Numbers Show The Extent Of Bias In National Media
Forlorn
Join Date: 2002-11-01 Member: 2634Banned
Join Date: 2002-11-01 Member: 2634Banned
<div class="IPBDescription">by Linda Seebach (Scripps Howard)</div> EDIT: The link to the report went down. You can find a new one <a href='http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/MediaBias.doc' target='_blank'>here.</a>
People trying to persuade others to adopt their views are very likely to cite think-tank experts who agree with them. And the liberal lobbying group Americans for Democratic Action (their description of themselves) regularly grades politicians from 0 to 100 based on their votes on selected issues, with the most liberal members of Congress earning 100.
Two researchers have combined these two disparate ideas to come up with a measure of media bias that doesn't depend on journalists' own perceptions of where they fit on the political spectrum, or on subjective judgments about the philosophical orientation of think tanks. Tim Groseclose of UCLA and Standford and Jeff Milyo of the University of Chicago used date comparing which think tanks various politicians liked to quote and which think tanks various media outlets liked to quote in their news stories to estimate two ADA scores for each media outlet in the study, one based on the number of times a think tank was cited and the other on the length of the citation.
The media outlets were The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, USA Today and the three network news shows Fox News' "Special Report" and "The Drudge Report" (the paper is online at <a href='http://www.yale.edu/isps/seminars/american_pol/groseclose.pdf' target='_blank'>http://www.yale.edu/isps/seminars/american.../groseclose.pdf</a> ).
"Our results show a very significant liberal bias," they write. "One of our measures found that the Drudge report is the most centrest out of all media outlets in our sample. Our other measure found that Fox News' Special Report is the most centrist." And all three papers, plus NBC and CBS, "were closer to the average Democrat in Congress than to the median member of the House of Representatives."
Fair and balanced, anyone? To use a simplified example, they say, suppose there were only two think tanks and The New York Times cited the liberal one twice as often as the conservative one. Then the newspaper's ADA score would be the same as that of a member of Congress who did the same.
The estimated ADA score for FOx, based on citations, was 35.6. THat puts it in the company of Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and a few points below the House median, 39.0. The two highest were The New York Times, at 67.6, and "CBS Evening News," at 70.0. The average Republican in Congress has an ADA score of 11.2, and the average Democrat 74.1.
The authors say they expected to find that the mainstream media leaned to the left, but they were "astounded by the degree." So when people say, for example, that The New York Times may be tilted left, but people can compensate for that by watching Fox News, they don't take into account that the TImes much futher from the center than Fox. "To gain a balanced perspective, one would need to spend twice as much time watching Special Report as he or she spends reading The New York Times."
Turning the research around also allows the authors to answer the question of which think tanks are liberal conservative - in most cases everyone knows, but there are some questions. Rand, for instance, comes out pretty much in the middle until they look at it more closely and discover there are, in effect, two Rands; one that does social and politifcal stuff, which is mostly quoted by liberal politicans, and another that does military stuff and is seldom quoted by anybody.
Another anomaly is the American Sivil LIberties Union, which turned out much more conservative than anybody really thinks it is; but that proved to be primarily because of its opposition to the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance bill, frequently cited by conservatives.
The predominance of liberals (however identified) in major mediea is well-documented, but there remains a great deal of controversy over how much that fact influences news reporting (this analysis looks only at news reports, not editorials, reviews or letters to the editior). Most journalists I know say they work hard to keep their personal views out of their news reporting (again, excepting people like me who are supposed to be expressing opinions). And most of them, I'm sure, sincerly believe they succeed. This is evidence that that what they succeed best at is sounding like Democrats.
k, I always thought media was liberal, but never to this extent. I was reading this in my newspaper when I saw this article and decided to type it up and post it here.
Also, the link provided is 29 pages long, collegial paper quality. Do not say that the method is flimsy, because if you do it's your word against a much more credible one.
However, any thoughts or oppinions?
People trying to persuade others to adopt their views are very likely to cite think-tank experts who agree with them. And the liberal lobbying group Americans for Democratic Action (their description of themselves) regularly grades politicians from 0 to 100 based on their votes on selected issues, with the most liberal members of Congress earning 100.
Two researchers have combined these two disparate ideas to come up with a measure of media bias that doesn't depend on journalists' own perceptions of where they fit on the political spectrum, or on subjective judgments about the philosophical orientation of think tanks. Tim Groseclose of UCLA and Standford and Jeff Milyo of the University of Chicago used date comparing which think tanks various politicians liked to quote and which think tanks various media outlets liked to quote in their news stories to estimate two ADA scores for each media outlet in the study, one based on the number of times a think tank was cited and the other on the length of the citation.
The media outlets were The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, USA Today and the three network news shows Fox News' "Special Report" and "The Drudge Report" (the paper is online at <a href='http://www.yale.edu/isps/seminars/american_pol/groseclose.pdf' target='_blank'>http://www.yale.edu/isps/seminars/american.../groseclose.pdf</a> ).
"Our results show a very significant liberal bias," they write. "One of our measures found that the Drudge report is the most centrest out of all media outlets in our sample. Our other measure found that Fox News' Special Report is the most centrist." And all three papers, plus NBC and CBS, "were closer to the average Democrat in Congress than to the median member of the House of Representatives."
Fair and balanced, anyone? To use a simplified example, they say, suppose there were only two think tanks and The New York Times cited the liberal one twice as often as the conservative one. Then the newspaper's ADA score would be the same as that of a member of Congress who did the same.
The estimated ADA score for FOx, based on citations, was 35.6. THat puts it in the company of Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and a few points below the House median, 39.0. The two highest were The New York Times, at 67.6, and "CBS Evening News," at 70.0. The average Republican in Congress has an ADA score of 11.2, and the average Democrat 74.1.
The authors say they expected to find that the mainstream media leaned to the left, but they were "astounded by the degree." So when people say, for example, that The New York Times may be tilted left, but people can compensate for that by watching Fox News, they don't take into account that the TImes much futher from the center than Fox. "To gain a balanced perspective, one would need to spend twice as much time watching Special Report as he or she spends reading The New York Times."
Turning the research around also allows the authors to answer the question of which think tanks are liberal conservative - in most cases everyone knows, but there are some questions. Rand, for instance, comes out pretty much in the middle until they look at it more closely and discover there are, in effect, two Rands; one that does social and politifcal stuff, which is mostly quoted by liberal politicans, and another that does military stuff and is seldom quoted by anybody.
Another anomaly is the American Sivil LIberties Union, which turned out much more conservative than anybody really thinks it is; but that proved to be primarily because of its opposition to the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance bill, frequently cited by conservatives.
The predominance of liberals (however identified) in major mediea is well-documented, but there remains a great deal of controversy over how much that fact influences news reporting (this analysis looks only at news reports, not editorials, reviews or letters to the editior). Most journalists I know say they work hard to keep their personal views out of their news reporting (again, excepting people like me who are supposed to be expressing opinions). And most of them, I'm sure, sincerly believe they succeed. This is evidence that that what they succeed best at is sounding like Democrats.
k, I always thought media was liberal, but never to this extent. I was reading this in my newspaper when I saw this article and decided to type it up and post it here.
Also, the link provided is 29 pages long, collegial paper quality. Do not say that the method is flimsy, because if you do it's your word against a much more credible one.
However, any thoughts or oppinions?
Comments
It is sure nice to have some hard evidence to support that. Good job Forlorn <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Just to see what kind of quotes are being cited as liberal.
also, bear in mind, under this method a station which broadcast only right wing stories using liberal quotes would score higher.
To provide a counter example: I live in a fairly liberal university town, I went to high school with people whose parents were professors. For some reason (ivorytowercough) professors sons and daughters tend to be freaking wack jobs, crazy. Not normal. One set of girls I knew were the most liberal people I have ever had the priviledge (?) of meeting. Vegans, all natural clothing, nudism etc. The thing is, they held views on particular social issues that you would normally consider conservative. Anti-abortion, for instance.
I have a feeling a similar situation would be at work in Congress. Look at Bill Clinton, for example. He could only score very liberally on any scale, and yet the two hallmarks of his presidency (Welfare reform and the balanced budget) are traditionally conservative ideas.
In a Congress, where the majority is so slim, the only actual work that gets through is by way of compromise. Since the Republicans hold majority (and have for over a decade), and consequently most committee chairs, they get the most big bills out on the floor. The only way (or at least the most frequent way) that Democrats can get legislation through is probably as a rider, an amendment on a bill in committee, something they were able to tack on to persuade them to vote yes. I doubt the ADA bothers to score based on amendments (although there <a href='http://www.cagw.org' target='_blank'>are some that do</a>).
That's just two ways in which the scoring could be biased. The fact is, somewhere along the line, you have to assign an arbitrary point value to something that doesn't ordinarily translate numerically, and that's always the point of weakness with these "measures."
Whether or not the media is liberal is a point I won't bother to contend. I consider myself liberal (in the dictionary sense of open-mindedness) and even so, I don't trust the New York Times to be a valuable source of news, neither Fox. There's something about the way they both manage to alternate actual factual information with bald-faced opinionated statements that irritates me.
I mean , FOX News sources are usually dismissed in debates among european moderates.
I haven't had much time to read this study critically but I did notice this:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->To compute our measure, we count the times that a media outlet cites various think tanks. We compare this with the times that members of Congress cite the same think tanks in their speeches on the floor of the House and Senate. By comparing the citation patterns we can construct an ADA score for each media outlet.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It looks to me like they've disregarded actual legislation and only researched verbal speeches on the open floor.
As for the Clinton analogy, I wouldn't really call him a Liberal (or a Liberal idealist) anyway, he was an opportunist. That, to me, explains why he's often considered a center/moderate. The 104th Congress was the first Republican controlled body in over 40 years. It was a big deal. Clinton recognized this and quickly found ways to keep everyone happy.
And (e)kent, I'm sorry you had to witness pickle eating, naked, hairy chicks as a young man. I hope it didn't scar you for life <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
The liberals saw Clinton as a conduit for their ideals to flow through to permeate many aspects of the American public.
Onto the subject:
Liberal bias in the media makes sense. A fairly good portion of the 1960's hippy movement ended up in media positions or in education positions, and political activism doesn't just stop with a college degree.
I have little doubt that the originators of this report used some methods that are not 100 % sound, or left certain things out that could be debated. However, these things are trivial. Arguing that the media is not tilted left is basically pointless, since the amount of evidence that has been coming out over the past few years points to this being true. Just accept that fact and apply it to what you hear/see/read in the world around you. The media can never be, and will never be, balanced.
Just like Natural Selection. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I haven't had much time to read this study critically but I did notice this:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->To compute our measure, we count the times that a media outlet cites various think tanks. We compare this with the times that members of Congress cite the same think tanks in their speeches on the floor of the House and Senate. By comparing the citation patterns we can construct an ADA score for each media outlet.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It looks to me like they've disregarded actual legislation and only researched verbal speeches on the open floor.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're correct about that but what I was referring to was the actual ADA score, which is applied to legislators based on their vote on particular pieces of legislation. To quote their site:
<span style='font-family:Courier'>Each year, ADA's Legislative Committee selects 20 votes it considers the most important during that session. ADA's National Board and/or National Executive Committee approves those votes. Each member recieves 5 points if he/she voted with ADA, and does not receive 5 points if he/she voted against us or was absent. The total possible is 100.</span>
The paper attempted to apply an ADA score to media outlets and contrast that score with the average congressional score. The source (an obviously biased think-tank with an agenda) should indicate that this ADA score is not really an objective piece of data and thus probably not good support for any conclusions drawn on the media.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And (e)kent, I'm sorry you had to witness pickle eating, naked, hairy chicks as a young man. I hope it didn't scar you for life <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Life is full of harsh lessons <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I haven't had much time to read this study critically but I did notice this:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->To compute our measure, we count the times that a media outlet cites various think tanks. We compare this with the times that members of Congress cite the same think tanks in their speeches on the floor of the House and Senate. By comparing the citation patterns we can construct an ADA score for each media outlet.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It looks to me like they've disregarded actual legislation and only researched verbal speeches on the open floor.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmm, I don't think any actual legislation cites think-tanks. At least, I haven't read any bills that cite them.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The researchers document many oppurtunities for bias in their data, but 3 of the most glaring are: the fact that the entire document rests on the validity of the ADA scoring, their accepted definition of liberal, their accepted definition for conservative.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just because the ADA score does fit in with your definitions of what you consider liberal/conservative, does not mean the ADA score strays far from popular views. Go take a look at the media outlets that the paper cites, <a href='http://www.wheretodoresearch.com/Think_Tanks.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.wheretodoresearch.com/Think_Tanks.htm</a> (200 most prominant think tanks in the US), are easily identified on how conservative/liberal they are.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That's just two ways in which the scoring could be biased. The fact is, somewhere along the line, you have to assign an arbitrary point value to something that doesn't ordinarily translate numerically, and that's always the point of weakness with these "measures."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, while numbers may have their error, the extreame use of sources as well as extensive comparisions would probably tell you that the error is smaller than 5%. 200 think tanks, compared with all members of the senate and congress. Yeah. In other words, that sort of 'it's not accurate enough' logic only goes so far. Maybe if you were to make the case that the dude who xscored 75 actually only scored 70, then that would be a flaw to discuss. However, I seriously doubt that the entire system is trash simply because of a small discrepancy.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
The paper attempted to apply an ADA score to media outlets and contrast that score with the average congressional score. The source (an obviously biased think-tank with an agenda) should indicate that this ADA score is not really an objective piece of data and thus probably not good support for any conclusions drawn on the media.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Refering to the source, you mean the paper itself? Because quite simply if so than this small paragraph here says very little to nothing and does not explain your position very well at all.
If you would like to attack the ADA score, which seems to be the only weak point of this powerhouse of a paper, then please do, I can't see any obvious flaws..
Refering to the source, you mean the paper itself? Because quite simply if so than this small paragraph here says very little to nothing and does not explain your position very well at all.
If you would like to attack the ADA score, which seems to be the only weak point of this powerhouse of a paper, then please do, I can't see any obvious flaws.. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's exactly what i was doing (and by source I meant the ADA).
Plus I was trying to insinuate that liberal/conservative labels are a little simplistic when applied to politicians (who by nature are oppurtunistic?). There was nothing else to my argument.
quoting myself:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> In a Congress, where the majority is so slim, the only actual work that gets through is by way of compromise. Since the Republicans hold majority (and have for over a decade), and consequently most committee chairs, they get the most big bills out on the floor. The only way (or at least the most frequent way) that Democrats can get legislation through is probably as a rider, an amendment on a bill in committee, something they were able to tack on to persuade them to vote yes. I doubt the ADA bothers to score based on amendments (although there are some that do).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The ADA score doesn't score based on amendments, only on the 20 bills they feel most strongly about, which isn't really a measure of liberality. It's a measure of which congresspeople push the ADAs agenda best.
what if a certain think tank has various quotes, each with varying degrees of liberal/ conservative values.
after all we are talking about opinions which may vary, and applying a harsh statistical approach leaves little room for such variances.
A station quoting a more conservative statement from a more liberal think tank would score wrongly.
I don't understand how it pushes ADA's "agenda" when all it does is take 20 controversal bills, and furthermore it doesn't rate the bills themselves, it's looking at the discussion that lead up to the votes, it's looking for how often canadates site their think-tank sources, so this is pretty damn accurate to me.
So I guess the next flaw would be to see how the think tanks are rated:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> who decides which think tanks are liberal and which are conservative?
what if a certain think tank has various quotes, each with varying degrees of liberal/ conservative values.
after all we are talking about opinions which may vary, and applying a harsh statistical approach leaves little room for such variances.
A station quoting a more conservative statement from a more liberal think tank would score wrongly.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But again, think tanks are easy to classify as their purpose and position is clearly stated, even on their website.
The Brooking Institute is labeled as left even though it is actually centrist. The report considers the ACLU to be right wing, due to its opposition campaign finance reform laws. These people are comedians. The RAND corporation is liberal? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Cato Institute (libertarian think tank. THAT is right wing as it comes) is closer to the center than CBPP? What are these people smoking? Why focus on senate citations when that institution is so unrepresentative considering the differing state populations?
It's another case of people with an agenda. These particular researchers came to a conclusion beforehand, then wildly distorted their study to support it, hence their ridiculous notion of the ACLU being right wing due to the stance on CFR, etc.
Now, before anyone else screams "LIBERAL MEDIA!!111", remember the study that showed 80% of Fox News viewers, and 71% of CBS viewers believed in one of the following misconceptions:
# U.S. forces found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
# There's clear evidence that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein worked closely with the Sept. 11 terrorists.
# People in foreign countries generally either backed the U.S.-led war or were evenly split between supporting and opposing it.
Google it if you want. Looks like CBS viewers were fed with neocon propaganda, instead of the liberal propaganda the right screams about.
For Instance, if you wanted to have a educated opinion on outsourcing, it would be better if you researched the topic and got facts from databases, libraries, etc. I wouldn't use any type of media for the developing of an opinion, I just use the media as a way of finding out about an issue.
The Brooking Institute is labeled as left even though it is actually centrist. The report considers the ACLU to be right wing, due to its opposition campaign finance reform laws. These people are comedians. The RAND corporation is liberal? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Cato Institute (libertarian think tank. THAT is right wing as it comes) is closer to the center than CBPP? What are these people smoking? Why focus on senate citations when that institution is so unrepresentative considering the differing state populations?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Where did you pull these facts out of?
Also page 8 on the pdf describes the anomolies about the RAND institute or the ACLU, which they actually omit the ACLU which causes everything to be shifted one point to the left.
<i>CMPA's ElectionWatch study was the focus of a USA Today piece examining how the networsk have covered the political debates. CMPA president Robert Lichter observed "the Big Three networks have Kerry winning both debates, but the oft-maligned cable news networks have been more balanced," (October 10) </i>
<a href='http://www.cmpa.com/' target='_blank'>http://www.cmpa.com/</a>
<i>Overall, analysts and partisan pundits in post-debate comments on NBC, ABC and CBS strongly liked John Kerry's performance: 69% of comments about how Kerry did were positive, while 31% were negative. In comparison, comments about Bush's performance were 45% positive and 55% negative.
Analysis by Fox News and CNN was more down the middle, says a study by Media Tenor, a media monitoring group, and the Center for Media and Public Affairs: 57% of comments were positive and 43% negative for Kerry; Bush: 53% positive, 47% negative.</i>
<a href='http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2004-10-10-media-mix_x.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/med...media-mix_x.htm</a>
Do I think there is a bias in the elite media? Yes I do, but not to the extent some conservatives put out. I don't think there is grand leftist conspiracy aimed at the destruction of the Republican Party and conservative mindset through the use of mass media. I still watch nightline and still believe it is a good news source, even though they have a slight liberal bias. As for political commentary, I usually watch tim russart and Bill Oreilly (cant stand hanity and colmes)
Al Franken (woo, liberal nut job!) and his investigative team for "Lies and the Lying Liars..." scored media coverage of the 2000 elections on a similar scale -- positive, negative, or neutral stories on each of the two candidates. Their findings, based on media studies by non-partisan media watch-groups, indicated that coverage of Gore was more negative and a lot less positive than coverage of Bush.
I'd get numbers and citations if I cared more, but I'm tired. The point is that one can always find "facts" to support a position if one digs deep enough.
Analysis by Fox News and CNN was more down the middle, says a study by Media Tenor, a media monitoring group, and the Center for Media and Public Affairs: 57% of comments were positive and 43% negative for Kerry; Bush: 53% positive, 47% negative.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, Coil has a good point-- what if Kerry just did better? By 'balanced media', do we want a body that can rationalize everything to a dead tie?
And that's the problem I have with much of the 'liberal bias' issue (I have a doctor's appointment in half an hour, so I will try to comment further on this, especially as it relates to this paper)-- if there is a positive story/account/fact/statement about a Democrat/liberal, it's LIBERAL BIAS, by definition, no further investigation needed.
If the same is said about a conservative-- well, that's 'cause it must be true.
Sigh. Aren't conservatives the ones who like writing off everything (*ahem* . . . Everything <i>else</i>, of course) as conspiracy theory?
It is sure nice to have some hard evidence to support that. Good job Forlorn <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hard evidence? Fox liberal? fact?
don't make me laugh <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Analysis by Fox News and CNN was more down the middle, says a study by Media Tenor, a media monitoring group, and the Center for Media and Public Affairs: 57% of comments were positive and 43% negative for Kerry; Bush: 53% positive, 47% negative.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, Coil has a good point-- what if Kerry just did better? By 'balanced media', do we want a body that can rationalize everything to a dead tie?
And that's the problem I have with much of the 'liberal bias' issue (I have a doctor's appointment in half an hour, so I will try to comment further on this, especially as it relates to this paper)-- if there is a positive story/account/fact/statement about a Democrat/liberal, it's LIBERAL BIAS, by definition, no further investigation needed.
If the same is said about a conservative-- well, that's 'cause it must be true.
Sigh. Aren't conservatives the ones who like writing off everything (*ahem* . . . Everything <i>else</i>, of course) as conspiracy theory? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You obviously didn't read damn word of the research report.
This isn't oppinionated in the slightest. This is based mostly on numbers and looking at the actions congress members preform. This isn't al franken trash, or rush limbaugh trash. (trash being heavily oppinionated stuff)
Some quotes before you read and get educated:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Estimation Method The back-of-the-envelope estimates are less than optimal for at least three reasons: (i) they do not give confidence intervals of their estimates; (ii) they do not utilize the extent to which a think tank is liberal or conservative (they only record the dichotomy, whether the think tank is left or right of center); and (iii) they are not embedded in an explicit choice model. We now describe a method that overcomes each of these three deficiencies. Define yi as the average adjusted ADA score of the ith member of Congress. Given that the member cites a think tank, we assume that the utility that he or she receives from citing the jth think tank is
aj + bj yi + eij .
We assume that eij is distributed according to a Weibull distribution. As shown by McFadden (1974; also see Judge, et. al, 1985, pp. 770-2), this implies that the probability that member i selects the jth think tank is
exp(aj + bj yi ) / ∑k=1J exp(ak + bk yi ) , (1)
where J is the total number of think tanks in our sample.
Note that this probability term is no different from the one we see in a multinomial logit (where the only independent variable is yi ). Define cm as the estimated adjusted ADA score of the mth media outlet.
Similar to the members of Congress, we assume that the utility that it receives from citing the the jth think tank is
aj + bj cm + emj .
We assume that emj is distributed according to a Weibull distribution. This implies that the probability that media outlet m selects the jth think tank is
exp(aj + bj cm ) / ∑k=1J exp(ak + bk cm ). (2)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And here is the conclusion of the report:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Conclusion
Although we expected to find that most media lean left, we were astounded by the degree. A norm among journalists is to present “both sides of the issue.” Consequently, while we expected members of Congress to cite primarily think tanks that are on the same side of the ideological spectrum as they are, we expected journalists to practice a much more balanced citation practice, even if the journalist’s own ideology opposed the think tanks that he or she is sometimes citing. This was not always the case. Most of the mainstream media outlets that we examined (ie all those besides Drudge Report and Fox News’ Special Report) were closer to the average Democrat in Congress than they were to the median member of the House. Our results contrast strongly with the prior expectations of many others. It is easy to find quotes from prominent journalists and academics who claim that there is no systematic bias among media outlets in the U.S. The following are some examples: “Our greatest accomplishment as a profession is the development since World War II of a news reporting craft that is truly non-partisan, and non-ideological, and that strives to be independent of undue commercial or governmental influence....It is that legacy we must protect with our diligent stewardship. To do so means we must be aware of the energetic effort that is now underway to convince our readers that we are ideologues. It is an exercise of, in disinformation, of alarming proportions. This attempt to convince the audience of the world’s most ideology-free newspapers that they’re being subjected to agenda-driven news reflecting a liberal bias. I don’t believe our viewers and readers will be, in the long-run, misled by those who advocate biased journalism.” – New York Times Executive Editor Howell Raines accepting the “George Beveridge Editor of the Year Award” at a National Press Foundation dinner shown live on C-SPAN2 February 20, 2003. “…when it comes to free publicity, some of the major broadcast media are simply biased in favor of the Republicans, while the rest tend to blur differences between the parties. But that’s the way it is. Democrats should complain as loudly about the real conservative bias of the media as the Republicans complain about its entirely mythical bias…” --Paul Krugman, “Into the Wilderness,” New York Times, November 8, 2002.
17
"The mainstream media does not have a liberal bias. . . . ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, the New York Times, The Washington Post, Time, Newsweek and the rest -- at least try to be fair." --Al Franken. (2003, xx) Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right.
The main conclusion of our paper is that our results simply reject such claims.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
These is coming from stanford . This is not a bias paper, it's a scientific analysis, complete with hypothesis and procedure which makes the liberal media naked.
You obviously didn't read damn word of the research report.
This isn't oppinionated in the slightest. This is based mostly on numbers and looking at the actions congress members preform. This isn't al franken trash, or rush limbaugh trash. (trash being heavily oppinionated stuff)
Some quotes before you read and get educated:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Estimation Method The back-of-the-envelope estimates are less than optimal for at least three reasons: (i) they do not give confidence intervals of their estimates; (ii) they do not utilize the extent to which a think tank is liberal or conservative (they only record the dichotomy, whether the think tank is left or right of center); and (iii) they are not embedded in an explicit choice model. We now describe a method that overcomes each of these three deficiencies. Define yi as the average adjusted ADA score of the ith member of Congress. Given that the member cites a think tank, we assume that the utility that he or she receives from citing the jth think tank is
aj + bj yi + eij .
We assume that eij is distributed according to a Weibull distribution. As shown by McFadden (1974; also see Judge, et. al, 1985, pp. 770-2), this implies that the probability that member i selects the jth think tank is
exp(aj + bj yi ) / ∑k=1J exp(ak + bk yi ) , (1)
where J is the total number of think tanks in our sample.
Note that this probability term is no different from the one we see in a multinomial logit (where the only independent variable is yi ). Define cm as the estimated adjusted ADA score of the mth media outlet.
Similar to the members of Congress, we assume that the utility that it receives from citing the the jth think tank is
aj + bj cm + emj .
We assume that emj is distributed according to a Weibull distribution. This implies that the probability that media outlet m selects the jth think tank is
exp(aj + bj cm ) / ∑k=1J exp(ak + bk cm ). (2)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And here is the conclusion of the report:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Conclusion
Although we expected to find that most media lean left, we were astounded by the degree. A norm among journalists is to present “both sides of the issue.” Consequently, while we expected members of Congress to cite primarily think tanks that are on the same side of the ideological spectrum as they are, we expected journalists to practice a much more balanced citation practice, even if the journalist’s own ideology opposed the think tanks that he or she is sometimes citing. This was not always the case. Most of the mainstream media outlets that we examined (ie all those besides Drudge Report and Fox News’ Special Report) were closer to the average Democrat in Congress than they were to the median member of the House. Our results contrast strongly with the prior expectations of many others. It is easy to find quotes from prominent journalists and academics who claim that there is no systematic bias among media outlets in the U.S. The following are some examples: “Our greatest accomplishment as a profession is the development since World War II of a news reporting craft that is truly non-partisan, and non-ideological, and that strives to be independent of undue commercial or governmental influence....It is that legacy we must protect with our diligent stewardship. To do so means we must be aware of the energetic effort that is now underway to convince our readers that we are ideologues. It is an exercise of, in disinformation, of alarming proportions. This attempt to convince the audience of the world’s most ideology-free newspapers that they’re being subjected to agenda-driven news reflecting a liberal bias. I don’t believe our viewers and readers will be, in the long-run, misled by those who advocate biased journalism.” – New York Times Executive Editor Howell Raines accepting the “George Beveridge Editor of the Year Award” at a National Press Foundation dinner shown live on C-SPAN2 February 20, 2003. “…when it comes to free publicity, some of the major broadcast media are simply biased in favor of the Republicans, while the rest tend to blur differences between the parties. But that’s the way it is. Democrats should complain as loudly about the real conservative bias of the media as the Republicans complain about its entirely mythical bias…” --Paul Krugman, “Into the Wilderness,” New York Times, November 8, 2002.
17
"The mainstream media does not have a liberal bias. . . . ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, the New York Times, The Washington Post, Time, Newsweek and the rest -- at least try to be fair." --Al Franken. (2003, xx) Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right.
The main conclusion of our paper is that our results simply reject such claims.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
These is coming from stanford . This is not a bias paper, it's a scientific analysis, complete with hypothesis and procedure which makes the liberal media naked. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Forlorn, <b>you</b> obviously didn't read a Damn word in my response.
My comment was a quick observation about the notion of liberal bias in general, a topic this thread had briefly touched upon.
I said I would comment upon this particular paper when I had more time.
Though, I don't really expect much from you on this topic-- as I recall, you're the astute youngster who thought . . . snicker . . . that <a href='http://www.mrc.org' target='_blank'>Brent Bozell's MRC</a> was <i>non-partisan</i>. Good Lord, I <i>still</i> can't figure out how you reached that conclusion. Hilarity ensues!
Now, quick question-- since you obviously place so much weight on the fact that this is from Stanford (It's a smart school! Therefore it is right!) I find it odd that you also lifted their quote from Paul Krugman. He's a <i>professor</i> at Princeton. By virtue of his Ivy League status, isn't his thesis likely to be correct as well?
I can find all sorts of papers by him, and they'll also have numbers and ideas in them. Those are, by definition, correct, right?
At any rate, I'm going to look that paper over now.
Well, first off, it's a rather small samlping population-- where's the Washington Times? Where's the Wall Street Journal? Where's the rest of the Fox News Channel?
Drudge as centrist? I found a right wing blog who rationalized it this way:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->While I agree that the citing of think tanks is one useful indicator, it strikes me as a rather odd single measure. Indeed, one would think the vast majority of news stories and congressional speeches lack any such references, making the coding rather selective.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To which a comment replies:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Well, there you have it. Drudge doesn’t cite think tanks at all (why would he?) (rimshot), ergo he is “centrist.”
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Anyhow. Their definition of 'center' is also a bit off. A good discussion <a href='http://www.deadparrots.net/archives/media/0406attempt_to_quantify_media_bias.html' target='_blank'>here</a> brings up a few good points:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well, centrist is, by (their) definition, the "center of gravity of the House of Representatives." However, even if you take the "center" as 50 on the ADA scale, almost every outlet studied is to the right of that score. They'd have been on more defensible ground if they'd used 50 as the center, although there's no reason to believe a priori that 50 is the "true" center between liberal and conservative on the scale.
IMHO you shouldn't use the median as a measure of central tendency for anything with a bimodal distribution, like ADA scores, but then again I'm not sure there *is* a good measure of central tendency for bimodal distributions.
I'd also like to see them duplicate the results using NOMINATE (Poole & Rosenthal) and/or Clinton-Jackman-Rivers scoring, but that's neither here nor there.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/%7Emyl/languagelog/archives/001169.html' target='_blank'>This guy</a> also critiques it, and he's from UPenn, so you can believe him.
Correction: Nope, on second look, <a href='http://www-csli.stanford.edu/~nunberg/' target='_blank'>he's</a> also from Stanford.
Some highlights:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What's wrong with this picture? Just two things: its conception and its execution. Let's begin with the assumption that underlies Groseclose and Milyo's assignment of ratings to the various groups they looked at: if a group is cited by a liberal legislator, it's liberal; if it's cited by a conservative legislator, it's conservative.
On February 24, 2004, for example, in a debate on the medical liability bill, the liberal Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut cited "a study conducted by the Rand Corporation and published in the New England Journal of Medicine last year [which concluded] that individuals received the recommended treatment for their condition in only 55 percent of the cases... "
For Groseclose and Milyo, Dodd's citation of the study counts as one piece of evidence that the Rand Corporation is a liberal think tank. In fact, their method assumes that there can be no such thing as objective or disinterested scholarship -- every study or piece of research, even if published in so august a scientific authority as the New England Journal, can be assumed to have a hidden agenda, depending on which side finds its results congenial to its political purposes.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
More to follow . . .
No, I all I said was you couldn't discredit mrc because it is partisan and I was trying to imply if it was partisan or not doesn't matter.
Also I was replying to coil and x5 as well.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Into the time machine, kids!
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And, Bathroom Monkey, I would not say www.mrc.org is baised for conservatives, all it does is take quotes out of the media that carry slants to them. Both conservative and liberal slants. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=28&t=53504&st=90' target='_blank'>That's a negative.</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Start with the list of groups from which G & M drew their initial sample. They describe this simply as a list of "the most prominent think tanks," but that isn't quite accurate. In fact their list was drawn from the 200 links included on the site wheretodoresearch.com (which actually describes it merely as a list of "major think tanks and policy groups"). The list was compiled by one Saguee Saraf, a free-lance researcher with a masters degree in history who lists among his achievements that he was named Man of the Year by the Cheshire (Connecticut) Republican Town Committee.
Saraf gives no indication of how his list was compiled, or what criteria were used -- nor, what's more to the point, do Groseclose and Milyo say why they consider the list authoritative. In fact its contents are a jumble of think tanks, lobbying groups, trade associations, and advocacy groups, assembled in a catch-as-can manner. It lists the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs but not California Tomorrow; the National Right to Life Committee but not Planned Parenthood; the National Federation of Independent Businesses but not the National Association of Manufacturers; the NAACP but not the Urban League, the American Jewish Congress, or the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund; the Cato Institute but not the Reason Foundation; the Sierra Club and the Audobon Society but not the League of Conservation Voters or the Natural Resources Defense Council. On the grounds of sample choice alone, in short, the Groseclose and Milyo study would be disqualified as serious research on "the most prominent think tanks."
Then, too, Groseclose and Milyo's survey of the citations of groups in the Congressional Record shows some results that would most kindly be described as puzzling. In their list of the "twenty think tanks most cited by members of Congress," for example, they list in 13th place the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution (which they refer to as the "Alexis de Tocqueville Institute"), which comes in ahead of Common Cause (14th), the Family Research Council (16th), and the Economic Policy Institute (19th), not to mention a number of much better-known groups that appear on Saraf's list but not in G & M's top 20, like the NRA and the Hoover Institution.
That result is pretty curious, since the Tocqueville Institution hardly counts among the heavy hitters in the think-tank world. In fact when you look in the Congressional Record, you turn up just 16 mentions of the group since 1993, including a few pieces from the Washington Times written by people associated with it that were inserted into the Congressional Record by Republican legislators, and a number of other mentions that would not have counted as citations by the criteria that G & M said they used. By contrast, the Family Reseach Council, ranked by G & M behind the Tocqueville Institution in Congressional influence, received 186 mentions in the Congressional Record over the same period. And among groups on Saraf's list but not listed in G & M's top 20, the Manhattan Institute received 42 mentions, and the Hoover Institution received 54.
I have no way of knowing why G & M assigned such prominence to the Tocqueville Institution. Whatever the reason, though, it leaves you with the sense that their other results can't be trusted, either. (At another point, G & M explain that they disregarded the ACLU in their final analysis because it turned up with an excessively conservative score, owing to Republicans who cited it for its opposition to McCain-Feingold. Other researchers might wonder whether there might not be similar anomalies in the results obtained for other groups, and might even suspect that this result cast some doubt on their overall method. G & M seem untroubled by that possibility.)
It's clear, too, that a different choice of a sample for the study would have turned out very different results. Among the groups that didn't appear on Saraf's list and so were not examined by G & M, for example, the National Association of Manufacturers received a whopping 617 mentions over the period under consideration -- that is, 60 times as many as the Tocqueville Institute -- the majority of them, not surpisingly, from Republican legislators. And the Conference of Catholic Bishops was mentioned 130 times, most often in connection with the abortion issue. Had those groups and others like them been included in the study, they would presumably have been classified as conservative on the basis of the ADA rankings of members who cited then. (True, those groups aren't "think tanks," but then Groseclose and Milyo did include groups like the AARP, which is hardly a think tank either.)
If those groups had been included, the picture of media bias would have changed considerably, since both groups are widely cited in the media. For example, the Conference of Catholic Bishops has been mentioned on CNN over the past five years more than four times as frequently as the American Enterprise Institute, and the NAM has been mentioned three times as frequently. By excluding conservative groups that are frequently mentioned in the media, the study appears to exaggerate the media's liberal tilt.
I say "appears to" because there is no way to tell from G & M's data what results they would have come up with if they had chosen a genuinely balanced sample that was restricted to think tanks whose prominence was objectively determined, if they had coded the data more reliably, if they had weighted the media citations appropriately, and if they had classified the groups according to a more plausible categorization scheme -- one, for example, in which the AARP was not treated as the "liberal" counterpart of the Heritage Foundation.
It seems a pity to waste so much effort on a project that is utterly worthless as an objective study of media bias. But in the current climate, does anybody care?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So these scores are based on a handful of arbitrary votes, tying congressmen to an arbitrary set of think tanks, based on an arbitrary set of references, which are then tied to a limited, arbitrary set of news sources, out of which we generate a rock solid, airtight score which clearly demonstrates a horribly liberal bias which can be extrapolated to condemn <i>all</i> media outlets.
What's not to like?
Edit: The authors' <a href='http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001301.html' target='_blank'>rebuttal</a> can be found in the preceeding link.
Apparently, they took the critique very personally. As the informal moderator points out:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->First, here's a bit about the history. Geoff Nunberg posted his critique of the Groseclose and Milyo article here on July 5. Jeff Milyo emailed me on July 21, explaining that he had read Geoff's piece after hearing about it from a Language Log reader, that had written to Geoff (Nunberg) asking if it would be possible to post a response, and that Geoff had suggested that he contact me, since I administer the weblog. I responded that I'd be happy to post their response, and this afternoon Jeff (Milyo) sent it to me. It took some massaging -- he sent a Microsoft Word file, and saving this as html resulted in some pretty strange html code -- but I hope that emacs and I have succeeded in coaxing the output into the form that the authors intended.
Second, I'd like to express my own opinions, such as they are. With respect to the statistical methodology, I don't think I'm in a position to judge. When I first read the Groseclose and Milyo article, my reaction to their "back-of-the-envelope" version was similar to Geoff's. I did realize that the most obvious objections to this version don't apply to the "real" technique that they used. On the other hand, I've noticed that the popular-press discussion of their article has focused mainly on the easier-to-understand "back-of-the-envelope" method, and so it does seem fair to me for Geoff to have criticized it. I believe that I do understand their "real" statistical model, and I look forward to some further discussion about what conclusions its application to in this case licenses. Geoff didn't engage this question, and it seems fair to me for them to complain about this.
With respect to the tone and style of the criticism, it seems to me that there's a certain clash of expectations here. As Geoff pointed out, the Groseclose and Milyo article has been widely discussed in the popular press, where its conclusions have been often presented in a polemical light. Although Geoff can (and I expect will) speak for himself, I took his LL posting to be presented in the rough-and-tumble style of these political polemics, rather than in the typically more subdued style of an academic review. The G&M paper itself somewhat straddles this divide. It's a piece of academic social science, but I get the impression from reading it that its authors also intended to make a political point.
So I feel their pain -- if I had published a scientific article that was criticized with the rhetorical devices that Geoff applied to their paper (starting with "sand sifted statistically is still sand", and moving on from there), I'd be pretty upset too. On the other hand, if I published a political tract that got similar treatment, I'd think to myself "oh good, I'm making enough impact that someone's taking the trouble to attack me", and I'd respond in the same spirit.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Into the time machine, kids!
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And, Bathroom Monkey, I would not say www.mrc.org is baised for conservatives, all it does is take quotes out of the media that carry slants to them. Both conservative and liberal slants. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=28&t=53504&st=90' target='_blank'>That's a negative.</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
thank you for defending me
As you can clearly see I was defending mrc stating (paraphrased) "is not baised for conservatives" as in anyone could read it and take it's value from it. Furthermore it does have cases of conservative bais, but they are extreamlly hard to find I do admit. I use to read the site everyday and would see some here and there.
And so far the researched report that Myilo and his buddy did stands pretty well to critism, eh? Considering the best response to the report was full of lies...
"I didn't say it was non-partisan-- I just said that it was an (adj), meaning not partisan; especially : free from party affiliation, bias, or designation."
Of course, find me an example of conservative bias in there. I'm <i>all</i> ears.
And it wasn't 'full of lies' (and if you're positing <i>that</i> as the new definition of 'lies', <b>boy</b> did you just lose your ability to defend George W. Bush). Look at what the moderator says afterward. There were points of contention on both sides. And of course, you can only believe that it's full of 'lies' if you take their rebuttal at face value and believe every word they say. The moderator seems to have a pretty even assessment of the critique/response. But you obviously have your heart set on believing that this paper is incontrovertible proof confirming one of your deeply held beliefs, so put on the blinders and go right ahead.
Again, I stand behind my earlier thought-- the ADA is an approximation, and an overly-simplified, cherry picked one at that. As that one critique from the right wing blog read, picking statements that only contain references to think tanks <i>hardly</i> gives one an honest sampling population. Additionally, I've seem some entires on blogs that have read through some of their examples, and found scenarios like this:
The New York Times has an article about the election. John Kerry makes a statement, supporting it with information from a think tank. George W Bush's campaign has a rebuttal, but no think tank is referenced. Balanced? Of course. But only the Kerry instance makes its way into their report, so the article (and paper of record) are branded with a leftward tilt.
Sure, they've got a lot of complex statistical analysis in there (that they're <i>quite</i> proud of, and seem to <b>love</b> the snarky 'well, you can't criticize us unless you're a statistician with a PHD, and if you <i>think</i> you found flaws, it's only becuase you're not smart enough to follow our logic' defense), but it's still based on a moutain of arbitrary, circumstantial evidence.
<a href='http://www.pandagon.net' target='_blank'>Pandagon</a> also makes some good points:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Just to let you know how absurd the whole thing is - the relative liberal bias of the media is determined by comparing them to Congress. Also, the study doesn't determine the relative political standing of a think tank (liberal, conservative, libertarian, etc.) by actually reading what the think tank writes - instead, it looks at who cites them, adjusts the think tanks to the ADA scores, and then bases the newspapers' liberalism on how often they cite those specific think tanks (references given for the actual cites are, of course, lacking).
So, the average congressperson (who ranks somewhere around a 39 on the ADA scale) somehow represents the average American. Any source that ranks above the right-leaning average in turn becomes "liberal", even though by the very scale they're using, their "center" is actually outside the ADA range of what's considered "moderate". Also, they throw the Drudge Report into the mix, and use what has to be one of the most boneheaded standards of all time. Since he doesn't cite think tanks, they use his citations of newspapers and average out their score based on the ****-backwards calculations they used to get their liberal scores. By this standard, Drudge is actually a liberal-leaning site. (And by the same standard, Pandagon is actually a conservative site - go figure!)
But, what's amazing is that they use the ADA's scores, but totally dismiss the ADA's own scale for the scores. Instead, they create their own standard, which drags the weight of the "center" towards the conservative end (the figures they give show that the conservatives are more conservative than the liberals are liberal, and that the mainstream media is actually just as close, if not closer to the center than the average Congressperson, and particularly the average Republican). In fact, using the actual ADA centrist score of 50, even the "liberal" New York Times (still less liberal than the average Democrat) is more than ten points closer to the center than Fox News.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And I will be posting more. I'm kicking myself for not picking up on this sooner, because it dosn't matter how impressive their math is if the data going <i>in</i>-- especially the controversial ADA score-- is bad. So in reality, I should have been looking for <i>its</i> legitimate criticisms.
Their whole argument is predicated upon the ADA score being a realistic measurement of left, right, and center.
Hah, found this in his comments section-- the authenticity is, of course, dubious (he's got a ucla.edu e-mail address, but that can be bunk), but I do think he nailed it with his final sentence:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm a UCLA grad student who was in the room when Groseclose presented the very preliminary version of this paper (this was back in September '03). I have to say, I'm very surprised that he had the nerve to continue the project after the reception that his paper got from both the senior faculty and the grad students. The consensus in the room was basically that the whole idea of an "ADA score" as a measure of bias is ridiculous. Nonetheless, I don't think the problem with this study is the authors' partisan agenda (if they even have one) so much as their methodological arrogance. You see this more and more in the social sciences. A lot of scholarship is no longer about trying to tackle important questions with the appropriate methods, but about trying to come up with nifty-looking methods and then seeing what questions they can be applied to. In other words, I don't think it's fair to imply that the authors are GOP hacks who set out to find evidence of liberal bias. Rather, it is fair to say that the authors are your run-of-the-mill political science dorkwads who just wanted to show off how good at math they are.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And another <i>very</i> interesting point:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>The most damning criticism of the Groseclose paper: it has not been submitted for publication or peer review.</b> I reviewed the paper superficially and found the methods were poor and the assumptions almost wholly indefensible. No respectable journal would publish such slipshod "research". The paper read as though it were an undergraduate's extra credit assignment.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Emphasis mine.
Er, the whole ADA issue was brought up on the first page. I <i>knew</i> I should have re-read it sooner. Oh well.
Not my problem. I try to understand what you state and if you type something difficult to understand then I accept that. You mean to tell me you do not?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Look at what the moderator says afterward. There were points of contention on both sides. And of course, you can only believe that it's full of 'lies' if you take their rebuttal at face value and believe every word they say. The moderator seems to have a pretty even assessment of the critique/response. But you obviously have your heart set on believing that this paper is incontrovertible proof confirming one of your deeply held beliefs, so put on the blinders and go right ahead.
Again, I stand behind my earlier thought-- the ADA is an approximation, and an overly-simplified, cherry picked one at that. As that one critique from the right wing blog read, picking statements that only contain references to think tanks hardly gives one an honest sampling population.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Excuse me, but I think you fall into the same line of thought as Nunberg does:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->vi) In contrast, the assumption that Nunberg claims that we make seems to apply more to his views than ours, at least in regard to research on the media. His second to last sentence reads, “It seems a pity to waste so much effort on a project that is utterly worthless as an objective study of media bias.” Is he saying “there can be no such thing as an objective and disinterested” study of media bias?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmmm, do you believe this?
That seriously throws your judgement off by a lot if you do.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The New York Times has an article about the election. John Kerry makes a statement, supporting it with information from a think tank. George W Bush's campaign has a rebuttal, but no think tank is referenced. Balanced? Of course. But only the Kerry instance makes its way into their report, so the article (and paper of record) are branded with a leftward tilt.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Uh, not really because the report compares the <b>numbers of times you cite a liberal source in realtionship to conservative one....</b> <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> So if John were to cite the liberal sources twice as many times as Bush does to his 1.5 to 1 (conservative : liberal) ratio, then it plots him accordingly higher on the ADA scale. Not difficult to figure out, or so I thought....
This paper's analysis is not as difficult as you might think to understand. One of the most basic premises the author's make is that the forumla is not a simple matter of counting up sources. (obviously this would not be accurate) It's all done in direct comparison to one another.
Of course, we still have the "Cherry-Picking" thing...
Bathroom Monkey says!:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->the ADA is an approximation, and an overly-simplified, cherry picked one at that.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The authors equolently destroy this charge:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->4a) First, the cherry-picking charge. When we began our study, Milyo, while searching the internet, found a list of think tanks that seemed to be a good place to start to look for data. This is the list created by Saraf. We have never met Saraf, nor do we know anything about him except what he lists on his web site. Further, when we first downloaded the list, we had not even read any other parts of his web site. In short, we knew nothing about Saraf or how his list was created. We chose the list simply because (i) it listed many think tanks, (ii) it seemed to include all the major ones, and (iii) it seemed to include a healthy balance of far-right, right-leaning moderate, moderate, left-leaning moderate, and far-left think tanks.
(As Nunberg mentions, Saraf won an award from a Republican group; thus, it is possible, and maybe likely, that the list is stacked slightly in favor of right-wing groups. Later, we’ll explain why this will not cause a bias to our media estimates. But in the meantime, consider this: Suppose instea d we had chosen a list that was stacked in favor of left-wing groups. We are certain that if we had done that someone, possibly Nunberg himself, would accuse us of intentionally picking a left-wing list in order to make the media look liberal. Here’s how such a critic could explain his or her charge. “Because Groseclose and Milyo’s list has a disproportionate number of left-wing think tanks, this causes media outlets in their sample to appear to cite left-wing groups disproportionately. This, in turn, causes their method to report the media more liberal than it really is.” Later, we’ll explain why this argument is wrong. But for now suppose it is correct. Remember, our list, if anything, seems to be stacked the other way, toward more right-wing groups. This would cause our method to report the media more conservative than they really are.)
This was Spring of 2002 when we first came across the list. Groseclose gave the list to his r.a.’s and asked them to begin data collection. After several months we considered adding more think tanks to the list. However, for two reasons we did not. One is simply the extra effort that it would bring upon us and our research assistants. We have now hired a total of 21 research assistants, and they have spent a total of approximately 5000 hours collecting data over a period of 2 ½ years, and we are still not quite finished. If we were, say, to expand our list to 300 think tanks, then this would cause our data-gathering exercise to take another year and a half, a total of about four years. At some point we have to say “Enough.”<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Also you can see they haven't submitted this to be published yet as they seem not to be finished. :o Hard workers these guys are, eh?
Also your entire Pandagon quote is trash, full of ignorance: (from again, the author's reponses)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->3) Nunberg claims that “In effect, G & C [sic] have located the political center in the middle of the Republican Party, by which standard the majority of American voters would count as left-of-center.” Here is another case where Nunberg seems not to have read a section of the paper. We devote an entire section to defining the political center (the section is entitled “Digression: Defining the ‘Center’”). We conclude the section with the following sentence, “As a consequence, we think it is appropriate to compare the scores of media outlets with the House median, 39.0”
We devote an entire table, Table 2, toward comparing the median and means of the entire Congress to the means of each party. As we note, the Republican mean is 11.2. Meanwhile the Democratic mean is 74.1. By no stretch of the imagination is 39.0 in the middle of the Republican party. In contrast, it is almost exactly equal to the midpoint of the middles (means) of the two parties.
We also illustrate this in Figures 2 and 3. Both figures list the median of the House, 39.0 and the averages of the Republican and Democratic parties. As anyone can see, 39.0 is approximately the midpoint between the two parties’ averages.
Finally, we also devote an entire table, Table 3, toward showing that 39.0 is indeed a moderate score and not a position in the middle of the Republican party. For instance, it is very near the score of Dave McCurdy (39.8), a Democrat who represented southern and central Oklahoma, a district that consistently and significantly voted for Republican presidential candidates. The 1994 Almanac of American politics notes that he often breaks with the Democratic Party, and in 1990 he formed a “Mainstream Forum” for moderate House Democrats. Our definition of the political center is also near the score of Tom Campbell (41.5), a Republican who represented two different districts in Silicon Valley. Both districts voted overwhelmingly for Gore in 2000. Campbell was one of a handful of House members (of either party) who voted against Newt Gingrich for speaker in 1997 while voting in favor of impeaching President Clinton. The 1998 Almanac of American Politics calls him “[c]onservative on economic issues, liberal on cultural issues.” It is also near the scores of Sam Nunn (D.-Ga.) and Arlen Specter (R.-Penn.). No one with an even moderate knowledge of American politics can say that these legislators are in the middle of the Republican Party.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Also, bathroom,
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sure, they've got a lot of complex statistical analysis in there (that they're quite proud of, and seem to love the snarky 'well, you can't criticize us unless you're a statistician with a PHD, and if you think you found flaws, it's only becuase you're not smart enough to follow our logic' defense), but it's still based on a moutain of arbitrary, circumstantial evidence.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You could make the same charge to Karl Marx's works, expescially <i>Value, Price, and Profit</i>. Of course, this is foolish to approach this line of logic. Just because something is dense does not mean you can dismiss something with lightheartedness. I'm sure you know my political position and I'll tell ya right now I still appreciate Marx's works and do not (and would never) dismiss it with this kind of terrible logic you just did to Groseclose and Milyo.
Finally, Bathroom,
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Their whole argument is predicated upon the ADA score being a realistic measurement of left, right, and center.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not sure you understand... here's more of the method they use, including how they handle their evidence.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1d) Another error occurs where Nunberg writes, “Let’s begin with the assumption that underlies Groseclose and Milyo’s assignment of ratings to the various groups they looked at: if a group is cited by a liberal legislator, it’s liberal; if it’s cited by a conservative legislator, it’s conservative.”
We do not assume this, and in fact, it would be ridiculous if we did. Nearly every think tank in our sample is cited at least once by a liberal legislator and at least once by a conservative legislator. Thus, if we literally assumed the above statement, then almost every think tank in our sample would simultaneously be both a conservative and a liberal think tank. It would be very strange for us to make an assumption that is contradicted almost everywhere in our data.
We think that what Nunberg meant to say is that we assume that “if a think tank tends to be cited by liberals, then it is liberal, and if it tends to be cited by conservatives, then it is conservative.” This is a more reasonable statement, and it is true for our back-of-the-envelope method. However, it is not true for our main statistical method.
As mentioned above, our main statistical method estimates a different b_j for each think tank. These estimates indeed describe relative positions of the think tanks. However, we do not assume that our method gives an absolute position. In fact, it cannot give an absolute position. As we note in the paper, it is actually impossible to identify all the b_j’s. All our method can do is identify them up to an additive constant. As a consequence, we must set one of the b_j’s to an arbitrary constant. Substantively, this means that while our method can reveal that the Heritage Foundation is to the right of the Economic Policy Institute, it cannot say, e.g., that the Heritage Foundation is to the right of the political center of the U.S., while the EPI is to the left of the center. Although our results are consistent with this statement, our results are consistent with many other possibilities, including (1) Heritage is far to the right of the political center while EPI is near the political center, or (2) Heritage is near the political center while EPI is far to the left of the political center. Indeed any statement that describes EPI to the left of Heritage would be consistent with our results.
Why is this important? Nunberg says that our method divides think tanks into two dichotomous groups, liberal and conservative, and that we choose as our dividing line the middle of the Republican party. Later, we’ll explain why our paper does not define the political center at the middle of the Republican party. But, for the moment assume that it does. Even if we did make such a strange (and misleading, we would argue) choice, this would not affect our method’s estimates of the media’s ADA scores. The reason is that to estimate ADA scores our method does not make (and cannot make) any sort of assessment about which side of the political center that a think tank lies.
1e) All the evidence above is all consistent with the possiblity that Nunberg read “The Estimation Method” section but just did not understand it. However, some other evidence suggests he really did not read the section at all. Here are the first two sentences of the section: “The back-of-the-envelope estimates are less than optimal for at least three reasons: (i) they do not give confidence intervals of their estimates; (ii) they do not utilize the extent [italics in original] to which a think tank is liberal or conservative (they only record the dichotomy, whether the think tank is left or right of center); and (iii) they are not embedded in an explicit choice model. We now describe a method that overcomes each of these deficiencies.” If Nunberg had really read these sentences, especially reason (ii), we do not see how he could possibly make the statements that he made in points 1b and 1c above. (Another possibility is that he read all sentences of the section except the first two. But this would be even stranger. Each of the sentences in the section except the first two and last six require a fair amount of technical expertise. It would be strange for a person to read the difficult parts of the section but skip the easy parts.)
2) Another criticism that Nunberg makes is that “In fact, their method assumes that there can be no such thing as objective or disinterested scholarship.” This is the strangest sentence of all in Nunberg’s critique. We make six points in response. i) Our method does not make this assumption, and nowhere in the paper do we state anything like it. ii) Such a statement is neither necessary nor sufficient to justify our method. iii) As professors at research universities, we consider the primary aspect of our jobs to produce objective and disinterested scholarship. It would be very strange if we wrote a paper that assumes that such scholarship cannot exist at all.
iv) Although we did not state it in the paper, our own view is nearly the exact opposite of this assumption. Namely, by and large, we believe that all studies and quotes by the think tanks in our sample are true and objective. However, it just happens that some, but not necessarily all, of these true and objective studies appeal differently to conservatives than liberals. To see why, imagine that a researcher publishes a study in a very prestigious scientific journal such as the New England Journal of Medicine. Suppose this study gives evidence that a fetus in the early stages of its mother’s pregnancy can feel pain (or cannot feel pain). We are willing to bet that this true and objective study will appeal more to conservatives (liberals) than liberals (conservatives). We are also willing to bet that conservatives (liberals) would tend to cite it more.
This is all that our study assumes—that these studies can appeal differently to different sides of the political spectrum. We do not assume that the authors of the studies necessarily have a political agenda. Not only that, we do not even assume that each study will appeal differently to different sides of the political spectrum. We only assume that it is possible that such studies will appeal differently. That is, our method does not force each b_j to take a different value. It allows for the possibility that the estimate of each b_j could be the same (of course, however, that does not happen with our data).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Have at it, folks.
Then think about what you want to post next. Lots of anger is being directed at individuals rather than the debate. Doesn't really matter who started it who finished it or who got the last punch. It is probably best to drop it now lest the entire forum fall into personal bickering.