The perpetual CON$ervative dumb act again. They were posted in my exchange with the right-wing hack Meister.
Since, as a CON$ervative, you are too lazy to go back and read them, I'll summarize.
The authors, passed off as Libs because of their connection to UCLA, are hacks for the biggest and most radical right-wing think tanks, Heritage Foundation, AEI, and the Hoover Institute, as well as contributers of right -wing propaganda for RW extremist publications like The American Spectator. Groseclose was a Hoover Institution 2000-2001 national fellow; Milyo, received a $40,500 grant from AEI; and, Groseclose and Milyo were named by Heritage as Salvatori fellows in 1997.
To get their cooked results, they used a Politician's ADA ratings and think tanks to determine MEDIA bias. So if a poiltician with a CON$ervative rating cites the ACLU think tank, that makes the ACLU CON$ervative and any media that cites the ACLU is also CON$ervative. Now you say, the ACLU is about as Liberal as a think tank can get, but in the fake "study" the ACLU was rated as CON$ervative, the Right-wing Rand Corporation was rated Liberal, and the Liberal think tank Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments was rated as more "conservative" than AEI and than the National Taxpayers Union. Thus Drudge leans Left and Brit Hume is in the Middle.
Now depending on how many times the Media cited the think tanks that were rated by the politician cites determines the media bias. This rating system is so moronic and worthless that only a CON$ervative would be stupid enough not to see it no matter how many times it is explained and swallow it whole and without question. Obviously CON$ are the target audience for the phony "study" from the "Liberal" UCLA.
Thank you in advance for your apology.
so their rating system is flawed? I see. and
the screed against the authors? in your understanding, anyone that takes grants from any 'right wing' org. is tainted, there fore any study performed under the umbrella of a liberal org. ala grants is tainted as well?
anyway, if the results are cooked, why did UCLA not disown the study? It is published as their sponsored product ...no?
and as ucla noted;
"No matter the results, we feared our findings would've been suspect if we'd received support from any group that could be perceived as right- or left-leaning, so we consciously decided to fund this project only with our own salaries and research funds that our own universities provided," Groseclose said.
according to the press release I saw Hume was rated right of center not centrist btw and they noted;
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.
I find it interesting that you seem to admit the aclu is a liberal org. and I wasn't aware they ran a think tank too, can you link to it please?
and if you are going to just cite media matters you really would have been better off just linking to them.
have you read the study itself? for instance your examples ala Rand corp.;
The second apparent anomaly is the RAND Corporation, which has a fairly liberal average score, 60.4. We mentioned this finding to some employees of RAND, who told us they were not surprised.
While RAND strives to be middle-of-the-road ideologically, the more conservative scholars at RAND tend to work on military studies, while the more liberal scholars tend to work on domestic studies. Because the military studies are sometimes classified and often more technocratic than the domestic studies, the media and members of Congress tend to cite the domestic studies disproportionately. As a consequence, RAND appears liberal when judged by these citations. It is important to note that this fact—that the research at RAND is more conservative than the numbers in Table 1 suggest—will not bias our results. To see this, think of RAND as two think tanks: RAND I, the left-leaning think tank which produces the research that the media and members of Congress tend to cite, and RAND II, the conservative think tank which produces the research that they tend not to cite. Our results exclude RAND II from the analysis. This causes no more bias than excluding any other think tank that is rarely cited in Congress or the media.
anyway, I assume you have read my posts here-
Q; in light of the following I am curious-
85 percent of Columbia Graduate School of Journalism students identified themselves as liberal, versus 11 percent conservative" (Lichter, Rothman, and Lichter 1986: 48), quoted in Sutter, 2001.
what slant would you expect of the media in general? As further studies have shown newsrooms, networks etc. have approx. the same ideological make up?
Gee, what a surprise! NOT! Rather than admit the rating system is not just flawed, but moronic on its face, you choose to misrepresent what I said. I pointed out the the authors are CON$ and not Libs because they are from UCLA as presented by CON$. Rather than admit your fellow travelers were deliberately misrepresenting the authors as Libs, you misrepresent me. No surprise there from a typical CON$ervative.
And it is the "study" you are worshiping that lists the ACLU as a CON$ervative think tank, so you have unwittingly exposed yet another flaw in their "study."
Thank you, keep it up.
And don't change the subject with questions from more phony data to deflect from the stupidity of the "study" in question.
here,
Reading Comprehension Connection: Home
I never argued many of the points you are refuting. read what I write not what you want me to say so as to fashion your own answer making yourself right. see the course above for help.
I am not arguing the merits of the studies mechanics merely pointing out flaws in your characterizations and the particulars ala Hume etc. you chose to highlight as proof the study was cooked, that was your assertion.
You didn't read the report, you went to media matters et al and they told you what to say, and, you parrot it here. Thats why I asked you that question at the end of my last post- the topic of the thread is;
The Left Controls the Media
so frankly, your choosing now to laud your sheepish brilliance by attempting to close off debate is the usual, so again, I will ask-
Question 1; in light of the following I am curious-
85 percent of Columbia Graduate School of Journalism students identified themselves as liberal, versus 11 percent conservative" (Lichter, Rothman, and Lichter 1986: 48), quoted in Sutter, 2001.
what slant would you expect of the media in general? As further studies have shown newsrooms, networks etc. have approx. the same ideological make up?
and to your point ala the aclu;
here is the quote from their study, with the sublinks you would have seen IF you had actually read the report ;
The web site,
WheretodoResearch lists 200 of the most prominent think tanks and policy groups in the U.S.
WheretodoResearch
WheretodoResearch.com - Directory of 200 Think Tanks and Policy Groups Sites
American Civil Liberties Union
I found this interesting to;
While most of these averages closely agree with the conventional wisdom, two cases seem somewhat anomalous. The first is the ACLU. The average score of legislators citing it was 49.8. Later, we shall provide reasons why it makes sense to define the political center at 50.1. This suggests that the ACLU, if anything is a right-leaning organization. The reason the ACLU has such a low score is that it opposed the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance bill, and conservatives in Congress cited this often. In fact, slightly more than one-eight of all ACLU citations in Congress were due to one person alone, Mitch McConnell (R.-Kt.), perhaps the chief critic of McCain-Feingold. If we omit McConnellÂ’s citations, the ACLUÂ’s average score increases to 55.9. Because of this anomaly, in the Appendix we report the results when we repeat all of our analyses but omit the ACLU data.
I noticed you didn't comment on the Rand corp. blurb from the study either.
So, lets clear things up,it appears in your opinion any study can be characterized as slanted if one starts out with the premise that the authors are slanted, so, again;
Question 2- ergo; any study too, that is performed by left leaning self identified authors is slanted left, that is what you inferred very strongly vis a vis goreclose and his being a 'righty'.
is that correct?
yes, or no.
so please answer my 2 questions, it would clear things up.
