Liberal Bias In Media Exposed..Again

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
261

[quote]vroom wrote:
Why do you always try to push crazy statements into other peoples mouths?

If I thought money was evil I’d say so. What I have said, but not clearly enough, is that money is not the way we should decide if something is right or wrong.

Similarly, the fact that a service is desired or in demand does not say that much about whether or not the service is appropriate.

For example, selling drugs to children is a large money making service that goes on every day. I don’t think anyone with a rational mind will try to support the value of the service based on a niche being filled and a large segment of the population accessing it.

I simply find the common use of money or money making ability as a supportive argument on behalf of some republicans to be a curious thing.

And yes, if you take the time to think about it, that is what my “cryptic” comment implied. Certainly not that money or the ability to make money should be judged as bad in some way.

Silly rabbit. People often do things that are bad for them, they watch things that are not true, they believe what they wish in the face of evidence, so why should they not spend money on things unwisely?

In plainer english, if you still aren’t following, the fact a lot of people watch a certain type of broadcast does not have a lot to say about the fairness or appropriateness of the content. Even if the companies making the broadcasts earn a lot of revenue from their viewership.

This works for all broadcasting concerns, before you think it is some type of biased statement.

Do you need any more spoon feeding, or have you got the gist?[/quote]

I never needed spoon-feeding in the first place. I was just waiting for you to finally declare your alliegance to the Haight-Ashbury Institute. It has happened. Congratulations! I hope you at least get a pin for this.

262

[quote]ZEB wrote:
That’s all well and good, but you have still not answered the question that is on the mind of every politically astute T-Man on this forum! Are you, or are you not Lumpy?
[/quote]

Zeb

He sure sounds like Lumpy!

263

100meters,

Are you the poster previously known as Lumpy?

Have you ever typed under the name, “Lumpy?”

Did you change your name from Lumpy to 100meters because your philosophy was repudiated at the ballot box?

If you answer no and are lying, I hope your nude picture ends up on the internet so that I can laugh.

Thanks!!!

JeffR

264

The lumpinator.

265

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
You didn’t answer my question. Perhaps you can explain your hypocrisy accusation in your next answer.

Professor X wrote:
I thought I answered it quite well. You asked me to explain the hypocrisy of preferring someone to be honest rather than someone to lie. I found that to be an extremely simplistic way of looking at this when your position seems to be that whoever outwardly supports your bias is telling the truth, while all others are liars. Maybe you were too quick to rush over why I answered your question with a question.[/quote]

No, I still don’t think you answered the question – you re-worked the question into something you wanted to answer, which changed my position into what you want it to be.

My position isn’t that whichever source outwardly supports my viewpoint is telling the truth (though I will obviously tend to agree more with someone who agrees with me). My position is that I prefer overt, stated bias to hidden, unstated bias.

My whole point in this discussion is that I would prefer it if CNN and the New York Times would come out and state the fact that they cover their stories from a left-wing perspective. I would prefer that to their current model of claiming to be unbiased while having a left-wing bias, though I do not generally take a left-wing perspective.

Whether the perspective or bias matches mine or not, I prefer it to be stated.

That’s my position.

Now explain to me why it is hypocritical to prefer that sources come out and state their underlying bias to denying they have a bias?

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
With regard to what you said, you brought up the crux of the matter when you said:

ProfessorX said:
"Is it perhaps a possibility that the one not making that claim is at least attempting to be objective? Isn’t that what news should be trying to do? Or has that changed to “you all are so biased so we will be CLEARLY biased to show all of you…so there”.

One of the main ideas of what vroom posted, and what some others have said, and with which I tend to agree, is that you get perspective when you get a person acting as a filter for a story, which is essentially what the person who writes the story copy does."

ProfessorX responded:
OK, and your point is? This has been going on since the beginning of written word, however, I do believe they teach in the most basic college writing courses that the goal is either to persuade or to show both sides of an argument equally. A good writer or reporter could accomplish both without compromising integrity depending on the work.[/quote]

That may be the goal. I’m saying it doesn’t work generally, and it especially doesn’t work when the vast majority of the people who are attempting to produce unbiased work share the same perspective (e.g. bias). And I think we are going to see that you don’t think they do such a hot job either. More below.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Some will attempt to filter out their own perspective, and will be successful to some extent, but not totally sucessful.

ProfessorX responded:
Then we disagree on this. It is not impossible for someone to be objective in a writing or talking piece. It only depends on the desire.[/quote]

It may not be impossible, but it is highly unlikely without the utmost attention to detail and sourcing, and it is much easier if you involve in a review process those who do not share your outlook (e.g. perspective, e.g. bias).

Sadly, for all the rhetoric of journalism school, it does not appear that journalists are good at it generally – factors such as time pressure, laziness, and shared underlying assumptions (e.g. perspective, e.g. outlook, e.g. bias) that comes from having 90% or more of the national press corps agreeing with the Democratic party positions on issues make it de facto impossible, if not technically impossible, for news sources to continually filter out bias from news stories.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Others won’t bother to attempt, or they just won’t actively try because they consider themselves purveyors of “the truth” and above such things.

ProfessorX wrote:
Like this hasn’t been happening in the Republican party ad nauseum.[/quote]

This is irrelevant, because the Republican Party does not hold itself out to be an unbiased provider of fact, as the news sources do. The Republican Party represents its positions; the Democratic Party represents its positions; the news sources who claim to be unbiased claim to represent no positions.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
But as you hit upon, I think you will get perspective – which is just another word for bias – to some degree or other.

ProfessorX wrote:
Ahh, so FOX news is filled with “perspective”. Thanks for clearing that up.[/quote]

Yes, and so are all the others. The point is that Fox News admits it, and tries to balance it. The others do not. No matter how many times you try to change the subject, that is the point.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Thus, I prefer to get strong arguments from both sides, rather than simply to trust the reporter/writer to give me an unbiased interpretation of the facts.

ProfessorX wrote:
Well, by that statement I would assume that someone with your intelligence would realize that regardless of tifts about who says they are baised when they are or are not, the basic idea is to get a rounded view of the situation. That would mean relying on even those “perspectives” that you don’t initially agree with as well as those you do in order to obtain information. Why, then, do you tear down one side of that fence while constantly putting a new coat of paint on the other?[/quote]

That’s right. It is the basic idea to get a balanced view of the situation. Let me re-post the whole reason why I dislike sources pretending to be free of bias when in fact they are biased:

[i]BTW, I suppose I should get to one of the main underlying reasons I prefer acknowledged bias to claims of objectivity. Given my explicit rejection, in my previous post, of the ideal of objectivity, I think the claim of objectivity actively hides the issues, and encourages a lazy, unthinking attitude toward news consumption.

If you think you’re getting the objective truth, you are not likely to stop to question the underlying assumptions, or the sources, or anything else I think is important to understanding a story. If you get arguments on both sides, you might reject both, but you’ll think about both and be much closer to a real understanding of the issue than if you mindlessly consume the “unbiased” reports.[/i]

In other words, sources that hide their bias actively interfere with the pursuit of a balanced view of a situation.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
What do you think of the steroid stories right now, btw? Do you think the media is doing a good job of presenting an unbiased story? (BTW, I don’t think Fox is doing a good job of presenting both sides of this story). How about the Michael Jackson story?

ProfessorX wrote:
You should have started a new thread for this. This could get hectic. I think that our Congress has been exposed as a group of overpaid sham-artists who eat up public tax money to pursue the latest “hot topic of the week” despite the true threats to our society. Anyone who thinks the steroid issue should even be in front of Congress right now is a fool. They might as well hold hearings on jay walking next week…possibly a hearing on how short a short skirt should legally be allowed to be worn without jail time.

As far as Micheal Jackson, I have already written on this board what I believe. The public builds people up only to tear them down. Micheal was a world wide phenomenon who is now being made fun of left and right. What has changed? Aside from his facial features, he seems to be the exact same Mike that we grew up with in the 80’s. Mike never changed, everyone else did. For every scalpel taken to his face, society has become more and more mutilated to compensate. He seems to wear facially what our society now hides internally. Perhaps his face is a painting of the new soul of this country…fixed up on the outside…falling apart on the inside…only in reverse.
[/quote]

So, the unbiased news sources are doing an excellent job of giving a rounded, unbiased view of these stories, aren’t they? And these are stories that don’t even affect them, or touch on their core beliefs and ideas of how the country should be run. You’d think that if they were going to be unbiased, it would be easier in such fluff pieces as the Michael Jackson story, or in sports stories like the steroid stories.

Where are the stories giving the perspective you gave to the Michael Jackson piece? The stories exploring the actual information about steroids? Or even including those in the same, rounded, unbiased pieces?

Now I see why you didn’t want to get to the rest of my post in your reply. THen again, you’re a busy guy – perhaps you just didn’t read the rest of my post. Let me re-post it here so people don’t have to scroll back:

[i]If you think they aren’t – and I don’t see how a person of your intelligence could think they are – then perhaps you could agree that there exists a decent probability that reporting on political issues, on which people tend to have passionate beliefs, could be biased? And that, even if people were trying to excise bias, having a pool of people who share the same political biases trying to police their reports for bias might not do such a stellar job of catching their own bias sneaking through?

Thus, I prefer clear, stated perspective – which is how newspapers used to report back before some U.S. journalism academics decided they could present unbiased news. The Brits have never fallen for this – their newspapers have obvious and known perspectives. And anyone who believes the BBC doesn’t really isn’t paying attention…[/i]

266

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Todd,

“So let me get this straight. Massive debt, which is create by budgets that the President either approves or vetoes, is not under the direct control of the President?”

Sure it is.

When did I say it wasn’t?

Deficits, not necessarily.[/quote]

Precisely.

It’s not as if the President can line-item veto particular spending proposals while accepting others. He submits a proposed budget, Congress looks at it, and then submits spending bills that tack on more (or, rarely, give less) than what he asked for. They put all the pork in along with important spending, so the President is faced with the choice of resubmitting something like military budget for supplies in Iraq if he vetoes a bill, or accepting the pork-barrel stuff that is attached. Presidents almost always choose to accept the extra pork to get their high-priority items.

I wish there was a line-item veto, but I believe the USSC ruled (going from memory here) that it was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority when the Republican congress voted to give line-itemm veto power to Clinton back in the 90s.

267

[quote]100meters wrote:
randman wrote:
I seriously can not even believe this is a debate. For the last 30 years, liberally biased views have dominated the news. I can’t believe any conservative or liberal would refute this. In the last few years, we now have a news channel that is conservatively biased - Fox news. I hope we start having even more news channels that are conservatively biased to balance out all the extreme liberal crap news that has been positioned as objective reporting for the last few decades.

The more the liberals on this thread argue until their blue in the face that the majority of the news has NOT been liberally biased over the years, the more ridiculous they look.

Please, let’s just call a spade a spade here. We won’t think less of you. Just admit it.

I guess you didn’t agree with the conclusions in this study that basically disproved the title of this thread? The other networks were more neutral than fox, i.e. less biased (more objective). Other studies have shown fox viewers are less informed than the other networks. So why the hell would you want more like fox, Better would be to improve those that are already more neutral and more informative. So if you want to call a spade a spade, call fox, tell them to get with the program.

[/quote]

That wasn’t the main point. That’s why I posted a link to the methodology of the study.

The part about “newscaster opinion” wasn’t controlled for whether it was balanced by a counter opinion. And “slant”, or, non-overt opinion, wasn’t measured as a counter to this category, other than indirectly in the “negative” or “positive” categories.

The study was OK. Any such study is going to be necessarily subjective based on the classifications – “negative” stories, “positive” stories and “neutral” stories. It’s a piece of the puzzle. Combine it with the studies on the voting records and party registrations of the national news media for a more complete picture.

268

BB, instead of quoting everything you just wrote, because those were a lot of words, I will try to see if you can grasp my perspective. Let me know how this hits you.

You are convinced that CNN and everyone else are actively liberally biased. I personally haven’t experienced this and I watch many of these shows, including Fox. In fact, how about you speak on specific topics that we can research in order to discuss this bias truthfully. I am not saying there is no bias, just that it isn’t as evident and pervasive as many of you are attempting to make it seem. What I have experienced is Fox news being actively and knowingly biased as if that controversy alone is what they base their standing on. I agree, it has provided them with more viewers, if for no other reason than people are drawn to controversy. I have watched some shows on Fox simply to see how much I disagree with some of the reporters. I doubt I am alone on that issue. It is why people who disagree with Scarbourough(sp?) still watch his show…because he is loud about his opinion and people love to have someone to hate.

You mentioned two hot topics in the news now, MJ and baseball. What I seem to be noticing is a very slanted “conservative” view on both topics in the media. How do you explain this with all of the “liberal news” that you claim is being reported? If this were true in these cases, we wouldn’t be getting such negative reports for either story. In fact, you actually questioned me when you should have asked yourself why that is. Would liberals be this up in arms without the facts for the accusations against Micheal or baseball?

Again, find specific topics that are being reported liberally and let’s discuss those. And I am talking about those that do not involve last year’s election because for you to prove this, it has to go beyond last year’s “split down the middle of the country” election. Enlighten me. From here, I see more conservative issues, slants and points of view than ever before. Please point me to the huge liberal conspiracy. Shine a light on it, please.

269

[quote]Professor X wrote:
BB, instead of quoting everything you just wrote, because those were a lot of words, I will try to see if you can grasp my perspective. Let me know how this hits you.

You are convinced that CNN and everyone else are actively liberally biased. I personally haven’t experienced this and I watch many of these shows, including Fox. In fact, how about you speak on specific topics that we can research in order to discuss this bias truthfully. I am not saying there is no bias, just that it isn’t as evident and pervasive as many of you are attempting to make it seem. What I have experienced is Fox news being actively and knowingly biased as if that controversy alone is what they base their standing on. I agree, it has provided them with more viewers, if for no other reason than people are drawn to controversy. I have watched some shows on Fox simply to see how much I disagree with some of the reporters. I doubt I am alone on that issue. It is why people who disagree with Scarbourough(sp?) still watch his show…because he is loud about his opinion and people love to have someone to hate.[/quote]

That’s fine. I disagree with your assessment of the bias levels.

The only two topics covered by the study that started this whole thing were the Iraq War and the Presidential candidates.

W/r/t the Presidential candidates, the study purported to find more negative stories about Bush, and more positive stories about Kerry, from the non-Fox networks.

W/r/t Iraq, the study purported to find more positive stories in Fox, as compared to the other networks.

This study gives rise to a relative standard of comparison though, as there isn’t a control against which to compare the absolute numbers – you just sort of compare them against each other.

There have been previous studies posted on the Politics Board – specifically in the run-up to the election – that focused on “liberal” versus “conservative” stories. That study was also not perfect, and also compared the networks against each other – and it can be argued the categories were more subjective than the “negative” and “positive” categories of this study (though they are all subjective).

In fact, the only actual studies that I have seen all point toward a general liberal bias in the media. Vroom says its unsurprising. I believe toddjacobs noted that you get perspective (e.g. bias) when you deal with people. You’re the only one saying you think they are actually achieving an unbiased coverage of the issues – except when they’re not. See below.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
You mentioned two hot topics in the news now, MJ and baseball. What I seem to be noticing is a very slanted “conservative” view on both topics in the media. How do you explain this with all of the “liberal news” that you claim is being reported? If this were true in these cases, we wouldn’t be getting such negative reports for either story. In fact, you actually questioned me when you should have asked yourself why that is. Would liberals be this up in arms without the facts for the accusations against Micheal or baseball?[/quote]

Wait, you think the coverage has been “conservative”? I’ll agree that it hasn’t been libertarian w/r/t the steroid issue, but it seems to me that the liberal members of Congress have been front-forward on the attacks on baseball for steroid use. Conservatives have been there too. But the coverage seems to be parrotting the politicians’ line, rather than seeking to provide an unbiased story. It’s certainly not unbiased.

As to Michael Jackson, I wouldn’t call the coverage “liberal” or “conservative”, because it’s not really political. It’s more coverage of a freakshow, and it’s focusing on the “Michael is weird” aspect of the trial when they’re not focusing on the legal minutea or getting lawyers to try to guess how the jury will interpret this or that thing.

But again, hardly unbiased.

Actually, the Michael Jackson coverage allows me an example of what I like about Fox – at least they get former/current prosecutors to argue against former/current defense attorneys about the legal issues, rather than just presenting what is supposedly an “unbiased” story.

And these two issues aren’t really “liberal” or “conservative” issues, which is why I brought them up – so you could identify the perspective (e.g. bias) in these non-political stories, and perhaps grant that the political stories are also subject to the perspective of the newsroom, irrespective of what is idealized in journalism school or by the journalists themselves.

[quote]ProfessorX wrote:
Again, find specific topics that are being reported liberally and let’s discuss those. And I am talking about those that do not involve last year’s election because for you to prove this, it has to go beyond last year’s “split down the middle of the country” election. Enlighten me. From here, I see more conservative issues, slants and points of view than ever before. Please point me to the huge liberal conspiracy. Shine a light on it, please.[/quote]

I can’t really do much more than point to all the admittedly imperfect studies that all point in the same direction, combined with some common sense. You can sit back and ask me to prove it to you, or you can go out and try to prove to me this supposed conservative bias exists – I’d love to see those studies…

Now, again, you’re attempting to mischaracterize my opinion. I never said there was a liberal conspiracy overall or in any particular story.

Rather, I think a generalized liberal bias exists because of the preponderance of the liberal viewpoints held by the individual news reporters and editors. They don’t get together and have meetings and say, “What’s the liberal spin on this story? How should we mischaracterize Bush’s plan today?” Rather, as I have stated above, they are not good at identifying or checking their individual biases because a large majority share similar outlooks.

You really need someone with a different point of view to check your assumptions – that’s the same reason scientists submit their work to peer review. It’s why diverse educational backgrounds (e.g. taking a bio major, a history major, and an econ major) on teams was proven in a Stanford B-school study to produce superior results. Other perspectives help to correct biases endemic to one way of thinking.

So, basically, with over 90% of the national press corps holding an anti-Republican bias (as judged by their voting records in Presidential contests), it doesn’t seem to me that you would need any conspiracy whatsoever for stories to reflect that line of thinking.

270

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
So, basically, with over 90% of the national press corps holding an anti-Republican bias (as judged by their voting records in Presidential contests), it doesn’t seem to me that you would need any conspiracy whatsoever for stories to reflect that line of thinking.[/quote]

Considering you base all of these opinions on the coverage of the war in Iraq, which is a topic that has divided an entire country itself, I don’t think you have proven much other than the war in Iraq is extremely controversial. With half of the nation not in agreement, what do you expect?

I also disagree with your assessment of MJ and the baseball issue. They are clearly showing a more conservative slant and it is not just a “freak show”. Most of the commentators with their own shows on Fox or other networks have basically found Jackson guilty without a jury. I honestly don’t see how you missed that. Your whole “liberal issue” is based on war coverage during the past election. That makes little sense because there are more issues than that going on in the world that are making headlines. Republicans got their man in office. Why, then, do they act as if this is not enough and that they want to control all news media as well?

271

ProX,

“Most of the commentators with their own shows on Fox or other networks have basically found Jackson guilty without a jury.”

This is where you keep getting it wrong - news analysis shows take positions. They are opinion shows. If a news analysis commentator takes a biased opinion, he’s doing his job.

But this isn’t straight news.

Moreover, if a commentator thinks Jackson is guilty based on what he/she knows of the evidence, how is this a political bias?

272

Trolling again Rainjack? You know damned well my post has nothing to do with tripe like that – especially if you actually bothered to read it.

Let me know if you actually care to engage in something known as a “conversation” on any of these topics instead of just mouthing your preconceived notions of everyone else on the board.

273

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
So, basically, with over 90% of the national press corps holding an anti-Republican bias (as judged by their voting records in Presidential contests), it doesn’t seem to me that you would need any conspiracy whatsoever for stories to reflect that line of thinking.

Professor X wrote:
Considering you base all of these opinions on the coverage of the war in Iraq, which is a topic that has divided an entire country itself, I don’t think you have proven much other than the war in Iraq is extremely controversial. With half of the nation not in agreement, what do you expect?[/quote]

That’s not what I said. I said the study at the basis of this whole thread studied two issues specifically: the Iraq War and the Presidential campaign. I did not say that I was basing my opinion solely on the coverage of the Iraq War.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I also disagree with your assessment of MJ and the baseball issue. They are clearly showing a more conservative slant and it is not just a “freak show”. Most of the commentators with their own shows on Fox or other networks have basically found Jackson guilty without a jury. I honestly don’t see how you missed that. [/quote]

I am not counting “commentators with their own shows” in my opinions, because, as you said, they are commentators – they are supposed to give their opinions. I’m not talking about O’Reilly (who, as you said, seems anti-Jackson) or Geraldo (who is pro-Jackson). I’m not talking about Kramer & Company, Olberman, whoever is hosting Crossfire this week, or any other opinion show.

I’m talking about news stories. I have always been talking about news stories.

Small digression: And why do you think “finding Jackson guilty without a jury” is a conservative position? I don’t see liberals lining up to defend him. I know there is a racial divide in opinion – there was one with O.J. too, both before and after the verdict. However, I do not note a political divide.

On steroids, I similarly find no political divide in opinion. Politicians from both sides of the aisle are grandstanding, and coverage is of the easy, spoon-fed and reactionary variety. I don’t see a “liberal” vs. “conservative” divide in opinion on this issue in the media, in Congress, or in general.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Your whole “liberal issue” is based on war coverage during the past election. That makes little sense because there are more issues than that going on in the world that are making headlines.[/quote]

No, my position is not solely based on Iraq. See above.

[quote]ProfessorX wrote:
Republicans got their man in office. Why, then, do they act as if this is not enough and that they want to control all news media as well?[/quote]

Again, this isn’t my position. I know you’re a busy man Prof, but I don’t know how many times I have to re-state my position. Let me try it another time.

I don’t want the Republicans to control all the news media.

I don’t want all the news media to have a conservative bias.

What I want is for news organizations to admit their bias, and try to balance it by introducing the opposite viewpoint.

In other words, since Fox tends to lean rightward, I like the fact they include people who introduce the left perspective in their stories. I like that they have DNC people and Democratic Party consultants on there arguing their side of the issue.

I think it would be superior to their current model if CNN and MSNBC would introduce right-leaning commentors to balance out their left-leaning bias.

With newspapers like the NYT it’s more difficult – I suppose I would be happy enough if they simply admitted their left-leaning bias in their news coverage.

274

[quote]vroom wrote:
Let me know if you actually care to engage in something known as a “conversation” on any of these topics instead of just mouthing your preconceived notions of everyone else on the board.[/quote]

I don’t troll. I used to collect them - but that’s a different story.

Honestly vroom, I have read your posts. I’ve read most all of them more than once. I honestly have no clue what you are talking about in these most recent exchanges. Does that make me a simpleton as you allude to? I would say not, as I can comprehend most all other contributors on here - with the exception of Limbic.

But your posts are a cross between socialism and some cryptic Canadian gang-speak. My thinking is if I can get you mad enough to just talk in regular prose, I’ll be able to discern your point.

Evidently my attempts have failed, leaving you with the impression that I’m mentally challenged in some capacity. Maybe you are, in fact, correct. But don’t you find it just a bit odd that it is only yours and Limbic’s posts that escape my grasp?

275

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I’m talking about news stories. I have always been talking about news stories.[/quote]

Then prove your point without using the most controversial event quite possibly in the last 100 years or more. I asked you this before. Is it that hard to show this liberal bias without using the last election and the war in Iraq? My guess is, it must be pretty hard to do because that is the only source of your “evidence”. Seeing as it was an event that divided, and still divides, an entire nation, it would seem like the worst place to set up a flag and talk about majorities. Any event in a negative light would be glorified in the media much like the Jackson case. You seem to seperate it, for some strange reason, by claiming that the media is without bias in any other story aside from the war in Iraq. How can that possibly be? They are attracted to the negative. That would make it seem that instead of a liberal bias, there is a bias on all fronts to glorify negative stories for ratings. Please, one last time, prove your point without the last election. Let’s see this bias in its everyday news-story glory.

276

Hahahahahaha. Stop using a magic decoder ring and things will make more sense.

Seriously, someone (I don’t recall who, it could have been you) used the fact that Fox or some such made a lot of money in an attempt to show it was appropriate or held value to a large number of people.

I’m just pointing out that money is really only a measure of financial issues and is not a good substitute for use when measuring other issues.

No socialism. No gang-speak. No liberalism. No bias. No anti-business. No nothing. Just a simple principle. Maybe if you weren’t trying so hard to decipher some hidden message that isn’t there it wouldn’t be so hard to understand.

277

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
I’m talking about news stories. I have always been talking about news stories.

Professor X wrote:
Then prove your point without using the most controversial event quite possibly in the last 100 years or more. I asked you this before. Is it that hard to show this liberal bias without using the last election and the war in Iraq? My guess is, it must be pretty hard to do because that is the only source of your “evidence”. [/quote]

What does the fact I was and am referring to news stories rather than opinion journalism have to do with the topic of the news stories?

Anyway, the study analyzed the election and the Iraq War. Sorry, but I’ll not be going out and conducting my own study just for the purposes of our discussion – I guess we’re stuck using what’s already been done, or whatever is next released.

BTW, you do have a nice penchant for overstatement, don’t you? “[M]ost controversial event in the last 100 years or more…” Just off the top of my head, I think we’re less than 100 years from the Civil Rights movement, Viet Nam and Roe v. Wade[NOTE: Civil Rights movment reference referred to controversy surrounding the events at the time, not now]. If I actually stopped to think about it I’m sure there are more obvious examples.

Aside from that, to repeat myself again, the Iraq War is not the “only source” of “my evidence.” It was one of the two main events – the other being the Presidential election – focused upon in this particular study. If you’d like to go back and re-read the stuff on the other studies that we have discussed on here, feel free to utilize the search function. If you’d like to introduce your own study that backs up your conjectures on conservative bias, please, by all means, go ahead.

ADDENDUM: I also wanted to add that your disdain for the Iraq War and the election makes no sense. If we want to see if bias comes out in the news coverage, it makes sense to focus on more controversial issues, not less controversial issues. These two issues both had obvious separations between liberal and conservative viewpoints, and had strong opinions on both sides – that makes them perfect issues for an analysis like this. Why would you look for political bias in non-political, non-controversial stories?

[quote]ProfessorX wrote:
Seeing as it was an event that divided, and still divides, an entire nation, it would seem like the worst place to set up a flag and talk about majorities. [/quote]

Who is talking of majorities? The study that is the focus of this thread focused on positive and negative stories concerning the war, not on whether there was majority support for the war.

The focus was the tenor of the news coverage.

[quote]ProfessorX wrote:
Any event in a negative light would be glorified in the media much like the Jackson case. You seem to seperate it, for some strange reason, by claiming that the media is without bias in any other story aside from the war in Iraq. How can that possibly be?[/quote]

I wouldn’t know how it could possibly be, given it’s entirely unrelated to my point. I didn’t claim the media was without bias in ANY story at all, including in its coverage of the Iraq War. I believe it was your point that the media could be unbiased. I said I didn’t see a bias in the Michael Jackson coverage that defined itself on political, conservative v. liberal, lines, and that I didn’t perceive the Michael Jackson story as a political story.

The steroid story is sort of a political story in that it’s currently about congressional grandstanding, but it’s not one given to liberal/conservative juxtaposition.

[quote]ProfessorX wrote:
They are attracted to the negative. That would make it seem that instead of a liberal bias, there is a bias on all fronts to glorify negative stories for ratings. Please, one last time, prove your point without the last election. Let’s see this bias in its everyday news-story glory.[/quote]

Hmmm – not using the election? I thought you said I was only using the Iraq War? Anyway, speaking of the election, if the media are simply attracted to the negative, why was the coverage of John Kerry so much more positive vis a vis the coverage of Bush? Since this study actually concerned itself with election coverage, it would seem to make sense to look at that.

BTW, it’s kind of amusing to me that your position on evidence is that you will accept evidence only covering what’s not in the study.

However, if you want to look at a current political issue, why don’t you follow coverage of proposed social security reform, starting now. Do your own little experiment. Just read the news stories from the New York Times, and then get ahold of some of the opinion pieces that run in the Wall Street Journal that are pro personal accounts and see whether the news stories give an accurate view of both sides. Since the President hasn’t backed a particular plan yet, this should prove a very good issue for you to examine and on which to base your verdict. Note the adjectives and verbs used, and the placement of the various positions in the headline, and in the body of the story (in the beginning or toward the end). See how the conservative positions are treated compared to the liberal ones. BTW, if you want, you can just PM me your email address and I will send you WSJ op-eds that lay out the Republican/conservative positions – I doubt you’ll have trouble finding liberal pieces on your own.

Also, watch the news coverage and see how they portray the stories. Do they emphasize “Questions surrounding the President’s proposed reforms” or perhaps “Which fat-cats will benefit most from the President’s proposed reforms,” or even “How you might end up with less from the President’s proposed reforms.” If so, do they at least balance those stories with positives, or with other scenarios of how you could come out ahead?

Hopefully you will engage in this exercise, and find it illuminating…

278

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Just read the news stories from the New York Times, and then get ahold of some of the opinion pieces that run in the Wall Street Journal that are pro personal accounts and see whether the news stories give an accurate view of both sides. Since the President hasn’t backed a particular plan yet, this should prove a very good issue for you to examine and on which to base your verdict. Note the adjectives and verbs used, and the placement of the various positions in the headline, and in the body of the story (in the beginning or toward the end). See how the conservative positions are treated compared to the liberal ones. BTW, if you want, you can just PM me your email address and I will send you WSJ op-eds that lay out the Republican/conservative positions – I doubt you’ll have trouble finding liberal pieces on your own.

[/quote]
shouldn’t it be NYT opinion vs. WSJ opinion? I find NYT inept at getting past gop spin in its news stories. Also the WSJ news stories sometime contradict their opinion pieces. In my opinion there are too many distortions or lies or ignorance in the wsj op-eds. If its not accurate why read it?

279

[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
Todd–
As far as being paralyzed by spending too much time looking for facts, yes, I believe you can.
Wasn’t it Patton who said something to the effect of ‘a good plan executed today is better than a perfect plan executed later’?
Apologies for the imperfect quote.
[/quote]

I’m not sure if that was Patton, but that is certainly a military maxim. As is perfect planning prevents piss poor performance. That quote only applies to time critical situations. It doesn’t really apply to casual political discussions in which there is no necessity to respond immediately. Even in time critical situations, some level of information gathering is ALWAYS necessary. Otherwise you run the risk of unnecessarily squandering lives and resources.

I can tell you, as an Iraq veteran who was involved in more than one planning process, that extreme amounts of information are demanded by the tactical troops from the intelligence community in just about every situation you can think of. The planning process is structured to glean the maximum amount of information in the shortest amount of time because timely, pertinent information is a combat multiplier.

Todd

280

[quote]vroom wrote:
Seriously, someone (I don’t recall who, it could have been you) used the fact that Fox or some such made a lot of money in an attempt to show it was appropriate or held value to a large number of people.

I’m just pointing out that money is really only a measure of financial issues and is not a good substitute for use when measuring other issues.

No socialism. No gang-speak. No liberalism. No bias. No anti-business. No nothing. Just a simple principle. Maybe if you weren’t trying so hard to decipher some hidden message that isn’t there it wouldn’t be so hard to understand.[/quote]

My point with the ‘making money’ crack was not what you thought it was. No one news org. has a monopoly on the right way to cover the news. Someone suggested that Fox do it the way CNN was doing it, and I replied with the making money crack.

I happen to think that Fox presents news in a more balanced manner than CNN, or anyone else. I don’t suspect you would hold that same view, nor would anyone else on the left.

That has nothing to do with how much money they, or CNN, make. It’s a choice. There’s no right or wrong. There’s not much of a way to objectively quantify which one is good or bad.