Liberal Media Myth Busted

amaverick

New member
The Media Matters study is entitled "If It's Sunday, It's Conservative." It analyzed nearly 7,000 guests who appeared during President Clinton's second term, President Bush's first term, and 2005. A link to the full report is below, and here are 5 key findings:

Right-wing writers were far more likely than progressive writers to be invited during both the Clinton and Bush administrations. In Clinton's second term, 61% of the ideologically identifiable writers were right-wing and in Bush's first term that figure rose to 69%.
During 2003 and 2004, in the run-up to the presidential election, there were approximately four conservative writers on the Sunday shows for every progressive one.
In every year examined by the study, more panels tilted right (a greater number of Republicans/conservatives than Democrats/progressives) than tilted left. In some years, there were two, three, or even four times as many right-tilted panels as left-tilted panels—a drastic imbalance.
The pairing of right-wing writers and neutral reporters from the mass media suggests some media producers have internalized the decades-old "liberal bias" attack from conservatives (which this study shows is false). As a consequence of this imbalance, right-wing writers and publications are granted a status in political discourse not accorded to progressives.
Democrat/progressive guests and Republican/conservative guests were roughly balanced during Clinton's second term, with a slight edge toward Republicans/conservatives: 52% to 48% (4 points). But during the Bush years, Republicans/conservatives quadrupled their advantage: 58% to 42% (16 points).
One imbalanced panel was on NBC's Meet the Press, October 24, 2004, just days before the 2004 presidential election.

That panel included David Broder (neutral columnist, Washington Post), Gwen Ifill (journalist, PBS), John Harwood (journalist, Wall Street Journal), and Byron York (writer for the right-wing magazine National Review and author of a book called The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy). There was no counter-balance to York from a progressive magazine such as The American Prospect or The Nation.

http://mediamatters.org/sundayreport
 
This report doesn't say anything about how those people are treated on the show. It doesn't say anything about how slanted the reporting is done by the shows. A simple tally of show guest doesn't even begin to show how the news is handled by that show or network. You could have 100% Right-wing writers on as guests and it doesn't begin to undo the reporting of dan rather and cbs and how they "reported" President Bush's National Guard service.
 
Before anything else, I'd like to point out that our friends at Media Matters aren't exactly the most unbiased source to be doing such a study: https://mediamatters.org/donate

... When I see a good number of unbiased sources coming to the same conclusions as Media Matters in their own independant studies, I'll consider agreeing.

Untill then, I'd like to offer the following theory:
Most anchors I see on TV are lefties. Which is better for a lefty trying to bring others to their cause? Spending all your time on the great things the democrats have done for us, or spending your time showing the evils of the conservatives in order to generate discontent towards them?

Oh, also... A set of questions:

1.) Media Matters was established in 2004. Their study is for '97-'05. How did they "montior" [they used that term, not "review"] shows from '97-'04?

2.) If you look at the "Methodology" section of the full study, you'll find that they generalized almost everyone. For instance, all members of our military, and all officials in the Federal gov't are considered to be of the same political allignment as our current administration -- regardless of personal views, etc. All foreign gov't officials are deemed neutral -- "in order to avoid the need to analyze the politics of other countries." ... How would their results appear if A.) They looked at the alignment of each person, instead of using generalizations, and B.) the alignment of a person was decided by an unbiased panel (afterall, Media Matters IS admittedly anti-conservative).

3.) They claim to judge a person's party based on the stance they're known to take, not on what they say when they are on TV. ... If you refuse to judge TV based on what the people on it are saying, doesn't that defeat the point that TV is dominated by conservative news? Wouldn't it make more sense to judge TV's bias by the message it's giving?

(They do say they broke this method for a few cases "in which it was necessary to ascertain the purpose of a guest’s appearance in order to correctly classify her/him." ... But why not do it for everyone? Afterall, you don't have to be a democrat to complain about republicans (and vice versa).)

4.) Why are ALL graphs (except for two, showing a small set of specific people) in percentages? If party A has 8 appearances and party B has 10, party B might have an astounding 120% as much air time, but quantatativly they haven't gotten too much more time.

5.) Why haven't they released the base of their findings for peer review? Why can't I download a list of EVERYONE they saw, and the number of appearances per person so that I can come to my own conclusions?

6.) How much airtime were the appearances? If Bob gets ten thirty-second clips, and Bill gets a five-minute interview, and you use their standards, wouldn't Bob have appeared on TV more than Bill despite having only 60% as much airtime?

---

Like any report, it has issues (see above)... And like any report, I'd be wary untill all issues were resolved.

Wolfe.
 
Who funds media matters? Why are they so driven to call the Liberal Media a myth?

One does not need to look too hard to see the liberal bias.
 
Sooo, what's with this 'progressive' label? Where did that come from? Repackaging? Nothing that liberals do relate to progress. Just another smokescreen. You got the word wrong - it's 'DIGRESSIVE'. Which is another word for 'SOCIALISM'. Sorry..., NO NOT SORRY, SCREW THE LIBS, NOT IN MY AMERICA! Arrogant bastards. I've grown very tired of the 'tell me how to live crowd'. sundogs
 
From the "who we are" page:
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.

In other breaking news, the VPC research center has determined that guns are evil.
 
Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist

The study below from the well known bastion of radical right wing zealots otherwise known as UCLA (read sarcastic or facetious) LOL

Don't ask ME to defend this study. I didn't participate or design it. I did read it and found it interesting. I also read media matter's study concerning the Sunday political talk shows.

I am more than slightly amused at the use of republican/conservative and democrat/progressive as if that is an accurate description of both. What about republican/liberal and democrat/liberal. The now favored democrat/progressive is probably a little more accurate than democrat/liberal considering progressive is just another euphamism for socialist/commie LOL

Are either studies fool proof ? I doubt that either can survive the skepticism and disection by the local opinionators

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

Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist

Date: December 14, 2005
Contact: Meg Sullivan ( msullivan@support.ucla.edu )
Phone: 310-825-1046

While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.

These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly.

"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."

"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.

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

Groseclose and Milyo based their research on a standard gauge of a lawmaker's support for liberal causes. Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) tracks the percentage of times that each lawmaker votes on the liberal side of an issue. Based on these votes, the ADA assigns a numerical score to each lawmaker, where "100" is the most liberal and "0" is the most conservative. After adjustments to compensate for disproportionate representation that the Senate gives to low‑population states and the lack of representation for the District of Columbia, the average ADA score in Congress (50.1) was assumed to represent the political position of the average U.S. voter.

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

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

"A media person would have never done this study," said Groseclose, a UCLA political science professor, whose research and teaching focuses on the U.S. Congress. "It takes a Congress scholar even to think of using ADA scores as a measure. And I don't think many media scholars would have considered comparing news stories to congressional speeches."

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

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

The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third.

"Our estimates for these outlets, we feel, give particular credibility to our efforts, as three of the four moderators for the 2004 presidential and vice-presidential debates came from these three news outlets — Jim Lehrer, Charlie Gibson and Gwen Ifill," Groseclose said. "If these newscasters weren't centrist, staffers for one of the campaign teams would have objected and insisted on other moderators."

The fourth most centrist outlet was "Special Report With Brit Hume" on Fox News, which often is cited by liberals as an egregious example of a right-wing outlet. While this news program proved to be right of center, the study found ABC's "World News Tonight" and NBC's "Nightly News" to be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found.

"If viewers spent an equal amount of time watching Fox's 'Special Report' as ABC's 'World News' and NBC's 'Nightly News,' then they would receive a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news," said Milyo, an associate professor of economics and public affairs at the University of Missouri at Columbia.

Five news outlets — "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," ABC's "Good Morning America," CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown," Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and the Drudge Report — were in a statistical dead heat in the race for the most centrist news outlet. Of the print media, USA Today was the most centrist.

An additional feature of the study shows how each outlet compares in political orientation with actual lawmakers. The news pages of The Wall Street Journal scored a little to the left of the average American Democrat, as determined by the average ADA score of all Democrats in Congress (85 versus 84). With scores in the mid-70s, CBS' "Evening News" and The New York Times looked similar to Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., who has an ADA score of 74.

Most of the outlets were less liberal than Lieberman but more liberal than former Sen. John Breaux, D-La. Those media outlets included the Drudge Report, ABC's "World News Tonight," NBC's "Nightly News," USA Today, NBC's "Today Show," Time magazine, U.S. News & World Report, Newsweek, NPR's "Morning Edition," CBS' "Early Show" and The Washington Post.

Since Groseclose and Milyo were more concerned with bias in news reporting than opinion pieces, which are designed to stake a political position, they omitted editorials and Op‑Eds from their tallies. This is one reason their study finds The Wall Street Journal more liberal than conventional wisdom asserts.

Another finding that contradicted conventional wisdom was that the Drudge Report was slightly left of center.

"One thing people should keep in mind is that our data for the Drudge Report was based almost entirely on the articles that the Drudge Report lists on other Web sites," said Groseclose. "Very little was based on the stories that Matt Drudge himself wrote. The fact that the Drudge Report appears left of center is merely a reflection of the overall bias of the media."

Yet another finding that contradicted conventional wisdom relates to National Public Radio, often cited by conservatives as an egregious example of a liberal news outlet. But according to the UCLA-University of Missouri study, it ranked eighth most liberal of the 20 that the study examined.

"By our estimate, NPR hardly differs from the average mainstream news outlet," Groseclose said. "Its score is approximately equal to those of Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report and its score is slightly more conservative than The Washington Post's. If anything, government‑funded outlets in our sample have a slightly lower average ADA score (61), than the private outlets in our sample (62.8)."

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.

"No matter the results, we feared our findings would've been suspect if we'd received support from any group that could be perceived as right- or left-leaning, so we consciously decided to fund this project only with our own salaries and research funds that our own universities provided," Groseclose said.

The results break new ground.

"Past researchers have been able to say whether an outlet is conservative or liberal, but no one has ever compared media outlets to lawmakers," Groseclose said. "Our work gives a precise characterization of the bias and relates it to known commodity — politicians."

-UCLA-

MS580
 
Progressive? Thats so last year. Dont you mean centrist? It doesn't matter guy, It all means the same. How can we fool them this into voting for us this time?:D
 
amaverick, I am simply stunned that an organization devoted to "correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media" would find that Sunday talk shows are biased towards the right.

Thank you for sharing this insightful progressive ... news.
 
Talking head shows tend to be more balanced than other news programing (although the moderator is usually left-wing--can you believe they replaced Donaldson with Stephanopolos rather than Will?). They require debate, and like minds don't debate very interestingly. Standard news programing is universally dominated by left-leaning or outright leftist hosts and viewpoints with the exception of Fox.
 
by 3 gun" it doesn't begin to undo the reporting of dan rather and cbs and how they "reported" President Bush's National Guard service.

What was wrong with the reporting of facts? Yea, the lady who said that she did not type up the reports (thus making them forgeries) also said that even though she did not do the typing the contents were accurate.:D

HE WAS NOT WERE HE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE WHEN HE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE THERE AND THAT IS AWOL.:eek:
 
Right-wing writers were far more likely than progressive writers to be....

....four conservative writers on the Sunday shows for every progressive one.



The opposite of "right-wing" is not ""progressive" it is "left-wing".

The opposite of "conservative", likewise, is not "progressive", it is "liberal".

These inaccuracies in themselves invalidate the entire unscientific, biased study. Its just more of the same bilge being pumped by a more biased source than the ones being reported on.

loggerhead, you really don't want to get into a "who's military service was more honorable" debate do you? Also, are you sure you want to contend fictitious reporting is OK as long as the assertions are "true"?
 
Kinda funny:D Toward the end of the Clinton administration he was going through impeachment so most democrats stayed away from the media. Repubs were on the shows talking impeachment. This outfit is useing selective timeing for their point, anyone can see that.

25
 
pipe, not comparing "his" service or lack thereof to anyones, simply stating his.:D
IF the assertions are true the facts are no longer ficticious.:D :p
 
And if I had said Rush Limbaugh said it you would believe every word. All that was proven is that the content was not an issue here just discrediting the source, a typical tactic when there is no defense. Very sad.
 
If someone thinks David Broder of the Washington Post is neutral then one has a serious perspective problem.
 
Back
Top