Cheney treated like others, angry about it

[saden1]

Originally Posted by cpayne5

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/.../MediaBias.pdf
A brief summary: Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist... 12/14/2005

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?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by saden1

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.

[cpayne5]

Originally Posted by saden1

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.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by cpayne5

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.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by saden1

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.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

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

How so?

[GhettoDogAllStars]

In a world where the quantity and value of numbers is constantly increasing, it seems that many people value intuition less and less as a result. It doesn't have to be that way. If numbers and studies conflict with my own intuition, I usually go with my intuition.

It is my intuition which tells me that the media is biased. I don't need numbers to confirm my own intuition.

Media bias is not a big deal though, because EVERYTHING has a bias. The idea is not to avoid bias -- because that would be impossible -- the idea is to always be critical, and to consider the source and context of all the information you receive.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

In a world where the quantity and value of numbers is constantly increasing, it seems that many people value intuition less and less as a result. It doesn't have to be that way. If numbers and studies conflict with my own intuition, I usually go with my intuition.

It is my intuition which tells me that the media is biased. I don't need numbers to confirm my own intuition.

Media bias is not a big deal though, because EVERYTHING has a bias. The idea is not to avoid bias -- because that would be impossible -- the idea is to always be critical, and to consider the source and context of all the information you receive.

Nice post GDA.

[dmek25]

and maybe do not have as much trust that everything you read or hear is true

[MTK]

Think for yourself, question authority.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by saden1

How so?

Your OPINION on the legitimacy of the study is just as much based on personal bias, belief and potential fallacy. I actually agree with you about the lunacy of the study based on its structure but I also realize that is only my OPINION. Your argument seemed to me to claim you were right(as in factual) while his claims were untrue based on logic. I'd say both arguments are debatable.

[dmek25]

I'm not sure what the argument is. for all the left wing leaning papers( or media) there are just as many that lean to the right

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by dmek25

I'm not sure what the argument is. for all the left wing leaning papers( or media) there are just as many that lean to the right

That is probably true, but the mainstream news outlets (e.g., CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc.) tend to be liberal. Sure, you have exceptions (e.g. Fox News, Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, conservative radio) and maybe there are as many conservative outlets as liberal ones. But, I just think the "big ones" tend to be more liberal than conservative.

[FRPLG]

The ones that dominate the news cycle are majority liberal. And I wouldn't for a second think that the numbers are close anyways. You can be graduating 80% liberals into the field and have even amounts of rep on both sides.

[dmek25]

im not sure what you base your thoughts on? fox is sooo biased that they over take at least 2, and maybe 3 news channels leaning the other way. and anyone who votes( or i at least hope) base their vote on the candidates track record, and not something reported by the biased media