Fair and balanced? Um ... no

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

the Murdoch contribution was very public, but lets not forget that up and down the line, ALL of the other media companies donate full tilt to the Democrats. generally its in the form of personal contributions but nonetheless if you add it all up its a large number.

In addition, if you were to estimate the value of the on-air in-kind support that the MSM offers for the progressive agenda, you'd find a staggering number. If you had to pay for the ridiculous ass kissing that goes on every day it would be a pretty penny.

Yes, that is exactly right. Approximately 90% of the mainstream media idenitifies themselves as liberal democrats. But I guess that doesn't make any difference. I guess the the 90% of journalists that are liberal stay totally objective and don't allow their bias to affect their reporting. But the 10% of journalists that are republicans are not objective at all. They are totally biased and they let their bias affect their reporting.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Yes, that is exactly right. Approximately 90% of the mainstream media idenitifies themselves as liberal democrats. But I guess that doesn't make any difference. I guess the the 90% of journalists that are liberal stay totally objective and don't allow their bias to affect their reporting. But the 10% of journalists that are republicans are not objective at all. They are totally biased and they let their bias affect their reporting.

90% of Riots brain is biased and not objective.

the other 10% just doesnt work at all.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

90% of Riots brain is biased and not objective.

the other 10% just doesnt work at all.

If only what you said mattered

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Yes, that is exactly right. Approximately 90% of the mainstream media idenitifies themselves as liberal democrats. But I guess that doesn't make any difference. I guess the the 90% of journalists that are liberal stay totally objective and don't allow their bias to affect their reporting. But the 10% of journalists that are republicans are not objective at all. They are totally biased and they let their bias affect their reporting.

Why don't you pull some historical figures from one of the watchdog websites?
You know, show us all how true that is.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

Why don't you pull some historical figures from one of the watchdog websites?
You know, show us all how true that is.

Here you go:

An academic study cited frequently showing a liberal media bias in American journalism is The Media Elite,* a 1986 book co-authored by political scientists Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman, and Linda Lichter. They surveyed journalists at national media outlets such as the New York Times, Washington Post, and the broadcast networks. The survey found that most of these journalists were Democratic voters whose attitudes were well to the left of the general public on a variety of topics, including such hot-button social issues such as abortion, affirmative action, and gay rights. Then they compared journalists' attitudes to their coverage of controversial issues such as the safety of nuclear power, school busing to promote racial integration, and the energy crisis of the 1970s.

The authors concluded that journalists' coverage of controversial issues reflected their own attitudes, and the predominance of political liberals in newsrooms therefore pushed news coverage in a liberal direction. They presented this tilt as a mostly unconscious process of like-minded individuals projecting their shared assumptions onto their interpretations of reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias

And here is a snippet from one of the best studies ever done on media bias. It was done by UCLA: It was an absolutely exhaustive review (where objective measures were used) of whether a liberal bias exists in the media. Here is a snippet of what they found: "Our results show a strong liberal bias. All of the news outlets except Fox News’ Special Report and the Washington Times received a score to the left of the average member of Congress. And a few outlets, including the New York Times and CBS Evening News, were closer to the average Democrat in Congress than the center. These findings refer strictly to the news stories of the outlets. That is, we omitted editorials, book reviews, and letters to the editor from our sample."

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/f...dia.Bias.8.htm

[clyde]

Puptent!!






Shut up!

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Here you go:

An academic study cited frequently showing a liberal media bias in American journalism is The Media Elite,* a 1986 book co-authored by political scientists Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman, and Linda Lichter. They surveyed journalists at national media outlets such as the New York Times, Washington Post, and the broadcast networks. The survey found that most of these journalists were Democratic voters whose attitudes were well to the left of the general public on a variety of topics, including such hot-button social issues such as abortion, affirmative action, and gay rights. Then they compared journalists' attitudes to their coverage of controversial issues such as the safety of nuclear power, school busing to promote racial integration, and the energy crisis of the 1970s.

The authors concluded that journalists' coverage of controversial issues reflected their own attitudes, and the predominance of political liberals in newsrooms therefore pushed news coverage in a liberal direction. They presented this tilt as a mostly unconscious process of like-minded individuals projecting their shared assumptions onto their interpretations of reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias

And here is a snippet from one of the best studies ever done on media bias. It was done by UCLA: It was an absolutely exhaustive review (where objective measures were used) of whether a liberal bias exists in the media. Here is a snippet of what they found: "Our results show a strong liberal bias. All of the news outlets except Fox News’ Special Report and the Washington Times received a score to the left of the average member of Congress. And a few outlets, including the New York Times and CBS Evening News, were closer to the average Democrat in Congress than the center. These findings refer strictly to the news stories of the outlets. That is, we omitted editorials, book reviews, and letters to the editor from our sample."

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/f...dia.Bias.8.htm

all that work rupe, and no gold trophy in return. you must be disappointed.

[Riot]

I like the UCLA study, but comparing "left" and "right" to "the average member of Congress" as the benchmark definition?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

I like the UCLA study, but comparing "left" and "right" to "the average member of Congress" as the benchmark definition?

It was an exhaustive study, probably the best study ever done on the subject. The study used objective measures to actually quantify the left or right slant of each news organization. Here is what they did:

"Few studies provide an objective measure of the slant of news, and none has provided a way to link such a measure to ideological measures of other political actors. That is, none of the existing measures can say, for example, whether the New York Times is more liberal than Tom Daschle or whether Fox News is more conservative than Bill Frist. We provide such a measure. Namely, we compute an ADA score for various news outlets, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, USA Today, the Drudge Report, Fox News’ Special Report, and all three networks’ nightly news shows."

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/f...dia.Bias.8.htm

I think that sounds like an excellent way to have done the study. Do you have a problem with the way the study was done?

[Riot]

I think that sounds like an excellent way to have done the study. Do you have a problem with the way the study was done?

I just said, "I like the UCLA study, but comparing "left" and "right" to "the average member of Congress" as the benchmark definition?

I was laughing at the benchmark, but that obviously doesn't invalidate the scale from the reference.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

I just said, "I like the UCLA study, but comparing "left" and "right" to "the average member of Congress" as the benchmark definition?

I was laughing at the benchmark, but that obviously doesn't invalidate the scale from the reference.

I don't think they said that was the actual benchmark. When they mentioned the thing about "the average member of Congress", they were just giving one example of their findings. They also compared news organizations to the most liberal and the most conservative members of congress.

Here is some more interesting information:

Survey research has shown that an almost overwhelming fraction of journalists are liberal. For instance, Elaine Povich (1996) reports that only seven percent of all Washington correspondents voted for George H.W. Bush in 1992, compared to 37 percent of the American public.[2] Lichter, Rothman and Lichter, (1986) and Weaver and Wilhoit (1996) report similar findings for earlier elections. More recently, the New York Times reported that only eight percent of Washington correspondents thought George W. Bush would be a better president than John Kerry.[3] This compares to 51% of all American voters. David Brooks notes that for every journalist who contributed to George W. Bush’s campaign, 93 contributed to Kerry’s.[4]


These statistics suggest that journalists, as a group, are more liberal than almost any congressional district in the country. For instance, in the Ninth California district, which includes Berkeley, twelve percent voted for Bush in 1992, nearly double the rate of journalists. In the Eighth Massachusetts district, which includes Cambridge, nineteen percent voted for Bush, approximately triple the rate of journalists.[


http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/f...dia.Bias.8.htm