UCLA Report: Media Bias Real
 

A recent UCLA report has found that media bias is a real phenonemon, not just something that the right or left makes up. Interesting is that some of the perceptions about who/what is biased are incorrect based on the data.

I found the methodology to be interesting. It seems on first reading that they made a serious academic attempt at this and tried to avoid all appearences of bias themselves.

After finding glaring mistakes in news articles regarding topics that I have personal knowledge of (e.g. guns, railroads, safety), I find it useful to know what kind of spin I am getting from various sources.

http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.as...um=6664#gobaby

Interesting read. It is nice to someone tackling this in an academic way instead of the immature and emotional methods we've seen in the past.

The methodology is interesting, but undoubtedly flawed. For example, they had the ACLU listed as a conservative organization because it just happened to be cited alot by Republicans due to its opposition to McCain-Feingold. That's one obvious example, but it reveals a major flaw in the study. I also think it's suspect for them to assume that the average ADA rating of Congrees can somehow give an approximation of the average voter, no matter how much it is adjusted.
That said, I'm not surprised by it's findings. Journalists are more liberal than the general public nowadays, mostly because the public has shifted right while the journalists have tried to hold their position.

interesting read, thx for the post. i've always conceded that fox news was right-leaning, but it's interesting that they're closer to the study's political center than many other major news sources.

i'm curious to know how they determined which side of an issue was the conservative or liberal one, some don't have easy answers. for instance, legalizing marijuana might be a move towards more liberal law... but its most vocal advocates (some libertarians) do so from a conservative view of government's dominion.

what leads you to this conclusion?

It is interesting to see a study that is based more on
facts than left/right bias. It shines the light on ..so
many outragous claims of bias, just because
the reader dissagrees with the reporting.

I think the bias has more to do with who owns who
would CBS do a condemming exposé on General Electric?
I doubt it.
ABC has been critized for refusing to report negitivly on Walt Disney
http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRig...ons/Owners.asp
Just trying to figure Who owns Who gets confusing
Then look at the board of directors
And the influence peddling really gets going.

I also hear they are doing a study to see if the sky is blue and if water is wet.

The only surprising thing to me was that the WSJ main page was left leaning. I knew their OP/Ed's were right and I knew the Washington Times was right, but never would have guessed their stories leaned left, but I don't read the WSJ main pages to know it.

As for Fox News, only someone used to a left wing media source would have seen them as far right (or really right at all). When you get used to one perspective as 'normal' anything which shifts to the center will to their world view shift to the right. This is why I really get a kick out of the 'faux news' crowd, it labels their world view without having to hear them speak.

I'm just amused it took a study to 'prove' what is obvious to anyone who looked at it objectively.

people don't do enough critical thinking at all, not in Plato's day nor today.

Hearst was quite biased in his printing of news. 'You provide the pictures,' he wrote, —I'll provide the war.'

An interesting study which seems to do a decent job in showing the obvious bias in the various news outlets. I have noticed many of the subtle things that are done such as showing unflattering photos of candidates they against and flattering photos of others they are for. These things are difficult to quantify.

You mean like this? :p

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y25...heirs-ours.jpg

did anyone actually read the report? i am going through it now--the definition of "center" is really quite odd, based on voting patterns in congress. so the whole study cuold also be showing that congress is right of the public. duh. but i am still working through and havent yet researched the writers.

search the press release title and you'll find a few versions of the whole thing to look at (pdf, website, etc.)--have a look--potentially a more interesting discussion than what there now is--which amounts to:

"does this press release indicate a study that conforms to your expectations about media biais? and of course there is no reason to note any information about where you get those expectations from..."

caveat lector: i paraphrased a bit.

by the way, here's the defintion itself:

You make a good point about.....what is center?
At one time I would have been considered a right wing libertarian
Now the whole spectrum has shifted.
Leaving me just left of center :hmm:
Here I thought we were supposed to start off liberal
and grow more conservitive over time.
.......I have become more conservitive with age
Yet in the overall scope of things........ :confused:

OH MY FUCKING GOD.

I haven't laughed like that in quite a while, holy christ thats funny :lol:

I always knew Helen Thomas was really a troll.

Would that be attacking the source?

Did you know that water is wet? :thumbsup:

Well, yeah. The examples you posted are a bit over the top though. I guess if you snap enough photos your bound to find a few that are unflattering but these are almost ridiculous. :lol:

Every time I go back to the pics I start laughing uncontrollably. They are amazing. I've never seen such a harsh image of Hillary.

And people wonder why I hate cameras. :)

Anyway, it is good to see their attempt at quantifying bias. Their standards are fluid, but then so is reality. Time to go back & re-read.

That is the big thing there. Say what you want about the actual news shows but the truth in where the station leans is in the commentary hosts. Fox News is commentary driven and their cronies in talk radio rule the radio waves. They have their daily talking points that are echoed throughout the nation. They create whatever news they want.

The first step in taking back the media is get rid of mass media corporations. We cannot allow a handful of corporations to control 99% of the tv, radio, and newpapers. It makes it too easy for one person with an agenda (Murdoch for example) to push the stories HE wants and suppress whatever he doesn't want. Watch Outfoxed.

I hate to rain on your parade, but Outfoxed isn't what I'd called a fair and balanced "documentary" judging by who created it *cough* moveon.org*cough*To be honest, it's amatuer propaganda trying to debunk professional propaganda.

Outfoxed doesn't attempt to be balanced at all. It still doesn't change that they bring up interesting points about how fox is run.

Opinion pieces are just that opinion pieces, as long as we KNOW they are opinion I don't care if they are left or right.

Where I care is where bias seeps into HARD news. What 'facts' get reported, what gets omitted, what tone is used, what stories are covered, what stories are 86'ed. This is where media bias matters.

Commentary is supposed to be labeled as such.

Interestingly enough to me that sometimes I see chyron text that states that it is commentary and sometimes I do not. It's those times when commentary slips in between the stories that also is where it can spin a different way.

i also have to question this definition of center. congress has more conservatives than liberals, so i would expect that their center is in fact to the right of whatever real center is. unfortunatally, i'm not 100% sure how to find center. i suspect that center is relative depending on the poltical climate. center in 2005 is much differnt than center in 1995. it's conceivable that there is no such thing as a reliable center upon which to base comparisons. this post is brought to you capitol letter-free by the friends of roachboy foundation.

i also had a question regarding this, and also no good answers.

obviously there will be a shifting continuum with the center being a moving target. there is also the aforementioned problem of determining what exactly constitutes "bias".

still, this is a better report than many i've seen on the subject.

(also capital free :) )

This study reminds me of the discovery and front page revelation by Time magazine that "men and women are different." When I saw that cover I laughed my ass off.

This UCLA report is just one more piece of evidence of what most people who are paying attention take as a given. It's also further proof that the media elites live in a different universe than most folks. They are so far removed from reality it's a wonder they can find their way home at night.

There was a time when I planned my day around the 5:30 PM network "news" reports. I always watched ABC. Today I never watch the "news" broadcasts of ABC, CBS, or NBC. In my mind they've lost all credibility.

I'm going to have to start posting in all caps to make up for you E.E. Cummings wannabees. :icare:

we shall then be forced to call you an "aolien" :)

seriously it's "e.e. cummings"

There is a good read over at Media Matters on this "report." I'm surprised no one has brought it up.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200512220003

Apparently, according to this study, the ACLU with a score of 49.8 is the most mainstream organization in the country. If all news organizations just quoted them, they'd be nearly right down the middle. I'm sure most conservatives would approve of that! :lol:

From my understanding of the article, their "center" was at 50.1, or slightly liberal.

From the article:
After searching the ADA website, http://www.adaction.org/, I could find no explaination of the "Liberal Quotient" scale, at all. All I found was that their board decides.
This is what I question. Who are these board members? What are their qualifications? This scale, which put Fox News at only slightly off center to the right, is highly suspect.

the article posted in no. 27 above is a pretty thoroughgoing demolition of the study as a whole--but you didnt really need to to find fundamental problems with it--the bizarre definition of center was indication enough.

this study is yet another example of crap "scholarship" from the right.
and conservatives wonder why academics do not take them seriously--and instead of thinking about the real issue, they whine about pc and all that--fact is that conservative ideology enables a whole swath of bad scholarship--conservative institutions fund studies that "confirm" ideological positions staked out in advance. these institutions seem to be under the impression that the presence of a scholarly-seeming apparatus (footnotes, etc.) means that the arguments around which their positions are built are somehow serious.

they aren't.

It was probably the fact that Fox News puts a liberal to counter most of their conservative hosts (Colms to Hannity).

I can think of PLENTY of crap "scholarship" from the left as well. Professors calling those that died in 9/11 Eichmans is a clear example. Another is the GROSSLY overcalculated innocent dead in the war, by a footnote declaring the war starting in '95 during the bombing campaign in retribution for attacks on Kurds under Clinton, and counting deaths from the embargo onward to today.

There are PLENTY of crap "scholarship" being thrown around roachboy, to just point out this one (with little evidence because we dont know the "panel") is just as bad.

First problem with the study: What is the center? If your defined center is actually to the right, then a media outlet that is actually in the center would be defined as to the left. The whole study reports "left" and "right" as if these were in comparison to some objective scale, rather than in comparison to the mean of the US Senate. To establish that this comparison is valid, you'd first have to establish that the mean of the US Senate is the political center, and I see no evidence of that.

Second problem with the study: The person directing it openly criticizes the media outlets being studied:

He begins with a bias agains the media and media scholars.

Third problem with the study, and the biggest one:

There's so much wrong with this methodology that it boggles the mind.

Congressional speeches are openly political propaganda, opinion pieces, yet they're not compared to opinion pieces, which are actively excluded from the study.

Also, it declares a piece to be similar in political ideology to a speech merely for mentioning the same organizations, without reference to what's being said about them. I'd think that what's being said about something is as important as the fact that it's being talked about.

Problems abound here, to such a degree that I don't see how this study can be considered reliable.

Gilda

There is no liberal on Hannity and Colms. There is an extreme right, and there is a slight right. By comnparison, one may appear left, but he is not an accurate representation of the average person on the left.
This is about the UCLA report on media bias. Roach was, with good reason, pointing out that this report is clearly suspect, and that it's obviously written by those who are right leaning. It's a shame that suddenly this isn't about the UCLA report, but about the left exaggerating about Eichmen. Would you like to talk about how Clinton got a bj, too?
As stated in numerous posts above, we all know there is media bias. This study is hardly a revelation. Because we already are familiar with the phenomena, we know it when we see it. Roachboy is correct for pointing out the fact that this is almost certianally a work of people who are obviously on the right and wish to distort reality.

Fox News being shown as close to center is PROOF that this study is incorrect. That is all the evidence I need.

Be fair. Roach associated the right in general with bad scholarship. He could have a valid point for all I know, but Seaver's thread 'digression' was in response to a digression

Just out of curiosity, what makes Colmes right-leaning in your eyes? Don't watch the show (or the channel), but that's the first I've heard of such a characterization.

Roach and I agree that this report is symptomatic of a much larger bais that is currently on the side of the right (thought it is returning to center very slowly). Is a digression of a digression of a digression still just a digression? Heh. I know roach fairly well and I know that his claims were not without merrit, and spoke to how often he had to have this same discussion about different articles or different claims. He seems to be as tired of it as I am.
His book wasn't bad, but when you watch the show he often takes a very timid liberal, very close to the right (or even crossing the line and going right), as opposed to madman Hannity who is a die hard conservative. I'd like to see (Bill) O'Riley and (Al) Franken if we were to have a show that represented both sides. I'd watch that every day.

How are you the proper person to say what is "center" or not? How is anyone? They tried applying one metric, and predictably were shot down from the left for their conclusions. And I'm sure that had they came up with reverse findings, the right would've been just as vehement in denying the validity of the report (well, not maybe as vehement, but similarly). I honestly can't believe how any of this is even a suprise: journalists, who vote largely democrat, have a left slant? What a shock! Next you'll tell me businesses are in favor of tax cuts!

I appreciated fox's attempt for awhile. Colmes was fairly liberal, but would often shift when they would get someone really outrageous on. And as for your proposed show, I think it would be horrible-a self important "comedian" who hasn't been funny since the '80's who went for politics to find some way for people to remember him paired with a self important blowhard who's claim to fame is...nothing? They would kill each other in the opening credits trying to get facetime.

I may not be able ,to tell you what exactly what center is, but I can tell you what it is not with a reasonable amount of certianty. The article above is based on a system of rating which is clearly incorrect. If it had said the opposite, I probably wouldn't have believed it either.
It was a great idea. It went south. The value of my proposed show would be similar to the value of Cops or Jerry Springer. Neither of them has any real value, even to their own sides. I, as a lefty, have little respect for Al Franken, and I suspect that you, a righty, have little respect for O'Riley. If my enemy destroys my other enemy, am I not better off than when I had two enemies?

It depends. I secretly think these media types are like highlanders, so that if one is destroyed the other absorbs his power. Look at how the vultures circled around Rather and disposed of him. So O'Riley or Franken definitively triumphing over the other would just create some mega-talking head, whose voice would carry across the land in a wave of banality and irrationality.

If that is the case, then yes, I would aviod the media quickening at all costs. Either that of I'd just chop all their heads off at once.

After reading through the mediamatters site, I saw nothing there to suggest that they themselves are not inherently biased twords a left of center point of view.

Apparently, at least at first glance, the only 'falsehoods' in the media are made by the right after looking at that site.

In parts it even cites known 'left' wing publications like the NYT's and Washington Post as ignoring or missreporting in favor of the right. I guess, the media isn't left enough eh?

I think an interesting show was Buchanan and Press, and Sliwa and Kuby. I really liked the shows and they were fairly balanced. Think they were on MSNBC.

To me they were fairly moderate. When one would get radical the other would start getting radical and they'd get back to moderation. Guess the shows weren't radical enough to sell. I admit I usually agreed with the liberal takes but Sliwa and Buchanan could make good, fair arguments without insulting one's intelligence or other people.

I actually miss those shows.

Of course, what do I know I kind of like Springer's radio show.

Just goes to prove that you'll seek out the news source and shows that most represent you. If there is a liberal bias it is because that is what sells and makes money.

The media is in business to make money and they give the people what they want. If you are Conservative you have Limbaugh, Fox, Rev. Moon's News services, Pat Robertson's news, Clear Channel, Salem Communications, most of talk radio, and so on. You like liberal you have the NY Times, Time, CNN, and maybe a few other choices.

They all know their audiences and they all take the side that will sell to their target audience. Who cares?

If you truly want the truth I seriously doubt you'll get it from Corporate news, and one side only. If you read the NYT then read the WSJ and balance it out. If you listen to Limbaugh then listen to Springer and it balances out. You can find the truth somewhere in the middle of all those. But you will only believe whatever your slant and biases are anyway so it doesn't matter.

After really looking at the site, its completely left wing biased.

So let me get this straight, we are going to dismiss a university study (most university studies tend to be reviewed somewhat well) because a VERY left wing media info site calls it flawed?

:crazy:

Welcome to Bizzaro world.

The media is against those in power. I would like to see this test again when we have a democrat for President.