Liberal Media Bias Study

[Squawker]

For those of you who have challenged me to prove media bias, here it is. If I recall, there was some money involved?

By AFA Journal
April 6, 2005
(AgapePress) - It's certainly beginning to look like the liberal media has no place left to hide its bias.
In "A Measure of Media Bias," political science professor Tim Groseclose of the University of California at Los Angeles and Jeff Milyo of the Harris School of Public Policy at the University of Chicago ranked major media outlets to determine whether they had an observable political bias.
Groseclose and Milyo used an objective standard by which members of Congress are regularly ranked according to their political views.
The report stated: "Our results show a very significant liberal bias. All of the news outlets except Fox News' Special Report received a score to the left of the average member of Congress." (See list below.)
Groseclose and Milyo said, "Although we expected to find that most media lean left, we were astounded by the degree."
In the report, media outlets were given scores according to the objective standards designed for the study. On a scale of 0-100, the higher the score, the more liberal the outlet. Also included were the average scores for members of Congress.
Wall Street Journal - 85.1
New York Times - 73.7
CBS Evening News - 73.7
Los Angeles Times - 70.0
CBS The Early Show - 66.6
Washington Post - 66.6
Newsweek - 66.3
NPR Morning Edition - 66.3
U.S. News & World Report - 65.8
Time Magazine - 65.4
NBC Today Show - 64.0
USA Today - 63.4
NBC Nightly News - 61.6
ABC World News Tonight - 61.0
ABC Good Morning America - 56.1
CNN Newslight with Aaron Brown - 56.0
PBS Newshour with Jim Lehrer - 55.8
Fox News Special Report with Brit Hume - 39.7
U.S. Representative Average - 44.5
U.S. Senator Average - 40.0
In another look at the media, analysts for Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor examined the nation's ten major newspapers in terms of circulation, and focused on their op-ed columnists.
With one exception, all the newspapers carried more liberal columnists than conservative. The New York Times, for example, has four liberal columnists but only one conservative. Liberals at the Washington Post outnumber conservatives 11-4; and at the Chicago Tribune, there are six liberals to one conservative.
Only the New York Post had a conservative dominance, with 10 conservative and no liberal op-ed columnists.

Source

 

[Arch Enemy]

how could you come up with a study like this? Yes of course Liberal Media exists but why does/ should that matter? Most of it is pretty much owned by the Government.. the Liberal Media aren't going to show the truth because they'd be threatened to death by our government ("threatened to death" isn't meant to be literally)

 

[Squawker]

the Liberal Media aren't going to show the truth because they'd be threatened to death by our government ("threatened to death" isn't meant to be literally)

Would you like to explain that for us?

 

[26 X World Champs]

LOL! You publish a study from a website that also has these stories:

County School District Reinstates Corporal Punishment, Sees Positive Results

TX Parent Supports School District's Firing of Lesbian Coach

Christ-Centered Campus Ministries Bring Gospel to America's Secular Generation

Canada's Same-Sex Marriage Bill May Face Imminent Defeat

Creationist: Montana T-Rex Bone Supports Biblical Story, Not Darwin's

* Scholar Finds Many Vietnam War Myths Being Taught on U.S. Campuses

* MTV Peddling Smut to Kids, Study Says

* Homosexual Re-Orientation Advocate Reinstated on Magellan's Advisory Panel

OK...now about the paper itself:

Tuesday :: Mar 29, 2005
How the Liberal Media Myth is Created - Part 5

UPDATE 4/16/05: This is an updated version of my original post which is archived here. As I was doing a review of some other published literature on media bias on 4/16/05, I discovered that Groseclose-Milyo (G-M) had posted an updated version (HTML, PDF) of their original paper as of 2005-01-03. The revised version of their paper corrects some of lacunae in the original version; however, the most fundamental problems with the original paper remain in this new version. [NOTE: The fact that I missed the latest version in my original critique was purely an unintentional oversight. The updated G-M paper does not in any way invalidate my original critique (indeed, one of the fixes they made shows that one part of my critique was right on target). I have updated my critique here to refer to their revised paper.]

---

This is a continuation of a series on how the "liberal media" myth is created. Previous installments covered myth-creation using "tone" of media coverage (Part 1), "catch-phrases" like 'right-wing extremist' v. 'left-wing extremist' (Part 2), "newspaper headlines" (Part 3) and "topics" covered (Part 4). This part highlights an unusual, indirect approach that uses "think-tank" citations.

The focus of this post is a paper titled "A Measure of Media Bias" (HTML, PDF) by Tim Groseclose and Jeff Milyo. I found this paper via Language Log (there has been some back and forth at Language Log between critic Geoffrey Nunberg and the paper's authors), where it was also noted that:

Groseclose and Milyo's study has been approvingly cited by Bruce Bartlett in National Review, by Linda Seebach in the Rocky Mountain News, and by Harvard economist Robert J. Barro in Business Week, not to mention conservative bloggers like Instapundit, Andrew Sullivan, and Matt Drudge, among a number of others, who trumpet its "objectivity."

A single blog post, once again, is insufficient to provide a detailed critique of the paper. So, I'll refer readers who are more curious to my detailed critique over at ICM - Sec. 2.9. Here, I'll reproduce my summary (with links to details) showing why this paper's conclusions are wrong.

The Groseclose-Milyo (G-M) paper (HTML, PDF) attempts to assess media bias using an approach wherein adjusted ADA (Americans for Democratic Action) scores (0-to-100) are used to assess legislator ideology (archconservative-to-archliberal), and separately, the think-tank citations of the legislators are compared to the think-tank citations of the media outlet to then derive the media outlet's "bias". Based on their methodology (presented and discussed in this paper), they claim that:

Our results show a strong liberal bias.

I examined the paper from three perspectives:
1. Is the methodology used for assessing the ideology of think-tanks correct and reliable?
2. Is the methodology used for assessing the ideology of the media correct and reliable?
3. Is the definition of media bias used by the authors correct and reliable?

The answers to each of those questions is NO.

Source: http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/004006.php

So you say that this website is biased left? True! However that does not detract from the facts contained therein.

Check it out....

BTW - That Christian website is a hoot! I swear when I first read it I thought it was the Harvard Lampoon website because the stories are so out there...as far out as those supermarket papers that make us all laugh at the checkout.

County School District Reinstates Corporal Punishment, Sees Positive Results
One Ohio community is reaping the benefits of overwhelmingly approving paddling as another form of punishment in schools.

:yes:

 

[Squawker]

LOL! You publish a study from a website that also has these stories:

If you had read it, you would find the site didn't do the study, they just referenced it. Your post of a bloggers opinion is supposed discount the study?

 

[26 X World Champs]

If you had read it, you would find the site didn't do the study, they just referenced it. Your post of a bloggers opinion is supposed discount the study?

I fully realize the study was not from that wickedly funny site. However, the bloggers site systematically explains the problems with the methodology of that study. If you read it you will see that it's self-explanatory.

Regardless, I have no doubt that there are many liberal media outlets. I also have no doubts that there are conservative ones too.

The funny thing about the eternal whining about liberal media bias is that the Congress, The Senate & The Executive branch are all conservative controlled. So please explain what effect the "liberal bias" has on people? The study you reference did not include any editorial pages because they said people who read those pages knew their ideology. I suggest the same is true of other parts of the media. Surely most people know that The NY Times is the great voice of free-thinking liberal America. The opposite is true of The Washington Times.

Are you suggesting that when someone watches CBS they are unaware that they're more left leaning, especially with all the continuous yelping everywhere about Dan Rather.

My point is that as that study suggests is that people are for the most part aware of the political leanings of the media they are using. To not accept that would be like saying that people don't know that FNC is conservative. Of course people know, and then they can judge for themselves whether they agree or not. I do that when I watch FNC or listen to Air America.

It just makes me snicker when you whine about media bias. It's seems like you're a sore winner.....

 

[Squawker]

I didn't "whine" about liberal bias. I don't recall the post, but a liberal said there was no liberal news bias ,and he would pay me if I could prove there was. The "whine" has been about one channel -- Fox News. The liberals have a majority of News programs in their corner, so why so much fuss over one Channel that gives a voice to others views? On the site you referenced, this is what stood out for me.

The final, and perhaps most serious, problem with their analysis is their attempt to derive a conclusion of media bias using this study. Their confident conclusion that they have proven "liberal media" bias is simply wrong because the study does not examine whether the media's news reporting is accurate. Citing a think-tank says nothing about whether that think-tank is accurate or not. For example, you could have a "liberal think tank" that is 100% correct and cited 70% of the time and a "conservative think-tank" that is 10% correct and cited 30% of time (without corrections) and this would not make the media outlet automatically "liberal" - indeed, giving that much credence to a think-tank which lies or misleads most of the time could easily constitute conservative bias. Moreover, simply looking at think-tank citations certainly says nothing about what the media communicates to the viewers when it is not citing think-tanks, which is a big chunk of the time.

When controlled for other factors, the more fundamental determinant of bias in news reporting is accuracy -- not whom the news reports cite. To the extent that news reporting could become inaccurate by citing certain think-tanks over others, one may have a case that think-tank citations could influence the accuracy of the reports. But, G-M have fallen into the trap of assuming that the part is the whole. Think-tank citations are merely one part of the whole - which is the media's accuracy in news reporting.

That just says, "if I don't believe it, the study is invalid."

 

[26 X World Champs]

I didn't "whine" about liberal bias. I don't recall the post, but a liberal said there was no liberal news bias ,and he would pay me if I could prove there was. The "whine" has been about one channel -- Fox News. The liberals have a majority of News programs in their corner, so why so much fuss over one Channel that gives a voice to others views? On the site you referenced, this is what stood out for me.
That just says, "if I don't believe it, the study is invalid."

As you've read, I have no disagreement that all types of media are biased one way or another, and that there are more liberal media outlets than conservative.

My bitching about FNC is their "Fair & Balanced" slogan because it's untrue and it's deceptive. The New York Times has always said of itself, "All The News That's Fit To Print." To me that is an accurate statement. No claim of impartiality, no deception, plus it's a slogan on a newspaper not a constant slogan on TV.

Re that study, I read it differently than you do, but I understand where you're coming from and I see your point of view. My point, again, is that it's moot because most people know the political leanings of the station they're watching or listening to or reading.

But, when I read here people posting that Liberals are crazy to accuse FNC of being conservative it seems insane to me and I then have trouble believing anything that person writes.

FNC is biased right, the NY Times is biased left. Can anyone disagree with that?

 

[GarzaUK]

Champ is right.

Some Conservatives whine about the Liberal-bias media and they are right to a certain extent.

But when Liberals start attacking the "Fair and Balanced" slogan of Fox News, conservatives seem to go in uproar about it and start whining about ther liberal bias media.

You have to admit that Fox is not Fair and Balanced, it is certainly conservative bias. That's okay, I don't care if it is con bias.

But Fox News should drop that slogan right now, as champ pointed out it is decepetive and frankly a lie.

 

[Squawker]

You have to admit that Fox is not Fair and Balanced, it is certainly conservative bias. That's okay, I don't care if it is con bias.

But Fox News should drop that slogan right now, as champ pointed out it is decepetive and frankly a lie.

That is in the eye of the beholder. I think they are fair and Balanced to a fault. Fair and Balanced, obviously means something different to the left. The outrage over the slogan is disingenuous IMHO.

 

[GarzaUK]

That is in the eye of the beholder. I think they are fair and Balanced to a fault. Fair and Balanced, obviously means something different to the left. The outrage over the slogan is disingenuous IMHO.

I think the difference is that I will admit that the liberal part of the media is NOT "Fair and Balanced", but you will say that the conservative part of the media IS "Fair and Balanced".

I'm I correct in that statement?

 

[Squawker]

I think the difference is that I will admit that the liberal part of the media is NOT "Fair and Balanced", but you will say that the conservative part of the media IS "Fair and Balanced".

I'm I correct in that statement?

No. The "Conservative media" like Rush, Hannity, Carr, ect. is very biased. We are talking about Fox, a "mixed media" outlet with an even amount of Republican and Democrat voices. I wish they were more biased to the right, to counter all the left wing hatched jobs out there in the media.

 

[26 X World Champs]

No. The "Conservative media" like Rush, Hannity, Carr, ect. is very biased. We are talking about Fox, a "mixed media" outlet with an even amount of Republican and Democrat voices. I wish they were more biased to the right, to counter all the left wing hatched jobs out there in the media.

If you're going to make a statement like that you have to PROVE IT. Don't tell us how fair it is, prove to us, statistically, as you did with your original post, that FNC is 50-50! You can't but it will be interesting to see you try....

You also need to use creditable sources, not right wing biased sites, show us through an unbiased eye that FNC is exactly equal as you wrote, for 50-50 means 100% EQUAL.

Please prove it or stop saying it....please.

 

[aquapub]

My award-nominated study on liberal media bias included this study posted here.

It uses the same methods of calculations as do liberal activist groups in grading candidates. It is very compelling, I think.




Other things I put in my study:

It also included a peer reviewed, scholarly study proving that the media called states early for Gore when he was one or two points ahead, while delaying 20-point lead states in favor of Bush for hours.

There were several other studies like that in my project.

Also, there were examples like the early (and incorrect) election call for Gore despite the AP's own VNS numbers showing Bush ahead.

There was a picture of Katie Couric crying on national TV because Gore lost.

There is also the overwhelming amount of liberal activists who get put into jobs disseminating "objective" news.

Didi Meyers (former Clinton spokesman) was hired (once she got out of jail for DUI) by Roger Ailes (you know, the evil conservative trying to bias the news).

Chris Matthews, George Stephanopolous, Bill Moyers, Bill Schneieder, Tim Russert (just to name a very few) all worked for Democrats in office before getting on the news, and there are many, many more.

I did a section on how conservatives get labeled as such when appearing on news shows, while liberals are called, "contributors."

I did a section (based on John Stossel) about the media's tendency to and history of reporting outrageous, literally impossible numbers based on nothing but the rantings of feminists and those who wouldn't/won't admit that homelessness comes from addictions and mental instability, not evil Republicans who don't want to fund housing for crack whores.

89% of journalists in one of the studies I used said that they voted for Bill Clinton (compared to 40-something of voters).

The New York Times hasn't endorsed a single Republican presidential candidate since the 1950s.




There are just volumes and volumes of evidence. At this point, liberals would have to explain so many things away, that I don't think I will ever buy that the media isn't atrociously biased to the left.

Why are they biased to the left? They don't have to live with the consequences of their flighty, impractical, childish ideas, just like nearly everyone else who is liberal-students, young people, "academics" (for lack of a better word), welfare recipients, criminals, etc. They are too naive and idealistic to know better.

Ever notice how most people become conservatives the moment they have somebody to think about besides themselves? (parents) Its very telling.

 

[Squawker]

Nice post Aquapub. :clap:
Champ said again:

show us through an unbiased eye that FNC is exactly equal as you wrote, for 50-50 means 100% EQUAL.

I said even and you want me to prove 100 % equal? :2funny: First, this thread is about left wing bias, not Fox. The left is the ones screaming about "Fair and Balanced", so you prove they are not. I don't care -- you do.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Why are they biased to the left? They don't have to live with the consequences of their flighty, impractical, childish ideas, just like nearly everyone else who is liberal-students, young people, "academics" (for lack of a better word), welfare recipients, criminals, etc. They are too naive and idealistic to know better.

The only bias I see in your post is YOU. (inflammatory words deleted)

It's impossible to take anyone seriously when they write such **. It seems every post that you write contains reams of ** It's fascinating to see the continuing evolution of a **. Of course, someone who is ** is never able to recognize it, which is quite ironic since their ** is based on their observations of the world. They can "see" the evil welfare recipients but they lack the vision to see their own prejudice.

Pathetic..... :bomb:

 

[26 X World Champs]

Nice post Aquapub. :clap:
Champ said again:
I said even and you want me to prove 100 % equal? :2funny: First, this thread is about left wing bias, not Fox. The left is the ones screaming about "Fair and Balanced", so you prove they are not. I don't care -- you do.

Busted my friend, you're busted. I knew you couldn't back up your BS bluster, so it is quite enjoyable to watch you try to squirm out of it. You weren't even creative, you use the pathetic "you prove it, I don't have to" excuse. Weak, oh so very weak.

You make a claim, and then when challenged you squirm and attack the questioner. You're not fooling anyone, quite the opposite, you've confirmed what we all already knew, that FNC is as biased as.....YOU ARE!

:spank:

 

[Squawker]

You really need to grow up Champ. I couldn't prove Fox was Fair and Balanced to you. It would be a fools errand to try. You wouldn't accept anything I posted, just as you haven't done in the past. I remind you again, this is about the left wing bias, not the right. We have several threads bashing Fox already, thanks.

 

[26 X World Champs]

You really need to grow up Champ. I couldn't prove Fox was Fair and Balanced to you. It would be a fools errand to try. You wouldn't accept anything I posted, just as you haven't done in the past. I remind you again, this is about the left wing bias, not the right. We have several threads bashing Fox already, thanks.

I think what you wrote is a cop-out, sorry. I would accept your facts, just as I accepted that there is a liberal bias in media. Didn't you read my acknowledgment of that in earlier posts in this very thread?

I think you and I and everyone reading this knows the truth, but you just are unwilling to admit it. Not sure if you're doing it because you're blindly loyal, or perhaps it's a pride thing? Of course Pride is one of the 7 deadly sins, so perhaps it might be time to consider the benefits of simply admitting a mistake when you make one? It is cleansing, and it is also sophisticated....