@bemused – I enjoyed your thoughtful comment as well as the criticisms of Groseclose’s methodology, including, some of the Media Matters points. In the most general sense, I can’t disagree that the method is a little complex, and, a little weird. I think he went out of his way NOT to supply his own value judgments of whether a story slanted liberal or conservative. (1) The underlying value judgments, as I recall, were from the ADA, if not a liberal group as I would say, then certainly NOT a conservative one. (2) Have no idea on the cherry-picked time periods. That is potentially a powerful criticism, I just don’t know on that level of detail. (3) I guess its always better not to pretend you’re the only word on a subject, but, logically, that does not mean your word is wrong. Groseclose’s method was unique, so maybe that’s why he didn’t address other work in the same general area. Or, perhaps he will leave that to others. The scope of his book is up to him.
What I was less convinced of (in the criticism of Groseclose) is the idea that the methodological issues would scew the results in the direction of a liberal bias. For example, under his method, the ACLU emerges as a conservative source. Another head scratcher is the Wall Street Journal (news page) as a liberal one, however, when you throw out the editorial page’s reputation, its far less of one, certainly as compared to the ACLU. So, even granting much of the critic’s case, I still find SOME value in his conclusions (tempered with skepticism and uncertainty). That’s usually what SOCIAL science yields. Leaving all that aside, I find a great hypocrisy in those that would dismiss his conclusion simply because he is conservative/libertarian. If that is the case, given the self-reported politics of journalists as a group (those numbers are well-documented), why is it hard to imagine that their reporting would skew to their beliefs, but easy to imagine Groseclose’s scholarship would skew to his? Furthermore, the rise of FOX suggests something was missing in the market for many news consumers – whether that be balance, a conservative orientation, or both.

@Hank R?
Glad to oblige but you shouldn’t pretend you’re guessing that he’s at UCLA: that’s written in big letters everywhere I looked. Or at least was: the most recent hits I found were posted in 2005.

Brendan Nyhan’s article was the best, because he lays down in clear terms what’s wrong with Groseclose’s methodology. (I liked the Media Matters one, too, but you probably wouldn’t accept it as an authority).

Three aspects in Nyhan’s article were of particular epistemological interest, IMO: 1) the ranking scale used by Groseclose et al. is based on value judgements on the “leanings” of the various sources; i.e. opinions not facts; 2) the periods covered by Groseclose’s research on media sources range from a few months to several years, raising doubts about cherry-picking; I believe serious scientists would frown; 3) the book pretty much ignores the huge body of research work done on media bias and there is no bibliography or list of references in the book (serious scientists would probably sneer)

I’d never heard of Dr. Nyhan before but those three criticisms are enough for me NOT to look for the book. And – as I said earlier – nobody seems to have written anything on it since his article was written in 2005.

I must go now as I have a book to translate. It’s been fun meeting a civilised person with your views: it’s so rare but also somewhat perplexing.

Those Muppets are commies too.

@bemused – I am amused, bemused. No, no, I am not Groseclose, I think he’s from the Left Coast (UCLA). I’ll have to give a more thorough check to your article, it’s pretty involved, and from my glance, the criticisms seemed legitimate (not necessarily correct, but rational at least). Leaving aside Groseclose, I wonder if you really doubt the proposition that the mainstream media skews Left, or, at least pro-Obama? I mean, when you get an SNL skit (2008) making the point (not a bastion of right wing politics, exactly), isn’t it so obvious to be undeniable?

You wrote: “I suggest that the success of FOX NEWS and the extent to which they anger you simply reflects the degree to which you have grown accustomed to media bias that coincides with your views.”

Actually, we’re just a tad more bloody-minded than that. It’s a well-known trait (or failing) of liberals. I decided to see what I could find on Dr. Groseclose who has a talent for getting money from conservative financiers. Found the following analysis of his methodology.K presume you’ve already read the somewhat unflattering article by Media Matters.

http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2005/12/the_problems_wi.html

BTW: you, yourself, had said you’d found less hate-speech among the right-wingers; now you say you don’t waste time over there.

Are you Timothy Groseclose by any chance?

@mj – Striving to encourage the idea that the argument is more important than the identity of the speaker. I don’t waste time with folks like Stormfront, but I imagine their sites are filled with hate. Of course, Reason would not appeal to them, I think it does to you and many that are here. The only times I’ve encountered them over on the other side, they seem just as outraged at FOX NEWS as you, only for being pro-Israel, or pro-Jewish, or whatever. I diligently searched out the posts you mentioned and thank you for the same. Scary stuff, although probably insufficient for a prosecutable offense. In any event, comments like those have no place in legitimate discourse. Groseclose’s is not merely an opinion, it was a conclusion based upon research using a published methodology. I agree that an appeal to authority is a weak form of argument, but its necessary sometimes given the space and time limitations of a forum like this. I suggest that the success of FOX NEWS and the extent to which they anger you simply reflects the degree to which you have grown accustomed to media bias that coincides with your views.

@Hank Rigler/Rizzo/Reisner (man — how many sockpuppets can one troll have?):

“Second, I’m just holding up a mirror here, I don’t hear this type of hate coming from the other side . . . "

Uh-huh. As I said, it’s strange how the concern trolls ALWAYS feel they have to scold the left-leaning blogs, the ones “nobody visits”.

Also strange that Hank R. doesn’t think this type of hate exists on, say, Stormfront . . .

“If you show me, I will not deny the obvious, but I’m not going to search it out as has been suggested I do.”

Of course not — Hank R. would much rather spend his time chastising us mean ole libruls who have the audacity to get indignant when FoKKKs nation calls for the President’s assassination, Crazy Annie Coulter jokes about assassinating a president and poisoning a SC Justice, and Allen West says all Democrats should “get the hell out of the country” . . .

But Hank, if you can tear yourself away from that activity for a moment, here are links to a couple of FoxNation threads calling for the death of President Obama for you to peruse — consider it me leading you by the hand, since you don’t want to “search them out yourself”:

http://www.newshounds.us/2009/09/15/fox_nations_death_threat_to_obama_reported_to_secret_service.php

http://www.newshounds.us/2011/09/21/another_fox_nation_death_threat_against_obama_reported_to_the_secret_service.php

“I think the liberal slant of the mainstream media is demonstrable. Calling something a myth does not make it so, again all I am given are naked assertions to rebut.”

YAAWWWNN . . . and you quoting some guy who says the media is liberal doesn’t make it so . . . all Grossclose or whoever the hell he is did was spout his opinion — and opinions are like assholes, everybody has one. Hell, I can quote too:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3612

.

@mj – 1 and 2 are established. As for the “old playground”, again the tactic is ridicule, not a real argument, however in this case I will take it. On the playground basic, simple notions of fairplay are learned and practiced. My two points simply come down to this: one person can be right versus all others in the world, however, when the numbers are very lopsided at least check yourself – and, could huge numbers of people be evil (well, yes, but what is the likelihood). Second, I’m just holding up a mirror here, I don’t hear this type of hate coming from the other side, but I’m not saying I’ve been looking for it either. If you show me, I will not deny the obvious, but I’m not going to search it out as has been suggested I do. I think the argumenative burden falls on you guys, I used quotes from the posts right here. (#3) I think the liberal slant of the mainstream media is demonstrable. Calling something a myth does not make it so, again all I am given are naked assertions to rebut. I did cite Groseclose, perhaps the debate is beyond the limitations inherent in this forum. (#4) Rush Limbaugh was dead wrong to call Ms. Fluke a slut. It was mean and rude. In addition, it did not address the logic of her position.

Whenever concern trolls like “Hank Rigler/Rizzo” show up, talking about how they want to “elevate the discourse”, you can reliably count on four things:

1. A reminder of how few people visit this or any other left-leaning blogs, compared to Fox News.

Example: “Bill O’Reilly has the highest rated cable news show on television. Here, this article has 2 reactions. So, there is that.”

2. The old playground-level “you guys do it, too!” argument.

Example: “@<a class=“tweet-url username” href=“http://twitter.com/intent/user?screen_name=truman”>truman – are you being ironic? View the comments below ‘racist pukes’; ‘flies attracted to the stinkiest shit’; ‘stoopit’; ‘mindless’; ‘crap’: ‘crazy uncle’. I’d say we are swimming in the cesspool here, aren’t we?"

3. Bringing up the time-honored myth of “the liberal media”, and how it is so pervasive, or claiming that the conservative slant of Fox is less so than that of the liberal slant of MSNBC, NYT, etc.

Examples:

“Groseclose is a very interesting read. Although finding Fox News has a conservative ‘slant quotient’ it is not nearly as pronounced as the liberal slant quotient of all major network news. ‘Among his conclusions are (i) all mainstream media outlets have a liberal bias, and (ii) while some supposedly conservative outlets—such as the Washington Times or Fox News Special Report—do lean right, their conservative bias is less than the liberal bias of most mainstream outlets.’”

“@<a class=“tweet-url username” href=“http://twitter.com/intent/user?screen_name=Lakeview”>Lakeview Greg – You’ll learn of Groseclose’s leanings very early if you read it, there is maximum disclosure. Of course, if he said two plus two is four (an important developmental milestone for visitor 55), he would be correct, not simply reflecting his own conservative or libertarian bias. The methodology is pretty solid (IMO), so don’t attack dismissively without investigating. FOX and MSNBC are more fun, but I do regret the loss of objectivity. Of course, it was the Left that caused that, attacking the very idea that objectivity was even a possible, or worthwhile pursuit."

4. Related to the above, the belief that it is ONLY those on the left who need to refrain from name-calling and ad hominem attacks; as much as Hank and other concern trolls like to wag their finger at and scold posters on “blogs that nobody reads”, they never seem to have any equivalent outrage for the denizens of places like FoxNation.

Example:

“Even if it comes from a semi-intelligent perpetual adolescent snark like Colbert, I will at least take heart that some of you believe in the concept of TRUTH.”

_~

" . . . semi-intelligent perpetual adolescent snark like Colbert . . ."

If Stephen Colbert is “semi-intelligent” and a “perpetual adolescent” simply for using satire against the right wing media, I wonder what Hank thinks Rush Limpballs was for referring to Sandra Fluke as a “slut” — or what the citizens of FoKKKsNation were for making repeated death threats against the President . . .

.

Forgot to recommend the following book to Hank from sockpuppetland:

“Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism”

It was published in 2005 but Fox News had not evolved much until very recently (more or less since the polls show Obama as likely to be re-elected). What used to be a deliberate slamming of anything and everything Democratic has morphed into a headline rush to smear, slur and denigrate. It’s not pretty, but mesmerizing: like watching a train wreck in progress.

Time for an update of the above book (assuming that FoxNews will survive the ongoing meltdown).

@Hank wrote:
“Of course, it was the Left that caused that, attacking the very idea that objectivity was even a possible, or worthwhile pursuit. Even if it comes from a semi-intelligent perpetual adolescent snark like Colbert, I will at least take heart that some of you believe in the concept of TRUTH. "

Self-appointed substitute teacher, eh Hank? Being so superior to us, you do realise (of course) that you come across like an insufferable prig giving out grades and pontificating. Fact is, dearie, that FoxNews S-A-Y-S it is fair and balanced, full stop. It does NOT say that it is MORE fair and balanced than others. Their claim is that they ARE and it doesn’t take much nous to realise that they are off the cliff on that one.

While I agree with you that total objectivity is not possible (simply by selecting which stories to cover is a judgement call), journalists are actually supposed to TRY to be as objective as possible. It’s all make-believe on FNC where the agenda from on high determines which guest is ignored or lauded.

If you want to see some real journalism try watching Al Jazeera (assuming it is available in the land of freedom of speech). Or are you one of those who hyperventilates on hearing that very name?

Doors17 wrote:
“They had some Congressman from Michigan (I didn’t catch his name, and I assume he was a Republican) but this guy gave me the impression that he was attempting to calm the trio into remembering that it’s important that we know all the facts before we come to any conclusions. They didn’t seem very interested in hearing that and just quickly moved on.”
The congressman was indeed a republican named Mike Rogers, who’s chairman of the House (?) Security Committee. After trying to calm the raging trio down he ended by getting on the election wagon to waffle on a bit about “the last four years”.
The trio completely ignored what their guests said if it didn’t fit their agenda. And that’s including the WSJ reporter on the ground in Cairo.

<a class="tweet-url username" href="http://twitter.com/intent/user?screen_name=Hank">Hank</a>. LOLyou. You continue to prove my point. I gave specific examples. If you want proof of those examples you have 2 choices. You can either go to the FokkksNashun cesspool and see for yourself, or you can search the archive of this blog. Choice is yours. I doubt you’ll check it out or admit it if you do. You are dismissed.

Hank Rigler/Rizzo is absolute proof that bullshit, even when presented in a pseudo-socially acceptable manner, is still nothing more than bullshit.
But, then, we already knew that, didn’t we?
Go away, Hankster. You aren’t doing your side any good, nor our side any harm.

Well that left me snickering, I must say.

@Lakeview Greg – I identified the source from the beginning, Dr. Groseclose, and endorsed it only as an interesting read. I would say the methodology and disclosure should immunize him from dismissive critics – provided they have an open mind. The source is self-disclosed as having opinions – the horror, the horror – but is scholarly. And, in the end, kind of matches what Ailes says. The quantiification of Fox as less biased is pretty hard to argue with.

Well, that was certainly “Foxy.” A biased, opinionated source was tossed out there as “factual” and when the source was identified then the explanation comes about disclosure. OK.

As far as FNC being “fair and balanced” one needs look no farther than the words of Roger Ailes who stated that FNC was the “balance” to what he sees as left-wing bias in every other network. So FNC leans right by Roger’s own words.

@visitor – no, I saw no such examples, just your statement. There is a broader point being illustrated here concerning the substitution of rhetoric for rational argument, and I am very slow to take offense. Just trying to hold a mirror up here. @Lakeview Greg – You’ll learn of Groseclose’s leanings very early if you read it, there is maximum disclosure. Of course, if he said two plus two is four (an important developmental milestone for visitor 55), he would be correct, not simply reflecting his own conservative or libertarian bias. The methodology is pretty solid (IMO), so don’t attack dismissively without investigating. FOX and MSNBC are more fun, but I do regret the loss of objectivity. Of course, it was the Left that caused that, attacking the very idea that objectivity was even a possible, or worthwhile pursuit. Even if it comes from a semi-intelligent perpetual adolescent snark like Colbert, I will at least take heart that some of you believe in the concept of TRUTH.

@Hank – ummmm, Hank, you proved my point that “People like that are just incapable of putting two and two together to get four.” I wasn’t “just name calling” FokkksNashun a cesspool. I actually gave examples as to why its considered a cesspool and you even acknowledged my examples. Go visit FokkksNashun and see for yourself. Then come back here and try to convince yourself that it’s not a cesspool.

The very fact that you believe that all major network news, except for FoxGOPTV, has a pronounced liberal slant proves Stephen Colbert’s assessment that the truth has a liberal bias.

Now, if it offends you that FoxGOPTV and FokkksNashun are correctly and justifiably referred to as the stinkiest shit and a cesspool, then you’re offended by reality. It might be in your best interest to stop visiting this blog.

“Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind. "

Nope, no conservative slant there. Of course a conservative would say there is a “liberal” bias.

Gay or Straight,
Love is Great!