New UCLA Study: Most Media Leftwing Biased

Bush's latest poll ratings. Both media outlets report on the same story (12/20/2005) with opposite headlines.

MSNBC version
Headline: Bush’s support jumps after long decline
Poll shows growing optimism on Iraq, economy


CNN version
Headline: Poll: Iraq speeches, election don't help Bush


Now, which is the true story? And which media outlet is still trying to influence people to have negative feelings about Bush?


[edit on 12/20/2005 by centurion1211]

Originally posted by centurion1211
Now, which is the true story?

Both are.

MSNBC is using a Washington Post-ABC News Poll.
CNN is using a Gallup poll.

You really need to read over both of the stories before you make claims like the one below.

Originally posted by centurion1211
And which media outlet is still trying to influence people to have negative feelings about Bush?

It is unfair to single one story out over another because you disagree, you do not know which groups were asked in either of these polls and both of them are displaying the data they have found. However because you disagree with one of them, you are making an attack upon it and creating an artificial bias.

Originally posted by centurion1211
Now, which is the true story? And which media outlet is still trying to influence people to have negative feelings about Bush?

Your mistake is assuming that one of them is true while the other is not. The real truth is usually somewhere in the middle. They're probably both lies with some truth in them, skewed to please the audience! But you (and almost everyone else) buy the one that most closely meets your desires and expectations, and disregard the other as a biased lie!

This is the point I've been trying to make all along. One is right leaning and one is left-leaning and you take the one that fits you, and call it 'the truth' and the other one 'biased'.

They're both biased, my friend. Neither is true. You're being played regardless of which you believe.

[edit on 20-12-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]

Of course. What else would you say even when presented with damning evidence from both a mjor university study and actual news stories? And remember, political science professors at U.S. universities are not exactly known for their conservative beliefs. So, maybe the data was even spun to make it look like the media isn't totally liberal.

centurion1211, step out from the shadow and have a real look for a moment.

Stop basing everything around "Liberal" this and "Liberal" that and begin to evaluate things based on merit, not who said them or why they were said this is why society is in such a level of decline.

Politics should never have been based on parties, on left and right but on merit and what is good for society until people realise this we weave a path of destruction.

The poster who said that both sides were controlled by "big business" was closer than he realized. The news is "big business". All of the newspapers, magazines and broadcast stations are in business to make money. Unfortunately bad news is what sells. Another thing that sells is controversy, getting people to argue over a subject is good for their bottom line. The last thing that needs to be considered is the education of the members of the media. There is a reason that media is a "Liberal Arts" degree program.

Originally posted by centurion1211
Of course. What else would you say

Also realize that even though you want to think of me as 'liberal' I actually have beliefs and strong convictions that weigh in on the conservative side of the issue.

Anti Bush does not necessarily = Liberal
Pro firearm does not necessarily = Conservative
Anti Iraq War does not necessarily = 'Anti-war' peace activist
Pro Border/Immigration Control does not necessarily = Republican

I am all four of those on the left above. How can you label me? The truth is just not so simple as putting people in boxes.

But you're going to believe what meets your expectations regardless of what the real truth is, so... what can I say?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by centurion1211
Of course. What else would you say

Also realize that even though you want to think of me as 'liberal' I actually have beliefs and strong convictions that weigh in on the conservative side of the issue.

Anti Bush does not necessarily = Liberal
Pro firearm does not necessarily = Conservative
Anti Iraq War does not necessarily = 'Anti-war' peace activist
Pro Border/Immigration Control does not necessarily = Republican

I am all four of those on the left above. How can you label me? The truth is just not so simple as putting people in boxes.

But you're going to believe what meets your expectations regardless of what the real truth is, so... what can I say?

Well, well, sounds like we may agree on at least a few items after all. To be fair, I have seen a lot of your posts, but I honestly don't recall seeing anything beyond the down with Bush and down with the war sentiments. And for awhile I thought maybe you're just being a "contrarian" - taking the opposite side of any issue just for the fun of it. Anyway, I have to agree with you on the firearms and border/immigration issues. Also, I've stated in several other threads that I am very disappointed with Bush on several issues. Sadly, that just means that to me it's better than being disappointed with the other guy on just about every issue.

[holds out olive branch]


[edit on 12/20/2005 by centurion1211]

Originally posted by centurion1211
To be fair, I have seen a lot of your posts, but I honestly don't recall seeing anything beyond the down with Bush and down with the war sentiments.

I don't doubt that that's what has stuck in your mind about me. That's what you want to think about me. You want to put me in the other camp because we disagree on some issues. Here are a few posts you apparently didn't see:

politics.abovetopsecret.com...
politics.abovetopsecret.com...
politics.abovetopsecret.com...

But please don't miss my point. Rarely does a person fit completely into one pocket or the other. We're all individuals, if we only allow ourselves to be. And the game of politics and the media is to play us one against the other so we ignore the important issues!

And for awhile I thought maybe you're just being a "contrarian" - taking the opposite side of any issue just for the fun of it.

Oh, I'm contrary all right. I love to debate, but if I'm playing devil's advocate, I will usually make that clear. And I admit sometimes to arguing a point in an attempt just to s-t-r-e-t-c-h someone's mind open a little bit.

[holds out olive branch]

[takes olive branch in teeth and does a fruity little dance complete with twirling and batting eyelashes]

Now I probably really lost you!

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Oh, I'm contrary all right. I love to debate, but if I'm playing devil's advocate, I will usually make that clear. And I admit sometimes to arguing a point in an attempt just to s-t-r-e-t-c-h someone's mind open a little bit.

Ha! the best thing I've found about people that like to play those games is that they are usually so sure (right word?) of themselves that they never quite realize when someone is doing the same thing to them!

I didn't see anybody pointing out the flaws in the study's methodology, so I'll chime in.

Groseclose and Milyo then directed 21 research assistants — most of them college students — to scour U.S. media coverage of the past 10 years. They tallied the number of times each media outlet referred to think tanks and policy groups, such as the left-leaning NAACP or the right-leaning Heritage Foundation.

Next, they did the same exercise with speeches of U.S. lawmakers. If a media outlet displayed a citation pattern similar to that of a lawmaker, then Groseclose and Milyo's method assigned both a similar ADA score.

If I'm understanding this correctly, the only yardstick the researchers were using was how often a media outlet mentioned a particular think tank or policy group, with labels applied to said think tanks to make them "left-leaning" or "right-leaning."

Right now, looking at just those two, I can easily see why a news story would mentioned the NAACP more often than the Heritage Foundation. Any story relating to race relations or civil rights would call for some comment from the NAACP. This would be automatic and reflexive. What topic would automatically call for a comment from Heritage? None that comes to mind. Heritage might have something to say on many issues, but they are not automatically identified with any particular issue, and my guess is that they get included mainly when they on their own initiative contact the press.

Consider another organization, the ACLU. Most people would consider this group left-leaning. Yet, as the nation's premier civil-liberties defender and advocate, their comments would naturally be sought on any issue that has anything to do with the Bill of Rights, e.g. the Patriot Act. So any time a news outlet publishes a story on the Patriot Act, domestic spying, court rulings about new interpretations of eminent domain, martial law imposed in an emergency, etc., etc., they are likely to include a statement from an ACLU spokesperson and, in the study, get a tick to the left.

About the only right-leaning organizations I can think of that would get an automatic or near-automatic quote in a story on a particular subject are those that express religious-right viewpoints, like Focus on the Family. But most such stories would also present the views of left-leaning groups on the other side of the issues.

News outlets include mention of think tanks and advocacy groups for different reasons than politicians do in their speeches. Politicians are going to choose sources to quote that support the position they are arguing. News outlets are going to choose sources to quote that are relevant to the topic being written about. The studies finding that they tend to "lean left," i.e. mention and quote left-leaning think-tanks more often than right-leaning ones, could mean nothing more or less than that left-leaning think-tanks are more often relevant to the topics in the news.

Or even simply more numerous. I found this list of advocacy groups in alpha order. I haven't thoroughly surveyed it, but a quick run-through gave me the definite impression that groups we might consider "left-leaning" outnumber the other kind. Which makes sense when you think about it. Who is most in need of a group to advocate his interests? The wealthy and powerful who tend to be conservatives, or those with less?

This would explain apparent anomalies like the fact that the study found NPR more conservative than mainstream outlets. Get real! Anyone who listens to NPR and then watches network news can tell you that's nonsense. But on the other hand, NPR and also public television tend to be very thorough in their coverage and less entertainment-oriented, and so might be more likely to seek comments from right-leaning think tanks just because it's good journalism when the issue is relevant. That does NOT make them conservative! Drudge Report, on the other hand, is maybe a little bit slap-dash, hence the appearance of liberal bias.

Rather than a methodology like this, what I'd like to see is a study of the stories the news outlets choose to publish versus those they choose not to. A good way to do this would probably be to compare American media to those of other countries on world and U.S. national issues. Find those stories covered in U.S. media but not in any major foreign media, and vice-versa. That might be quite revealing.

I think you need to re read this statement.

You posted:
" The wealthy and powerful who tend to be conservatives, or those with less? "

This seems to be a standard default setting for many people which often passes for truth in America...or even other nations.

You might want to look at the enconomic status of George Soros, The Kennedys, Nancy Pelosi..et al. You will find that they are not in the category of those who have less. These tend to be among the most vocal in the those who have less category. People in government jobs or people who are on the government dole..tend to be among those who seem to have less...not necessarily poor.. ..they are just protecting their handouts.

This concept you tend to fall back on that the wealthy and powerful seem to be conservatives is full of holes when you peel back the veneer and look underneath. This is one of the biggest hoaxs pulled off on a emotional unthinking public. If this were so..the democratic party would not have much influence in the state of California and New York among the poor..they would never make their quota of what they need financially in their campaigns. You dont get this type of money from those who have less. this is common sense. People who have less..dont pay $250 and up for campaign dinners and speechs no matter to what party you identify.


Thanks,
Orangetom

Originally posted by orangetom1999
I think you need to re read this statement.

You posted:
" The wealthy and powerful who tend to be conservatives, or those with less? "

This seems to be a standard default setting for many people which often passes for truth in America...or even other nations.

You might want to look at the enconomic status of George Soros, The Kennedys, Nancy Pelosi..et al.

"Tend to be" implies that there will be exceptions. You named a few. I stand, however, by what I said: the rich and powerful tend to be conservative.

I gotta disagree...

The rich and powerful tend to be from both partys. They will play one view against another with the pubic caught in between for votes.

I used to buy into the "victimization mantra" of which you speak. I just gave it up when so little seemed to change between the partys but waxed worse and worse in thier public platforms. This mantra you speak of has grown to a chant from drama queens..they use it so often. It gets wolfie and alot of people are noticing it. It is division..it is not unity. It is also not leadership and people are noticing this too.

This type of platform ..victimization by economic status...racial status..sex satus or sexual orientation ..is getting very olde as a vote getting technique/tool. There are people who notice it. As I said ..it is not uniting American people ...it is divissive.
The Media shills for these platforms wholesale. They are part and parcel of the divide America platform. This is why I am very dubious about the media. I get very tired of the media stroking this mantra...by the usual suspects on the evening news.

Americans are looking for leadership...and they are finding both partys and the media wanting. This is bad news in the politics buisness.
In the abscence of leadership..what do you get for news and information......DRAMA!!! Just watch the news.


Thanks,
Orangetom

Originally posted by orangetom1999
The rich and powerful tend to be from both partys.

Bill Clinton governed as a conservative, Richard Nixon as a liberal. I'm not talking about the parties.

Conservatism and liberalism are political philosophies, not political parties. Most rich people are conservative. Those few who aren't, are either enlightened people of principle like Soros, or politicians like the Kennedies. They're the exceptions.

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward

Most rich people are conservative. Those few who aren't, are either enlightened people of principle like Soros, or politicians like the Kennedies. They're the exceptions.

Almost. Most old money rich people-- those from families who have retained and even expanded their wealth for generations-- are conservative. They like the status quo just the way it is, thank you.

Many, if not most, of the nouveau riche are liberal. They're not so far removed from their often working-class roots, and they don't value their wealth, as an object, in the same way that the old-money wealthy do, and thus don't feel as much of a need to "protect" it.

And honestly, I would say that the Kennedys are conservative in the traditional sense. They're hidebound traditionalists fighting to maintain a status quo-- they just have a different set of traditions and a different conception of the status quo than that with which we'd normally associate "conservatives."

Originally posted by Bob LaoTseMost old money rich people-- those from families who have retained and even expanded their wealth for generations-- are conservative.

Well, now wait a minute. John F. Kennedy? Franklin D. Roosevelt? Bill Gates? I don't think I agree. If you look at wealthy liberals, they're usually old money (at least second generation), not new rich. Although not being either new or old rich myself I can't be sure why, I have a theory.

A person who has inherited wealth is more secure in it than someone who built a fortune from the ground up. Being wealthy is the only condition he's ever known. And he knows perfectly well that he's not completely responsible for his own good fortune, whereas the so-called "self-made man" may not realize that as easily. So the inheritor is more ready to compromise his circumstances, to call for legal measures that may help those less fortunate at his own expense. It's sort of a noblesse oblige thing.

And honestly, I would say that the Kennedys are conservative in the traditional sense. They're hidebound traditionalists fighting to maintain a status quo

Interesting thought. And I can see where you might think that about Ted Kennedy today, although it was not true of his brothers in their day. But here's a question for you. When the status quo is being challenged by those who want to roll the clock back to a status quo ante, rather than by those who want to institute something previously untried, is the person defending the status quo really a conservative? Wouldn't we need to see a progressive challenge to the status quo, rather than a reactionary one, to determine that?

Getting back to the supposed liberal bias. This is a conspiracy-theory board, so here's my conspiracy theory as to why the mainstream media have a pronounced right-wing bias. It's all a way to have a controlled press when the Constitution forbids heavy-handed ways to do that. You can't suppress dissident views, but a more subtle way to do the same thing is to acquire the biggest megaphone and drown out everyone else. So we have a few huge corporations that control, not ALL the media, but all the BIG media, and they broadcast and print the desired line within an acceptable range.

And, just as quite a number of people seem to be taken in by the Republican/Democratic bait-and-switch, so that they really believe the Democrats are a liberal party, in the same way people might see Fox and NBC as offering a spread of opinion. And they do, but only within a safe range.

There is news and opinion out there, in print, on the Internet, even in broadcast, that are outside this narrow range. But so few people make the effort to search those out, that the illusion works, and our press is effectively controlled -- without overt censorship.

In fact, as Augustus realized ages ago, a tyranny is most effective when the people under it think they are still free.