<p>okay, you guys know how Francis’ name is really spelled.</p>
<p>2) I thought I did offer a reason as to why the methodology could [not necessarily would] lead to an erroneous result. In my post #24, I said it appeared the study concluded a media source was liberal if it quoted liberal think-tanks and vice-versa. I don’t see how, just because you quote a particular source, that leads to the conclusion that you are biased towards a liberal belief. Perhaps this is valid; it just seems an odd conclusion to me. I do recognize that, presumably, the study was conducted in a scientifc way.
3) I don’t know what the entire poll has to say. [I am too cheap to buy it and it seems you may be too; or at least it doesn’t matter to me enough to buy it.] Based on what was on the Gallup poll page–hard to say if the rest of what is posted on AIM is accurately reported, just as we are discussing herin–ther e is no mention of the half/one-third comments. I think that was in the article; it may be accurate. I just don’t know. I think, however, that it is just as important to point out the accuracy aspect of the poll. [I did go to the original poll, or at leas to the extent I could given the resources. I don’t understand the “intellectually agree with the findings” comment. Does that mean you th ink I agreed with the article, which I don’t think I do, or iwth the poll, which I don’t have enough information to do.]</p>
<p>I agree w/ you that the NYT is a liberal newspaper. I don’t think too many reasoned people would argue with that conclusion. The editor concludes that himself. I think it is interesting that he considers it more a product of being New York’s paper than anything else, i.e. the urban, intellectual, outlook that is simply different than that of somebody who lives in Kansas.
That doesn’t necessarily mean the entire paper is wrong, no more than it means a paper in Kansas, when discussing evolution, is right.<br>
That’s the whole point. Readers, writers, publishers, all bring their own bias to a production.
It doesn’t mean the producers are wrong. It doesn’t even mean its part of some nefarious plot to undermine GW Bush or the USA. A NY writer will cover the same event differently than a Kansas writer.
A NY reader will read or watch a production differently than a Kansas reader. That’s life.
I am just tired of people constantly carping about the “liberal” press as an easy crutch to blame.</p>
<p>What is the truth, for example, in Iraq? Who still believes that all is going well–or even in the right direction–in Iraq? </p>
<p>Does a NYT writer cover it differntly than a Kansas City Star writer? I expect so.</p>
<p>and the tragic irony is that most of the brave young men and women we see on the evening news “Honor Roll” are from Kansas, Ohio, the Dakotas, Texas, New Mexico, Alabama…</p>
<p>Interesting to see the major networks carrying testimony of the Generals in charge of Iraq.What did they say? Something like:</p>
<p>It is possible that Iraq may fall into a civil war. More casualties should be expected.</p>
<p>Gen. Barry McAfree, ret. [that noted liberal] observed that Iraq is headed toward coming apart. Semantics aside, it has been in civil war for a couple of years.</p>
<p>Must have been the liberal media not presenting the positive side of things. I did note, for example, that they did not air very many of Rumsfeld’s words on the matter. Well, they did carry his naysaying response to Sen. Clinton’s admonishments of a failed policy and strategic bumbling.</p>
<p>So, once again, I ask: Is the liberal media making all this up about Iraq? Should the media just be carrying more stories about new schools?</p>
<p>
Awwww… If only we could solve the world’s problems with apologies. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
Please don’t be so naive. The only reason he got fired was because he got caught and made CBS look bad. I can assure you that if he’d gotten away with it, he’d still be there.</p>
<p>
If it’s right, YES.</p>
<p>
The same Europeans where anti-Semitism still runs strong, eh?</p>
<p>Yeah, I’m sure they’ll be objective about it. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
Progress! :D</p>
<p>
So, I guess the people in Kansas are just a bunch of rural, non-intellectual boobs, eh? :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
True, but it immediately makes it SUSPECT, which is why Rush likes to poke fun at them about reading something in the NYT and wondering, “Gee! What if THIS is true?” Their track record at fact-checking and bias has been abysmal, and their plummeting sales shows people are getting pretty sick of it.</p>
<p>
Undoubtedly. All we ask is that they make their biases known publicly. Don’t foist your opinion on us as if it were fact, and when caught in the act, don’t try and pass yourself off as an objective journalist.</p>
<p>Everyone knows Krauthammer, Crystol, Limbaugh, Franken, Rhodes, etc. are Conservative or Liberal, as the case may be. The NYT, LAT, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, ABC, NBC, annd the rest all get off claiming to be objective when they are not.</p>
<p>Ever notice how “mistakes” at those outlets never, ever, EVER favor Bush, the Republicans, or the United States? EVER. Every time they SCREW UP, the story they were pushing ALWAYS supports one side.</p>
<p>I work with trends on a daily basis. That is not a normally-distributed variable. You would expect errors to fall somewhat equally on both sides. They don’t.</p>
<p>I’m out of here for a good spell, as I’m with the kids. I’m sure when I get back we’ll still be citing studies that claim reality isn’t. Oh, well. I’m done with it.</p>
<p>Enjoy! :)</p>
<p>Not only is the Boston Globe liberal (New York Times sister paper), but their reporters do sloppy research:</p>
<p><a href=“http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060726/ap_on_re_us/big_dig_warning_2[/url]”>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060726/ap_on_re_us/big_dig_warning_2</a>
<a href=“http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=151142[/url]”>http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=151142</a></p>
<p>Howie Carr highlights a few recent “mistakes”:</p>
<p><a href=“http://news.bostonherald.com/columnists/view.bg?articleid=151377&format=text[/url]”>http://news.bostonherald.com/columnists/view.bg?articleid=151377&format=text</a></p>
<p>Yup, its all “a plot perpetrated by ‘the man’ to keep the brothas down”</p>
<p>poor poor neo-conservatives, they never get a fair shake.</p>
<p>I don’t think it is a conspiracy that makes the media more liberal than the average American. It is a process of self-selection. Those individuals who tend to be idealist, have a healthy skepticism of government, have an unhealthy sense of moral superiority, and could not solve a differential equation if their life depended on it are drawn to journalism.</p>
<p>The military happens to be more conservative due to the same process of self-selection. Individuals drawn to the military tend to believe in the concept, or are at least open to the concept of duty, honor, and country.</p>
<p>It seems to me, it is intellectually dishonest not to acknowledge that the national media, as a whole, is more liberal than the average American. It is equally intellectually dishonest not to acknowledge that the U.S. military, as a whole, is more conservative than the average American.</p>
<p>“Those individuals who tend to be idealist, have a healthy skepticism of government, have an unhealthy sense of moral superiority, and could not solve a differential equation if their life depended on it are drawn to journalism.”</p>
<p>Thats kind of an odd comment. How many members of our military could solve a differential equation? You must be talking about service academy grads and some ROTC folks, which are a small percentage of the total number of people in the military. Duty, Honor, and Country are certainly not the exclusive character traits of conservatives or republicans despite the efforts of some to paint it that way. I don’t think I have ever seen even the most radical of left wing liberals accuse their political opponents of not loving their country or having a sense of duty and honor, but I am ashamed to say that appears to be the tactic of many of my fellow republicans who consider themselves conservatives and the sole owners of “love of country” when they characterize their political opponents. The average American is neither liberal or conservative, they are moderate. They understand the danger of both ends of the spectrum and are as likely vote “pro military” as they are “pro-choice.”</p>
<p>Idealist? That’s what has made America great. I saw a show the other day where the analyst [oops, he had an opinion] thougt one of the problems w/ today’s world is that many foreigners see American efforts today as not reflecting American idealism. How can the greatest country ever, for example, run torture houses and prisons such as Guantanamo where some are kept despite knowledge they pose not “terroristic threat.”</p>
<p>Healthy skepticism of government? You don’t have this? I would be more frightened of those who don’t have a healthy dose of governmental skepticism than those that do. </p>
<p>Unhealthy sense of moral superiority? Okay, I agree this is a problem; but, it sounds more of conservatives tyring to direct the personal lives of others rather than liberal journalists.</p>
<p>Solving differential equations? Okay, once again, I give. In fact, I suspect that about 99.9% of the American population would not be able to solve such a problem . . . even if their lives were dependent on such a task. I could not.</p>
<p>The national media is, probably, more liberal than the average American. Does this mean, because they are liberal, you don’t think they can do an honest job of reporting the news? Does that mean conservative soldires can’t be expected to be honest about their responsibilities handling nuclear weapons?</p>
<p>Look at Zaphod’s response, [the only reality is the one he espouses] he is no different than those that took the survey. No different than those he criticizes. As long as you are writing something in a way that he can agree with, you are okay. Disagree with his perspective of the “truth” and you are simply wrong. No different than liberal wackos that think animals are entitled to the same rights as humans and you are simly nuts for disagreeing.</p>
<p>I hope that his current outlook on life, government, media, etc. is not a product of his USNA education. I would hope that young minds at the Academies are not being shaped and narrowed such that they cannot appreciate a different perspective.</p>
<p>Shogun: Unfortunately, the extreme ends of the Republican [and the Democaratic] party have no use for mindless, shifless, moderate twits such as you and me. I believe the epithet is RINO for anybody that suggests other than the party line.</p>
<p>Let’s take journalists at their word. The Pew Research Center, certainly no right-wing institution, polled journalists in 2004 to determine their political viewpoint. The results for national journalists:
Liberal: 34%
Moderate: 54%
Conservative: 7%</p>
<p>The report states, “Most striking is the relatively small minority of journalists who think of themselves as politically conservative (7% national, 12% local). As the case a decade ago, the journalists as a group are much less conservative than the general public (33% conservative).” </p>
<p><a href=“http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/214.pdf[/url]”>http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/214.pdf</a> (data from page 3, page 7 of pdf)</p>
<p>The numbers are self-identified so one would expect the moderate numbers to be smaller.</p>
<p>Do I think the political views of those reporting the news leads to bias?-- of course. If journalists are professionally incapable of bias in reporting, why have newsrooms made a concerted effort to hire women and minorities so that news would not have a “white male” bias? </p>
<p>The comment about solving differential equations was an offhanded way of saying that students who choose journalism are generally not technically savy. The ability to solve differential equations is a trait one would find amongst engineers and scientists.</p>
<p>usna1981, what do you think of this?</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3286966,00.html[/url]”>www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3286966,00.html</a></p>
<p>I have only followed this discussion at skim level. So I’m not sure how relevant my post is.</p>
<p>The watchdogs of today’s media are internet bloggers. Whether its smoke in a Reuter’s story of Lebanon, Condi Rice’s eyes being manipulated by USA Today, or apparently fraudulent memos being used by CBS to attack George Bush-- its is the internet that exposes these frauds. I don’t think there is a conscience effort by the media to propogate these frauds, but there is a very small fringe around the media willing to perpetrate such frauds. The problem with the media is that they are susceptible to fraudulent acts because many of them see the results of the act as confirmation of their preconcieved views. You end up with people like Mary Mapes, a person who has such hatred for George Bush, that she is incapable of objective reporting. When presented with sustantial evidence that the infamous memos were fraudulent, it is her opinion that it is not her responsibility to prove with some degree of certainty that the memos were genuine. You then get headlines from the New York Times that the memos were “Fake But Accurate”. What lunacy. You read stories everyday about newspapers laying off workers and declining network TV news program viewership. No wonder.</p>
<p>Yup, I rarely watch the news… and network news, never. I do really like the WSJ, tho. And I like its newspaper format better than its online version.</p>
<p>
You’re not missing much. </p>
<p>
Am I the only person who prefers to read stuff on paper? </p>
<p>Reading long articles (or anything else) online gives me a splitting headache.</p>
<p>
Yeah, never. It was SO much better when we only had CBS, NBC, ABC, and PBS around to tell us what to think, eh? :rolleyes:</p>
<p>An entire alternative media sprouts up, the mainstream media goes batty and accuses that new media (be it talk radio or blogs) of not being “real” journalists (despite the fact the alternative media is eating the MSM’s lunch in the market AND gets the facts right more often), and people still think that it’s a “neo-con” thing.</p>
<p>Right. :rolleyes:</p>