Bias in Media, Conscious and Unconscious

Steve's Blatherings ^ | 13 April 2005 | Stephen M. St. Onge

[RKV]

Last Wednesday, April 6th, Instapundit posted an item about the Bellesiles affair, James Lindgren, the Chronicle of Higher Education's coverage of the affair, and Wonkette (I am not making that up), with an update from a former CHE employee disputing the story. Reynolds also received a link from the CHE where you could see all their coverage and judge for yourself. That's just the kind of geeky think I like to do, and besides, it put off finishing the yearly Ides of April ceremony of getting anally raped with a red hot poker. I haven't finished all the CHE articles yet, but I have read the early ones. So, what do the they show?

The short version: The Chronicle was heavily biased in favor of Bellesiles, probably because they shared his pro-gun control political views. They trusted him even after they knew Bellesiles was accused of misrepresenting and fabricating quotes. Their coverage was biased in favor of Bellesiles, and against his critics at least until Bellesiles was reprimanded by Emory University (this is as far as I've finished so far). Further, Lindgren's version is backed by the available evidence.

[RKV]

Nice (also long) article covers the Bellesiles fraud and the editorial biases of The Chronicle of Higher Education. Read the whole thing. http://fatsteve.blogspot.com/2005/04/bias-in-media-conscious-and.html

[martin_fierro]

Yeah, but his interior decorating sucks.

< |:)~

[coloradan]

Link: http://fatsteve.blogspot.com/2005/04/bias-in-media-conscious-and.html.

[RKV]

Is that really a picture of the Bellesiles? I hope so. I need a new head to paste on top of my targets at the pistol range.

[SteveH]

Meaning here?

Fat Steve's Blatherings

http://fatsteve.blogspot.com/

[RKV]

Here - http://fatsteve.blogspot.com/2005/04/bias-in-media-conscious-and.html

[Fierce Allegiance]

Is it me or do people seriously misuse the term unconscious when they really mean subconscious. Even my shrink does it.

It bugs me, because to me unconscious means knocked out asleep, and subconscious means below the level of active thinking.

[LS]

I have corresponded with Clayton Cramer and read his entire manuscript, and he utterly blows Bellesiles out of the water. He knows more about guns in early American than B. could ever hope to know, but, of course, Cramer's book (if it is published) will never get the "acclaim" that B. did because Ugh he isn't a "historian. Well, that's BS. I'm a historian and Cramer uses historical methodology as well as any professional---certainly better than Bellesiles.

[RKV]

I have enjoyed Clayton Cramer's blog (and other work as well) for some time. He is a thoughtful writer and I agree with you. If Bellesiles is a "professional" give me the amateurs (like Cramer) every time. I hope you had a chance to read the article by St. Onge. His chronology is telling. CHE knew they were in wrong, new it early on, and still persisted in perpetrating the fraud.

[LS]

I did read it---but I kept up with it in CHE at the time.

What is less covered here, or explored, is that the SAME THING occurred with the so-called "New Left" historians about the origins of the Cold War, where these leftists all claimed WE started the Cold War and that Truman only dropped the bomb to "impress" the Soviets. These historians (W. A. Williams, Gar Alperovitz, Diane Clemons) all got their manuscripts published with serious errors, and not just innocent errors of fact, but critical errors that shaped the entire argument . . . all in their direction.

Well, here is the nut: NONE of the publishers, editors, or reviewers "called them" on any of these things, and apparently didn't even bother to check.

I guarantee you that the publisher didn't even check any of Bellesiles' sources.

[SteveH]

Doesn't this indicate a bias in academia almost as much as a bias in media, if not more so?

[RKV]

MORE SO. 70% of academics are DemocRATS and 10% are Republicans and 20% are Communists. And I work in academia (IT guy, not scholar/puke).

[LS]

As I told Rush in the March Limbaugh Letter when he asked about this, I'm optimistic, but on the other hand, I have NO idea where change can come from because academia is in many ways more hopeless than the media. But what gives me hope is that before Rush/Fox/internet, no one knew how the MSM would be defeated, either.

Therefore I have to think that "big education" will also be defeated or substantially reformed, but I don't know where that will come from.

[SteveH]

I think I do: from the law, and from withdrawal of public funding (IMHO).

[teeman8r]

lighten up and take another pill... subconscious, unconscious... irrelevent irregardless... be the one with the gun.

teeman

[saintonge]

      I'm not THAT Stephen St. Onge.  I don't do interior decorating. http://www.fatsteve.blogspot.com/

[Fierce Allegiance]

I hear ya, and I try not to be Mr. Grammar, but this one bugs me more than people not knowing the difference between well & good.

[teeman8r]

amen to that... but it's all well and good... another pet peeve that should be the start of another thread is the use of the words 'alls' as in alls i know, alls i know is that all is plural whenever...

irregards-less

teeman

ps- alls i know is that as parents we must correct our children's speech so others will not have to do so. so they speak good. hehehe