Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Varmint

Liberal Media Bias

Recommended Posts

This is not a subject I feel really strongly about. I enjoy reading the NY Times and WSJ alike.

But this report from Pew is pretty interesting IMO:

Ideological Placement of Each Source’s Audience

- According to the scale shown there by Pew The New York Times is further to the left than Fox is to the right. Personally I find that pretty surprising. Also the WSJ ends up on the left side of the median 0 side of the scale, also somewhat surprising to me.

Interesting, but it still does not mean the news organization or content is further right/left. It is merely charting the audience's political tendencies. The biggest shockers for me are NYT, WSJ, and Fox News. I thought WSJ would be mildly on the right side, NYT mildly on the left, and I thought Fox News would be closer to where Drudge is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The key is are you honest about what you are...a Rush Limbaugh or a Sean Hannity make no bones that they are conservative...a Rachel Maddow or Bob Beckel proudly wear the liberal label...there never should be a complaint (unless they are lying) as long as the radio/TV host or writer comes clean that they actively support a certain ideology...if you don't like what they are saying than don't listen...the issue is those who work in the media in a non-opinion role and allow their bias to shine thru and have it effect their reporting or worse, leads them to bury stories or make stories more important than they are so it will hurt someone they disagree with...unfortunately for the ideologues they will never be able to see this going on and it's a major reason there is such mistrust in our media today...

No, I don't believe either Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity is honest. (Or Beckel either for that matter.) Maddow strikes me as more honest. Dennis Prager is honest. Michael Medved is honest. Whiny Mark Levin may be honest. But not Limbaugh or Hannity or Olbermann or Sharpton. The four of them are willing at any time to report falsehoods as truth in order to push their political agenda.

link to Limbaugh lies?

:lol: good schtick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not a subject I feel really strongly about. I enjoy reading the NY Times and WSJ alike.

But this report from Pew is pretty interesting IMO:

Ideological Placement of Each Source’s Audience

- According to the scale shown there by Pew The New York Times is further to the left than Fox is to the right. Personally I find that pretty surprising. Also the WSJ ends up on the left side of the median 0 side of the scale, also somewhat surprising to me.

Interesting, but it still does not mean the news organization or content is further right/left. It is merely charting the audience's political tendencies. The biggest shockers for me are NYT, WSJ, and Fox News. I thought WSJ would be mildly on the right side, NYT mildly on the left, and I thought Fox News would be closer to where Drudge is.

Maybe it's just a bad study. The NY Times has right wing guys like David Brooks and Ross Douthat as regular writers on their OP Ed Page. The Right Wing sites like the WSJ don't have any similar left wing voices. That's fine with me, I'd rather they do that than pretend they were objective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not a subject I feel really strongly about. I enjoy reading the NY Times and WSJ alike.

But this report from Pew is pretty interesting IMO:

Ideological Placement of Each Source’s Audience

- According to the scale shown there by Pew The New York Times is further to the left than Fox is to the right. Personally I find that pretty surprising. Also the WSJ ends up on the left side of the median 0 side of the scale, also somewhat surprising to me.

Interesting, but it still does not mean the news organization or content is further right/left. It is merely charting the audience's political tendencies. The biggest shockers for me are NYT, WSJ, and Fox News. I thought WSJ would be mildly on the right side, NYT mildly on the left, and I thought Fox News would be closer to where Drudge is.

Maybe it's just a bad study. The NY Times has right wing guys like David Brooks and Ross Douthat as regular writers on their OP Ed Page. The Right Wing sites like the WSJ don't have any similar left wing voices. That's fine with me, I'd rather they do that than pretend they were objective.

Every time I see David Brooks on MTP, he's always criticizing the GOP. I feel like he's one of these guys who says he's a Republican (or conservative), but that the party has left him.

I wonder how they determined what levels of partisan NY Times/FOX has. If you go off of Fox's prime time nightly line of O'Reilly, Kelly and Hannity, that's pretty far right, and they do have a couple of other shows (The Five and some show with 4 hot blondes) that also are way too the right. That's roughly 50% of a 12 hour day when most people would be watching. The other shows (more news) aren't necessarily tilted with the news itself, but they tend to bring on guests that debate the news coverage so you are more likely to get a little more back and forth on one of those type of shows than on Hannity when he talks over his guests (O'Reilly will have left leaning people on as well, but he's usually in shock of their viewpoint).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hate this meme. Of all political arguments made in the last 20 years from the right or the left , this one may have done the most damage. (The liberal bias argument is actually much older than 20 years; Joe McCarthy and Spiro Agnew used it, but it was Rush Limbaugh who popularized the idea among the Republican masses as a means, IMO, to promote talk radio and his own own show.)

It's so dangerous because it causes half of this country to seek out their own truth instead of a more general truth that everyone can accept. They reject anything from CNN, The Tines, the Post, etc., that threatens to contradict their political philosophy. Their minds are made up.

This is absolutely the best post in this thread. The liberal media bias is just one term used by someone confronted with facts that contradict their world view. Instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks, address the message. The truth is out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Republicans Who Fault the Media Show Their Bias

NOV 16, 2015 2:44 PM EST

By Cass R. Sunstein

For Republican presidential contenders challenged by the media, the go-to answer has become a claim of victimhood: You are biased against us. As Marco Rubio put it at the CNBC debate last month, "The Democrats have the ultimate super-PAC. It's called the mainstream media."

Are media outlets really biased against Republican candidates? One of the most careful studies, by Matthew Gentzkow and Jesse Shapiro of the University of Chicago, doesn't find much evidence of that. Its central conclusion is that readers have a strong preference for like-minded news -- and that newspapers tend to show a slant in a direction that is consistent with the preferences of their readers.

With respect to television broadcasters, the evidence remains ambiguous. But Republicans who think that the media are biased against them might want to consider a striking empirical finding: Whatever their beliefs, political partisans have long tended to see, and to complain loudly about, media bias.

In short, people are biased about bias.

For more than 20 years, researchers have identified a phenomenon called "hostile media perception," which means readers and viewers are inclined to think that journalists are biased against their particular point of view. People with strong convictions show a remarkably consistent tendency to conclude that the media’s presentation is skewed against them. This is true whether the issue involves football teams, genetically modified organisms, labor disputes, animal rights, climate change or the Middle East.

Political partisans see bias even when news coverage really is neutral, according to Colorado State University's Cindy Christen and her co-authors. Rutgers University's Lauren Feldman finds that partisans show a kind of "bias against bias," seeing far less bias in opinionated news sources with which they already agree.

For presidential primaries, where activists are especially important, here's an especially important finding from Christen and her co-authors: As people become more involved with the particular topic, they become a lot more likely to complain about media bias. The more you know and the more you care, the more bias you're going to see.

Hostile media perception is nothing new, but on the Republican side it has been intensifying. Like-minded people, listening mostly to one another, tend to become both more confident and more extreme in their beliefs.

Within Republican echo chambers, claims of media bias have become so widespread that they are increasingly taken as gospel. (Democrats have their own echo chambers, of course, but they tend to involve policy issues, such as the minimum wage and the Keystone pipeline, rather the media.)

The empirical findings don't show that Republican claims about media bias are wrong. People who are predisposed to find bias might still be right that it exists. But the evidence of hostile media perception suggests that even if such a bias is real, the candidates are probably exaggerating it.

Is that a problem? As a matter of politics, it may be smart strategy to complain about media bias when pressed to respond to hard questions about climate change, immigration reform or the debt limit. But any such complaints are a disservice to the voters; they are evasive, even cowardly. At its best, American conservative thought represents a politics of ideas, not victimhood. It offers answers to substantive questions -- not attacks on those who ask them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hate this meme. Of all political arguments made in the last 20 years from the right or the left , this one may have done the most damage. (The liberal bias argument is actually much older than 20 years; Joe McCarthy and Spiro Agnew used it, but it was Rush Limbaugh who popularized the idea among the Republican masses as a means, IMO, to promote talk radio and his own own show.)

It's so dangerous because it causes half of this country to seek out their own truth instead of a more general truth that everyone can accept. They reject anything from CNN, The Tines, the Post, etc., that threatens to contradict their political philosophy. Their minds are made up.

This is absolutely the best post in this thread. The liberal media bias is just one term used by someone confronted with facts that contradict their world view. Instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks, address the message. The truth is out there.

Thanks. But what's depressing is that since I wrote that, over a year ago, it's only gotten worse to a level I couldn't even have imagined mere months ago. Donald Trump tells one lie after another. And people just accept it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Republicans Who Fault the Media Show Their Bias

NOV 16, 2015 2:44 PM EST

By Cass R. Sunstein

For Republican presidential contenders challenged by the media, the go-to answer has become a claim of victimhood: You are biased against us. As Marco Rubio put it at the CNBC debate last month, "The Democrats have the ultimate super-PAC. It's called the mainstream media."

Are media outlets really biased against Republican candidates? One of the most careful studies, by Matthew Gentzkow and Jesse Shapiro of the University of Chicago, doesn't find much evidence of that. Its central conclusion is that readers have a strong preference for like-minded news -- and that newspapers tend to show a slant in a direction that is consistent with the preferences of their readers.

With respect to television broadcasters, the evidence remains ambiguous. But Republicans who think that the media are biased against them might want to consider a striking empirical finding: Whatever their beliefs, political partisans have long tended to see, and to complain loudly about, media bias.

In short, people are biased about bias.

For more than 20 years, researchers have identified a phenomenon called "hostile media perception," which means readers and viewers are inclined to think that journalists are biased against their particular point of view. People with strong convictions show a remarkably consistent tendency to conclude that the medias presentation is skewed against them. This is true whether the issue involves football teams, genetically modified organisms, labor disputes, animal rights, climate change or the Middle East.

Political partisans see bias even when news coverage really is neutral, according to Colorado State University's Cindy Christen and her co-authors. Rutgers University's Lauren Feldman finds that partisans show a kind of "bias against bias," seeing far less bias in opinionated news sources with which they already agree.

For presidential primaries, where activists are especially important, here's an especially important finding from Christen and her co-authors: As people become more involved with the particular topic, they become a lot more likely to complain about media bias. The more you know and the more you care, the more bias you're going to see.

Hostile media perception is nothing new, but on the Republican side it has been intensifying. Like-minded people, listening mostly to one another, tend to become both more confident and more extreme in their beliefs.

Within Republican echo chambers, claims of media bias have become so widespread that they are increasingly taken as gospel. (Democrats have their own echo chambers, of course, but they tend to involve policy issues, such as the minimum wage and the Keystone pipeline, rather the media.)

The empirical findings don't show that Republican claims about media bias are wrong. People who are predisposed to find bias might still be right that it exists. But the evidence of hostile media perception suggests that even if such a bias is real, the candidates are probably exaggerating it.

Is that a problem? As a matter of politics, it may be smart strategy to complain about media bias when pressed to respond to hard questions about climate change, immigration reform or the debt limit. But any such complaints are a disservice to the voters; they are evasive, even cowardly. At its best, American conservative thought represents a politics of ideas, not victimhood. It offers answers to substantive questions -- not attacks on those who ask them.

Not a very compelling article, IMHO. The article itself demonstrates bias using terms like Republican echo chamber, which is something only a left-winger would do. Also concluding that the conservative viewpoint is cowardly? IMHO, the article is a perfect demonstration of the point it is trying to disprove.

As far as some of the points in the article, I think saying that the content is catered to their readership doesn't have any real basis. It is more likely the relationship is that like-minded flock to sources which reflect their bias. Do you really think Rush is right-wing because he audiance is right-wing? No, Rush did his show and people with a similar mindset flocked to it. Rush of course now knows who is audiance is and probably plays to them, but that was not the driving force into who Rush is.

It is pretty straight-forward to see bias whether it be much more positive reporting about a Democratic candidate than Republican or which stories make news. Take for instance this PP shooting. From a right perspective this story is no different than any other murder which happens on any given day. While tragic and sad, it is just one of the many thousands which occur. But to the left it is a major story which can be used to defend one of their favorite institutions. Which viewpoint is the media taking? The later by a long shot. The mainstream media tends to have an extreme biased towards pro-choice which far outweighs where the general populace is on the issue.

Also look at CNN which is supposed to be the standard for non-bias TV news. There was a whole team of anchors doing the Hands up Don't shoot thing. From a right-wing perspective, that is a stupid and ridiculous gesture that is based on an absolute lie, but here you have a team of 'unbiased' news people showing solidarity with a far leftist talking point.

Edited by jon_mx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a couple good shows on cable news about the media. One is MediaBuzz on Sunday mornings on Fox with a guy named Howie Kurtz. The other is Informed Sources on CNN. Also WaPo has an excellent regular blog article on media coverage. It's interesting when the media reports on the media and when you see the same story's coverage on different networks compared. The worst is the loaded question which is really a statement disguised as a question. It's also amusing to consider questions posed by one party asked of another. Another bad practice is when they have 'experts' on as talking heads when in reality they are just working for some campaign or PAC or otherwise just in the bag for some candidate or issue, but of course that interest is not disclosed.

eta - This is the WaPo media blog by Erik Wemple. Good stuff often.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Graduates from journalism schools these days no longer enter the work force wanting simply to report the news. Rather, they've become centers of ideological training on how to change the world. I've known plenty over the course of my life and along with humanities and law school grads they are generally some of the most strident partisans I have ever met. Only a tiny few of them were conservatives.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Republicans Who Fault the Media Show Their Bias

NOV 16, 2015 2:44 PM EST

By Cass R. Sunstein

For Republican presidential contenders challenged by the media, the go-to answer has become a claim of victimhood: You are biased against us. As Marco Rubio put it at the CNBC debate last month, "The Democrats have the ultimate super-PAC. It's called the mainstream media."

Are media outlets really biased against Republican candidates? One of the most careful studies, by Matthew Gentzkow and Jesse Shapiro of the University of Chicago, doesn't find much evidence of that. Its central conclusion is that readers have a strong preference for like-minded news -- and that newspapers tend to show a slant in a direction that is consistent with the preferences of their readers.

With respect to television broadcasters, the evidence remains ambiguous. But Republicans who think that the media are biased against them might want to consider a striking empirical finding: Whatever their beliefs, political partisans have long tended to see, and to complain loudly about, media bias.

...

See this is an unintentionally funny example.

Cass Sunstein was a fairly high up regulatory director in the Obama administration (one of those czars?) and I think is still in some sort of NSA advisory role. I like Bloomberg, they do a lot of good coverage, but this is an opinion piece in which the writer's affiliations are not provided. There's nothing wrong with Sunstein holding these views or Bloomberg running them, and heck he may even be right, but the media here failed to show where Sunstein is coming from so you can't really call this objective.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think an interesting glimpse into the world of modern national journalism can be found in the Hillary Clinton emails forced to be released by FOIA. Just off the top of my head I can recall these instances being reported:

  • A Wall Street Journal (yes WSJ) reporter fawning over Sec. Clinton, even gushing at the fact that she had touched her.
  • An absolute guaranteed 'good coverage' interview by Politico with Chelsea Clinton. Questions pre-approved, final draft sent for approval.
  • Paul Begala actually emailing the State Department in the course of an on air spot on CNN or just before it to feed him information.
  • Phillipe Reines, Hillary's aide, feeding snippets for a CNN reporter to actually tweet about hearings she was reporting on.

I'm sure this stuff goes on on with other politicians of both parties, these just happen to be from one trove of FOIA which has given us a glimpse of what goes on.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Graduates from journalism schools these days no longer enter the work force wanting simply to report the news. Rather, they've become centers of ideological training on how to change the world. I've known plenty over the course of my life and along with humanities and law school grads they are generally some of the most strident partisans I have ever met. Only a tiny few of them were conservatives.

As usual, this is complete BS. People go into journalism because of an innate curiosity. Conservatives are generally much less interested in new information about the world around us.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not a subject I feel really strongly about. I enjoy reading the NY Times and WSJ alike.

But this report from Pew is pretty interesting IMO:

Ideological Placement of Each Source’s Audience

- According to the scale shown there by Pew The New York Times is further to the left than Fox is to the right. Personally I find that pretty surprising. Also the WSJ ends up on the left side of the median 0 side of the scale, also somewhat surprising to me.

Interesting, but it still does not mean the news organization or content is further right/left. It is merely charting the audience's political tendencies. The biggest shockers for me are NYT, WSJ, and Fox News. I thought WSJ would be mildly on the right side, NYT mildly on the left, and I thought Fox News would be closer to where Drudge is.

Maybe it's just a bad study. The NY Times has right wing guys like David Brooks and Ross Douthat as regular writers on their OP Ed Page. The Right Wing sites like the WSJ don't have any similar left wing voices. That's fine with me, I'd rather they do that than pretend they were objective.

Every time I see David Brooks on MTP, he's always criticizing the GOP. I feel like he's one of these guys who says he's a Republican (or conservative), but that the party has left him.

I wonder how they determined what levels of partisan NY Times/FOX has. If you go off of Fox's prime time nightly line of O'Reilly, Kelly and Hannity, that's pretty far right, and they do have a couple of other shows (The Five and some show with 4 hot blondes) that also are way too the right. That's roughly 50% of a 12 hour day when most people would be watching. The other shows (more news) aren't necessarily tilted with the news itself, but they tend to bring on guests that debate the news coverage so you are more likely to get a little more back and forth on one of those type of shows than on Hannity when he talks over his guests (O'Reilly will have left leaning people on as well, but he's usually in shock of their viewpoint).

Fox also has a habit of pulling some heady brah from a Phish parking lot with his dog Trey to represent the left in these debates, rather than inviting somebody actually capable of debate.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think an interesting glimpse into the world of modern national journalism can be found in the Hillary Clinton emails forced to be released by FOIA. Just off the top of my head I can recall these instances being reported:

  • A Wall Street Journal (yes WSJ) reporter fawning over Sec. Clinton, even gushing at the fact that she had touched her.
  • An absolute guaranteed 'good coverage' interview by Politico with Chelsea Clinton. Questions pre-approved, final draft sent for approval.
  • Paul Begala actually emailing the State Department in the course of an on air spot on CNN or just before it to feed him information.
  • Phillipe Reines, Hillary's aide, feeding snippets for a CNN reporter to actually tweet about hearings she was reporting on.
I'm sure this stuff goes on on with other politicians of both parties, these just happen to be from one trove of FOIA which has given us a glimpse of what goes on.
Its hilarious to me that you would choose this example. The treatment afforded Hillary Clinton this last summer during the whole so-called email "scandal" should be proof to anyone that there is no liberal bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Graduates from journalism schools these days no longer enter the work force wanting simply to report the news. Rather, they've become centers of ideological training on how to change the world. I've known plenty over the course of my life and along with humanities and law school grads they are generally some of the most strident partisans I have ever met. Only a tiny few of them were conservatives.

As usual, this is complete BS. People go into journalism because of an innate curiosity. Conservatives are generally much less interested in new information about the world around us.

Why would they be interested when their home is the center of the universe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Graduates from journalism schools these days no longer enter the work force wanting simply to report the news. Rather, they've become centers of ideological training on how to change the world. I've known plenty over the course of my life and along with humanities and law school grads they are generally some of the most strident partisans I have ever met. Only a tiny few of them were conservatives.

As usual, this is complete BS. People go into journalism because of an innate curiosity. Conservatives are generally much less interested in new information about the world around us.

I sorta have my own theory on this. Print journalism is a profession where to be successful you need to be smart, a good writer, and to work hard. And the pay sucks. People with those skills typically have a number of other more lucrative professions that they could go into, and most of them do. Only someone that values other priorities over money would choose to be a print journalist, and most of the people with that perspective are liberals. It seems to me that's the same reason that college professors are overwhelmingly liberal.

Maybe this isn't all that different from what roadkill said, I just don't agree with his implication that conservatives are disinterested in the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think an interesting glimpse into the world of modern national journalism can be found in the Hillary Clinton emails forced to be released by FOIA. Just off the top of my head I can recall these instances being reported:

  • A Wall Street Journal (yes WSJ) reporter fawning over Sec. Clinton, even gushing at the fact that she had touched her.
  • An absolute guaranteed 'good coverage' interview by Politico with Chelsea Clinton. Questions pre-approved, final draft sent for approval.
  • Paul Begala actually emailing the State Department in the course of an on air spot on CNN or just before it to feed him information.
  • Phillipe Reines, Hillary's aide, feeding snippets for a CNN reporter to actually tweet about hearings she was reporting on.
I'm sure this stuff goes on on with other politicians of both parties, these just happen to be from one trove of FOIA which has given us a glimpse of what goes on.
Its hilarious to me that you would choose this example. The treatment afforded Hillary Clinton this last summer during the whole so-called email "scandal" should be proof to anyone that there is no liberal bias.

I'm just saying what is in the actual emails and indicated that it likely happens with other politicians. I didn't reach any conclusions about overall coverage.

Though I will say that typically almost all media organizations are not homogenous in viewpoint. Typically there are rival editors, reporters with different angles or viewpoints or agendas (sometimes just to do their jobs ethically...), and there are reporters who are constantly struggling vs their editors and even ownership who wrangle over inclusion or exclusion of single sentences or words. Probably a good example of this was when the Clinton campaign reached higher up management or editors to alter reporting on the feds' investigations of her even after it had been published, this continued for a week but ultimately the original report was correct.

-eta - We could probably add to the above list George Stephanopoulas reporting on the Clinton Foundation without revealing he had appeared for it and donated considerable sums to it, though that wasn't revealed via the emails.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Graduates from journalism schools these days no longer enter the work force wanting simply to report the news. Rather, they've become centers of ideological training on how to change the world. I've known plenty over the course of my life and along with humanities and law school grads they are generally some of the most strident partisans I have ever met. Only a tiny few of them were conservatives.

As usual, this is complete BS. People go into journalism because of an innate curiosity. Conservatives are generally much less interested in new information about the world around us.

Most career journalists I have known were singularly incurious about things with which they were not comfortable. They do indeed speak frequently of travels all over the world to learn and report about events and different cultures. They also advocate heavily on the behalf of any number of popular, industry approved interests. At the same time most detest setting foot in the more rural portions of their own nation out of utter disdain for the nature of the local populace. Looking down your nose at flyover country" isn't a sign of innate curiosity. It's prejudice and elitism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Graduates from journalism schools these days no longer enter the work force wanting simply to report the news. Rather, they've become centers of ideological training on how to change the world. I've known plenty over the course of my life and along with humanities and law school grads they are generally some of the most strident partisans I have ever met. Only a tiny few of them were conservatives.

As usual, this is complete BS. People go into journalism because of an innate curiosity. Conservatives are generally much less interested in new information about the world around us.

Most career journalists I have known were

imaginary?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think an interesting glimpse into the world of modern national journalism can be found in the Hillary Clinton emails forced to be released by FOIA. Just off the top of my head I can recall these instances being reported:

  • A Wall Street Journal (yes WSJ) reporter fawning over Sec. Clinton, even gushing at the fact that she had touched her.
  • An absolute guaranteed 'good coverage' interview by Politico with Chelsea Clinton. Questions pre-approved, final draft sent for approval.
  • Paul Begala actually emailing the State Department in the course of an on air spot on CNN or just before it to feed him information.
  • Phillipe Reines, Hillary's aide, feeding snippets for a CNN reporter to actually tweet about hearings she was reporting on.
I'm sure this stuff goes on on with other politicians of both parties, these just happen to be from one trove of FOIA which has given us a glimpse of what goes on.
Its hilarious to me that you would choose this example. The treatment afforded Hillary Clinton this last summer during the whole so-called email "scandal" should be proof to anyone that there is no liberal bias.

Not sure I understand your conclusion here. That the media criticizes when appropriate isn't proof that there is no bias at all. The argument isn't that the media always treats one side or the other favorably or unfavorably. The argument is that the media is biased, and therefore, treats one side or the other favorably/unfavorably more so than they should, or would, were they not biased.

I could easily make the argument that the media was far less critical of Clinton than it should have been regarding the e-mail server. Personally, I think CNN should have been hammering home her baffling incompetence and shocking disregard for security and ethics every single night for a month, for hours at a time. CNN should still be harping on it, seeing as the public hasn't yet caught on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think an interesting glimpse into the world of modern national journalism can be found in the Hillary Clinton emails forced to be released by FOIA. Just off the top of my head I can recall these instances being reported:

  • A Wall Street Journal (yes WSJ) reporter fawning over Sec. Clinton, even gushing at the fact that she had touched her.
  • An absolute guaranteed 'good coverage' interview by Politico with Chelsea Clinton. Questions pre-approved, final draft sent for approval.
  • Paul Begala actually emailing the State Department in the course of an on air spot on CNN or just before it to feed him information.
  • Phillipe Reines, Hillary's aide, feeding snippets for a CNN reporter to actually tweet about hearings she was reporting on.
I'm sure this stuff goes on on with other politicians of both parties, these just happen to be from one trove of FOIA which has given us a glimpse of what goes on.
Its hilarious to me that you would choose this example. The treatment afforded Hillary Clinton this last summer during the whole so-called email "scandal" should be proof to anyone that there is no liberal bias.

Not sure I understand your conclusion here. That the media criticizes when appropriate isn't proof that there is no bias at all. The argument isn't that the media always treats one side or the other favorably or unfavorably. The argument is that the media is biased, and therefore, treats one side or the other favorably/unfavorably more so than they should, or would, were they not biased.

I could easily make the argument that the media was far less critical of Clinton than it should have been regarding the e-mail server. Personally, I think CNN should have been hammering home her baffling incompetence and shocking disregard for security and ethics every single night for a month, for hours at a time. CNN should still be harping on it, seeing as the public hasn't yet caught on.

lol. Hammering home? With anybody else it's a complete non-story. With Hillary they talked about it every night and constantly questioned whether her campaign was doomed. The amount of negative coverage she received last summer was overwhelming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Graduates from journalism schools these days no longer enter the work force wanting simply to report the news. Rather, they've become centers of ideological training on how to change the world. I've known plenty over the course of my life and along with humanities and law school grads they are generally some of the most strident partisans I have ever met. Only a tiny few of them were conservatives.

As usual, this is complete BS. People go into journalism because of an innate curiosity. Conservatives are generally much less interested in new information about the world around us.

I sorta have my own theory on this. Print journalism is a profession where to be successful you need to be smart, a good writer, and to work hard. And the pay sucks. People with those skills typically have a number of other more lucrative professions that they could go into, and most of them do. Only someone that values other priorities over money would choose to be a print journalist, and most of the people with that perspective are liberals. It seems to me that's the same reason that college professors are overwhelmingly liberal.

Maybe this isn't all that different from what roadkill said, I just don't agree with his implication that conservatives are disinterested in the world.

I just assumed he was trolling TPW. Good theory, though. That makes a lot of sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think an interesting glimpse into the world of modern national journalism can be found in the Hillary Clinton emails forced to be released by FOIA. Just off the top of my head I can recall these instances being reported:

  • A Wall Street Journal (yes WSJ) reporter fawning over Sec. Clinton, even gushing at the fact that she had touched her.
  • An absolute guaranteed 'good coverage' interview by Politico with Chelsea Clinton. Questions pre-approved, final draft sent for approval.
  • Paul Begala actually emailing the State Department in the course of an on air spot on CNN or just before it to feed him information.
  • Phillipe Reines, Hillary's aide, feeding snippets for a CNN reporter to actually tweet about hearings she was reporting on.
I'm sure this stuff goes on on with other politicians of both parties, these just happen to be from one trove of FOIA which has given us a glimpse of what goes on.
Its hilarious to me that you would choose this example. The treatment afforded Hillary Clinton this last summer during the whole so-called email "scandal" should be proof to anyone that there is no liberal bias.

Not sure I understand your conclusion here. That the media criticizes when appropriate isn't proof that there is no bias at all. The argument isn't that the media always treats one side or the other favorably or unfavorably. The argument is that the media is biased, and therefore, treats one side or the other favorably/unfavorably more so than they should, or would, were they not biased.

I could easily make the argument that the media was far less critical of Clinton than it should have been regarding the e-mail server. Personally, I think CNN should have been hammering home her baffling incompetence and shocking disregard for security and ethics every single night for a month, for hours at a time. CNN should still be harping on it, seeing as the public hasn't yet caught on.

Bingo. The most significant point of the whole thing was completely missed and it's because the media doesn't get it either, which is pretty bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Graduates from journalism schools these days no longer enter the work force wanting simply to report the news. Rather, they've become centers of ideological training on how to change the world. I've known plenty over the course of my life and along with humanities and law school grads they are generally some of the most strident partisans I have ever met. Only a tiny few of them were conservatives.

As usual, this is complete BS. People go into journalism because of an innate curiosity. Conservatives are generally much less interested in new information about the world around us.

I sorta have my own theory on this. Print journalism is a profession where to be successful you need to be smart, a good writer, and to work hard. And the pay sucks. People with those skills typically have a number of other more lucrative professions that they could go into, and most of them do. Only someone that values other priorities over money would choose to be a print journalist, and most of the people with that perspective are liberals. It seems to me that's the same reason that college professors are overwhelmingly liberal.

Maybe this isn't all that different from what roadkill said, I just don't agree with his implication that conservatives are disinterested in the world.

I don't think that's a bad explanation. I will add that it's funny how people's perspectives change when they're dealing with local politics, which is what most print journalists cover. People are conservative nationally but can be very liberal locally and vice versa. Mostly what people want is explanation of what is really going and exposition of corruption IMO. Where that leads might depend on your ideological (as opposed to political) POV though. Your local mayor is being paid via a side contract by the big garbage contractor in town? Go get `em! Your Senator runs a non-profit that gets major donations from a company before his regulatory committee? Meh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think an interesting glimpse into the world of modern national journalism can be found in the Hillary Clinton emails forced to be released by FOIA. Just off the top of my head I can recall these instances being reported:

  • A Wall Street Journal (yes WSJ) reporter fawning over Sec. Clinton, even gushing at the fact that she had touched her.
  • An absolute guaranteed 'good coverage' interview by Politico with Chelsea Clinton. Questions pre-approved, final draft sent for approval.
  • Paul Begala actually emailing the State Department in the course of an on air spot on CNN or just before it to feed him information.
  • Phillipe Reines, Hillary's aide, feeding snippets for a CNN reporter to actually tweet about hearings she was reporting on.
I'm sure this stuff goes on on with other politicians of both parties, these just happen to be from one trove of FOIA which has given us a glimpse of what goes on.
Its hilarious to me that you would choose this example. The treatment afforded Hillary Clinton this last summer during the whole so-called email "scandal" should be proof to anyone that there is no liberal bias.

Not sure I understand your conclusion here. That the media criticizes when appropriate isn't proof that there is no bias at all. The argument isn't that the media always treats one side or the other favorably or unfavorably. The argument is that the media is biased, and therefore, treats one side or the other favorably/unfavorably more so than they should, or would, were they not biased.

I could easily make the argument that the media was far less critical of Clinton than it should have been regarding the e-mail server. Personally, I think CNN should have been hammering home her baffling incompetence and shocking disregard for security and ethics every single night for a month, for hours at a time. CNN should still be harping on it, seeing as the public hasn't yet caught on.

Bingo. The most significant point of the whole thing was completely missed and it's because the media doesn't get it either, which is pretty bad.

I guess that innate sense of curiosity they have doesn't expand to consider technology issues. :shrug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think an interesting glimpse into the world of modern national journalism can be found in the Hillary Clinton emails forced to be released by FOIA. Just off the top of my head I can recall these instances being reported:

  • A Wall Street Journal (yes WSJ) reporter fawning over Sec. Clinton, even gushing at the fact that she had touched her.
  • An absolute guaranteed 'good coverage' interview by Politico with Chelsea Clinton. Questions pre-approved, final draft sent for approval.
  • Paul Begala actually emailing the State Department in the course of an on air spot on CNN or just before it to feed him information.
  • Phillipe Reines, Hillary's aide, feeding snippets for a CNN reporter to actually tweet about hearings she was reporting on.
I'm sure this stuff goes on on with other politicians of both parties, these just happen to be from one trove of FOIA which has given us a glimpse of what goes on.
Its hilarious to me that you would choose this example. The treatment afforded Hillary Clinton this last summer during the whole so-called email "scandal" should be proof to anyone that there is no liberal bias.

Not sure I understand your conclusion here. That the media criticizes when appropriate isn't proof that there is no bias at all. The argument isn't that the media always treats one side or the other favorably or unfavorably. The argument is that the media is biased, and therefore, treats one side or the other favorably/unfavorably more so than they should, or would, were they not biased.

I could easily make the argument that the media was far less critical of Clinton than it should have been regarding the e-mail server. Personally, I think CNN should have been hammering home her baffling incompetence and shocking disregard for security and ethics every single night for a month, for hours at a time. CNN should still be harping on it, seeing as the public hasn't yet caught on.

lol. Hammering home? With anybody else it's a complete non-story. With Hillary they talked about it every night and constantly questioned whether her campaign was doomed. The amount of negative coverage she received last summer was overwhelming.

At the time a lot of people on the left were hoping Sanders would beat Hillary or someone else would jump. I know you find this very difficult to believe, but not everyone loves Hillary as much as you do. I agree the media was pretty harsh on Hillary, but now that Sanders is not seen as a huge threat, the media is falling into place behind Hillary and it will be like pulling teeth to get serious coverage of the email scandal even if something serious is revealed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think an interesting glimpse into the world of modern national journalism can be found in the Hillary Clinton emails forced to be released by FOIA. Just off the top of my head I can recall these instances being reported:

  • A Wall Street Journal (yes WSJ) reporter fawning over Sec. Clinton, even gushing at the fact that she had touched her.
  • An absolute guaranteed 'good coverage' interview by Politico with Chelsea Clinton. Questions pre-approved, final draft sent for approval.
  • Paul Begala actually emailing the State Department in the course of an on air spot on CNN or just before it to feed him information.
  • Phillipe Reines, Hillary's aide, feeding snippets for a CNN reporter to actually tweet about hearings she was reporting on.
I'm sure this stuff goes on on with other politicians of both parties, these just happen to be from one trove of FOIA which has given us a glimpse of what goes on.
Its hilarious to me that you would choose this example. The treatment afforded Hillary Clinton this last summer during the whole so-called email "scandal" should be proof to anyone that there is no liberal bias.

Not sure I understand your conclusion here. That the media criticizes when appropriate isn't proof that there is no bias at all. The argument isn't that the media always treats one side or the other favorably or unfavorably. The argument is that the media is biased, and therefore, treats one side or the other favorably/unfavorably more so than they should, or would, were they not biased.

I could easily make the argument that the media was far less critical of Clinton than it should have been regarding the e-mail server. Personally, I think CNN should have been hammering home her baffling incompetence and shocking disregard for security and ethics every single night for a month, for hours at a time. CNN should still be harping on it, seeing as the public hasn't yet caught on.

Bingo. The most significant point of the whole thing was completely missed and it's because the media doesn't get it either, which is pretty bad.

I guess that innate sense of curiosity they have doesn't expand to consider technology issues. :shrug:

I'm sorta surprised (but not really) that one of the various IT experts talking about the security of the server didn't really catch on. These dopes were so focused on email content, they missed the forest for the trees. OR, they were doing Hillary a solid by avoiding the real problem and having the crazies focus on the email content boogeyman :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Graduates from journalism schools these days no longer enter the work force wanting simply to report the news. Rather, they've become centers of ideological training on how to change the world. I've known plenty over the course of my life and along with humanities and law school grads they are generally some of the most strident partisans I have ever met. Only a tiny few of them were conservatives.

As usual, this is complete BS. People go into journalism because of an innate curiosity. Conservatives are generally much less interested in new information about the world around us.

I sorta have my own theory on this. Print journalism is a profession where to be successful you need to be smart, a good writer, and to work hard. And the pay sucks. People with those skills typically have a number of other more lucrative professions that they could go into, and most of them do. Only someone that values other priorities over money would choose to be a print journalist, and most of the people with that perspective are liberals. It seems to me that's the same reason that college professors are overwhelmingly liberal.

Maybe this isn't all that different from what roadkill said, I just don't agree with his implication that conservatives are disinterested in the world.

I just assumed he was trolling TPW. Good theory, though. That makes a lot of sense.

What I probably should have said is that conservatives are generally more resistant to change and people who become journalists are generally interested in change. Changes are the most interesting things to write about. Well, that and a county commissioner being discovered in a cozy little financial relationship with a local contractor. You'd be amazed at how much local reporters get criticized for exposing things like that, though, generally along the lines of "he's doing a good job, why are you rocking the boat?"

Wasn't trolling TPW. I think he's wrong about everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Graduates from journalism schools these days no longer enter the work force wanting simply to report the news. Rather, they've become centers of ideological training on how to change the world. I've known plenty over the course of my life and along with humanities and law school grads they are generally some of the most strident partisans I have ever met. Only a tiny few of them were conservatives.

As usual, this is complete BS. People go into journalism because of an innate curiosity. Conservatives are generally much less interested in new information about the world around us.

:lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Graduates from journalism schools these days no longer enter the work force wanting simply to report the news. Rather, they've become centers of ideological training on how to change the world. I've known plenty over the course of my life and along with humanities and law school grads they are generally some of the most strident partisans I have ever met. Only a tiny few of them were conservatives.

As usual, this is complete BS. People go into journalism because of an innate curiosity. Conservatives are generally much less interested in new information about the world around us.

:lmao:

Glad to see he skipped the fishing pole and went with the large net.

Edited by jon_mx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Graduates from journalism schools these days no longer enter the work force wanting simply to report the news. Rather, they've become centers of ideological training on how to change the world. I've known plenty over the course of my life and along with humanities and law school grads they are generally some of the most strident partisans I have ever met. Only a tiny few of them were conservatives.

As someone who attended one of the top broadcast journalism schools in the country, I say this is pretty spot on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Graduates from journalism schools these days no longer enter the work force wanting simply to report the news. Rather, they've become centers of ideological training on how to change the world. I've known plenty over the course of my life and along with humanities and law school grads they are generally some of the most strident partisans I have ever met. Only a tiny few of them were conservatives.

As usual, this is complete BS. People go into journalism because of an innate curiosity. Conservatives are generally much less interested in new information about the world around us.
I sorta have my own theory on this. Print journalism is a profession where to be successful you need to be smart, a good writer, and to work hard. And the pay sucks. People with those skills typically have a number of other more lucrative professions that they could go into, and most of them do. Only someone that values other priorities over money would choose to be a print journalist, and most of the people with that perspective are liberals. It seems to me that's the same reason that college professors are overwhelmingly liberal.

Maybe this isn't all that different from what roadkill said, I just don't agree with his implication that conservatives are disinterested in the world.

Colleges and universities were extremely conservative for the first half of the 20th century. That all changed with Vietnam. There were a lot of baby boomers enrolling in college, and then staying there past 4 years to extend their deferment. Getting masters and phds. Staying as long as possible. Then, after the war, having a bunch of degrees in areas not suited for the general workforce, like humanities, other than to stay at college and teach. Where they instilled those values on the next wave of kids. This made liberalism institutional at colleges nationwide in a very short period of time.

The continued growth of college as a business, expanding enrollment to the point where a degree is mandatory now, pushing more and more degrees that don't lead to many jobs other than teaching the material to the next class, has perpetuated the cycle.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Graduates from journalism schools these days no longer enter the work force wanting simply to report the news. Rather, they've become centers of ideological training on how to change the world. I've known plenty over the course of my life and along with humanities and law school grads they are generally some of the most strident partisans I have ever met. Only a tiny few of them were conservatives.

As usual, this is complete BS. People go into journalism because of an innate curiosity. Conservatives are generally much less interested in new information about the world around us.
I sorta have my own theory on this. Print journalism is a profession where to be successful you need to be smart, a good writer, and to work hard. And the pay sucks. People with those skills typically have a number of other more lucrative professions that they could go into, and most of them do. Only someone that values other priorities over money would choose to be a print journalist, and most of the people with that perspective are liberals. It seems to me that's the same reason that college professors are overwhelmingly liberal.

Maybe this isn't all that different from what roadkill said, I just don't agree with his implication that conservatives are disinterested in the world.

Colleges and universities were extremely conservative for the first half of the 20th century. That all changed with Vietnam. There were a lot of baby boomers enrolling in college, and then staying there past 4 years to extend their deferment. Getting masters and phds. Staying as long as possible. Then, after the war, having a bunch of degrees in areas not suited for the general workforce, like humanities, other than to stay at college and teach. Where they instilled those values on the next wave of kids. This made liberalism institutional at colleges nationwide in a very short period of time.

The continued growth of college as a business, expanding enrollment to the point where a degree is mandatory now, pushing more and more degrees that don't lead to many jobs other than teaching the material to the next class, has perpetuated the cycle.

Well, I pretty much agree that conservatives have lost the war of ideas.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hate this meme. Of all political arguments made in the last 20 years from the right or the left , this one may have done the most damage. (The liberal bias argument is actually much older than 20 years; Joe McCarthy and Spiro Agnew used it, but it was Rush Limbaugh who popularized the idea among the Republican masses as a means, IMO, to promote talk radio and his own own show.)

It's so dangerous because it causes half of this country to seek out their own truth instead of a more general truth that everyone can accept. They reject anything from CNN, The Tines, the Post, etc., that threatens to contradict their political philosophy. Their minds are made up.

This is absolutely the best post in this thread. The liberal media bias is just one term used by someone confronted with facts that contradict their world view. Instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks, address the message. The truth is out there.

Thanks. But what's depressing is that since I wrote that, over a year ago, it's only gotten worse to a level I couldn't even have imagined mere months ago. Donald Trump tells one lie after another. And people just accept it.

SO DOES HILLARY CLINTON AND YOU ACCEPT IT. Jesus, Tim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comparing Hillary to Trump- man thats really sad.

In terms of being a liar, that is more of an insult to Trump, IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is the problem with being an ideologue. When something factual challenges the ideology, it must disregard or the ideology will crumble.

Actually in that situation if the ideology is not adjusted then I think that's when ideology turns to dogma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think an interesting glimpse into the world of modern national journalism can be found in the Hillary Clinton emails forced to be released by FOIA. Just off the top of my head I can recall these instances being reported:

  • A Wall Street Journal (yes WSJ) reporter fawning over Sec. Clinton, even gushing at the fact that she had touched her.
  • An absolute guaranteed 'good coverage' interview by Politico with Chelsea Clinton. Questions pre-approved, final draft sent for approval.
  • Paul Begala actually emailing the State Department in the course of an on air spot on CNN or just before it to feed him information.
  • Phillipe Reines, Hillary's aide, feeding snippets for a CNN reporter to actually tweet about hearings she was reporting on.
I'm sure this stuff goes on on with other politicians of both parties, these just happen to be from one trove of FOIA which has given us a glimpse of what goes on.
Its hilarious to me that you would choose this example. The treatment afforded Hillary Clinton this last summer during the whole so-called email "scandal" should be proof to anyone that there is no liberal bias.

Not sure I understand your conclusion here. That the media criticizes when appropriate isn't proof that there is no bias at all. The argument isn't that the media always treats one side or the other favorably or unfavorably. The argument is that the media is biased, and therefore, treats one side or the other favorably/unfavorably more so than they should, or would, were they not biased.

I could easily make the argument that the media was far less critical of Clinton than it should have been regarding the e-mail server. Personally, I think CNN should have been hammering home her baffling incompetence and shocking disregard for security and ethics every single night for a month, for hours at a time. CNN should still be harping on it, seeing as the public hasn't yet caught on.

lol. Hammering home? With anybody else it's a complete non-story. With Hillary they talked about it every night and constantly questioned whether her campaign was doomed. The amount of negative coverage she received last summer was overwhelming.

Wasn't nearly enough, IMO, seeing as the public doesn't seem to much care. While the media did its typical "OMG squirrel" routine, it didn't make any effort at all to point out what a serious issue this was, and explain why it makes her unfit for office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is the problem with being an ideologue. When something factual challenges the ideology, it must disregard or the ideology will crumble.

Actually in that situation if the ideology is not adjusted then I think that's when ideology turns to dogma.

Agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't nearly enough, IMO, seeing as the public doesn't seem to much care. While the media did its typical "OMG squirrel" routine, it didn't make any effort at all to point out what a serious issue this was, and explain why it makes her unfit for office.

Not that I am thrilled with the prospect of Hillary becoming POTUS, but maybe you can unpack this and explain to why it makes her unfit for office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't nearly enough, IMO, seeing as the public doesn't seem to much care. While the media did its typical "OMG squirrel" routine, it didn't make any effort at all to point out what a serious issue this was, and explain why it makes her unfit for office.

Not that I am thrilled with the prospect of Hillary becoming POTUS, but maybe you can unpack this and explain to why it makes her unfit for office.

I've explained it dozens of times in various threads, but the primary concern is a complete and total disregard for security.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I don't see why that makes her unfit for office. :shrug:

(Not saying security isn't important. I stopped paying much attention after the 3rd committee investigation. What are we on now?)

To be honest, I wish the Republicans would give me a better choice than what is currently at the top of their menu.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How Hillary's people dictate the language the Press use to cover her

tl;dr: In exchange for nothing more than an advance copy of a speech, The Atlantic agrees to describe her policy with words of her choosing. Many more examples follow.

From:
[Philippe Reines]

Sent:
Wednesday, July 15 2009 10:06 AM

To:
Ambinder, Marc

Subject:
Re: Do you have a copy of HRC’s speech to share?

3 [conditions] actually

1) You in your own voice describe them as “muscular”

2) You note that a look at the CFR seating plan shows that all the envoys — from Holbrooke to Mitchell to Ross — will be arrayed in front of her, which in your own clever way you can say certainly not a coincidence and meant to convey something

3) You don’t say you were blackmailed!

One minute later, Ambinder responded:

From:
Ambinder, Marc

Sent:
Wednesday, July 15, 2009 10:07 AM

To:
Philippe Reines

Subject:
RE: Do you have a copy of HRC’s speech to share?

got it

Ambinder made good on his word. The opening paragraph of the article he wrote later that day, under the headline “Hillary Clinton’s ‘Smart Power’ Breaks Through,” precisely followed Reines’ instructions:

When you think of President Obama’s foreign policy, think of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. That’s the message behind a
muscular
speech that Clinton is set to deliver today to the Council on Foreign Relations. The staging gives a clue to its purpose:
seated in front of Clinton
, subordinate to Clinton, in the first row, will be
three potentially rival power centers: envoys Richard Holbrooke and George Mitchell, and National Security Council senior director Dennis Ross
.

Edited by Higgs
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unbiased computer confirms media bias

Quote selection alone reveals political leanings
10:00am, April 17, 2015
Media outlets with similar political persuasions and audiences select similar excerpts from politician's speeches, no matter the surrounding context, a new algorithm reveals.

Hillary Clinton’s announcement last weekend that she is officially running for president set pundits spinning on both sides of the aisle. Released via a video on Clinton’s campaign website, the announcement featured only 92 words from the candidate, which were variously quoted by media outlets of all stripes. Consider this excerpt from The National Review, an outlet that self-identifies as conservative:

“I’m hitting the road to earn your vote because it’s your time, and I hope you’ll join me on this journey.”

Or this slice, featured by The Nation, which self-identifies as liberal:

“Everyday Americans need a champion, and I want to be that champion.”

From the quotes alone, you might not be able to tell whether the news outlet is liberal or conservative. But a computer probably can. Scientists developed an algorithm that, after churning through more than 200,000 quotes from 275 news outlets, discovered bias in their quote choice. Creating a graph that grouped media outlets by their selected quotes reveals pockets that pretty accurately reflect the political leanings of the outlets. The research suggests that information about an outlet’s political stripes is embedded in quote choice, surrounding context aside.

“Readers might experience very different personalities of the same politician, depending on what the news outlets they follow choose to quote from that politician’s public speeches,” says Cornell computer scientist Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, a coauthor of the study, which in May will be presented at the World Wide Web Conference in Florence, Italy. Even though readers are exposed to the politician’s own words, “the part of the speech the reader has access to changes,” he says.

That might seem like a “no duh” conclusion. But the scholarship on media bias is fraught with its own biases, and for an objective algorithm to latch on to political leanings is a neat feat. Typically studies of bias start out by designating particular outlets as either left- or right-leaning and then examine, whether with a computer or human beings, how those biases play out. Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil and his colleagues took a different approach. They didn’t assign political slant, but just looked for patterns that emerge from the news outlet’s quoting behavior. They did this using the 2,274 speeches made by President Obama from 2009 to 2014 and 275 media outlets that quoted him.

The program then mapped quotes to the outlets in which they appeared, revealing a hidden media bias landscape. The researchers also created an algorithm, similar to those used by Netflix or Amazon to recommend new movies or books, that could predict with a fair level of certainty which quotes would end up in which outlets.

Many of the study’s take-home messages probably seem obvious. But when it comes to bias, we tend to underestimate our own and overestimate the enemy’s. Well, guess what: Almost all of us are wrong and right. Here are some of the fine grains:

1. Media bias exists. To quote their paper: “There is systematic bias in the quoting patterns of different types of news sources. We find that the bias goes beyond simple newsworthiness and space limitation effects, and we objectively quantify this.”

2. In the mapped media bias landscape (imagine a square peppered with triangles representing media outlets) mainstream outlets are in a similar neighborhood, compared with their allegiance-declaring counterparts.

3. Within the two neighborhoods of mainstream and allegiance-declared outlets, conservative, liberal and international publications clump together (international outlets are closer to liberal outlets than to conservative ones). But despite this similar-stripe clumping, Fox News and The New York Times are relatively close to each other,suggesting that, as far as quoting patterns go, these two mainstream outlets aren’t all that different.

The speech corpus, which anyone can probe in nifty visuals, also uncovered some intriguing linguistic clues that you can keep an eye out for in coverage of speeches to come: Excerpts that used the word not or the contraction n’t are more likely to be quoted by mainstream conservative outlets. Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil and his colleagues speculate that because these negations are instances where the president contradicts or refutes a point, they might serve to highlight controversial aspects of the president’s remarks (the same might be true of liberal media with a conservative in the White House). There were also content-related cues: Quotes about the troops and war veterans were more common in conservative outlets, while financial and health care–related quotes were found more in liberal outlets.

Of course, quotes from speeches alone don’t tell you anything about the words surrounding those quotes, context that might reveal far more bias than the quotes themselves. But highlighting how quote choice fits into political coverage might help all of us become savvier media consumers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Republicans Who Fault the Media Show Their Bias

NOV 16, 2015 2:44 PM EST

By Cass R. Sunstein

For Republican presidential contenders challenged by the media, the go-to answer has become a claim of victimhood: You are biased against us. As Marco Rubio put it at the CNBC debate last month, "The Democrats have the ultimate super-PAC. It's called the mainstream media."

Are media outlets really biased against Republican candidates? One of the most careful studies, by Matthew Gentzkow and Jesse Shapiro of the University of Chicago, doesn't find much evidence of that. Its central conclusion is that readers have a strong preference for like-minded news -- and that newspapers tend to show a slant in a direction that is consistent with the preferences of their readers.

With respect to television broadcasters, the evidence remains ambiguous. But Republicans who think that the media are biased against them might want to consider a striking empirical finding: Whatever their beliefs, political partisans have long tended to see, and to complain loudly about, media bias.

In short, people are biased about bias.

For more than 20 years, researchers have identified a phenomenon called "hostile media perception," which means readers and viewers are inclined to think that journalists are biased against their particular point of view. People with strong convictions show a remarkably consistent tendency to conclude that the medias presentation is skewed against them. This is true whether the issue involves football teams, genetically modified organisms, labor disputes, animal rights, climate change or the Middle East.

Political partisans see bias even when news coverage really is neutral, according to Colorado State University's Cindy Christen and her co-authors. Rutgers University's Lauren Feldman finds that partisans show a kind of "bias against bias," seeing far less bias in opinionated news sources with which they already agree.

For presidential primaries, where activists are especially important, here's an especially important finding from Christen and her co-authors: As people become more involved with the particular topic, they become a lot more likely to complain about media bias. The more you know and the more you care, the more bias you're going to see.

Hostile media perception is nothing new, but on the Republican side it has been intensifying. Like-minded people, listening mostly to one another, tend to become both more confident and more extreme in their beliefs.

Within Republican echo chambers, claims of media bias have become so widespread that they are increasingly taken as gospel. (Democrats have their own echo chambers, of course, but they tend to involve policy issues, such as the minimum wage and the Keystone pipeline, rather the media.)

The empirical findings don't show that Republican claims about media bias are wrong. People who are predisposed to find bias might still be right that it exists. But the evidence of hostile media perception suggests that even if such a bias is real, the candidates are probably exaggerating it.

Is that a problem? As a matter of politics, it may be smart strategy to complain about media bias when pressed to respond to hard questions about climate change, immigration reform or the debt limit. But any such complaints are a disservice to the voters; they are evasive, even cowardly. At its best, American conservative thought represents a politics of ideas, not victimhood. It offers answers to substantive questions -- not attacks on those who ask them.

Not a very compelling article, IMHO. The article itself demonstrates bias using terms like Republican echo chamber, which is something only a left-winger would do. Also concluding that the conservative viewpoint is cowardly? IMHO, the article is a perfect demonstration of the point it is trying to disprove.

Way to prove the point of the article. The author refers to both Republican and Democratic "echo chambers", but is clearly a "left-winger" for mentioning the Republican version. The article says ducking questions by switching to complaints about the liberal media is cowardly, but that somehow becomes the liberal media saying that the conservative viewpoint is cowardly. With only two completely off the wall mis-characterizations, you can "prove" it's a liberal media piece. Amazing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.