Cheney treated like others, angry about it

I think the media bias is really all about who you watch though. Firstdown is probably right in that the majority of the media has a left wing bias, but just look at Fox News for the polar opposite.
On the Daily Show (shows how much I really follow things) yesterday they were commenting on Fox News' real-time approval rating for Bush's State of the Union speech. According to about 85% Fox News viewers his speech was considered Excellent. As Jon Stewart put it, "those are Stalin-esque numbers." Plus, listen to guys like Bill O'Reilly when you want to say that everyone on TV is a left-winger.I'm not going to comment much about politics, not because I don't know what I'm talking about, but because liberals and conservatives can find no common ground to argue on, thus cannot say anything worthwhile that the other side would consider reasonable. It's why I'd much like to argue football, because some people who disagree with you might actually listen to you.

Anyway, it just seems to me like Fox News gets a rep for being conservative-biased, simply because they televise conservative columnists. Here's the point: ANY news network could have these guys on. They get good, if not great ratings. IMO, the reason that MSNBC and CNN and networks of the such don't ever give a conservative a show, even with the potential for it to draw great ratings, is an inherent liberal bias. I don't think the presence of a Bill O'Reilly or a Sean Hannity makes Fox News any more biased, since everybody in america knows that these guys are conservatives. The other stations simply don't want them on. So for a conservative, why would you ever watch MSNBC or CNN? Theres as much as a news bias there as any station, and the only columnists they televise are liberal.

Just seems like Fox News gets a media-produced bad rep. News is news, they don't report it differently than anyone else.

I've got to agree and disagree with some of the things you said GTripp. I think it is unquestionable that the mainstream TV media has a liberal bias (vis-a-vis the American center, not vis-a-vis college students and professors). MSNBC and other networks have a liberal bias because they are choose to cover stories that inherently support Democratic platforms, are more likely to refer to politicians as "conservative" than "liberal," etc. Fox News is not so subtle. Fox News is far more overtly partisan than the other news networks. Fox is so very party-line and one-sided that I cannot even take them seriously.

New is news... but it's definitely not reported in the same way by every media outlet that's for sure.

I'm not going to comment much about politics, not because I don't know what I'm talking about, but because liberals and conservatives can find no common ground to argue on, thus cannot say anything worthwhile that the other side would consider reasonable. It's why I'd much like to argue football, because some people who disagree with you might actually listen to you.

Anyway, it just seems to me like Fox News gets a rep for being conservative-biased, simply because they televise conservative columnists. Here's the point: ANY news network could have these guys on. They get good, if not great ratings. IMO, the reason that MSNBC and CNN and networks of the such don't ever give a conservative a show, even with the potential for it to draw great ratings, is an inherent liberal bias. I don't think the presence of a Bill O'Reilly or a Sean Hannity makes Fox News any more biased, since everybody in america knows that these guys are conservatives. The other stations simply don't want them on. So for a conservative, why would you ever watch MSNBC or CNN? Theres as much as a news bias there as any station, and the only columnists they televise are liberal.

Just seems like Fox News gets a media-produced bad rep. News is news, they don't report it differently than anyone else.

Fox News' slogan is fair and balanced for crying out loud. Granted, CNN and MSNBC have left leaning personalities but they at least don't attempt to pass themselves of as fair and balanced. I have absolutely no problem with Fox News being a conservative mouthpiece, I just don't insult us and pretend you are not.

The other thing that bothers me about Fox News is that it seems every single one of their prominent host is trying to sell me his book. Buy my book this, read my book that. When I watch Fox it feels like I am watching a televangelist marathon. And lets not get started on the kind of people they have as guests...Ann Coulter...that bitch is either completely insane or truly a great act.

Lastly, take John Gibbson's (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/24/gibson-obama/) recent gaff (http://websrvr80il.audiovideoweb.com/il80web20037/ThinkProgress/2007/gibson.mp4)regarding Obama for example. Here you have Gibbson who works for Fox News and he is talking about how CNN has so much more money that they can afford to send a journalist to Jakarta to verify the Obama Madrassa story. I mean, how can you classify yourself as a journalist when you say something like that?

A few years ago I found a paper written by a couple of professors that examined (from an academic point of view) the bias of various news outlets. I think the results will surprise a few here. The first version I read of this paper was written in 2003, but the link here is of an updated (November 2005) version.

The entire paper: http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/pdfs/MediaBias.pdf
A brief summary: Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist... 12/14/2005 (http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664)

A few years ago I found a paper written by a couple of professors that examined (from an academic point of view) the bias of various news outlets. I think the results will surprise a few here. The first version I read of this paper was written in 2003, but the link here is of an updated (November 2005) version.

The entire paper: http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/pdfs/MediaBias.pdf
A brief summary: Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist... 12/14/2005 (http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664)


We measure media bias by estimating ideological scores for several major media outlets. To compute this, we count the times that a particular media outlet cites various think tanks and policy groups, and then compare this with the times that members of Congress cite the same groups.

Their method is absurd and I say that with a straight face. Is this what pass of as scientific study these days? The fact that these jokers mention anomalies (RAND and ACLU) with their list should tell you somethings.

Also, from their premise how do you account for how active an organization is? The ACLU and Amnesty International are in the business of fighting for the weak and defenseless and they don't hesitate to sue on behalf of the little guy. What about the fact that politicians like to take single topic that has the potential of furthering their own career and run with it?

Their method is absurd and I say that with a straight face. Is this what pass of as scientific study these days? The fact that these jokers mention anomalies (RAND and ACLU) with their list should tell you somethings.

Also, from their premise how do you account for how active an organization is? The ACLU and Amnesty International are in the business of fighting for the weak and defenseless and they don't hesitate to sue on behalf of the little guy. What about the fact that politicians like to take single topic that has the potential of furthering their own career and run with it?But is there a better way to do a study on biases? Seems to me that they took every neccessary precaution to make sure that their study of biases stayed clear of biases.

No study is ever going to be conclusive. But some information is always better than none. Just like statistics in football. Very similar concepts. Some people will say something like "Numbers lie" and completely ignore all evidence when making cases for one player being better than another.

My stance on this issue is this, I would believe whats in this study is generally correct until a stronger study comes along that contradicts the findings in this one.

Their method is absurd and I say that with a straight face. Is this what pass of as scientific study these days? The fact that these jokers mention anomalies (RAND and ACLU) with their list should tell you somethings.

Also, from their premise how do you account for how active an organization is? The ACLU and Amnesty International are in the business of fighting for the weak and defenseless and they don't hesitate to sue on behalf of the little guy. What about the fact that politicians like to take single topic that has the potential of furthering their own career and run with it?

The guys at MIT and Harvard (among others) who referee the journal it was published in didn't think it was so absurd.

The guys at MIT and Harvard (among others) who referee the journal it was published in didn't think it was so absurd.

Here is a quick run down of the logical fallacies your remark commits.


Appeal to Popularity - The journal is very popular and respectable therefore everything published on it is credible.
Ad Hominem - I am not qualified enough to criticize the method used by the study.
Red Herring - Changing the subject from their method to the journal.


Again, I personally think the media in general is left leaning (from observation) but the methods these guy used to arrive at the same conclusion is flawed.

Here is a quick run down of the logical fallacies your remark commits.


Appeal to Popularity - The journal is very popular and respectable therefore everything published on it is credible.
Ad Hominem - I am not qualified enough to criticize the method used by the study.
Red Herring - Changing the subject from their method to the journal.


Again, I personally think the media in general is left leaning (from observation) but the methods these guy used to arrive at the same conclusion is flawed.

I would say his comments hold as much logic as yours.