I'm all for conversation and debate, but this has really just collapsed to the level of people screaming at each other.
Printable View
I'm all for conversation and debate, but this has really just collapsed to the level of people screaming at each other.
While dumping fuel on the fire.....
Hey did anyone ever read
funny though, that OFG said he used wikipedia to say that the media was conservative...i just search liberal bias in the media and found this under wiki
more can be found here.Quote:
Liberal bias in the media is commonly thought to be the result of liberal principles and ideas influencing the coverage or selection of news stories.
Conservative critics of the media say some bias exists within a wide variety of media channels including network news shows of CBS, ABC, and NBC, cable channels CNN and MSNBC, as well as major newspapers, news-wires, and radio outlets, especially CBS News, Newsweek, and the New York Times.[12] The academic study cited most frequently by critics of a "liberal media bias" in American journalism is The Media Elite, a 1986 book co-authored by political scientists Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman, and Linda Lichter.[13] They surveyed journalists at national media outlets such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the broadcast networks. The survey found that most of these journalists were Democratic voters whose attitudes were well to the left of the general public on a variety of topics, including such hot-button social issues as abortion, affirmative action, and gay rights. Then they compared journalists' attitudes to their coverage of controversial issues such as the safety of nuclear power, school busing to promote racial integration, and the energy crisis of the 1970s.
The authors concluded that journalists' coverage of controversial issues reflected their own attitudes, and the predominance of political liberals in newsrooms therefore pushed news coverage in a liberal direction. They presented this tilt as a mostly unconscious process of like-minded individuals projecting their shared assumptions onto their interpretations of reality. In principle this meant that newsrooms populated mainly by conservatives would produce a similarly skewed perspective toward the political right. Such accusations have been leveled against Fox News. At the time the study was embraced mainly by conservative columnists and politicians, who adopted the findings as scientific proof of liberal media bias.
ABC News political director Mark Halperin stated that as individuals most journalists, and news producers, hold liberal political views, and that these views affect their reporting.[14] In a survey conducted by the American Society of Newspaper Editors in 1997, 61% of reporters stated that they were members of or shared the beliefs of the Democratic Party. Only 15% say their beliefs were best represented by the Republican Party.[15] This leaves 24% undecided or Independent.
A 2002 study by Jim A. Kuypers of Dartmouth College, Press Bias and Politics, investigated the issue of media bias. In this study of 116 mainstream US papers, including The New York Times, the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle, Kuypers found that the mainstream press in America tends to favor liberal viewpoints.[16] They found that reporters expressing moderate or conservative points of view were often labeled as holding a minority point of view.[16] Kuypers said he found liberal bias in reporting a variety of issues including race, welfare reform, environmental protection, and gun control.[16]
Studies finding liberal bias in the media are not limited to studies of print media. A joint study by the Joan Shorenstein Center on Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University and the Project for Excellence in Journalism found that liberal media bias can be found in television news by networks such as CNN.[17] These findings concerning liberal bias in television news – particularly at CNN[18] – are echoed throughout the academic literature.
liberal bias in the media
And right underneath that..."Claims of a conservative bias"...did you perhaps miss that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
under that same link you get a guy like this:
My problem with this quote is that it's just him saying it doesn't exist...he isn't proving anything...just saying it doesn't exist...while at least there was a study shown (even if it was by conservatives) that leads one to believe their findings...liberals could conduct the same study. I am just not seeing any REAL evidence that says the media isn't liberal, other then that of opinions stated by liberals who simply disagree.Quote:
Eric Alterman, author of What Liberal Media? The Truth About Bias and the News is one of those who argues against any significant liberal bias. Reviewer John Moe sums up Alterman's views:
"The conservatives in the newspapers, television, talk radio, and the Republican party are lying about liberal bias and repeating the same lies long enough that they've taken on a patina of truth. Further, the perception of such a bias has cowed many media outlets into presenting more conservative opinions to counterbalance a bias, which does not, in fact, exist."
no i read it...Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
but again, where is the evidence? this just goes to prove the point that Ohm's made earlier when he saidQuote:
Conservative bias in the media is commonly thought to be the result of conservative principles and ideas influencing the coverage or selection of news stories.
Conservative media bias is claimed to exist for several reasons:
* Media Concentration: A handful (Disney, CBS Corporation, News Corporation, TimeWarner, and General Electric) of corporate conglomerates own the majority of mass media outlets.[citation needed] Such a uniformity of ownership means that stories which might not be to the benefit of these large corporations may not be run.[24]
* Capitalist Model: In the United States the media are operated for profit, mostly funded through the sale of advertisements. This tends to drive news, commentary, and public affairs towards supporting industry and mercantilism.[25]
* Propaganda Organizations: The existence of self-described "news organizations" such as NewsMax and WorldNetDaily, which are claimed to promote a conservative agenda.
Rupert Murdoch, the CEO of News Corporation (the parent of FOX News), self-identifies as a libertarian, while Richard Parsons, CEO of Time-Warner, identifies as a liberal Republican. Both CEOs' campaign contributions heavily favor Republican candidates.[26][27]
All it is is an alligation...Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
of course all of this is simply under wikipedia...so you can't take it for fact....but i am curious to know if I was simply wrong on my belief, or if it was a fair judgement.
And the "studies" that say there is a liberal bias simply are polls of journalists, and of those questioned, most classify themselves as "liberal", and then, the study simply says that because of that, they spin the stories to match their views.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
Showing that most journalists identify personally as Democrat or independent is not showing that there is a liberal bias.
the same link said otherwise....unless you missed this sentence.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Quote:
The authors concluded that journalists' coverage of controversial issues reflected their own attitudes, and the predominance of political liberals in newsrooms therefore pushed news coverage in a liberal direction. They presented this tilt as a mostly unconscious process of like-minded individuals projecting their shared assumptions onto their interpretations of reality.
I'll quote ohms myself:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
As I said, all that study is doing is SAYING that the authors think the people let their opinions color their reporting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
Alloutwar and ohms_law have still said it best in this thread.
i never argued that.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I agree to both points. I am wanting to learn more about this belief....i know there will be no fact to it, but I would like to learn if it's just a bull crap thing like OFG has said, or if my opinion really wasn't skewed.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
So I looked through the searches he went through, and the one's he claimed previously in this thread. I am wanting to learn more
You're very conservative. You're likely going to see a liberal bias.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
but i'm TRYING to be open minded to the other side....thus the purpose of the research...if i was really that conservative...i likely wouldn't even bother and just assume that I was right...at least I'm open enough to look through itQuote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
OFG did his own research.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
http://forum.sportsmogul.com/showpos...6&postcount=86
This isn't proof with an explanation point, but it would appear that in the McCain/Obama presidential race more was written about Obama's scandal than McCain's
Selection Bias. Obama was winning the race, so it stands to reason that he received more coverage.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...earch&aq=f&oq=Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...en&btnG=Search
:confused: ;)
What of it? Sarah Palin was (and still is) a story unto herself...
:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
For anyone that actually cares, this is a good report, although a bit dated (2003 IIRC), but it looks at the basic assumptions of a liberal media bias and addresses each set of assumptions with well reasoned thought as well as some research to back it up. It also looks at how the media in general, and journalists in particular, have changed over the years.
I highly doubt anyone cares enough to read it, because it is 13 pages in length, and it's so much easier to just believe whatever you want to believe anyway. Also, since it's conclusions are likely not what some like, they'll consider the source as somehow biased, just like those on the left would consider a study showing a liberal lean as biased. And around and around we go.
So, I'll say again, when you've got a former Chairman of the RNC admit that the orchestrated campaign to smear the media as "liberal" was done to "work the ump" in an effort to change the debate, I'll take him at his word. It's been a very well orchestrated effort, and it's been repeated so many times that lots of folks believe it as though it's fact.
So, Artic Blast, you're right, it just comes down to screaming at each other. But the right has been screaming "liberal media" for over two decades now, and this old fat arse has grown damned tired of it, so yeah, I'm going to scream right back from now on. So, it would probably be best for you to place OldFatGuy on ignore, because after seeing the country I love after moving further and further to the right becoming a country I shake my head at in disbelief, I'm going to point out it's lies and deceptions whenever and wherever I can. Even on a baseball forum.
And "liberal media" is just one of the many lies and deceptions. So, put me on ignore because I'm going to call "********" whenever I see it, until I am banned I guess.
sure... 5 years after the fact.
Do you have any actual statistics? Google searches aren't exactly "unbiased" themselves, let alone the fact that 3/4 of the "hits" returned in a search are extraneous. Flip to page 100 of either one of those searches and count how many of those results are actually relevant.
There did seem to be more coverage, both positive and negative, of Obama then McCain late last year. But, no one here (including myself) has offered any real statistics on anything in this debate. Volume alone is rarely indicative of anything, regardless. Timing is a huge factor when it comes to media coverage. Volume is usually only indicative of how wide-spread that coverage is. National stories are picked up and repeated by local providers constantly.
My only point here is that, while specific media outlets do exhibit certain bias, overall the news is very neutral. For every Fox there's an MSNBC. For every CBS there's an ABC. So, if you want to argue that the media is either Conservative or Liberal it's easy to select your sources and "prove" your point. There are tons of other factors though, not least of which is viewership/readership. The Internet is also currently causing a tectonic shift in coverage patterns, with blogs and targeted media playing a key role.
You're all (those who are arguing that there is a bias) vastly oversimplifying.
Ohms, I mostly agree with you. I'm not really trying to argue a heavy right wing bias, I'm merely trying to state, as bluntly as I can, that the cries of liberal media is ********.
Now if I HAD to say the media was tilted, overall, one way or the other, I would probably say it's to the right, certainly NOT to the left. That's been my whole point. "Liberal media" is ********.
I'll accept "overall the news is very neutral" as you stated above. :) It's just that others still claim, as though it's fact, that it's NOT neutral, it's that darned "libral media dammit" and I've grown so tired of it, I've decided to fight back is all.
It does look to be a good work, and I for one am going to read it.Quote:
For anyone that actually cares, this is a good report, although a bit dated (2003 IIRC), but it looks at the basic assumptions of a liberal media bias and addresses each set of assumptions with well reasoned thought as well as some research to back it up.
However, one thing to keep firmly in mind here is what that report was about. They spell it out in the first sentence:
The whole thing is generally limited to war coverage. There's nothing wrong with that, in and of itself (and I seriously doubt that, in terms of Iraq war coverage, that there isn't a "Conservative bias". The US Army and the federal government as a whole learned a hard lesson in Vietnam.)Quote:
If we learn nothing else from the war on Iraq and its subsequent occupation
Widening the conclusions of a work such as this to include the entire media world would be a serious mistake, however.
Well, there is specific coverage that is very specifically not neutral. All of the cable news networks have increased their editorial content so that it occupies 3/4 of a 24 hour day's worth of programming, simply because that's what brings eyeballs (and therefore ad revenue) to their station. It's pretty clear that those talk shows are editorial content, so there's really nothing inherently wrong with it.Quote:
It's just that others still claim, as though it's fact, that it's NOT neutral
Most of the "liberal media bias" that I see talked about is editorial content itself. It's not news, it's opinion. The conservatives use that as a key phrase, but the liberals have their own counters in their editorial opinions...
It would be nice if the GOP can come up with inspired ideas instead of playing the blame game for their failures.
Well said.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
I agree with Ohms 100%, as I've been saying all along. There is liberal media. There is conservative media. There is no inherent overall bias one way or the other.
Well, considering the GOP is effectively being run right now by a delusional drug-addled blowhard talk show host...good luck getting some new inspired ideas.Quote:
Originally Posted by ragecage
Pretty much, I think most of the right wingers know this and just are grasping straws to place blame on somebody other than themselves for not having someone capable to actually make a difference that Americans can believe in.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I am a long way from the right-wing, but the GOP doesn't need inspired ideas, they just need to resurrect the ideas that the moderate right have talked about for years. Balanced budgets, smaller government, free markets in most products, school choice, etc. are all ideas that Americans will support. Unfortunately for the right-wing, when in power, the GOP hasn't actually governed based on their own ideas, so now it will take a very good politician to step in and convince the American people to give those same ideas another chance.Quote:
Originally Posted by ragecage
Yeah totally
agreed
good pointQuote:
Originally Posted by kenny1234
And from out of the blackness the thread had become emerged a shining glimmer of hope!Quote:
Originally Posted by kenny1234
Well, that all depends on your definitions and expectations. From what your saying above it's apparent that you're lumping editorial opinions into the overall evaluation that your making. That's a decent analysis, aside from the fact that you're basically creating propaganda out of it because you aren't disclosing that key piece of information.
In my own opinion, editorial blather is fairly meaningless. The news out of pretty much every organization is very neutral, however.
question for liberals...and this is totally off topic...but just a question.
Seems to be, more liberals are against hunting or killing of animals for many reasons...yet are pro abortion....how can someone think that way? This is an honest question, and am asking here, because I fear I will end up offending someone in person if I asked this question.
It seems that people that are soo adamently against pain or suffering to animals, or hunting etc are always the same people that support abortion...i find this a difficult and very gray area.
I personally am on the other end of both of those...i am pro hunting (to many limits) and very pro life (more so pro adoption then anything else)
again the point of this question is to learn more....but i also believe it is a fair question to ask
Am I a liberal?
I do not know...i am generalizing obviously with my question....you seem to be with your opinion through posts...it's a fair question to ask...so i am opening up the area for debate....doesn't mean I will ever agree to the other side...but I want to better understand it (i have a hard time talking politics with my gf, she gets sensitive and worked up too easily...so we stay away from the topics, but i also want to be compasionate to her feelings, thus why i am here).Quote:
Originally Posted by OldFatGuy
I'm not "pro-abortion." I'm "pro-choice." And I think that fits for the majority of people that take that side.
you know what i am refering to....you want women to be allowed to have the "choice," correct?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
it's still at the expense of a human life...but it seems that animals lives are valued, yet an unborn child's isn't.
A couple of things,
a) I don't think a clump of cells is equivalent to a human life.
b) I'm not very "anti-hunting" or anything.
but it will become human lifeQuote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM