"Silly Season"

While we're on the subject of ecstatic/vicious contrivance by the conservative media, who can forget the instantaneous comparisons of George W to Winston Churchill? I can't, try as I might. As I had watched him fumbling for inappropriate words, I'd thought that there was an apt historical figure to compare him to. Churchill? Well, no, for me it was actually more like Elmer Fudd. (I was wrong about the "historical" part.)

It's a return to the way they did things back during the Clinton presidency - anything to divert from serious discussion/consideration of the issues - everything to make Democrats look bad.

It's been 6 years that we've done without this kind of stuff, and just as the Clinton haircut on the airplane story showed up within weeks of Clinton assuming the Presidency back in '93, this stuff shows up now within weeks of the Dems taking over the Congress.

The question is - we know where the right wing-lead distraction on trivial partisan "scandals" lead us to in 2001 - are we willing to allow that to happen again??

And isn't is suspicious - and indicting - that GOP behavior of this sort was basically ignored by the media the last 6 years but like clockwork the "scandals" come out again as soon as Democrats matter?

That's why I don't like to see these kind of fake controversies dismissed a "silly season". The allegations are silly, but their existence is deadly serious. We're seeing it with the Amanda Marcotte pseudo-controversy and now again with the Pelosi plane pseudo-controversy and we're going to keep on seeing it until people demand that would-be serious reporters stop taking their cues from wingnut headquarters.

So true. Of course, the silly season pseudo-controversies for Democrats don't end up on the front page day-after-day like they for Republicans... like, say, the macaca pseudo-controversy.

'Silly season'??? More like libel and slander. However, even these crackpots (Limbaugh, Hannity and other imbeciles) deserve Free Speech protection (so does Zundel and Irving). However, the world is leaning toward censorship. Especially, the US gov't (and their corporate friends), already fence demonstrators miles away from events, force Amazon to ban books like "America Deceived" America Deceived (book) from Amazon and Wikipedia, and fire 21-year tenured, BYU physics professor Steven Jones because he proved explosives, thermite in particular, took down the WTC buildings. Let the wingnuts talk all day but we better start spreading the truth.

like, say, the macaca pseudo-controversy.

Al conveniently forgets that the controversy was prolonged by the inspired intervention of George Allen: his lying and embroidery became the crux of the case. Then, he gamely attempted to top himself by finding a slur in the revelation that he was part Jewish.

It may have been a pseudo-controversy but it exposed a pseudo politico.

Dems must have a zero tolerance mindset for pseudo scandals.

I lived through the Clinton years. A pseudo scandal like "haircutgate" would dominate TV news for weeks, accompanied by "character analysis" by Maureen Dowds of DC punditry telling us how this particular scandal ties in with the character flaws of Bill Clinton.

This went on for 8 years and it took its toll.

The GOP has built a Scandal Industrial Complex churning out pseudo scandal after pseudo scandal involving Dems. They do this because it works. After awhile people thing some of it must be true.

Democrats can't rely on the MSM to refute these pseudo scandals. Often the MSM will join in the fun like they did with Kerry botched joke. Dems must build their own media organs to refute these lies.

The response I read today from Pelosi was spot on, though perhaps a little slow in the coming. My problem all along has not been with the conservative noise machine as much as past Democratic inability to refute the bogus charges -- e.g. Swiftboat/Kerry.

Politics is ugly and conservatives have done these things because so far they have gotten away with it. If Dems start fighting back the whole house of cards that cons have built for the last 30 years or so is going to come crashing down.

I just wonder why it took so long for the leadership to start fighting back.

For those who feel like it: auto-mail to complain to news organizations about their Edwards/Marcotte reporting.

we're going to keep on seeing it until people demand that would-be serious reporters stop taking their cues from wingnut headquarters.

I love how one of the leaders of the "reality based" community continues to insist that the media is at the beck and call of the right despite that fact that every empirical study of media bias indicates the exact opposite.

yeah, it's so unfair how the media only goes after democrats (and how only the republicans have a vicious spin/scandal machine). oh right, i forgot, every time the media goes after republicans it's entirely justified. please. the media's as much in the entertainment business as anything, they gotta have something to sell, occasionally that something will be about democrats. get over it. (the notion that the media is somehow complicit in a right wing conspiracy to sully the democrats is kinda silly on its face, unless you're talking fox news.)

It's been 6 years that we've done without this kind of stuff,

er..we have? what?

Matt, you're prevailing upon a public that reads The National Enquirer and watches Jerry Springer to forgo consuming bullshit from the MSM. The MSM knows this public eats up the aforementioned fare and figures there's money (ratings) to be had shoveling them whatever their pinheaded noggins will devour. Where's the mystery in the motivation of the press to do what they do? People don't want to digest or understand deep policy debates about the relative merits of a strong or weak dollar, the balance of trade with mainland China or tax policies related to natural gas fields in Montana. They want catfights, mud wrestling and wild sexual escapades. You're spitting in the wind lobbying for anything different.

But Tony Snow and the White House chivalrously defended Pelosi (see MSNBC)!

Can't we just move on?

Yeah, Matt, I'm gonna have to call BS on this. If Edwards was a Republican, and Marcotte was talking about Muslims the way she talked about Catholics, he'd be in serious trouble.

Because, Edwards_the_Republican would clearly be a man of poor judgment (being a republican and all) and the hiring of an anti-Muslim blogger would be further evidence of this poor judgment, and therefore, the national concern over his blogger's comments would be completely legitimate - what kind of person are we considering for leadership of this country?

However, Matt, since you know that Edwards is a Democrat, he gets a pass on these kinds of things. Clearly he's not stupid (since he agrees with you on so many things) so hiring Marcotte, as foolish as that might have been, is not a big deal, since we know his judgment is fine most of the time. I mean, after all, everyone should be allowed to make a mistake every once in a while, right?

At least, everyone who generally agrees with you politically.

steve duncan:

You have to resist this kind of misanthropic thinking about the American public. They are pretty dumb, but not so dumb that they don't overwhelmingly oppose the Iraq war. They can't be faulted for not knowing enough to see through the lies before the invasion.

And enough with this fantasy that the MSM is just satisfying their "demand". That is an unfounded assertion verging on slander. The corporate media have various agendas and they create artificial demand as much as they satisfy it. You don't think a lot of those "pinhead noggins" would be interested in the Libby trial, for example, if it were explained clearly and juiced up a little bit? You don't think they'd be interested to know how the fuck we got into Iraq in the first place.

A propos "jb" and his indignation: cue Claude Rains.

Chivalrously? That's an odd word choice -- is it because Pelosi is a woman? And why would you think it chivalrous of the White House simply to state the truth?

Moreover, the point Matt was making is that these faux scandals, which have been continuously generated by the rightwing noise machine for the past, say, 15 years, do damage long after each "scandal" has been debunked.

Perhaps I should form my own "values" organization and then call a press conference at which I demand that John McCain fire Terry Nelson. Do you think the Times would pick up the story and run with it?

despite that fact that every empirical study of media bias indicates the exact opposite.

Evidence? Considering that you scare-quoted "reality-based," a link might behoove you.

It's been 6 years that we've done without this kind of stuff,

er..we have? what?

Sure Jonny - we could easily use the fingers on both hands to name all the little pseudo-scandals of the 1990s the generated media frenzies based on little or no facts. But suddenly in 2001 everything changed and those in power and their behavior was treated with deferrence and discretion, *unless* there became such as outrage, such as Duke Cunningham, or the Plame Affair, or Bob Ney, that the MSM was forced to address it, however reluctantly. But what about the factless media-driven pseudo-scandals such as we have going on here - how many of those have there been in the past 6 years? I'm having a real hard time thinking of any.

God - this feels so like the 1990s I'm almost ready to invest in the stock market again. Anybody know any good dot-coms?

"I lived through the Clinton years."

Well, I am glad that you are neither a reanimated corpse nor a six-year old.

It's a form of "bitch-slap politics." By forcing absurd stories onto CNN, Republicans show their power. Even when everyone openly admits the story is foolish.

There is only one way to fight back: ignore the merits of the argument and focus your full attack on the attackers. Call the GOP House members liars. Tell Lou Dobbs he is peddling a false story that was fed to him by rats, known liars, and nutjubs. Imply that he to is a rat and a liar for associating himself with these people. Identify the specific sources pushing the story, target them, gather oppo research, and drag their names through the mud with whatever skeletons you uncover. Gambling problem? Adultery? Ethical problems? Whatever it is, hit them with it. If you can't find anything, just tie their name to disruptable figures and make them guilty by association. Fight back the way the GOP fights back. Destroy them on a personal level.

The Democrats have a problem: they think it's effective to argue the merits just because they are right on the merits. This is total foolishness. Arguing on the merits gets you nowhere with the talking head crowd, no matter how "right" you happen to be. The only thing that works is attacking the integrity and credibility of the accusers. The politics of personal destruction. Cut throat, brutal, aggressiveness.

If Dems happen to be right on the merits, fine. That's great. The NY Times will explain this to 1% of the population once the story has blown over in a week. But "being right" is strictly secondary as a media strategy. The first step is attacking the attackers as visciously and ruthlessly as possible. Stain their names, make it hurt for pushing the story, and take them down hard.

Excellent work. I look forward to seeing you lauded in the Howler tomorrow!

True, the media stopped questioning the White House late in 2001, when they began to echo the right's attacks on the integrity and/or patriotism of anyone who criticized or thwarted (or whatever) the White House. To name just a few examples: John O'Neil, Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame, Richard Clarke, John Kerry, the Clintons, Al Gore, Ronnie Earle, various media outlets that covered stories the right didn't like (Newsweek, AP, CBS, etc.), John Murtha . . . and I"m not including a slew of Dem candidates in the midterm elections (for example: George Allen actually SAID the word Macaca and then lied about it repeatedly, and then there was his fixation on the the Confederacy . . . but Harold Ford was smeared . . . )

Again, it may seem petty to point these things out, but I've come to believe that it's necessary.

You don't want the media to be slanted? You want it to be fair?
Silly stuff only happens to Democrats? It happens to them more?
Silly stuff should be banned?

I think a Democratic partisan who thought all that would be having a 'be careful for you wish for' moment if he thinks any of that, besides losing any claim to be 'reality based'.

J mct is missing the point: It's not silly stuff. And yes, it happens more often to Dems and/or critics of the White House, because stories are cooked up and pushed by Drudge and Limbaugh and Fox and Malkin (et al.), and the "liberal media" goes with the flow. It's really not hard to see.

There's no way you can eliminate bias from the media and I don't think any reasonable person would say that this is what we need to do. The problem is that so many fake stories are ginned up and disseminated, stories that are designed to do damage to their targets and muddy the waters so that the rest of us won't be able to focus on much more important issues.

If Edwards was a Republican, and Marcotte was talking about Muslims the way she talked about Catholics, he'd be in serious trouble.

This post was satire, right? I hope it was satire.

Evidence? Considering that you scare-quoted "reality-based," a link might behoove you.

The Groseclose and Milyo study is the best and also contain a summary of the other research in there: http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm

Mark Adams,

Before proceeding, it is useful to clarify our definition of bias. Most important, the definition has nothing to do with the honesty or accuracy of the news outlet. Instead, our notion is more like a taste or preference. For instance, we estimate that the centrist U.S. voter during the late 1990s had a left-right ideology approximately equal to that of Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) or Sam Nunn (D-Ga.). Meanwhile, we estimate that the average New York Times article is ideologically very similar to the average speech by Joe Lieberman (D-Ct.). Next, since vote scores show Lieberman to be more liberal than Specter or Nunn, our method concludes that the New York Times has a liberal bias. However, in no way does this imply that the New York Times is inaccurate or dishonest—just as the vote scores do not imply that Joe Lieberman is any less honest than Sam Nunn or Arlen Specter.

Oh that Liberal, Liebermanian media

It may have been a pseudo-controversy but it exposed a pseudo politico.

NO NO NO NO NO!!!! It wasn't a pseudo-controversy. For fuck's sake, a sitting Senator all but called a person of color the N-Word (in a condescendingly bullying fashion, it should be noted). Holy fucking shit, if that's not a legitimate controversy, then nothing is. Jeezus. How the fuck could you be so goddamned ignorant?!

The Democrats have a problem: they think it's effective to argue the merits just because they are right on the merits.

You're far too generous. The Democrats generally think that if they're right on the merits, it would be beneath them to even acknowledge the opposition. "Just ignore Rush Limbaugh/Ann Coulter/whoever... they're not worth our time to respond to." Great advice if losing elections is your goal.

Mary:

Instant messages, by that Mark Foley guy, or at least the 'concerns' that came afterward. Not all, but most of the stuff about Gingrich, remember the 'back of the plane'. The whole Scooter Libby trial thing, which in it's entirety just about defines silly? I think the reason you might not see 'silly' as much as I do is that donks seem to see silly stuff if it's about republicans as threats to the republic or evidence of looming fascism. If 'silliness' were eliminated from politics entirely, it would be bad for the Dems, even if they don't know it.

Chivalrously? That's an odd word choice -- is it because Pelosi is a woman? And why would you think it chivalrous of the White House simply to state the truth?

Mary - I think Brenden was being sarcastic. He knows as well as you do that the WH juices this kind of stuff for all its worth, while pretending to be above it all.

we could easily use the fingers on both hands to name all the little pseudo-scandals of the 1990s the generated media frenzies based on little or no facts. But suddenly in 2001 everything changed and those in power and their behavior was treated with deferrence and discretion

what you say is true, Ethel-to-Tilly; my point was that this sort of manufactured scandal didn't stop in 2000! (Kind of the point of the post, don't you think?) It NEVER stops. The point is that the dross and crap are still directed at the same people they always are: Democrats (in power or not).

Oh that Liberal, Liebermanian media

Pooh,

I take it you are aware that Lieberman's actual voting record is actually fairly liberal. From '93 - '99, the years that the study takes into account, the ADA gave Lieberman the following ratings:

'93 - 65
'94 - 65
'95 - 95
'96 - 75
'97 - 75
'98 - 80
'99 - 95

But thank you for proving my broader point which is that for all the Left's talk of being "reality based", they ignore evidence just as much as the Right does when it doesn't suit their conclusions.

How people like you deal with the reality of the liberal media is not that different than how the Right deals with global warming: find a few contradictory anecdotes here and there; quote a couple of people who disagree with the conclusion that there is a liberal media and in the meantime ignore all the evidence that indicates differently.

Pooh,

Here is a link to the ADA ratings: http://www.adaction.org/votingrecords.htm

FIrst of all: Brendan, I'm sorry I missed your sarcasm. D'oh.

To j mct: I guess you could say it was silly of Gingrich to retaliate so massively for the plane incident, and I would agree with you on that, if it weren't for the negative impact of Gingrich's actions. I guess you could also say that it was silly for people to take notice of Foley's obsession with pages, many of whom were under 18. But I don't think the Republican leadership would agree with you on that one, since they tried really hard to cover up the story. I would agree that the Foley story was not nearly as important as a whole lot of other things. But neither the Gingrich episode nor the Foley episode was manufactured by anyone. The Scooter Libby trial is certainly not silly -- unless you think giving up the names of undercover agents to the press in order to retaliate against White House critics and then lying about it is silly. UNLIKE THE FAUX SCANDAL OF, SAY, NANCY PELOSI DEMANDING A BIG FAT MILITARY PLANE.

BTW, I don't remember typing (or reading) the words "threats to the republic" or "looming fascism." That's just your fevered imagination getting the better of you -- it's understandable, what with all the times the president and his minions have insisted that any and all criticism of the president emboldens the terrorists (et al, ad nauseum) . . .

I don't see how I ignored anything. I read your evidence, and found it equivocal. Which makes me just like someone demanding "sound science", obviously.

On the other hand, thank you for providing links, which in the future will preempt a good bit of snark from me and others who are weary of unsupported drive-bys.

for all the Left's talk of being "reality based"

Stop it. Remember who hung the label of "reality based" on The Left.

Pooh,

Help me out. What does "Oh that Liberal, Liebermanian media" mean?

And thanks for the tip, I am terribly worried about receiving snark from you.

Stop it. Remember who hung the label of "reality based" on The Left.

Yes, and the Left has really avoided appropriating it for themselves.

Oh, so it's that kind of party then. You don't want to be taken seriously, you're just here for the aggro. Fair enough. Apparently, Al has called in reinforcements.

As to your actual point, lesse, Lieberman isn't exactly the paragon of liberalism that he may once have been at this point, ADA aside. According to your link, the NYT is basically an insanely hawkish, moral-scolding, egomonaniacal entity which cares fare more for itself than it does either the news media or the country as a whole. Sounds about right.

But wait, the NYT cites Brookings! Therefore, it is liberal...

The Groseclose and Milyo study is the best

Yes, I understand Exxon-Mobil has funded all "the best" studies of global warming, too.

Oh, so it's that kind of party then. You don't want to be taken seriously, you're just here for the aggro. Fair enough. Apparently, Al has called in reinforcements.

Not it's not going to be that kind of party. It's just kind of a silly threat: "You better provide links or I'm going to say mean things." I don't know what aggro means. I read Matthew every day. Sometimes I comment. Usually I don't.

As to your actual point, lesse, Lieberman isn't exactly the paragon of liberalism that he may once have been at this point, ADA aside. According to your link, the NYT is basically an insanely hawkish, moral-scolding, egomonaniacal entity which cares fare more for itself than it does either the news media or the country as a whole. Sounds about right.

Once again, the question is his voting record between '93 and '99 not his personality traits. And that record indicates he is a pretty mainstream liberal Democrat. And the NY Times happens to track pretty closely to that voting record. That doesn't make the NYT " moral-scolding" or "egomonaniacal" any more than it makes them short and balding. This would all be fine except that NYT holds itself out as a non-biased source of news.

grh,

So who funded the Groseclose and Milyo study? And please provide links to all the studies that show no liberal bias.

It's just kind of a silly threat: "You better provide links or I'm going to say mean things."

How about the more charitable interpretation that I was saying "if you want to be taken seriously, you should provide links/evidence, especially after scare-quoting 'reality-based', especially when making claims as to the results of 'every' study." I mean, if I was going to do a drive-by, I would have written...almost exactly what you did.

But you seem, based on the evidence of your comments here, to be more interested in verbal sparing than in substance, so of course you took the uncharitable interpretation.

Fair enough Pooh. Sorry for assuming the worst.

And please provide links to all the studies that show no liberal bias.

Mark, I'm not your research monkey. You could obviously find such studies easily if you actually wanted to, because anyone with any interest in this subject is well aware of them. But you don't want to find them so you won't.

One thing I've learned through painful experience over the past five years is that people like yourself have zero interest in rationality -- as demonstrated in your particular case by your citation of the Groseclose and Milyo "THE DRUDGE REPORT IS LIBERAL!!!!!!!!!" study. Next you'll be explaining how the fact the New York Times published miles of Judith Miller's WMD crap demonstrates how the NY Times is TEH LIBERAL!!!

So, sorry. I have no interest in "discussing" this with someone who's uninformed and irrational. It would be like talking to Dick Cheney about whether Iraq sought uranium from Niger. You have your predetermined, nutty conclusion, and no amount of reality can sway your tiny fevered mind.

On the other hand, I will continue to make fun of you, because that's both enjoyable and well worth doing.

grh,

Thanks. I took from your original comment that you were aware of numerous studies that contradicted Groseclose and Milyo so I was simply asking for the cites. I guess I misunderstood.

As for the other part of your original comment, you said, "I understand Exxon-Mobil has funded all 'the best' studies of global warming, too." You seemed to imply that Groseclose and Milyo were funded by some wingnut source. In reality the study was led by UCLA and published in a peer reviewed journal based out of Harvard.

great points matt.

it's always worth pointing out that with 99% of what comes from the right is never meant with even the minimal amount of seriousness. 'bitch slap politics' indeed.

the media is like your parent when you're walking by a sandbox and an annoying kid with obviously a very minimal amount of parenting in their lives starts flinging toys at you and sand in your face as you walk by...

and your parent grabs you hand, stops you and says 'See, honey, he's trying to make a point. PAY ATTENTION TO HIM.'

whereas, any responsible parent would keep walking with you and either force you to ignore the kid, or explain how irrational they were being.

Mark Adams,

How would you like a serious reply?

First, there is no comparison between whether or not the media is biased and global warming because there are many conflicting studies on this subject and no overwhelming preponderance of evidence favoring one side.

But you wouldn't know that from the article you thoughtfully linked us to. Perhaps when you said "every empirical study of media bias indicates" liberal bias you inferred that from your linked article, Groseclose & Milyo, who wrote "we find a a systematic liberal bias of the U.S. media. This is echoed by three other studies—Hamilton (2004), Lott and Hasset (2004), and Sutter (2004), the only empirical studies of media bias by economists of which we are aware"?

Which is kind of funny because surely there are no shortage of studies on this subject by those in the actual media studies and communications fields. Why don't Groseclose & Milyo cite or discuss any of those?

Here are two I happened to have laying around which found no consistent bias:

* Watts, Domke, Shah & Fan. 1999. Elite Cues and Media Bias in Presidential Campaigns. American Political Science Review.
* Dalton, Beck & Huckfeldt, 1998, Partisan Cues and the Media: Information Flows in the 1992 Presidential election. Communication Research.

I don't have access to any academic databases anymore so I can't go find anything right now.

Watts et al, found a slight anti-Bush bias in the 1992 election season, and a slightly larger anti-Clinton bias in the 1996 election season.

Groseclose & Milyo could only find 3 empirical studies on media bias, one of which is an unpublished manuscript, another of which is co-authored by John R. Lott (yes *that* John Lott). Is this the "every empirical study of media bias" universe which you spoke of? I don't have any expertise in this area but I was aware of studies that conflict with this result, one of which even happened to be published in a journal in which Groseclose has previously been published (American Political Science Review).

At the very least, I suggest that it is not as cut and dry as you think. We could discuss the methodologies and ideological biases of the studies' authors all night and I'd rather not at the moment. It's time for bed.

I agree with above commenter, people are curious by nature. If people could get the opportunity to see how freaking interesting the real deal is (or at least getting as stripped bare as it's been in generations, if ever), they would be "here" in droves - whatever "here" is becoming (for example, what would happen to this "page" if thousands or tens of thoudsnds threw in their two cents on a regulat basis. Nobody has that much time to scan so many posts; therefore, a collating system id going to be needed).

I took from your original comment that you were aware of numerous studies that contradicted Groseclose and Milyo so I was simply asking for the cites. I guess I misunderstood.

Yes, yes. You were "simply asking for the cites," just as Exxon-Mobil hacks are simply "asking for the cites" for studies showing global warming is caused by humans, just as hacks working cigarette companies are "simply asking for the cites" for studies showing smoking causes cancer. All you ever asked for is an open debate! Why won't anyone take you SERIOUSLY?!?!?

I suggest your next move should be to stamp your little feet and declare that because the grown-ups have more important things to do than discuss your bizarre delusions, THAT PROVES YOU'RE RIGHT.

Mr. Haleron,

Thanks. I was unaware of those studies and I stand corrected.

After reading about this a bit more....

According to G&M's methodology, 1) think tanks (really many kinds of source sources) count as more liberal if they are mentioned more by relatively more liberal politicians, and 2) news organization are biased if they tend to also cite these think tanks relatively more.

On immediate problem with this method is that it cannot rule out certain confounding factors. If news organizations and left-leaning congressmen cite the same think tanks only because those think tanks are more credible, then this study's conclusion would be that news organizations are "liberal biased". Or, if conservative politicians tend to mention sources that basically no one else does but Fox News and the Washington Times do only barely so, then this study would conclude "liberal bias" in most news organizations.

Findings of this study that some would consider strange but which are compatible with the two counter-hypotheses:

* The RAND corporation, according their method is a left-leaning think tank, more liberal than Amnesty International in their ranking
* The NRA and ACLU are both slightly right-of-center think tanks according to their method
* The Center for Responsive Politics, whose sole purpose is to maintain publicly accessible databases of campaign donations (opensecrets.org), is rated as highly liberal by this method
* Based on the logic that relatively more mentions of think tanks in common with relatively more liberal politicians means that a new source is liberally biased, they report that The Wall Street Street Journal, The New York Times and the Drudge Report are all left-leaning publications, with the Wall Street Journal the most so. They found that the Wall Street Journal was more liberal than any other media publication they studied.

If a news organization tends to cite the RAND Corporation and opensecrets.org, then according to this study it would be "liberally biased".

This is the central basis of their study, which they claim is a feature, not a bug: "A feature of our method is that it does not require us to make a subjective assessment of how liberal or conservative a think tank is. That is, for instance, we do we need to read policy reports of the think tank or analyze its position on various issues to determine its ideology. Instead, we simply observe the ADA scores of the members of Congress who cite the think tank. " And, based on this method the ACLU and NRA are both slightly center-right and the opensecrets.org database is far left.

The study's authors make no attempt to repudiate the two compatible counter-hypotheses (which are basically logically equivalent). One obvious way would be to control for the political orientation of the think tanks -- independent left-right rankings of think tanks must be easy to obtain. Why did the study's authors not attempt this? In other words, why not use the much simpler method of counting media mentions of think tanks according to whether they are left or right? This report by a left-leaning organization claims that if you do that, the G&M study falls apart. If you don't trust an independent ranking of a think tank, then why trust the independent ranking of a sample of congresspeople they used upon which the whole G&M study is based?

I also find it strange that they are only able to cite 3 questionable studies "by economists" on media bias. 2 of these I mentioned above, of the third they say:

While many would simply conclude that this is only evidence that “bias is in the eyes of the beholder,” Hamilton makes the astute point that that individuals are more likely to perceive bias the further the slant of the news is from their own position. Since the same surveys also show that conservatives tend to see a bias more than liberals do, this is evidence that the news slants more to the left.

Astute observation? Isn't this a bit of a quantitative analytical leap? In other words, if you know the relationship is at least very poor why assume it is valid at all? In the Watts et al study I mentioned above, they found that perception of media bias did not correlate at all with any media bias they were able to detect but instead correlated very well with the number of claims of media bias made by media elites. They found a slight anti-Bush media bias in 1992, and a slight anti-Clinton bias in 1996, and found that perceptions of liberal media bias were much *lower* in 1992 and much *higher* in 1996, and which they found correlated strongly with public claims of liberal media bias by media elites. There is a large body of existing literature on media perception.

Why did G&M only cite and discuss only these three papers? Media and communication studies journals regularly publish empirical studies on media bias. One example I was able to find was D'Alessio & Allen, 2000, Media Bias in Presidential Elections: A Meta-Analysis, Journal of Communication, whom reviewed 60 previous studies on left-right media bias and conclude, "On the whole, no significant biases were found for the newspaper industry. Biases in newsmagazines were virtually zero as well. However, meta-analysis of studies of television network news showed small, measurable, but probably insubstantial coverage and statement biases."

No mention of any of this by G&M? If they disagreed with any previous research, shouldn't they have discussed it?

Mark Adams, do you still believe that "every empirical study of media bias indicates" liberal bias? Do you agree or disagree with anything I've said? Was any of this valuable, or did I waste my time by writing all of this up for you?

grh,

Just for review, you have called me "irrational" and in possession of a "tiny fevered mind". And because of that you have declared there to be no purpose in talking with me. You made the calumnious implication that the Groseclose/Milyo study was less than trustworthy because it was funded by some sort nefarious source. When I point out that it was funded by a large and respected university and published in a peer reviewed journal you simply ignore that piece of information. After all, I'm irrational.

And please notice no stamping of little feet or declarations that I'm right.

Mark Adams, do you still believe that "every empirical study of media bias indicates" liberal bias?

Mr. Haleron,

I already admitted my error and declared myself corrected. I'm not sure what else you want.

As for your other questions I have to leave for class but I will reply later.

we're going to keep on seeing it until people demand that would-be serious reporters stop taking their cues from wingnut headquarters.

But where else will a lazy journalist find their stories?

Brendan Nyhan has a pretty good critique of the G&M piece available at:

http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2005/12/the_problems_wi.html

Milyo served on my dissertation committee, I have a great deal of professional respect and personal regard for him, and that paper of his is a good one for what it does, but it is by no means bulletproof or conclusive.

I already admitted my error and declared myself corrected. I'm not sure what else you want.

I don't know what Mr. Haleron wants, but what I want is for you to think for yourself, rather than just swallowing this crap these people are shoveling down your throat.

Now, I have no particular hopes that you'll do so. It's likely that anyone who's lived through the past five years and STILL can't see what's right in front of their face -- that there's a gigantic, extremely well-funded machine on the right devoted to fooling people like themselves, all done with the happy complicity of the corporate media -- will never be able to see it.

But maybe you can. Start by asking yourself this: why had you heard of this unbelievably silly Groseclose and Milyo study, and none of the many others with different conclusions? Does it have something to do with the fact this unbelievably silly study was featured on CNN, MSNBC, Fox and the CBS blog, and the others with different conclusions weren't? Does that, JUST MAYBE, suggest something about the actual political leaning of the media?

grh,

You said, "So, sorry. I have no interest in 'discussing' this with someone who's uninformed and irrational. . . . On the other hand, I will continue to make fun of you, because that's both enjoyable and well worth doing."

You have an odd way of not discussing this with me.

Best,

Sorry, I slipped up and for half a second allowed myself to fantasize that you might be educable. Boy, is my face red!

grh,

If your face is red it should be because you made a very serious insinuation against the Groseclose/Milyo study that turned out to be wrong. Perhaps you should apologize for that.

Mr. Haleron,

You wrote: Mark Adams, do you still believe that "every empirical study of media bias indicates" liberal bias? Do you agree or disagree with anything I've said? Was any of this valuable, or did I waste my time by writing all of this up for you?

A few thoughts on some of the specifics of what you wrote:

With regard to RAND, from the discussion I remember at the time this study came out, the explanation was that on non-military matters RAND does in fact tend to be more liberal. Just because you intuitively don't think that RAND should be considered liberal doesn't mean that it isn't liberal.

While it may be true that the Center for Responsive Politics "sole purpose is to maintain publicly accessible databases of campaign donations" I would think that its information would be usually used by those advocating liberal causes - mainly campaign finance reform and lobbyist reform - so it seems to be entirely unsurprising that the more someone cites CfRP the more likely they are liberal.

As for the Drudge report being cited as liberal, I agree this is silly and I don't know why an outlet like Drudge was part of their study since as a collection of outside links it really can't be evaluated by their method in the same way that other media outlets can.

If you don't trust an independent ranking of a think tank, then why trust the independent ranking of a sample of congresspeople they used upon which the whole G&M study is based?

That's a good question. I think I would say that it is much easier to objectively characterize where a congressperson falls on the ideological spectrum by looking at how they come down on a set number of votes than to try to rank think tanks given that you would have to look at their reports, position papers, etc. . . . that are much more complex and nuanced than a yes or no vote.

As for your broader question of "Was any of this valuable, or did I waste my time by writing all of this up for you?" I would reply that it was of great value. The question is less cut and dried that I previously thought. Thanks for your input.

Mark, I do apologize for saying something you were incapable of understanding. I guess I should have dumbed it down and said it like this:

"Yes, I understand Exxon-Mobil has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to those carrying out 'the best' studies of global warming, too."

Generally it's not necessary to spell these things out -- most people understand that money is fungible by the time they're in second grade -- but it's clear I needed to make an exception for you.

Mark, I do apologize

I forgive you. Thanks.

I forgive you. Thanks.

Yes...I imagine you get a lot of these types of apologies.

grh,

Well, it looks like this post is about to fall off the front page so I wanted to thank you for your hospitality and graciousness. You have represented your side well -- done them real proud I'm sure.

Best,

your hospitality and graciousness

I know, I know -- all you're after is "hospitality and graciousness"...just as Exxon-Mobil's hacks just want hospitality and graciousness, just as the tobacco industry's hacks just want hospitality and graciousness. All you ever wanted was an open debate. And it's so cruely denied them, as it's been denied you!

The world is a horribly unjust place.

grh,

God, you are one humorless bore.

As for open debate and all that, you will notice some of you colleagues actually were respectful and that I actually admitted I was wrong. The whole dialog couldn't have gone more counter to your predictions or expectations.

Güzel Sözler
porno
sex
pornotube
sextube
89
mobilya
sohbet
sohbet
sohbet
Site ekle
Site Ekle
arkadaş
porno
Mirc
turkce mirc
Sohbet
Sohbet
amerikan KAPI
tosya ahsap
sex
ahsap KAPI
thank you grup.

thank you

www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
Sağır Oda
dizi izle
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
dizi izle
resim galerisi
haber
forum
küresel ısınma
küresel ısınma
küresel ısınma
r10 seo yarışması
r10 seo yarışması
r10 seo yarışması

Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırcturk
turkmırc
mırc turk
turk mırc
turkiyemirc
türkiyemirc
turkiye mirc
türkiye mirc
mircturkiye
mirctürkiye
mirc turkiye
mircturk
turkmırc
muhabbet
mirc sohbet
mırc sohbet
mirc chat
mırc chat
mırc ındır
mirc ındır
Türkçe mirc
Türkce mirc
Turkçe mirc
Türkce mirc
Türkçe mırc
Türkce mırc
Turkçe mırc
Turkce mırc
mirc
mirc
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar

mirc

mirc