Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fair? Balanced? A Study Finds It Does Not Matter
NY Times ^ | August 18, 2005 | ALAN B. KRUEGER

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: biased; foxnews; liberalmedia; nytimes
Keep digging your grave, NY Times. I love this article. A seemingly innocuous headline, yet after the second paragraph, it's just a typical tirade against the Fox News Channel.

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.

1 posted on 08/17/2005 7:51:32 PM PDT by Bodero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: American_Centurion

You're even uglier in person than you are on the 'Net! ;-)


2 posted on 08/17/2005 7:58:55 PM PDT by Coop (www.heroesandtraitors.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bodero
Fox surely injected a new partisan perspective into political coverage on television.

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.

3 posted on 08/17/2005 8:06:18 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bodero

A politically biased article about politically biased reporting, from none other than the New York Times. Go figure.


4 posted on 08/17/2005 8:06:37 PM PDT by PistolPaknMama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bodero

The term "liberal think-tank" is an oxymoron. "Liberal emotion-tank" might come close


5 posted on 08/17/2005 8:11:27 PM PDT by agitator (...And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coop

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.


6 posted on 08/17/2005 8:14:08 PM PDT by kublia khan (absolute war brings total victory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bodero

Fracking bed wetters. Can't they ever learn a new tune?!


7 posted on 08/17/2005 8:18:57 PM PDT by mercy (never again a patsy for Bill Gates - spyware and viri free for over TWO YEARS now)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bodero
The Gray Lady is fading to black
8 posted on 08/17/2005 8:23:56 PM PDT by ditto h
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: agitator
"Liberal emotion-tank" might come close

Hmmm. "Liberal feel-tank"?

How about "Liberal unthink-tank"?

Or for the ultimate in Orwellian flair: "Liberal doublethink-tank"!

9 posted on 08/17/2005 8:28:22 PM PDT by Oberon (What does it take to make government shrink?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Bodero
"Research has found..."

That most people don't care what birdcage liner says these days.

10 posted on 08/17/2005 8:30:31 PM PDT by WestVirginiaRebel (Carnac: A siren, a baby and a liberal. Answer: Name three things that whine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bodero
"Research has found..."

That most people don't care what birdcage liner says these days.

11 posted on 08/17/2005 8:30:43 PM PDT by WestVirginiaRebel (Carnac: A siren, a baby and a liberal. Answer: Name three things that whine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WestVirginiaRebel

D'ya see the article on Drudge re. that Hollyweird is gonna stop advertising movies in the papers cause nobody reads em anymore.


12 posted on 08/17/2005 8:33:02 PM PDT by mercy (never again a patsy for Bill Gates - spyware and viri free for over TWO YEARS now)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Bodero
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...Fox takes pride in presenting news items that other organizations try to hide, er, a, make that overlook. Since other organizations are so biased toward the left, Fox ends up presenting lots of conservative material - libs would do well not to argue this point too vehemently.......
13 posted on 08/17/2005 8:38:08 PM PDT by Intolerant in NJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bodero
Alan B. Krueger didn't come up in my opensecrets search, but I did perform a search with the only criteria being Princeton as the employment.

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.

14 posted on 08/17/2005 8:40:12 PM PDT by Sgt_Schultze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mercy
....Hollyweird is gonna stop advertising movies in the papers cause nobody reads em anymore.

Now if only people would stop feeding on their swill....

15 posted on 08/17/2005 8:57:29 PM PDT by JoJo Gunn (Help control the Leftist population. Have them spayed or neutered. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Sgt_Schultze

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...


16 posted on 08/17/2005 8:58:18 PM PDT by Chameleon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Chameleon

Here is the research the Times is referring to:

http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/MediaBias.doc

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 journalist’s 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.


17 posted on 08/17/2005 9:03:22 PM PDT by Chameleon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Bodero

are they admitting that they are an arm of the liberals?


18 posted on 08/17/2005 9:06:06 PM PDT by Echo Talon (http://echotalon.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bodero
"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.

Do tell.

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."?

19 posted on 08/17/2005 9:08:03 PM PDT by Redbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: agitator

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.


20 posted on 08/17/2005 9:21:31 PM PDT by kylaka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: kylaka

They don't play on my emotions, they play on the emotions of the simple minded.


21 posted on 08/17/2005 9:37:37 PM PDT by agitator (...And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: StarFan; Dutchy; Timesink; VPMWife78; Gracey; Alamo-Girl; RottiBiz; FoxGirl; Mr. Bob; xflisa; ...
FoxFan ping!

Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my FoxFan list. *Warning: This can be a high-volume ping list at times.

22 posted on 08/17/2005 9:41:38 PM PDT by nutmeg ("We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." - Hillary Clinton 6/28/04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nutmeg

Thanks for the ping!


23 posted on 08/17/2005 9:43:32 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: JoJo Gunn
....Hollyweird is gonna stop advertising movies in the papers cause nobody reads em anymore.

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

24 posted on 08/17/2005 9:44:14 PM PDT by DeepInTheHeartOfTexas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Bodero

http://www.mrc.org/specialreports/2004/sum/sum063004.asp

The Liberal Media
Every Poll Shows Journalists Are More Liberal than
the American Public — And the Public Knows It






By Rich Noyes
Director of Research
June 30, 2004
Executive Summary

     Over the next four months, the media establishment will play a central role in informing the public about the candidates and the issues. As the countdown to Election Day begins, it is important to remember the journalists who will help establish the campaign agenda are not an all-American mix of Democrats, Republicans and independents, but an elite group whose views veer sharply to the left.

     Surveys over the past 25 years have consistently found that journalists are more liberal than rest of America. This MRC Special Report summarizes the relevant data on journalist attitudes, as well as polling showing how the American public’s recognition of the media’s liberal bias has grown over the years:

*

Journalists Vote for Liberals: Between 1964 and 1992, Republicans won the White House five times compared with three Democratic victories. But if only journalists’ ballots were counted, the Democrats would have won every time.


*

Journalists Say They Are Liberal: Surveys from 1978 to 2004 show that journalists are far more likely to say they are liberal than conservative, and are far more liberal than the public at large.


*

Journalists Reject Conservative Positions: None of the surveys have found that news organizations are populated by independent thinkers who mix liberal and conservative positions. Most journalists offer reflexively liberal answers to practically every question a pollster can imagine. 


*

The Public Recognizes the Bias: Since 1985, the percentage of Americans who perceive a liberal bias has doubled from 22 percent to 45 percent, nearly half the adult population. Even a plurality of Democrats now say the press is liberal.


http://www.mrc.org/SpecialReports/2004/report063004_p2.asp


25 posted on 08/17/2005 9:48:30 PM PDT by april15Bendovr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bodero; All

YEAH YEAH what NY Liars WHATEVER

Don't be such a girlie reporters


26 posted on 08/17/2005 9:52:20 PM PDT by SevenofNine ("Not everybody in, it, for truth, justice, and the American way,"= Det Lennie Briscoe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bodero
It's obvious that the NYT made the editorial decision that "Fair and Balanced" is inconsequential long ago.

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.

27 posted on 08/17/2005 9:54:20 PM PDT by TheClintons-STILLAnti-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: agitator

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.


28 posted on 08/17/2005 9:56:38 PM PDT by kylaka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Coop

You should talk man!


29 posted on 08/18/2005 6:24:23 AM PDT by American_Centurion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bodero
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.

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.

30 posted on 08/18/2005 8:15:58 AM PDT by GOPJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson