|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Yea thats it.
Back when we had moderators such a comment would have been removed. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
What mods? I think moderation gave up with the 9/11 conspiracy nut thread we had in here. I only posted that because if I posted what I wanted to post about you and your personal attack I should have been modded myself.
I really don't care who you work for or how you think it works, it proves nothing. Aruging if there is a liberal bias in the press is arguing if the sky is blue or not. Its journalism, you don't take a vow of neutrality, and I'll be willing to bet if you ask the average journalist they will tell you they went into it to 'make a difference' 'make the world a better place' blah blah, not 'I want to report the facts and let you decide'.
|
In response to your recently posted comments about "moderation", IMO, you certainly didn't demonstrate the same restraint, as observed: <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=2104864&postcount=4">here</a>
There is no "liberal media bias". L. Brent Bozell III's reptition of that tired "liberal bias" mantra, for the last 19 years, does not make it so:
Quote:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2534
.....If the authors truly wanted to rank media outlets on the ADA scale, the simpler method would be to look at the ADA ratings of congressmembers quoted by those news outlets. One suspects that the authors avoided this obvious approach because the results would have been less to their liking: Studies in Extra! have repeatedly found various media outlets quote Republicans more often than Democrats, by ratios ranging from 3 to 2 on NPR (5–6/04) to 3 to 1 on nightly network news (5–6/02) <b>to a startling 5 to 1 on Fox News’ Special Report (7–8/04).</b> Fox News, according to Groseclose and Milyo’s method, is a “centrist” news outlet.
<img src="http://www.fair.org/images/table2534b.jpg">
|
Quote:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1109
Extra! May/June 2002
Power Sources
On party, gender, race and class, TV news looks to the most powerful groups
By Ina Howard
On an average weeknight, ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News are tuned in by approximately one-quarter of television-viewing homes in the U.S. (Nielsen Media Research, 2001)-- about two-thirds of the U.S. public that claims to follow current events regularly (Pew Research Center, 2000). In 22 minutes the newscasts deliver snapshots of national and international news that not only frame current events for the public, but influence story selection at local affiliate stations, at radio outlets and in print media. In addition to putting topics on the nation’s agenda, the networks help set the range of debate on those issues by selecting sources who ostensibly represent the interests and opinions of the population.
In this role as agenda setters and debate arbiters, the networks’ broadcasts profoundly affect the democratic process. While conservatives from Spiro Agnew to Bernard Goldberg have accused the news media of using this influence to promote liberal ideals, a comprehensive analysis of the sources used on the big three networks’ evening news shows in 2001 suggests otherwise.
Instead of a liberal bias, the study found, source selection favored the elite interests that the corporate owners of these shows depend on for advertising revenue, regulatory support and access to information. Network news demonstrated a clear tendency to showcase the opinions of the most powerful political and economic actors, while giving limited access to those voices that would be most likely to challenge them.
On the partisan level, the news programs provided a generous platform for sources from the Republican Party-- the party in power in the White House for almost the entire year-- while giving much less access to the opposition Democrats, and virtually no time to third party or independent politicians. Based on the criterion of who got to speak, the broadcast networks functioned much more as venues for the claims and opinions of the powerful than as democratic forums for public discussion or education.
Partisan imbalance
This study was based on data compiled by Media Tenor Ltd., a non-partisan, German-based media analysis firm with an office in New York City. During 2001, for each report on ABC World News Tonight, NBC Nightly News and CBS Evening News, Media Tenor researchers coded the topic, time period, location, protagonists and detailed source information (including partisan affiliation, gender, and race or nationality, when determinable). If special programming pre-empted the news shows’ broadcast in New York City, transcripts were analyzed when available. For this study, data was analyzed for the time period between January 1 and December 31, 2001, which included 14,632 sources in 18,765 individual reports.
In 2001, the voices of Washington’s elite politicians were the dominant sources of opinion on the network evening news, making up one in three Americans (and more than one in four of all sources) who were quoted on all topics throughout the year. Of sources who had an identifiable partisan affiliation, 75 percent were Republican and only 24 percent Democrats. A mere 1 percent were third-party representatives or independents.
The three networks varied only slightly in their selection of partisan sources. CBS had the most Republicans and the fewest Democrats (76 percent vs. 23 percent); NBC (75 percent vs. 25 percent) and ABC (73 percent vs. 27 percent) were marginally less imbalanced. CBS had the most independents (1.2 percent), followed by ABC (0.7 percent) and NBC (an almost invisible 0.2 percent).
Small as they are, these latter figures may overstate the presence of independent politicians on the nightly news. Sen. James Jeffords, the centrist Vermont Republican who broke with his party in May (giving Democrats control of the Senate), made up 83 percent of the independent sources who were quoted throughout the year, suggesting that networks highlighted independent politicians mainly when they impacted the fates of the two major parties. The only avowedly anti-establishment independent who appeared in 2001, Ralph Nader, made up 3 percent of independent or third-party sources-- 0.03 percent of all politicians quoted.
Although the attacks of September 11 exacerbated the tilt toward Republicans, the difference was pronounced beforehand as well. Prior to the attacks Republicans made up 68 percent, Democrats 31 percent and independents 1 percent of partisan sources. Afterward, Republican sources surged to 87 percent, with Democrats (13 percent) and independents (0.1 percent) falling even further behind.......
|
Last edited by host; 09-26-2006 at 09:32 AM..
|