>>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?
i agree wholeheartedly.
2. I used the Google news archive as the handy compilation of MSM news that on the net free. [...] 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?
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.