The liberal media is not myth..

[southernleftylady]

http://post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/barro/bw/bw04_0614.pdf

[ugarte]

1. How can you say that with a straight face?

I'd like to know what "liberal" outlet you're getting your news from.

[southernleftylady]

4. lol im not saying it ;) the report is lol nt

[ugarte]

9. My bad

I saw red and went off.

[NNguyenMD]

11. I apologize as well, I didn't mean to insinuate that southernlefty

enodrsed this study

[manic expression]

2. One word: Hogwash

What crap, if anyone with half a brain and a sense of politics watches any news channel for 5 minutes, there is no doubt how conservative or pathetic it is (as in ignoring important topics). Bottom line: That report is bullsh*t.

The Liberal Media: It's a Myth

[NNguyenMD]

3. with all due respect to the poster, I thought the study pigeon holed what

it was measuring. It basically kept count of how times a news outlet cited sources from liberal, versus conservative think tanks, which to me doesn't measure much of anything at all. It excluded editorials and opinion pieces as well, which is where the bulk of conservative idiocy dwells.

If liberal think tank studies are cited more often in the "liberal" media maybe its because they're valid, dependable sources that don't rely on wingnuts who live to jump up and down with their hair on fire in front of the camera everytime they see something on TV that reminds them of sex.

It was an interesting read nonetheless.

[RoyGBiv]

8. In addition ...

Citing a so-called "liberal" source does not natually equate to doing so favorably. In fact, many news outlets, such as Fox, cite these sources, if you'll pardon the pun, liberally as a precendent to some discussion denouncing them.

The whole median score for liberalism thing is also rather absurd. When people start attaching numbers to philosophical postions, they're trying to quantify that which is inherently subjective. Then there are all the tricks one can pull by using medians, means, and averages.

Finally, consider the source.

[Montauk6]

5. So, let me see if I got this right...

The think tank thing I can't make heads or tail of, it's like whaaaa???

So, eliminate WSJ and talk radio and editorials and any overtly conservative thought, and you have proof that liberals control the media, OK...

Is there a full moon tonight? First, "SAVE THE DLC," now this?

(btw, I'm not the blaming the messenger, southernleftylady, just so you know)

[skids]

6. Heheh.

Nice finagling job they did there.

Lies, Damn lies, and statistics. I bet you could get the opposite results just by tweaking the number of think tanks used in the study, or modifying another parameter or two.

Take a premise, concoct a few ways to show it, and then tune the parameters until it comes out the way you want it to. It's a fine art, but not scholarly.

[fujiyama]

7. The guy is a senior fellow at the HOOVER INSTITUTION

Enough said.

[cry baby]

10. Does that mean that he sucks? nt

[fujiyama]

12. Yes

The Hoover Institute is a RW think tank - From WikiPedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Institution

" It recently has been called Bush's 'brain trust', as some of its fellows have connections to the Bush administration"

""Hoover, with $3.2 million in grants between 1992-1994 and an operating budget of close to $19 million in 1995, has focused particular attention on tax policy, promoting the flat tax for well over a decade and organizing policy briefings and conferences on the issue ... It was, according to one well-placed journalist and author, one of four leading policy institutions that pulled the nation's economic policy debate to the right in the early 1980s." --Edsall, The New Politics of Inequality.<2>"

Its Senior Fellows include Condaleeza Rice.

These people have an agenda. Don't trust them.

On Edit-Here are some other fellows:

Honorary Fellows

* Ronald Reagan, former President of the United States
* Alexander Solzhenitsyn
* Margaret Thatcher, former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom



Distinguished Fellows

* George P. Shultz, former United States Secretary of State



Senior Fellows

* Richard V. Allen, former United States National Security Advisor
* Victor Davis Hanson, classicist and historian
* William J. Perry, former United States Secretary of Defense
* Condoleezza Rice, United States Secretary of State
* Thomas Sowell, economist and author
* John B. Taylor, former United States Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs



Senior Research Fellows

* Milton Friedman, economist and author



Research Fellows

* Dinesh D'Souza, author
* Shelby Steele



Distinguished Visiting Fellows

* Spencer Abraham, former United States Secretary of Energy
* John E. Chubb
* Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the United States House of Representatives
* Paul R. Gregory
* Paul T. Hill
* E.D. Hirsch Jr.
* Caroline M. Hoxby
* Edwin Meese, former United States Attorney General
* Diane Ravitch
* Herbert J. Walberg
* Pete Wilson, former Governor of California

[cry baby]

14. *ack*

I need a drink...

[fujiyama]

15. Never be fooled by a bunch of numbers

Always remember the old saying: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

It's often not even worth reading the "reports". I didn't even bother. I simply went to the end of the document to see where the guy was from. Once I noticed where, I knew it was junk.

Even if there was some basis to the report (that reporters are more often liberal), it still means nothing because the management is almost always conservative and in the end they are the ones that will make the calls.

[NNguyenMD]

17. why is the HOover institute based out of teh very liberal Stanford Univ?

does Stanford U like money that much to sell its soul like this?

[misanthrope]

13. What a crock...

...So on a scale where 0 is least liberal and 100 is most liberal, 39 is branded "centrist?" Based on the voting record of Congress?

And then they determine the bias of media by determining how many times outlets refer to conservative think tanks in a "positive" or "negative" manner, and the same in regard to like liberal organizations? And how are "positive" and "negative" determined? Sounds pretty damned subjective to me.

This guy needs to grab his KY jelly, close his bedroom door and go back to staring at pictures of J. Edgar.

[Hello_Kitty]

18. Thank you!

I read that and thought, ok let me get this straight. Members of Congress are the standard for what is liberal or conservative. And basically it looks like on his scale anything slightly to the left of Cat Killer Frist is liberal. Please. And then the "favorable" responses to think tanks. What constitutes that? That's a subjective qualification. Where are any examples of what's "favorable" or not? I'm supposed to take that freak's word for it?

Aaargh!! :puke:

[durutti]

16. This "study" is debunked in the latest issue of Extra! n/t

[depakid]

19. People from the Hoover institute are delusional

Quite literally.

They don't live in any sort of honest reality-

One thing I like about Peak Oil is that these sophists will finally be branded for what they are- and each and every one of them will learn some hard lessons- things that any half aware undergrad already knows....

[high density]

20. So 0 is far right, 100 is far left, and 39 is "centrist" on their scale?

LOL. It's a completely useless study in my liberal opinion. :crazy:

[Warren DeMontague]

21. I wouldn't trust this Ginkus to wash my car:

It looks like they stuck a suit on Emilio Estevez's dorky friend in Repo Man:

"feelin' seven up, I'm feelin' seven up!"