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.
CNN is going to have to react soon and become more balanced. They say they've started in that direction with some of their onscreen talent, but the viewers are voting with their "remotes." Try harder, boys! Losing the ratings game is deadly. Right now, Fox has 9 of the top 10 cable news shows. CNN's only top-10 show is Larry King Live (at about #7, IIRC).
They must have forgotten their "prime directive" during the Clinton Administration.
Agreed.
Face it, I was trying to find a glimmer of hope. Fact is, conservative writing is dull, boring, and written by esthetes. It just won't do the job for a news business. Conservative writing does not sell well and nobody reads it anyway if they can possibly schedule a root canal instead. Don't bother to mention Savage, he is no Conservative.
"People who work with words (write or act) for a living tend to be liberal."
Not necessarily. Look at Churchill, or Religious writers and speakers. The news media has tended to be liberal throughout history, but back then liberal meant tolerant or independent thinking. Today it is just Left-Wing propoganda.
"Usually people who buy stock in News organizations are people who have made all the money they want and now want to think for others. People who want to make money can do a lot better than NWS"
Intersting observation, could you back it up/elaborate a little bit though? I'm interested in investing in it and would like to hear the con-side to it.
I'm astonished that they're atonished! This is something we've known for years, but it's nice they now have a formula for determining the objectivity (or lack thereof) of a news organization.
Thanks for the ping. I think I'll post it "elsewhere" since you haven't.
Ever read any Mark Steyn?
btt
Esthete
Ever read any Mark Steyn?
Or Anne Coulter?
That's why I often quote liberals when making arguments to liberals and DemocRATS. It's much more effective to quote Ed Koch's reasons for supporting President Bush to a DemocRAT than the Christian Coalition's arguments.
Fact is, the liberal editors had been choosing the dull or the most outlandish "conservatives".
"Dull, boring, and written by esthetes" applies more to liberal writers: Mo Dowd. Ellen Goodman. The racists over at
the Boston Globe. Kinsley. The "editorials" by the "editors" at practically any newspaper. Throw in "misleading", as the
NYSlimes just did on the pre 911 report.
The downside to this tack is that it can increase volatility (exaggerated price gyrations), so some people prefer a 'contrarian' philosophy of going against the crowd. But regardless, if you invest to further an ideal, then be happy with your ideal and not with your earnings (if any). If you want earnings, invest in 'unseemly' companies that perform well and are undervalued (like toxic waste handlers, undertakers and outsourcers) and get rich.
Your call.
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.