Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

This study is a long read but provides excellent ammunition against Fox News detractors and no-such-thing-as-liberal-bias fools.

The full study is available as Word .doc here - http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/MediaBias.doc

1 posted on 06/22/2004 9:25:42 AM PDT by Tamzee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 next last
To: Tamsey

And this should come as a surprise to anyone???

Atleast now we can assign some hard numbers to the bias...


2 posted on 06/22/2004 9:28:30 AM PDT by JR97FLYERS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tamsey
Cool read. I laughed my ass off at this part:

Since the New York Times is twice as far from the center as Fox News Special Report, to gain a balanced perspective, one would need to spend twice as much time watching Special Report as he or she spends reading the New York Times.

3 posted on 06/22/2004 9:33:40 AM PDT by ICX (Makin movies, makin songs, and fightin' round the world!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tamsey

What is interesting is that most media is so far to the left that the center looks right wing!


5 posted on 06/22/2004 9:38:36 AM PDT by Spok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Howlin; doodlelady; PhiKapMom; My2Cents; Peach; deport; BigSkyFreeper; cyncooper; DrDeb; ...
RPG's for the Media Bias War :-)

"Few studies provide an objective measure of the slant of news, and none has provided a way to link such a measure to ideological measures of other political actors. That is, none of the existing measures can say, for example, whether the New York Times is more liberal than Tom Daschle or whether Fox News is more conservative than Bill Frist. We provide such a measure. Namely, we compute an ADA score for various news outlets, including the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, the Drudge Report, Fox News Special Report, and all three networks nightly news shows."

Our results show a very significant liberal bias. All of the news outlets except Fox News Special Report received a score to the left of the average member of Congress. Moreover, by one of our measures all but three of these media outlets (Special Report, the Drudge Report, and ABCs World News Tonight) were closer to the average Democrat in Congress than to the median member of the House of Representatives. One of our measures found that the Drudge Report is the most centrist of all media outlets in our sample. Our other measure found that Fox News Special Report is the most centrist. These findings refer strictly to the news stories of the outlets. That is, we omitted editorials, book reviews, and letters to the editor from our sample."

Data impossible to dispute. An excellent study to read and keep handy...

6 posted on 06/22/2004 9:43:40 AM PDT by Tamzee (Noonan on Reagan, "...his leadership changed the world... As president, he was a giant.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tamsey

MSNBC.COM is the most biased, liberal POS on the web masquerading as a mainstream news site. They are currently in orgasmic throes over the Toon's book. Other breathless headlines. "UN says US Stealing Iraq money" "Bush losing support, now even with Kerry on the war issue" Blah blah blah blah. Straight from Seattle ultra ultra liberal land to you. What a crock.


9 posted on 06/22/2004 9:47:28 AM PDT by kinghorse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tamsey

And, here I'd been thinking that both FOX and Drudge were going to the Dark Side! LOL


10 posted on 06/22/2004 9:52:02 AM PDT by NavySEAL F-16 ("Proud to be a Reagan American")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tamsey

That's a great study. Wonder if Drudge knows about it?


11 posted on 06/22/2004 9:52:36 AM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Temple Owl

ping


12 posted on 06/22/2004 9:53:12 AM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: StarFan; Dutchy; Timesink; Gracey; Alamo-Girl; RottiBiz; bamabaseballmom; FoxGirl; Mr. Bob; ...
FoxFan ping!

Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my FoxFan list. *Warning: This can be a high-volume ping list at times.

15 posted on 06/22/2004 10:05:32 AM PDT by nutmeg (God bless President Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tamsey
Empirical evidence bump!
16 posted on 06/22/2004 10:07:22 AM PDT by Incorrigible (immanentizing the eschaton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tamsey

Excellent work. Drudge can really crow now.


18 posted on 06/22/2004 10:13:44 AM PDT by playball0
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tamsey

Easy enough to tell if a liberal network is balanced.

The conservative positions are well known and well published.

Measure how often those are mentioned, how completely they are explained, and whether the substance/tone was prejudiced.


22 posted on 06/22/2004 10:21:41 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army and Supporting Bush/Cheney 2004!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tamsey
Thank you indeed for posting this high quality study. I am impressed by the measure they use. While some folks will try to pick at it, the measure appears robust and objective.

It is interesting to note with regard to the argument that a free market would produce a relatively unbiased media that this point might still be right. As noted, the broadcast media was far from a free market. However, what could have also been noted is that for the past 50 or so years the newspaper business has also not really been free market as with circulation falling and papers going out of business, the barrier to new entry was very high. In those outlets where there is a free market (cable news, radio, internet, book publishing) the conservatives are holding their own or more. The reason the 'or more' is that the conservative fraction of the market was so badly served by the mainstream media.

23 posted on 06/22/2004 10:33:08 AM PDT by Ships of Wood, Men of Iron (Fighting the Law of Unintended Consequences is probably futile ..... sigh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tamsey

The New York Times is for liberal "intellectuals" who were educated beyond their intelligence.


27 posted on 06/22/2004 11:30:26 AM PDT by petercooper (Now, who's this Joe Mayo everyone's talking about?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tamsey

Thanks for posting, Tamsey. Great news!

I hope Brit is back today. It'll be a hoot to see the expression on his face if he reports this from the "Political Grapevine."


28 posted on 06/22/2004 11:43:43 AM PDT by RottiBiz (Help end Freepathons -- become a Monthly Donor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tamsey
This study is a long read but provides excellent ammunition against Fox News detractors and no-such-thing-as-liberal-bias fools.

Yeah, I just can't wait to throw "exp(aj + bj cm ) / ¡Æk=1J exp(ak + bk cm )" at them. Take that, Liberal scum!

30 posted on 06/22/2004 12:00:47 PM PDT by kevao
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tamsey
Do the major media outlets in the U.S. have a liberal bias? Few questions evoke stronger opinions, and we cannot think of a more important question to which objective statistical techniques can lend their service. So far, the debate has largely been one of anecdotes ("How can CBS News be balanced when it calls Steve Forbes tax plan wacky?") and untested theories ("If the news industry is a competitive market, then how can media outlets be systematically biased?".
Obviously that last untested theory "If the news industry is a competitive market" is wrong.

The news industry is competitive only in ways which do not cut the revenue of journalism as a whole. It's perfectly fair, in that world, to try to deliver the news faster than anyone else - what is considered unethical is to select the news on the basis of what is important and true rather than on the basis of what will sell the most papers.

Ironically, what sells the most papers is reports which call the safety of the reader into question. Which, IOW, implicitly make the case that the reader would be a helpless babe in the woods if not for the fearless reporter protecting him from otherwise unsuspected dangers. Such stories are inherently anti conservative, but the conservative public as well as the liberal public can't pass by the newsstand without reading that kind of story, even as he dissects it and ultimately dismisses it.


31 posted on 06/22/2004 12:09:17 PM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (Free Republic: the web site of record.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tamsey
There are many out there keeping an eye on the Media

Accuracy In Media
Media Research Center Home Page
The Orthodox Caucus
Watcher of Weasels : Upsaid journal
The Media Desk"MediaChannel.org Site"
Links to other Debunkers
Junkscience.com -- Main Page
Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting: The National Media Watch Group
WatchDog Watch
The Future of Freedom Foundation
HonestReporting.com - The Mideast media bias monitor
Front Line Voices
A Civil Rights Organization for Color Blind Justice
AlphaPatriot
Manhattan Institute Education Research Office
maxflackreport.com
The Iconoclast
mid-east media watch
AFP (Agence France Presse) Misinformation Desinformation
HonestReporting.com-Israel
Cursor's Media Transparency

CAMERA - Israel
beirut calling
Sofia Sideshow - Bulgaria
Baltic Blog
The Daily Czech
Inside Europe: Iberian Notes
Biased BBC
The Russian Dilettante's Weblog
UK Conservative Commentary
Wog Blog Australia
the dissident frogman
Live from Brussels
lgf: the past is dust
Merde in France
Cose Turche-Italian media
Jihad Unspun - A Clear View On The US War On "Terrorism"
pragueBlog
32 posted on 06/22/2004 12:09:52 PM PDT by walford (http://utopia-unmasked.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Allan

Bump


40 posted on 06/22/2004 4:08:34 PM PDT by Allan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Not to split hairs here, but when the report says that it only counts references to think tanks in news stories etc, doesn't that exclude a whole lot from say Fox News? Don't editorials, letters to the editor, etc, have something to say about the content, reputation, and slant of a media organization? Take this example--a web site has news stories reporting the latest news on the war in Iraq...but then the rest of the site is dedicated to lambasting the policies in Iraq. According to this report the web site is only evaluated on the basis of its news stories, not the actual de facto aim of the site.

Secondly, isn't citation of a think tank, or mention of a think tank an overly simplistic measure? I don't know much about statistics, but this seems to make little sense to me. If I mention my friend Joe on numerous occasions, does that mean I have a Joe slant? Or is it perhaps what I think you want to hear about? Or, maybe, Joe does a lot more things that I can talk about than say Sally.

I don't know...one study with such stretches of logic seems like less of a silver bullet than a shotgun blast.
49 posted on 07/15/2004 9:28:56 PM PDT by Other Opinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson