EPTWould you consider a news outlet that doesn't praise Hitler or Stalin as much as they shoot them down to be biased? (Sorry for Godwinning this thread.)
Liberal Press Bias - Page 2
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
gnuvince
Canada73 Posts
Would you consider a news outlet that doesn't praise Hitler or Stalin as much as they shoot them down to be biased? (Sorry for Godwinning this thread.) | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On December 07 2008 02:59 Mindcrime wrote: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=media-bias-presidential-election Before the McCain campaign did everything in its power to lose itself the election, it was getting better coverage than the Obama campaign. According to this article: "Groeling found that, with varying degrees of statistical significance, CBS, NBC and ABC showed what Groeling calls a pro-Democrat bias...Meanwhile FOX News showed a statistically significant pro-Republican bias". Though Foxnews is the biggest cable news station it is still tiny compared to the networks. Interesting article though, thx for the post. | ||
micronesia
United States24499 Posts
| ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On December 07 2008 03:15 Savio wrote: According to this article: "Groeling found that, with varying degrees of statistical significance, CBS, NBC and ABC showed what Groeling calls a pro-Democrat bias...Meanwhile FOX News showed a statistically significant pro-Republican bias". Though Foxnews is the biggest cable news station it is still tiny compared to the networks. Interesting article though, thx for the post. This past summer, just as the view that journalists were going softer on Barack Obama than on John McCain was becoming widely accepted, CMPA issued a report showing that 72 percent of the statements in TV news reports about Obama in late spring and early summer were negative, whereas 57 percent of the statements about McCain were negative. | ||
|
Cobalt
United States441 Posts
It seems to me that after the beginning of Bush's second term, say around 2005, early 2006, the populace in general really really began to bash him. There was a clear anti-Bush sentiment in America, which extended to anti-Republican sentiment. In the quest for ratings, is it possible that news outlets figured that the American people would be more receptive to Democrat-favoring stories, since the Republicans had fallen out of favor? After all, don't people usually willingly listen to anything that supports their point of view, even if they already think it? I was way too young to remember anything from 2000, and my memory of 2004 is fuzzy, so I only have these past couple years to go off of. I can't really speak for anything prior to the last couple elections, presidential or otherwise. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On December 07 2008 03:14 gnuvince wrote: It's not necessarily a liberal bias if a Democratic candidate has more positive press coverage than a Republican candidate. If the Democrat has better speeches, better events, better support, etc. it would only be natural that he receives more positive coverage. So are you saying that since 1988, the democratic candidate has ALWAYS had "better events, better support, etc." than the Republican? Because these findings were not unique to this election. They are true about every election since 1988 and probably before that as well. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On December 07 2008 03:16 Mindcrime wrote: This past summer, just as the view that journalists were going softer on Barack Obama than on John McCain was becoming widely accepted, CMPA issued a report showing that 72 percent of the statements in TV news reports about Obama in late spring and early summer were negative, whereas 57 percent of the statements about McCain were negative. So I guess what we are left with according to CMPA is that overall, there has been a consistent liberal bias in the media, but that in the late Spring and early Summer of 2008, there was an exception. According to CMPA's findings. | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
On December 07 2008 03:04 Savio wrote: + Show Spoiler + Also according to LA Times survey of journalists: * Self-identified liberals outnumbered conservatives in the newsroom by more than three-to-one, 55 to 17 percent. This compares to only one-fourth of the public (23 percent) that identified themselves as liberal. * 82 percent of reporters and editors favored allowing women to have abortions; 81 percent backed affirmative action; and 78 percent wanted stricter gun control. * Two-thirds (67%) of journalists opposed prayer in public schools; three-fourths of the general public (74%) supported prayer in public schools. Also, this is a little old (1992), but so is the evidence for liberal media bias (dating back to 1988), ![[image loading]](http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/images2005/MBBChar2D.jpg) And according to the ASNE report of 1996, [img]http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/images2005/MBBChar2C.jpg[/img Journalists are smarter than the average people. This means that liberals are smarter than the average conservative :p Savio and hT you are an endangered specie. You might go go extinct like the dinosaurs  They were bigger than mammals, had huge claws and jaws but their brain was definitly too small to handle the ever changing world. + Show Spoiler + don't be too angry i'm just joking because you are whining too much imo. Especially after 8 years of Bush garbage. | ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
| ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On December 07 2008 03:24 Boblion wrote: Journalists are smarter than the average people. This means that liberals are smarter than the average conservative :p /assuming your whole post was meant as a joke (I'm all about giving benefit of the doubt) | ||
|
-orb-
United States5770 Posts
| ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On December 07 2008 03:06 D10 wrote: Thats awesome savio, I hope in 1 generation all your kids are liberals In 1 generation, I'll be President of the United States and leading a conservative revolution.  | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
| ||
|
ZERG_RUSSIAN
10417 Posts
Take the BBC, for example. | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
On December 07 2008 03:44 Savio wrote: In 1 generation, I'll be President of the United States and leading a conservative revolution. ![[image loading]](http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/3817/kruemelmonsteryn0.gif) | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
Additionally, the study lacks a bevy of positive and negative controls. Seriously, learn to do science. | ||
|
0cz3c
United States564 Posts
By the way, objective, in necessity, means not affected by personal emotion of personal bias, so whoever said that bias in media does not stop the media from reporting objectively is, by definition, quite wrong. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On December 07 2008 03:47 L wrote: Yeah, sidenote: The democratic party in the states leans farther right than most hard right parties in other nations. Additionally, the study lacks a bevy of positive and negative controls. Seriously, learn to do science. uhhh...can you list for us what positive and negative controls would be in this case? I don't think you know anything about statistics because this data isn't even an experiment. This is not a randomized controlled trial. Don't try to sound smarter than you are. Its risky. | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
On December 07 2008 03:56 0cz3c wrote: Boblion, Savio isn't whining. I'm not sure from where you're getting that tone. Acknowledging facts is not whining. Denying or misrepresenting facts is a tricky matter, however. He had his 8 years of Bush and Fox propaganda but now people have chosen a new president with different ideas and prefer to watch/read "liberal" journalists. That is called democracy and supply/demand law and yea Savio is whining, because i think that most of the American people have understood where conservative ideas lead. Obama is the new president but he can't get over it  | ||
|
ZERG_RUSSIAN
10417 Posts
| ||
| ||
