Posted on 03/13/2008 3:25:53 PM PDT by Marc Tumin
To those of us paying attention, this is really not news. But they will deny their bias to the bitter end.
While this is a good idea for a study its not well developed yet nor does it have controls.
For example take “Larry Craig” searches of the google news archives.
“Larry Craig” - 18900
“Larry Craig” Republican - 8670
“Larry Craig” sex - 2790
“Larry Craig” sex republican - 1910
So in all Larry Craig mentions over the last 20 years of news the word “republican” was mentioned 46%
But in stories where sex was also mention (and thus was likely to be a scandal story) “republican was mentioned 68% of the time.
Then you’d need to repeat this with various sex scandals from both parties. I don’t doubt there will be a difference but the articles implies its 20% vs 100% and that does not appear to be true.
Spitzer - 138000
Spitzer democrat 7850
spitzer sex 3630
spitzer sex democrat 390
Spitzer went from 6% to 11%
We sit here and act surprised when the liberal drive-by media plays thier silly child like games day in and day out. reader ship is down, audience viewing is down, they can’t even put together a radio show that can stand on it’s own. They need the fairness doctrine to force the government to make the playing field equal cause johnny isn’t playing nice. Let’s keep it up, stop viewing, stop buying, stop listening( if they ever get another shot at a radio station) there are cracks in the china!
Somebody finally reading FR...
Once again...FR on the leading edge
Spitzer is standing on the right, hence the (R). He is identified as a Democrat in the caption.
If you really believe that Google News contains "all Larry Craig mentions over the last 20 years," then there's really no point in trying to take the rest of your analysis seriously.
>>So in all Larry Craig mentions over the last 20 years of news
-
If you really believe that Google News contains “all Larry Craig mentions over the last 20 years,” then there’s really no point in trying to take the rest of your analysis seriously.<<
1. My main point was that a more systematic approach is needed than the author’s. his anecdotes don’t have a lot of value.
2. I used the Google news archive as the handy compilation of MSM news that on the net free. A comprehensive study would examine examine how good a data base that is.
But doesn’t Google news cover exactly the kinds of sources the author accuses of bias and so isn’t that a good place to start?
Google and yahoo and aol are all liberal media outlets. Just take a poll on any of their websites and you’ll see it!
Most states this type of conviction makes you a “Sex Offender” and he will probably have to register himself where ever he ends up. Hopefully after jail time.
i agree wholeheartedly.
2. I used the Google news archive as the handy compilation of MSM news that on the net free. [...] But doesnt Google news cover exactly the kinds of sources the author accuses of bias and so isnt that a good place to start?
Afraid not. The claim made at NewsBusters is about mentions on television, and the Big Three don't put their transcripts online for free. You'd need something like Nexis or a subscription to the individual networks' transcripts. Without spending a bunch of money, I have no way to investigate NB's claims.
Searching Web stories from the same news sources is not comparable. They are written like print stories, to stand for a long time, where television stories -- anchor introductions even more so -- are ephemeral.
The Republican counter-examples are from six and eight months ago, even more difficult to follow up.
I'll also point out that the analysis did not include any print sources, which are far easier to verify; nor does it include CNN, which posts rough transcripts online for free.
You’ve got several good points there.
One more thing — and I think we’re largely in agreement, so I’m not piling on — the methodology of using “sex” as a search term is a bit flawed. A lot of news stories would lead with “prostitution scandal” or “public restroom indecency charges” because they’re much more interesting phrases in a time when people have gotten pretty jaded about “sex scandals.”
>>One more thing and I think were largely in agreement, so Im not piling on the methodology of using sex as a search term is a bit flawed. A lot of news stories would lead with prostitution scandal or public restroom indecency charges because theyre much more interesting phrases in a time when people have gotten pretty jaded about sex scandals.<<
I actually tested several key words, scandal, restroom, prostitution etc. I picked sex since it worked for both Craig and Spitzer but I absolutely agree the key word would need to go beyond “sex” for a good analysis.
1) AFP is a French press agency. Outside the US, Eliot and Silda might not be so obvious.
2) Wire service photo captions are not intended for the general public. Their audience is for editors; they include far more information than anyone is likely to need, so that editors can pick and choose which information their readers need in the contest of their story.
For example, an AP caption might read something like "U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, addresses a crowd at a campaign rally at the IBEW hall in Latrobe, Pennsylvania Thursday, March 13, 2008. Pennsylvania's April 22 primary is the next milestone in a hotly contested race for the Democratic presidential nomination."
The published caption is more likely to be something like "Obama addresses a campaign rally in Pennsylvania Thursday."
When there is a lack of description then you know it is a Democrat, just like when a suspect in a crime isn’t mentioned it’s a black guy (although nowadays, it could also be a hispanic or middle eastern type). And they also sometimes refer to middle eastern/arab/muslim types as asian.
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.