Skip to comments.Fair? Balanced? A Study Finds It Does Not Matter
Posted on 08/17/2005 7:51:31 PM PDT by Bodero
THE share of Americans who believe that news organizations are "politically biased in their reporting" increased to 60 percent in 2005, up from 45 percent in 1985, according to polls by the Pew Research Center.
Many people also believe that biased reporting influences who wins or loses elections. A new study by Stefano DellaVigna of the University of California, Berkeley, and Ethan Kaplan of the Institute for International Economic Studies at Stockholm University, however, casts doubt on this view. Specifically, the economists ask whether the advent of the Fox News Channel, Rupert Murdoch's cable television network, affected voter behavior. They found that Fox had no detectable effect on which party people voted for, or whether they voted at all.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Well, NY Times, at least you're smart enough to do one thing right: pander to your base, since they're the only ones likely to hang on to your rag.
An appealing feature of their study is that it does not matter if Fox News represents the political center and the rest of the media the liberal wing, or Fox represents the extreme right and the rest of the media the middle. Fox's political orientation is clearly to the right of the rest of the media. Research has found, for example, that Fox News is much more likely than other news shows to cite conservative think tanks and less likely to cite liberal ones.
"Research has found" that Cindy Sheehan is a nutjob puppet. Thus, it is true. Thanks for your non-attributed and anecdotal facts.
You're even uglier in person than you are on the 'Net! ;-)
And this column by Alan B. Krueger is straight-forward and totally unbiased, LMAO!
Where else but in the former "paper of record" would you find something this silly?
Seriously, though - - since Krueger is so blinded by his own partisan liberalism that he apparently believes that before Fox there was no "partisan perspective" in political coverage on television, reading anything further by the guy is a complete waste of time.
A politically biased article about politically biased reporting, from none other than the New York Times. Go figure.
The term "liberal think-tank" is an oxymoron. "Liberal emotion-tank" might come close
I guess now we know why the Times is buying huge blocks of ad space to sell mail in subscriptions. Mail in subscriptions are the least profitable and the least likely to re up. Truth is if your fishing heavy in that pond you've got problems at your paper.
Fracking bed wetters. Can't they ever learn a new tune?!
Hmmm. "Liberal feel-tank"?
How about "Liberal unthink-tank"?
Or for the ultimate in Orwellian flair: "Liberal doublethink-tank"!
That most people don't care what birdcage liner says these days.
That most people don't care what birdcage liner says these days.
D'ya see the article on Drudge re. that Hollyweird is gonna stop advertising movies in the papers cause nobody reads em anymore.
So many results - too many to list in fact. Those results came as no surprise - democrat contributors, including the real nutjobs - Dean, MoveOn, ACT, Emily's List, etc. There weren't visible republican numbers among the faculty. That leads me to conclude that Prof. Krueger is similarly disengaged from reality and is not an impartial evaluator of the facts in this topic. That might explain his gratutious assertion that "Fox surely injected a new partisan perspective into political coverage on television."
I don't remember, but I think it was the Fox network which knowingly aired some fabricated memos as legitimate historical documents - in an obvious effort to damage G.W. Bush.
Now if only people would stop feeding on their swill....
I specifically remember reading about the "research" regarding think tanks.
It was done at Stanford, and it compared and contrasted how often various media networks cite conservative vs. liberal think tanks, and compared this to how often these think tanks are cited in congress.
The concluded that Fox cited both liberal and conservative think tanks at about the same rate as congress, while the other networks cited liberal think tanks far more often than conservative ones, and at a disproportionate rate to how they are mentioned in congress.
Far be it from the Grey Lady to truthfully report what the "research" actually said...
Instead of reporting the fact that the research indicated that all the networks were far to the left of the mainstream and disproportionately cite liberal think tanks, they try to imply that the research indicated bias on Fox' part.
Someone should dig this one up...
Here is the research the Times is referring to:
Here is the conclusion of the research that the Times spins as indicative of Fox News' bias:
Although we expected to find that most media lean left, we were astounded by the degree. A norm among journalists is to present both sides of the issue. Consequently, while we expected members of Congress to cite primarily think tanks that are on the same side of the ideological spectrum as they are, we expected journalists to practice a much more balanced citation practice, even if the journalists own ideology opposed the think tanks that he or she is sometimes citing. This was not always the case. Most of the mainstream media outlets that we examined (ie all those besides Drudge Report and Fox News Special Report) were closer to the average Democrat in Congress than they were to the median member of the House.
are they admitting that they are an arm of the liberals?
Now would the following statement also be true:
"Research has found, for example, that the NY Times is much less likely than other news media to cite conservative think tanks and more likely to cite liberal ones."?
Actually they think and plot, to play on your emotions, not theirs. Do you really think Hillary or Teddy have any emotions to steer their moral compass? Sheeesh, and Bill Clinton's only brain is in his little head. His big head is an echo chamber.
They don't play on my emotions, they play on the emotions of the simple minded.
Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my FoxFan list. *Warning: This can be a high-volume ping list at times.
Thanks for the ping!
So the morons in hollywood think noone is going to the theater to see their filth because by not reading the rags we don't know they exist anymore?? or something like that
The Liberal Media
Every Poll Shows Journalists Are More Liberal than
the American Public And the Public Knows It
YEAH YEAH what NY Liars WHATEVER
Don't be such a girlie reporters
No one who reads that rag could have any doubt about the fact that their firm position is that there is no opinion that matters but theirs.
I pray I live to see their doors close and the assets up for auction at sheriff's sale. It's their demise or the demise of the United States, as the two are diametrically opposed in every way.
You can think that at YOUR peril. It has taken my entire life to convince my mother that guns are a force for good, and she is not stupid. Just brainwashed.
You should talk man!
Well, if CNN has 99 liberals on for every 1 conservative and FOX has 50 liberals for every 50 conservatives, FOX is much more likely to have conservatives on than CNN. But so what? FOX is being fair and CNN's not being fair. The Times doesn't care about "fair" - they care about pushing an illusion that creates a lie.
The Times messed up (as usual) by not quoting the percentages of times other networks quote liberal sources compared to conservative sources.