Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Original Sensible Seeds Shop: Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds, Bulk Cannabis Seeds, Feminized Cannabis Seeds, High THC Strains

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2  [ show all ]
Re: Media Bias Is Real [Re: Redstorm]
    #5115912 -

I just have to wonder about their methodology when most of the list are quatified as more liberal than Fox News is conservative...


--------------------
Magash's Grain Tek  + Tub-in-Tub Incubator + Magash's PMP + SBP Tek + Dunking = Practically all a newbie grower needs :thumbup:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Media Bias Is Real [Re: Tao]
    #5115930 -

Then follow the kid's link and see for yourself. They are comparing them to Congress people, who ostensibly represent the American people.

I love you too Stormy. We should get a room.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Media Bias Is Real [Re: zappaisgod]
    #5115938 -

We have one already. It's called "PAL".

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Media Bias Is Real [Re: lonestar2004]
    #5116103 -

lonestar2004 said:
I did not find the study to be Garbage. I found it interesting.


If you think Rush Limbaugh is liberal because he cites the NAACP, fine.

If you think the ACLU is more conservative than the average membmer of Congress, fine.

If you read the links on other critisisms and think it's ok that this study ommitted many prominent conservative think tank groups (and therefore mention of those groups didn't count towards the conservativeness of a station), fine.

My feeling is that I don't think the mere mention of a thinktank by a newstation has much to do with the liberalness/conservativeness of the station. The entire mathematical model which assigns the ratings assumes this to be the case. I disagree with this based on the examples above.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Media Bias Is Real [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #5116484 -

zappaisgod said:
Then follow the kid's link and see for yourself. 


Okay.

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
My feeling is that I don't think the mere mention of a thinktank by a newstation has much to do with the liberalness/conservativeness of the station.  The entire mathematical model which assigns the ratings assumes this to be the case.  I disagree with this based on the examples above.


^^^^^:thumbup::thumbup:

Quantifying the bias of a media outlet is extremely difficult which is  why few studies have been attempted.  To call this study's methodology 'lacking' would be a gross understatement.


--------------------
Magash's Grain Tek  + Tub-in-Tub Incubator + Magash's PMP + SBP Tek + Dunking = Practically all a newbie grower needs :thumbup:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Media Bias Is Real [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #5116795 -

Quote:
My feeling is that I don't think the mere mention of a thinktank by a newstation has much to do with the liberalness/conservativeness of the station. The entire mathematical model which assigns the ratings assumes this to be the case. I disagree with this based on the examples above.


You are totally oversimplifying the method. They did, in fact, weed out the times that "thinktanks" were noted for taking an action. They only reported instances where the group was given airtime by the media because someone discussed a specific quote or a stance of the group.

Quote:
Sometimes a legislator or journalist noted an action that a think tank had taken? e.g. that it raised a certain amount of money, initiated a boycott, filed a lawsuit, elected new officers, or held its annual convention. We did not record such cases in our data set. However, sometimes in the process of describing such actions, the journalist or legislator would quote a member of the think tank, and the quote revealed the think tank?s views on national policy, or the quote stated a fact that is relevant to national policy. If so, we would record that quote in our data set. For instance, suppose a reporter noted ?The NAACP has asked its members to boycott businesses in the state of South Carolina. `We are initiating this boycott, because we believe that it is racist to fly the Confederate Flag on the state capitol,? a leader of the group noted.? In this instance, we would count the second sentence that the reporter wrote, but not the first.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Media Bias Is Real [Re: Redstorm]
    #5117176 -


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Media Bias Is Real [Re: Catalysis]
    #5117857 -

Catalysis said:
You are totally oversimplifying the method. They did, in fact, weed out the times that "thinktanks" were noted for taking an action. They only reported instances where the group was given airtime by the media because someone discussed a specific quote or a stance of the group.


Ya, I caught that. They took a lot of effort to try and make this work. But even after removing their exceptions, I still reject the idea that the mere mention a thinktank can determine if a news station is liberal or conservative. If Rush Limbaugh cites the NAACP, he's NOT being liberal.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Media Bias Is Real [Re: zappaisgod]
    #5118247 -

That being said, I have no problem with the methodology. If you use the same criteria to ascribe values to Congress critters and compare that to media critters and get a difference it is a valid comparison and significant

Of course you don't have a problem with their methodology, you agree with their conclusions and their statstical model is sound. Statistics can be used to find relationships between any datasets, the question then becomes: How meaningful is the relationship? The major flaws are outlined below.

1. Where is all the past research??????

The field of media research is a large one, and numerous studies have been done on the subject of media bias. Most of these being published in social science journals. In the paper only three are cited, all which support the authors conclusions. Even worse is the fact they act like their study is taking a completely unique approach by using relativly complex quatitative models. It seems like some of you (zappaisgod and catalysis) are familiar with writing up scientific papers. Normally this requires a literature review. A large body of literature on your topic of interest is read, and presented at the beginning of the paper. When the results are then discussed they are often compared to the previous body of knowledge on the subject and it is shown how they agree or disagree with other conclusions. Here it seems as if the authors have not even read the major backround literature, are ignoring it on purpose, or they feel that their study is so unique all the other literature (except the three supportive studies cited) is irrelevant.

Further supporting this claim is the fact they published in an economics journal rather than a journal devoted to media studies. How many media bias studies are published in economics journals? My guess is that the paper in this form would have been rejected or been forced to make serious revisions had it been published in a journal devoted to these topics like Communications.


2. The premise

The premise of the paper is that if a congressman quotes a thinktank of the list, and that think tank is quoted by a media outlet then the media outlet is displaying bias. Can anyone explain why the study didn't just look at how often the various memebers of the mainstream media quote the senators, making a direct correlation between the two data sets? Maybe the data would not have come out the way they wanted it to. Actually a study had already been done in 2001 by a media analysis firm in Washington D.C, and their data showed that Republicans outnumbered democrats by a ratio of 3/2 (NPR) 3/1(ABC, CBS, NBC) and 5/1(Fox News) link. This reseach, like all the rest on the topic, was conviently not discussed.
It is obvious that reporters and congressman have two very different purposes in society

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Media Bias Is Real [Re: DeepDish]
    #5118286 -

(cont)

It is obvious that senators and news reporters have drastically different purposes in society, and therefore I fail to understand why you believe an indirect comparison such as this one holds more weight than a direct one.

3. Minor annoyances

Notice in the tables, the time frames for the sampling. The Wall Street Journal, which is supposedly the most liberal, is only sampled for 4 months. The time frames tend to be highly variable, and I have trouble beleiving that lumping this broad spectrum together will produce reliable results. The authors are quite meticulous with their statistics and mathematical metodology, however, so this could be ungrounded.
Finally the study fails to acknowledge expert or individual opinion. For example, if a news story comes out about a black man being beaten and killed, it will probably cite a far left leaning think tank, like the NAACP. If it then also gave the opinion of the local neo-naxi group leader, the story would still be rated as heavily leftist.


Here is a citation to prove that quatitative studies have been done on media bias. I can't link the pdf due to copyright laws, but if anyone has access to a scholarly journal search they can read it. Abstract is posted.

Media bias in presidential elections: a meta-analysis (2000) Journal of Communication.

A meta-analysis considered 59 quantitative studies containing data concerned with partisan media bias in presidential election campaigns since 1948. Types of bias considered were gatekeeping bias, which is the preference for selecting stories from one party or the other; coverage bias, which considers the relative amounts of coverage each party receives; and statement bias, which focuses on the favorability of coverage toward one party or the other. On the whole, no significant biases were found for the newspaper industry. Biases in newsmagazines were virtually zero as well. However, meta-analysis of studies of television network news showed small, measurable, but probably insubstantial coverage and statement biases.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Media Bias Is Real [Re: DeepDish]
    #5118556 -

Those are some good points and there is one major flaw that I see (well, it MAY be a flaw).

If you ask a regular person to name some liberal groups, they will usually list the NAACP, ACLU, People for the American Way, and more. If you ask them to list conservative groups, most of them probably couldn't tell you any. I don't know if liberal groups are just more vocal or if this actually is a circumstance of media bias. I still think the study is valid though.

Lets take a look at the type of story that they are analyzing as opposed to digging for exceptions.

Leading liberal groups likely to fight Roberts

Now, this is an article packed with references to liberal groups but it still qualifies as regular news. I think liberals would object to this article being classified as media bias but I would argue that this could legitamately be classified as such for the purposes of the study.

How many stories do you see in MSM about conservative groups supporting SCOTUS nominees? I think most people have not seen any. That is not saying they don't exist, there are just less stories about it and they are less visable. Does that mean conservative groups don't support the nominees? No, it is just not being reported as often.

This story is totally biased because it only gives the view of one side. It is obvious that liberals would disagree with the outcome of the study because they agree with the content being printed, therefore they see liberal-oriented stories as nothing more than great reporting.

It really comes down to whether or not you think the above story is an example of media bias because this is the data that they are trying to collect. You can point out flaws here and there in the methodology or approach, but I would rather look at the real substance of what they are studying.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Media Bias Is Real [Re: Catalysis]
    #5118598 -

That is because the conservatives are in power. In the late 90's, every other article was about Clinton's sex scandal. That didn't mean the media was biased, it is just inherent in the media's role as watchdog, the '4th branch of government'.


--------------------
Magash's Grain Tek  + Tub-in-Tub Incubator + Magash's PMP + SBP Tek + Dunking = Practically all a newbie grower needs :thumbup:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Media Bias Is Real [Re: Tao]
    #5118639 -

While there may be some truth to that, I think you gave a bad example. I don't think there is anything conservative about reporting on the president's sexual affairs with his interns and subsequent perjury. The study has to do with how the story is reported and whether equal time is given to advocates of both sides. I don't know how much time was given to people attacking Clinton or defending him but just reporting on the story would not be considered bias in this study. Likewise, simply reporting on the Valarie Plame thing is not liberal bias in itself, the bias comes when liberal opinions on the matter are reported more often than conservative.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2  [ show all ]

Original Sensible Seeds Shop: Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds, Bulk Cannabis Seeds, Feminized Cannabis Seeds, High THC Strains

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Media Bias silversoul7 1,150 9 08/30/04 11:44 PM
by silversoul7
* An Englishmans take on Liberal media bias in the US ... GazzBut 1,051 13 10/11/04 07:40 PM
by unbeliever
* No Liberal Media Bias... uh huh.
( 1 2 all )		 Phred 2,742 27 06/24/04 08:45 AM
by germin8tionn8ion
* Media Bias
( 1 2 3 all )		 luvdemshrooms 3,857 56 07/02/03 11:40 PM
by hongomon
* No media bias? luvdemshrooms 1,262 7 02/18/04 08:56 PM
by zappaisgod
* The "left-wing" media bias... Xlea321 936 7 08/01/03 01:34 AM
by Xlea321
* Media Bias Anonymous 655 13 04/12/03 05:22 AM
by enotake2
* An example of liberal media bias Divided_Sky 662 4 08/30/04 12:37 PM
by Divided_Sky

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
4,374 topic views. 0 members, 6 guests and 34 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.03 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 17 queries.