UCLA Report: Media Bias Real - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Lebell · 12-19-2005, 03:03 PM

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

Quote:

Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist

Date: December 14, 2005
Contact: Meg Sullivan ( msullivan@support.ucla.edu )
Phone: 310-825-1046

While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.

These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly.

"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."

"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.

The results appear in the latest issue of the Quarterly Journal of Economics, which will become available in mid-December.

Groseclose and Milyo based their research on a standard gauge of a lawmaker's support for liberal causes. Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) tracks the percentage of times that each lawmaker votes on the liberal side of an issue. Based on these votes, the ADA assigns a numerical score to each lawmaker, where "100" is the most liberal and "0" is the most conservative. After adjustments to compensate for disproportionate representation that the Senate gives to low‑population states and the lack of representation for the District of Columbia, the average ADA score in Congress (50.1) was assumed to represent the political position of the average U.S. voter.

Groseclose and Milyo then directed 21 research assistants — most of them college students — to scour U.S. media coverage of the past 10 years. They tallied the number of times each media outlet referred to think tanks and policy groups, such as the left-leaning NAACP or the right-leaning Heritage Foundation.

Next, they did the same exercise with speeches of U.S. lawmakers. If a media outlet displayed a citation pattern similar to that of a lawmaker, then Groseclose and Milyo's method assigned both a similar ADA score.

"A media person would have never done this study," said Groseclose, a UCLA political science professor, whose research and teaching focuses on the U.S. Congress. "It takes a Congress scholar even to think of using ADA scores as a measure. And I don't think many media scholars would have considered comparing news stories to congressional speeches."

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.

The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third.

"Our estimates for these outlets, we feel, give particular credibility to our efforts, as three of the four moderators for the 2004 presidential and vice-presidential debates came from these three news outlets — Jim Lehrer, Charlie Gibson and Gwen Ifill," Groseclose said. "If these newscasters weren't centrist, staffers for one of the campaign teams would have objected and insisted on other moderators."

The fourth most centrist outlet was "Special Report With Brit Hume" on Fox News, which often is cited by liberals as an egregious example of a right-wing outlet. While this news program proved to be right of center, the study found ABC's "World News Tonight" and NBC's "Nightly News" to be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found.

"If viewers spent an equal amount of time watching Fox's 'Special Report' as ABC's 'World News' and NBC's 'Nightly News,' then they would receive a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news," said Milyo, an associate professor of economics and public affairs at the University of Missouri at Columbia.

Five news outlets — "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," ABC's "Good Morning America," CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown," Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and the Drudge Report — were in a statistical dead heat in the race for the most centrist news outlet. Of the print media, USA Today was the most centrist.

An additional feature of the study shows how each outlet compares in political orientation with actual lawmakers. The news pages of The Wall Street Journal scored a little to the left of the average American Democrat, as determined by the average ADA score of all Democrats in Congress (85 versus 84). With scores in the mid-70s, CBS' "Evening News" and The New York Times looked similar to Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., who has an ADA score of 74.

Most of the outlets were less liberal than Lieberman but more liberal than former Sen. John Breaux, D-La. Those media outlets included the Drudge Report, ABC's "World News Tonight," NBC's "Nightly News," USA Today, NBC's "Today Show," Time magazine, U.S. News & World Report, Newsweek, NPR's "Morning Edition," CBS' "Early Show" and The Washington Post.

Since Groseclose and Milyo were more concerned with bias in news reporting than opinion pieces, which are designed to stake a political position, they omitted editorials and Op‑Eds from their tallies. This is one reason their study finds The Wall Street Journal more liberal than conventional wisdom asserts.

Another finding that contradicted conventional wisdom was that the Drudge Report was slightly left of center.

"One thing people should keep in mind is that our data for the Drudge Report was based almost entirely on the articles that the Drudge Report lists on other Web sites," said Groseclose. "Very little was based on the stories that Matt Drudge himself wrote. The fact that the Drudge Report appears left of center is merely a reflection of the overall bias of the media."

Yet another finding that contradicted conventional wisdom relates to National Public Radio, often cited by conservatives as an egregious example of a liberal news outlet. But according to the UCLA-University of Missouri study, it ranked eighth most liberal of the 20 that the study examined.

"By our estimate, NPR hardly differs from the average mainstream news outlet," Groseclose said. "Its score is approximately equal to those of Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report and its score is slightly more conservative than The Washington Post's. If anything, government‑funded outlets in our sample have a slightly lower average ADA score (61), than the private outlets in our sample (62.8)."

The researchers took numerous steps to safeguard against bias — or the appearance of same — in the work, which took close to three years to complete. They went to great lengths to ensure that as many research assistants supported Democratic candidate Al Gore in the 2000 election as supported President George Bush. They also sought no outside funding, a rarity in scholarly research.

"No matter the results, we feared our findings would've been suspect if we'd received support from any group that could be perceived as right- or left-leaning, so we consciously decided to fund this project only with our own salaries and research funds that our own universities provided," Groseclose said.

The results break new ground.

"Past researchers have been able to say whether an outlet is conservative or liberal, but no one has ever compared media outlets to lawmakers," Groseclose said. "Our work gives a precise characterization of the bias and relates it to known commodity — politicians."

-UCLA-

MS580

frogza · 12-19-2005, 03:27 PM

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.

maximusveritas · 12-19-2005, 03:57 PM

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.

irateplatypus · 12-19-2005, 04:13 PM

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maximusveritas

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.

what leads you to this conclusion?

alpha phi · 12-19-2005, 04:21 PM

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.

Ustwo · 12-19-2005, 04:31 PM

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.

Cynthetiq · 12-19-2005, 04:41 PM

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.'

flstf · 12-19-2005, 06:08 PM

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.

Marvelous Marv · 12-19-2005, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

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?

roachboy · 12-19-2005, 06:57 PM

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:

Quote:

Digression: Defining the ?Center?

In discussing left- or right- wing biases of the media, one should be careful how he or she defines center. We think the most appropriate definition refers to a central voter, as opposed to a central member of Congress. Accordingly, we think that it is more appropriate to compare media scores to the House as opposed to the Senate, since the Senate disproportionately represents small states. Next, we think it is more appropriate to use the median House member, instead of the mean. One reason is that, because of The Median Voter Theorem (Black, 1957), one should expect policy to be at the median instead of the mean. Another reason is that comparisons to a mean can be manipulated by the ADA?s choices of roll call votes, whereas comparisons to a median are not subject to such manipulation.

To see this, first note that the ADA has considerable leeway in the roll call votes that it chooses. For instance, suppose it chooses many roll calls such that the cut point of the roll call lies between moderates and extreme liberals. Such a cut point would cause moderates to form a coalition with extreme conservatives on the roll call. (An example of such a roll call would be a bill to ban partial-birth abortions. Here, moderates and conservatives favor the ban, and only extreme liberals oppose it. ) A prevalence of such cut points would cause moderates to have ADA scores more similar to conservatives than liberals. Meanwhile, if it predominantly chose cutpoints on the other side, then the ADA would cause moderates to have ADA scores more similar to liberals than conservatives.

Because of this leeway, with one set of roll calls, the ADA could make a member of Congress or media outlet appear more left-wing than the mean score. However, with a different set of roll calls the ADA could make the same member of Congress or the same media outlet appear more right wing than the mean score. To see this, consider the following example. Suppose there are only five members of Congress. The most left-wing legislator is Member 1, who is more left-wing than member 2, who is more left-wing than member 3, and so on. Suppose media outlet A has an ideology identical to member 2. Consequently, its ADA score (that our method estimates) will be identical to member 2?s score (at least in expectation).

Now suppose that the ADA chooses four roll calls, such that the first roll call has a cut point between members 1 and 2, the second has a cut point between members 2 and 3, and so on. Because the distribution of cut points is uniform, member 1 receives 100 ADA score, member 2 and media outlet A to receive a 75, member 3 receives a 50, and so on. The mean ADA score of the legislators is 50. Thus, this set of roll calls makes media outlet A appear more left-wing than the mean score.

Next, instead suppose that the ADA chooses four roll calls such that each has a cut point between members 1 and 2. This would cause member 1 to receive a 100 score. Media outlet A and members 2, 3, 4, and 5 would receive a 0 score. The mean ADA score in this case would be 20. Thus, this set of roll calls makes media outlet A appear more right-wing than the mean score.

Meanwhile, for this example, regardless of the ADA?s choice of cut points, media outlet A?s score will necessarily be greater than or equal to the median?s score (member 3). That is, unlike the case where we use the mean score as a comparison, it is impossible to make media outlet A appear more right-wing than the median score.

The point of this example is not to suggest that the ADA might intentionally choose roll calls to manipulate a legislator?s or media outlet?s perceived ideology relative to the mean. Rather it is to demonstrate an arbitrariness that exists when one uses a mean score for comparison. The same arbitrariness does not exist with median scores. As a consequence, we think it is appropriate to compare the scores of media outlets with the House median, 39.0.

alpha phi · 12-19-2005, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

...

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

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........

Ustwo · 12-19-2005, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

You mean like this?

OH MY FUCKING GOD.

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

I always knew Helen Thomas was really a troll.

Ustwo · 12-19-2005, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

and havent yet researched the writers.

Would that be attacking the source?

Did you know that water is wet?

flstf · 12-19-2005, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

You mean like this?

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.

cyrnel · 12-19-2005, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

... I guess if you snap enough photos your bound to find a few that are unflattering but these are almost ridiculous.

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.

kutulu · 12-20-2005, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Since Groseclose and Milyo were more concerned with bias in news reporting than opinion pieces, which are designed to stake a political position, they omitted editorials and Op‑Eds from their tallies. This is one reason their study finds The Wall Street Journal more liberal than conventional wisdom asserts.

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.

Bodyhammer86 · 12-20-2005, 11:16 AM

Quote:

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.

kutulu · 12-20-2005, 11:48 AM

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.

Ustwo · 12-20-2005, 12:32 PM

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.

Cynthetiq · 12-20-2005, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

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.

Willravel · 12-20-2005, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

the definition of "center" is really quite odd, based on voting patterns in congress.

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.

Lebell · 12-20-2005, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

ia 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 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

)

Aladdin Sane · 12-20-2005, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

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

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

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.

Ustwo · 12-20-2005, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

(also capital free

)

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

Elphaba · 12-20-2005, 03:57 PM

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

Locobot · 12-23-2005, 03:25 PM

seriously it's "e.e. cummings"

hammer4all · 12-25-2005, 03:08 AM

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!

alansmithee · 12-25-2005, 05:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

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.

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

Willravel · 12-25-2005, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

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

From the article:

Quote:

Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) tracks the percentage of times that each lawmaker votes on the liberal side of an issue. Based on these votes, the ADA assigns a numerical score to each lawmaker, where "100" is the most liberal and "0" is the most conservative.

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.

Quote:

Each year, ADA's Legislative Committee selects 20 votes it considers the most important during that session. ADA's National Board and/or National Executive Committee approves those votes. Each member recieves 5 points if he/she voted with ADA, and does not receive 5 points if he/she voted against us or was absent. The total possible is 100.

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.

roachboy · 12-25-2005, 09:52 AM

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.

Seaver · 12-25-2005, 10:25 AM

Quote:

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.

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

Quote:

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.

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.

Gilda · 12-25-2005, 12:12 PM

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:

Quote:

"A media person would have never done this study," said Groseclose, a UCLA political science professor, whose research and teaching focuses on the U.S. Congress. "It takes a Congress scholar even to think of using ADA scores as a measure. And I don't think many media scholars would have considered comparing news stories to congressional speeches."

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

Third problem with the study, and the biggest one:

Quote:

Groseclose and Milyo then directed 21 research assistants — most of them college students — to scour U.S. media coverage of the past 10 years. They tallied the number of times each media outlet referred to think tanks and policy groups, such as the left-leaning NAACP or the right-leaning Heritage Foundation.

Next, they did the same exercise with speeches of U.S. lawmakers. If a media outlet displayed a citation pattern similar to that of a lawmaker, then Groseclose and Milyo's method assigned both a similar ADA score.

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

Willravel · 12-25-2005, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

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

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

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.

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

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.

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.

FoolThemAll · 12-25-2005, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

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?

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.

Willravel · 12-25-2005, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

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

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

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.

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.

alansmithee · 12-25-2005, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

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.

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!

Quote:

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.

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.

Willravel · 12-25-2005, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

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 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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

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.

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?

alansmithee · 12-25-2005, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

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.

Willravel · 12-25-2005, 09:04 PM

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.

Ustwo · 01-14-2006, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hammer4all

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!

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?

12-19-2005, 04:21 PM	#5 (permalink)
alpha phi seeker Location: home	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. __________________ All ideas in this communication are sole property of the voices in my head. (C) 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 "The Voices" (TM). All rights reserved.

12-19-2005, 04:31 PM	#6 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	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. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

12-19-2005, 04:41 PM	#7 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	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.' __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

12-20-2005, 12:32 PM	#19 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	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. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

12-25-2005, 09:52 AM	#30 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	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. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-19-2005, 03:27 PM	#2 (permalink)
frogza Registered User Location: Right Here	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.

12-19-2005, 03:57 PM	#3 (permalink)
maximusveritas Winner	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.

12-19-2005, 06:08 PM	#8 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	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.

12-20-2005, 11:48 AM	#18 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	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.

12-20-2005, 03:57 PM	#25 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	we shall then be forced to call you an "aolien"

12-23-2005, 03:25 PM	#26 (permalink)
Locobot is awesome!	seriously it's "e.e. cummings"

12-25-2005, 03:08 AM	#27 (permalink)
hammer4all Insane	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!

12-25-2005, 09:04 PM	#39 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	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.