The study is right here. You can read it yourself. And, what about the evidence don’t you find compelling other than the fact that you seem to want not to believe it?
Well, you seem to just want to ignore the evidence. The idea that the corporate ownership of media will lead it to have a right-wing bias on economic issues is a plausibility argument, I admit, not an airtight proof that it will necessarily be so. But, it is a pretty strong plausibility argument and there is other evidence that it holds true, as documented by groups like FAIR.
And, I don’t see how we are “enablers of the current system for injecting opinion into news reporting” any more than you are. You are presupposing your conclusion, i.e., that there is a left-wing bias being injected into the media and then saying that those of us who point out why the bias is really more to the right (at least on economic issues) are enabling a left-wing bias. This is ridiculous!
Particularly telling in this regard is the discussion from Eric Alterman’s site about the explicit strategy of “working the refs” by claiming the media to be liberal so that it actually bends over backwards to favor you:
Oh, yeah, and here and here a piece from The American Prospect that argues against Goldberg’s claim (repeated in this thread in a slightly varied form by lucwarm) that conservatives are more likely to be labeled by the media as such than liberals. He argues roughly:
(1) That it may not be a fair comparison since “liberal” itself has been successfully turned into a dirty word in American politics in a way that “conservative” has not. (Extending his logic, I would say that you don’t need to use “ultra-liberal” because “liberal” is already often used or interpretted in a derogatory or dismissive sense.)
Do you realize that we have spent more than one page here debating this supposed example of media bias and noone has actually gone and read the original article, as far as I can tell!?! Well, I have a suggestion for you—Don’t let John Carroll do all the interpretting for you. Go and read the freakin’ article yourself. It will cost you $2.50 but I think it is worth it. I just read it and I think that Carroll went way overboard here. Perhaps one could quibble about whether the writer gave a perfectly balanced portrayal but certainly the impression left by reading the Carroll memo is inaccurate in many respects.
I won’t try to go through Carroll’s memo point-by-point, but here is one example of what Carroll says vs. how the article reads:
Well, the whole freakin’ article is basically about a political issue and the political bent of people on the other side is mentioned too. The article doesn’t really present a lot of scientific arguments in detail on either side. Nonetheless, Carroll must have missed these two paragraphs in the article:
This in fact is the only real scientific details given in the article since the evidence against the link is only talked about, not explained:
So, my claim is that if you want to debate this specific case of media bias, then go to the original source. Debating on the basis of Carroll’s memo is ridiculous. I am embarrassed that I let myself by dragged in this far before going back to the original article! Live and learn!
I’m not sure what your point is, but I think you’re saying that extreme conservatives get more press coverage than extreme liberals.
I think I have a way to check your explanation – we could look up the number of times Teddy Kennedy is referred to and the percentage of those times he’s described as an ultra-liberal. Then we could do the same thing for Jesse Helms, except seeing how often he’s referred to as an “ultra-conservative.”
Sound like a fair test?
**
I don’t really see how. Especially since I would define ultra-conservative in analogous terms. Anyway, if you object to my definition, why not offer your own?
**
That may be so, but bias in favor of certain big businesses and liberal bias on various issues, such as gun control and abortion can co-exist. So to point out the former does not disprove the existence of the latter.
For what it’s worth, I did some simple NEXIS searches a year or two ago and found that American newspapers were far more likely to use phrases like “far right” and “ultraconservative” than “far left” and “ultraliberal.”
Note that comparing “far left” and “far right” seems to answer any objections about the word “liberal.”
By the way, it might surprise you to learn that I consider myself to be very liberal. Nevertheless, I try to look at things objectively. And IMHO, it’s pretty clear that many American newspapers and TV news shows have a liberal bias on certain issues.
I see a big ol’ poll where reporters are asked to self-identify attitudes. Not a single link to any actual reporting. I repeat, with emphasis on the issues I cited above, there’s a conspicuous lack of evidence of any “right-wing bias” when it comes to “economic issues”.**
The FAIR poll is not a concrete example of anything.**
“Pretty strong plausibility argument” is not documentation of anything. These claims appear to be nothing more than an attempt to distract debate from the frequent complaints about reporters injecting left-of-center bias into what should be straight news reporting.**
This smacks heavily of denial and belief in conspiracy theory. Let’s face it, both the right and left wing would like to manipulate the news media wherever possible to get their messages out. The left has been historically successful in this regard in terms of networks and major newspapers. The right has had much of its recent impact in terms of talk radio and TV punditry. I think that’s why conservatives like Scylla are more complacent about the situation. They’ve got a vehicle for promoting right-wing views, as obnoxious as it is. That it isn’t even a vaguely honest attempt at reporting the news is not relevant, except to those who want news and not competing forms of bias. Folks like you have enabled the current system. Frankly, it’s very late in the game to expect success in reforming it.
No, i disagree that Teddy is an extreme liberal. Ralph Nader would be a better test, but he has a Party affiliation to get associated with. If Jesse Helms was in the Dixicrats or some other weird third party he’d be refered as that most of the time. Maybe Micheal Moore would work.
My objection was that you seemed to think that people who supported a large amount of liberal policies and wanted them implemented (which what else would someone who supports them want??) was suddenly ultra-liberal. That just sounds like a regular liberal. An ultra-liberal would be a socialist.
**
Yet bias works both ways, and the main claim is that the media as a whole is liberally biased, which doesn’t hold up when the parts are examined. No one is claiming the media isn’t biased in any direction, we are claiming it is not a giant liberal media conspiracy to destroy the right, regardless of what the right claim.
But you believe that Jesse Helms is an extreme conservative?
:rolleyes:
**
Part of the definition included an apparent desire for “large” changes. You and others seem to have ignored that.
In any event, to the extent that my approach turns an ordinary liberal into an extreme liberal, it does the same thing to conservatives. (As I suggested before!!)
Moreover, I really don’t see the point of arguing semantics on this point. If you have a problem with my definition, why not offer your own? I’m certainly not wedded to my definition.
**
My claim is that many American newspapers and TV news shows have a liberal bias on certain issues. Do you disagree with this?
**
Gah. Nothing like a nice juicy strawman to start the week, eh?
Jackmanni, you have an amazing ability to assume your conclusion and then interpret anything you see in light of it.
Go to the freakin’ FAIR website (and presumably also www.whatliberalmedia.com ) and read. They have plenty of example of bias in reporting. Hell, don’t just stick to economic issues. Look at the Iraq war. Look at how the inspectors were “kicked out of Iraq” in 1998; look how well-documented stories reported in several newspapers quoting officials in both the U.S. government and the UN that there were spies on the UNSCOM inspection team somehow had transformed in 2002 and 2003 back into simply allegations made by a crazy dictator (Saddam).
Try to figure out why (as I just found in another thread) there seem to be lots of people out there who are completely unfamiliar with what happened with the “felon list” that was compiled by the State of Florida and used to strike thousands of voters, incorrectly identified as ineligible (and high percentage poor and black) from the voter roles.
I’m sure you can also find of examples (that I dimly remember reading) such as how well NBC has covered stories of parent-owner GE’s controversy regarding the cleanup of PCBs in the Hudson but I leave that as an exercise to the reader.
[I feel I have made some progress with you since in previous threads on the subject, you didn’t even seem to understand the concept of a liberal approach to economic issues. I.e., an attitude of “We all believe in the innate goodness of complete corporate domination of our lives.” You are a living example of how utterly narrow and right-tilted the whole spectrum of discussion is on economic issues.]
I mean all that these silly conservative rants I hear about media bias come up with is things like “This host asked this conservative a challenging question” (ignoring when they do the same sort of thing with liberal guests) or “this report seems biased to us or did to this particular editor” or “the word ‘ultra-conservative’ appears more than the word ‘ultra-liberal’.” (But don’t, for heaven’s sake actually try to document the think-tanks [and their ideological position] that reporters actually quote in their stories like FAIR does.)
I would regard an “ultra liberal” as someone who thinks it’s OK for 13-year-olds to have sex while an “ultra conservative” is someone for whom it is not OK for unmarried persions to have sex at all.
Using this (very narrow) yardstick, who in politics is an ultra liberal?
I think someone suipporting confederate organizations and ideals would qualify an extreme conservative. Thurman would not since he renounced those ideals. Lott is on the swing based soley on his public speaking record (and attempts to weasle out of), but i think he’d be classified as extreme more often than not by his record.
As i said previously, large changes just means you are a standard liberal/conservative (since that would be your point of view). moderates leaning left or right would have small scale changes in mind depending on their issues. Ultras want their way or the highway, there is no compromise.
i did, but i see you are using your stellar reading skills you display in the genetics thread and missing everything important. I wasn’t even attacking you when i first responded, just replying, you had to take it to a higher level.
[quote]
My claim is that many American newspapers and TV news shows have a liberal bias on certain issues. Do you disagree with this?
[/quote
No one is disagreeing with that, with the variety of news organizations out there, of course some pieces will be slanted in different directions. but THAT IS NOT THE ARGUEMENT! the argement is the media as a whole is a giant liberal talking point, which is not the case as demenstrated constantly in this thread. Try arguing the actual issues sometime, maybe you’ll get some respect.
dismissing the whole argument the right makes as a strawman does not further this thread.
i await your repsonse where you fail to understand anything i said here, repeat the same tired arguement that has nothing to do with the OP, and try lawyer semantics.
You seemed to be making an argument about the definition I proposed. In any event, you used the phrase “my objection” in reference to the discussion of my definition.
And by the way, if you want to make this personal, please take it to the Pit.
**
Puh-lease. Here’s what you said:
(emphasis supplied)
Now, here’s the question – where did I EVER suggest that there is a “giant liberal media conspiracy to destroy the right”?
Let’s face reality: You set up a strawman there.
**
Look, if you post vague and incomprehensible arguments, I will point it out. If you think my arguments are irelevant, feel free to point it out. And if by “lawyer semantics” you mean pointing out the flaws in your arguments, well, I’m happy to oblige.
It seems to be useless to point out that all the FAIR links so far (and the ones triumphantly cited in the past) are paraphrased claims based on stories which are never linked to or even substantially quoted. In other words, no beef…**
“I’m sure you can find examples” != “There’s proof!”**
Sorry to disillusion you, but I still don’t see how the existence of corporations translates to Triumph Of The Right Wing. All God’s chillun like to make money in variously rapacious ways.**
Thanks. I try to be a standard-bearer wherever possible. :D**
I’ll close by agreeing with you…at least the part about anyone ranting about how something they saw on “Face The Nation” exemplifies media bias (since the expression of opinion in clearly labeled discussion formats is not to be equated with reporting of the news). I personally could not care if news anchors and correspondents editorialized nightly. I wish they would.
Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol told The New Yorker “The whole idea of the ‘liberal media’ was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures.”
That is not a fair asessment, at least as it applies to me.
The optimum situation is that all news sources are totally impartial. I however do not find that to be a realistic hope. The current situation is has both a major strength and a major weakness:
Weakness: Any idiot can find a single source to support his skewed worldview
Strength: There are enough varying sources and perspectives that in most instances a diligent individual can get a clear picture by comparing among multiple credible sources. In other words, if you look hard enough you can get a pretty accurate picture.
You didn’t, but as i said and you should have read, that wasn’t the thread’s arguement. Stop changing the arguement midstride, since the one you are argueing is not a debate. the debate is the media as a whole is a liberally biased machine. Do you not deny that is the point of the thread? Or will you suddenly claim not to understand what i said again?
my arguments are not vague, had you bothered to pay attention to the thread you would realize you are repsonding to my arguments with a completely different arguement that is not an argument at all. Stick to the OP or start your own thread.
What is the “thread’s argument”? And more importantly, if you concede that nobody claimed that there was a “giant liberal conspiracy,” why did you state the following:
“we are claiming it is not a giant liberal media conspiracy to destroy the right”
Clearly you were attacking a strawman.
And by the way, I notice that you did not respond to my earlier question, which I’ll repeat:
IS JESSE HELMS AN ULTRACONSERVATIVE OR NOT?
And I’ll repeat another question that you chose not to answer:
Where did you say, before your last couple posts, that “large changes just means you are a standard liberal/conservative”?
**
Look, if there is a general tendency among American newspapers to refer to conservative politicians in more extreme terms than liberal politicians, this is evidence of ‘liberal media bias’ as that phrase is generally understood. Why won’t you concede this obvious point?
**
I doubt it, but if you think so, why not summarize your argument and my response in a coherent fashion and explain where this disconnect is?
And if you believe that your arguments are logical, you might ask yourself why you need to dodge simple questions I put to you.
This “strength” should be a cause for continued concern.
First, few people have enough spare time to dig around multiple sources to find the kernels of truth amid all the blather and indoctrination attempts. The ones who depend on one or a few outlets end up making the voting decisions.
If you average out the squawkings on the Right and the hype on the Left, you do not magically arrive at Truth.
I am not entirely sure about this. Maybe the article should mention that there was such a study, but should an article on vCJD really mention that there once was consensus that nucleic acids were required for pathogenicity? If a study has been criticised to the point of being debunked, what useful information is given by citing it? Is saying ‘There once was strongly held belief there could not be such a thing as prions’ really helpful? And why is ‘There once was some data that suggested a link, but it is widely seen as inaccurate’ anything but creating unnecessary fears?
Yes, it is true of a lot of early research in many areas that it is flawed, but does that mean it should be regurgitated time and again, even if better data is available? When is it ok to say ‘In the early days, when this discipline was still a baby, crawling and stumbling around rather than taking determined steps forward, people had some strange ideas.’ Is there such a point? I don’t think it is a clear-cut question, and given the hue and cry that arose when Stanley Prusiner got the Nobel prize, it is one that comes up time and again.