Bias is so subtle and so pervasive, I’m not sure it’s possible to measure it. I was thinking about this the other night when I was watching (I think) 60 minutes. In a story about New Orleans soon after Katrina, the reporter refered to those who were in the city immediately after the storm as the people who had “been left behind” (or something very close to that). I thought “left behind”? What a biased thing to say. What if the reporter had said: “the people who failed to evacuate”? Wouldn’t that be equally accurate? Now, I’m not claiming the report was biased as a whole-- there could easily have been other references in the same reported tilting the other way. It just got me to thinking… how the hell would you go about measuring that kind of bias?
Anyway, just an observation. I wait for further comment until we get more details on the methodology of this study. As others have said, just mentioning a given group can’t be a sign of bias.
By the way, that previous thread I gave will also give you a link to the study, at least in some form. Here is another link where you can get the paper in various forms.
In answer to a question that many of have raised, I do think the authors instituted some check that the source was cited “approvingly,” or at least not negatively (although I don’t remember if this was done both on the Congressional side and the media side). Anyway, you can look up the details in the study.
We can certainly debate the premise elsewhere. For the moment, I assume you acknowledge a leftward bias in the media; you’re saying it’s appropriate because the administration leans right. I’m not here to debate the appropriateness, just the existence of the bias.
Again - not so much worried about whther the bias is proper or improper. Just seeking some evidence that it exists.
For purposes of this thread, I’ll gladly concede that a news provider should challenge its readers to broaden their preconceptions by showing them a different view of events.
Claims of bias usually tell more about the person making the claim than about the news outlet itself. Back when I was in college I researched accusations of bias made against the college newspaper and my hometown newspaper through the “letters to the editor”. Both papers were accused of being both left-wing and right-wing.
No, that would have been editorializing. It incorrectly implies that those people ever had any ability to evacuate or that they were still in the city voluntarily. “Left behind” is a perfectly accurate and unbiased description.
OKay, pages 10-11 cover when they would count a citation. It has to include a quote or other material produced by the group, and the group can’t be introduced by an ideological label (e.g., “Said the conservative Heritage Foundation” wouldn’t count). So it looks like stories about the groups don’t qualify unless they’re quoting the groups.
Interesting. I’m still not convinced that this is the best yardstick, for the reasons I gave in my first post, but it’s certainly an interesting study.
Of course it’s not because it assumes the people did NOT have the ability to evacuate, and it assumes that the people WANTED to evacuate. If someone refuses to evacuate, how can he accurately be described as haveing been “left behind”?
Well, no - whenever I watch CNN and the like I see an enormous right tilt compared to Reuters and the BBC. Whether it is so far right of the rest of the democratic world that it hits the US centre, I couldn’t say. Frankly, whenever I’ve spent anytime in the US I struggle to see anything I’d call “leftist”. This OP looks like two people on one end of a see-saw arguing whther the media sits on one or other side of the handle.
And to clarify, if referencing (or even the very mention of) an international body gains “leftist” points, then I’d suggest the study is fundamentally flawed.
First, I think you are exagerrating the bias here. “After a party at our house once, my roommates and I wanted to go eat breakfast, but because Chris wanted to sleep off his hangover, we left him behind.” There’s no problem with that sentence.
Second, even if there were, I think you might be experiencing observer bias. When they use a phrase that conforms to your understanding of events (e.g., if they refer to “those who remained”), you would be less likely to notice it, wouldn’t you?
Well taken point, which leads to the view that the media are NOT biased, relative to their individual audiences. Could it be that the audience is segmented, and the “liberal” media have a liberal audience?
I’m thinking there’s a lot that this survey doesn’t measure. Where’s Moveon.org on their list, for instance? In the past few years, they, along with Michael Moore and George Soros, have been a regular target of the right-wing media, receiving far more attention than, say, Handgun Control, Inc., which is on their list. How do those negative references show up?
Or take controversies that are basically right-wing inventions, be it Ward Churchill or the “war on Christmas.” How do you measure the fact that those issues got a lot of play, but when the House Democratic Whip holds a news conference on the minimum wage to get some play for what is a very real issue, it’s basically invisible?
I’m also wondering about who was rated. Where’s Rush Limbaugh, with his listenership in the tens of millions? Where’s ‘Christian’ TV and radio, with similarly large viewer/listenership? Those are a couple of pretty significant omissions, right there. Especially given that part of the liberal critique is that, assuming arguendo a liberal bias by the WaPo or the NY Times, it’s dwarfed by the conservative bias of these outlets that aren’t even aiming for balance, because they view themselves as part of a movement, while the left has no ‘movement’ media outside of Air America, which is still very much a fledgling operation.
I disagree: I think that the meaning of the phrase is vague, possibly but not necessarily being negative. I believe you read a negative meaning into it, but I’m not at all convinced that the reporter intended one.
I think you’re seeing bias too easily, although I agree that both descriptors are equally accurate. As I’ve said before, I’d rather keep a fairly high standard for calling a media source biased: it’s too easy to read bias in the entrails otherwise.
It’s hard to measure bias because it’s difficult to actualy quantify what is “left” or “right.” Is Lou Dobbs, for instance, on the left or right? He attacks legal and illegal immigration, which many conservatives support. However, there is also a substantial portion of the conservative movement that is very pro-immigration. He also attacks corporations for a variety of perceived sins. This is a very liberal thing to do, although some conservatives also support this.
Similarly, how would you label a story quoting Republican Congressman Butch Otter attacking the Patriot Act? It’s a strongly conservative Republican Congressman disagreeing with Bush.
The study also fails, in my opinion, because it merely measures how the media quotes organizations and elected officials. To truly study media bias it’s also necessary to study how reporters report a story. For example, I was reading the Washington Post today and there was a story on ANWR. It quoted an opponent of ANWR and labled him as somone who was trying to “preserve the refuge.” While accurate, it’s also as accurate to say that he was “opposed to energy exploration” or “opposed to economic development.”
Similarly, there is also a case of bias when you examine what the reporter chooses not to say. For instance, it’s very rare that you see a story on legislation that gives any weight to view that it’s not the government’s business to be involved in this area. On Medicare stories you have reports on differences between the President’s prescription drug plan and the Democrat prescription drug plan, but rarely do you hear any mention that perhaps the government shouldn’t be providing perscription drugs at all. How can this be measured?