Page 3 of 25 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 246

Thread: Media Bias

  1. #21
    Evolution is God's ID rogue06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeastern U.S. of A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    41,763
    Amen (Given)
    915
    Amen (Received)
    15944
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    You let me slide with writing "their" for "there"?!? smiley jawdrop.gif


    Are you feeling okay?

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" -- starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)

  2. #22
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    8,030
    Amen (Given)
    23
    Amen (Received)
    842
    Quote Originally Posted by rogue06 View Post
    You let me slide with writing "their" for "there"?!? smiley jawdrop.gif

    Are you feeling okay?
    Damn! I missed that too!

  3. #23
    tWebber Adrift's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    7,664
    Amen (Given)
    6213
    Amen (Received)
    5995
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    I missed it, Adrift. I hop all around the threads and am in several conversations.
    <- (that isn't an argument, it's an expression of exasperation.)

    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    So the rest of the points?
    What do you mean, "so the rest of the points"? Are you referring to your statements regarding the paper? Were those points you were expecting me to reply to? Because you didn't actually ask any questions except "Have you read the thing?", which I was assuming was rhetorical. Of course I had read the thing. And yes, you got the abstract more or less correct,

    We measure media bias by estimating ideological scores for several major media outlets. To compute this, we count the times that a particular media outlet cites various think tanks and policy groups, and then compare this with the times that members of Congress cite the same groups. Our results show a strong liberal bias: all of the news outlets we examine, except Fox News' Special Report and the Washington Times, received scores to the left of the average member of Congress. Consistent with claims made by conservative critics, CBS Evening News and the New York Times received scores far to the left of center. The most centrist media outlets were PBS NewsHour, CNN's Newsnight, and ABC's Good Morning America; among print outlets, USA Today was closest to the center. All of our findings refer strictly to news content; that is, we exclude editorials, letters, and the like.


    Or as Harvard University Economics professor Robert Barro summarized, “The bottom line from the Groseclose-Milyo study is that the political slant of most of the mainstream media is far to the left of the typical member of Congress. Thus, if the political opinions of viewers, listeners, and readers are similar to those of their elected representatives, the political leanings of most of the media are far to the left of those of most of their customers."

    The study lead to Groseclose later publishing the book Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind (New York City: St. Martin's Press, 2012) which Steven Levitt, Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago and co-author of Freakoconomics opined, “I'm no conservative, but I loved Left Turn. Tim Groseclose has written the best kind of book: one that is firmly anchored in rigorous academic research, but is still so much fun to read that it is hard to put down. Liberals will not like the conclusions of this book, which in my opinion, is all the more reason why they should want to read it.”

    As to your other points, the media has not changed so much since the publication of the paper, and Republicans are back in control of Congress. At any rate, you asked for a study on the subject, I offered a study on the subject.

    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587
    What the heck IS "handwaving" anyway?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand-waving
    Last edited by Adrift; 12-18-2017 at 03:16 AM.

  4. #24
    Evolution is God's ID rogue06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeastern U.S. of A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    41,763
    Amen (Given)
    915
    Amen (Received)
    15944
    Quote Originally Posted by Terraceth View Post
    Trump certainly deserves some negative coverage, but that doesn't mean that the negative coverage can't be biased--and it is. You need only look at Trump's visit to South Korea for that. After the media kept pounding him over and over on supposedly being too aggressive in policy towards North Korea, he actually tones down his rhetoric considerably in his speech there... so what do they do? Do they give him praise for backing off? No, that's ignored and instead you get to see bashing him for largely meaningless things like namedropping his products or in some cases just plain misrepresenting things (e.g. much was made of Trump overfeeding koi fish when he actually did the exact same thing that the Korean before him did). There was actually this great article I read about that trip showing all of the media bias in which they'd pick up on silly things just so they'd have things to criticize--and no, this wasn't even a pro-Trump article, it highlighted things that could have easily been valid targets for criticisms, but didn't sound as negative so they were skipped over. Wish I had saved the link, it was pretty interesting.

    Breitbart and Fox News aren't far right. They're extremely biased in their reporting (no more so, though, than MSNBC, and possibly less at this point), but that doesn't make them far right. People really need to stop tossing out that term to describe things that it isn't, and this applies to "far left" as well. It mostly seems to just serve as a way to try to discredit a source. Having a bias, even a strong one, towards the right or the left doesn't make you far right or far left, it's actually going that far on the political spectrum that does.

    I would agree there is no "explicit agenda" in the mainstream media but we need to remember that the mainstream media is a lot of different sources. For there to be an explicit agenda, there would need to be some kind of shadow organization controlling all of it--and I'm not paranoid enough to believe that. However, many of the individual sources in the mainstream media have agendas, or at least biases, and that affects it all as a whole. And in some ways, even if a source's bias isn't as big, it's worse than something like Breitbart because at least Breitbart is so blatant with their bias it's obvious it's a conservative talking point site, whereas some of the liberally biased sources demonstrate their bias by doing more subtle things like ignoring news stories inconvenient to the liberal narrative (a bias achieved through lack of reporting is harder to detect than a bias achieved by the reporting itself being biased).
    No. Just working together for a common goal, in this case to support liberal goals and candidates. Kind of like JournoList did.

    Quote Originally Posted by rogue06 View Post

    Then there was the JournoList (a private Google Groups message board for discussing politics and the news media established by Ezra Klein who limited participation to several hundred left-leaning bloggers, political reporters, magazine writers, policy wonks and academics saying he excluded conservatives to keep conversations from degenerating into flame wars) incident in 2010 when it was revealed they they were discussing ways of explaining away or outright ignoring stories that were detrimental to Obama. One of their primary goals appears to be to kill stories about Jeremiah Wright, Obama's radical, racist pastor for 20 years and who Obama praised in his memoirs and early campaign speeches


    Obama also credited Wright with introducing him to his Christian faith


    The contributors were obsessed with finding ways of killing the Wright story, as it was reflecting negatively on Barack Obama. Chris Hayes, a top editor for The Nation and host of a daily program on MSNBC, encouraged his colleagues to avoid covering Wright because talking about it at all would hurt Obama. Spencer Ackerman, one time associate editor at the New Republic and then part of the American Independent Institute (which funds liberal investigative journalism efforts which, as they say, exposes "the nexus of conservative power in Washington") went further making the following suggestion:

    "If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they've put upon us. Instead, take one of them -- Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares -- and call them racists"

    And right after John McCain nominated Sarah Palin to be his running mate members of JurnoList had only one concern -- how to take her down. The tone was more campaign headquarters than newsroom.

    "Okay, let’s get deadly serious, folks," Ed Kilgore of the Washington Monthly wrote. "Sarah Palin’s just been introduced to the country as a brave, above-party, oil-company-bashing, pork-hating maverick ‘outsider.’ What we can do is to expose her ideology."

    Daniel Levy of the Century Foundation noted that Obama’s “non-official campaign” would need to work hard to discredit Palin.

    "This seems to me like an occasion when the non-official campaign has a big role to play in defining Palin, shaping the terms of the conversation and saying things that the official [Obama] campaign shouldn’t say – very hard-hitting stuff, including some of the things that people have been noting here – scare people about having this woefully inexperienced, no foreign policy/national security/right-wing christia wing-nut a heartbeat away ... bang away at McCain’s age making this unusually significant ... I think people should be replicating some of the not-so-pleasant viral email campaigns that were used against [Obama]."

    Suzanne Nossel, the executive director of PEN American Center, which ironically purports to defend free expression by writers and others (as long as they are conservative I guess) made the following suggestion: "I think it is and can be spun as a profoundly sexist pick. Women should feel umbrage at the idea that their votes can be attracted just by putting a woman, any woman, on the ticket no matter her qualifications or views."[1]

    Jonathan Stein then with Mother Jones was giddy about this approach writing: "That’s excellent! If enough people -- people on this list? -- write that the pick is sexist, you’ll have the networks debating it for days. And that negates the SINGLE thing Palin brings to the ticket."

    Nick Baumann, then senior editor with Mother Jones and now senior enterprise editor at Huffington Post added: "Say it with me: ‘Classic GOP Tokenism’."

    Chris Hayes, a writer for The Nation, wrote: "Keep the ideas coming! Have to go on TV to talk about this in a few min and need all the help I can get."

    I think it is pretty clear that these journalists and their friends were acting as an unofficial wing of the Obama campaign. After all it wasn't uncommon for them to portray him as some sort of Messiah figure.

    Who could ever forget when Newsweek editor Evan Thomas declared to on MSNBC's "Hardball" to host Chris Matthews (who notoriously once said that he felt a “thrill up his leg” while covering then-Senator Barack Obama): "I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."

    Ezra Klein (the aforementioned founder of JurnoList) gushed about Obama in The American Prospect that, “He is not the Word made flesh, but the triumph of word over flesh, over color, over despair. The other great leaders I’ve heard guide us towards a better politics, but Obama is, at his best, able to call us back to our highest selves, to the place where America exists as a glittering ideal, and where we, its honored inhabitants, seem capable of achieving it, and thus of sharing in its meaning and transcendence.”

    And then there was Mark Morford, columnist and culture critic for the San Francisco Chronicle and SFGate.com, remarks about Obama "isn’t really one of us" and how "many spiritually advanced people I know (not coweringly religious, mind you, but deeply spiritual) identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment. These kinds of people actually help us evolve. They are philosophers and peacemakers of a very high order, and they speak not just to reason or emotion, but to the soul."














    1. Let's see if the left takes that tact as Hillary keeps relying strongly on the fact that she's a woman as the reason women should vote for her (her husband's Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, even suggested that women who don't support Hillary are earning "a special place in Hell.")

    And


    Yeah. That was a pure coincidence.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" -- starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)

  5. Amen Darth Executor, Cow Poke, Mountain Man amen'd this post.
  6. #25
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    8,030
    Amen (Given)
    23
    Amen (Received)
    842
    Quote Originally Posted by rogue06 View Post
    No. Just working together for a common goal, in this case to support liberal goals and candidates. Kind of like JournoList did.


    And


    Yeah. That was a pure coincidence.
    No - not coincidence. Trump gave a "dark" speech. Why are you surprised the word "dark" appeared in a few dozen headlines? This is an example of the cherry picking, Rogue, that the right does (and the left too). This is like complaining that several articles used "deep" in an article about the Grand Canyon.

    Again - what is not captured in a list like this is how many headlines did NOT have the word dark. This is a meme, nothing more. It's attractive to those on the right who already believe the media is "left" because it appears to comfirm their existing bias. But it actually does nothing of the sort.
    Last edited by carpedm9587; 12-18-2017 at 12:57 PM.

  7. #26
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    43,704
    Amen (Given)
    9434
    Amen (Received)
    21503
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    No - not coincidence. Trump gave a "dark" speech. Why are you surprised the word "dark" appeared in a few dozen headlines? This is an example of the cherry picking, Rogue, that the right does (and the left too). This is like complaining that several articles used "deep" in an article about the Grand Canyon.
    Umm..... the "depth" of the Grand Canyon can actually be measured, and is not in dispute. While your opinion seems to coincide with the multiple accounts of it being a "dark" speech, that's not the same as if you were to argue that the Grand Canyon was not "deep".

    1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

  8. #27
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    8,030
    Amen (Given)
    23
    Amen (Received)
    842
    Quote Originally Posted by Adrift View Post
    <- (that isn't an argument, it's an expression of exasperation.)



    What do you mean, "so the rest of the points"? Are you referring to your statements regarding the paper? Were those points you were expecting me to reply to? Because you didn't actually ask any questions except "Have you read the thing?", which I was assuming was rhetorical. Of course I had read the thing. And yes, you got the abstract more or less correct,

    We measure media bias by estimating ideological scores for several major media outlets. To compute this, we count the times that a particular media outlet cites various think tanks and policy groups, and then compare this with the times that members of Congress cite the same groups. Our results show a strong liberal bias: all of the news outlets we examine, except Fox News' Special Report and the Washington Times, received scores to the left of the average member of Congress. Consistent with claims made by conservative critics, CBS Evening News and the New York Times received scores far to the left of center. The most centrist media outlets were PBS NewsHour, CNN's Newsnight, and ABC's Good Morning America; among print outlets, USA Today was closest to the center. All of our findings refer strictly to news content; that is, we exclude editorials, letters, and the like.


    Or as Harvard University Economics professor Robert Barro summarized, “The bottom line from the Groseclose-Milyo study is that the political slant of most of the mainstream media is far to the left of the typical member of Congress. Thus, if the political opinions of viewers, listeners, and readers are similar to those of their elected representatives, the political leanings of most of the media are far to the left of those of most of their customers."

    The study lead to Groseclose later publishing the book Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind (New York City: St. Martin's Press, 2012) which Steven Levitt, Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago and co-author of Freakoconomics opined, “I'm no conservative, but I loved Left Turn. Tim Groseclose has written the best kind of book: one that is firmly anchored in rigorous academic research, but is still so much fun to read that it is hard to put down. Liberals will not like the conclusions of this book, which in my opinion, is all the more reason why they should want to read it.”

    As to your other points, the media has not changed so much since the publication of the paper, and Republicans are back in control of Congress. At any rate, you asked for a study on the subject, I offered a study on the subject.



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand-waving
    You might be interested to know that www.allsides.com uses the media rating methodology of the two authors of this paper (along with other rating methodologies), but are also careful to note, as I did, that the methodology has several critics. They link to the critiques on their site. They are also linked on the PEW Research site I linked earlier.

    Meanwhile, I have added "Left Turn" to my reading list. It's currently right behind "More Guns, Less Crime" that someone else recommended I read. Thanks for the link to "hand-waving." Your opinion of my responses is duly noted. Perhaps you folks should have someone make an emoji you can use for it. It would be fairly easy to design THAT one!
    Last edited by carpedm9587; 12-18-2017 at 01:04 PM.

  9. #28
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    8,030
    Amen (Given)
    23
    Amen (Received)
    842
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Umm..... the "depth" of the Grand Canyon can actually be measured, and is not in dispute. While your opinion seems to coincide with the multiple accounts of it being a "dark" speech, that's not the same as if you were to argue that the Grand Canyon was not "deep".
    First of all, "depth" is not a relative word - it is a value that can be measured. "Deep," however, is as relative a word as "dark." To most of us, one mile is "deep." But when compared to the Mariana Trench (Atlantic) or Mariner Valley (Mars), its downright shallow. And when you begin to compare it to fissures found on other planets...well.

    As for the speech, a speech that includes references to American carnage, and outlines all of the "ills" in our country without emphasizing any of its strengths and glories, is a pretty dark speech. Yes, Trump was saying, "we're going to change all of that," but Trump was also ignoring pretty much everything that makes our country the place it is - our freedom to speak our minds, to criticize our leaders, to practice our faiths, and to gather to make our voices heard. To listen to this speech, you would think everything that went before was terrible, and Trump was going to be the savior.

    Dark speech indeed. And I just re-read it to remind myself of wha I had heard on that day. I used the word dark to describe it before I saw any pundit do so - so it does not surprise me to see the word in several headlines.
    Last edited by carpedm9587; 12-18-2017 at 01:16 PM.

  10. #29
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    43,704
    Amen (Given)
    9434
    Amen (Received)
    21503
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    First of all, "depth" is not a relative word - it is a value that can be measured. "Deep," however, is as relative a word as "dark." To most of us, one mile is "deep." But when compared to the Mariana Trench (Atlantic) or Mariner Valley (Mars), its downright shallow. And when you begin to compare it to fissures found on other planets...well....
    That's goofy. The "depth" of the Grand Canyon compared to the Mariana Trench (your analogy) is "relative". The "darkness" of a speech is subjective.

    1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

  11. #30
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    8,030
    Amen (Given)
    23
    Amen (Received)
    842
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    That's goofy. The "depth" of the Grand Canyon compared to the Mariana Trench (your analogy) is "relative". The "darkness" of a speech is subjective.
    Goofy? I said the word "deep" is subjective - as is the word "dark." Both are adjectives. The "depth" of the canyon can be measured. And note that "subjective" simply means "relative to the individual."

    I'm sure the speech did not sound "dark" to the right. It contained many of the images that reflect that right's perspective - that America is slipping, that America has lost something. But for people who do not have that perspective - those of us in the middle and those on the left, the speech was one of the darker ones a president has uttered at their inaugural. Search the inaugural archives for any other president who used the phrase "American carnage," or spent a large chunk of the speech on all of the ways they thought America was dysfunctional.

    Sorry, CP. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make - but the fact that "dark" appeared in a dozen headlines says nothing to me. It's a meme - a carefully selected set of headlines from a handful of papers (out of thousands of American papers), emphasizing a word that was reasonably discriptive of the speech that was given, and suggesting some kind of "memo" or "collusion." It's the kind of thing Brietbart does regularly - and all it successfully does is provide bias confirmation (which is what Brietbart is striving for) - because anyone who has already decided there is a left-leaning conspiracy is going to look at it and nod and say, "see - I told you," then the list actually proves/shows nothing.
    Last edited by carpedm9587; 12-18-2017 at 01:53 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •