Study: All Major News Outlets Have Left-Leaning Bias that ‘Distorts’ Minds

[MUR73]

bham, the methodology flaws cited in your article are endemic to this kind of "research." An even more fundamental flaw is that it relies on the inherently subjective judgment of one criteria-maker to "score" the source being cited by the media story.

As I read it, they 1) took a liberal think tank's score of a politician or an expert; and then 2) tracked the number of times that politicians or experts with more liberal scores were cited relative to the number of times that politicians and experts with lower scores were cited.

The article you posted cites problems with step 2. But step 1 is of course an enormous problem. I get why they did it -- so they could claim that it wasn't based on their own subjective impressions -- and they could therefore claim that their own bias is not the foundation of it.

But that's like saying that if Chris Matthews took the Fox view of who is conservative and then ran a study of their own news stories, it would come out stilted. This is because there is an inherent bias by the rater to "reward" those he/she agrees with a higher score.

Basically, in the name of being able to deny their own bias, they used scoring that they knew going into it would help prove the conclusion they had already reached, and in fact that they knew would be even more likely to be supported based on the bias within the initial scoring.

Its a farce.

Now, I will also say that a study claiming to cite to conservative bias would likely also suffer from similar flaws. This is because no matter what source you use to label a person or a story or an opinion liberal or conservative is going to judge it from their own particular point of view.

As there is no agreed-upon "center," it stands to reason that one cannot rely on some score -- by anybody --- as accurately describing something as "liberal" or "conservative" for purposes of studying this kind of thing.

Your blatant denial of any info/study/data, no matter the source or how reputable, that conflicts your belief system and attempt to discredit any offered info is the only "farce" i see here.

Your nearly incoherent explanation/nonexplanation of why this studies has no validity because of their bias makes you appear to grasping at at straws at best.

In your mind, Since there is no center i must assume that to you everyone has a bias and thus a ulterior motive, everyone. With that knowledge, it must be awful going through your daily life. You know wondering whether or not, for instance, that stop sign on the highway is for your/others safety or does the DOT have something sinister in mind when you come to a complete stop, maybe a state backed carjacking, who knows, scary stuff though, i bet?

I agree with Bham you can disagree with the conclusion but when you try to totally dismiss the findings you show your true colors and exhibit your bias as it clearly blinds your judgement of some interesting facts, you can choose to keep your head buried in the sand and discount everything that doesnt jive with you or actually be a "open-minded" liberal.

btw, i have noticed the only thing the "open-minded liberals" are open to is drug use and sexual matters. Everything else is off the table for you guys.

 

[MystifyingVol]

I would agree that most journalism students grow up with a progressive background -- its part of the allure of being a journalist to play the watchdog role, which naturally makes for an anti-establishment mentality. I'm just saying that some right winger -- which this professor clearly is based on his past -- cannot with any degree of "scientific" certainty characterize jack squat.

This might have been true at some point in history, but progressive journalists are NOT anti-establishment, they are the establishment now. Individuals such as those in the tea party are the ones acting in a watchdog role now. LG, you make me sick.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[KiffinKiller]

Your blatant denial of any info/study/data, no matter the source or how reputable, that conflicts your belief system and attempt to discredit any offered info is the only "farce" i see here.

Your nearly incoherent explanation/nonexplanation of why this studies has no validity because of their bias makes you appear to grasping at at straws at best.

In your mind, Since there is no center i must assume that to you everyone has a bias and thus a ulterior motive, everyone. With that knowledge, it must be awful going through your daily life. You know wondering whether or not, for instance, that stop sign on the highway is for your/others safety or does the DOT have something sinister in mind when you come to a complete stop, maybe a state backed carjacking, who knows, scary stuff though, i bet?

I agree with Bham you can disagree with the conclusion but when you try to totally dismiss the findings you show your true colors and exhibit your bias as it clearly blinds your judgement of some interesting facts, you can choose to keep your head buried in the sand and discount everything that doesnt jive with you or actually be a "open-minded" liberal.

btw, i have noticed the only thing the "open-minded liberals" are open to is drug use and sexual matters. Everything else is off the table for you guys.

you sound open-minded as well. clap clap.

 

[volinbham]

So if I go and find an article that is published in a respected peer reviewed journal you will accept the conclusions therein as fact?

I will accept that the study was methodologically rigorous and vetted as such.

I will accept that the findings represent the result of the study and are part of what we "know" about the larger phenomenon of interest.

I would not conclude that the findings represent the entire picture nor will not be challenged or modified by future research.


I also would not dismiss them out of hand as propaganda simply because I don't like the findings.

 

[hndog609]

So if I go and find an article that is published in a respected peer reviewed journal you will accept the conclusions therein as fact?

You honestly think that's what he said?

Now it is debatable whether the findings support the broader conclusions or that the findings are not universally generalizable but the fact it is being published where it is being published lends considerable credibility to the research and method.

 

[volinbham]

There is no center but the study author is clearly a right winger...:lol:

I'm just saying that some right winger -- which this professor clearly is based on his past -- cannot with any degree of "scientific" certainty characterize jack squat.

 

[IPorange]

To add to the "this research is a farce" debate.

The research will appear in the Quarterly Journal of Economics. That journal is the second highest ranked economics journal in the world and is the oldest English language economics journal. (EDIT: One ranking has it as #1 the other has it as #2)

No way this article is published here if it is "a farce" or is seriously flawed methodologically.

Now it is debatable whether the findings support the broader conclusions or that the findings are not universally generalizable but the fact it is being published where it is being published lends considerable credibility to the research and method.

This is an interesting argument. I look forward to your support in the evolution and global climate change threads, since the reputation of the journals studies are published in adds credibility.

 

[hndog609]

There is no center but the study author is clearly a right winger...:lol:

LG drinks from two cup sizes...large and medium.

 

[MUR73]

A very well respected source for this.

Oh, wait.

This is a short bio of the studies author:

Tim Groseclose is the Marvin Hoffenberg Chair of American Politics. He received his PhD in 1992 from Stanford's Graduate School of Business. His research focuses mainly upon Congress, media bias, and mathematical models of politics. His work has appeard in journals such as the American Economic Review, Quarterly Journal of Economics, American Political Science Review, American Journal of Political Science, and Journal of Politics. He has held faculty positions at Carnegie Mellon University, Harvard University, the Ohio State University, Stanford University, and Caltech. One of his most recent articles, "A Measure of Media Bias," was the object of discussion in several media outlets, including the New York Times, the Washington Times, the Los Angeles Times, Investors' Business Daily, CNN's The Situation Room, Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Fox News' Hannity and Colmes, MSNBC's Tucker Carlson Show, and CSPAN's Washington Journal.

Thanks for the insight LG, it's obvious this mans "credentials" are insufficient for such claims/findings and that your 10 minute google research into the man and his "study" has definitely yielded some big flaws/holes in his findings. Thanks again for the education.

 

[volinbham]

This is an interesting argument. I look forward to your support in the evolution and global climate change threads, since the reputation of the journals studies are published in adds credibility.

I've always supported the notion of evolution. I've also been in support of the notion of AGW but have questioned the hyped predictions of outcomes and solutions.

Also, consistent with this argument any individual study is judged on its merits as being methodologically sound (particularly in the top journals in a field). As was pointed out, I have not and do not consider a single study as conclusive.

 

[KiffinKiller]

Waste of this professor's time, imo. Everyone knew this beforehand.

 

[IPorange]

This is a short bio of the studies author:

Tim Groseclose is the Marvin Hoffenberg Chair of American Politics. He received his PhD in 1992 from Stanford's Graduate School of Business. His research focuses mainly upon Congress, media bias, and mathematical models of politics. His work has appeard in journals such as the American Economic Review, Quarterly Journal of Economics, American Political Science Review, American Journal of Political Science, and Journal of Politics. He has held faculty positions at Carnegie Mellon University, Harvard University, the Ohio State University, Stanford University, and Caltech. One of his most recent articles, "A Measure of Media Bias," was the object of discussion in several media outlets, including the New York Times, the Washington Times, the Los Angeles Times, Investors' Business Daily, CNN's The Situation Room, Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Fox News' Hannity and Colmes, MSNBC's Tucker Carlson Show, and CSPAN's Washington Journal.

Thanks for the insight LG, it's obvious this mans "credentials" are insufficient for such claims/findings and that your 10 minute google research into the man and his "study" has definitely yielded some big flaws/holes in his findings. Thanks again for the education.

I assume you as well will be supporting me in future threads concerning evolution and global climate change. Awesome!

 

[lawgator1]

This is a short bio of the studies author:

Tim Groseclose is the Marvin Hoffenberg Chair of American Politics. He received his PhD in 1992 from Stanford's Graduate School of Business. His research focuses mainly upon Congress, media bias, and mathematical models of politics. His work has appeard in journals such as the American Economic Review, Quarterly Journal of Economics, American Political Science Review, American Journal of Political Science, and Journal of Politics. He has held faculty positions at Carnegie Mellon University, Harvard University, the Ohio State University, Stanford University, and Caltech. One of his most recent articles, "A Measure of Media Bias," was the object of discussion in several media outlets, including the New York Times, the Washington Times, the Los Angeles Times, Investors' Business Daily, CNN's The Situation Room, Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Fox News' Hannity and Colmes, MSNBC's Tucker Carlson Show, and CSPAN's Washington Journal.

Thanks for the insight LG, it's obvious this mans "credentials" are insufficient for such claims/findings and that your 10 minute google research into the man and his "study" has definitely yielded some big flaws/holes in his findings. Thanks again for the education.

Oh, he's a professor? Wow.

The methods Groseclose and Milyo used to calculate this bias have been criticized by Mark Liberman, a professor of Computer Science at the University of Pennsylvania.[16][17] Liberman concludes by saying he thinks "that many if not most of the complaints directed against G&M are motivated in part by ideological disagreement – just as much of the praise for their work is motivated by ideological agreement. It would be nice if there were a less politically fraught body of data on which such modeling exercises could be explored."[16]


Professor Liberman is the Christopher H. Browne DISTINGUISHED PROFESSOR of Linguistics at an ivy league school. Therefore, according to you, everything he says is true. Therefore, according to you, Groscelose is wrong.




Even the conservative "newsbusters" organization calls Groseclose a conservative.
NewsBusters Interview: UCLA's Tim Groseclose on 'How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind' | NewsBusters.org


Here's an article by Groseclose in the uber-conservative Cato Institute defending corporate donations as political speech. Who's Afraid of Political Speech? | Jeffrey Milyo and Tim Groseclose | Cato Institute: Commentary


Groseclose resigned at UCLA over worries that it would allow in more than -- get this -- 100 African American freshmen students! Oh noes! Blacks on campus?! We can't have that ! http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/CUARS.Draft.Report.pdf

(He was the only one at the meeting on the subject to voice opposition to affirmative action).



Here is a very good analysis of an appearance by Groseclose on Fox, discussing media bias when it comes to Muslim terrorists versus the Norwegian version of gsvol: http://www.newshounds.us/2011/08/01/fox_friends_promotes_bogus_
meme_msms_antichristian_proislam_bias.php

Don't see how you cna read that and think Groseclose is anything but a far right spinmeister.


And here is Groseclose saying that Drudge Report is "approximately the most fair, balance, and centrist newsoutlet in the United States." Book: Liberal Media Distorts News Bias - Washington Whispers (usnews.com)


Are you f'ing kidding me? Drudge is the most fair and balanced news outlet???? What the f is this guy smoking !?




The guy is a right wing hack. It is blatantly obvious.

 

[KiffinKiller]

Is he biased for doing this research in the first place? Waste of time, imo.

 

[lawgator1]

Is he biased for doing this research in the first place? Waste of time, imo.

I think it fair to say that anyone who purports to be able to objectively measure bias in something inherently subjective is pretty much doing it with a conclusion in mind, yes.

 

[volinbham]

The methods Groseclose and Milyo used to calculate this bias have been criticized by Mark Liberman, a professor of Computer Science at the University of Pennsylvania.[16][17] Liberman concludes by saying he thinks "that many if not most of the complaints directed against G&M are motivated in part by ideological disagreement – just as much of the praise for their work is motivated by ideological agreement. It would be nice if there were a less politically fraught body of data on which such modeling exercises could be explored."[16]


Professor Liberman is the Christopher H. Browne DISTINGUISHED PROFESSOR of Linguistics at an ivy league school. Therefore, according to you, everything he says is true. Therefore, according to you, Groscelose is wrong.

Okay let's break this down. Liberman is saying that most of the criticism and most of the praise is based on on ideology (insert LG) not based on the study itself. That does not support your theory that the study is propaganda - it suggests that most criticism or praise is propaganda.

Second, the fact that Liberman is a professor isn't quite the same as this study. If his criticism were published in an equivalent journal then the criticism would hold the weight of the original study. This is a relatively frequent occurrence in fact - often times controversial studies are accompanied by rebuttals. Both the study and rebuttal are subject to the same review of methodological rigor.




Even the conservative "newsbusters" organization calls Groseclose a conservative.
NewsBusters Interview: UCLA's Tim Groseclose on 'How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind' | NewsBusters.org


Here's an article by Groseclose in the uber-conservative Cato Institute defending corporate donations as political speech. Who's Afraid of Political Speech? | Jeffrey Milyo and Tim Groseclose | Cato Institute: Commentary

Wait, how can Newsbusters call anyone a conservative or how can CATO be characterized as conservative if there is no center? For all we know they are ultra-left since it's all subjective anyway...


Groseclose resigned at UCLA over worries that it would allow in more than -- get this -- 100 African American freshmen students! Oh noes! Blacks on campus?! We can't have that ! http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/CUARS.Draft.Report.pdf

(He was the only one at the meeting on the subject to voice opposition to affirmative action).

That right there is the proof :blink:



Here is a very good analysis of an appearance by Groseclose on Fox, discussing media bias when it comes to Muslim terrorists versus the Norwegian version of gsvol: http://www.newshounds.us/2011/08/01/fox_friends_promotes_bogus_
meme_msms_antichristian_proislam_bias.php

Don't see how you cna read that and think Groseclose is anything but a far right spinmeister.

Regardless of his own bias, the work itself can be subject to review for extensive bias and methodological fatal flaws. For some reason you continually gloss over this. I guess the Quarterly Review of Economics is just some hack journal that publishes farcical propaganda


And here is Groseclose saying that Drudge Report is "approximately the most fair, balance, and centrist newsoutlet in the United States." Book: Liberal Media Distorts News Bias - Washington Whispers (usnews.com)


Are you f'ing kidding me? Drudge is the most fair and balanced news outlet???? What the f is this guy smoking !?

Check the method he used. He's looking a particular measure of bias; notably presentation of data from multiple sources considered to be left center or right. He apparently is not analyzing commentary without citation.


The guy is a right wing hack. It is blatantly obvious.

What is blatantly obvious is that you are the poster child for the Liberman comment above. You are ideological opposed to the conclusion so you dismiss the entire work without attempting to understand it or how it was vetted.

 

[volinbham]

Funny too that LG used Wikipedia (lifted directly from) for the Liberman criticism but failed to include the criticism. The quote included is a caveat about how criticism is approached not the Liberman criticism of the method.

Assuming that Wikipedia is a legit source on this topic the Wikipedia entry from which this came also clearly asserts that the study of media bias is a long standing academic pursuit with decades of scientific inquiry (even though presumably scientific inquiry cannot be applied to a "subjective" topic).

The study in this thread is one of many over the years that has found evidence of a liberal media bias. Other studies have found other types of bias (including conservative) and there is disagreement even among those that find liberal bias on areas of cause, severity, etc.

I guess this entire field of study is propaganda - given the subject matter and the findings.

 

[KiffinKiller]

Does anyone else feel like this whole subject is a giant waste of time - correct or not?

 

[IPorange]

Eh. There is an underlying assumption of something deliberate going on. I find that preposterous. Bias is certainly present, but I think it is manufactured into more of an issue than it is. Both extremes want to believe the opposition is programmed or manufactured, that the opposition is faceless robots or zombies, and that THEIR side is the side of freethinkers and "good guys."

 

[volinbham]

Eh. There is an underlying assumption of something deliberate going on. I find that preposterous. Bias is certainly present, but I think it is manufactured into more of an issue than it is. Both extremes want to believe the opposition is programmed or manufactured, that the opposition is faceless robots or zombies, and that THEIR side is the side of freethinkers and "good guys."

Possibly true. Sounds like a good idea for a study...

 

[lawgator1]

Funny too that LG used Wikipedia (lifted directly from) for the Liberman criticism but failed to include the criticism. The quote included is a caveat about how criticism is approached not the Liberman criticism of the method.

Assuming that Wikipedia is a legit source on this topic the Wikipedia entry from which this came also clearly asserts that the study of media bias is a long standing academic pursuit with decades of scientific inquiry (even though presumably scientific inquiry cannot be applied to a "subjective" topic).

The study in this thread is one of many over the years that has found evidence of a liberal media bias. Other studies have found other types of bias (including conservative) and there is disagreement even among those that find liberal bias on areas of cause, severity, etc.

I guess this entire field of study is propaganda - given the subject matter and the findings.

I don't view Wikipedia as an authoritative source for opinion but don't have any reason to think it misreported what Liberman said.

My point in raising it was that MUR73 made is sound as though Groseclose's status as a UCLA professor renders his methodology and conclusions the Word of God.

 

[MUR73]

I don't view Wikipedia as an authoritative source for opinion but don't have any reason to think it misreported what Liberman said.

My point in raising it was that MUR73 made is sound as though Groseclose's status as a UCLA professor renders his methodology and conclusions the Word of God.[/QUOTE]

No..... Just qualified..... unlike you.

 

[droski]

Eh. There is an underlying assumption of something deliberate going on. I find that preposterous. Bias is certainly present, but I think it is manufactured into more of an issue than it is. Both extremes want to believe the opposition is programmed or manufactured, that the opposition is faceless robots or zombies, and that THEIR side is the side of freethinkers and "good guys."

I don't think it deliberate by most. I think they think they are unbiased like lg but their politics of course change the way they see the story.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[IPorange]

I don't think it deliberate by most. I think they think they are unbiased like lg but their politics of course change the way they see the story.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

If I understood everything correctly, this particular study was looking at the sourcing of various news items and reports. To me, that's even one more step removed from a journalist's personal views.

 

[volinbham]

If I understood everything correctly, this particular study was looking at the sourcing of various news items and reports. To me, that's even one more step removed from a journalist's personal views.

I'm not sure the study attributes motives or explanatory mechanisms for why.

Just like a medical study that attempts to show "what is" I believe this study was presenting "what is" within the boundaries of the construct definitions, their operationalization and the conduct of the study.

This is where I think LG in particular is getting off track. The study represents an examination of phenomena with particular parameters and using a particular methodology.

The journal publication process vetted the parameters and methodology as being sound.

I've never stated that the study findings should be viewed as definitive, complete or even generalizable. (in fact I've said specifically otherwise).

What I am arguing is that the publication process given the academic journal in which this study appears is strong proof that the work was not "a farce" nor "propaganda". It is one narrow look at a larger phenomenon.

A small example. I am fortunate enough to have a publication in the top journal in my field. The research took over a year and the review process to get accepted took over 3 years with multiple review rounds and revisions.

Why was it accepted? Not because the journal publishes propaganda. It was accepted because the topic was deemed of interest to the field, the methods were sufficiently rigorous to meet the research standards and it was considered to be a contribution to the field of knowledge.

Could the methods be criticized? You bet.
Is the study the definitive work on the topic? No but it does get regular citation.
Do I believe that the findings are all encompassing or highly generalizable to all such situations? No. That is not what we see in academic research.
Was the work a farce or propaganda? Absolutely not.