UCLA and Standford study on the question of media bias

[archeiron]

To call this proof of a liberal bias is stupid. You need to quantify several of the main items being used to establish this correlation between politicians and media companies.

For instance if there are more conservative think tanks than liberal think tanks then the odds of a correlation will be stronger on the liberal side.

If a nazi media company rarely cites think tanks then they will score as moderate.

If nazi politicians rarely cite think tanks then then all nazi media will score as moderate regardless of if nazi media cites think tanks or not.


The study acknolodges that the Rand corporation scores more to the left than it actually is due to many of the conservative studies are classified military studies which of course won't be quoted very often while democratic studies are often dealing with domestic issues.

The study does prove that liberal think tanks are cited more than conservative think tanks. Is this due to the media being liberals or is it due to the nature of conservative studies as is the case with the Rand noted above. Every media company including even Fox cites more liberal think tanks than it does Conservative think tanks.

PS. Drudge being in the study is stupid. He has never cited a think tank. They used citations in the articles he links to for his dataset.

I was planning on writing something similar to this. I am saddened that Adex and crew haven't attempted to respond to this.

[Adex_Xeda]

I have a crew?

[archeiron]

I have a crew?

Dodge the question much? Once again...

To call this proof of a liberal bias is stupid. You need to quantify several of the main items being used to establish this correlation between politicians and media companies.

For instance if there are more conservative think tanks than liberal think tanks then the odds of a correlation will be stronger on the liberal side.

If a nazi media company rarely cites think tanks then they will score as moderate.

If nazi politicians rarely cite think tanks then then all nazi media will score as moderate regardless of if nazi media cites think tanks or not.


The study acknolodges that the Rand corporation scores more to the left than it actually is due to many of the conservative studies are classified military studies which of course won't be quoted very often while democratic studies are often dealing with domestic issues.

The study does prove that liberal think tanks are cited more than conservative think tanks. Is this due to the media being liberals or is it due to the nature of conservative studies as is the case with the Rand noted above. Every media company including even Fox cites more liberal think tanks than it does Conservative think tanks.

PS. Drudge being in the study is stupid. He has never cited a think tank. They used citations in the articles he links to for his dataset.

[Kylere]

I think they consult more liberal think tanks, merely because they have an overall liberal bias, not because they are right more often. Then you get down to defining liberal and conservative. For example is the group to stop smoking among teens thetruth.com a liberal or a conservative group? It is backed by conservative money to press a liberal issue.

[Arborealus]

And actually now that I have spent an hour or so looking at the numbers...most press outlets fall within the range of ADA scores attributed to political moderates...so are their moderates then not moderate?...Their data set has a skew somewhere...Which would also explain their "suprising" finding that Fox news and Matt Drudge are centrist...So I think there is bias in cited think tanks somewhere...

In fact there is obvious bias...their assumption is that an unbiased press is as likely to cite the heritage foundation as the center on budget and policy priorities which is the most liberal according to their estimation...They have a right biased asymptotic distribution of extremity of think tanks which would skew their calculated ADAs to the left...

Ok yeah I refute their methodology...

[Kylere]

Interesting Arbor, but what I think many fail to realize is the the population central point thinks is not as left as the left would like to believe.

I think the reason they decide what is thought of as conservative resources as centrist is that in fact that is the central point of thought.

[archeiron]

Interesting Arbor, but what I think many fail to realize is the the population central point thinks is not as left as the left would like to believe.

I think the reason they decide what is thought of as conservative resources as centrist is that in fact that is the central point of thought.

Poor grammar aside, this is an interesting twist. Are you suggesting that the "popular" opinion can be nothing other than central? Perhaps the core of this argument is actually semantics and not statistics.

[Arborealus]

Interesting Arbor, but what I think many fail to realize is the the population central point thinks is not as left as the left would like to believe.

I think the reason they decide what is thought of as conservative resources as centrist is that in fact that is the central point of thought.

I'm sorry "they" being whom and by resources are you referring to the news sources or the think tanks?

[Voronwë]

well to further Arbor's point, i don't see any evidence that this is anything but a manuscript.

Meaning, was it published in a peer-reviewed journal at all?

it is not listed on Milyo's CV, which suggests to me it hasn't been published.

It *could* be in press or under review, but it would probably be cited as such (he has 2 in press articles cited on his CV). CV is essentially an academic resume - curriculum vitae.

As for Milyo's own partison leanings, on the University of Chicago's faculty page for him it says "he was also named a Salvatori Fellow by the Heritage Foundation". THe Heritage Foundation is probably THE single most prominant conservative think-tank.

THat doesn't mean that his 'article' is unbiased, but it is an ingredient for consideration.

he has also coauthored articles in the past with Mr. Groseclose for the American Spectator (a conservative commentary publication).

Lost Shepard (1996) with Tim Groseclose, The American Spectator, 29(4): 55.

Groseclose also does not list the linked article to his CV:
http://faculty-gsb.stanford.edu/grosecl ... hy%20J.htm

so from that, i am going to infer that it has not been peer-reviewed, and furthermore probably was never intended to be peer-reviewed. THat doesn't mean that it contains falsehood upon falsehood, it just means that it has not had an exacting examination of the methodologies performed by leaders in the field.

Why an academic would not publish something, even in a garbage journal (there are plenty of journals that aren't hard to get stuff published in) is somewhat suspicious - since it is through publication of their research that they justify their funding. And it is through the generation of funding by which they enjoy professional advancement.

[Kylere]

Yeah yeah, grammar aside since I am trying to get all my .8 extensions for Firefox to work in .9

You seriously have to decide what you think is centrist, I do not think that people on the far ends of the political spectrum really understand what the center believes.

I really do think the central set of values and beliefs in the US are more "right" than someone on the far "left" thinks they are, and I think that the central point is much further "left" than those on the far "right" think they are.

Most Americans pick and choose from among the platforms, well to be fair "most" Americans do not vote, but of those who do IMHO the largest number are single issue voters, not platform voters. I meet them all the time, you know why we have two parties that HAVE to have differences, because if both of them were prochoice, then there would be a viable third party all by itself on that single issue. But both parties really have taken the issues they disagree on way too far, to the detriment of the American people and the world at large.

They have no middle grounds on many issues, and the only thing that seems consistant to working middle class Americans is higher bills and higher taxes. In the last 8 years my annual income has varied from as high as $106k down to $25k and while the 106k years were nice, they were not greatly removed in standard of living from the 25k years. My taxes once I hit 36k or so jump, then at 55 or so, then at 106 I would have taken home MORE money by making 98 than by making 106.

When I stay up late at night worrying, it is never about Osama Bin Laden, Iraq, WMD's, the WTC, or soldiers in Iraq. My worries are middle class American worries, I worry that my new roof is a good one, I worry about the debt I acquired to pay for it, I worry about the stability of my job, and the cost of heating this winter. I worry that I will not be able to buy the best of toys for my stepdaughters, or even clothes in fall for school. I worry more about my car breaking down than about any event that has occured in my lifetime.

I am middle class America, 34 years old, I have a household income in the 55k range, 2 kids, 2 pets, 2 cars and 12k in debt , 4k in student loans, plus a mortgage with 70k more owed. My cars average 6.7 years old. Looking around today neither of the sides liberal or conservative fit me anymore, and the same is happening to almost everyone I know. Neither party, democrat or republican fits, and neither view religious or secular fits. One of two things is going to happen, we are going to fall apart overall in the next 30 years, or there is going to be a new party formed in the United States. This has happened before in American political history, parties form, die, and new ones arise. Hell Lincoln was a Republican and no one associates him and what they think of as Republican in the same mind set. So I wait for 2012, more of the ignorant, world wasting, mememe baby boomers will have died, and perhaps a sane political environment can be formed.

[Kylere]

Interesting Arbor, but what I think many fail to realize is the the population central point thinks is not as left as the left would like to believe.

I think the reason they decide what is thought of as conservative resources as centrist is that in fact that is the central point of thought.

I'm sorry "they" being whom and by resources are you referring to the news sources or the think tanks?

They are the news organizations

[Adex_Xeda]

I've been rather busy trying to photoshop a collection of pictures into something to impress an old friend.

Pardon me if I step out of this one.

[Rekaar.]

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/p ... 4782.shtml

update: now published by Yale.

I had emailed the author after Voro's last statement on this topic and I had neglected to check that account for a long time =p

[Zaelath]

Do you dispute their findings?

If so do you dispute their method?

If so what in their method should be improved?

Oh yes, I dispute their findings and their methods.

The study is biased in itself.

The left feel that if they quote other people to support their point of view they might actually break through some of the brainwashing.

The right is happy to just shout their own opinion as fact, and/or "quote" without referencing anyone (like FOX/O'Reilly and his 78% of Daily Show viewers are stoned statistic)

The study doesn't even hold up to simple sanity checking; if Drudge/FOX are centrist by your standard then your standard is nonsensical. To dismiss an obvious bias by calling it "conventional wisdom" is farcical.

[Raistin]

http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/play.jh ... _9040.html


If only all news was like this!

[Rekaar.]

The study doesn't even hold up to simple sanity checking; if Drudge/FOX are centrist by your standard then your standard is nonsensical. To dismiss an obvious bias by calling it "conventional wisdom" is farcical.

The problem with your logic is that you're disputing a researched argument backed by empirical data exclusively with your own opinion. That doesn't hold up. Assertions are not facts.

Additionally you shouldn't compare analysts/opinion pieces like O'reilly to the front page story of the NY times. Apples and oranges.

[Dregor Thule]

I need to stop myself or I'll watch every single Daily Show clip.

Reasons why Samantha Bee is awesome: http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/play.jh ... _9012.html

[Markulas]

I came to a very simple solution a few years ago. For the past years I've only been getting my news from a republican newspaper and sometimes here.

[Voronwë]

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/p ... 4782.shtml

update: now published by Yale.

I had emailed the author after Voro's last statement on this topic and I had neglected to check that account for a long time =p

And the paper STILL hasn't been published in a peer-reviewed journal. It is hyperlinked from a university website. While that doesn't mean the article is factually inaccurate, it still means that the article has not been reviewed by independent experts. And i would again intend that it never will be. One of the authors (if not both - i don't recall) has strong ties to the Heritage Foundation. IF you know anything about that organization, it basically means you are a Republican operative.

Intersting aside about the Heritage Foundation. 3 jobs supervising important aspects of rebuilding iraq went to people who were in their mid-20s and had no experience with any sort of civil engineering, war effort project management, or any other relevant work experience. But they did work for the Heritage Foundation.


But anyway, my view - which i do think has been very fair in the analysis of this situation - is that this paper was produced to appear to people as if it were academic research. However, it of course has not been peer-reviewed, and it has not been published in a journal.

When you apply for grants, you don't list as a publication a .pdf that happens to be hyperlinked from a university website - no matter how prestigious that university may be.

i understand why you think that it is an authentic unbiased account of media politics. It has been constructed, promoted, and marketed to appear to a receptive audience (you) as exactly that.

[Marbus]

Just because someone has a PhD dosen't make them flawless or even intelligent IMHO. It can sometimes mean that couldn't hold a job in the real world so they decided to hang out in Acedemics... trust me I KNOW professors like this... NOT MANY mind you, but they DO exist.

So these guys co-author stuff in a conservative journal and throw up a random study they did on a website and we all argue over it for 4 months. I'm sure they probably find the very humorous Personally I think their method is flawed from a research standpoint. Yes that is my opinion just as it's only THEIR opinion that they think it's correct.

I did a great deal of research in College and Graduate School, if you want, you can make a study say anything and the average "human" will believe it because they won't look deeper and question the motives. I think we can easily see what the motives are here.

Addressing the question of Left-Wing politics and Intelligence I'll just leave that to Karl Rove...

"As people do better, they start voting like Republicans...
...unless they have too much education and vote Democratic,
which proves there can be too much of a good thing."

Cheers!
Marb

[masteen]

Ft. Naughtytail must be protected from the gay adgenda!!!

[Zaelath]

The study doesn't even hold up to simple sanity checking; if Drudge/FOX are centrist by your standard then your standard is nonsensical. To dismiss an obvious bias by calling it "conventional wisdom" is farcical.

The problem with your logic is that you're disputing a researched argument backed by empirical data exclusively with your own opinion. That doesn't hold up. Assertions are not facts.

So.. what, I should join the republican party?

It don't matter that their argument is based on research if the basis for that research is flawed. There's no proof what-so-ever that this cross-referencing of quoted sources is a reliable indicator of bias, it's possible that it might, but it would require careful weighting and a great deal of historical data.

The media in a democracy tend to speak against the sitting government more often than for it; you've conveniently forgotten the "liberal media" conducting a public witch-hunt over Monica-gate?

You can go back to giggling and smearing yourself with peanut butter while watching your "fair and balanced" FOX, but the public is not quite as stupid as you'd like to believe. If most people think FOX is right of centre, and *no one* thinks they're to the left, the chances that they're centrist are slim to none.

[Rekaar.]

Well first, the report does show foxnews as right of center...remember to distinguish between the news and the analysts.

But secondly, do you dispute that John Kerry is ranked, by his record, as the most liberal Senator by these same measures?

Is it perfect? nothing is. Feel free to come up with a better way to measure bias other than the same methods used to measure the bias of members of Congress. Seems like a logical corroboration of information to me.

Voro enlighten me, what's the typical lead time between having a report published and having something completely peer-reviewed? Does everything get peer-reviewed? Who or what determines that the review is complete, or that it happens at all?

[Voronwë]

Well first, the report does show foxnews as right of center...remember to distinguish between the news and the analysts.

But secondly, do you dispute that John Kerry is ranked, by his record, as the most liberal Senator by these same measures?

The issue is if those measures are valid. The issue is that there is no independent review of the methodology by experts. You and I may be able to say that the method seems reasonable, but we may be missing a key bit of information that skews something.

The National Journal has been ranking "liberal v. conservative" voting records for several years, and while i have no idea if their methodology is any good, the Bush campaign has used it in their talking points. For a 6 month period in 2003 (during the Democratic primaries), John Kerry showed up as the 3rd most liberal senator. This is of course because he only came back and voted for the very close contentious bills. The bills that passed like 90-10 he didnt vote on, because it was unneccessary. That of course skews his voting record very left.

If you look at the National Journals rankings of Kerry and Edwards over the last 6 years. Edwards comes out as the 45th "most liberal" senator, and Kerry is something like the 35th most liberal. So basically, Edwards voting record in that time, is very moderate, and Kerry is on the liberal/moderate border.

Is it perfect? nothing is. Feel free to come up with a better way to measure bias other than the same methods used to measure the bias of members of Congress. Seems like a logical corroboration of information to me.

Voro enlighten me, what's the typical lead time between having a report published and having something completely peer-reviewed? Does everything get peer-reviewed? Who or what determines that the review is complete, or that it happens at all?

All i can tell you about is scientific journals. It might take you 6 months to 2 years to do your experiments and write the paper. The paper can be submitted and reviewed within 3 months, and published within another month of review being completed. The system tries to be expedient because it does matter who publishes certain findings first. As far as who determines that the review is complete: The editor of the journal (some journals that handle large volumes have editorial boards etc, but keeping the example to the basic case) submits the paper to 3 (or more) of the authors peers in the field. The author can request reviewers in some cases, but the editor is under no obligation to honor that request, and the reviews are anonymous to the author, though people will often openly discuss the review process after the paper has been published.

As far as does everything get peer-reviewed, the answer is no. But nobody would ever justify a grant with "publications" that were not peer-reviewed.

Again, i'm not saying that this paper is necessarily wrong. I just think that the fact that these guys are academics and didn't publish it is *very* wierd. Unless they were paid to write it by a 3rd party (Heritage Foundation, etc), the time they spent on it would be completely wasted because they could not use it to justify further funding or professional advancement.

my conclusions are based on an assumption that the political science field operates generally the same as biology. i think with respect to the issues of funding and professional advancement, that it is very likely they are largely similar.

I am basing my opinion that this paper is a 'political' tool more on the fact that this guy worked (or still works) as a Republican operative, and that it is the function of think-tanks like THF (and there are liberal equivalents) to put out information like this that then gets quoted in various layers of the media, and kind of takes on an "echo-chamber" effect.

People start repeating the statement, and whether or not it is true, almost becomes secondary.

[Rekaar.]

http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664

The results appear in the latest issue of the Quarterly Journal of Economics, which will become available in mid-December.

Now it's published.

The researchers took numerous steps to safeguard against bias — or the appearance of same — in the work, which took close to three years to complete. They went to great lengths to ensure that as many research assistants supported Democratic candidate Al Gore in the 2000 election as supported President George Bush. They also sought no outside funding, a rarity in scholarly research.

It made me thing of you Voronwe ;D

[Kylere]

Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.

This is exactly as I have been saying all along, but most left people on the board are too far left to recognize this, and most right people are too far right to process data with their forebrain.

[Zaelath]

Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.

This is exactly as I have been saying all along, but most left people on the board are too far left to recognize this, and most right people are too far right to process data with their forebrain.

You accept a deeply flawed thesis on the single recommending feature that it agrees with your own bias, and then claim other people lack the ability for rational thought.

Bravo.

[Kylere]

Zaelath you are incapable of analyzing American media without bias, I am an American voter, and more centrist than anything, I find only one in one hundred who are not all the way right, left or indifferent.

[Voronwë]

man that post i wrote up there was fucking good.

you people should take notes

[Adex_Xeda]

What? the guy waited a bit to finish his research? This answers your last question and quiets the basis for your last hesitation.

[Voronwë]

no i was more commenting on word choice, brevity, and concision

for the record i have no idea if concision is a word.

[Knarlz]

concision
A noun
1 conciseness, concision, pithiness, succinctness

terseness and economy in writing and speaking achieved by expressing a great deal in just a few words
Category Tree:
abstraction
╚relation
╚social_relation
╚communication
╚expressive_style; style
╚terseness
╚conciseness, concision, pithiness, succinctness