• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

According to a UCLA study Fox News is centrist

Re: UCLA study debunked

hipsterdufus said:
I thought I smelled something fishy.

FAIR - Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting took a look at this study here and found that the methodology was tweaked to meet the desired results:

I smelled something fishy, too...

I looked up FAIR and found out it was founded by a former Donahue producer on MSNBC(Jeff Cohen) who wrote a book called The Way Things Aren't: Rush Limbaugh's Reign of Error... Before that he was a lawyer for the ACLU... The only thing that doesn't reek of Liberalism is the fact that he got to play the part of Alan Colmes on a show called Fox News Watch a few years ago(good show BTW)...

:shrug:
 
Re: UCLA study debunked

cnredd said:
I smelled something fishy, too...

I looked up FAIR and found out it was founded by a former Donahue producer on MSNBC(Jeff Cohen) who wrote a book called The Way Things Aren't: Rush Limbaugh's Reign of Error... Before that he was a lawyer for the ACLU... The only thing that doesn't reek of Liberalism is the fact that he got to play the part of Alan Colmes on a show called Fox News Watch a few years ago(good show BTW)...

:shrug:

and you wondered why I turned to the dark side am I really supposed to keep up my truly moderate feelings with these people????
 
This is not news to me. It is one of the few shows i watch almost every night

Neal Boortz has had a $10,000 bounty for years, for anybody that can find any bias in the reporting of the news on Special Report. Note: Not including the roundtable discussions in the 2nd half of the show
 
hipsterdufus said:
The same study also said that Drudge leaned to the left. Uh uh:roll:

Did you read the report? The reason is said that drudge leaned to the left is because drudge is rarely an original reporting site. It simply links to other stories, which come from the MSM, which have the same biases as the rest. Thus drudge appears to be to the left, while it is simply the selection and phrasing of the headlines that leans right.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
All this suty proves is that the author had an agenda.

Did you read the article? They went out of their way to avoid any bias. The researchers were evenly split, they TURNED DOWN funding to avoid conflicts of interest, etc.

If you have problems with the methodology, thats fine, but don't make assumptions on the intentions simply from the results.
 
RightatNYU said:
Did you read the article? They went out of their way to avoid any bias. The researchers were evenly split, they TURNED DOWN funding to avoid conflicts of interest, etc.

If you have problems with the methodology, thats fine, but don't make assumptions on the intentions simply from the results.

Don't bother with these people I'm a poli sci major I've taken an empirical analysis course if this report favored on the side of a conservative biased media I would accept it as fact these people have no idea about what they're talking about because they are restrained by their opinion of politics and have no understanding of the scientific analysis involved in it.
 
Last edited:
RightatNYU said:
Did you read the report? The reason is said that drudge leaned to the left is because drudge is rarely an original reporting site. It simply links to other stories, which come from the MSM, which have the same biases as the rest. Thus drudge appears to be to the left, while it is simply the selection and phrasing of the headlines that leans right.

Yes I read the report - I think the fact that they said drudge is a lefty sight is enough proof that the methodology of the report is flawed. There criteria is ridiculous. It would be like me posting something that says "A study shows thar Air America favors the killing of all people over the age of 20"
 
Re: UCLA study debunked

cnredd said:
I smelled something fishy, too...

I looked up FAIR and found out it was founded by a former Donahue producer on MSNBC(Jeff Cohen) who wrote a book called The Way Things Aren't: Rush Limbaugh's Reign of Error... Before that he was a lawyer for the ACLU... The only thing that doesn't reek of Liberalism is the fact that he got to play the part of Alan Colmes on a show called Fox News Watch a few years ago(good show BTW)...

:shrug:

Rather than attack the messanger - classic - why don't you look at the methodology used in the bogus UCLA study. It wouldn't hold up in a high school research project.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
I addressed your issue Simon you're turning this into a partisan issue even though the authors (not me) directly steered clear of that to ensure the accuracy of this research report; this report is above board and it has been done by UCLA not by some Conservative think tank and for you to turn a serious Political Scientific research paper proved through empirical analysis into partisan propaganda through your own partisanship is simply unconscionable and will only prove the claim that you originally made as a joke that you are so partisan that you will not except fact unless it corresponds with your own point of view:
LOL!
I see. Criticism of the study's methodology is a partisan affair.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Don't bother with these people I'm a poli sci major I've taken an empirical analysis course if this report favored on the side of a conservative biased media I would accept it as fact these people have no idea about what they're talking about because they are restrained by their opinion of politics and have no understanding of the scientific analysis involved in it.

I think you could use a course in punctuation and English too. :mrgreen:

Just keepin it light for a moment.
 
Re: UCLA study debunked

First he attacks the messenger...

hipsterdufus said:
Yes I read the report - I think the fact that they said drudge is a lefty sight is enough proof that the methodology of the report is flawed. There criteria is ridiculous. It would be like me posting something that says "A study shows thar Air America favors the killing of all people over the age of 20"

And then accuses me of attacking the messenger...

hipsterdufus said:
Rather than attack the messanger - classic - why don't you look at the methodology used in the bogus UCLA study. It wouldn't hold up in a high school research project.

Classic indeed...:roll:

PS - As of right now...I haven't said one word about the UCLA study...not one...
 
Re: UCLA study debunked

cnredd said:
PS - As of right now...I haven't said one word about the UCLA study...not one...

Thanks for making my point again.

You don't discuss or refute the evidence of a classicaly flawed study, you simply attack the people that present the clarification.

Then you do the same thing again.

Classic indeed.
 
Re: UCLA study debunked

hipsterdufus said:
Thanks for making my point again.

You don't discuss or refute the evidence of a classicaly flawed study, you simply attack the people that present the clarification.

Then you do the same thing again.

Classic indeed.
Wrong...

Just because a forum member decides to put forth a study does not mean that I am required to dissect it and comment on it negatively or positively...

I could care less if this UCLA study is legit or not...Sayig that is IS legit would solidify my case that the media is, indeed, Liberally slanted...That fact that I haven't done this is more beneficial to you than to me...

Why doesn't it matter to me?...Because I have already put forth evidence to my accusation...I've shown it on than one occasion...

Throw more evidence on top of it does not refute nor help my evidence...My source deals with the journalists themselves and not some other variable like guests or think-tanks...

So this begs the question?...

Why do people say that the media is not Liberally slanted when I've shown that even THEY believe it?...:confused:

This is like saying a murderer is innocent after he tells the press he confessed without coersion and plead guilty and accepts his punishment...Why bother?...Admit it and move on...:roll:
 
Anybody notice that UCLA mixed up is ACLU?

Wukka wukka wukka

:tomatofac
 
shuamort said:
Anybody notice that UCLA mixed up is ACLU?

Wukka wukka wukka

:tomatofac
Thanks "ham tours"...:cool:
 
Simon W. Moon said:
LOL!
I see. Criticism of the study's methodology is a partisan affair.

No when you are provided living proof of liberal media bias and still refuse to relent due to your own political ideology that's called partisanship. You originally made a joke about partisanship and then I showed you why the methodology was indeed scientifically unbiased and yet you still refuse to relent the attack on the credibility of the study . . . . could that be because no matter what information you are given you will not even consider it???
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
... then I showed you why the methodology was indeed scientifically unbiased ...
Actually, you didn't. You did wave your hands a bunch though.
TOT:
That's why they used I think 200 think tanks; furthermore there research techniques are of the same standard as any empirical political research.
Nowhere in this handwaving did you "show" that only criteria or most important criterion used for choosing among think tanks is the ideological bent of the chooser.
Nowhere in this handwaving did you "show" that all think tanks are of equal value and accuracy.

The number of think tanks used has no bearing on either of these two assumptions that are implicit in the study. The standard of their techniques has no bearing on either of these two assumptions that are implicit in the study.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
... and yet you still refuse to relent the attack on the credibility of the study ...
All I've done is comment on the methodology employed. That's what happens when a study is published in a journal. People analyze and criticize it in multiple ways. Criticizing methodology is a very common occurrence in peer reviewed journals. It's an integral part of the process.

BTW, I do appreciate you taking time away from the debate so that you may devote it to talking about me. I'm sure it means something to you. Please don't be too terribly saddened if I don't get around to returning you the same compliment.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Actually, you didn't. You did wave your hands a bunch though.
TOT:
That's why they used I think 200 think tanks; furthermore there research techniques are of the same standard as any empirical political research.
Nowhere in this handwaving did you "show" that only criteria or most important criterion used for choosing among think tanks is the ideological bent of the chooser.
Nowhere in this handwaving did you "show" that all think tanks are of equal value and accuracy.

The number of think tanks used has no bearing on either of these two assumptions that are implicit in the study. The standard of their techniques has no bearing on either of these two assumptions that are implicit in the study.

All I've done is comment on the methodology employed. That's what happens when a study is published in a journal. People analyze and criticize it in multiple ways. Criticizing methodology is a very common occurrence in peer reviewed journals. It's an integral part of the process.


BTW, I do appreciate you taking time away from the debate so that you may devote it to talking about me. I'm sure it means something to you. Please don't be too terribly saddened if I don't get around to returning you the same compliment.

Ya you're right my apologies.
 
RightatNYU said:
Did you read the article? They went out of their way to avoid any bias. The researchers were evenly split, they TURNED DOWN funding to avoid conflicts of interest, etc.

If you have problems with the methodology, thats fine, but don't make assumptions on the intentions simply from the results.

"Although we expected to find that most media lean left...."
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
"Although we expected to find that most media lean left...."

that's called a hypothesis is a scientist biased when he hypothesizes that atoms are what make up matter and then does an experiment to prove that hypothesis?

It's called empirical political analysis, political science is a social science but a science none the less and the approach to research is the same as in any other science.
 
Re: UCLA study debunked

cnredd said:
Wrong...

Just because a forum member decides to put forth a study does not mean that I am required to dissect it and comment on it negatively or positively...

I could care less if this UCLA study is legit or not...Sayig that is IS legit would solidify my case that the media is, indeed, Liberally slanted...That fact that I haven't done this is more beneficial to you than to me...

Why doesn't it matter to me?...Because I have already put forth evidence to my accusation...I've shown it on than one occasion...

Throw more evidence on top of it does not refute nor help my evidence...My source deals with the journalists themselves and not some other variable like guests or think-tanks...

So this begs the question?...

Why do people say that the media is not Liberally slanted when I've shown that even THEY believe it?...:confused:

This is like saying a murderer is innocent after he tells the press he confessed without coersion and plead guilty and accepts his punishment...Why bother?...Admit it and move on...:roll:

So now you're changing the topic....:2wave:
ahhh - classic.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
that's called a hypothesis is a scientist biased when he hypothesizes that atoms are what make up matter and then does an experiment to prove that hypothesis?

It's called empirical political analysis, political science is a social science but a science none the less and the approach to research is the same as in any other science.

Cognitive dissonance is a pre-conceived idea. Which is what the hypothesis was made on. I am going to laugh here when you say that politics is scientific. There is no empirical data which you can really say what is liberal and what is conservative. Tell me, how liberal was Richard Nixon?
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
Cognitive dissonance is a pre-conceived idea. Which is what the hypothesis was made on. I am going to laugh here when you say that politics is scientific. There is no empirical data which you can really say what is liberal and what is conservative. Tell me, how liberal was Richard Nixon?

:rofl

In some of Nixon's position's he would be considered a left-wing liberal moonbat!

He was actually FOR the environment!!
He actually HELPED poor people - those damn quakers!
Can you f'in believe it. How dare he.
/sarcasm off
 
hipsterdufus said:
:rofl

In some of Nixon's position's he would be considered a left-wing liberal moonbat!

He was actually FOR the environment!!
He actually HELPED poor people - those damn quakers!
Can you f'in believe it. How dare he.
/sarcasm off

My point exactly!
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
Cognitive dissonance is a pre-conceived idea. Which is what the hypothesis was made on. I am going to laugh here when you say that politics is scientific. There is no empirical data which you can really say what is liberal and what is conservative. Tell me, how liberal was Richard Nixon?

lol the study of Politics is scientific I should know I'm a political Science major if there is no empirical political information how is it that for my major an Empirical political analysis class (which I have taken) is a required course. As for Nixon one would have to use the agreed upon definition of liberalism and then examine his policies measured against the policies of the past here is the political spectrum in its entirety:

spectrum.gif


Spectrum.gif


Now here are the definitions:

Radical: Seen as being on the far left of the political spectrum, radicals call for wide-sweeping rapid change in the basic structure of the political, social, or economic system. They may be willing to resort to extreme methods to bring about change, including the use of violence and revolution.


Liberal: Liberals believe that the government should be actively involved in the promotion of social welfare of a nation's citizens. Liberals usually call for peaceful, gradual change within the existing political system. They reject violent revolution as a way of changing the way things are, often called the status quo.


Moderate: Moderates may share viewpoints with both liberals and conservatives. They are seen as tolerant of other people's views, and they do not hold extreme views of their own. They advocate a "go-slow" or "wait-and-see" approach to social or political change.


Conservative:
People who hold conservative ideals favor keeping things the way they are or maintaining the status quo if it is what they desire. Conservatives are usually hesitant or cautious about adopting new policies, especially if they involve government activism in some way. They feel that the less government there is, the better. They agree with Jefferson's view that "the best government governs least."


Reactionary: Sitting on the far right of the ideological spectrum, reactionaries want to go back to the way things were-the "good ol' days." Often reactionaries are willing to use extreme methods, such as repressive use of government power, to achieve their goals.

http://www.usnewsclassroom.com/resources/activities/act010604.html

Political science: a discipline that deals with the theory and practice of politics and the description and analysis of political systems and political behavior. It is academic, theoretical and research oriented.

Fields and subfields of political science include political theory and philosophy, civics and comparative politics, national systems, cross-national political analysis, political development, international relations, foreign policy, international law and politics, public administration, administrative behavior, public law, judicial behavior, and politics and public policy.

Approaches to the discipline include classical political philosophy, structuralism, and behavioralism, realism, pluralism, and institutionalism. Political science, as one of the social sciences, uses methods and techniques that relate to the kinds of inquiries sought: primary sources such as historical documents and official records, secondary sources such as scholarly journal articles, survey research, statistical analysis, and model building.

Herbert Baxter Adams is credited with coining the phrase "political science" while teaching history at Johns Hopkins University.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_science
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom