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

#51
#51
Question for LG: Why do you think a journal such as The Quarterly Review of Economics would publish this work if it were:

a. a farce
b. propaganda
c. studying something that can't be studied scientifically
 
#52
#52
volinbham said:
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.
Click to expand...


Incorrect.

Just because it is peer reviewed does not make it correct. I'm not saying the author manipulated or made up data once he got the thing started. I AM saying that he picked a methodology he figured would yield a particular result.

Rather transparent, really.



This is not to say that there is an alternative methodology that would "correctly" determine the presence or magnitude of a bias. It is, however, to say that the initial criteria used by this study was intentionally chosen to increase the odds of finding a bias and exaggerating its magnitude because the authors WANT to ARGUE that there is a bias.

Again, this is a transparent fact.
 
#53
#53
volinbham said:
Question for LG: Why do you think a journal such as The Quarterly Review of Economics would publish this work if it were:

a. a farce
b. propaganda
c. studying something that can't be studied scientifically
Click to expand...


Evidently.
 
#54
#54
lawgator1 said:
Incorrect.

Just because it is peer reviewed does not make it correct. I'm not saying the author manipulated or made up data once he got the thing started. I AM saying that he picked a methodology he figured would yield a particular result.

Rather transparent, really.



This is not to say that there is an alternative methodology that would "correctly" determine the presence or magnitude of a bias. It is, however, to say that the initial criteria used by this study was intentionally chosen to increase the odds of finding a bias and exaggerating its magnitude because the authors WANT to ARGUE that there is a bias.

Again, this is a transparent fact.
Click to expand...

It's clear you don't understand how the peer review process works. You can't just pick a method that supports your pre-determined conclusion. That would be apparent in the review process.

Your second point is pure speculation and again the peer review process would ferret that out.

I suggest you read the editorial guidelines for QRE - it specifically addresses research ethics and conflict of interest bias.
 
#58
#58
A professor wanted to make sure the most qualified individuals were admitted to his university? Clearly we can't ever trust him.
 
#60
#60
Egads!

I know this UCLA study is hyped to no end by the radical right wing American media system.

I believe the criteria for the UCLA study was based almost exclusively on social issues - things like abortion, same sex marriage, etc. Indeed, there is a strong "left" bias on social issues across the spectrum in super-super majority numbers. Brookings is further to the right than many European conservative governments.

In addition, I believe it used American think tank use as a "gauge" of media bias. That is like studying only the right wing of an airplane and then wondering why it doesn't fly. It's because the left wing is missing.

The real study, of course, was done a while ago by one of America's most brilliant minds, Noam Chomsky.

Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
#61
#61
utgibbs said:
Egads!

I know this UCLA study is hyped to no end by the radical right wing American media system.

I believe the criteria for the UCLA study was based almost exclusively on social issues - things like abortion, same sex marriage, etc. Indeed, there is a strong "left" bias on social issues across the spectrum in super-super majority numbers. Brookings is further to the right than many European conservative governments.

In addition, I believe it used American think tank use as a "gauge" of media bias. That is like studying only the right wing of an airplane and then wondering why it doesn't fly. It's because the left wing is missing.

The real study, of course, was done a while ago by one of America's most brilliant minds, Noam Chomsky.
Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

This is your idea of a joke, right?
 
#62
#62
lawgator1 said:
A very well respected source for this.

Oh, wait.
Click to expand...

Of course... anything that doesn't fit into your narrow little view of the world must be "dis"respected.

This guy is exactly right about at least one thing. The BIGGEST bias is NOT in how things are reported. The big bias is in the agenda... what is determined "newsworthy" and what is not.

Is there any way that a GOP controlled Congress that had not passed a budget in over 800 days for the express purpose of hiding their policies from scrutiny would be "newsworthy"? If a GOP President was into his 3rd year with an economy smaller than it was 4 years previous, over 8% unemployment, stagnant growth, declining tax revenues, soaring deficits,... is there any chance it wouldn't be called the "worst economy in 70 years"?

Why do you think news agencies have no interest in Obama's sealed education records but swarmed down on the release of Palin's emails? Why do you think Bush's DUI 20 years before he ran for President was "newsworthy" but Obama's supposedly more recent use of cocaine was not? Why were they so interested in Bush's NG record but not in Obama's relationship with the Illinois BAR?

Those who decide where the cameras and reporters go are almost universally liberal. They find things that help liberal causes newsworthy. They find things that hurt conservative causes newsworthy. They find the union mob in Wisconsin heroic but the very civil protests of TPer's repulsive.

They fawned over Obama when he jutted his chin out and demanded "civility" when the GOP/TP criticized Dem policies... but have said nothing of the hypocrisy of Obama and/or the left for using terms like "hostage", "gun to the head of America",.... of accusing others of trying to kill grandma and destroy the environment.

As is par for the course... you don't like and will not accept "inconvenient truth".
 
#63
#63
lawgator1 said:
Those of you on the far right see the CNNs, NBCs, BCSs, etc, of the world as left leaning. But that's based on your own perception of where the center is, which in turn is informed by your own politics.
Click to expand...
No. It is based on a) the admitted voting habits and political biases of the journalists themselves and b) the product and persistent inconsistencies by which very similar news is handled when it favors or disfavors a particular cause or person. Again, if the TP had done millions of dollars worth of damage to a state house or illegally occupied a gov't building... would it have been ignored by CNN and these other left leaning organizations?

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.
Click to expand...
Progressives are "anti-establishment"? How is it "anti-establishment" to demand gov't action on every issue?
The study is propaganda. It might be right. But the representation that it is academic or scientific is flatly wrong.
Click to expand...

You very obviously wouldn't recognize propaganda if someone swatted you on the nose with "Rules for Radicals".
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top