Your "liberal" media

Deep cleansing breath.OK, I want to make this point to you one more time. I will do this by way of analogy to avoid the emotion of the issue.Bare with me here, Frog. I do not want to get caught up in the details of the analogy. Just some broad strokes.--------------------------------------In a strange land far, far away there is a mountain that glows in the night. Of the 1000 people in this land 200 perceive the light as green and another 200 perceive the light as blue. The difference in perception has become a point of contention in this society with the blue-light advocates being the most vocal.Along comes an admitted green-light advocate and announces to all the rest:“Time to retire the facile construction of a blue mountain light.”“Source 1: The mountain light is green. This is obvious.”
“Source 2: Sure it’s green. All one has to do is look at it.”
“Source 3: Of course the mountain light is green.”Then our green-light advocate announces his conclusion:“It's time to abandon the foolish notion that the mountain light is blue.”---------------------------------------Do you see the logic error here?You didn't do the damage to the blue-ligh advocates you think you did.This is the point I was making in my response to your OP. I was careful to avoid giving any prejudice to any side of the issue in order to point up what I hoped would be taken as constructive criticism.Your response was to assume I was a blue-light advocate.When I pointed up the fact that I had expressed no such opinion you took this to an emotional extreme and labeled me as apathetic and too ignorant to participate in the discussion. A discussion I wasn't even participating in.Besides the insults being unnecessary do you now see this second error in logic?------------------------------------Just to satisfy your croaking curiosity let me address the issue itself.Close examination of the mountain shows pockets of concentrated blue light mixed in with pockets of concentrated green light. From afar the light changes from bluish-green to greenish-blue. Though I cannot prove this I suspect the periodic change occurs due to the amount of hot air in the atmosphere and the proximity of the deadline for Pulitzer nominations.Are we good here, Frog?

Sure - the fallacy of the over-extended analogy. I didn't present sources who simply made claims of the media favoring conservative narratives over facts that supported liberals; I have examples of that happening. Representative examples. I fully admit that it's not possible to fit a graduate-level thesis, including the development of completely new measurement metrics and a widely-encompassing data set, into the space of a forum post, if that's what you mean.But to the standards of the discussion as it has been occuring here, in this thread and others, what I posted was powerful evidence that cannot be ignored by those who contend a media that privileges liberals at every turn. Constructive criticism would be something along the lines of giving me a better way of measuring media bias than assembling a series of anecdotes (which I've been doing, and which serious media scholars recognize as an appropriate tool) or surveying easily-measured but essentially irrelevant qualities about journalists (which I accurately predicted one of my opponents would do).But, no. What you're saying is reasonable is to look at the two contentions:1) That the media privileges conservative narratives over inconvinient facts, which I have supported with 5-6 examples by now, or
2) That the media suborns fact in favor of liberal narratives, which nobody has given any evidence ofand come to the conclusion that we have absolutely no idea what to think.I would suggest that most of us aren't as obtuse as you seem to be, and given the choice between that which is supported by some evidence and that which is supported by no evidence, reasonable people who are not purposefully obstuse choose the former. What insult? There's no insult in being ignorant of a topic. I would hardly expect anyone to know everything about everything.But to the extent that you seemed unaware that the media is accused of having "liberal bias", which you indicated by asserting that I was the one advancing the existence of that accusation with no evidence, you are too ignorant - on this issue - to contribute meaningfully to the issue.I mean we're now 15 posts or so into your contribution to the thread and I can't see that you've done anything but confuse the issue and pretend that a contention supported by some evidence and one supported by no evidence are essentially the same - a completely counterrational assertion.I mean, for a discussion you're not even participating in, you sure have posted a lot in my thread. What exactly are we doing here if not participating in discussion?

Anyone's personal voting choice and personal political affiliations are irrelevant. It becomes a problem when news anchors, who are supposed to report the news, not inflate the news, add their two cents in, however tacitly it may come across.Dan Rather was particular to this. Katie Couric is another one that obviates the claim. She is the media darling for the Left. Because controversy, any controversy, is more newsworthy than anything else. Well, no, he didn't. To take "flack" from someone is altogether different than a flak jacket. But I think the whole nitpicking about something as small as that is about as stupid as the witchhunt in the 80's against Dan Quail spelling the word "potatoe." Or, that you don't see it because you happen to be of their ilk.http://www.mediaresearch.org/

---

"I marvel that where the ambitious dreams of myself and of Alexander and of Caesar should have vanished into thin air, a Judean peasant”- Jesus ”-should be able to stretch his hands across the centuries, and control the destinies of men and nations." -Napoleon Bonaparte

I agree. It's an important job of the media not only to present facts, but to present the context of the facts. But there's a marked decline recently in the barrier that's supposed to divide news from opinion. On both sides. Supposedly factual news carries an editorial slant - but opinion pieces make claims of fact that are demonstratively false under the cover of "it's just our opinion." Perhaps, but he's gone now - driven out because of his factual reporting. Nobody on the left thinks she's anything but a stooge, I hate to break it to you. She's not any kind of "media darling" to anybody over here on this side. In fact she's as guilty of privileging conservative narratives over facts as anybody else. "Flak" and "flack" are two spellings of the same word, NJ. Any dictionary will confirm that for you. Are these supposed to be examples of something? Like this, about Gore:

quote:

---

Yet again, the media glorify Al Gore, with CBS's Katie Couric touting him as "the Goreacle" even as Time magazine enthuses about "the improbably charismatic, Academy Award-winning, Nobel Prize-nominated environmental prophet."

---

Or this?

quote:

---

"He spread the word about global warming, and now is changing the political climate. In some polls, Gore is third for the Democratic nomination, and he’s not even a candidate. And he’s come out with another book...

---

Those are factual statements.So, if the media doesn't describe Gore as "that dirty lying bastard", that's liberal bias? The media isn't supposed to report facts? That's nonsense. And were those statements in an opinion piece or in factual news reporting? Your website doesn't say."Mediaresearch.org" is pretty clearly just another conservative hack job. They don't even give context for their excerpts, like Media Matters does. These aren't examples of liberal media bias; these are examples of the media doing their job and reporting facts that are inconvenient to conservatives. That's not liberal bias; that's reality.

I wholeheartedly agree. Would we really know either way? Every media outlet puts their own spin on the matter. For instance, Al Jazeera is going to be very pro-Islamic in their reporting because that is their target audience.Two outlets may cover the same story. For the sake of clarity, lets say they are covering an Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Both outlets may say that there was a clash between Hezbollah and the IDF. Both are accurate in this instance.However, one outlet may ever-so-slightly imply that the conflict is due to Israeli aggression, while the other may tacitly imply that it is due to Palestinian aggression.But we don't need conjecture. We don't need half-truths. And if we are going to get opinions, let it come from two sources.Let me give you another example of half-truths and distortions in the media. ABC, NBC, CBS, etc, from time to time cover stories about Christians. But what kind of Christians do they opt to do the story on? Do they interview very mild-mannered, well spoken Christians. No. Instead, they are sure to pick someone who is sure to say something stupid that would inevitably may make the lot of us look like morons.This kind of dishonest, yellow journalism pervades much of the media today. Opinion pieces are the job of political pundits who, whether you like them or hate, do great things as far as ratings are concerned. Lets put it this way. If someone told me that a recent survey concluded that most conservatives watch liberal pundits, and most liberals watch conservative pundits, I wouldn't find that hard to believe at all.But the pundits are not reporting news in the same way that the nightly news is supposed to conduct it. These opinion pieces are supposed to represent the views of their constituents. I have no problem with this because that's their job. But when I see it slinking in through the backdoor of the nightly news, this is journalistically unacceptable. She's the worst anchor I've ever seen as far as talent is concerned. She stumbles over her words, her voice is atypical to what a good newscaster is supposed to present, she makes her personal feelings well known, and she is annoying. As far as her being guilty of privileging conservative narratives over facts, I have to ask which dimension you live in. I agree the whole thing about McCain and Obama was incredibly petty-- (you can thank the media for inflating that well beyond its worth)-- but the fact remains that a "flak" jacket was coined by the military, not Obama or McCain. :

quote:

---

Yet again, the media glorify Al Gore, with CBS's Katie Couric touting him as "the Goreacle" even as Time magazine enthuses about "the improbably charismatic, Academy Award-winning, Nobel Prize-nominated environmental prophet."

---

That's a good quote. Thanks for sharing it. No, because calling Gore, or anyone for that matter, "a dirty lying bastard," is an opinion. Even when President Clinton perjured himself would I not expect to hear such talk. Crash, its about what they report, how they word, who they pieces on, how they present that piece, etc... They are very selective on what they do and don't report. For Christ's sake, they report on Al Gore 95% more than they do about the Chinese government harvesting human organs against their will.Something is fundamentally wrong with the media today, politics aside. I mean, is it really critical that we know that Lindsey Lohan or Paris Hilton are going to serve jail sentences every single day? Isn't a little sick that the media covered the Ana Nicole Smith debacle for like a month, yet we hear literally nothing about matters of actual importance?

---

"I marvel that where the ambitious dreams of myself and of Alexander and of Caesar should have vanished into thin air, a Judean peasant”- Jesus ”-should be able to stretch his hands across the centuries, and control the destinies of men and nations." -Napoleon Bonaparte

As long as they both report the facts accurately, what's the problem?Don't the audience members have a responsibility to think for themselves? Can't they form their own opinions instead of choosing which talking head to believe?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Yes they are. One wears a flak jacket to defend oneself against flak. If someone is peppering you with indiscriminate attacks, you are metaphorically taking Fliegerabwehrkanone (or flak) fire. These are attacks intended to 'knock you out of the sky' (since they are anti-aircraft weapons). The word flak is also written flack. In summary: taking flak was what aircraft pilots used to do and they flew over defended areas. To defend against this they wore flak jackets.

Sure, I think we'd know. When the media is telling us something different than we can see with our own eyes, it's not hard. The rise of "citizen journalism" on the internet has given us astounding clarity to see how often the mainstream media ignores the facts when they contradict the narrative of "liberals weak, conservatives strong" or "liberals corrupt, conservatives moral." For instance, recently, when the media called William Jefferson the first congressman to be indicted since the 90's. Tom DeLay-who? I have no problem with their opinions, but when they're supporting their opinions with made-up facts, that becomes a problem. The Washington Post is particularly bad at this. I'm not saying otherwise, but even in the military it's called a "flack jacket", too. "Flack" is another way to spell "flak." If Gore has, indeed, won an Academy Award and been nominated for the Nobel prize, how is it opinion to state those facts? Right. And the website you linked to considers every instance of the media reporting something that isn't nice to conservatives - and in the failing days of the Bush administration, there's a lot to cover - as "media bias."That's just ridiculous. According to your website the only thing a "fair" media would report would be conservative success stories. How would that represent a lack of bias? And they report on Paris Hilton 95% more than either. Is that liberal bias? Or is that just celebrity-driven culture? Paris Hilton is a celebrity. Al Gore is a celebrity. Rudy, John, and Mitt are celebrities.Organs in China aren't celebrities. It's going to be much more instructive if we stick to examples that have to do with American politics. There's nothing instructive to be learned wondering why USA Today covered the latest bombing in Iraq instead of the Palookaville Cheerleading Finals. No, it isn't. Al Gore has a new book on that that I think you'd like. I think you'd agree with him that the media's role in presenting celebrity fluff and unchallenging stories instead of unvarnished facts is a much bigger issue than people allow. His book is "The Assault on Reason." You'd like it except that your website calls it an anti-Bush book, which is nonsense. Isn't it a little sick that we heard about John Edwards' $400 haircut for a month on end, but this week Mitt Romney said that we invaded Iraq because Saddam wouldn't let inspectors in, and nobody in the media saw fit to remind him or us that that's 100% false?You're right that the media is covering frivolity instead of serious news, but on top of that, they cover frivolity when it makes Democrats look bad, and ignore serious issues when they would harm Republicans.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Katie Couric is another one that obviates the claim. She is the media darling for the Left.

---

Hardly. She's just a talking head and is paid to say what she is told to say.If anyone is the left's darling, it is Bill Moyers.By "left", I mean "centrist", or "left of the wacko Authoritarian Neo-Cons)There is no "left" in this country that is represented in the media.

No webpage found at provided URL: http://mediamatters.org/reports/oped/report

quote:

---

This project did something that has never been done before: It amassed data on the syndicated columnists published by nearly every daily newspaper in the country. While a few publications, most notably Editor & Publisher, cover the syndicated newspaper industry, no one has attempted to comprehensively assemble this information prior to now. Because the syndicates refuse to reveal to the public exactly where their columnists are published, when Media Matters for America set out to make a systematic assessment of the syndicated columnist landscape, we had no choice but to contact each paper individually and ask which syndicated columnists are published on their op-ed pages.

​

The results show that in paper after paper, state after state, and region after region, conservative syndicated columnists get more space than their progressive counterparts. As Editor & Publisher paraphrased one syndicate executive noting, "U.S. dailies run more conservative than liberal columns, but some are willing to consider liberal voices."

---

quote:

---

By contacting newspapers directly, we were able to obtain information on the syndicated columnists run by 1,377 of the 1,430 English-language daily papers in the United States, or 96 percent.5

​

We asked papers for two categories of syndicated columnists: those they publish regularly, meaning every week or almost every week; and those they publish occasionally, meaning at least once per month but not every week. Most of the analyses in this report are restricted to those columnists each paper publishes regularly, unless noted otherwise.

​

This report focuses only on nationally syndicated columnists, not each paper's local columnists. It would have been impossible to determine the ideology of every one of the thousands of local columnists in the country, whereas the smaller number of syndicated columnists make them much easier to classify.

---

I don't think it's unreasonable (for anyone who has ever read a local newspaper) to suggest that the untracked local columnists probably swing to the right as well, but that's not especially relevant. The national columnists are certainly the ones with the power to swing opinion.

quote:

---

To avoid charges of injecting subjectivity into our process, we used, whenever possible, the syndicates' own description of their writers to define the writers' ideological alignment. For example, Universal Press Syndicate describes writer Maggie Gallagher as writing "right-leaning social policy analysis," which would give her a designation in this study of "conservative." In addition, we also went by political and media affiliations (for instance, a syndicated columnist who is also an editor for National Review can be safely classified as conservative) and writers' own definitions of their politics, whenever available. For those whom we still could not comfortably identify, we read a sampling of columns to arrive at a designation.

---

quote:

---

Conservatives are often heard to complain about the "liberal media," a nefarious cabal of journalists and media owners supposedly endeavoring to twist the news to serve their ideological agenda. Media Matters for America has shown in a variety of ways that the "liberal media" is a myth. Our two reports on the Sunday talk shows showed how those programs are dominated by conservative guests. Our analysis of the coverage of religion showed how that coverage favors conservatives. Analyses performed by other organizations have shown how conservatives dominate talk radio. And this study demonstrates that in yet another key portion of the news media, conservatives enjoy a structural advantage that gives them a leg up in influencing public opinion.

​

That structural advantage enables them to transmit an overarching narrative across the country, one that serves to convey the impression that conservative ideas that in many cases enjoy tiny support are actually the "reasonable center" in key debates.

---

I would expect overall on average that locals would track to nationals in each paper: the editors decide who gets published eh?Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

A noble effort, AZPaul3. And perhaps not in vain.One day another light may go on.

Research!I applaud this interest in providing data, Mr Frog. May it be a harbinger of things to come.Now that we have something more substantial to work with than your anecdotes (how nice!) we may explore how the range of opinion detected in newspapers reflects, or doesn't, the range of opinion in electronic media. What do the researchers say about this?We may also discuss the importance of audience size. Your bar graphs suggest some interesting correlations between moderation and large circulation. This question of audience size has implications, of course, for any discussion of the impact of newspapers relative to electronic media. What do the researchers say about this?Also: did these researchers address the question of bias in newspapers as it may exist elsewhere than in the Op-Ed page?

I can't answer any questions that aren't already in the study. I'm sorry if you got the wrong impression but I don't work at Media Matters or something. What's your suggestion for how that might be measured?