Left wing bias - Page 18

LennyD · 08-18-08, 01:12 AM

OMG a totally biased report on biased reporting

Quote:

So much of the right wing hullabaloo about liberal bias is pointless blubbering. However, the paper does find evidence that Fox viewers stand out. Thus, it concludes that ”Fox News watchers have perceptions of political reality that differ from the rest of the television news audience”.

That has to be about the most insane thing I have ever read.

I mean if you buy into that thinking then I would have a different political reality when I watch CNN than when I watch FOX?

When I see trash thinking like that I am reminded of something Forrest Gump said "stupid is as stupid does".

Why can't some people just accept that not everyone thinks or believes the same things or has the same political views, and that those with opposing views are not crazy just because they do not agree. I guess they could be crazy anyhow, but that is a different issue.

Scucca · 08-18-08, 04:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LennyD

OMG a totally biased report on biased reporting

What bias? Its a published academic paper that uses a standard surveying methodology to test for significant differences in attitudes. Its ultimate aim is to test for the consequences of media fragmentation, but its Fox analysis is a bonus for this thread.

Quote:

I mean if you buy into that thinking then I would have a different political reality when I watch CNN than when I watch FOX?

I'm not sure if you understood the remark. The paper uses a number of survey questions to show that Fox viewers, compared to other media audiences, stand out in terms of attitudes. This is still observed when the paper controls for party identification.

There's nothing in your reaction that offers effective rebuke

YamiB. · 08-18-08, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LennyD

Third party potential as well as a future with politicians who legislate with the will of the people as their guide is lost mostly due to thinking like this.

I can not begin to count the people I have heard personally say that a vote outside the two parties is a wasted vote, but I can tell you that I have them all that a vote for anyone that they honestly do not agree with their politics or do not believe will vote in their beliefs etc is the only truly wasted vote.

Then I did not come here to preach my beliefs anymore than I think I need to tell someone which news outlets to use to find bias to their liking.

So which special interest drives CNN, MSNBC, and FOX

The fact is that a vote for a third party is a wasted vote until we have reforms for our election system. The odds are voting for a third party will only increase the chances of your least favorite candidate winning just look at the presidential election of 1912.

LennyD · 08-18-08, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scucca

I had a quick look at the “Fox effect” and found the publication Morris (2007, Slanted Objectivity? Perceived Media Bias, Cable News Exposure, and Political Attitudes, Social Science Quarterly, Vol 88, pp 707-728). This makes the following remark:

A surprising finding is that exposure to network news is also significantly associated with a higher probability of shifting a vote from Democrat in 2000 to Republican in 2004...This finding also offers evidence that the so-called liberal network news broadcasts are unable to move potential swing voters to the left. If anything, those viewers are moving to the right

OK I am going to try and break this down so that you can understand how I saw it, and maybe better explain my earlier reply.

Is this quoted quote not making the point that the attempts of the liberal media to sway voters thru their broadcasts towards the left?

Then we have the following

Quote:

So much of the right wing hullabaloo about liberal bias is pointless blubbering. However, the paper does find evidence that Fox viewers stand out. Thus, it concludes that ”Fox News watchers have perceptions of political reality that differ from the rest of the television news audience”. We're therefore still unsure over the nature of the “Fox effect”: i.e. whether there is a causation effect or, in a desperate bid to find media sources that support their warped sense of reality, they change their viewing habits accordingly. I personally like to read right wing sources (from the local rag to the Economist), but right wingers are often more simple in their nature

Now this is more of what I was commenting on. Sure it looks to be both opinion and quote of an opinion, but either way it seems to show a "bias".

Lets tear this one into pieces so that we can discuss them individually.

Quote:

So much of the right wing hullabaloo about liberal bias is pointless blubbering. However, the paper does find evidence that Fox viewers stand out.

"Right wing hullabaloo" or "pointless blurbering" does not throw up bias flags for you? They do for me, and would do the same if it started with left wing, or moderate etc.

There is also the "FOX viewers stand out" comment that is an obviously negative comment directed towards those who watch FOX or just may not watch the "liberal media" who was earlier accused of attempting to sway them to the left without success.

Then there is the following and breakdown

Quote:

Thus, it concludes that ”Fox News watchers have perceptions of political reality that differ from the rest of the television news audience”. We're therefore still unsure over the nature of the “Fox effect”: i.e. whether there is a causation effect or, in a desperate bid to find media sources that support their warped sense of reality, they change their viewing habits accordingly.

Now forgive me if I have confused the opinion of the poster with that of the person quoted, but here it appears to be 100% from the original writer.

FOX watchers have "perceptions of political reality that differ from from the rest". I mean WTF is that supposed to mean that could not completely show the person writting it was not obviously biased if not totally predjudiced against viewers with perceptions that differ from the "rest" of the viewers!!

Now to go as far as to say that those who watch FOX are warped, desperate, or have a warped sense of reality is so obviously biased I know there is not anyone who is being honest with themselves that can not see this.

I guess I could be missing the point, and maybe some have different opinions on the meaning of bias, but when you look at the individual statements and what they mean it seems pretty obvious

This last part I am pretty sure was from the poster, and not the quoted piece, but lets look at this as well..

Quote:

I personally like to read right wing sources (from the local rag to the Economist), but right wingers are often more simple in their nature

Does this explain the cause of the questioning of my post? Could the author have misread my non biased opinion to be from the right due to it not defending the left?

I do actually agree with part of that comment as I believe the right is less complicated overall, and that this is mostly due to their general belief and makeup, and from not being involved in or dragged in so many different directions from within.

In all honesty I am still trying to see where FOX is so different. I mean have they been showing the liberal candidate with snakes coming from his head as if some kind of anti Christ? I know from watching so many differnt sources (TV, NET, and others) that each has their preference in how they want to present things, and to just single out one with the negative comments seen in the original quote is too obviously biased to me.

I guess that one of those warped FOX viewers could just as easily claim that those watchers of CNN, MSNBC or ? have perceptions of political reality that differ from the rest as well. It does not matter to me either way though as it would still be a biased opinion.

Hope that helped to explain my point better.

LennyD · 08-19-08, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YamiB.

The fact is that a vote for a third party is a wasted vote until we have reforms for our election system. The odds are voting for a third party will only increase the chances of your least favorite candidate winning just look at the presidential election of 1912.

Do you feel that is true no matter if you would normally vote Dem or Rep?

Scucca · 08-19-08, 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LennyD

"Right wing hullabaloo" or "pointless blurbering" does not throw up bias flags for you?

It tells me that people's perceptions are inconsistent with the evidence that is available. Its easy to moan about bias, it is much more difficult to find evidence of significant bias (i.e. a media outlet that effects voting behaviour)

Quote:

There is also the "FOX viewers stand out" comment that is an obviously negative comment

The comment was an appropriate reference to the empirical evidence. We do find that Fox viewers have significantly different characteristics to non-Fox viewers. If you want to refer to media bias, you therefore have to consider the 'Fox effect'. However, as I mentioned, we still have a potential problem in appreciating the consequences of bias. There are concerns about causation, given the Fox viewers stand out no matter the party voted for.

Quote:

FOX watchers have "perceptions of political reality that differ from from the rest". I mean WTF is that supposed to mean that could not completely show the person writting it was not obviously biased if not totally predjudiced against viewers with perceptions that differ from the "rest" of the viewers!!

Nope! The perceptions are tested via a surveying technique where respondents are asked a number of questions. This is not opinion. It is the application of statistical techniques where the Fox viewers are significantly different to non-Fox viewers. You're making simple error because you haven't read the paper. That is understandable.

Quote:

Does this explain the cause of the questioning of my post? Could the author have misread my non biased opinion to be from the right due to it not defending the left?

Your response was invalid and you've continued with that invalidity. You've misunderstood the nature of the empirical evidence and how it has been used. I've responded with some additional detail to aid you in the elimination of that error. This included a reference to the diverse nature of readers and listeners. A right wing publication such as The Economist will have a sizable left wing audience. Given that diversity, empirical analysis of its overall audience will not be too revealing. The diversity becomes 'noise' in the analysis.

Quote:

In all honesty I am still trying to see where FOX is so different.

There are two obvious differences. First, we have evidence of differences in the political perceptions of viewer. This is confirmed by the empirical evidence. Second, we have evidence to support the hypothesis that Fox- compared to other outlets- have been more successful at changing voting behaviour. The problem, however, is that the first point makes it difficult to prove causation in the second.

LennyD · 08-20-08, 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scucca

It tells me that people's perceptions are inconsistent with the evidence that is available. Its easy to moan about bias, it is much more difficult to find evidence of significant bias (i.e. a media outlet that effects voting behaviour)

The comment was an appropriate reference to the empirical evidence. We do find that Fox viewers have significantly different characteristics to non-Fox viewers. If you want to refer to media bias, you therefore have to consider the 'Fox effect'. However, as I mentioned, we still have a potential problem in appreciating the consequences of bias. There are concerns about causation, given the Fox viewers stand out no matter the party voted for.

First I want to point out that I had attempted to reply earlier and had detailed the actual meaning of empirical evidence including websters definition (and how it's meaning is not the same as proof, or solid, proven, legal, or complete and accepted evidence etc but sadly my computer crashed and I am now posting on a laptop).

Anyhow lets take this point by point.

Adding perception, or significant to the mix though not part of the original discussion still do not change things much since we now are not openly accepting the posting from the original report as factual evidence of anything beyond that fact that someone or group did a survey, and made assumptions of the meaning of the results.

Even looking at the claims made in the "interpetation" of the report it seems that all it shows is that people who get their news from more than one source, and from sources with a different leaning or even bias have a difference of their answers which is most likely due to their intake of information which is not soley from a single source or slant in any direction.

Nope! The perceptions are tested via a surveying technique where respondents are asked a number of questions. This is not opinion. It is the application of statistical techniques where the Fox viewers are significantly different to non-Fox viewers. You're making simple error because you haven't read the paper. That is understandable.

Your correct that I have not read the report, or investigated its validity, but this was not originally a discussion of the report anyhow, but still thanks for your understanding.

I wish to inform you that I do find most statistics and surveys very questionable as they have been known to be designed to achieve a desired result, and believing them completely without question is not advisable.

Your response was invalid and you've continued with that invalidity. You've misunderstood the nature of the empirical evidence and how it has been used. I've responded with some additional detail to aid you in the elimination of that error. This included a reference to the diverse nature of readers and listeners. A right wing publication such as The Economist will have a sizable left wing audience. Given that diversity, empirical analysis of its overall audience will not be too revealing. The diversity becomes 'noise' in the analysis.

Although we have already opened a debate on this questionable evidence and its true value etc I do agree that analysis of an audience may not hold much value either.

I am now also questioning if you are not over complicating this. Do we need any surveys of viewers to see that one news source submits or eliminates certain facts that make one extreme or the other appear in a positive or negative way?

Personally I am not effected by these differences in how we are presented the same stories, or even from the stories we do not even see on some outlets, and this could be part of the reason I can see it (the differences or bias in reporting) without a special study or survey.

We can debate this forever (one of the reasons I did not sign up here long ago because life is too short lol) but I doubt we will change anyones opinion (each others?) or the way our news is presented by any station or paper or?

There are two obvious differences. First, we have evidence of differences in the political perceptions of viewer. This is confirmed by the empirical evidence. Second, we have evidence to support the hypothesis that Fox- compared to other outlets- have been more successful at changing voting behaviour. The problem, however, is that the first point makes it difficult to prove causation in the second.

I will not go thru the evidence issue again here, but when you take it away from this there is not much left but opinion, and just like all the other opinions it is tough to prove or disprove.

What I can agree with is that it would make sense that FOX would have better success at changing opinion because they are one of only a few I know of that are not joining the mainstream with a slant towards the left.

It would only make sense that the few news outlets with a different style or more rounded offering etc to have a better chance of creating differing opinion as they are showing their viewers something they have not seen from other sources, or more importantly things that were purposely left out

Now this is just opinion, and yes its my own.

We can look for ways to substanciate our opinions or beliefs, and there are many avenues avail to us all, but to be as niave as to expect to explain away something as obvious as bias or agendas in news reporting is obsurd.

Lets not forget that even a phone call with news from a friend will have the potential to include the feelings or opinion of the caller as it is only natural.

Since we on opinions now how about the idea that FOX is not favoring the right as often accused, but rather the others are so favoring the left for so long that it just appears that way as it is so different from what major network viewers have become conditioned to.

post · 08-20-08, 06:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LennyD

......Since we on opinions now how about the idea that FOX is not favoring the right as often accused, but rather the others are so favoring the left for so long that it just appears that way as it is so different from what major network viewers have become conditioned to.[/b]

LennyD, there is "no left" in the US, and "the media" is a "right of center" "thing", aligned with the CIA's "mighty Wurlitzer".

Quote:

Patricia Buckley Bozell, 81; Activist Founded a Catholic Opinion Journal - washingtonpost.com
Obituaries
Patricia Buckley Bozell, 81; Activist Founded a Catholic Opinion Journal

By Adam Bernstein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 15, 2008; Page B06

.....Mrs. Bozell was born into a Catholic family whose fortune originated in Central and South American oil fields. Among her nine siblings were the late William F. Buckley Jr., who founded the magazine National Review, and James L. Buckley, a former Conservative Party U.S. senator from New York.

She married L. Brent Bozell Jr., a National Review editor with whom she launched Triumph in 1966. The magazine lasted nearly a decade and, as the second-in-command editor, Mrs. Bozell helped shape its voice against legalized abortion and in favor of the traditional church in response to Vatican II reforms.

Among her 10 children was L. Brent Bozell III, who began the conservative Media Research Center watchdog group. .....

Quote:

Why Conservatives Should Be Optimistic About the Media
January 21, 1992
Why Conservatives Should Be Optimistic About the Media
by L. Brent Bozell, III

......8) Help train the next generation.

...Imagine, if you will, a future wherein the media willfully support the foreign policy objectives of the United States. ...When Ronald Reagan is cited not as the "Man of the Year," but the "Man of the Century.".....

Quote:

Washingtonpost.com: Decades of Contributions to Conservatism
Decades of Contributions to Conservatism

By Ira Chinoy and Robert G. Kaiser
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, May 2, 1999; Page A25

......Scaife has given tens of millions to favored academic departments, from the George Mason University department of economics (a bastion of free-market economic theory) to a now-defunct security studies program at New York University....

.....The Intercollegiate Studies Institute, founded in 1953 (first president: William F. Buckley Jr.) sustains an elaborate conservative network on America's college campuses. Through an organization called the Collegiate Network, ISI pays nearly all the costs of conservative publications on 60 campuses, from the well-known Dartmouth Review to the Sprigg Street Gazette at Southeast Missouri State University. ISI gives fellowships for graduate studies to promising young conservative scholars. Former fellows include Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia; Edwin J. Feulner Jr., president of the Heritage Foundation; Rep. David M. McIntosh (R-Ind.); author Dinesh D'Souza and William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard.

ISI has a budget of about $5 million. Scaife's three principal foundations gave it and its affiliate, the Collegiate Network, $880,000 last year. Since the early '60s the two have been granted more than $7 million from Scaife sources.

'Public Interest' Law Firms......

Quote:

Old article on free press as CIA press - newsgroup-threads

Quote:

There's no stopping Bill Buckley - The Boston Globe
There's no stopping Bill Buckley
By Jeff Jacoby
July 1, 2004

.....At the time, Buckley was not yet 30. He had already published a controversial bestseller, "God and Man at Yale," served in the US Army, worked for the CIA, and graduated from Yale, where he'd had a dazzling run as chairman of the Yale Daily News. He would go on to write -- take a deep breath -- 35 nonfiction books, 15 books of fiction, 79 book reviews, 56 introductions or forewords to books written by others, 227 obituary essays, 800-plus editorials or other articles in National Review, 350 articles in periodicals other than National Review, and more than 4,000 newspaper columns.

Those statistics come from a bibliography of Buckley's works published by ISI Books in 2002. But since that volume covers only the first 50 years of Buckley's professional output, all the numbers are a little on the low side.

And that's just his writing. In the past five decades, Buckley has also: edited National Review, which he shaped into an influential journal of opinion; hosted "Firing Line," one of the longest-running talk shows in TV history; and annually delivered scores of public speeches. He has run for mayor of New York, served in the US delegation to the United Nations, sailed yachts across the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, and mastered the harpsichord.......

.....Buckley, by 1955, had already been in deep cover for the CIA. While there is some confusion as to the actual duration of Buckley’s service as an agent, Judis notes that he served under E. Howard Hunt of Watergate fame in Mexico City in 1951. Buckley was directed to the CIA by Yale Professor Wilmoore Kendall, who passed Buckley along to James Burnham, then a consultant to the Office Of Policy Coordination, the CIA’s covert-action wing.

Buckley apparently had a knack for spying: before his stint with the Agency, he had served as an on-campus informant for the FBI, feeding God only knows what to Hoover’s political police. In any case, it is known that Buckley continued to participate at least indirectly in CIA covert activities through the 60s.

The founding circle of National Review was composed largely of former agents or men otherwise in the pay of the CIA, including Buckley, Kendall, and Burnham. Wall Street lawyer William Casey, rooted in OSS activities and later to be named director of the CIA, drew up the legal documents for the new magazine. (He also helped transfer Human Events from isolationist to interventionist hands.)

NR required nearly half a million to get off the ground; the only substantial contribution known was from Will Buckley, Senior: $100,000. It’s long been rumored that CIA black funds were used to start the magazine, but no hard evidence exists to establish it. It may also be relevant that the National Review was organized as a nonprofit venture, as covert funding was typically channeled through foundations.

By the 70s, it was known that Buckley had been an agent. More imaginative right-wingers accused Buckley of complicity in everything from the assassination of JFK to the Watergate break-in, undoubtedly owing to his relationship with the mysterious Hunt.

But sober minds also believed that something was suspicious about the National Review. In a syndicated column, Gary Wills wondered, "Was National Review, with four ex-agents of the CIA on its staff, a CIA operation? If so, the CIA was stingy, and I doubt it – but even some on the editorial board raised the question. And the magazine supported Buckley’s old CIA boss, Howard Hunt, and publicized a fund drive for him." In reply, Buckley denounced Wills for being a classicist. But others close to the founding circle of National Review nurtured similar suspicions. Libertarian "fusionist" Frank Meyer, for example, confided privately that he believed that the National Review was a CIA front.

If it was, then it was the federal government that finally broke the back of the populist and isolationist right, the mass-based movement with its roots in the America First anti-war movement. What FDR tried and failed to do when he sought to shut down the Chicago Tribune, when his attorney general held mass sedition trials of his critics on the right, and when he orchestrated one of the worst smear campaigns in US history against his conservative opponents, the CIA accomplished. That in itself ought to lead conservatives to oppose the existence of executive agencies engaged in covert operations.

Today, the war-mongering right is self-sustaining. Money flows like milk and honey to neoconservative activists from the major conservative foundations. Irving’s son Bill Kristol has his sugar daddy in the form of media tycoon and alien Rupert Murdoch. National Review is boring, but in no danger of going under financially.

But the cozy relationship with the federal government is the same. Neocons Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan now insist on massive extensions of the warfare state. The Weekly Standard demands a ground war to topple the head of a foreign government unfriendly to Israel, while denouncing right-wing isolationism, libertarianism, and Murray Rothbard......

Buckley's father-in-law; Vancouver, BC's Austin C. Taylor's American counterparts were John McCloy and Samuel P. Bush....

Quote:

NY Times
…As Mr. Bird writes, he was responsible ”more than any other individual” for getting the President to issue the infamous Executive Order 9066, calling for the resettlement of more than 100,000 Japanese-Americans from the West Coast to ”relocation centers” (or, as Roosevelt more bluntly called them, ”concentration camps”). McCloy justified the decision by proclaiming, ”If it is a question of safety of the country, [ or ] the Constitution of the United States, why, the Constitution is just a scrap of paper to me.”…

Google News Archive
New York Times - Mar 1, 1942
Persons of Japanese race must also leave all protected areas forthwith. … which will be composed of three persons under the chairmanship of Austin Taylor, …

NY Times
By ARNALDO CORTESISpecial Cable to THE NEW YORK TIMES.
January 7, 1941, Tuesday

MEXICO CITY, Jan. 6 — William R. Davis, international oil operator, is expected to arrive in Mexico City Saturday together with Austin Taylor, described as his partner. His interest on this trip appears to be not oil, as in the past, but essential war metals, such as mercury, tungsten and molybdenum, that are produced in Mexico. …”

The Official German Report By Oetje John Rogge

NY Times
Austin C. Taylor, financier and sportsman… Aeronautical Supplies and] chairman of the Imperial Munitions Board….

It seems Austin Taylor had a similar WWI ”government job”, as the one held by:
NY Times
SAMUEL P. BUSH, 83,A STEEL EXECIJTIVE; Ex-Head of Buckeye Casting Co. Succumbs in Ohio — Once on War Industries Board
February 9, 1948, Monday

LennyD · 08-20-08, 02:10 PM

It is all out there.

Left, right, center, and everything inbetween and lots that does not fit any of the scale.

What I honestly can not understand (sorry if I am repeating myself) is that why everyone can not see that there are differences in what is reported and how it is reported to us?

I am sure there are plenty of conspiracy stories relating to both ends since it is beyond obvious that both major political parties are 100% self indulgent and perserveering, and no single entity (citizen or even party leader as evidenced by the recent happenings involving the Clintons) is above the party itself.

I have to figure that those who support a party that only their money is invited to must have a need to be part of something larger than themselves, but shouldnt religion fill that need

LennyD · 08-23-08, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

Alright so let me get this straight. You say FOX is about reporting 'actual news'. Yet this contradictory to A) their in company memos and B) the words of News Corps(FNs parent company) Chairman Rupert Murdoch. When you are looking out for stories that are damaging to one particular political party then it's EXTREMELY OBVIOUS that your goal is not to be 'fair and balanced' but to direct the way the viewer hears the news.

I meant to comment on this earlier as I thought it makes and brings up an interesting point.

First thing that came to mind when reading this is how any writer, editor or I guess even chairman could look to indulge their own beliefs in the news product they supply. Could this not also mean that it happens happens more often, and potentially as a normal human trait?

I could see where anyone trying to explain even to their best friends and family an important story adding their own flair to it, and am sure we all have done so in the past at some time.

The next thought was that even though I can not prove or disprove these memo's myself and have to rely on news sources for its accuracy etc could there also be similar things happening within the others as well?

Lastly if FOX was the only one willing to find evidence to support their belief of those things happening etc could the others not interested in showing such a connection be even worse for trying to keep such information from its viewers?

I do not have the answers, but all this talk really only brings up additional questions about why the one seemingly different major network news co. is always under attack, and I have since signing up here begun to wonder if the difference is not their doing, but rather what is not being done at the other more generic ones (can I call them generic? They do seem very much the same, and I have found I get the same needed info from most any of the big ones).

I still do not really have a preference, and find the differences a benefit to helping make my own decisions on what is really happening in the world around me.