimate as a proxy for the average American's ideological position on the ADA scale. The problem with this is that I think it gives too much credit to the average voter. The consensus among political scientists is that only about 30% of the American electorate is ideological in the sense that the ADA would rate members of Congress. Thus, comparing the ideology of the electorate to the ideology of the media is, by and large, like comparing apples to oranges. The public is largely, as Donald Kinder once put it, "innocent of ideology." Unfortunately, this article lacks a discussion of this compelling literature - and so their argument in this regard is not very persuasive. Furthermore, even if we assume that the public is ideological, we cannot assume that they vote for members of Congress based upon ideology. We know for a fact that they do not. Accordingly, it is difficult to infer the average voter's ideology based upon the average member's ideology.

A final point is worth mentioning. This article does not prove that the media is biased toward the left. It produces a result that is consistent with that theory. That is an important distinction. The fact that this article is in the Journal of Quarterly Economics indicates that the article is methodologically valid (i.e. all of their statistics are good) and theoretically plausible and honest (i.e. they are not putting forth some insane theory or some insignificant way of testing the theory).

But that does not necessarily mean that it is theoretically perfect. The objectivity of this measure of bias is, as mentioned earlier, legislative voting. But consider how this measure is "filtered" in the study. One moves from congressional vote choices, to the ADA's assessment of what constitutes liberal and conservative vote choices, to the ADA's assignment of liberal/conservative scores, to speeches by members where think tanks are referenced, to references in the media to think tanks, to ADA scores for the media, to a comparison between media and congressional scores. This is not a very parsimonious measure in that it takes many different steps across institutions (Congress, ADA, media) and across actions (vote casting, speechifying, news reporting). It might be possible to construct a more parsimonious indicator of media bias that is just as objective - and such an indicator might provide a different result.

(One such possible improvement might be an independent indicator of whether a think tank is liberal/conservative. Their theory assumes that liberals prefer to cite liberal think tanks. That is how they conclude that media outlets are liberal when they see them referencing the same think tanks. But they do not test that assumption. One would need an independent measure of think tank ideology, which they do not provide, to see whether liberals in fact use liberal think tanks, and vice-versa. Maybe they do not.)

It is also not necessarily the case that, simply because the media is biased in this domain (i.e. its use of think tanks in its reports), it is necessarily biased in all domains. For instance, the media might have a tendency to use pro-leftist think tanks, but it might show a conservative bias in its selection of news stories. Maybe, in other words, its bias is compartmentalized - in some instances it is leftist, in others it is rightist. This article is only directly measuring a type of bias. The fact that objective indicators of bias are difficult to develop, and so rarely done, means that we simply cannot say with certainty whether the media is generally biased.

In other words, the results they find are consistent with a general bias, but they do not "prove" that there is such a thing. It is very possible that these results could eventually be explained by an alternative theory that does not conceive of the media as being generally biased. That would first require the development of another objective indicator of media bias.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Sure you got it straight from the horses' mouth....a bunch of extremists who think they're mainstream? Heh!

Pssssssssssssst....if extremists are the mainstream, Bush's approval rating would be waaaaaaaaaaaaaay better than 32%.

And, dear, you might want to watch the tone. You don't know what I read, listen to or have studied. Lots of smart people disagree with you. Treating them like their ijits to make some type of point isn't exactly the way to foster debate or get anyone to do anything but ignore your posts.

So, you call the truck driver, the guy working the convience store, the guy working in the lumber mill, doctors, small business owners extremists eh? I think you idea of extremists is one who isnt liberal. Lots of smart people also agreed with hitler.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

That study did not mention the 85% figure. You can either back it up or you cannot. It is also flaws in that it said, for example, 8% of the Washington correspondants thought Bush would make a better president than Kerry. You somehow think that validates the study? Maybe half or more of that 92% didn't like Kerry either and would have preferred, say, Colin Powell, but that question probably wasn't asked, so just because they thought Kerry would be better, doesn't mean they are Repubs, but maybe they just can't stand the current admin. But we'll never know because those questions were not asked.




I mentioned NY Post, Wash Times, Drudge etc...all majory news sources.



I never said there were millions of outlets. I said there were millions of articles. As for your "NBC would consume 90% of minor ones put together"...talk about hilarious. No wonder I find your "85%" figure so laughable...

Go read it again, it makes it plain that over 85 percent voted for Kerry.

Drudge is major news source ?? bwhahhahah, and he is third on your list. You guys are so isolated. I suggest you go to a near by convienence store and ask the clerk who drudge is.

Millions of articles put out by news publlications? I think you are purposely obfuscating the information.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

not possible for an entity to be biased in two different directions

as a whole it leans one way or another....

Now, I thought you watched Kerry in the debates????

 

[Dr Grump]

not possible for an entity to be biased in two different directions

as a whole it leans one way or another....

Maybe that's the problem. I don't know how you can give an entity an all-encompassing label when part of said entity clearly doesn't fit said label...

 

[Dr Grump]

Go read it again, it makes it plain that over 85 percent voted for Kerry.

Drudge is major news source ?? bwhahhahah, and he is third on your list. You guys are so isolated. I suggest you go to a near by convienence store and ask the clerk who drudge is.

Millions of articles put out by news publlications? I think you are purposely obfuscating the information.

Drudge has had more than 3 Billion hits on his website. And he was fourth on my list (Fox had already been mentioned in a previous post). I'm not muddying the waters in any way - just taking a study here and there and saying it is true doesn't wash with me. I want hard data and hard facts. You know, you could be right. Overall, the media might swing more to the left than right, I just don't think you have proved it. Moreover, as I have said before (and nobody commented on it), I just wish ALL news outlets that report news (as opposed to op-ed pieces, feature articles etc) would just report the facts without editorializing...

 

[musicman]

... lying can be a subjective thing.

I believe that YOU believe that - since the continuous thread running through your posts is a calculated disingenuousness that I find really tiring. I knew that cutting through this tangle of snakes was going to take a bit of time; today, I find that I have a bit of time on my hands. Let's go to work, shall we?

You post, as a purported "quote" of me:

In the first place, I'd like to know who died and made YOU hall monitor. Post links regarding lib lies, but don't quote this liar or that?

...and then - ostensibly - knock that "quote" down with:

Oh, I get it. So when the NY Times found out Blair was lying, they fired him, but because he went into print it was still a lie that was condoned by the NY Times? A very long bow to draw. I never claimed to be hall monitor, but please, if you want to use Blair or Glass as your examples, I've got a couple of straws that you can clutch if you like?

Wow - wasn't THAT done neatly!! The only problem is, your response is meaningless in the context of my entire (read: un-cherry-picked) quote, which reads:

In the first place, I'd like to know who died and made YOU hall monitor. Post links regarding lib lies, but don't quote this liar or that? I'd call that unreasonable, except that I am by no means suffering from a shortage of material on this matter. When I've got a bit more time, I'll start gathering up some links for you, if that'll make you happy. In the meantime, here's a preface:

So, you see, you only knocked down the portion that you conveniently set up for yourself. What you are attempting to employ here is dangerously close to "strawman" tactics; in a word - disingenuous.

More: To...

Contrary to your belief, lying is NOT subjective. It is objective, concrete, and provable. It is the deliberate attempt to present untruth as fact - be it the outright fabrication, the distortion, the half-truth, the concealment of truth, the lie by omission, the twisting of language, the manipulation of data, and the misrepresentation of oneself as dispassionate, disinterested purveyor of fact.

...your clever reply is:

Which describes the Bush admin down to a T, right?

...as if that were some kind of ANSWER. Classic lib handbook stuff: when in doubt - distract, deflect, misdirect. Disingenuous.

Your posts are shot through with this kind of stuff. I have neither the patience nor the inclination to cite it all; I feel my finite resources of energy and joy being sapped every time I read you. I will, however, address your most spectacular BS. You invite me to:

...pony up some links regarding lib lies

...but then attempt to reframe the debate in mid-stream, with:

I have gone there, and I look forward to you proving your point. However, you are going to have one mother of a problem IMO: there are thousands of newspapers, hundreds of TV stations and thousands of radio stations, let alone all different ideas etc published on the Internet - there are literally 10s of millions of articles written every year. In order to prove your point beyond a reasonable doubt, you would have to provide hundreds of thousands of articles back up your assertion. 10 won't do. 100 won't do. 1000 won't do. Not even 10,000 will do because you would have left out millions and million of other examples.

Sorry, Dr Grump - no sale. Disingenuous. "...pony up some links regarding lib lies", you said. And, as I said, I find that I have some free time today. The MSM/DNC enjoyed a thirty-year monopoly on the dissemination of information. Lying - that objective, provable, deliberate act - was SOP for "journalists" every single day of that time. They were the only game in town, and they played it to the hilt. They advanced a leftist agenda while representing themselves as dispassionate, objective journalists. They disgraced their profession. I know, Dr Grump. I lived through it - I saw it - I heard it. The information trail is out there, despite tactics like "Google-bombing", and other attempts by liberals to bury unpleasant truths down the Internet memory-hole. This is going to be a pleasurable evening for me.

 

[musicman]

"...pony up some links regarding lib lies"

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006273

 

[musicman]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1220895/posts

 

[musicman]

http://www.florida2000election.com/sections/7.htm

 

[musicman]

Just getting warmed up...doing a few light stretching exercises.

 

[musicman]

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/brentbozell/2002/03/15/162677.html

 

[musicman]

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1717

 

[musicman]

Lies of omission:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/articles/050613/13john.htm

 

[jillian]

You do realize that you're using right wing biased sites to attempt to prove a "liberal bias" in the media, right?

Just checking

So you're kind of disproving your own point, methinks.

 

[musicman]

MSM as revisionist historians, Part I:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1520017/posts

 

[musicman]

You do realize that you're using right wing biased sites to attempt to prove a "liberal bias" in the media, right?

Just checking

So you're kind of disproving your own point, methinks.

Refute their factual content, then.

 

[musicman]

MSM as revisionist historians, Part II:

http://culturewarrior.blogspot.com/2004/11/from-msm-to-psm.html

 

[musicman]

MSM as revisionist historians, Part III:

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/thomassowell/2005/08/09/155140.html

 

[jillian]

Refute their factual content, then.

Grump's point was that there's bias both ways. You proved that.

So...I could find "liberal" sites that dispute what you say. Or we could just agree that there is both "liberal" AND "conservative" bias in the media.

Off to home now...

laterz!