Posted on 07/03/2004 9:05:25 AM PDT by John Jorsett
People trying to persuade others to adopt their views are very likely to cite think-tank experts who agree with them. And the liberal lobbying group Americans for Democratic Action (their description of themselves) regularly grades politicians from 0 to 100 based on their votes on selected issues, with the most liberal members of Congress earning 100.
Two researchers have combined these two disparate ideas to come up with a measure of media bias that doesn't depend on journalists' own perceptions of where they fit on the political spectrum, or on subjective judgments about the philosophical orientation of think tanks. Tim Groseclose, of UCLA and Stanford, and Jeff Milyo of the University of Chicago used data comparing which think tanks various politicians liked to quote and which think tanks various media outlets liked to quote in their news stories to estimate two ADA scores for each media outlet in the study, one based on the number of times a think tank was cited, and the other on the length of the citation.
The media outlets were The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, the three network news shows, Fox News' Special Report and The Drudge Report (the paper is online at www.yale.edu/isps/seminars/american_pol/groseclose.pdf).
"Our results show a very significant liberal bias," they write. "One of our measures found that The Drudge Report is the most centrist of all media outlets in our sample. Our other measure found that Fox News' Special Report is the most centrist." And all three papers, plus NBC and CBS, "were closer to the average Democrat in Congress than to the median member of the House of Representatives." Fair and balanced, anyone? To use a simplified example, they say, suppose there were only two think tanks, and The New York Times cited the liberal one twice as often as the conservative one. Then the newspaper's ADA score would be the same as that of a member of Congress who did the same.
The estimated ADA score for Fox, based on citations, was 35.6. That puts it in the company of Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and a few points below the House median, 39.0. The two highest were The New York Times, at 67.6, and CBS Evening News, at 70.0. The average Republican in Congress has an ADA score of 11.2, and the average Democrat 74.1.
The authors say they expected to find that the mainstream media leaned to the left, but they were "astounded by the degree." So when people say, for example, that The New York Times may be tilted left, but people can compensate for that by watching Fox News, they don't take into account that the Times is much further from the center than Fox. "To gain a balanced perspective, one would need to spend twice as much time watching Special Report as he or she spends reading The New York Times."
Turning the research around also allows the authors to answer the question of which think tanks are liberal or conservative - in most cases everyone knows, but there are some questions. Rand, for instance, comes out pretty much in the middle until they look at it more closely and discover there are, in effect, two Rands; one that does social and political stuff, which is mostly quoted by liberal politicians, and another that does military stuff and is seldom quoted by anybody.
Another anomaly is the American Civil Liberties Union, which turned out much more conservative than anybody really thinks it is; but that proved to be primarily because of its opposition to the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance bill, frequently cited by conservatives.
The predominance of liberals (however identified) in major media is well-documented, but there remains a great deal of controversy over how much that fact influences news reporting (this analysis looks only at news reports, not editorials, reviews or letters to the editor). Most journalists I know say they work hard to keep their personal views out of their news reporting (again, excepting people like me who are supposed to be expressing opinions). And most of them, I'm sure, sincerely believe they succeed. This is evidence that what they succeed best at is sounding like Democrats.
BTTT
http://www.yale.edu/isps/seminars/american_pol/groseclose.pdf
The actual paper.
The reason this statistic is curious and surprising is that many consider the media the watchdog of government, sometimes calling it the “Fourth Branch of American Government.” If so, it is by far the least representative of the branches.These statistics suggest that journalists, as a group, are more liberal than almost any congressional district in the country. For instance, in the Ninth California district, which includes Berkeley, twelve percent voted for Bush, nearly double the rate of journalists. In the Eighth Massachusetts district, which includes Cambridge, nineteen percent voted for Bush, more than triple the rate of journalists. In the 14th California district, which includes Palo Alto, 26 percent voted for Bush, more than four times the rate of journalists.
-------------------
Even hotbeds of liberals do better than the press.
goooollllly! you're fast..
You'll appreciate this, coop....as if we didn't know, but now we can prove it!
Media Bias Ping!
Uhm, No Sh!t Sherlock....
It's not bias, it's an agenda. Big difference.
CE
What offends me is being forced to pay for the liberal propaganda swill on NPR/PBS.
Of course they wouldn't want their sources to be replaced by new ones with a different philosophy. The only liberal broadcast journalist willing to try being fair with the Republicans was Cokie Roberts. If the Republicans can stay in power for 40 years, we will note that the news media will reflect that inclination.
"Next report, researchers surprised by the wetness of water"
Well, the more profound advances often come from looking at the obvious things in a nontrivial way (like the fable of Newton's apple). This piece of research might be coming somewhat short, I'm afraid.
I am so glad for these studies. For a minute there, I thought the mainstream media was centrist!
For me it's all changed over the past 20 years. Before that there were at least a few of the larger media that actually believed in true journalism; sources used to base the delivery of a story letting the chips fall wherever they may. Today of course that's a myth. It just doesn't happen that way.
This comes as no surprise to me.
What, no Washington Post? I guess its so liberal there's no point in even examining its bias quotient.
Good post--thanks.
Right-e-o. It's a bias towards an agenda to bring about a preferred outcome and end-state. Gramsci is smiling.
"Does anybody know if it's possible to invest in Foxnews or NYpost?"
Get the MAY Company Department Stores to invest. They OWN the advertising section of the Wash Post. Huge chunck. Move them over to Wash Times :)
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.
