Debate, and discuss, just dont Bore me.

Two Political Science professors studied the mainstream media over the course of the last 2 years, and concluded, yes, the Mainstream Media is liberal, and shows it in their news.  They were careful not to include editorials which are by definition biased reports.  But the conclusion, while in itself not astounding, did produce some surprising results. 

The study showed that the Wall Street Journal and the Drudge report were liberal!  But in the case of the Drudge report, they attributed that not to Drudge's writings, but to the other Mainstream articles the site carries.

And while NPR was found to be liberal, it was not as liberal as some would think.  And of course to no one's surprise except maybe members of du.org, CBS, The NY Times, and LA Times were deemed the most liberal (behind the WSJ).

The study looked at the last 10 years of reporting and used, of all things, the Americans for Democratic Action's tally sheet to rank the sources.  The ADA is a very liberal outfit, so at worst, this may have tended to slant sources to the right.  But even with their (ADAs) scale, 18 of 20 of the outlets studied scored left of center.

So now the debate is settled to the surprise of very few.  The MSM is liberal, and thus the reason that the alternative media is so strongly conservative.  Nature abhors a vacuum, and there has been one on the right for too many years when it came to honest reporting.


Comments
on Dec 22, 2005
Did you even read this "report" and some of the ridiculous findings that it arrived at, or did you just read the article about the report?

For example.....the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), bête noire of the right, scored a 49.8, putting it just on the "conservative" side of the ledger.

I'm sure we'd all agree that the ACLU has been, currently is, and always will be "conservative".

This study is a joke!

on Dec 22, 2005
You caught this part right?

"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."

So the conclusion is that a news outlet is liberal because it references liberal groups and a conservative news outlet is conservative because it references conservative groups.

That means if I bitch about JoeUser a lot and never mention liberals that automatically makes me a conservative? And therefore, since most of JoeUSer politics is blatant liberal bashing, and to properly bash the liberals you must reference the hated liberal group du jour, then JoeUser must obviously be liberal?

Now the part I find hardest to believe: If you really feel this report is right on the money, does that mean you’re willing to concede that Jim Lehrer is “centrist?”
on Dec 22, 2005

That means if I bitch about JoeUser a lot and never mention liberals that automatically makes me a conservative?


You will find that if you argue for or against something and refer to conservative rather than liberal sources, you are more likely to argue for a conservative position.
on Dec 22, 2005
You will find that if you argue for or against something and refer to conservative rather than liberal sources, you are more likely to argue for a conservative position.


But that's not what the line that I quoted from the article says. The researches counted how many times a particular source (either liberal or conservative) was referenced and concluded that indicated some sort of leaning in either direction. What if I'm arguing against a conservative position, but need to reference a number of quotes from , oh, let's say The Heritage Foundation. And let's say, each time I quote them I have to give them credit by stating their name. I've then referenced The Heritage Foundation a number of times in my arguement and haven't referenced a liberal resource at all. However, the method employed by the researchers in the article above would lead to the conclusion that I'm actually conservative because of the number of references to a conservative resources.

The research and therefore the results become suspect.
on Dec 22, 2005

This study is a joke!

Just because you do not agree with the conclusions, does not make it a joke.  Since they were applying the ADA standards to MEDIA outlets, then the test was not valid for the ACLU (it is not a media outlet). Did you bother to read the study and the intent?  It came up with some screwy results, as I stated, but that was in the content of the NEWS articles, not in the content of the EDITORIALS. 

Learn the difference.  See the difference.  Be, be the difference.

on Dec 22, 2005

So the conclusion is that a news outlet is liberal because it references liberal groups and a conservative news outlet is conservative because it references conservative groups.

No, they then checked how the article was slanted.  In other words, was it democrat opposition, or "liberal" democrat opposition.  And was it the republican agenda, or the "conservative" republican agenda.  They looked for the code words and then rated the system.  While it may not be fool proof, I think their approach was novel and unbiased.

on Dec 22, 2005

You will find that if you argue for or against something and refer to conservative rather than liberal sources, you are more likely to argue for a conservative position.

And part of the reason that most liberals dont develop the art of debate.  When they feel affirmed by the very source they garner their facts from, they dont feel the need to learn.

on Dec 22, 2005

The research and therefore the results become suspect.

I think you missed the gist.  yes, they used the 'sources' as you state.  But they also used how the code words were used.  And that gave them their "ranking".