Media Conservatively Biased?

[Carl S]

MoveOn.org is accusing the media of conservative bias. They base this on an analysis by the liberal "media watchdog," Media Matters for America. This totally skewed "analysis” was done of the Sunday morning political shows. They claim that, since more conservatives than liberals were invited onto the shows they studied within a certain time frame, the whole mainstream media has a conservative bias! Yeah, and the Pope is Islamic.

I know this will come as a shock to you all; but MIT published a study this week done by UCLA which shows that all of the mainstream media outlets actually are biased - in favor of liberals. This study measures media bias by estimating ideological scores for several major media outlets. To compute this, they count the times that a particular media outlet cites various think tanks and policy groups, and then compare this with the times that members of Congress cite the same groups. The study's results show a strong liberal bias: all of the news outlets they examine, except Fox News' Special Report and the Washington Times, received scores to the left of the average member of Congress. CBS Evening News and the New York Times received scores far to the left of center. The most centrist media outlets were PBS NewsHour, CNN's Newsnight, and ABC's Good Morning America. Looking at the print outlets, USA Today was closest to the center. All of the study's findings refer strictly to news content; that is, the researchers exclude editorials, letters, and the like.

[muley]

Wait...Another study of something that is already a known fact. Why don't they study something that needs to be studied? Like how can Ted's liver stay afloat in all that alcohol?
muley

[Bruce FLinch]

How about a study on how Bill Clinton avoids (or doesn't) VD?

[22WRF]

Media Conservatively Biased?

This is a joke????????? Right!!!!

[satellite66]

I can't believe you guys don't believe this. Just look at all the positive press that Cheney has gotten for the last week. All the nice things the press says about Bush and Condi. What a crock. It just proves once again that the left is losing it. They are becoming more derranged.

[Marlin]

It's a laugh, we all know.

The horror of it is that their dumb, stupid followers will follow suit as requested and actually write the media screaming this line......

[user_error]

The mega-popularity of talk radio, and especially Rush for decades, when contrasted with the failure of Air America, leaves little to doubt. As rush says: "Some say I need to be balanced with equal time. Not so! I AM equal time..."

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by user error

As rush says: "Some say I need to be balanced with equal time. Not so! I AM equal time..."

Don't forget O'Reilly as well. He tells it like it is and shows both sides, as does Rush. The reason the liberals hate them so much is that they do tell it like it is, and back it up with verifiable facts instead of innuendo and opinion.

[Marlin T]

So Carl, lets see if I have this correct. UCLA said that the media is bias to the left, image that, so to debunk that 'theory' Media Matters does there own survey?

Two liberal groups doing the same research?

I have this buddy that is pretty liberal and likes to bash fox news, stating O' Rielly mostly and his favorite video "outfoxxed". I just can't get it through his head that Bill does opinion backed with facts. I don't get it.

But in the same breath, he knows that we have numerous weapons and is fine with that fact. When I ask him how can he vote for almost any Dem and be OK with the fact that I have weapons. "well ummmm" is about all I get from that question.

I'll support almost anyone that supports the Bill of Rights, not just there word but let there voting record speak for them.

[Carl S]

So Carl, lets see if I have this correct. UCLA said that the media is bias to the left, image that, so to debunk that 'theory' Media Matters does there own survey?

That about sums it up. Except that, obviously, the Media Matters survey was a sham designed to produce a specific result where the UCLA study appears to be a valid study designed to answer a question and not skew the outcome.

I have this buddy that is pretty liberal and likes to bash fox news, stating O' Rielly mostly and his favorite video "outfoxxed". I just can't get it through his head that Bill does opinion backed with facts. I don't get it.

I understand it perfectly. Liberalism is not based on facts and logic. Liberalism is based on emotion and feelings. Facts have nothing to do with the liberal mindset. As I stated in another thread, liberalism cannot be argued logically based on the constitution. It can only be argued on the basis of how someone perceives things ought to be. Facts and truth are irrelevant to a liberal.

I'll support almost anyone that supports the Bill of Rights, not just there word but let there voting record speak for them.

Ditto. Party does not matter to me. Philosphy and voting records are the key.

[user_error]

Originally Posted by Pistolenschutze

Don't forget O'Reilly as well. He tells it like it is and shows both sides, as does Rush. The reason the liberals hate them so much is that they do tell it like it is, and back it up with verifiable facts instead of innuendo and opinion.

Sure, I do watch old Irish Fury every now and then, but one problem I have with the idea of "telling it like it is" is that everybody speaks from a point of view. I'd have no problem with the Rathers of the world if they simply admitted their points of view and political ideology, instead of claiming to be "above" the teeming masses of ignorance they deign to inform. O'Reilly does have the problem on occasion of calling himself a straight shooter who isn't beholden to the interests of the conservative right or lib left, which I disagree with. No one speaks from an unbiased POV.

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by user_error

Sure, I do watch old Irish Fury every now and then, but one problem I have with the idea of "telling it like it is" is that everybody speaks from a point of view. I'd have no problem with the Rathers of the world if they simply admitted their points of view and political ideology, instead of claiming to be "above" the teeming masses of ignorance they deign to inform. O'Reilly does have the problem on occasion of calling himself a straight shooter who isn't beholden to the interests of the conservative right or lib left, which I disagree with. No one speaks from an unbiased POV.

I can't really disagree with you there, User. What you say is true; we all do speak from a point of view. Yet I think it is also true that there exists a difference between propounding a point of view--labeled as such--and outright distortion of facts, or indeed, blatant falsehood. Far too many of the liberal commentators are guilty of the latter, and alas, so are some of the conservative ones, particularly those on the extreme right or left.

[user_error]

Yeah, some people will lie for their beliefs, while other people will sniff out the truth no matter what it takes. You know which side is more willing to come down on the intellectually dishonest side of things... Hint: Rathergate & CNN. Koran abuse from Newsweek. Cheney's certain indictment from ABC. When was the last nationwide news story, later discredited, in which a Republican is made to look *better* than he should?

That said, I think O'Reilly comes down blindly in the middle. It's too often that he's straddling the fence for it to be the product of complete thought and guiding principle.

[firebird]

Perhaps it's the skeptic or just the academic researcher in me (or both), but I think it would be wise when referring published articles and/or studies to COMPLETELY cite them. In other words, please post the cited reference for the articles and studies you referenced. No offense, but I want to read for myself the studies and articles and consequently make and informed decision.

Thanks.

Originally Posted by Carl S

I know this will come as a shock to you all; but MIT published a study this week done by UCLA which shows that all of the mainstream media outlets actually are biased - in favor of liberals. This study measures media bias by estimating ideological scores for several major media outlets. To compute this, they count the times that a particular media outlet cites various think tanks and policy groups, and then compare this with the times that members of Congress cite the same groups. The study's results show a strong liberal bias: all of the news outlets they examine, except Fox News' Special Report and the Washington Times, received scores to the left of the average member of Congress. CBS Evening News and the New York Times received scores far to the left of center. The most centrist media outlets were PBS NewsHour, CNN's Newsnight, and ABC's Good Morning America. Looking at the print outlets, USA Today was closest to the center. All of the study's findings refer strictly to news content; that is, the researchers exclude editorials, letters, and the like.

[satellite66]

Originally Posted by firebird

Perhaps it's the skeptic or just the academic researcher in me (or both), but I think it would be wise when referring published articles and/or studies to COMPLETELY cite them. In other words, please post the cited reference for the articles and studies you referenced. No offense, but I want to read for myself the studies and articles and consequently make and informed decision.

Thanks.

Perhaps its because you lean left and don't like it when your side is proven to be full of crap?

[firebird]

Interesting knee-jerk reaction, but no. It's because I prefer to read things for myself instead of people telling me their interpretation of something they read (or worse yet what they heard someone read and so on). It doesn't matter if it's something I agree with or not. That's just my academic and educational training.

Originally Posted by satellite66

Perhaps its because you lean left and don't like it when your side is proven to be full of crap?

[satellite66]

Originally Posted by firebird

Interesting knee-jerk reaction, but no. It's because I prefer to read things for myself instead of people telling me their interpretation of something they read (or worse yet what they heard someone read and so on). It doesn't matter if it's something I agree with or not. That's just my academic and educational training.

See, I'm not an academic and can't grasp the subtle nuances of liberal, progressive thinking that the educated do. I guess that is why I can see that
the media promotes and defends the liberal agenda in the majority of supposed neutral news rooms.
I guess you don't watch the MSM because that is all they do is interpret the news to fit the liberal agenda.

[firebird]

No I don't. As stated previously, nobody makes decisions for me or thinks for me. I am perfectly capable of doing that myself. I guess if that makes me "liberal" then so be it. I am me. I am American. Period.

Further, your statement of not being able to "grasp the subtle nuances of liberal, progressive thinking that the educated do" yet this is the precise reason you give that you are somehow able to leap above those "liberal, progressive, educated thinkers" to "grasp" the supposed "liberal agenda that the media promotes" is quite contradictive. I do not argue that there are some places that are more liberal biased, but I assure you, there are just as many out there that are the opposite. As for me, I prefer those that are neither, but unfortunately those or virtually nonexistent.

Originally Posted by satellite66

See, I'm not an academic and can't grasp the subtle nuances of liberal, progressive thinking that the educated do. I guess that is why I can see that
the media promotes and defends the liberal agenda in the majority of supposed neutral news rooms.
I guess you don't watch the MSM because that is all they do is interpret the news to fit the liberal agenda.

[Carl S]

Perhaps it's the skeptic or just the academic researcher in me (or both), but I think it would be wise when referring published articles and/or studies to COMPLETELY cite them. In other words, please post the cited reference for the articles and studies you referenced. No offense, but I want to read for myself the studies and articles and consequently make and informed decision.

Google it. MIT published the study. The MoveOn.org information came from a newsletter forwarded to me. I have since deleted it. I did find the same info on the MoveOn website.

From the responses, I think maybe satellite66 was close to the target? It is really interesting that only left leaning folks try to defend the mainstream media and/or downplay their very obvious bias and agenda. I don't hear that from moderates or conservatives.

[firebird]

Common sense would say to me that if you aren't hearing it from the moderates or conservatives then perhaps there is a reason for it. Bottom line is everyone has their own respective opinions for which they have a right to. Problem is, there are a lot of loud mouths out there who only care about their own closed-minded views and aren't mature or respectful enough to hear anyone else who deviates from it. That is quite sad and unfortunate indeed. By the way, I am referring to ANY view, not just one that happens to differ from my own.

Originally Posted by Carl S

From the responses, I think maybe satellite66 was close to the target? It is really interesting that only left leaning folks try to defend the mainstream media and/or downplay their very obvious bias and agenda. I don't hear that from moderates or conservatives.

[Carl S]

Originally Posted by firebird

Common sense would say to me that if you aren't hearing it from the moderates or conservatives then perhaps there is a reason for it. Bottom line is everyone has their own respective opinions for which they have a right to. Problem is, there are a lot of loud mouths out there who only care about their own closed-minded views and aren't mature or respectful enough to hear anyone else who deviates from it. That is quite sad and unfortunate indeed. By the way, I am referring to ANY view, not just one that happens to differ from my own.

I hear you and I agree with anyone's right to hold and express their own views. However, on the topic of media bias, several universities over the past fifteen years have done studies on this and they all agree that the mainstream media exhibits a bias to the left in their news reporting - not editorial policy. During the last presidential campaign, one study did a negative story vs. positive story comparison of Kerry vs. Bush. Kerry had a large positive to negative ratio and Bush had a large negative to positive ratio over a six month period.

When is last time you have seen the mainstream press do a favorable firearms story? Look at how the press gives a story about SUV accidents. "The SUV drove into the Pit injuring X number of students" "The SUV ran though a fence.." Like the SUV did these things on its own without driver input. They don't report that a sedan or a minivan did such and such. Anti SUV is a liberal thing and the press endorse, supports, and propogates it. Anti gun is a liberal thing and the press endorse, supports, and propogates it. How much time has the mainstream press spent reporting the good things in Iraq and Afghanistan?

The mainstream press is for the most part a propoganda arm of the DNC. I received a DNC talking points paper one evening. The next morning NBC and CBs morning news shows appeared to have been formated from those talking points. That was one of the very few times that I watched alphabet news; I wanted to see for myself.

[firebird]

Look, I have an SUV, I love my SUV, and I have firearms and I love my firearms. For God's sakes, I'm sitting here on a bloody firearms forum. I mean, good God. Geez. I don't give a rat's ass what anyone thinks (although I will be respectful enough to listen as long as I receive the same courtesy).

There seems to be this ongoing problem of "lumpage" here. First of all, I have NEVER stated my personal political views anywhere on this forum, yet because I disagree with something being said, I am automatically lumped as being "liberal." I think it would be very wise to not judge a book by it's cover. I have found that there are a lot more to people than just their respective political views if one just cares enough to get past their own close-mindedness to see the jewel of the person within. It's such a shame that so many can not seem to do that.

I completely (or I'd say about 97%) disagree with you and quite frankly want to go no further in this particular discussion (as I have promised someone very special to me I would limit my political discussions on here).

Thanks for the discussion.

All the best,

firebird

Originally Posted by Carl S

I hear you and I agree with anyone's right to hold and express their own views. However, on the topic of media bias, several universities over the past fifteen years have done studies on this and they all agree that the mainstream media exhibits a bias to the left in their news reporting - not editorial policy. During the last presidential campaign, one study did a negative story vs. positive story comparison of Kerry vs. Bush. Kerry had a large positive to negative ratio and Bush had a large negative to positive ratio over a six month period.

When is last time you have seen the mainstream press do a favorable firearms story? Look at how the press gives a story about SUV accidents. "The SUV drove into the Pit injuring X number of students" "The SUV ran though a fence.." Like the SUV did these things on its own without driver input. They don't report that a sedan or a minivan did such and such. Anti SUV is a liberal thing and the press endorse, supports, and propogates it. Anti gun is a liberal thing and the press endorse, supports, and propogates it. How much time has the mainstream press spent reporting the good things in Iraq and Afghanistan?

The mainstream press is for the most part a propoganda arm of the DNC. I received a DNC talking points paper one evening. The next morning NBC and CBs morning news shows appeared to have been formated from those talking points. That was one of the very few times that I watched alphabet news; I wanted to see for myself.

[satellite66]

FB, I have heard your veiws and disagree with them. Just because I can see for myself that the media is biased and don't need to study where a study came from to figure it out makes me happy to be an untrained academic and a closed minded loud mouth. Either way I thank God I'm not a liberal.

[firebird]

Sat--likewise I have heard your views and disagree with them. I thank God you're not a liberal too. Great. So, we've got that settled, let's move on.

BTW, Mopars are the grooviest!

Originally Posted by satellite66

FB, I have heard your veiws and disagree with them. Just because I can see for myself that the media is biased and don't need to study where a study came from to figure it out makes me happy to be an untrained academic and a closed minded loud mouth. Either way I thank God I'm not a liberal.

[Carl S]

Look, I have an SUV, I love my SUV, and I have firearms and I love my firearms. For God's sakes, I'm sitting here on a bloody firearms forum. I mean, good God. Geez. I don't give a rat's ass what anyone thinks (although I will be respectful enough to listen as long as I receive the same courtesy).

Firebird, I believe that you totally misunderstood me - or I totally misunderstood you. I never said that you did or did not like SUV's nor did I intend to imply that. I was simply pointing out how the mainstream media handles SUV stories as an example of their liberal agenda. I never accused you of not liking firearms or not supporting the 2A. I don't even know you. I was attempting to bring this discussion back to the topic of liberal bias in the press.

If you disagree with what I've said about the media, that is cool with me. I don't take such personally. I have tried back up what I said with facts as I've found them and as you stated that you relied on. We could have a big disagreement on this particular topic or any other and then go together to a range and have a great time from my perspective. I disagree with your defense of the mainstream media, period. I don't criticize or condemn you as a person. That would would be rather stupid since I don't know you as a person.

By the way, I like MOPARs, too!