Hey, ya'll check this out !! Perfect for campaign speeches......
Posted on 09/17/2002 3:56:39 AM PDT by kattracks
(CNSNews.com) - In a new book that will be released later this month, a Dartmouth College professor claims the news media ignore far-left, moderate and conservative viewpoints in favor of a "narrow brand of liberal bias."
Author Jim A. Kuypers, a senior lecturer at the Ivy League college, said he had no political agenda when conducting his research of nearly 700 newspaper articles from 116 publications. He called the results of his study surprising and warned of the consequences on American society.
"I didn't set out to look for a particular type of bias and I took steps to ensure I didn't impose my preconceptions," Kuypers said. "What I found was a narrow brand of liberal bias with the mainstream media."
The book, "Press Bias and Politics: How the Media Frame Controversial Issues," is a compilation of Kuypers' research on six prominent speeches between 1995 and 2000. He first obtained copies of the speeches and then compared their objectives with their coverage in the news media.
"I did not honestly believe the level of bias and misrepresentation would be as deep and terrible as it was," he said.
Kuypers analyzed two speeches by then-President Clinton on race and human rights, comments U.S. Sen. Trent Lott made on homosexuality, remarks by Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan at the Million Man March, a speech condemning homosexuality by former football star Reggie White and an Alabama state senator's remarks on the Confederate flag.
As part of his findings, Kuypers said liberal opinions from editorials and news analyses often found their way into straightforward news reports. He speculated that the culture of news organizations was partly to blame.
The head of a media watchdog group, Accuracy in Media, agreed with Kuypers' findings.
"I've seen no difference and no great change in the last decade or last two decades," chairman Reed Irvine said. "The journalists -- the people who are editing and writing for papers -- are still overwhelmingly liberal."
Irvine has been studying the news media since the 1970s. He said the press continues to display liberal characteristics just as it did 30 years ago.
In fact, he said that bias is probably more expansive today, citing the rise in coverage of race and homosexuality -- the two issues that were the primary focus of Kuypers' study.
But Steve Rendall, a senior analyst for Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting, another media watchdog group, said the press has done a poor job covering many social issues, including race and homosexuality.
Rendall cited a study conducted by his organization that showed reporters in the nation's capital lean to the right when covering many issues.
"When it comes to foreign policy and the economy, the U.S. media have a long way to go before they reach a standard of fairness and accuracy," he said. "On issues such as race and homosexuality, there may have been some progress in recent years, but we would say they have a long way to go on those issues as well."
Mainstream journalists routinely ignore or do a mediocre job covering issues such as consumer rights, environmental matters and topics related to the poor and minorities, Rendall said.
"The right-wing and conservative movements are well represented and the center is well represented," he said. "What's not well represented are progressive movements."
Kuypers said he anticipates criticism, but defended his methods. He said they are clearly outlined in the book and allow readers to conduct their own analysis if they wish.
"I just don't give examples of what I think is bias," he said. "I outlined how I was going to look for bias in such a way that others can do this as well."
The only thing readers might disagree with is his conclusion, Kuypers said. He ends the book by issuing a warning that biased reporting could endanger democracy by presenting only a narrow viewpoint.
"I'm scared for the state of democracy in this country in terms of how the press interacts," Kuypers said. "They are, in my opinion, an anti-democratic institution because they stifle alternative voices and paint an incredibly inaccurate picture of issues and ideas."
E-mail a news tip to Robert B. Bluey.
Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.
FGS
Hey, ya'll check this out !! Perfect for campaign speeches......
"In a new book that will be released later this month, a Dartmouth College professor claims the news media ignore far-left, moderate and conservative viewpoints in favor of a 'narrow brand of liberal bias."
Where to start?
The first sentence of the first paragraph tells everyone *why* this was published, to begin with.
Be that as it may, & curiously enough, the last sentence of the first paragraph also tells (the discriminating reader) why they should go no further with this bilge.
Why am I so *hard* on the good professor?
I take great exception to the man's findings that the Lamestream favors a, "narrow brand of liberal bias" for starters.
*Narrow* he says??
HA!!
Perhaps the view is the result of the good professor wearing some narrow, rose-colored glasses while conducting the "research" producing this absurd conclusion.
Always remember what the Loveable Fuzzball has said about the Lamestream media, today:
"Miss catching ABC Tonight? Turn to NBC. Miss NBC's news, Turn to CBS. Miss CBS' broadcast, turn to CNN..."
~& I *do* believe Maja Rushie has applied this little axiom to the print media, too??
That my dear frind, is NOT a "narrow *brand* of Liberal bias."
That, "IS" a Liberal-Socialist domination.
"Author Jim A. Kuypers, a senior lecturer at the Ivy League college, said he had no political agenda when conducting his research of nearly 700 newspaper articles from 116 publications."
Baloney.
Could say, "Beware of Greeks bearing gifts," "Fool me once your fault, fool me twice YOUR fault" but, you get the idea.
This guy has an *agenda* like anyone else; and, in this case?
It'd be SELLING HIS LOUSY BOOK to people like you & I on the right.
"He called the results of his study surprising and warned of the consequences on American society."
Do ya think; huh, do ya, *professor*?
"'I didn't set out to look for a particular type of bias and I took steps to ensure I didn't impose my preconceptions,' Kuypers said. 'What I found was a narrow brand of liberal bias with the mainstream media.'"
"Professors" say a lot of things; in fact, *professors* are paid rather well for doing little more than blabbering ad nauseum; REGARDLESS, the facts [read: RESULTANT OUTCOME(s)] that're right in front of their (usually long) noses.
"The book, 'Press Bias and Politics: How the Media Frame Controversial Issues,'"...
Is rediculous, redundent & gawdawful simplistic in that he's telling us what we already know; &, then imagines we'd now pay for to hear this from him?
This guy's been talking (waaayyy too much) to his buddies in the Dartmouth's School of Business & Marketing, it's plain to see.
They've apparently told the *good* professor he could generate *himself* some coin with this bullcocka to augment whateverinthehell they're paying him now (to "teach") by "playing to the right."
"'I did not honestly believe the level of bias and misrepresentation would be as deep and terrible as it was,' he said.
>doink!<
Welcome to the future, *Professor*.
"Kuypers analyzed two speeches by then-President Clinton on race and human rights, comments U.S. Sen. Trent Lott made on homosexuality, remarks by Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan at the Million Man March, a speech condemning homosexuality by former football star Reggie White and an Alabama state senator's remarks on the Confederate flag."
Let's review a condensed version of *how* our Liberal-Socialist quisling media friends approached these speeches, OK?
I'll simply use the topic of the speech next to the person's name & ideological affiliation giving the speech, to deduce the real *message*, OK?
William Jefferson Blythe Clinton -- Liberal 'Rat -- Race & Human Rights -- *Good*
US Sen Trent Lott -- 'Pubbie -- Homosexuality -- Homophobe
Louis Farrakhan -- *Enlightened* -- FREEDOM -- *Good*
Reggie White -- Minister of God -- Oppression -- *Bad*
'Bama State Sen -- Confederate Flag -- RACIST! -- *bad*
There're ten thousand more examples; but, why bother.
Looks like the *good* professor isn't aware of who sits on the editorial boards of the nation's majors starting with the worst of 'em all, The New York Slimes.
Well, we do, eh?
It's what the [read: our] fighting's all about, huh.
"As part of his findings, Kuypers said liberal opinions from editorials and news analyses often found their way into straightforward news reports. He speculated that the culture of news organizations was partly to blame."
Huh. This guy's *speculating*, is he?
This Liberal-Socialist manipulation just wandered in off the streets & onto the front pages??
Is that right?
Guess I'll have to go out on the limb here & do some translating 'lest someone miss this subtle attempt to slide some real *ThinkSpeak* past us??
"The culture of *news* organizations" = "Liberal-Socialist."
"The head of a media watchdog group, Accuracy in Media, agreed with Kuypers' findings."
What the hell was AIM gonna say?
"'I've seen no difference and no great change in the last decade or last two decades,' chairman Reed Irvine said. 'The journalists -- the people who are editing and writing for papers -- are still overwhelmingly liberal.'"
Now, when Reed Irving writes a book we'll have some red meat & not Kuyper's awful tasting print-laxative.
"Irvine has been studying the news media since the 1970s. He said the press continues to display liberal characteristics just as it did 30 years ago."
Does *Proffessor* Kuyper know about the provenance of the media he claims to have, "researched," is the question. < /sarc>
"In fact, he said that bias is probably more expansive today, citing the rise in coverage of race and homosexuality -- the two issues that were the primary focus of Kuypers' study."
Yup; nevermind Kuyper's ignoring the blatant Anti-American & America-hating crap we've had to endure over the past decade.
Odd this *professor* focused (restricted?) his "research" on those two areas, alone.
~Just coincidental, I'm sure.
"But Steve Rendall, a senior analyst for Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting, another media watchdog group, said the press has done a poor job covering many social issues, including race and homosexuality."
Rendall cited a study conducted by his organization that showed reporters in the nation's capital lean to the right when covering many issues."
HA!!
Should the Rendall miscreant join the ranks of the *good* professor insofar as writing a book on the topic?
Safe to say it's be one to skip; IF, this clown can make a statement as patently absurd as that.
Which, he does.
"'The right-wing and conservative movements are well represented and the center is well represented,' he said. 'What's not well represented are progressive movements.'"
Well represented??
Talk Radio??
Get a life, *professor*.
BTW: "Progressive" means Liberal-Socialist and everyone (by now) knows that much, imbecile.
Ms Rendall?
How about speaking plain english because you come off sounding like a real coward, pedestrian-grade Liberal-Socialist hack.
"Kuypers said he anticipates criticism, but defended his methods. He said they are clearly outlined in the book and allow readers to conduct their own analysis if they wish."
The *good* professor should be extremely pleased, then.
I for one, wouldn't dream of disappointing this guy.
"'I just don't give examples of what I think is bias,' he said. 'I outlined how I was going to look for bias in such a way that others can do this as well.'"
Bless your pointed little head, comrade.
"The only thing readers might disagree with is his conclusion, Kuypers said. He ends the book by issuing a warning that biased reporting could endanger democracy by presenting only a narrow viewpoint."
It's *not* a "narrow viewpoint," professor!!
The Liberal-Socialist's POV is the ONLY viewpoint.
"I'm scared for the state of democracy in this country in terms of how the press interacts,' Kuypers said. 'They are, in my opinion, an anti-democratic institution because they stifle alternative voices and paint an incredibly inaccurate picture of issues and ideas."
Anti-democratic, sure; but, according to you?
The *threat's* a, "narrow one."
...& you, professor, narrow minded in the extreme.
"I don't buy it. The Media definately doesn't ignore far left and moderate viewpoints."
Depends upon how you define "far left"...in the Higher Education lexicon, "far left" most likely includes Absolute Socialism wherein private property rights/ownership are abolished altogether, all income is the central bureaucracy's to distribute as they see fit, etc. ...while that may be the Lib'rals ultimate goal, liberals believe on getting there incrementally, so the "liberal viewpoint" is simply growing the Federal Leviathan to some point just to the Left of the status quo. Then, when that is established as the status quo, liberals argue for something incrementally just to the Left of that, and so on and so on!!
It's the boiled frog theory and the Vast, LeftWing Medyuh Whore'd ignores those viewpoints wherein proponents of Absolute Socialism advocate their views becuz it would startle the Sheeple outta their apathy.
As for ignoring "moderate viewpoints," there ain't no moderate position on anything...they're just spineless Lib'rals who are ashamed to admit that they are in favor of an ever-expanding Federal Leviathan!!
FReegards...MUD
FReegards...MUD
I get a hangover just looking at that...LOL!!
FReegards...MUD
Bingo...give that man a cee-gar!!
FReegards...MUD
They do look most potent, don't they? 
HA!!
In a word this acadamian clown's angle can be summized: "Brill's Content," eh?
Didn't work then & it won't work now.
I'm afraid this one's gonna be "teaching" for a very, long time until he learns HOW to conduct a honest, UNbias research project.
Which assumes he's hell-bent on writing another book; so, he can retire to get the hell away from the "Mecca" of Liberal-Socialism, Dartmouth, he's now stuck at for the rest of his working life? :o)
...& you will be sending a *box* of cee-gars soon enough, my friend. ;^)
Now...pretend that this prof's sincere and see what you think about the analysis (in #44) of why he feels the "Far Left" is not properly represented in the Vast, LeftWing Medyuh Whore'd.
FReegards...MUD
Mud??
Your analysis is nothing short of brilliant; again.
Having said that, & following my first read-through?
I felt that if we're going to define the "Far Left" et al on behalf of those who're trapped in their ivory towers of acadamia?
The very people who're feigning such wide eyed surprise about something as base, blatantly obvious as Liberal-Socialist bias in the Lamestream media?
Then we'd also be obligated to *try* rationalizing a certain peon cretin -- an *officer* of the court, no less -- who asked straight-faced, "Well, it all depends on what the meaning of 'IS,' is." too.
Naturally, I (nor you, I dare say...) would not (& will not) dignify the Sink Emporer's lame attempt to cloud the waters of justice with his foul brand of *ink* as he attempted to squirt away under his well honed legal jet power?
We didn't buy it then from the Master Of Sinks; so, no sense in buying another bundle of goods from this academic pinhead, either.
I feel it's really part & parcel of the same old dog, Mud.
Can ya see my point; make the connection?
"..while that may be the Lib'rals ultimate goal, liberals believe on getting there incrementally..."
Which is precisely what I percieved this guy to be doing with his "research" & subsequent writing of this lousy book.
Another move by the Liberal-Socialists -- incrementally -- to obscure the view; &, especially on the subject of the nation's gawd-awful media!
"Narrow" myass.
"...so the 'liberal viewpoint' is simply growing the Federal Leviathan to some point just to the Left of the status quo. Then, when that is established as the status quo, liberals argue for something incrementally just to the Left of that, and so on and so on!!"
Yup.
Now take your paragraph above & insert any social or ideological subject where you've got "Federal Leviathon."
Doesn't it become somewhat obvious this *incrementalism* business starts looking more & more like a stinking, generic "formula."
I've seen this act, before; and, so have you.
"It's the boiled frog theory and the Vast, LeftWing Medyuh Whore'd ignores those viewpoints wherein proponents of Absolute Socialism advocate their views becuz it would startle the Sheeple outta their apathy."
Maybe so; I don't doubt your premise for one moment.
But let us *all* not forget that the ilk comprising the present Liberal-Socialist 'Rats here??
They knew very well they could get their "Socialism"; so long as they never ever called it "Socialism"!
Their leaders have so stated that very *strategy* many times through the years, too.
"Progressive" myass!
We're talking about Socialism here, plain & simple.
This nation & her peoples really need to cut through the Liberal-Socialist crap & start calling things for what they really are; start recognizing what it is we're ALL *seeing* with our own two eyes!
I've begun my part by NOT accepting anything less from these *acadamians*, than what my head & heart tells me is the truth.
Just *how* the academic arrived where they are, "what" they "mean" when they're speaking, or what simple WORDS [might/could] mean to them??
I couldn't care less; that, is their problem, my friend.
"Life is tough; but, life is tougher when you're dumb --as the old song (I sent'cha?) said??
Their way -- *ignorance* -- is KILLING my country; &, that's all I need to know & all I ever needed to know.
To HELL with what some halfassed nincompoop possessed of a list of USELESS paper credentials is telling us; IF, what they're saying is something we already know & already knowN NOT to be true!
That ilk is *supposed* to be telling us what we DON'T know, for Christ's sake; &, when they're not?
They're tipping US off there's probably a scheme, a manipulation, or some other Liberal-Socialist shenanigan in play!
...& frankly, I've heard enough from their academic Liberal-Socialist side, as it is.
It just seems important to study the process of conversion from a sucker for "objectivity" hype to a critical reader. The author of the book in question seems to have made exactly that transition. If he explains the change in his thinking that could be worthwhile.
I'm dealing with a guy at work, a boss, who sends out the worst anti-Bush articles and propaganda imaginable. As I think about how this guy got to the point where he believes the absolute worst about President Bush, I realize that he's been in this university setting for over 25 years and has most likely never had a real opposing viewpoint in all of that time. I'm not sure if he would be the easy case or the hard case, but he's definitely sold way down the river.
By the way, I'm about 2/3 of the way through Ann Coulter's Slander and enjoying every single page. I doubt it's anything you can give to a liberal and expect them to see any light, but I do expect that conservatives who read it will have some more clarity and be emboldened in talking to libs about news and policy.
Hello? Drunk, blind, or paid by the DNC?
Read that, loved it! Especially I noted her remark about the news coverage on the day after the "Gore Wins Florida" debacle. On that day the story wasn't that journalism had fouled up beyond all recognition. No, the story was that the first one to declare FL for Bush--i.e., the first one to get the story right--was a cousin of the president-elect. Coulter is correct: that really tells you about bias in journalism!dealing with a guy at work, a boss, who sends out the worst anti-Bush articles and propaganda imaginable.
. . . the good part of which is the fact that you have a job. You had, when last I heard from you, been trying to get a teaching gig . . .
Anyway, I can't even begin to tackle the complete work, so you'll hafta settle for some general observations ; )
For starters, I'll not begrudge the good purfesser the opportunity to make a buck. Particularly when he's writing on a subject near and dear to my heart. And more particularly, since he seems to have arrived at the proper conclusion, ie, the
Not knowing the good purfesser's politics, he may in fact be stating the truth; that is, he went into this not knowing what to expect. Yeah I know, hard to believe, but possible. He is after all a college purfesser, and he's supposed to have that scientific method down pat ; ) IF his methods cannot be faulted AND he's stating what to to us is the obvious; what's the beef? Let 'im sell a gazillion copies! If he makes a million buck$, I don't care because he(hope springs eternal) may reach some of academia who themselves refuse introspection.
I'd be willing to bet the good purfesser was/is not a firebreathing liberal. A fence rider at worst. Why? The utopian social dreamers cannot even consider their own idealistic notions as being faulty. They function in a dream world where there is no accountability, responsibility, or productivity. They mooch off of us, just like big gubmint. Dog turds in a cantaloupe patch; nothing more.
Put that in yer pipe and smoke it, you verbose ol' fart : )
FGS
Dead on Mud. And the frog said, "I'm being Gramsciied"!!! Or somethin like that.
FGS
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.