Where's the outrage?

[EricaLubarsky]

Originally posted by: FishForLunch
I am still waiting, please point out some instances of irresponsible journalists. Rupert Murdoch does not explain anything

whoa I need to be online 24/7?!?!?!? Some people have class and work....It is reading week this week which is the study time before finals.

I would need more time here to explain the point. Maybe after finals I will give some. I have already discussed Ann Coulter in another thread who is not a newsperson but a media pundit all the same.

[EricaLubarsky]

Splitting hairs erica. If you can't believe michael kelly, there is not much hope for you.

Hmm...well in 1964, the year that the poll began (Im assuming that this was the first election covered). The election was between giving LBJ 4 more years after the year or so he served of JFKs term and Richard Nixon. Neither Nixon nor LBJ fit the standards for Republicans and Democrats back then. Modern day Republicans were not what they were until the Reagan administration when supply side tax cuts and invasive international politics was added to the agenda. If we are going by the first 17 years of the poll then I would be a Republican because I believe in fiscal responsibility and staying out of world politics. So even though there were 1,000+ who were polled, the majority of the study was done before neo-conservativism.

During the Clinton administration the lines between the two parties were blurred but since Reagan the two parties have switched their ideas about unilateral force and balancing the budget.

Think about it. Nixon wanted to stay out of world power. Kennedy got us into Vietnam. Nixon got us out. Nixon wanted a balanced budget. Kennedy imposed supply-side tax cuts (which were the only time in the history of tax cuts where supply-side tax cuts spurred an economic boom in the manufacturing sector. )

I hardly think that the poll tells us anything if each issue is not specifically aimed at specific issues and it is irresponsible for a poller to not release the questions that were asked and how they were asked. The most recent poll, although it had a small sample size says

A 2001 survey of 301 ``media professionals'' by Princeton Survey Research Associates found 25 percent self-identified as ``liberal,'' 59 percent as ``moderate," and only 6 percent as ``conservative.''

Dont you see something funny there, Dude?

81 percent of the journalists interviewed voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in every election between 1964 and 1976

LBJ- 1964- rode JFK
against Nixon- 1968
No election to put in Ford
Jimmy Carter- 1976

Hmm....thats not a tough set

It's hard to see what happened since the change in political parties. The poll is 13 years old. In 1981 Reagan was barely being sworn in.



edit: Im sorry, the poll began in 1962 while the world was in love with JFK and before he had really been tested in Vietnam. This was also right after Kennedy had faced down the Russians in their attempt to put missiles in Cuba. Since Kennedy had called Mrs. King during the 1960 election, the democrats were also the party of the civil rights movement. Nixon (r.) also lost a lot of support by the media during the Kent State massacre and Watergate.

[FishForLunch]

I watch Foxnews and CNN constantly will surfing the web, I have not seen Rupert Murdoch on FOX news once

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally posted by: Chiwas
Glad to see Erica countering in this section.

348.5 rigthtists to 3.5 leftists now.

(Btw, thankfully the 10-8, 8-10 thread has not been converted in a Baseball section. Sarcastic comment pointing that at least 20 threads out of the last 22 in this section could have been piled up in just one thread)

Oh, well, politics....

Hey now - this shouldn't be about people v. people. A good discussion is ideas v. ideas. No need to foster any persecution complexes. If your tired of seeing one side of an argument in the minority, either put some more quality posts in to the discussion, recruit some more posters, or start some topics that might have a different balance.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: FishForLunch
I watch Foxnews and CNN constantly will surfing the web, I have not seen Rupert Murdoch on FOX news once

You're not able to see the puppeteer.

[Chiwas]

Originally posted by: Usually Lurkin

Hey now - this shouldn't be about people v. people. A good discussion is ideas v. ideas. No need to foster any persecution complexes. If your tired of seeing one side of an argument in the minority, either put some more quality posts in to the discussion, recruit some more posters, or start some topics that might have a different balance.

Sincerely I'm not in the level that you all have to put quality posts here. Sometimes I can post something that I think can be valuable but they are very few. However, I agree that, excepting some replies to reeds, everything else is not people vs people in this section. I'm tired of seeing topics with no replies, I'm tired of seeing topics with only press articles. But in reality I'm not tired of this section. And thankfully Erica has come to help to the balance thing; in fact, this thread is becoming one of the best.

[EricaLubarsky]

No need to foster any persecution complexes

you hearing this, Dude?

[dude1394]

Erica, I don't personally feel persecuted (that's why I live in texas), but I'm not in denial either. There is no doubt, no doubt in my mind that the main stream media is liberal biased. If for nothing else than they are located in the most liberal bastions of the country.

Thank GOODNESS for Fox News, NRO, WeeklyStandard, talk radio and certainly now the internet. Where even the liberals cannot escape what is written, said and videod anymore.

Unfortunately too many folks still take their news from the msm, but hopefully that too will change.

[dude1394]

What I see funny is you actually trying to defend this.?

81 percent of the journalists interviewed voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in every election between 1964 and 1976

1964 - LBJ - 64%, Goldwater 38.5%
1968 - Nixon - 43.4%, Humphrey 42.7%, Wallace 13.5%.
!972 - Nixon - 60.7%, McGovern 37.5%
1976 - Carter - 50.1%, Ford 48%.

Journalists voting democrat in those years at 80% is just like the current black vote of 80%.

I don't know honestly what conclusion you could draw from this other than that the majority of journalists are liberal.

[EricaLubarsky]

I don't know honestly what conclusion you could draw from this other than that the majority of journalists are liberal.

From 1962-1981 most journalists identified as liberal. Okay but you completely ignored the fact the republicans now arent what they used to be and democrats arent either. Your ancient poll clearly shows nothing in the modern political arena other than the fact that 13 years ago (as Reagan was taking office) most of the members of the media polled identified themselves as liberal. Both the lliberal and conservative agendas have changed dramatically. Read it as it is. The history is there.

[dude1394]

Erica, you asked me to find you a poll. I did. Now you don't like the poll. Maybe you have one you could share.

So tell me know what your acceptable poll dates are as I don't want to keep bringing another rock.

I just googled it and found what I found. But, the Michael Kelly article was recent and I respected him immensely. Also my statement about the msm being located in the heartland of liberalism stands. The last time I looked NY, California went pretty overwhelminly for gore/clintoon/etc.

[dude1394]

It's like shooting ducks honestly.

In 1995, Kenneth Walsh, a reporter for U.S. News & World Report, polled 28 of his fellow White House correspondents from the four TV networks, the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, USA Today, Washington Post, Copley, Cox, Hearst, Knight-Ridder, plus Newsweek, Time and U.S. News & World Report, about their presidential voting patterns for his 1996 book "Feeding the Beast: The White House versus the Press." As reported in the MRC's June 1996 MediaWatch, Walsh counted 50 votes by White House correspondents for the Democratic entry compared to just seven for the Republican.

KEY FINDINGS
* In 1992, nine of the White House correspondents surveyed voted for Democrat Bill Clinton, two for Republican George H. W. Bush, and one for independent Ross Perot.
* In 1988, 12 voted for Democrat Michael Dukakis, one for Bush.
* In 1984, 10 voted for Democrat Walter Mondale, zero for Ronald Reagan.
* In 1980, eight voted for Democrat Jimmy Carter, two voted for Ronald Reagan.
* In 1976, 11 voted for Carter, two for Republican Gerald Ford.

In April 1996, the Freedom Forum published a book by Chicago Tribune writer Elaine Povich titled, "Partners and Adversaries: The Contentious Connection Between Congress and the Media." Buried in Appendix D was the real news for those concerned about media bias: Based on the 139 Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents who returned the Freedom Forum questionnaire, the Washington-based reporters — by an incredible margin of nine-to-one — overwhelmingly cast their presidential ballots in 1992 for Democrat Bill Clinton over Republican incumbent George Bush.

This one is interesting as even when the rest of the country is counted the editors still overwhelmingly are liberal.

In January 1998, Editor & Publisher, the preeminent media trade magazine, conducted a poll of 167 newspaper editors across the country. Investor’s Business Daily reporter Matthew Robinson obtained complete poll results, highlights of which were featured in the MRC's February 1998 MediaWatch.

KEY FINDINGS
* In 1992, when just 43 percent of the public voted Democrat Bill Clinton for President, 58 percent of editors surveyed voted for him.
* In 1996, a minority (49 percent) of the American people voted to reelect Clinton, compared to a majority (57 percent) of the editors.

I welcome your results showing that the media is actually conservative.

[EricaLubarsky]

I welcome your results showing that the media is actually conservative

I never said it was conservative. You need to read more clearly.

I still think that you need to back off your original statemtent that

90% of the journalists are admitted liberals.

those polls have only shown that there is a tendency for reporters to identify as democrats at around 5-15%.

[Usually Lurkin]

[quote]
Originally posted by: EricaLubarsky

those polls have only shown that there is a tendency for reporters to identify as democrats at around 5-15%.

25:6
80%

9:2
12:1
10:0
11:2

9:1

58%
57%

How do you get that these ratios reveal a tendency for a 5-15% preference? They show a 57%-100% preference.
Good luck with finals.

[Mavdog]

Liberal Bias in the media is a myth.

The vast majority of the american public receive their news from sources other than those cited in the incredibly small base of the studies.

From local newspapers to the reality of the net, people don't rely on those newsgathers.

[dude1394]

Damn, must be so mavdog says so. No data of course.

[madape]

From Donald Rumsfeld:

Link

There are two ways, I suppose, one could inform readers of the Geneva Convention stipulation against using places of worship to conduct military attacks. One might be to headline saying that Terrorists Attack Coalition Forces From Mosques. That would be one way to present the information.

Another might be to say: Mosques Targeted in Fallujah. That was the Los Angeles Times headline this morning.

[madape]

Here's an interesting site that documents bias in media:

http://www.mediaresearch.org/

[madape]

Here's a link to a a Harvard and MIT paper on the business of media bias.



Be careful what you read!

http://post.economics.harvard.edu/fa...marketnews.pdf

[madape]

Sorry, I've got a lot of stuff on this.

Recently ADA (The same guys who tell us each year how liberal or conservative each congressman/senator is based on their voting record) has begun ranking media outlets based on media bias.

It turns out that all of the major media outlets, with the exception of Fox News: Special Report are considerably more liberal than the median member of the House over the 1993-1999 period. Moreover, although Fox News: Special Report was to the right of the median house member it was closer to the median member than were most of the other media outlets. (Interestingly, all of the liberal media outlets were less liberal than the average Democrat and Fox News is less conservative than the average Republican - thus there is a sense in which all media outlets are less biased than is the typical politician.) Here are the ADA scores of various media outlets along with some comparable politicians. The higher the score, the more liberal the outlet/politician.

Joe Lieberman (D-Ct.) 66.3
New York Times 64.6
CBS Evening News 64.5
USA Today 62.6
NBC Nightly News 62.5
Los Angeles Times 58.4
Ernst Hollings (D-SC) 56.1
ABC World News Tonight 54.8
Drudge Report 44.1
Arlen Spector (R-PA) 44.0
House Median 39.0
Senate Median 36.9
Olympia Snowe (R-Me) 36.0
Charlie Stenholm (D-Tex) 29.3
Fox News Special Report 26.4

Here's a paper explaining how the bias score is calculated, written by the Stanford and University of Chicago professors who developed the model. It's a great read if you're interested. http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/MediaBias.doc

The paper's conclusion:

Although we expected to find that most media lean left, we were astounded by the degree. A norm among journalists is to present “both sides of the issue.” Consequently, while we expected members of Congress to cite primarily think tanks that are on the same side of the ideological spectrum as they are, we expected journalists to practice a much more balanced citation practice, even if the journalist’s own ideology opposed the think tanks that he or she is sometimes citing. This was not always the case. Most of the mainstream media outlets that we examined (ie all those besides Drudge Report and Fox News’ Special Report) were closer to the average Democrat in Congress than they were to the median member of the House.

[dude1394]

You can really see the impact that the host has on a show when you watch special report with brit hume. Absolutely the best. If a network show had sense they would hire him.