'Liberal Media Bias' (in US).

[GIGObuster]

@magellan01

Oh really, Mr. You Have To Be Careful About Biased Cites? Why this is a rich as a malted Easter egg with a chocolate shell an inch thick stuck inside a giant marshmallow bunny—with frosting!

And of course you ignored the the reasoning I gave prior to giving your Cohen site the backhanded dismissal it deserves. I can’t tell you how shocked I am, Mr. You Have To Be Careful About Biased Cites.

GOLD! Comedy Friggin Gold.

The sorry spectacle is that even you agree that should modify your wide brush and you are just getting personal there, if you had paid attention you should know by now that I do not care much about bias, I do care about if the source has support for what they claim, hand waiving them away with only a weak point and a fallacy to boot is not an argument. There is no lock step among reporters and hardly any reason to assume that just because many declare to be democrats that that means the bias in the news will be liberal.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/09/08-7

On Sunday, Meet the Press hosted a panel discussion to debate two primary issues: (1) foreign policy – specifically, the war in Afghanistan, and (2) health care. The panel: Rudy Giuliani, Tom Friedman, Harold Ford, Jr., and Tom Brokaw (as Jay Rosen often notes, Meet the Press is doing a fantastic job of fulfilling its pledge to present “fresh voices” in its discussions).

With regard to Afghanistan, there is a major debate currently taking place about whether we should stay in that country. A majority of Americans now opposes the war. But there was not a single participant there who shares that view. All of them believe that it is imperative we remain, and put on their little General hats to exchange deeply Serious analyses of how we need to adjust our strategy and tactics for greater mission success. Of course, all of three of those whose views were known about Iraq – Friedman, Ford and Giuliani – were vehement supporters of the invasion. As always, not only does support for that war not produce shame or even impair one’s credibility and Seriousness, but the opposite is true: having supported it is a prerequisite for being considered credible and Serious, which is why those are the only people – still – from whom we hear when it’s time to convene Serious discussions of foreign policy. What an odd filtering standard for The Liberal Media to use.

On health care, the same dynamic repeated itself. The prime controversy in that debate is over the inclusion of a “public option,” with large numbers of Americans supporting it. Yet once again, not a single member of the panel advocated it (though David Axelrod was interviewed before the panel and paid lip service to the public option on his way to clearly signaling it would not be part of the ultimate plan). Guiliani warned there would be no health care with a public option; Ford told his “liberal friends in Congress” that they will have to be disappointed by the outcome; Friedman insisted that Obama adopt the proposals of Mitt Romney and John McCain and ensure he has the support of centrist Republicans (Brokaw offered some mild pushback against the attempt to demonize the public option). The words “single payer” were never spoken.

What you had with the health care discussion, just as was true with the Afghanistan debate and the lead-up to the Iraq War, is one that – by design – completely excluded any views to the “left” of DLC Chair Harold Ford, even where such views are held by large numbers of Americans. With very rare exception, that is the spectrum of opinion typically allowed on Liberal Media shows like Meet the Press. The Liberal Media doesn’t even pretend to include liberal views.

[BrainGlutton]

@magellan01

But I do thank you for the laugh of offering an article by ex-ACLU lawyer, Jeff Cohen. But I can see how you might have been misled. After all, he did start something with the word “Fairness” in the name.

“Fairness” and the ACLU is by no means a curious juxtaposition, as you seem so preposterously to imply.

[magellan01]

@erislover

Interesting hypothesis. And I agree with that conclusion given those assumptions.

How about this one: that viewers are biased, it not being their job to try to be fair about anything they perceive, and they are unable to recognize a lack of bias because of it. And if you believe that viewers can set aside their biases well enough to detect bias, then there is no reason to suppose that journalists can’t set aside their biases to do their job.

I think very few people can be unbiased. Tim Russert pulled it off I think as well as a human can. As far as viewers, we all have biases. That’s why you probably watch and read what you do and I watch and read what I do. Contrary to what is assumed around here, I never listen to Rush and really can’t stand the Hannity show. I used to really like Chris Matthews until he got all loose-goosey with things. I’m not saying that I don’t have my biases, but that I am at least aware of them and try to seek out the other side. Which is one of the reasons I post here and don’t post at all (or read) rightwing boards.

I think journalists are people and they have them, too. I think it’s a lot to expect that someone won’t form an opinion based on the beliefs they hold. Here’s a hypothetical. Let’s say we get Ann Coulter and Rachel Maddow to each write an article about some issue—the insurance mandate, a flat tax, whatever—with the instruction that it be as unbiased as possible. Then you (assuming you are liberal on those issues) and I sit down and edit the articles to excise whatever bias that missed. You edit the Coulter article taking out the bias you see. And I edit the Maddow article taking out the bias I see. In the end we wouldn’t have the same article. How each person comes to an issue is framed by their world view and their take on things is a result of that.

Imagine now that we are both happy that are articles have been purged of bias, would you then be willing to have it the Coulter article published as if it came from Maddow. Probably not, I would think, as the point of view itself steers the general point of view.

[erislover]

I really don’t have a position in the argument, magellan01, since I cannot find a measure of bias that feels worthwhile. I’m willing to stipulate that there is bias, or not, as the conversation goes. But what I’m not willing to do is start from the premise that everyone is biased and then proceed to say that therefore the media must be biased.

For example, using environment noise to create random (fair and balanced) bits has the problem that the environment noise might have a bias. Or, for instance, bits from a coin toss where the coin has a bias. If the underlying process is otherwise random, then this bias can be removed. Take two samples. If you get 00 or 11, discard the pair. If you get 10, then this is a “1”, and if you get 01, then this bit is a “0”. It won’t guarantee randomness, but if that’s not the question, then it will guarantee unbiased results.

This has the benefit that there is no question whether we read a 0 or a 1 from the environment. But this is not the case in the media because we don’t know from the report whether we’ve just heard a 0 or a 1. Now we need some other kind of criterion to tackle the report and determine what was actually measured. And to me the question becomes one of objectivity. The measure offered so far which is fairly objective tries to align the center with US congress. Well, it’s objective.

But the position you’ve put forward is that political affiliation is indicative of, well, bias. And Congress is the seat of politicians. So the study in question attempts to measure bias by using a biased measure. Why would we expect there to be a relationship between Congress’s make-up and the think-tanks they cite, and journalists? Because for this measure to remove bias, as in the coin example, it must have an exactly cancelling effect. But as far as I can see, there is no relationship whatsoever between the makeup of Congress, which think-tanks receive funding, and journalism as a profession. No relationship at all. But, suppose I push this aside and say, “The relationship isn’t important. What’s important is that the measure is objective.” So if the results suggest bias, for all I know this reveals two propositions have equal merit:

1. Congress is biased, and journalists aren’t, but by choosing to measure it in the opposite way it appears that journalists are biased and Congress isn’t
2. Journalists are biased, but Congress isn’t
   And I don’t see any reason to select one over the other given the evidence.

[erislover]

I realize my exposition might have been a little unclear. Just a minor elaboration: the bias we’re attempting to eliminate from the environment could also come from the measuring device. Who is to say, for sure, that whatever we use to determine a 0 or a 1 is unbiased? But the technique in question eliminates bias, regardless of its source. So even if our measurements are biased, that bias is eliminated. This feature is lacking in the study in question. Hope that helps clarify and not just muddle the issue more.

[magellan01]

@erislover

I really don’t have a position in the argument, magellan01, since I cannot find a measure of bias that feels worthwhile. I’m willing to stipulate that there is bias, or not, as the conversation goes. But what I’m not willing to do is start from the premise that everyone is biased and then proceed to say that therefore the media must be biased.

For example, using environment noise to create random (fair and balanced) bits has the problem that the environment noise might have a bias. Or, for instance, bits from a coin toss where the coin has a bias. If the underlying process is otherwise random, then this bias can be removed. Take two samples. If you get 00 or 11, discard the pair. If you get 10, then this is a “1”, and if you get 01, then this bit is a “0”. It won’t guarantee randomness, but if that’s not the question, then it will guarantee unbiased results.

This has the benefit that there is no question whether we read a 0 or a 1 from the environment. But this is not the case in the media because we don’t know from the report whether we’ve just heard a 0 or a 1. Now we need some other kind of criterion to tackle the report and determine what was actually measured. And to me the question becomes one of objectivity. The measure offered so far which is fairly objective tries to align the center with US congress. Well, it’s objective.

But the position you’ve put forward is that political affiliation is indicative of, well, bias. And Congress is the seat of politicians. So the study in question attempts to measure bias by using a biased measure. Why would we expect there to be a relationship between Congress’s make-up and the think-tanks they cite, and journalists? Because for this measure to remove bias, as in the coin example, it must have an exactly cancelling effect. But as far as I can see, there is no relationship whatsoever between the makeup of Congress, which think-tanks receive funding, and journalism as a profession. No relationship at all. But, suppose I push this aside and say, “The relationship isn’t important. What’s important is that the measure is objective.” So if the results suggest bias, for all I know this reveals two propositions have equal merit:

1. Congress is biased, and journalists aren’t, but by choosing to measure it in the opposite way it appears that journalists are biased and Congress isn’t
2. Journalists are biased, but Congress isn’t
   And I don’t see any reason to select one over the other given the evidence.

Thanks for the thoughtful answer. That said, you seem to not entertain the notion that both congress and journalists are biased, which I think is the right answer.

And just to be clear, I don’t blame any journalist for his or her bias. Like I said, we all have them. But if one is going to carry the scepter of impartiality over his head, he’s got a lot to live up to. As I mentioned, I think Tim Russert did an outstanding job.

As far as the rest of your post, yes, assessing bias in people and then assessing the degree to which that bias is reflected in journalism is not nearly as neat and tidy a thing then flipping coins. But that doesn’t mean that it’s real. There have been numerous articles about this ob David Horowitz’s site, frontpagemagazine.com. (He’s a conservative now, but he helped start the leftist movement in the 60s.) Here is one article from 2008 that offers some strong support for the bias of journalists. From it:

On beliefs:

Between 90 and 97 percent of news media professionals have consistently deemed themselves pro-choice on the matter of abortion. More than half of the respondents said that abortion should be legal under any and all circumstances, including the late-term procedure commonly known as Partial Birth Abortion, where the abortionist punctures a living baby’s skull and suctions out its brain before the infant’s head passes from the birth canal. Only 4 percent of journalists said abortion should be illegal in all circumstances.[2]
Fully 81 percent of news media professionals favor affirmative action in business and academia.[3]
More than half of respondents said that adultery could be acceptable under certain circumstances; only 15 percent said it was always wrong.[4]
Between 67 and 76 percent were opposed to prayer being permitted in public schools.[5]
Some 71 percent agreed that the “government should work to ensure that everyone has a job.”[6]
75 percent agreed that the “government should work to reduce the income gap between rich and poor.”[7]
56 percent said that the United States exploited the nations of the Third World.[8]
Three-fourths disagreed with the notion that the West, on balance, had been helpful to the Third World.[9]
57 percent said that America’s disproportionate consumption of the world’s natural resources was “immoral.”[10]
Nearly half agreed that “the very structure of our society causes people to feel alienated.”[11]
Only 30 percent agreed that “private enterprise is fair to workers.”[12]
Between 6 and 8 percent attended religious services regularly, a tiny fraction of the corresponding rate for the public at large.[13]
78 percent said the use of torture was rarely or never justified in dealing with suspected terrorists.[14]
In the 1980s, 84 percent of journalists supported the nuclear freeze movement, which would have frozen military superiority in place for the Soviets; 80 percent opposed increased defense spending by the United States; and three-fourths opposed U.S. aid to the Contras, who were fighting the Marxist Sandinistas in Nicaragua.[15]
In 1996, 59 percent of journalists dismissed the Republican Party’s 1994 Contract with America as “an election-year campaign ploy,” while only 3 percent considered it “a serious reform proposal.”[16]

On support for candidates and causes:

In 1964, 94 percent of media professionals voted for Democrat Lyndon Johnson over Republican Barry Goldwater.[17]
In 1968, 86 percent voted for Democrat Hubert Humphrey over Republican Richard Nixon.[18]
In 1972, 81 percent voted for Democrat George McGovern over the incumbent Nixon.[19]
In 1976, 81 percent voted for Democrat Jimmy Carter over Republican Gerald Ford.[20]
In 1980, twice as many cast their ballots for Carter rather than Republican Ronald Reagan.[21]
In 1984, 58 percent supported Democrat Walter Mondale, whom Reagan defeated in the biggest landslide in presidential election history.[22]
In 1988, White House correspondents from various major newspapers, television networks, magazines, and news services supported Democrat Michael Dukakis over Republican George H.W. Bush by a ratio of 12-to-1.[23]
In 1992, those same correspondents supported Democrat Bill Clinton over the incumbent Bush by a ratio of 9 to 2.[24]
Among Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, the disparity was 89 percent vs. 7 percent, in Clinton’s favor.[25]
All told, White House correspondents during the late ’80s and early ’90s voted for Democrats at 7 times the rate at which they voted for Republicans.[26]
In a 2004, poll of campaign journalists, those based outside of Washington, D.C., supported Democrat John Kerry over Republican George W. Bush by a ratio of 3-to-1. Those based inside the Beltway favored Kerry by a 12-to-1 ratio.[27]
In a 2004 nationwide poll of 300 newspaper and television journalists, 52 percent supported Kerry, while 19 percent supported Bush.[28]
In a 2008 survey of 144 journalists nationwide, journalists were 8 times likelier to make campaign contributions to Democrats than to Republicans.[29]
A 2008 Investors Business Daily study put the campaign donation ratio at 11.5-to-1, in favor of Democrats. In terms of total dollars given, the ratio was 15-to-1.[30]

On self-identification:

The figures cited above are entirely consistent with how news media professionals identify themselves in terms of their political party affiliations and ideological leanings:

In a 1988 survey of business reporters, 54 percent of respondents identified themselves as Democrats, 9 percent as Republicans.[33]
In a 1992 poll of journalists working for newspapers, magazines, radio, and television, 44 percent called themselves Democrats, 16 percent Republicans.[34]
In a 1996 poll of 1,037 reporters at 61 newspapers, 61 percent identified themselves as Democrats, 15 percent as Republicans.[35]
In a 2001 Kaiser Family Foundation poll, media professionals were nearly 7 times likelier to call themselves Democrats rather than Republicans.[36]

We see precisely the same ratios in studies where news people are asked rate themselves on the left-to-right political spectrum.

In a 1981 study of 240 journalists nationwide, 65 percent identified themselves as liberals, 17 percent as conservatives.[37]
In a 1983 study of news reporters, executives, and staffers, 32 percent identified themselves as liberals, 11 percent as conservatives.[38]
In a 1992 study of more than 1,400 journalists, 44 percent identified themselves as liberals, 22 percent as conservatives.[39]
In a 1996 study of Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, 61 percent identified themselves as liberals, 9 percent as conservatives.[40]
In a 1996 study of 1,037 journalists, the respondents identified themselves as liberals 4 times more frequently than as conservatives. Among journalists working for newspapers with circulations exceeding 50,000, the ratio of liberals to conservatives was 5.4 to 1.[41]
In a 2001 Kaiser Family Foundation study of media professionals, the ratio of self-identified liberals to conservatives was 4.2 to 1.[42]
In a 2004 Pew Research Center study of journalists and media executives, the ratio of self-identified liberals to conservatives was 4.9 to 1.[43]
In a 2005 University of Connecticut study of 300 journalists, the liberal-to-conservative ratio was 2.8 to 1.[44]
In a 2005 Annenberg Public Policy Center poll of nearly 700 journalists, the liberal-to-conservative ratio was 3.4 to 1.[45]
In a 2007 Pew Research Center study of journalists and news executives, the ratio was 4 liberals for each conservative.[46]

I think another convincing piece of evidence is the success of right-wing talk radio and Fox News, which I grant has a conservative bias. I think the success of both can be explained by the filling of a vacuum. Why would right-wing talk radio have found such a large and loyal following if it were not for the idea that they were getting information (and/or bias) there that was no evident in the mainstream media? Keeping in mind that most liberal talk radio has had paltry success comparatively. The same goes for Fox News. Why is it that they consistently blow the doors off of MSNBC, CNN, etc.? There seems to be two explanations to me. One is what I mentioned…that there was a void that right-wing talk radio filled and Fox News fills today. The other explanation is that there are just more people who want to hear the news with a conservative bent, even a slight one. Is there a another explanation I’m missing? If not, then regardless which explanation is true, it seems clear that the journalists delivering the news are not delivering it in a way that the majority of people thing is "fair.

I’ll just and pointing out that one of Horowitz’s pet peeves is the bias in academia, which he has worked on extensively. You can look on his site and search for a ton of stuff on that, as well. He’ even got some universities to sign “An Academic Bill of Rights”, which you can see on his sister site: studentsforacademicfreedom.org.

[erislover]

@magellan01

Thanks for the thoughtful answer. That said, you seem to not entertain the notion that both congress and journalists are biased, which I think is the right answer.

Thank you for your response, and I will get to the rest in a bit. Making dinner right now. I just wanted to say: no, I do not entertain this notion because it would make the word “bias” syntactically useless and semantically empty. It would fail to select anything. You could say, “that car over there,” and have someone ask, “which one?” and you say, “The yellow one,” then that assumes that there are cars which aren’t yellow. If the question is “which person?” and the answer is “the biased one” but then also suggest everyone is biased, then this adjective fails to fulfill any role.

[Fear_Itself]

@What_the

I wonder how many of the most prominent media members left of Fox News didn’t vote for Obama three years ago? Can you name more than a few?

Define “most prominent”.

[GIGObuster]

@magellan01

I’ll just and pointing out that one of Horowitz’s pet peeves is the bias in academia, which he has worked on extensively. You can look on his site and search for a ton of stuff on that, as well. He’ even got some universities to sign “An Academic Bill of Rights”, which you can see on his sister site: studentsforacademicfreedom.org.

And that is where it is clear he loses any respect.

Intelligent design proponents and global warming deniers are part of these organizations following Horowitz and his dumb pet peeves.

http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/news/2824/climate-thuggery

Looking around on his site I can see that Horowitz just swallowed hook line and sinker the conspiracy theory of climategate, if he has worked extensible he does not show any progress, it is clear that he would not recognize evidence if it did bite him in the ass.

[erislover]

@magellan01

As far as the rest of your post, yes, assessing bias in people and then assessing the degree to which that bias is reflected in journalism is not nearly as neat and tidy a thing then flipping coins. But that doesn’t mean that it’s [not] real. There have been numerous articles about this ob David Horowitz’s site, frontpagemagazine.com. (He’s a conservative now, but he helped start the leftist movement in the 60s.) Here is one article from 2008 that offers some strong support for the bias of journalists.

That goes nowhere to show bias. Why would it? Lawyers, for instance, and judges, are the paradigm of impartiality in our society. Presumably, there is some matter of fact that people with law degrees are not representative of the entire population in political measures. But that doesn’t mean lawyers are biased. I don’t care if 100% of journalists at Fox News vote Republican. That is not evidence of bias because I accept that people really are capable of acting without bias in the normal use of the word.

I think another convincing piece of evidence is the success of right-wing talk radio and Fox News, which I grant has a conservative bias.

I don’t know much about Fox News in the “news” aspect, but in the “entertainer” aspect so frequently cited by the right about characters like Limbaugh, they definitely lean right. So what? So…

I think the success of both can be explained by the filling of a vacuum. Why would right-wing talk radio have found such a large and loyal following if it were not for the idea that they were getting information (and/or bias) there that was no evident in the mainstream media?

I think this is a good question. A really good question. Here is another good question: if God doesn’t exist, why do so many bibles get sold? If evolution isn’t a fact, why are there so many deniers? If women aren’t meant to be man’s servant, why are they the ones that get pregnant by man’s seed? We face a variety of questions on this planet but the fact that some subset of the population thinks anything—be they journalists (voting dem), economists (promoting fiscally right policies), or religious idiots (protesting at funerals)—isn’t evidence of anything but the fact that people think stuff.

This is the problem: you think that since it is a reasonable implication that those who show left bias would vote left, you want me to conclude falsely that those who vote left would show a bias, and you don’t make the logical problems better by just applying the faulty reasoning to the right.

Keeping in mind that most liberal talk radio has had paltry success comparatively.

I have my own cynical response for this but it would not further the conversation.

The same goes for Fox News. Why is it that they consistently blow the doors off of MSNBC, CNN, etc.?

Why is pro wrestling bringing in more money than Buffy the Vampire Slayer ever did? [De gustibus non est disputandum.](De gustibus non est disputandum)

There seems to be two explanations to me. One is what I mentioned…that there was a void that right-wing talk radio filled and Fox News fills today. The other explanation is that there are just more people who want to hear the news with a conservative bent, even a slight one. Is there a another explanation I’m missing?

I don’t know. What I do know, is that if you want to prove a theory, you don’t look at the data, come up with a hypothesis, and then post it on the internet. You come up with a theory, and then use it to predict something novel, and conduct a new experiment which focuses on just the data which would falsify or corroborate your theory. This is what is always lacking. Since a key part of your theory is “everyone is biased,” I think you will find that your theory—no matter how further fleshed out—will always be trivial and unfalsifiable, as it will always color the collection and interpretation of your data. (A key problem, though not always insurmountable, with social sciences.)

If not, then regardless which explanation is true, it seems clear that the journalists delivering the news are not delivering it in a way that the majority of people thing is “fair.”

The problem is easily summed up: you are falling headlong for the prosecutor’s fallacy. The probability that we would see the evidence, given that the defendant committed the crime, is different than the probability that the defendant committed the crime, given the evidence. All we have is a blob of evidence of ill-defined and underdetermined “bias” and you’re trying to convince me that the only explanation for this is real bias. I do not think this argument is valid. (Though it may be true.)

I’ll just and pointing out that one of Horowitz’s pet peeves is the bias in academia, which he has worked on extensively.

Another fascinating question. As you might imagine, if one of your problems with “bias in the media” is “bias in academia”, I might be inclined to ignore any academic sites coming from you, since you have already decided they are not worthy.

[magellan01]

@GIGObuster

And that is where it is clear he loses any respect.

Intelligent design proponents and global warming deniers are part of these organizations following Horowitz and his dumb pet peeves.

http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/news/2824/climate-thuggery

Looking around on his site I can see that Horowitz just swallowed hook line and sinker the conspiracy theory of climategate, if he has worked extensible he does not show any progress, it is clear that he would not recognize evidence if it did bite him in the ass.

Oh, please. Feel free to take your lance and mighty slope-back steed and start YET ANOTHER endless thread about global warming. In fact, go on to Horowitz’s site and contact all the colleges and universities who signed his E-V-I-L Academic Bill of Rights. Just think of all those young fresh minds entrusted to those institutions of higher learning that may be in CAHOOTS with Horowitz. Quick, there’s not a second to waste…Global Warming Denialists are being created as you breathe.

:rolleyes:

[BrainGlutton]

@magellan01

Oh, please. Feel free to take your lance and mighty slope-back steed and start YET ANOTHER endless thread about global warming. In fact, go on to Horowitz’s site and contact all the colleges and universities who signed his E-V-I-L Academic Bill of Rights. Just think of all those young fresh minds entrusted to those institutions of higher learning that may be in CAHOOTS with Horowitz. Quick, there’s not a second to waste…Global Warming Denialists are being created as you breathe.

:rolleyes:

Actually, you should be doing all of that. Get off your butt and go do it.

[magellan01]

@erislover

That goes nowhere to show bias. Why would it? Lawyers, for instance, and judges, are the paradigm of impartiality in our society. Presumably, there is some matter of fact that people with law degrees are not representative of the entire population in political measures. But that doesn’t mean lawyers are biased. I don’t care if 100% of journalists at Fox News vote Republican. That is not evidence of bias because I accept that people really are capable of acting without bias in the normal use of the word.

We agree that individuals are capable of being unbiased. Where I think we disagree is the degree to which large groups of people will tend to be unbiased.

@erislover

I don’t know much about Fox News in the “news” aspect, but in the “entertainer” aspect so frequently cited by the right about characters like Limbaugh, they definitely lean right. So what? So…

The comment was focused on its success, not the fact that it leans right. And I don’t think Limbaugh is part of Fox.

@erislover

I think this is a good question. A really good question. Here is another good question: if God doesn’t exist, why do so many bibles get sold? If evolution isn’t a fact, why are there so many deniers? If women aren’t meant to be man’s servant, why are they the ones that get pregnant by man’s seed? We face a variety of questions on this planet but the fact that some subset of the population thinks anything—be they journalists (voting dem), economists (promoting fiscally right policies), or religious idiots (protesting at funerals)—isn’t evidence of anything but the fact that people think stuff.

The point is that if you take a political issue there is usually no objective right or wrong. It depends on an 1) underlying philosophy and 2) what one thinks will work best based on that philosophy. These are things we have to deal with in the public sphere, unlike the conundrums you offer. Now given that let’s say half the population is predisposed to a liberal view and half is predisposed to a conservative view, one would think that journalists would be delivering information commensurate with that breakdown.

@erislover

This is the problem: you think that since it is a reasonable implication that those who show left bias would vote left, you want me to conclude falsely that those who vote left would show a bias, and you don’t make the logical problems better by just applying the faulty reasoning to the right.

That’s not what I’m saying. I think you’re focusing on individuals, I’m talking about groups. As I said above: “We agree that individuals are capable of being unbiased. Where I think we disagree is the degree to which large groups of people will tend to be unbiased.”

@erislover

I don’t know. What I do know, is that if you want to prove a theory, you don’t look at the data, come up with a hypothesis, and then post it on the internet. You come up with a theory, and then use it to predict something novel, and conduct a new experiment which focuses on just the data which would falsify or corroborate your theory.

It seems to me that my position is one that is extremely reasonable, and comports with the human condition. It seems quite unreasonable to assume that a large group of people would be able to leave their biases aside, especially since those biases are very often rewarded by news organizations from both sides. But I think I’m understanding you better now…

@erislover

This is what is always lacking. Since a key part of your theory is “everyone is biased,” I think you will find that your theory—no matter how further fleshed out—will always be trivial and unfalsifiable,

…Yup. Sigh. Actually, it’s much truer of your position.

And I just love the old dodge that because we can’t determine something with scientific certainty like we could in a physics lab, let the handwaving begin. It’s just great fun to see each and every time! But, of course, the empirical evidence that was offered you’re mum about. Hmm-mmm.

@erislover

Another fascinating question. As you might imagine, if one of your problems with “bias in the media” is “bias in academia”, I might be inclined to ignore any academic sites coming from you, since you have already decided they are not worthy.

What are you talking about? The site was not for an academic institution. But why go through the great trouble of clicking and reading so you know of what you speak? :roll eyes: And no comment on the findings I supplied? I’m shocked again. I think you can now remove the mask of reasonableness that you seemed to suffer wearing for a time, as your clear bias has shown itself. And, comically, you are the one who holds that large groups can exist without bias. Ha!

As absolutely fascinating as your contribution to the discussion has been, the curtain has been pulled back, so: Onward.

[magellan01]

@BrainGlutton

Actually, you should be doing all of that. Get off your butt and go do it.

No, you. :rolleyes:

[erislover]

@magellan01

We agree that individuals are capable of being unbiased. Where I think we disagree is the degree to which large groups of people will tend to be unbiased.

To disagree, I’d have to have a stake in the claim. I happen to have an opinion, but I don’t recall posting it.

The comment was focused on its success, not the fact that it leans

No, its success was used as evidence. It was not the focus. It was the support for the focus.

The point is that if you take a political issue there is usually no objective right or wrong.

That’s a problem for anyone who wishes to assert a bias, then.

Now given that let’s say half the population is predisposed to a liberal view and half is predisposed to a conservative view, one would think that journalists would be delivering information commensurate with that breakdown.

I don’t think that’s true. A) I don’t think your split is correct; and B) I don’t think that the conclusion would follow, even if it were correct. Entertainers are very concerned with their market; journalists are very concerned with news. I don’t see any particular reason to insist that these are identical markets. But if you would offer some, it may help your position, since you brought it up.

That’s not what I’m saying. I think you’re focusing on individuals, I’m talking about groups.

Your evidence is how individuals vote.

It seems quite unreasonable to assume that a large group of people would be able to leave their biases aside, especially since those biases are very often rewarded by news organizations from both sides.

I hope I would avoid such generalizations as the basis of an argument without having a theory for why these organizations would show the bias in the first place. Do you have any ideas about this?

…Yup. Sigh. Actually, it’s much truer of your position.

Which position is that, exactly?

And I just love the old dodge that because we can’t determine something with scientific certainty like we could in a physics lab, let the handwaving begin.

Um, that’s a stretch. I merely indicated that you and yours have failed to meet a burden worth meeting if your position has merit. I don’t believe I disparaged any of the non-physics sciences. In fact the comment was about how obtaining clear evidence is quite difficult because of the uncontrolled circumstances.

But, of course, the empirical evidence that was offered you’re mum about. Hmm-mmm.

I was quite vocal about it. But if it was unclear: your evidence doesn’t support your position.

What are you talking about? The site was not for an academic institution.

No, but part of the thread was dealing with academic papers.

I think you can now remove the mask of reasonableness that you seemed to suffer wearing for a time, as your clear bias has shown itself. And, comically, you are the one who holds that large groups can exist without bias. Ha!

Why is that comical?

[magellan01]

@erislover

To disagree, I’d have to have a stake in the claim. I happen to have an opinion, but I don’t recall posting it.

:rolleyes: I didn’t say you did. I said, “Where I think we disagree…”, (emphasis added) which does not necessitate you having had posted a claim to the contrary.

@erislover

No, its success was used as evidence. It was not the focus. It was the support for the focus.

Nope. Its success was the point being made. There is no reason to make a point again about talk radio or Fox News leaning right. We had already agreed on that. Reread.

@erislover

I don’t think that’s true. A) I don’t think your split is correct;

Are you not acquainted with “let’s say” as the introduction to a hypothetical? Interesting.

@erislover

and B) I don’t think that the conclusion would follow, even if it were correct. Entertainers are very concerned with their market; journalists are very concerned with news. I don’t see any particular reason to insist that these are identical markets. But if you would offer some, it may help your position, since you brought it up.

You seem to be of the mind that the default position is that all journalists are unbiased. Can you support this position? Given human nature, it seems quite extraordinary. But you do raise a good point about the fact that many journalists today are also entertainers. That seems to support my position, unless you are going to start looking for pure-blood Scotsmen with DNA tests to prove it.

@erislover

Your evidence is how individuals vote.

My evidence (one piece of it actually) shows how a group looks when individuals in it vote. Again we agree that a particular journalist can be unbiased. The same way a Japanese man can be 6’10". Or even 6’0". Or a card being pulled out of a deck can very well be a club.

@erislover

I hope I would avoid such generalizations as the basis of an argument without having a theory for why these organizations would show the bias in the first place. Do you have any ideas about this?

Already shared. Reread.

@erislover

Which position is that, exactly?

That large groups will, absent incontrovertible proof to the contrary, tend to be unbiased.

@erislover

Um, that’s a stretch.

No it’s not.

@erislover

I was quite vocal about it.

Oh really? Well maybe you hit delete inadvertently. Or maybe I missed it. Perhaps you’d be so good as to point me to you being “quite vocal about it”.

@erislover

No, but part of the thread was dealing with academic papers.

It might be helpful if you actually read the cites if you’re going to comment on them. And then comment on them more fully. But maybe that’s just me.

@erislover

Why is that comical?

If you didn’t get it, I going to go out on a limb and conclude that’ it’s not worth explaining it to you.
erislover, you can either change the tone of your posts by dialing down both the disingenuousness and captiousness or we can leave this discussion here and you can claim victory. Either way, I won’t likely be back to tomorrow. Either way is fine with me.

[GIGObuster]

@magellan01

Oh, please. Feel free to take your lance and mighty slope-back steed and start YET ANOTHER endless thread about global warming. In fact, go on to Horowitz’s site and contact all the colleges and universities who signed his E-V-I-L Academic Bill of Rights. Just think of all those young fresh minds entrusted to those institutions of higher learning that may be in CAHOOTS with Horowitz. Quick, there’s not a second to waste…Global Warming Denialists are being created as you breathe.

:rolleyes:

The endless fact remains that denial of climate science is indeed at creationist levels with people like Horowitz.

When Horowitz follows the conspiracy theories and denies the science he deserves to be called an idiot in public and undeserving of any support.

What do the 'Climategate' hacked CRU emails tell us?

And it is easy to find the trash he spouts just by looking at his freedom center and looking for global warming, when that is one of the points he claims to be a flash point of academic freedom he is a liar, he is indeed denying science and evidence, falling so easily for that very important item shows me that one can not trust everything else regarding academic “freedom”

[magellan01]

@GIGObuster

The endless fact remains that denial of climate science is indeed at creationist levels with people like Horowitz.

When Horowitz follows the conspiracy theories and denies the science he deserves to be called an idiot and undeserving of any support.

What do the 'Climategate' hacked CRU emails tell us?

Let’s stay more on topic. What do you deserve to be called by trying to turn every fucking thread into a debate about global warning?

Please, inquiring minds MUST know!!!

Now go run along at right those letters to all those universities that now are part of Horowitz/s evil plan…BWWAAAAHHAHAHAHa…before they indoctrinate those pure, young, fresh minds who will be our future leaders making energy policy. How can you sit there and peck away on a message board when the heating up and all life will cease to exist!!! Get a move on, man…it’s almost as if you don’t believe it’s that much of a threat.

[GIGObuster]

@magellan01

Let’s stay more on topic. What do you deserve to be called by trying to turn every fucking thread into a debate about global warning?

Please, inquiring minds MUST know!!!

Now go run along at right those letters to all those universities that now are part of Horowitz/s evil plan…BWWAAAAHHAHAHAHa…before they indoctrinate those pure, young, fresh minds who will be our future leaders making energy policy. How can you sit there and peck away on a message board when the heating up and all life will cease to exist!!! Get a move on, man…it’s almost as if you don’t believe it’s that much of a threat.

Meh, as it is clear you did not paid attention about how this subject is treated in academia, climate change deniers are considered as creationists by the vast majority in the academic world, the academic world already knows how idiotic is to bring that item to be part of the “academic freedom” he is “defending”, I’m only letting you know that they have yet another reason why to dismiss Horowitz.

In essence, you are even too late on the show of support you are giving to people like Horowitz, the fight is already in the past tense.

[What_the]

@Fear_Itself

Define “most prominent”.

Feel free to use the most liberal definition that you want to.