The_Noble_Cause wrote:separate_wayz wrote:As I previously provided, here is the link to a peer-reviewed academic paper that analyzes the content of various news outlets and concludes that Fox News news programs are indeed "fair and balanced". And I'll anticipate your one objection: it analyzes news programs on Fox and other networks, not commentary programs.
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/facu ... Bias.8.htm
If you need any help with the big words, I'll volunteer my efforts.
Actually, the study looked at all of ONE, yes, just one, Fox News program.
The admittedly pretty fair "Special Report", formerly with Brett Hume.
If your goal was to imply that Fox airs only one bias-free hour in a 24-hr news cycle, I commend you. Job well done.
More important, the study defined bias by looking at what think tanks were cited per news show and newspaper.
That’s certainly a valid indicator of bias, but by itself, doesn’t conclusively add up to anything.
A fact that the study even acknowledged by saying:
“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.”
In other words, this study did not count lies vs. facts, or the number of right wing guests vs. liberal guests, or break down the ideological content of stories.
By the study’s own very narrow bias test, the conservative Wall Street Journal ranked as “the most liberal of all 20 news outlets.”
Just for comparison, imagine if I posted a media study that ranked the New York Times as the most conservative media outlet, what would you think?
Even taking into consideration that editorials weren’t included in the study’s sample, this doesn’t add up.
Revealingly, in trying to explain it away, the study resorts to using “anecdotal” information, (not exactly scientific method there), claiming that, apparently, conservatives have managed to infiltrate the Journal’s editorial board room, while dope smoking Marxists are still running the news department.
Yeah, ok.
More likely, this is a classic example of a narrow data sample leading to skewed results (the ACLU being ranked as Conservative further confirms this).
Evidently, the Wall Street Journal thought so too - http://poynter.org/forum/view_post.asp?id=10808
One would hope, after being caught lying your red monkey neocon ass off about "protcol" and now this, you will actually stop and research your claims from here out.
I'm going to claim a new disease: The_Ignoble_Causism. Symptoms include: sitting around in your jammies or sweatpants and posting intentionally misleading comments on current events, backed-up by cut-and-pasted references from left-leaning websites; cherry-picking details that serve one's cause (while ignoring those that don't); whining when one's argument is shredded; and repeatedly making false claims, as if saying them over and over again makes them true. [See hemorroid.]
You obviously didn't read much of the study. The authors defined bias as "slant", as a sort of preference or taste. They affirm that they're not counting intentional inaccuracies or falsehoods, mainly for the reason that there's arguably not a lot of overt intentional lying in the media. As the authors say, the media's sins are more ones of omission more than commission -- slant, in other words, not outright and intentional factual inaccuracies (although there are those too).
I applaud any news outlets when they do their job -- which is report, and ask critical questions, no matter who's on the receiving end. I applaud CNN, for example, for actually presenting an extended report on the criticisms of the climate science (anthropogenic global warming) following the release of hundreds of emails suggesting malfeasance in the research process. Only CNN sent a reporter to the the University of East Anglia, where the apparent nonsense occurred. They devoted time to it, asked questions, and went on-site, like a news organization should. So they deserve kudos for doing their job.
Back to the study.
The study may be narrow, but is in no way necessarily misrepresentative (unlike your quoting of it). You mention the study's citation of the Wall Street Journal as liberal as evidence that it's obviously reaching wrong conclusions. But the study only looked at the news pages, not editorial pages. It may surprise some people, but the Wall Street Journal's news pages are not particularly conservative at all. (And WSJ insiders have said this too.) If you need an example: Al Hunt, of CNN's 'Crossfire' fame (and other programs). Al Hunt was hired as a news reporter for the WSJ and worked his way up to editor (and also directed the paper's polling and other initiatives). Al Hunt himself has said the only thing conservative about the WSJ is its editorial page. Would you consider him conservative? Didn't think so.
As far as lying goes: I think we all know that you're the King of Obfuscation and Misdirection. In other words, you misrepresent other people's quotes and arguments on here more than just about anybody else. I don't think many on here put much stock in your posts. Congrats, for a very ignoble recognition.
Concerning the protocol debate, you intentionally misrepresented the main point (as usual, of course) -- that countries' leaders (and the countries themselves) are considered sovereigns are never obligated to bow or exhibit any behavior that suggests subservience to one another. (That's why counties are arranged alphabetically at international gatherings and other forums.) You also ignored the point I raised that nobody would countenance an American president bowing to a Hitler or a South African president under apartheid, for the obvious reason that it would turn every American's stomach to see it. Regardless, your commentary was a transparent attempt to misdirect attention from the fact that Obama's bowing (totally not necessary and not gaining him anything) has become the stuff of late-night comedy (along with his Nobel Prize).
Anyway, I could accuse you of lying, but then I'd be exhibiting a chronic case of The_Ignoble_Causism.
