djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,342
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 26, 2016 3:36:09 GMT -5
Virgil- i thought we had discussed this: ymam.proboards.com/thread/30929/obama-puppet-masteri mentioned that this idea is actually well studied. i spent a weekend checking one story to see if i could see the kind of bias that i had seen in other studies, and amazingly it was there. but before you get all jumpy, it was not the kind of bias that you and Paul claim. it is a tedious exercise. first, you have to find a story with limited reporting, because if it is picked up widely enough, it is simply repeated, and there is very little editing- so you won't see any bias whatsoever. i selected a somewhat arcane story about an appearance by Alberto Gonzales at Georgetown. it received very little notice in the US. i believe it was published in five print journals. i remember that one was the WSJ. another was the NYT. i compared these stories to the full transcripts available from C_Span for omissions (this is the tedious part- reading the same stories over and over again and looking for THE MISSING PIECES). there were varying omissions (normal), but there was a pattern in the omissions that showed a lot of favoritism for the Bush administration. the thesis is that the primary bias in the US is omission bias, and it presents itself by unquestioning faith in the federal government, particularly in foreign policy. the examples of this are endless- but there is literally ZERO difference in this bias from administration to administration (aka "zero political bias"). it is so pervasive that it has been described as "the most verifiable thesis in the social sciences". and there are, of course, a variety of reasons for it, which i will leave you to explore. interestingly, it is far easier for outsiders to notice this bias than Americans. they are so used to seeing it that they don't recognize it as bias. so you have a better shot of seeing it than most. the wife just got home. goodnight.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 26, 2016 8:51:24 GMT -5
I reread through both threads. You say nothing of real significance in this thread. The meat is in the puppet master thread. Therein you mention your "pro-administration bias" hypothesis, and you give the same example on the Alberto Gonzales story. While I agree it's a relevant example, it's an example. It doesn't even begin to comprise a corpus of evidence. Some highlights from "puppet master": - Here is where I enumerate the specific media biases we're talking about. To summarize: pro-carbon-credit, pro-expert-mentality, pro-government, pro-deviancy, pro-globalist, anti-religion, and anti-traditionalist. The thread eventually turns into a discussion about whether these biases are "liberal" biases, which was an unfortunate digression since what we call the biases doesn't have any bearing on whether they exist or not.
- Paul dumps in the MRC stats on journalist and media left/right identification, party affiliation, etc., and you offer virtually no defense. Your counterarguments are that identifications/affiliations don't necessarily translate into bias (here) and that the MRC studies are flawed, although you refuse to indicate how. I ask you for the beef here. Your reply, and I'm not making this up, is that you're not big on charts. You go on to accusing me of being more critical of you than of Paul, and then repeatedly insist that because Paul was wrong about "Mittmentum" in 2012, he must also be wrong about media bias.
- Paul then dumps in a litany of quotes from media executives/insiders that support his side of the argument. Again, you offer no defense whatsoever. You almost seem to concede the argument here.
- B2R adds several more items to Paul's list. zdaddy supplies the only study that might support your side of the argument, concluding "I'd suggest reviewing this study that found the elite media is actually pretty centrist on many issues. The only area where they skew left are social issues such as abortion or gay rights. But when it comes to tax and economic policies, many journalists agree with conservative Republicans and center right Democrats." This has no bearing on the biases in my list excepting the social biases, where the report clearly confirms the media is heavily biased left.
- Now getting frustrated, I again demand you procure the beef. You never do.
Unfortunately, it's at this point that the conversation veers off into what is "liberal" bias, and a discussion of what conservatives do and don't mean by "liberal". Punctuating both threads are statements of your pure and unabashed contempt for the MRC and for Mr. Bozell in particular. I hate him. I hate him. I HATE HIM!
Aye. We get that. I can't for the life of me determine why. You never provide any reason as to why. You yourself admit on several occasions that the media is absurdly biased. You call the MSM " a total joke" that reports mostly crap. The only study you're willing to acknowledge backs up Bozell's belief that the media is socially left-leaning. He seems to be anti-carbon-credits and anti-globalist, which are both positions you sympathize with. The only thing that stands out is that he's socially right (about as far right as I am) and only interested in attacking the particular types of media bias that irk him. In particular, socially leftist, pro-global-warming, and anti-traditionalist biases, and anything he perceives as pro-Democrat, whether it's a systemic bias or not. I'm guessing he gives the media a "pass" on pro-corporate and pro-administration biases. But if one-sided attacks on media bias deeply bothered you, it stands to reason you'd loathe men like John Stewart, John Oliver, et al. who mercilessly call out bias in FOX, etc. to suit their own agendas, as well as publications like HuffPo, The Atlantic, The Daily Beast, and dozens of others that do the same thing. You have no problem with any of these tearing into FOX, The Blaze, Breitbart, etc. for biased reporting, and indeed you've often praised them for doing so. So why is this different? Do you countenance attacks on the media by any of these personages/organizations but hate (and "hate" is your word, not mine) Bozell and the MRC simply because they're a rightist organization? That's the only conclusion I can come up with. I don't see you defending the Fourth Estate. I don't see you disputing that most of the biases I list exist. For the few you do dispute, you not only fail to procure any kind of defense, you seemingly don't even attempt to do so. I don't see you getting upset about one-sided attacks on the media. All I see is I hate him. I hate him. I HATE HIM! and given your recent remarks, you seem to hate him as much now as you did in 2013. Why? Nobody knows.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 26, 2016 8:55:17 GMT -5
Thanks for digging up the threads, by the way.
|
|
sesfw
Junior Associate
Today is the first day of the rest of my life
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 15:45:17 GMT -5
Posts: 6,268
|
Post by sesfw on Jul 26, 2016 10:24:00 GMT -5
and given your recent remarks, you seem to hate him as much now as you did in 2013. Why? Nobody knows. Thanks for digging up the threads, by the way.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,342
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 26, 2016 11:52:10 GMT -5
and given your recent remarks, you seem to hate him as much now as you did in 2013. Why? Nobody knows. you sure about that, Virgil? nobody? i would be a little surprised at that. you yourself have admitted, often even, that you really don't get me. it is one of the things we agree on. so, are you so sure that "nobody knows"? how about this: you don't know.i think that is far more succinct, far more truthful, and far more accurate than anything else. the reason i find Bozell utterly loathsome is that he misidentifies the existing bias and amplifies it for his own political reasons. it is the same thing i find loathsome about the "anti-PC" movement. the reason political correctness exists is to condone respect of each other in a way that makes it very uncomfortable for those that disrespect others to do so (public shaming). do i agree with the TACTIC? of course not. do i agree with the GOAL? of course. everyone does. but what Mr. Bozell does is far worse than just being "anti-bias". he is actually NOT anti-bias at all. he is absolutely PRO-BIAS, so long as it serves his interests. he is a corporate shill. he is a fucking hack. he is a total scumbag. he is contributing to the problem, all the while pretending he is saving us from it. because the bias is not liberal, as he claims (and he misuses liberal, for the record), it is corporate. he is a water boy for corporatism. if Trump is the first coming of Mussolini in the US, he would be right down there in the trenches working for him.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 18, 2024 18:15:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2016 11:54:57 GMT -5
There seems to be a huge lack of coverage by ABC, CBS, and NBC in regards to the huge divide in the DNC. Plenty of coverage about Cruz and then Bush family not showing up at the RNC though.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,342
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 26, 2016 11:58:15 GMT -5
There seems to be a huge lack of coverage by ABC, CBS, and NBC in regards to the huge divide in the DNC. Plenty of coverage about Cruz and then Bush family not showing up at the RNC though. NBC covered it. however most of the other coverage has been with journals that are interested in political stuff. truthfully, i don't think MOST Americans are that interested in conventions. just the political elite. there was more interest in "The Bachelorette"
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jul 26, 2016 12:02:20 GMT -5
Maybe there isn't one.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 18, 2024 18:15:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2016 12:06:14 GMT -5
and given your recent remarks, you seem to hate him as much now as you did in 2013. Why? Nobody knows. you sure about that, Virgil? nobody? i would be a little surprised at that. you yourself have admitted, often even, that you really don't get me. it is one of the things we agree on. so, are you so sure that "nobody knows"? how about this: you don't know. i think that is far more succinct, far more truthful, and far more accurate than anything else. the reason i find Bozell utterly loathsome is that he misidentifies the existing bias and amplifies it for his own political reasons. it is the same thing i find loathsome about the "anti-PC" movement. the reason political correctness exists is to condone respect of each other in a way that makes it very uncomfortable for those that disrespect others to do so (public shaming). do i agree with the TACTIC? of course not. do i agree with the GOAL? of course. everyone does. but what Mr. Bozell does is far worse than just being "anti-bias". he is actually NOT anti-bias at all. he is absolutely PRO-BIAS, so long as it serves his interests. he is a corporate shill. he is a fucking hack. he is a total scumbag. he is contributing to the problem, all the while pretending he is saving us from it. because the bias is not liberal, as he claims (and he misuses liberal, for the record), it is corporate. he is a water boy for corporatism. if Trump is the first coming of Mussolini in the US, he would be right down there in the trenches working for him. I don't agree with the goal. I'm sick of political correctness. And it's goal, or what you perceive it as.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,342
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 26, 2016 12:15:39 GMT -5
you sure about that, Virgil? nobody? i would be a little surprised at that. you yourself have admitted, often even, that you really don't get me. it is one of the things we agree on. so, are you so sure that "nobody knows"? how about this: you don't know. i think that is far more succinct, far more truthful, and far more accurate than anything else. the reason i find Bozell utterly loathsome is that he misidentifies the existing bias and amplifies it for his own political reasons. it is the same thing i find loathsome about the "anti-PC" movement. the reason political correctness exists is to condone respect of each other in a way that makes it very uncomfortable for those that disrespect others to do so (public shaming). do i agree with the TACTIC? of course not. do i agree with the GOAL? of course. everyone does. but what Mr. Bozell does is far worse than just being "anti-bias". he is actually NOT anti-bias at all. he is absolutely PRO-BIAS, so long as it serves his interests. he is a corporate shill. he is a fucking hack. he is a total scumbag. he is contributing to the problem, all the while pretending he is saving us from it. because the bias is not liberal, as he claims (and he misuses liberal, for the record), it is corporate. he is a water boy for corporatism. if Trump is the first coming of Mussolini in the US, he would be right down there in the trenches working for him. I don't agree with the goal. I'm sick of political correctness. And it's goal, or what you perceive it as. you are sick of the goal of treating people with dignity and respect? i find that difficult to believe. edit: try not to get too distracted by the analogy. if you don't understand the analogy, i can come up with a dozen more. but the point has nothing to do with PC, and everything to do with being a raving hypocrite as well as an elitist (which is what Bozell is). and yeah, i kinda hate that combo.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 26, 2016 13:37:37 GMT -5
and given your recent remarks, you seem to hate him as much now as you did in 2013. Why? Nobody knows. you sure about that, Virgil? nobody? i would be a little surprised at that. you yourself have admitted, often even, that you really don't get me. it is one of the things we agree on. so, are you so sure that "nobody knows"? how about this: you don't know.i think that is far more succinct, far more truthful, and far more accurate than anything else. the reason i find Bozell utterly loathsome is that he misidentifies the existing bias and amplifies it for his own political reasons. it is the same thing i find loathsome about the "anti-PC" movement. the reason political correctness exists is to condone respect of each other in a way that makes it very uncomfortable for those that disrespect others to do so (public shaming). do i agree with the TACTIC? of course not. do i agree with the GOAL? of course. everyone does. but what Mr. Bozell does is far worse than just being "anti-bias". he is actually NOT anti-bias at all. he is absolutely PRO-BIAS, so long as it serves his interests. he is a corporate shill. he is a fucking hack. he is a total scumbag. he is contributing to the problem, all the while pretending he is saving us from it. because the bias is not liberal, as he claims (and he misuses liberal, for the record), it is corporate. he is a water boy for corporatism. if Trump is the first coming of Mussolini in the US, he would be right down there in the trenches working for him. I don't see where Mr. Bozell misidentifies the existing bias. That certainly doesn't seem to be the case based on the trending stories on the MRC homepage. For example, "TV News Spins: 'Moderate,' 'Centrist' Tim Kaine vs. 'Staunch Conservative' Mike Pence", regarding various programs spinning Gov. Kaine as centrist ("too centrist", even) in spite of a mound of evidence the MRC presents to prove that he's anything but. In "Bozell & Graham Column: So Much for That 'Unprecedented' Jail Talk", next on the list, they take The Washington Post to task on their assertion, vis a vis Ms. Clinton's e-mail scandal, that Mr. Trump's supporters' “descent from standard red-meat partisanship to unprecedented accusations of criminality displays contempt for the rule of law and a startling disinterest in fact and reason.” As I just finished explaining to Optimist in another thread, this assessment is bunkum. It's ignorant and flat-out wrong. WaPo deserves to be called out for it. I'm glad somebody did. Next is "Nets Keep Hammering Melania Trump, Went Easy on Obama Plagiarism in ’08", where the MRC adds up the total coverage time devoted to Ms. Trump's plagiarism scandal and compares it to the total coverage time devoted to Pres. Obama's plagiarism in '08, concluding that Ms. Trump's plagiarism raked up four times as much coverage despite the fact that she's the candidate's wife rather than the candidate himself. One might reasonably argue that there are other reasons for this disparity besides media bias, but the question they ask at the end of the article is perfectly legitimate: "The questions about Melania Trump’s speech are legitimate and deserve coverage, but the networks have blown this all out of proportion. If suspected plagiarism by an actual presidential candidate deserves only 14 minutes of coverage, then how does the same alleged offense by a candidate’s wife merit four times as much journalistic scrutiny?" Next up, "Bozell & Graham Column: 'Fact Checkers' vs. The Benghazi Mom", where Bozell takes PolitiFact.com and FactCheck.org up on some issues that I'd take them up on myself if I could. You saw just the other day how my assessment of the truthfulness of Mr. Trump's speech, based on their PolitiFact's own objections, differed from their ratings. They consistently rated his statements less truthful than they actually were, often based on specious technicalities, loose assumptions, and claims that Mr. Trump "ought to" have mentioned certain details but didn't. If somebody was just skimming their "truth-o-meter" ratings, (s)he would walk away with a significantly distorted view of how much Mr. Trump told the truth vs. lied. So... I'm not going to go through the whole site article by article, but nothing I've seen here upsets me, and none of the above should upset you. You call Mr. Bozell a corporate shill, a hack, a scumbag, a waterboy for corporatism, a lover of fascism. I'm not seeing anything remotely resembling that here. I'll keep tabs on mrc.org over the coming months to see if anything that qualifies turns up. I do agree that he (mis)uses the term "liberal" in the same way that virtually all conservatives use it (i.e. progressivist, big-government, and the various other biases listed in my previous post). I know "liberal" is your holiest of sacred cows, but you shouldn't resent the man for using the term in a way that 99% of his readership uses it. Realize that he's decrying neoliberalism and not classical liberalism, and appreciate the fact that he's filling a void that deserves to be filled.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,342
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 26, 2016 13:48:21 GMT -5
you don't see it because you share his bias. i have already discussed how bias is shown in the media, and it is not of the kind that Bozell portends. it is not as simple as saying "this headline says this, and therefore this shows bias". that is a hopelessly superficial analysis. it shows nothing. what is needed to show bias is to COMPARE NEWS OUTLETS based on their coverage of any particular story. this actually takes some WORK, which is something that Bozell is completely uninterested in. he would rather trot out headlines like a beauty contest, CLAIM that it is bias, have people like yourself nod in agreement, and then ignore the fact that right, left, and center are all reporting the same way (in other words, there is no POLITICAL bias in the MSM). if he were to actually DO the work, instead of just assuming that the premise is correct and looking for examples to "prove" it, what he would see is that there is a bias toward power, authority, and sensationalism in the MSM. that might be right OR left wing, but it is not always EITHER. i actually cited an example on this thread- but there are literally hundreds more. it is extremely well studied, and it is rather conclusive. the bias that Bozell claims is there is not there. are you even interested in the basis of his claim (since he has never actually proven it)? he's not irrational. he is just wrong. let me know if you are. edit: there is another problem with Bozell, and that is the WHY. he is not just some tireless crusader that is wanting the best, most unbiased information. he has an agenda, and it has nothing to do with "resolving/neutralizing press bias".
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 26, 2016 13:52:29 GMT -5
you don't see it because you share his bias. We're both right-leaning. He makes no secret of the fact that he's far right conservative. It's posted all over the website. If you want to convince me he's a scum-sucking corporate stooge, you'll have to do better than ipse dixit.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,342
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 26, 2016 13:56:44 GMT -5
you don't see it because you share his bias. We're both right-leaning. He makes no secret of the fact that he's far right conservative. It's posted all over the website. If you want to convince me he's a scum-sucking corporate stooge, you'll have to do better than ipse dixit. i decided to give a less snippy reply after i posted that. have a look above. /\
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 26, 2016 14:14:24 GMT -5
you don't see it because you share his bias. i have already discussed how bias is shown in the media, and it is not of the kind that Bozell portends. it is not as simple as saying "this headline says this, and therefore this shows bias". that is a hopelessly superficial analysis. it shows nothing. what is needed to show bias is to COMPARE NEWS OUTLETS based on their coverage of any particular story. this actually takes some WORK, which is something that Bozell is completely uninterested in. he would rather trot out headlines like a beauty contest, CLAIM that it is bias, have people like yourself nod in agreement, and then ignore the fact that right, left, and center are all reporting the same way. if he were to actually DO the work, what he would see is that there is a bias toward power, authority, and sensationalism in the MSM. that might be right OR left wing, but it is not always EITHER. i actually cited an example on this thread- but there are literally hundreds more. it is extremely well studied, and it is rather conclusive. the bias that Bozell claims is there is not there. are you even interested in the basis of his claim (since he has never actually proven it)? he's not irrational. he is just wrong. let me know if you are. I don't have time right now, but this evening I think we should frame up exactly what your position on media bias is, what my position on media bias is, what you think Bozell's position on media bias is, and what I think his position on media bias is. Right off the bat, I don't agree with you that comparative analysis is needed to show bias. I'll go so far as to say that in some cases comparative analysis is the least meaningful type of analysis that can be conducted in this regard. I disagree with you that Mr. Bozell isn't using comparative analysis. In the pieces on WaPo and Ms. Obama, for instance, pretty much the full analysis is comparative: how did the media treat the issue then vs. how did they treat it now? I disagree that he trots out headlines and expects people to blindly agree with him. His MO as I see it is the same as PolitiFact et al.: he trots out headlines and conclusions, but he presents the basis on which he reached those conclusions so the reader can confirm or refute them. I don't believe that the media bias towards power, authority, and sensationalism (which I agree exists) means the media can't be biased in other ways, and you seem to be implying so here. If he denies that this bias exists, by all means point me to where he says so. I'm certainly interested in the basis of his claim, but first you'll have to show me where he makes this claim. Give me a specific statement in his own words that I can sink my teeth into. We'll come to consensus on what he means by it (or likely means by it) and once we're agreed on what he is and isn't talking about then I welcome seeing your analysis and evidence that he's way off base. Let's take this one step at a time. Don't rush it. I'm heading back to work and won't be back until this evening anyway.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,342
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 26, 2016 14:26:40 GMT -5
you don't see it because you share his bias. i have already discussed how bias is shown in the media, and it is not of the kind that Bozell portends. it is not as simple as saying "this headline says this, and therefore this shows bias". that is a hopelessly superficial analysis. it shows nothing. what is needed to show bias is to COMPARE NEWS OUTLETS based on their coverage of any particular story. this actually takes some WORK, which is something that Bozell is completely uninterested in. he would rather trot out headlines like a beauty contest, CLAIM that it is bias, have people like yourself nod in agreement, and then ignore the fact that right, left, and center are all reporting the same way. if he were to actually DO the work, what he would see is that there is a bias toward power, authority, and sensationalism in the MSM. that might be right OR left wing, but it is not always EITHER. i actually cited an example on this thread- but there are literally hundreds more. it is extremely well studied, and it is rather conclusive. the bias that Bozell claims is there is not there. are you even interested in the basis of his claim (since he has never actually proven it)? he's not irrational. he is just wrong. let me know if you are. I don't have time right now, but this evening I think we should frame up exactly what your position on media bias is, what my position on media bias is, what you think Bozell's position on media bias is, and what I think his position on media bias is. Right off the bat, I don't agree with you that comparative analysis is needed to show bias. I'll go so far as to say that in some cases comparative analysis is the least meaningful type of analysis that can be conducted in this regard. I disagree with you that Mr. Bozell isn't using comparative analysis. In the pieces on WaPo and Ms. Obama, for instance, pretty much the full analysis is comparative: how did the media treat the issue then vs. how did they treat it now? I disagree that he trots out headlines and expects people to blindly agree with him. His MO as I see it is the same as PolitiFact et al.: he trots out headlines and conclusions, but he presents the basis on which he reached those conclusions so the reader can confirm or refute them. I disagree with you that a media bias towards power, authority, and sensationalism (which I agree exists) means the media can't be biased in other ways, and you seem to be implying so here. If he denies that this bias exists, by all means point me to where he says so. I'm certainly interested in the basis of his claim, but first you'll have to show me where he makes this claim. Give me a specific statement in his own words that I can sink my teeth into. We'll come to consensus on what he means by it (or likely means by it) and once we're agreed on what he is and isn't talking about then I welcome seeing your analysis and evidence that he's way off base. Let's take this one step at a time. Don't rush it. I'm heading back to work and won't be back until this evening anyway. i am working late tonight, so i might not have time- but my premise is that Bozell's position on the media is the same as Paul's: that the media is dominated by left leaning Democrats, pushing their agenda, and excluding right wing perspectives. and, like i say, he has a REASON for thinking that- it just happens to be wrong. as to your statement on comparative analysis, you're wrong. he doesn't compare. he only shows one side. here is what i mean by a meaningful comparison: first of all, you identify a publication that is "left wing". it is not as easy as it sounds. in fact, in cable news, it is almost impossible. secondly, you identify a publication that is "right wing". again, in cable news, i would describe that as almost impossible. (i can explain why i think it is almost impossible later, if you like) third, you find a story that is not just regurgitated from news farms like AP. if you can't find one, then you ALSO won't be able to show bias, since the stories are pretty much word for word identical. this is getting more and more difficult over time, for reasons i can explain. finally, you compare the right wing and left wing reporting on the same story. what Bozell and others like him do is compare their perceived "bias" against the PREMISE, which is, in itself, a form of "confirmation bias". he needs to compare WaPo to, say, WT, in order to get a good analysis. Bozell literally never does this. you have to actually be interested in bias to do that, because it is WORK, and he is not really interested in working to make his point, imo. but furthermore, if he actually did that, he would find that the bias is not what he thinks it is. and i never said that the media "can't" be biased in other ways- only that it isn't biased in the particular way that Bozell says it is. but let's be clear about what i mean by "the media" here: i mean the MSM- primarily cable news. print and private subscriber media not only can be biased, they are in some cases necessarily biased- POLITICALLY. that is why they are easier to analyze than the MSM in this respect. people who subscribe to The Atlantic are PAYING for a perspective. a perspective which aligns with their own. that is way different than bulk consumer news (which is what i am taking about when i say MSM). i am not going to troll around Bozell's sites looking for quotes, Virgil. i am more interested in the issue than this individual. if you want to discuss the issue, i am all about that. hopefully, if you understand where i am coming from on the issue, you will get why i loathe Bozell fairly easily.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,904
|
Post by zibazinski on Jul 27, 2016 8:12:10 GMT -5
I'm not worried. I think most voters don't watch or read any news.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,342
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 27, 2016 11:05:30 GMT -5
I'm not worried. I think most voters don't watch or read any news. i worry about that too. moreover i worry that what they DO read is mostly rubbish- short on facts and long on speculation. a news diet which consists solely of cable news is about as nutritious as a diet that consists solely of gummy bears.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,342
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 27, 2016 13:12:27 GMT -5
there are a lot of biases in the MSM. one is a bias toward CONCISION. and don't underestimate it. only stories which reflect prevailing attitudes can be told that way. if you are saying something controversial in the news, people will RIGHTLY expect you to explain yourself. which means that those stories basically won't get told by the MSM. that is why we have the alternative press- which is, unfortunately, hanging by a thread.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 27, 2016 21:09:34 GMT -5
I don't have time right now, but this evening I think we should frame up exactly what your position on media bias is, what my position on media bias is, what you think Bozell's position on media bias is, and what I think his position on media bias is. Right off the bat, I don't agree with you that comparative analysis is needed to show bias. I'll go so far as to say that in some cases comparative analysis is the least meaningful type of analysis that can be conducted in this regard. I disagree with you that Mr. Bozell isn't using comparative analysis. In the pieces on WaPo and Ms. Obama, for instance, pretty much the full analysis is comparative: how did the media treat the issue then vs. how did they treat it now? I disagree that he trots out headlines and expects people to blindly agree with him. His MO as I see it is the same as PolitiFact et al.: he trots out headlines and conclusions, but he presents the basis on which he reached those conclusions so the reader can confirm or refute them. I disagree with you that a media bias towards power, authority, and sensationalism (which I agree exists) means the media can't be biased in other ways, and you seem to be implying so here. If he denies that this bias exists, by all means point me to where he says so. I'm certainly interested in the basis of his claim, but first you'll have to show me where he makes this claim. Give me a specific statement in his own words that I can sink my teeth into. We'll come to consensus on what he means by it (or likely means by it) and once we're agreed on what he is and isn't talking about then I welcome seeing your analysis and evidence that he's way off base. Let's take this one step at a time. Don't rush it. I'm heading back to work and won't be back until this evening anyway. i am working late tonight, so i might not have time- but my premise is that Bozell's position on the media is the same as Paul's: that the media is dominated by left leaning Democrats, pushing their agenda, and excluding right wing perspectives. and, like i say, he has a REASON for thinking that- it just happens to be wrong. as to your statement on comparative analysis, you're wrong. he doesn't compare. he only shows one side. here is what i mean by a meaningful comparison: first of all, you identify a publication that is "left wing". it is not as easy as it sounds. in fact, in cable news, it is almost impossible. secondly, you identify a publication that is "right wing". again, in cable news, i would describe that as almost impossible. (i can explain why i think it is almost impossible later, if you like) third, you find a story that is not just regurgitated from news farms like AP. if you can't find one, then you ALSO won't be able to show bias, since the stories are pretty much word for word identical. this is getting more and more difficult over time, for reasons i can explain. finally, you compare the right wing and left wing reporting on the same story. what Bozell and others like him do is compare their perceived "bias" against the PREMISE, which is, in itself, a form of "confirmation bias". he needs to compare WaPo to, say, WT, in order to get a good analysis. Bozell literally never does this. you have to actually be interested in bias to do that, because it is WORK, and he is not really interested in working to make his point, imo. but furthermore, if he actually did that, he would find that the bias is not what he thinks it is. and i never said that the media "can't" be biased in other ways- only that it isn't biased in the particular way that Bozell says it is. but let's be clear about what i mean by "the media" here: i mean the MSM- primarily cable news. print and private subscriber media not only can be biased, they are in some cases necessarily biased- POLITICALLY. that is why they are easier to analyze than the MSM in this respect. people who subscribe to The Atlantic are PAYING for a perspective. a perspective which aligns with their own. that is way different than bulk consumer news (which is what i am taking about when i say MSM). i am not going to troll around Bozell's sites looking for quotes, Virgil. i am more interested in the issue than this individual. if you want to discuss the issue, i am all about that. hopefully, if you understand where i am coming from on the issue, you will get why i loathe Bozell fairly easily. OK. Wow. Where to begin. Paragraph 3, your vision of a "meaningful comparison": I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt. I have no idea what you mean by the first two lines. There isn't a soul in YMAM who'll agree with you that it's "almost impossible" to find a left wing news outlet or right wing news outlet in the US, even if we confine ourselves to network and cable news. If you can find somebody who does, I'll hug a snow leopard. Hence you're going to have to define what "left wing" and "right wing" mean in your world. I do understand your "third" criterion about not picking canned stories off news wires, although, as I'm sure you're aware, even wire pieces can be biased. Paragraph 4. Again I have no idea what you mean by the first sentence. You say the MRC is comparing their 'perceived "bias"' against 'the PREMISE'. Forgive me, but I just... I got nothing. You've out-riddled me. Are you trying to say that Bozell et al. use an absolute baseline instead of a comparative one, and that this methodology is necessarily flawed? For example, Bozell might start out with the belief that any decent news piece covering Ms. Trump's plagiarism ought to include a statistic on what percentage of the speech was plagiarized, and he incorrectly (in your view) labels any news agency that fails to include this statistic as "biased"? If so, there are several serious problems with this argument. I won't get into them here because this is me wildly guessing at what you're trying to say. Let's pin that down first. You later say "[Bozell] needs to compare WaPo to, say, WT, in order to get a good analysis". No he doesn't. Where does this idea even come from? I'll admit he can rely on this kind of analysis, and that in some situations it may be the most relevant kind of analysis, but there are many other kinds to choose from. Just a few offhand: - Develop a rubric on the financial and humanitarian impact of various aspects of a story, quantifying "magnitude of importance" and "magnitude of impact", and rate news agencies based on the time they devote to reporting on these aspects. For example, if an earthquake in Iraq kills 100,00 people and a news agency devotes only two columns to reporting on it, most of which is spent talking about damage to the US embassy in Iraq, this would be an excellent point in favour of establishing US-centric bias, even if every last news agency on Earth exhibits the same bias.
- Compare a news agency with itself across across independent variables. This is what Bozell does in a few of the pieces I mention. He looks for two similar events with a specific change in one variable. For instance, Pres. Obama plagiarizing in 2008 and Ms. Trump plagiarizing in 2016. He then looks at network news coverage. How much coverage was devoted in 2008? How much was devoted in 2016? He quantifies the difference between the two numbers and, in defense of his hypothesis, presents it as evidence of bias in the major cable networks.
Critics might say there are too many variables, that correlation doesn't imply causation, that there are other reasons to explain the discrepancy, or even that the discrepancy is a statistical anomaly. These are all reasonable objections. Claiming that these kinds of comparisons are invalid prima facie is not a reasonable objection, and that's what you seem to be saying in paragraph 4.
- Compare a news agency to prevailing public sentiment or some other control. Take a broad census of where Americans, for instance, stand on various issues, rating each issue on as many scales and axes as desired. Develop a rubric for evaluating news pieces, etc. on these same axes. This could include number of favourable and unfavourable statements, keyword counts, time spent on issues and aspects of those issues, number of experts cited pro- and con-, number of op eds devoted pro- and con-, etc., etc. Rate a sufficient corpus of work to get statistically significant results and see how the agency compares to the control group (in this case the public at large). Again, this is a perfectly valid method for determining bias.
Paragraph 5. I consider "the media" to include publications like The Atlantic, Huffington Post, etc. with print publications in wide circulation. However, what matters is what Mr. Bozell and the MRC are calling "the media". The pieces on the MRC homepage all seem to concern network and cable news stations, hence we'll limit the discussion to these for now. You get your wish. Paragraph 6. I have no problem discussing the issue so long as we're agreed on what "the issue" is. You're the one who's gone off on the MRC and Bozell specifically every time the issue is raised. The only other name you've ever mentioned is "Goldberg"--once. One final thing: I seem to recall from past discussions that you have an esoteric (this wasn't my first choice of word; I'm being nice here) definition of "bias". Hence let's make sure we're on the same page about what bias is and what it isn't. Bias generally is defined as "A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment." In particular, note that there is no requirement that bias be comparative or relativistic (i.e. free of absolutes). Also note that I have never once seen it saddled with this implication. Anywhere. Define agency bias as the following: the tendency or inclination of a media outlet to i) supplement raw objective fact with analysis and conclusions, ii) omit details and exposition, iii) consistently under-report (or fail to report) stories that reasonably fall within the scope of the outlet, and iv) editorialize (i.e. publish opinion and/or human interest pieces intended to evoke an emotional reaction from the reader/viewer) in a way that conveys to the consumer not only what has happened but also i) what consumers should "reasonably" think, ii) how consumers should "reasonably" react, and iii) which events consumers should "reasonably" consider important vs. unimportant Define media bias as: agency bias persistently exhibited by the majority (70% or more) of agencies in a specific population (e.g. US cable/network news) Define leftist media bias (or if you prefer, neoliberal media bias) as media bias pertaining to the promotion of positive/receptive/adoptive consumer attitudes towards: carbon credits, trust in state-approved experts (and distrust of non-experts), big government (greater reliance on government, expanded government powers, expanded size of government, increased trust in government), deviancy (in particular, sexual deviancy), globalism, supranational government, and "change for the sake of change"; and promotion of negative/dismissive/hostile attitudes towards: religion (Christianity in particular), conservatism (including fiscal conservatism and belt-tightening), traditionalism, men (and male characteristics), and (predictably) belief in the existence of media bias My best assessment is that the above definition, while differing from what MRC calls "liberal media bias" in a few key regards, is close enough that we can also consider it to be "their" definition of media bias for sake of this discussion. If you disagree with this, let me know.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,342
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 27, 2016 22:11:30 GMT -5
i am working late tonight, so i might not have time- but my premise is that Bozell's position on the media is the same as Paul's: that the media is dominated by left leaning Democrats, pushing their agenda, and excluding right wing perspectives. and, like i say, he has a REASON for thinking that- it just happens to be wrong. as to your statement on comparative analysis, you're wrong. he doesn't compare. he only shows one side. here is what i mean by a meaningful comparison: first of all, you identify a publication that is "left wing". it is not as easy as it sounds. in fact, in cable news, it is almost impossible. secondly, you identify a publication that is "right wing". again, in cable news, i would describe that as almost impossible. (i can explain why i think it is almost impossible later, if you like) third, you find a story that is not just regurgitated from news farms like AP. if you can't find one, then you ALSO won't be able to show bias, since the stories are pretty much word for word identical. this is getting more and more difficult over time, for reasons i can explain. finally, you compare the right wing and left wing reporting on the same story. what Bozell and others like him do is compare their perceived "bias" against the PREMISE, which is, in itself, a form of "confirmation bias". he needs to compare WaPo to, say, WT, in order to get a good analysis. Bozell literally never does this. you have to actually be interested in bias to do that, because it is WORK, and he is not really interested in working to make his point, imo. but furthermore, if he actually did that, he would find that the bias is not what he thinks it is. and i never said that the media "can't" be biased in other ways- only that it isn't biased in the particular way that Bozell says it is. but let's be clear about what i mean by "the media" here: i mean the MSM- primarily cable news. print and private subscriber media not only can be biased, they are in some cases necessarily biased- POLITICALLY. that is why they are easier to analyze than the MSM in this respect. people who subscribe to The Atlantic are PAYING for a perspective. a perspective which aligns with their own. that is way different than bulk consumer news (which is what i am taking about when i say MSM). i am not going to troll around Bozell's sites looking for quotes, Virgil. i am more interested in the issue than this individual. if you want to discuss the issue, i am all about that. hopefully, if you understand where i am coming from on the issue, you will get why i loathe Bozell fairly easily. OK. Wow. Where to begin. Paragraph 3, your vision of a "meaningful comparison": I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt. I have no idea what you mean by the first two lines. There isn't a soul in YMAM who'll agree with you that it's "almost impossible" to find a left wing news outlet or right wing news outlet in the US, even if we confine ourselves to network and cable news. If you can find somebody who does, I'll hug a snow leopard. Hence you're going to have to define what "left wing" and "right wing" mean in your world. I do understand your "third" criterion about not picking canned stories off news wires, although, as I'm sure you're aware, even wire pieces can be biased. Paragraph 4. Again I have no idea what you mean by the first sentence. You say the MRC is comparing their 'perceived "bias"' against 'the PREMISE'. Forgive me, but I just... I got nothing. You've out-riddled me. Are you trying to say that Bozell et al. use an absolute baseline instead of a comparative one, and that this methodology is necessarily flawed? For example, Bozell might start out with the belief that any decent news piece covering Ms. Trump's plagiarism ought to include a statistic on what percentage of the speech was plagiarized, and he incorrectly (in your view) labels any news agency that fails to include this statistic as "biased"? If so, there are several serious problems with this argument. I won't get into them here because this is me wildly guessing at what you're trying to say. Let's pin that down first. You later say "[Bozell] needs to compare WaPo to, say, WT, in order to get a good analysis". No he doesn't. Where does this idea even come from? I'll admit he can rely on this kind of analysis, and that in some situations it may be the most relevant kind of analysis, but there are many other kinds to choose from. Just a few offhand: - Develop a rubric on the financial and humanitarian impact of various aspects of a story, quantifying "magnitude of importance" and "magnitude of impact", and rate news agencies based on the time they devote to reporting on these aspects. For example, if an earthquake in Iraq kills 100,00 people and a news agency devotes only two columns to reporting on it, most of which is spent talking about damage to the US embassy in Iraq, this would be an excellent point in favour of establishing US-centric bias, even if every last news agency on Earth exhibits the same bias.
- Compare a news agency with itself across across independent variables. This is what Bozell does in a few of the pieces I mention. He looks for two similar events with a specific change in one variable. For instance, Pres. Obama plagiarizing in 2008 and Ms. Trump plagiarizing in 2016. He then looks at network news coverage. How much coverage was devoted in 2008? How much was devoted in 2016? He quantifies the difference between the two numbers and, in defense of his hypothesis, presents it as evidence of bias in the major cable networks.
Critics might say there are too many variables, that correlation doesn't imply causation, that there are other reasons to explain the discrepancy, or even that the discrepancy is a statistical anomaly. These are all reasonable objections. Claiming that these kinds of comparisons are invalid prima facie is not a reasonable objection, and that's what you seem to be saying in paragraph 4.
- Compare a news agency to prevailing public sentiment or some other control. Take a broad census of where Americans, for instance, stand on various issues, rating each issue on as many scales and axes as desired. Develop a rubric for evaluating news pieces, etc. on these same axes. This could include number of favourable and unfavourable statements, keyword counts, time spent on issues and aspects of those issues, number of experts cited pro- and con-, number of op eds devoted pro- and con-, etc., etc. Rate a sufficient corpus of work to get statistically significant results and see how the agency compares to the control group (in this case the public at large). Again, this is a perfectly valid method for determining bias.
Paragraph 5. I consider "the media" to include publications like The Atlantic, Huffington Post, etc. with print publications in wide circulation. However, what matters is what Mr. Bozell and the MRC are calling "the media". The pieces on the MRC homepage all seem to concern network and cable news stations, hence we'll limit the discussion to these for now. You get your wish. Paragraph 6. I have no problem discussing the issue so long as we're agreed on what "the issue" is. You're the one who's gone off on the MRC and Bozell specifically every time the issue is raised. The only other name you've ever mentioned is "Goldberg"--once. One final thing: I seem to recall from past discussions that you have an esoteric (this wasn't my first choice of word; I'm being nice here) definition of "bias". Hence let's make sure we're on the same page about what bias is and what it isn't. Bias generally is defined as "A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment." In particular, note that there is no requirement that bias be comparative or relativistic (i.e. free of absolutes). Also note that I have never once seen it saddled with this implication. Anywhere. Define agency bias as the following: the tendency or inclination of a media outlet to i) supplement raw objective fact with analysis and conclusions, ii) omit details and exposition, iii) consistently under-report (or fail to report) stories that reasonably fall within the scope of the outlet, and iv) editorialize (i.e. publish opinion and/or human interest pieces intended to evoke an emotional reaction from the reader/viewer) in a way that conveys to the consumer not only what has happened but also i) what consumers should "reasonably" think, ii) how consumers should "reasonably" react, and iii) which events consumers should "reasonably" consider important vs. unimportant Define media bias as: agency bias persistently exhibited by the majority (70% or more) of agencies in a specific population (e.g. US cable/network news) Define leftist media bias (or if you prefer, neoliberal media bias) as media bias pertaining to the promotion of positive/receptive/adoptive consumer attitudes towards: carbon credits, trust in state-approved experts (and distrust of non-experts), big government (greater reliance on government, expanded government powers, expanded size of government, increased trust in government), deviancy (in particular, sexual deviancy), globalism, supranational government, and "change for the sake of change"; and promotion of negative/dismissive/hostile attitudes towards: religion (Christianity in particular), conservatism (including fiscal conservatism and belt-tightening), traditionalism, men (and male characteristics), and (predictably) belief in the existence of media bias My best assessment is that the above definition, while differing from what MRC calls "liberal media bias" in a few key regards, is close enough that we can also consider it to be "their" definition of media bias for sake of this discussion. If you disagree with this, let me know. PPG3: i specifically asked you if you wanted me to explain the remark. no need for you to get all incredulous. however, your comment about wire reports shows how little you understood what i wrote in this paragraph. THE BIAS IN AP HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ANALYSIS. PPG4: let's just forget the whole thing, here. i didn't suggest anything about the perceived bias of the MRC. is that what you thought i was saying? PPG5: i don't. private or subscriber media is not part of the MSM. the MSM consists mostly of "the big six", who have more than 50% market in each media they serve. FMI, you can try the wiki page. that works fine for me: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream_mediaPPG6: i will go with this for bias: bi·as ˈbīəs/ noun noun: bias; plural noun: biases 1. prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,342
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 27, 2016 22:18:02 GMT -5
PS- thanks for all of the effort, and sorry i can't duplicate it. i have too much going on right now. i appreciate your interest in the subject. i will keep my responses shorter in the hopes of keeping yours shorter.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,342
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 27, 2016 23:02:09 GMT -5
please forgive me for quoting you out of context here, but i need to address this one point, as it is key to us having an understanding:
paraphrasing you, we should compare the plagiarism from 2008 and 2016.
no. that would be a poor measure of political bias (which is the kind of bias that Bozell concerns himself with). allow me to explain why.
first of all, the situation in 2008 and 2016 might be entirely different. maybe everyone loved plagiarism in 2008, and hated it in 2016. the fact that there is 8 years separation between the two events means that the time and place has to also factor in, which creates inaccuracies in the analysis. second, if the news cycle in 2008 was focused on the financial collapse or other issues during that time, it might not have given much attention to an issue such as plagiarism even if it were important. attention-grabbing moments in the news can steal the oxygen even from important stories. third, if all news agencies reported the two events the same, that is not biased reporting. this is actually the most important factor. the ONLY way to show POLITICAL bias is to demonstrate that one journal, noted for it's right leaning reporting, reports it with a different POLITICAL slant than a left leaning journal reports the same story. otherwise, what you are showing is some other kind of bias, but it is not political (which, again, i would argue, is what Bozell is claiming). and yeah, there are some OTHER observable biases in the media, but they are not "political".
i realize that you probably think that i am being weirdly narrow about what Bozell's interests are, but i am not. i followed him like a hawk from 2003-2008. and i can assure you that 99% of his interest is "exposing liberal (political) media bias". that's it. i guess the next thing that comes up is what he means by liberal. that's actually really easy too, because i know when this all started, how, and why.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 28, 2016 5:59:09 GMT -5
PPG3: i specifically asked you if you wanted me to explain the remark. no need for you to get all incredulous. however, your comment about wire reports shows how little you understood what i wrote in this paragraph. THE BIAS IN AP HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ANALYSIS. PPG4: let's just forget the whole thing, here. i didn't suggest anything about the perceived bias of the MRC. is that what you thought i was saying? PPG5: i don't. private or subscriber media is not part of the MSM. the MSM consists mostly of "the big six", who have more than 50% market in each media they serve. FMI, you can try the wiki page. that works fine for me: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream_mediaPPG6: i will go with this for bias: bi·as ˈbīəs/ noun noun: bias; plural noun: biases 1. prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair. P3. Bias in the media is embedded in the four factors I enumerate: i) supplementation of raw objective fact with analysis and conclusions, ii) omission of details and exposition, iii) consistently under-reporting (or failing to report) stories that reasonably fall within agency scope, iv) editorializing. For news wire pieces, iv is off-limits, hence we're limited to the first three types. Generally speaking, news wires are far less biased than the USMSM. Their biggest problem is bias of type iii: often failing to report on stories that they reasonably ought to be reporting on. P4. The first sentence in P4 is "what Bozell and others like him do is compare their perceived 'bias' against the PREMISE, which is, in itself, a form of 'confirmation bias'." I don't know what this means. Please reword and give an example of what you mean. P5. Agreed. P6. This matches the general definition of bias I give, but I think you should consider the three additional definitions I give. In particular, agency bias. please forgive me for quoting you out of context here, but i need to address this one point, as it is key to us having an understanding: paraphrasing you, we should compare the plagiarism from 2008 and 2016.no. that would be a poor measure of political bias (which is the kind of bias that Bozell concerns himself with). allow me to explain why. first of all, the situation in 2008 and 2016 might be entirely different. maybe everyone loved plagiarism in 2008, and hated it in 2016. the fact that there is 8 years separation between the two events means that the time and place has to also factor in, which creates inaccuracies in the analysis. second, if the news cycle in 2008 was focused on the financial collapse or other issues during that time, it might not have given much attention to an issue such as plagiarism even if it were important. attention-grabbing moments in the news can steal the oxygen even from important stories. third, if all news agencies reported the two events the same, that is not biased reporting. this is actually the most important factor. the ONLY way to show POLITICAL bias is to demonstrate that one journal, noted for it's right leaning reporting, reports it with a different POLITICAL slant than a left leaning journal reports the same story. otherwise, what you are showing is some other kind of bias, but it is not political (which, again, i would argue, is what Bozell is claiming). and yeah, there are some OTHER observable biases in the media, but they are not "political". i realize that you probably think that i am being weirdly narrow about what Bozell's interests are, but i am not. i followed him like a hawk from 2003-2008. and i can assure you that 99% of his interest is "exposing liberal (political) media bias". that's it. i guess the next thing that comes up is what he means by liberal. that's actually really easy too, because i know when this all started, how, and why. I don't mind you quoting me piecemeal. I welcome it. I could only wish you didn't have a problem with it. It forces me to paraphrase and makes it a colossal pain in the neck to hone in on the specific statement(s) in your posts I want to address. Moving on. Your first and second points are the kind of criticisms I mention under "2. Compare a news agency with itself across independent variables." To wit: "Critics might say there are too many variables, that correlation doesn't imply causation, that there are other reasons to explain the discrepancy, or even that the discrepancy is a statistical anomaly." This is precisely what you're doing here. You're saying there are too many variables, other reasons to explain the discrepancy, etc. These kinds of confounding factors plague all sciences, especially the soft sciences. A common way of working around them in defense of a hypothesis is by showing consistency over a wide range of variables, which amounts to factoring out these variables. Hence, Bozell doesn't just look at one scandal, he looks at as many scandals as he can where baseline situations are comparable. Perhaps he finds 20 Congressmen-cheating-on-wives stories, 10 plagiarism stories, 30 city-councilor-with-his-hand-in-the-cookie-jar stories, etc., and in each case finds that Republicans are pounded far harder and far longer than Democrats. Now it's much harder for critics to fall back to "it could be a shift in public appetite for scandal or lack of oxygen or ...", especially when the corpus of work being evaluated is large and selection criteria are clearly defined. One case in point: "For four months, from November 1, 2013 through February 28, 2014, the Media Research Center undertook just such scrutiny, analyzing nearly 1,000 U.S. and international issue- oriented news stories aired on the flagship weekday evening newscasts of Univision and Telemundo (Noticiero Univision and Noticiero Telemundo)." I don't care what you think, a thousand news stories on prime time newscasts over four months is a big pool of data. The conclusions bear examining. One outstanding problem is selection bias. This is a grievance I have with snopes.com. I can certainly believe that the MRC engages in selection bias, cherry picking only the side-by-side comparisons that support their hypothesis, however i) you've presented zero evidence to support this claim, ii) I see evidence (such as the article above) suggesting the MRC does try to obtain large and representative samples, and iii) you readily cite and endorse critical pieces by snopes, politico.com, PolitiFact, HUffPo, WaPo, thinkprogress.org, etc., which I'm sure you're aware have marked selection biases of their own. You demonstrably have no problem with it there. With the MRC it's "damn those bleeping bleepers to the depths of Hades; how dare they". Night and day. That's what started this whole line of inquiry. As for "POLITICAL bias", you're going to have to define it. Many of the items in my definition of leftist media bias are political, and you seem to be saying that Bozell really isn't interested in any of these. Do you mean that he only concerns himself with Democrat and Republican? If so, how do you explain the piece on the MRC homepage critical of Hollywood climate hypocrisy? Democrats and Republicans aren't so much as mentioned in it. Likewise for the critique of Businessweek's puff piece on Warren Buffet right on the homepage, and many more stories besides, I'm sure.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,342
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 28, 2016 11:37:34 GMT -5
PPG3: i specifically asked you if you wanted me to explain the remark. no need for you to get all incredulous. however, your comment about wire reports shows how little you understood what i wrote in this paragraph. THE BIAS IN AP HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ANALYSIS. PPG4: let's just forget the whole thing, here. i didn't suggest anything about the perceived bias of the MRC. is that what you thought i was saying? PPG5: i don't. private or subscriber media is not part of the MSM. the MSM consists mostly of "the big six", who have more than 50% market in each media they serve. FMI, you can try the wiki page. that works fine for me: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream_mediaPPG6: i will go with this for bias: bi·as ˈbīəs/ noun noun: bias; plural noun: biases 1. prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair. P3. Bias in the media is embedded in the four factors I enumerate: i) supplementation of raw objective fact with analysis and conclusions, ii) omission of details and exposition, iii) consistently under-reporting (or failing to report) stories that reasonably fall within agency scope, iv) editorializing. For news wire pieces, iv is off-limits, hence we're limited to the first three types. Generally speaking, news wires are far less biased than the USMSM. Their biggest problem is bias of type iii: often failing to report on stories that they reasonably ought to be reporting on. P4. The first sentence in P4 is "what Bozell and others like him do is compare their perceived 'bias' against the PREMISE, which is, in itself, a form of 'confirmation bias'." I don't know what this means. Please reword and give an example of what you mean. P5. Agreed. P6. This matches the general definition of bias I give, but I think you should consider the three additional definitions I give. In particular, agency bias. please forgive me for quoting you out of context here, but i need to address this one point, as it is key to us having an understanding: paraphrasing you, we should compare the plagiarism from 2008 and 2016.no. that would be a poor measure of political bias (which is the kind of bias that Bozell concerns himself with). allow me to explain why. first of all, the situation in 2008 and 2016 might be entirely different. maybe everyone loved plagiarism in 2008, and hated it in 2016. the fact that there is 8 years separation between the two events means that the time and place has to also factor in, which creates inaccuracies in the analysis. second, if the news cycle in 2008 was focused on the financial collapse or other issues during that time, it might not have given much attention to an issue such as plagiarism even if it were important. attention-grabbing moments in the news can steal the oxygen even from important stories. third, if all news agencies reported the two events the same, that is not biased reporting. this is actually the most important factor. the ONLY way to show POLITICAL bias is to demonstrate that one journal, noted for it's right leaning reporting, reports it with a different POLITICAL slant than a left leaning journal reports the same story. otherwise, what you are showing is some other kind of bias, but it is not political (which, again, i would argue, is what Bozell is claiming). and yeah, there are some OTHER observable biases in the media, but they are not "political". i realize that you probably think that i am being weirdly narrow about what Bozell's interests are, but i am not. i followed him like a hawk from 2003-2008. and i can assure you that 99% of his interest is "exposing liberal (political) media bias". that's it. i guess the next thing that comes up is what he means by liberal. that's actually really easy too, because i know when this all started, how, and why. I don't mind you quoting me piecemeal. I welcome it. I could only wish you didn't have a problem with it. It forces me to paraphrase and makes it a colossal pain in the neck to hone in on the specific statement(s) in your posts I want to address. Moving on. Your first and second points are the kind of criticisms I mention under "2. Compare a news agency with itself across independent variables." To wit: "Critics might say there are too many variables, that correlation doesn't imply causation, that there are other reasons to explain the discrepancy, or even that the discrepancy is a statistical anomaly." This is precisely what you're doing here. You're saying there are too many variables, other reasons to explain the discrepancy, etc. These kinds of confounding factors plague all sciences, especially the soft sciences. A common way of working around them in defense of a hypothesis is by showing consistency over a wide range of variables, which amounts to factoring out these variables. Hence, Bozell doesn't just look at one scandal, he looks at as many scandals as he can where baseline situations are comparable. Perhaps he finds 20 Congressmen-cheating-on-wives stories, 10 plagiarism stories, 30 city-councilor-with-his-hand-in-the-cookie-jar stories, etc., and in each case finds that Republicans are pounded far harder and far longer than Democrats. Now it's much harder for critics to fall back to "it could be a shift in public appetite for scandal or lack of oxygen or ...", especially when the corpus of work being evaluated is large and selection criteria are clearly defined. One case in point: "For four months, from November 1, 2013 through February 28, 2014, the Media Research Center undertook just such scrutiny, analyzing nearly 1,000 U.S. and international issue- oriented news stories aired on the flagship weekday evening newscasts of Univision and Telemundo (Noticiero Univision and Noticiero Telemundo)." I don't care what you think, a thousand news stories on prime time newscasts over four months is a big pool of data. The conclusions bear examining. One outstanding problem is selection bias. This is a grievance I have with snopes.com. I can certainly believe that the MRC engages in selection bias, cherry picking only the side-by-side comparisons that support their hypothesis, however i) you've presented zero evidence to support this claim, ii) I see evidence (such as the article above) suggesting the MRC does try to obtain large and representative samples, and iii) you readily cite and endorse critical pieces by snopes, politico.com, PolitiFact, HUffPo, WaPo, thinkprogress.org, etc., which I'm sure you're aware have marked selection biases of their own. You demonstrably have no problem with it there. With the MRC it's "damn those bleeping bleepers to the depths of Hades; how dare they". Night and day. That's what started this whole line of inquiry. As for "POLITICAL bias", you're going to have to define it. Many of the items in my definition of leftist media bias are political, and you seem to be saying that Bozell really isn't interested in any of these. Do you mean that he only concerns himself with Democrat and Republican? If so, how do you explain the piece on the MRC homepage critical of Hollywood climate hypocrisy? Democrats and Republicans aren't so much as mentioned in it. Likewise for the critique of Businessweek's puff piece on Warren Buffet right on the homepage, and many more stories besides, I'm sure. P3: if we are discussing Bozell, we should focus on political bias. it is the only kind of bias that he is concerned with. P4: when i meant "their perceived bias" i meant it in the same sense as "their pet". in other words, "political bias in the media". if your conclusion is that "there is a left wing political bias in the media" then yes, it merits discussion. that is what this thread is for. let me know where you want to go with this given the above, and i will take it up as time allows.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 18, 2024 18:15:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2016 12:38:30 GMT -5
I don't agree with the goal. I'm sick of political correctness. And it's goal, or what you perceive it as. you are sick of the goal of treating people with dignity and respect? i find that difficult to believe. edit: try not to get too distracted by the analogy. if you don't understand the analogy, i can come up with a dozen more. but the point has nothing to do with PC, and everything to do with being a raving hypocrite as well as an elitist (which is what Bozell is). and yeah, i kinda hate that combo. It is getting used for more than just treating people with dignity and respect. I'll digress with that answer as it's getting off topic on this liberal bias in the media thread.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 18, 2024 18:15:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2016 12:44:57 GMT -5
There seems to be a huge lack of coverage by ABC, CBS, and NBC in regards to the huge divide in the DNC. Plenty of coverage about Cruz and then Bush family not showing up at the RNC though. NBC covered it. however most of the other coverage has been with journals that are interested in political stuff. truthfully, i don't think MOST Americans are that interested in conventions. just the political elite. there was more interest in "The Bachelorette" I wasn't concerned about the ratings, as to who was watching it. Just what was covered and the on air time devoted to it.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 28, 2016 13:08:47 GMT -5
P3: if we are discussing Bozell, we should focus on political bias. it is the only kind of bias that he is concerned with. P4: when i meant "their perceived bias" i meant it in the same sense as "their pet". in other words, "political bias in the media". if your conclusion is that "there is a left wing political bias in the media" then yes, it merits discussion. that is what this thread is for. let me know where you want to go with this given the above, and i will take it up as time allows. P3. As I asked before: what is "political bias"? Define it for me. P4. I intuited that this is what you meant by "their perceived bias". What I don't understand is what the statement "what Bozell and others like him do is compare their perceived 'bias' against the PREMISE, which is, in itself, a form of 'confirmation bias'." means. Firstly, you have "their perceived 'bias'" as being one of the two quantities being compared. This makes no sense to me. Bias affects the results of a comparison; it isn't the quantity being compared. Secondly, you have this being compared to "the PREMISE" and I have no clue what "the PREMISE" is. This is the first and only time you've used the word. Thirdly, the clause "which is, in itself, a form of 'confirmation bias'" is dangling. The way you've structured the sentence, I can't tell if it applies to "what Bozell and others like him do" or to "the PREMISE". Rest. My conclusion is that leftist media bias, as I specifically define it in Reply #149, exists in the USMSM. This is the third time I've sensed you're not actually reading and digesting my posts. You're not acknowledging any of my criticisms, definitions, or requests for clarification. You're not answering any of my questions. You're repeating points I've already made. I realize my posts are long, heavy, and time-consuming to digest, but all the detail in them is pertinent. If we're going to have this discussion, you're going to have invest time in reading and digesting them fully. You're also going to have to invest comparable effort in crafting your replies. You can't just phone it in. I expect answers, counterpoints, and a meaningful defense of your position. I get the impression that you really don't want to have this discussion at all due to lack of time, and if that's the case, please tell me so. If you do want to have the discussion and you need time to craft detailed replies, by all means take it. This thread will still be here a week from now, a month from now, a year from now. As long as you don't just drop it without letting me know, meaning my writing is spent in vain, please take as long as you need. I understand.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,342
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 28, 2016 14:24:50 GMT -5
you are sick of the goal of treating people with dignity and respect? i find that difficult to believe. edit: try not to get too distracted by the analogy. if you don't understand the analogy, i can come up with a dozen more. but the point has nothing to do with PC, and everything to do with being a raving hypocrite as well as an elitist (which is what Bozell is). and yeah, i kinda hate that combo. It is getting used for more than just treating people with dignity and respect. I'll digress with that answer as it's getting off topic on this liberal bias in the media thread. thanks. i invite that discussion.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,342
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 28, 2016 14:28:18 GMT -5
P3: if we are discussing Bozell, we should focus on political bias. it is the only kind of bias that he is concerned with. P4: when i meant "their perceived bias" i meant it in the same sense as "their pet". in other words, "political bias in the media". if your conclusion is that "there is a left wing political bias in the media" then yes, it merits discussion. that is what this thread is for. let me know where you want to go with this given the above, and i will take it up as time allows. P3. As I asked before: what is "political bias"? Define it for me. P4. I intuited that this is what you meant by "their perceived bias". What I don't understand is what the statement "what Bozell and others like him do is compare their perceived 'bias' against the PREMISE, which is, in itself, a form of 'confirmation bias'." means. Firstly, you have "their perceived 'bias'" as being one of the two quantities being compared. This makes no sense to me. Bias affects the results of a comparison; it isn't the quantity being compared. Secondly, you have this being compared to "the PREMISE" and I have no clue what "the PREMISE" is. This is the first and only time you've used the word. Thirdly, the clause "which is, in itself, a form of 'confirmation bias'" is dangling. The way you've structured the sentence, I can't tell if it applies to "what Bozell and others like him do" or to "the PREMISE". Rest. My conclusion is that leftist media bias, as I specifically define it in Reply #149, exists in the USMSM. This is the third time I've sensed you're not actually reading and digesting my posts. You're not acknowledging any of my criticisms, definitions, or requests for clarification. You're not answering any of my questions. You're repeating points I've already made. I realize my posts are long, heavy, and time-consuming to digest, but all the detail in them is pertinent. If we're going to have this discussion, you're going to have invest time in reading and digesting them fully. You're also going to have to invest comparable effort in crafting your replies. You can't just phone it in. I expect answers, counterpoints, and a meaningful defense of your position. I get the impression that you really don't want to have this discussion at all due to lack of time, and if that's the case, please tell me so. If you do want to have the discussion and you need time to craft detailed replies, by all means take it. This thread will still be here a week from now, a month from now, a year from now. As long as you don't just drop it without letting me know, meaning my writing is spent in vain, please take as long as you need. I understand. the perceived "political bias" is that that reporting is "liberal" (which is a term Bozell uses to denote "left wing" or "biased toward Democrats"). edit: what i mean by "confirmation bias" is that he doesn't bother to check right wing publications for the treatment of the story (at least he never did during the survey period that i watched his antics, 2003-2008), he only checked "left wing" sources (with a sort of remarkable obsession with the NYT). it is kind of the equivalent of combing through the scientific journals looking for people that don't think the earth is warming, running that 3% up the flagpole as if it were God's Only Truth, and ignoring the other 97%. it actually proves NOTHING, other than the fact that you are not really interested in the facts. as to the rest of your post, i already told you i have limited time right now. when i sense we are off on the wrong foot, i give a short reply and move on. i want to have a discussion- but i would rather limit it to Bozell and the PREMISE, if that is OK with you? we can move on to other stuff later, if you wish, but just to let you know- we probably have significant agreement outside of (perhaps) this ONE area.
|
|