Obama vs Fox News; does the US media have a left wing bias?

It's not *nice* to point out contradictions.

You have just discredit ever thing else you have said.

I don't agree with his ideas that's all you need to know

Oh please like other networks have never done that one before

Yeah ABC, NBC, CBS, BBC, CNN, MSNBC they all do puff piece. You have anything else?

They have had critiques of Obama and his administration and ever time they bring it up ie Healthcare ie the spending bill they were called EVIL. In fact I seem to recall that they were the only network to even give a voice to the people who went to the tea partys. All the other networks call the people racists. Forget about the fact that there are Black people that don't like Obama. I can even name you a black person that is not a fan of Obama Larry Elder.

Brian Williams is good at reading a telepromter to. Heck so is Obama. So what is you're point?

You mean the group that was getting tax payer money and willing to do illegal things with it?

They gave coverage to the tea parties because they sponsored them. In fact in the lead up to it they had a banner with, "Fox News' Tea Parties,' on it. Hardly what I'd call giving a voice to a small movement when they themselves supported it. I believe that could fall into the category of astroturfing. As for being called 'evil'. I don't remember newscasters calling them evil. But more heartless. And to support private industry on healthcare is kind of heartless when so many people are suffering. Yes, I know your stance is, "Gotta get mine!" But we can't all think that way.

You haven't watched enough of Fox News in any kind of objective way. You need to stretch beyond the sources of media you are availing yourself of. I really don't know how to put it. There have scandals with Fox News stories with every host at every hour. Let's start with Chris Wallace for this post. Did the Veteran's Administration publish a pamphlet that was a "death book" that would tell veterans to kill themselves to save money? We report, you decide.



I know because Media Matters has an agenda, giving video clips of Fox News's own broadcast with "journalist" Chris Wallace, so the facts have a liberal bias too!

And I have a 100 more from Fox that does not include Hannity, O'Reilly, Greta, or Beck.

As for the teleprompter, my point was that many news figures have little to nothing to do with research for what they are reading and do not write or review what they will say on air. Personally I have a sneaking suspicion Wolf Blitzer is the same way.

Because news figures are oftentimes that way, Chris Wallace and Brit Hume wouldn't be injecting as much of the BS they give credibility now on Fox News like the Death Book clip in the link above.

They gave coverage to the tea parties because they sponsored them.

They never sponsored any of them. Nice try though.


In fact in the lead up to it they had a banner with, "Fox News' Tea Parties,' on it. Hardly what I'd call giving a voice to a small movement when they themselves supported it. I believe that could fall into the category of astroturfing.



As for being called 'evil'. I don't remember newscasters calling them evil. But more heartless. And to support private industry on healthcare is kind of heartless when so many people are suffering. Yes, I know your stance is, "Gotta get mine!" But we can't all think that way.

I think you need to recheck the definition of sponsor:

Fox News used its television programs to advertise a political (tea) party.

Yeah, it's like you're not even trying anymore. At least if you're going to continue not having a point, facts, reality, or anything else on your side you can still keep making those asinine points about costs. Those are always fun to pick apart.

Fact: Foxnews did blatantly support the tea parties in their coverage.

Reality: [see above]

Anything else: [see above my post to Jediflyer's and anyone else's above yours]

~fin~

An interesting study from UCLA 2005

"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...

I'd need to see the actual report, but from the link you've provided, there are significant methodological problems with the study design which would invalidate the claims made. Now, before anyone accuses me of "teh liberal bias", I've conducted two studies in critical care medicine at a major research university and teach graduate courses in research methods.

First, in terms of variable definition, "voting on the liberal side" is far too vague and open to misinterpretation. You would need to explicitly validate what constitutes liberalism (in itself a problematic term), let alone the "liberal side". Second, there is no reported justification for assuming 50.1 corresponds to the average American voter. That's just fiat, which may be useful for the purposes of collecting data, but doesn't translate into internal or external validity. Third, there is no reported reason or justification for using ADA scores - the study authors themselves indicate that no one would have thought to use them. This raises significant questions of validity; they would need to show that the metric itself is a valid measure.

This depends on the subjective perceptions of the student raters, which is not a guarantee of accuracy. First, there is potential skew in what constitutes a reference to a think tank or policy group. This requires a strict operational definition for this variable, and no such definition was reported. Second, in order to ensure that there isn't a skew introduced by the rater (the student in question), you would need to establish interrater reliability (the idea that two or more raters both agree that the phenomenon in question occurred). Third, the article does not disclose the list of resources examined; the media outlet pool may suffer from a selection bias.

These kind of issues can explain why counter-intuitive conclusions like Lieberman being left of center and conservative media outlets leaning left we reached - the raters themselves may be reflecting their *opinions* on the sources being rated, rather than anything intrinsic to the raters themselves. I don't know what kind of research experience (as in formal training in research methodology) Groseclose has, but there would seem to be confounds in his data colle

This is pretty long, but here is what I believe is the study itself: Link

I'm not sure where I stand on the study, but I find it intriguing nonetheless.

As the pdf is 47 pages, I can't go through it now (I'm working my way through final exams and papers). I'll take a look when I have more free time.

EDIT:

Just giving it a quick scan, I came across this, which made me raise my eyebrows:

I'm not sure how methodologically sound that is. Again, I'll have to give this more time later.

In other words, what matters is not so much the statistical trends in a statistical analysis, but the statistical trends within statistical analyses.

Unfortunately as we all know, the uber-secret scientific society of scientists -- the liberal neo-Freemasons -- direct the outcomes of the mean of statisical analyses, so the only ones that count are the ones whose results you prefer.

And knowing is half the battle.

It's nice how you only like to see you're side. Now I remember why I don't like respond to you're posts. Thanks for reminding me.

So are you arguing in favor of the study or are you saying that most statistics are bull****? Therefore, depending on your political sway, the media will be leftist or rightist or "center." The "truth" is unattainable?

The funny thing about the idea behind "nothing is true" is that it is...self-defeating. nothing is true except some things...but maybe not....except that it's true...but nothing is true--truthfully.

I'm not incapable of seeing other perspectives on things; it's just that your 'side' has no logic behind it that's in any definable way that could be considered sane. You'd have to be blind and deaf to even try to counter some of the points that were made about Foxnews. But if you wanna hide behind that faux offended crap, feel free to. Just don't be surprised when no one takes anything you say seriously.

Statistics are crap in general. Or at least they shouldn't be as credible as some people make them out to be. You can slant a study or poll in any direction you want and then say, "I have the answer!" And people will take you seriously, because of the false assumption that numbers never lie. Also, when it comes to perspectives on the 'bias' of the news it really depends on your slant. Unless it's blatant.

Which means it's probably saying something if most journalists do in fact, lean left in the US. It doesn't mean you can't trust the news, it just lends weight to the idea that most news media in the US has a left of center slant.

At this point I'm willing to believe that they care more about ratings than political ideology. And the best way to drum up those ratings is to report on controversial issues. That or appeal to the idiots of this nation by covering the tea parties with tacit financial support.

Well they definitely seem to care more about ratings. Maybe not the journalists themselves (I think many of them are doing a wonderful public service or are at least attempting to). A lot of it has always seemed like a show to me. Other stations are just perhaps...better actors than Fox News.

So are you arguing in favor of the study or are you saying that most statistics are bull****? Therefore, depending on your political sway, the media will be leftist or rightist or "center." The "truth" is unattainable?

No, I'm saying for people to pay attention to the statistical trends within statistical analyses.

Russia Today's take on the Fox News/Anita Dunn/Obama administration junk.

I wonder why everybody but Fox has ignored the hacked e-mails that suggest that global warming is far from settled?

I tend not to take articles from Foxnews seriously when they begin with:

A mainstream news organization arguing against....mainstream news organizations.

Some say...

Media Research Center

Accuracy in Media


I see they stuck in the CMPA at the very end. Good group, conservative funded but much more scholarly than the quotes they decided to start the article off with.

Verdict: Fox news asks "media watchdogs" to gives their opinion on the Climate email controversy and then posts the most prurient ones as their lead to a "were so much better than the rest of the media" article.

Next up, Fox News the movie "It's a rip rolling summer blockbuster from start to finish" :Some critic.

To commit a metaphor, if quotes are the meat of an article, these are factory farmed, not wild game.