The truth of the matter is that news is no longer news, it is "infotainment".

Anyways, events themselves are really well covered, but the spin on the events, whether a person is made out to be hero or idiot, usually is a function of the journalist, and network bias.

There are no more unbiased news sources, the only network that even tries to be balanced is Fox, and because they allow the conservative voice they are accused of being a mouthpiece for the right.

And much of the "Politics" section of news really should be under the "Gossip" heading.

Jimro

LOL @ Jimro calling Fox news anything CLOSE to unbiased.

Wonderbra,

"Fair and balanced" means giving equal air time for both biases, not reporting just the facts without any bias. Fox tries, they just do not succeed to a level that lives up to their motto.

No other domestic news agency even tries.

The BBC tries, but leans to the left simply because British culture is to the left of US culture. This brings up the obvious point that our personal bias determines how we view news organizations.

Jimro

My biggest complaint about the media these days is the f--king anchors on Global who chat about their kids or whatever in the middle of the Goddam evening news like it's their lunch break.

Seriously, though whenever this discussion pops up, I run the other way. It usually goes something like this:

"OMG FOX NEWS IS LIEK TEH BEST"
"WTF U TALKIN BOUT FOX IS LIEK SOOOO BIAST"
"NO IT ISNT"
"YES IT IS FASCIST PIG"
"STFU LIBERAL COMMIE FAG LOL"

It's very difficult to make an articulate point without directly comparing one to the other in some media format. One of these days I'm going to record and review the evening news on CBS, CNN, FOX, CBC, BBC, CTV, and Global, add an audio commentary, and upload it to the Intertron, just so I can illustrate certain differences.

For example, yesterday CTV NewsNet chose to cap off their day of gleeful reporting on the latest mid-election scandal plaguing the Liberals (if you can call it a scandal) with a story about how the Liberals' campaign jet had to be grounded for a couple hours last night due to a common mechanical problem -- a non-issue that would probably slip through the cracks of most news agencies -- and began to spin it by slipping in phrases like "reminiscient of falling approval ratings" and "much like their recent troubles at the polls".

I was also kind of amused that CNN pretty much spent all of yesterday reporting on forest fires in Oklahoma and avoiding any mention of the climate change issue (God forbid someone point out that it's weird to be having forest fires in the dead of winter), while almost completely ignoring German ice rinks, imminent Russian oil crises, and other issues of the day. They would spend hours looping the same video clips, reviewing the same facts, waiting for something new to happen, as if the only thing worth talking about in the whole Goddam world was a bunch of forest fires, when they could have at least cut to a different story.

Cycle,

CNN doesn't like to be scooped, unless it is huge news they will try to avoid running someone else's stories.

But I'd like to use you as an example of obvious bias. Your words have no tone, so only how they are put together reveals your bias.

As far as the "Global Warming" issue goes, you have drank the koolaid. Liberals believe in manmade "Global Warming" despite evidence. So much of the data is doctored, missing, or based on computer models that sometimes contradict each other that public debate on the issue is meaningless until the science is more concrete. But anything to do with the environment is a hot topic for liberals.

Which is why you brought up the issue of winter forest fires, as if they were a clear indication of global warming. Forest fires in winter are nothing new, more people burn fuel for heat in the winter, increasing the risk of embers starting a fire.

But this is completely an aside, I am just as transparently conservative as you are liberal and we are intelligent enough to spot both liberal and conservative bias in the media. If journalists truly wanted to report just the news, then neither you nor I could tell anything about the politics of the journalist, or the network, from newscasts or stories.

Unfortunately I do not see any way to fix the matter. After all, the function of the media is to inform the public of what happens, not tell the public how to think.

Jimro

Regarding Jimro's comments on how the news isn't 'news' anymore, I found an interesting tidbit from Rush Limbaugh. Take note: just because he's Rush Limbaugh doesn't mean he doesn't back up his words with evidence. Take note of that before automatically dismissing his transcript just because he's Rush Limbaugh.

Now...

Katrina Media Proves It Cannot Be Trusted

Take the time to read. Also take note of all the links at the bottom, after the end of the transcript.

I call it treason.
I don't like Paul Martin, does that make me un-Canadian? Does it mean I hate Canada? Is it treason?

It's a time of war, and someone (or multiple someones) is leaking American military secrets. I define that as treason.

Bush came from texas and his hat size is 8!

*hauled away for treason*

~Rico

It's a time of war, and someone (or multiple someones) is leaking American military secrets. I define that as treason.
If someone revealed a secret US military program that involved, say, raping children, would you define that as treason?

Quote:

---

Bush came from texas and his hat size is 8!

*hauled away for treason*

---

That is witty hyperbole. 😛

Quote:

---

If someone revealed a secret US military program that involved, say, raping children, would you define that as treason?

---

And that is LUDICROUS hyperbole. The recent leaking of NSA information doesn't even compare. Seriously Cycle; think about it: a military program made for the sole purpose of raping children. Doesn't that sound a bit like hyperbole to you?

And that is LUDICROUS hyperbole. The recent leaking of NSA information doesn't even compare. Seriously Cycle; think about it: a military program made for the sole purpose of raping children. Doesn't that sound a bit like hyperbole to you?
Certainly, and it's not supposed to imply anything. It's a hypothetical situation, purely for the sake of discussion. Please answer the simple yes-or-no question: does the leaking of top military secrets involving the rape of children qualify as treason?

Quote:

---

That is witty hyperbole. 😛

---

Imitating Dubs doesn't work.

Quote:

---

And that is LUDICROUS hyperbole. The recent leaking of NSA information doesn't even compare. Seriously Cycle; think about it: a military program made for the sole purpose of raping children. Doesn't that sound a bit like hyperbole to you?

---

Imitating my step sister's husband doesn't work either.

~Rico

I know Dubs, but I don't know the hubby of your step sister. EMULATION FAILED.

Yeah? Well you're hoggin' up all the ugly.

~Rico

Tell that to Meg.

Did I ever tell you you're cute when you're trying to ruin mood lightening comments? *schluuurp*

~Rico

Nope.

And keep your tongue off my Slushie! (swipes)

Cycle,

As for leaking a military program that rapes children, yes it would be treason. You are smarter than to ask dumb questions.

But it would also be a moral act. By asking that question you are trying to equate leaking secrets with moral conviction, but this does not give you any real world examples.

Abu Gharaib was already being dealt with through UCMJ, and it is still being dealt with. Leaking the story to the press only increased terrorist recruitment, clearly giving "aid and comfort" the enemy, which is treason.

I don't like Paul Martin either, but liking a politician has nothing to do with leaking sensitive information.

Jimro

I wonder who leaked the story about the troops shooting domestic animals in their spare time and if they were charged for treason.

~Rico

Do you have any links to that story? I've been googling and all I come up with is forums and a story about soldiers trying to get animals back into the Baghdad zoo, they had to shoot two lions and couldn't capture the wolves.

Jimro

I think that was sarcasm Jim. o.o

And no Rico, I believe that story wasn't actually true. The cats would've revolted then. You'd know; your computer would be trashed and your cat would have left a threatening note written in ketchup. Also, you'd wake up with your mouse in your bed.

www.newsroom.ucla.edu/pag...elNum=6664

Date: December 14, 2005
Contact: Meg Sullivan ( msullivan@support.ucla.edu )
Phone: 310-825-1046

While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.

These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly.

"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."

"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.

The results appear in the latest issue of the Quarterly Journal of Economics, which will become available in mid-December.

Groseclose and Milyo based their research on a standard gauge of a lawmaker's support for liberal causes. Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) tracks the percentage of times that each lawmaker votes on the liberal side of an issue. Based on these votes, the ADA assigns a numerical score to each lawmaker, where "100" is the most liberal and "0" is the most conservative. After adjustments to compensate for disproportionate representation that the Senate gives to low‑population states and the lack of representation for the District of Columbia, the average ADA score in Congress (50.1) was assumed to represent the political position of the average U.S. voter.

Groseclose and Milyo then directed 21 research assistants most of them college students to scour U.S. media coverage of the past 10 years. They tallied the number of times each media outlet referred to think tanks and policy groups, such as the left-leaning NAACP or the right-leaning Heritage Foundation.

Next, they did the same exercise with speeches of U.S. lawmakers. If a media outlet displayed a citation pattern similar to that of a lawmaker, then Groseclose and Milyo's method assigned both a similar ADA score.

"A media person would have never done this study," said Groseclose, a UCLA political science professor, whose research and teaching focuses on the U.S. Congress. "It takes a Congress scholar even to think of using ADA scores as a measure. And I don't think many media scholars would have considered comparing news stories to congressional speeches."

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.

The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third.

"Our estimates for these outlets, we feel, give particular credibility to our efforts, as three of the four moderators for the 2004 presidential and vice-presidential debates came from these three news outlets Jim Lehrer, Charlie Gibson and Gwen Ifill," Groseclose said. "If these newscasters weren't centrist, staffers for one of the campaign teams would have objected and insisted on other moderators."

The fourth most centrist outlet was "Special Report With Brit Hume" on Fox News, which often is cited by liberals as an egregious example of a right-wing outlet. While this news program proved to be right of center, the study found ABC's "World News Tonight" and NBC's "Nightly News" to be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found.

"If viewers spent an equal amount of time watching Fox's 'Special Report' as ABC's 'World News' and NBC's 'Nightly News,' then they would receive a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news," said Milyo, an associate professor of economics and public affairs at the University of Missouri at Columbia.

Five news outlets "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," ABC's "Good Morning America," CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown," Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and the Drudge Report were in a statistical dead heat in the race for the most centrist news outlet. Of the print media, USA Today was the most centrist.

An additional feature of the study shows how each outlet compares in political orientation with actual lawmakers. The news pages of The Wall Street Journal scored a little to the left of the average American Democrat, as determined by the average ADA score of all Democrats in Congress (85 versus 84). With scores in the mid-70s, CBS' "Evening News" and The New York Times looked similar to Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., who has an ADA score of 74.

Most of the outlets were less liberal than Lieberman but more liberal than former Sen. John Breaux, D-La. Those media outlets included the Drudge Report, ABC's "World News Tonight," NBC's "Nightly News," USA Today, NBC's "Today Show," Time magazine, U.S. News & World Report, Newsweek, NPR's "Morning Edition," CBS' "Early Show" and The Washington Post.

Since Groseclose and Milyo were more concerned with bias in news reporting than opinion pieces, which are designed to stake a political position, they omitted editorials and Op‑Eds from their tallies. This is one reason their study finds The Wall Street Journal more liberal than conventional wisdom asserts.

Another finding that contradicted conventional wisdom was that the Drudge Report was slightly left of center.

"One thing people should keep in mind is that our data for the Drudge Report was based almost entirely on the articles that the Drudge Report lists on other Web sites," said Groseclose. "Very little was based on the stories that Matt Drudge himself wrote. The fact that the Drudge Report appears left of center is merely a reflection of the overall bias of the media."

Yet another finding that contradicted conventional wisdom relates to National Public Radio, often cited by conservatives as an egregious example of a liberal news outlet. But according to the UCLA-University of Missouri study, it ranked eighth most liberal of the 20 that the study examined.

"By our estimate, NPR hardly differs from the average mainstream news outlet," Groseclose said. "Its score is approximately equal to those of Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report and its score is slightly more conservative than The Washington Post's. If anything, government‑funded outlets in our sample have a slightly lower average ADA score (61), than the private outlets in our sample (62. ."

The researchers took numerous steps to safeguard against bias or the appearance of same in the work, which took close to three years to complete. They went to great lengths to ensure that as many research assistants supported Democratic candidate Al Gore in the 2000 election as supported President George Bush. They also sought no outside funding, a rarity in scholarly research.

"No matter the results, we feared our findings would've been suspect if we'd received support from any group that could be perceived as right- or left-leaning, so we consciously decided to fund this project only with our own salaries and research funds that our own universities provided," Groseclose said.

The results break new ground.

"Past researchers have been able to say whether an outlet is conservative or liberal, but no one has ever compared media outlets to lawmakers," Groseclose said. "Our work gives a precise characterization of the bias and relates it to known commodity politicians."

-UCLA-

I think it's funny how they spent three years carefully researching bias in the media and they were still only able to come up with a basic, one-dimensional "left-right" generalization for each outlet. That's awesome.

Do you believe that there is more dimension to politics than can be expressed on a line?

I have seen two line intersection graphs that show scatter plots of political viewpoint, but invariably regions of such a graph become obviously left, and some obviously right, which means that fundamentally it is using one more dimension than is needed to express the data.

Would you care to come up with an alternative to a line expression to guage American Politics verses American Media?

Jimro

Do you believe that there is more dimension to politics than can be expressed on a line?
The Canadian Green Party is often dismissed as "too left-wing" (remember, this is Canada we're talking about here) in much the same way as the social-democratic NDP, despite the fact that they're actually about as fiscal-conservative as the Conservative Party. In fact, considering the Conservatives have basically been pretending they're the Liberals for the last month, I'd say they're decidedly more fiscal-conservative than the Conservatives. They hate organized labour, they support tax cuts, and they publicly advocate switching over to a two-tier health system, something even the old Reform party didn't dare to touch. People just automatically associate a pro-environment agenda with left-wing politics and think that anyone who supports ideas like, oh, not asphyxiating ourselves with exhaust fumes, is also a pro-labour, anti-business commie.

Pro-environment is fine. Just as long as it doesn't get so out there that, say, a housing development is cancelled because the property in question happens to house a puddle holding a tiny bug that doesn't exist anywhere else in the world. Or to the point where PETA brands parents as killers just because they eat meat, go fishing, or wear fur.

Cycle,

You have explained Canadian politics a bit, but the point is that the overal "Left" or "Right" of a party stance can be numerically guaged against other political parties. The number of issues doesn't change the fact that ten different scoring points can be consolidated into one line.

If there is an individual score for environment, fiscal policy, economy, military, drug legalization, etc, then each individual score can be summed into a composite score.

You still have not demonstrated how a line is inadequate to express the comparative data.

Jimro

A number would tell us @#%$ all. Complex thoughts, ideas and philosophies can't be summed up in a number. Nor a line. Nor a scatter graph. It's not mathematics.

The whole "left" and "right" stuff is complete and utter bollocks, as though there are only two real opinions on anything, with a few undefined intermediates.

The team mentality makes no sense to me whatsoever. It's like people just pick a team (left or right) to root for, with no room for individual thought. It's bollocks.

Thank you for such an enlightening post, I feel much better knowing that my years of schooling involving mathematical modeling were for naught.

What exactly was your point? That you don't consider politics worthy of real analysis since it's "all bollocks"?

There are conservatives smiling right now, and liberals who DESPERATELY want your vote...

Jimro

I think that politics is, or at least should be, about more than lefties vs righties. I'd like to believe that there are more than two sets of ideals in the world.

Numbers can't solve everything. Even chaotic math can't exactly predict nature. Proof can be seen every week. Nature and all its byproducts, including humans, are everchanging and cannot be accurately modeled, stereotyped, numbered, etc.

Number can also be "worked", and made to represent something they don't really and made to furfill the needs of whatever agency they were thought up by. My mother is a grade A accountant, I've seen this in action and it still sometimes boggles my mind.

~Rico

Rico,

There is a world of difference between describing a known behavior mathematically and using mathematical models for prediction. Considering that chaos math really doesn't apply to numerically scoring politics such an observation is useless in the context of this thread.

The point is that there ARE more than two opinions, but that the multitude of opinions can be expressed in against two "extremes" that are liberal and conservative.

Just like computers really only deal with two numbers, 0 and 1, but the combination of 0 and 1 give "meaning" beyond the obvious limitations of the numbers.

Jimro

They are still numbers. Graphs, models, and the like still cannot accurately predict nature. Saying any kind of math doesn't equate into politics is very wrong. What is politics? It's one of the biggest games humans play. The human factor is massive and humans can only be predicted if you convince them they can. A computer can turn ones and zeros into a thesis or a sci-fi battle field but that doesn't mean it can recreate human behavior, or animal behavior, or any naturally occuring elements. If you hadn't noticed the weatherman often changes his predictions 30 minutes before the big storm hits. Why? Because weather models cannot predict that far into the future. Precise models HAVE gone from giving people minutes of warning to maybe hours. But thats as far as we've come.

Numbers still can't explain or predict nature. Humans, animals, weather, etc all still awe scientists BECAUSE of that fact.

I'm a firm believer in that it never will. A believer that some online test or interest model can't really tell what you are unless you tell it to. I can make an IQ test say I'm stupider than a rock. I can make a "what character are you?" test say anything I what just by answering the questions a certain way.

Can we model the "liberal" or "conservative" behavior in mathmatical terms? You betcha. But can you use that to say "SX Kitsune is a Conservative but slightly less libertarian than Jimro"? No. One thing you learn about humans is that based on events occurring every second, and the way this events travel through the brain, even down to the pathways they etch out and leave in the tissue OF the brain; it, the whole thing, the whole person, is always changing. Much like the computer industry were a technology can be discovered and made obsolete inside of a week, A single human's nature can be modeled and made obsolete in mere moments. So trying to use a year old model to explain someone's behavior is like trying to use an old radioshack phosphorous to explain how a modern server system works. Yeah the bare basics might be around but its not an accurate model.

~Rico (Was bored enough to type all that. )

Rico,

You are missing my point, I agree that PREDICTION is darn near impossible, but DESCRIPTION is perfectly within the realm of numbers.

If a friend described someone good looking as a "solid nine" on a scale of one to ten you wouldn't know exactly what that person looked like, but you would have a pretty good idea that they were attractive.

An earthquake is measured on the Richter scale, tornado's on the Fujita scale, waves are measured in feet or meters, speed is measured in distance over time.

Using numerical scoring to compare news media to politicians is not such a far stretch. Politics are not so complex that they cannot be analyzed via mathematical means.

Jimro

The Fujita Scale is based on land and structural damage of a tornado, its very much number based and after the fact. Its not the most accurate thing on the planet and measures damage to indicate what the intensity of the tornado was.

The Richter scale as far as I know records a numerical reading for a seismic wave as the event is happening.

Quote:

---

If a friend described someone good looking as a "solid nine" on a scale of one to ten you wouldn't know exactly what that person looked like, but you would have a pretty good idea that they were attractive.

---

That pretty much hits my idea spot on. Any scale you make to biased toward either the creator or the person making the judgement. Its very easily flawed and warped to something other than it was intended. The Human factor effects description as well.

Description is indeed within the realm of numbers but thats only of the person describing it with numbers doesn't have an agenda. And all people have agenda's.

~Rico

Rico,

This is good progress, we agree that numbers have meaning, and while some are purely objective (tornados, earthquakes), others are more subjective (how attractive someone is or isn't).

That is why the media was compared to politicians. This gives a good context for comparison in the context of the nation and news media being discussed. The reference value was the elected body, this gives a nice reference point. It is possible that the reference point will change with time (compared to itself) but the media will always be judged against the reference point at that time, kind of like waves are measured regardless of where the tide is.

Obviously such a comparison can't be made in a society where there isn't freedom of the press.

Jimro

People are biased by nature. To expect otherwise is not being realistic. Of course, my problem with media reporting is that usually if something is revealed that's "bad" or "hurts" a point of view for a particular group, then the media is supposedly biased against that group. If it's not factual, that's one thing. If it IS factual, then the media is just doing it's job.

The problem with the media is the fact that it feels it must entertain the public as Jimro already mentioned. Of course, it doesn't help that given a head-to-head choice between the Super Bowl and a Presidential debate/address (both live), more people would probably tune into the Super Bowl than the Presidential debate/address. So, part of it is the media, part of it is the people in the country. However, I think the media does a huge disservice at times to those of us that want good reporting and proper attention given to issues that actually matter, which isn't about which celebrity couple is breaking up/marrying/etc. Though, I've been watching TV-based news less & less and relying on papers & the internet so that I can get informed on what I want without the celebrity nonsense.

This is why I watch Fox News. It's about as biased as my pet dog.

Not like a few other services out there.

Nah, C-SPAN is the closest to unbiased as far as news sources go since it just shows you events in their entirety that happen without any commentary until the event is over. Of course, C-SPAN is limited to just D.C. stuff for the most part being its main limitation.

But C-SPAN is too boring.

Watch Fox and Friends every morning on FNC. I love this show. It's so...entertaining. It's so...unbiased!

I can't tell if that was sarcastic or not. I'm hoping it was.

Quote:

---

But C-SPAN is too boring.

---

I know, that's why I love it. ^_~

Somebody called me just now from the Vancouver Sun asking if I wanted to buy a subscription. I refused and she asked why. I responded by saying, "I'm not impressed by your editorial standards."

Speaking of Vancouver, what do you think of the recent Canadian election and the new Prime Minister?

I'm a little pissed off that the new government won't be lifting a finger to make my tuition fees more reasonable, opting instead for a sales tax cut that'll save the average person about 120 bucks a year (but will reduce government revenues by about three billion dollars) and a retarded "child-care allowance" that basically amounts to giving a paltry $1200 a year to people with kids under six years, as opposed to the Liberal plan for a socialized childcare system. I'm also not a fan of the completely-unworkable idea of "protecting our northern borders" by "strengthening the military", which, if they actually go through with it, would bankrupt the country in a matter of days. But it's not like I wasn't expecting them to win, what with the polls reporting a solid lead for a good month before voting day, and the fact that the Liberals simply refused to put anything even remotely ressembling a real effort into their campaign.

I'm not too worried though. With the NDP, Bloc and Liberals forming an opposition more than large enough to defeat them on any issue, the Conservatives have a bare minority and will have to behave themselves. They won't be able to tear up Kyoto, reverse the gay marriage decision, or screw healthcare because none of the other parties will support them. I can see this being a lame-duck government that doesn't get anything done because none of the other parties will want to agree with their ideas. If the Liberals or NDP are able to get their sh-t together before the Conservatives fall, it should be easy enough to wrest power from their grip.

The only thing I'm really worried about is all the chest-beating that will inevitably follow in the States, where American conservatives are now undoubtedly under the false impression that Canada is "coming around" to their way of thinking.

On a positive political note some rather loud grumbling convinced them to reinstate JOM funding. Thirty grand may not seem like much for a tribal program, but those kids don't think so. Coats, pencils, calculators, papers, and shoes ARE appreciated.

Cycle,

I've found that only a divided government can really compromise to actually deliver smart legislation. When the US last balanced the budget we had a Democrat Pres, and a Republican majority in congress. The time Before that we had a Republican president and a Democratic majority in congress.

Not that this is any indicator of success for Canadian politics, but that there is an alternative to the lame duck government.

Jimro

Quote:

---

Speaking of Vancouver, what do you think of the recent Canadian election and the new Prime Minister?

---

How are those...? Ugh. Never mind.

What was this about again? Military secrets for war were given out or something?

America was at war in 1942, when not only was they're a draft, but if you weren't on the battlefield, you were keeping the economy going, or you were doing the job of a man while he was fighting in the war.

No, right now America is doing a lil' something we like to call an 'invasion' where the odds are so stacked for them it's ridiculous.

Bah, just my 2am cents.

I'll probably regret posting this in about 10 minutes. >_>;