Liberal Media Attempting to Understand Conservatives

[arildno]

But unless you sew in every different type of example, all you have is a bunch of gaping holes. =D

Holes are in the eyes of the beholders. In particular when they are blind

Examples are meaningless when used to support statements of a statistical nature.

Well, in addition, deductions are permissible.
Terrorist-adulators like Nasr would never have achieved positions of responsibility like that of senior editor without her views being largely shared by members of the CNN elite.

That she somehow, through 20 years of intimate professional collaboration would not have disclosed her vileness to others in her profession is simply, unthinkable.

Thus, the revelation of her words speaks volumes about the acceptance of such horrid political biases within the top echelons in CNN than anything else.

 

[madness]

Holes are in the eyes of the beholders. In particular when they are blind



Well, in addition, deductions are permissible.
Terrorist-adulators like Nasr would never have achieved positions of responsibility like that of senior editor without her views being largely shared by members of the CNN elite.

That she somehow, through 20 years of intimate professional collaboration would not have disclosed her vileness to others in her profession is simply, unthinkable.

Thus, the revelation of her words speaks volumes about the acceptance of such horrid political biases within the top echelons in CNN than anything else.

Her views are in agreement with the majority of the world. Only a few countries list Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation. Even the European Union doesn't list them as a terrorist organisation. They have overwhelming support in Lebanon and provide extensive social services like schools and hospitals.
The fact that she was kicked out for this is very clear evidence for a right-wing bias.

 

[mheslep]

Since it is two males, people went berserk.

Relevance? What people?

Some conservatives may say that the Washington Post was promoting liberal "crackpottery" by running the photo.

That's a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man" assertion.

I argue that a photo of a gay couple touching lips is accepted in the mainstream.

No, you assert that it is, without argument.

 

[mheslep]

Her views are in agreement with the majority of the world. Only a few countries list Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation. Even the European Union doesn't list them as a terrorist organisation. They have overwhelming support in Lebanon and provide extensive social services like schools and hospitals.
The fact that she was kicked out for this is very clear evidence for a right-wing bias.

Incredible. I retract my doubts about Gokul's damned if they do comment in the other thread.

 

[jgens]

Incorrect.
He presents absolutely no evidence for his web of assertions. Thus, there is no need to "address" his argument further than just that. It is sufficient, due to the lack of evidence from his side.

Granted, he doesn't provide any real evidence in the web clip. However, given the nature of that clip, I would argue that it would be inappropriate to really do more than articulate his point of view. If he wrote a book on it (which I'm sure he did), that would be the place I would look for real evidence.

As it stands, many large corporations and conglomerates overwhelmingly support the Republican Party. Most main stream news outlets are owned by large corporations or conglomerates. Therefore, it seems that it would be in the interests of news outlets to support the particular interests of whatever corporations own them and these corporate interest are most likely conservative.

You also have the problem with advertising, something which is necessary for any major news outlet. In 2003, a Fox News executive said, "The problem with being associated as liberal is that [it] wouldn't be going in a direction that advertisers are really interested in... If you go out and say that you are a liberal network, you are cutting your potential audience, and certainly your potential advertising pool, right off the bat." Granted, this is a Fox News executive and I didn't get the quote from the best source*.

I realize that none of this proves Chomsky's argument, all of it is really speculation. But I think that it suggests that Chomsky might be able to produce some evidence to support (at least some of) his claims.

*http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2595

Indeed. Precisely because he, throughout his entire life, has been incapable of producing evidence.

Evidence? If you keep making claims and declaring them as absolutes without any real evidence whatsoever, are you any better than Chomsky?

Incorrect. Dismissing him as a crackpot is the highest rational assessment of him.

It does nothing to directly address the argument, so it's a logical fallacy. If you happen to address his argument and point out that he's a crackpot, then sure, that would actually help your argument (assuming you can establish that he is one). But as of this moment, all you've really done is call him a crackpot and provide maybe two or three examples of a liberal bias in the media. Not only do those examples not even remotely prove a systematic liberal media bias, they don't address Chomsky's argument.

It certainly does, because he never has any evidence whatsoever for his assertions.

Again, evidence? An example or two does nothing to show a systematic liberal bias and does nothing to address the role of the publisher.

Respectable?
Who? His students?

Howard Zinn and a number of other historians who regularly cite some of his work.

 

[arildno]

I realize that none of this proves Chomsky's argument, all of it is really speculation.

Quite so.

 

[jgens]

Quite so.

And you would argue that your claim concerning liberal dominance in the media isn't speculation? Again, you can't use a few examples to demonstrate a systematic bias.

 

[Vanadium 50]

At the risk of injecting facts, I would encourage people to read "A Measure of Media Bias" by Groseclose and Milyo.

 

[Gokul43201]

Link, rebuttal, and response to rebuttal: http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2005/12/the_problems_wi.html

 

[mheslep]

Link, rebuttal, and response to rebuttal: http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2005/12/the_problems_wi.html

Fairly weak rebuttal. Makes a valid point that a possible flaw in Measure of Bias could be the difference in quality between left and right wing think tanks, then asserts that the left leaning tanks are indeed better by means of citing his own blog post (spinsanity blog).

 

[mheslep]

As it stands, many large corporations and conglomerates overwhelmingly support the Republican Party.

As it stands, many large corporations and conglomerates overwhelmingly support the Democratic Party. The richest residential areas of the US overwhelmingly support the Democratic Party; it has indeed become the party of the rich.

 

[jgens]

As it stands, many large corporations and conglomerates overwhelmingly support the Democratic Party. The richest residential areas of the US overwhelmingly support the Democratic Party; it has indeed become the party of the rich.

According to Howard Zinn, the large corporations and conglomerates donate many millions more to the Republican Party than the Democratic Party. If this has changed significantly in the last election, it would be the first time in several years that a Democratic candidate received more corporate donations than a Republican candidate.

But beside the point, it doesn't make sense that corporations would continue to support a party that is hostile to their interests. Unless of course the Democratic Party doesn't push for more regulation, government involvement, etc. in which case it could hardly be considered liberal from an economic viewpoint.

Edit: I'm withdrawing myself from the discussion after this post.

 

[mheslep]

But beside the point, it doesn't make sense that corporations would continue to support a party that is hostile to their interests.

Ask government owned General Motors, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and semi-owned Chrysler which US political party is hostile to their interests.

See the 2008 Presidential contributions by commercial industry below. Of the 13 sectors, Democrats collected more money in all but 4 of them, with several - lawyers and electronics (e.g. Apple, Google ) going overwhelmingly to the Democrats.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/sectorall.php?cycle=2008

 

[Mgt3]

There is no "liberal dominance" in the media. Hamilton's "All the News That's Fit to Sell" presents good quantitative evidence that market forces are the primary determinants of whether a story or editorial appears in a news medium. News outlets target their market to appeal to reader's/viewers. Content analysis of news services such as AP, Reuters, etc. has time and again shown that these particular sources show no bias in their reporting. This "liberal media" whining was old ten years ago.

 

[Evo]

There is no "liberal dominance" in the media. Hamilton's "All the News That's Fit to Sell" presents good quantitative evidence that market forces are the primary determinants of whether a story or editorial appears in a news medium. News outlets target their market to appeal to reader's/viewers. Content analysis of news services such as AP, Reuters, etc. has time and again shown that these particular sources show no bias in their reporting. This "liberal media" whining was old ten years ago.

Isn't his critique of news media from 1969 to 1998? That's ancient by today's standards. Was there anything more recent in his book?

 

[Evo]

Here is an interesting study.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist

By Meg Sullivan December 14, 2005 Category: Research

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

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

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

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

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

continued...

 

[CRGreathouse]

I read that study. It was interesting, but seemed methodologically flawed to me. I don't dispute its broad conclusions, but I would hesitate to draw much more from that -- and I would understand if a person rejected it outright.

 

[Gokul43201]

Fairly weak rebuttal. Makes a valid point that a possible flaw in Measure of Bias could be the difference in quality between left and right wing think tanks, then asserts that the left leaning tanks are indeed better by means of citing his own blog post (spinsanity blog).

Even without a demonstration of the difference in quality, this exposes a flaw in the methodology, since that methodology implicitly assumes no difference. The onus is upon G & M to show that any such difference is negligible.

 

[Gokul43201]

The richest residential areas of the US overwhelmingly support the Democratic Party; it has indeed become the party of the rich.

Not even close:

1. 2008 Presidential Election exit polls: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1

2. Some randomly selected Senate exit polls (picking every 5th state, alphabetically ordered):

a. GA: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=GAS01p1
b. KY: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=KYS01p1
c. MN: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=MNS01p2
d. NH: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=NHS01p2
e. OR: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=NHS01p2

... ran out of patience here, having yet to find a single case where the richer segment of the population voted in greater numbers for the Dems than the poorer segment.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Here is an interesting study.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

continued...

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

How many times have I recommended the PBS News Hour as the best? I have also been defending CNN.

Meet the Press [esp under Russert] should easily be at the top of any qualified list.

 

[Gokul43201]

I recall when CNN fired Aaron Brown for Anderson Cooper, replacing journalism with pizazz. A sad day was that.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I recall when CNN fired Aaron Brown for Anderson Cooper, replacing journalism with pizazz. A sad day was that.

Agreed. They are getting fluffier and fluffier. King and Brown both seem to do a pretty good job, most of the time.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

How many times have I recommended the PBS News Hour as the best? I have also been defending CNN.

A quick google suggests that the answer is, dozens of times.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...physicsforums.com&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

So much for the closet liberal theory, eh? You know who you are.

 

[Gokul43201]

Ask government owned General Motors, Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae, and semi-owned Chrysler which US political party is hostile to their interests.

Selective sampling. Ask Walmart, Exxon, Chevron, GE and BoA (the 5 largest).

See the 2008 Presidential contributions by commercial industry below. Of the 13 sectors, Democrats collected more money in all but 4 of them, with several - lawyers and electronics (e.g. Apple, Google ) going overwhelmingly to the Democrats.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/sectorall.php?cycle=2008

1. Not all sectors are created equal.
2. This could be as much related to the quality of the candidates (and the odds of their winning) than any particular polarity in government-industry coziness.

 

[Vanadium 50]

1. Not all sectors are created equal.

Then look at the totals: 36% Republican and 64% Democratic.

This could be as much related to the quality of the candidates (and the odds of their winning) than any particular polarity in government-industry coziness.

It could be. But that theory would predict that the contributions be independent of sector. Why then is labor 95% Democratic?

I understand this is a particular fact that goes against the "conventional wisdom".

 

[Gokul43201]

Then look at the totals: 36% Republican and 64% Democratic.

I agree that the totals are a better metric than the number of sectors (hence, my objection to the latter).

It could be. But that theory would predict that the contributions be independent of sector. Why then is labor 95% Democratic?

No it would not. If the theory was that the only thing that mattered was the quality of the candidates, then one might be able to argue some independence (even then, I can't see the validity of such an argument; there could be so many gazillions of sector-to-sector differences in priorities, style or whims that make some spend more than others), but I didn't even go as far as saying that candidate differences were the dominant factor (let along the only one).

I understand this is a particular fact that goes against the "conventional wisdom".

I'm not arguing for the conventional wisdom. I am merely pointing out inadequacies in the provided argument. My squabble is with the methodology, not the result.

 

[aquitaine]

Isn't his critique of news media from 1969 to 1998? That's ancient by today's standards. Was there anything more recent in his book?

12 years ago was right before "the fox effect" took hold of the media. It was around that time that fox was turned into a republican propaganda station. Then the other media outlets, msnbc and cnn in particular, decided to stop trying to be objective and imitate fox, just by spouting democratic propaganda. The result is the vast wasteland that our media has become, full of shouting heads and deeply slanted reporting. cnn used to be a respectable news organization, but those days are gone. Unfortunately one of effects of this has been to further polarize and divide our political system, making is very hard to actually look for real solutions to our problems.

 

[russ_watters]

I realize this thread has moved fast, but a quick point about the argument looking for evidence of a liberal bias: Why nitpick the evidence, when some major players in the liberal media itself acknowledge the bias? There is no need to prove a fact that has already been acknowledged. Indeed, that was my main point in posting the thread in the first place!

The NYT did not need to do a study to prove to itself that it had a liberal bias: it knew and it made an attempt to deal with it.

 

[mheslep]

Not even close:

1. 2008 Presidential Election exit polls: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1

2. Some randomly selected Senate exit polls (picking every 5th state, alphabetically ordered):
[...]
... ran out of patience here, having yet to find a single case where the richer segment of the population voted in greater numbers for the Dems than the poorer segment.

Ok, I'll have to qualify. The rich now live in the Democratic party, whether the poorer segment does or not.
From your link:
CNN 2008 Presidential, by income: $200,000 or More (6%) - Obama 52% McCain 46%
Moreover, the super rich overwhelmingly live the D. party; it is not even close as you say. Of the 20 richest zip codes in the US, 19 of them overwhelmingly contribute to the D. party.
[PLAIN]http://www.weeklystandard.com/sites/all/files/images/WELL.15-32.Caldwell.jpg

I.e. mainly Wall Street, Hollywood, and DC, which I think should be unsurprising.

 

[mheslep]

I'm not arguing for the conventional wisdom. I am merely pointing out inadequacies in the provided argument. My squabble is with the methodology, not the result.

Well, on the subtopic of industry, keep in mind the thesis in debate at the moment is only:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2793875&postcount=71"

As it stands, many large corporations and conglomerates overwhelmingly support the Democratic Party.

which I made as a counter to the reverse statement from jgens - not that all or a majority of them do (I don't know). And my limited statement was called into question.