Time Dec 5th U.S. Edition Masking world news

[Fuzzy_]

Actually according to a peer-reviewed study the exact opposite is true.

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/pdfs/MediaBias.pdf


The reality is most of the media has a left-wing bias and we have gotten used to it, so when you look at fox-news you think they are right-wing when in fact as other studies have shown they are actually the most centrist and balanced of all the news channels.

"The study also found that Fox News Channel’s evening news show provided more balanced coverage than its counterparts on the broadcast networks."
http://www.cmpa.com/releases/07_12_21_Election_Study.pdf

This uses the citations of liberal think tanks and policy groups of members of congress as the rubric -- comparing the citations to those of the media. This is a quantitative, text study with arguably spurious positive relationships. Fuzzy believes the inverse to be true: it seems to Fuzzy that Bill O'Reilly uses the term "liberal media", for example, far more often than does Brian Williams. Politicians have very different reasons for citing policy groups and think tanks than the media. This study also abandons its own text hypothesis by including ADA scores for good measure.

Here is a quote from the study:

[The 'valence'] captures nonideological factors that lead legislators and journalists to cite the think tank. Such factors may include such things as a reputation for high-quality and objective research, which may be orthogonal to any ideological leanings of the think tank.

Why does this valence necessarily make a think tank liberal or conservative? This very study suggests that reputation and ideological leanings are unreliable!

Shaken, Fuzzy's not pouncing on you with claws out. Fuzzy just doesn't see this old, invalid study as being the best resource... despite being peer-reviewed.

 

[SilverTrain]

Obviously you have never read many scientific studies and you knee-jerk response is to cover up your error.

The fact is that this study was published several years ago in a peer-reviewed journal. No one to date has refuted it, which is very rare because to publish another study that refutes a already published study gets you attention and status.

Of course, I am sure that you are much more educated and intelligent than all of those individuals that have spent their life researching such topics. However you comments do illustrate that you could not understand their rather simple formula that a computer uses to give quotient and slant range scores to media articles.

I suggest rather than immediately blowing off facts, data and evidence that do not conform to your ideological dogmas that you actually look at the talking points you are spewing and wonder why they fly in the face of empirical evidence.

The study you cited is a joke.

Any intelligent person understands that Fox News is an unabashed cheerleader for the Right.

Any further debate is a waste of air.

 

[Rikter8]

Could it be that you are the one that is so far to the left that in YOUR perspective the Center seems radical right?????????

No. The reason being Fox news has repetedly failed to report news that may not align with their republican "right" agenda. This is not new information. They are very far from fair and balanced.

There are thousands of news stories they refuse to air because it would damage the very hand that feeds their salaries.

The center can see through the tricks of the right. The far left has watched the tricks for years and voices their opinions.
Be glad for the "Liberal Left" because you wouldn't have womens rights without them.

How can you discount the cover of TIME magazine not reporting a major historical event that we will see in our lifetime??
The same thing was done with Occupy Wal Street.

If you would like to continue watching Fox news, then do so with your head in the sand.
Meanwhile, the rest of the citizens of the U.S. want to know exactly what is going on, and who's doing what to resolve it.

 

[3664shaken]

As Jon Stewart says


The Most Biased Name in News

You cannot be taken seriously:

* First you ran to the far left and highly dubious Media Matters as a source.

* Then you quote comedian and hard leftist Jon Stewart as an authority.

* And now on to another extreme source, FAIR, to back up your talking points.

Sorry Sargon, I have given reputable sources without the ideological agenda, I have put forth a highly regarded peer-reviewed study that people on the left and the right agree has much merit and bring forth pundits, comedians and talking points.

Enough said - live in you echo-chamber, that's your choice as for me I choose reality over talking points.

 

[3664shaken]

Shaken, Fuzzy's not pouncing on you with claws out. Fuzzy just doesn't see this old, invalid study as being the best resource... despite being peer-reviewed.

First of all age had nothing to do with relevancy - besides the study has been updated and kept current.

Secondly - The authors are well thought of professors and have received much praise and accolades from both the right and the left about their study.

Thirdly - To date no papered professor or other expert in this area has written a peer-reviewed rebuttal, which is amazing since most academicians would love to be published and are in fact usually left of center.

Without trying to slam you but if you get a group of physicists together and they all agree about the nature of quarks and you walk into the room and tell me that they are all wrong and you are the real expert . . . . . well I think you know who I will trust and believe more.

 

[3664shaken]

The study you cited is a joke.

WHY - because you say it is or because it goes against your talking points.

The fact is that scholars and highly intelligent academician's on the right and the left have looked over the study and found it compelling.

Of course these are the experts in the matter and you are a LPSG contributor . . . . . yup I'm impressed.

Any intelligent person understands that Fox News is an unabashed cheerleader for the Right.

Nope any far left ideologue understands this because they have been told it over and over and over and over and over again.

If you repeat lie often enough it will become the truth to simpletons.

Once again the unbiased studies all show the exact opposite of what you say - are they all wrong??????????????????????????

Any further debate is a waste of air.

I agree, extreme ideologues cannot think for themselves and only repeat what they have been told. You have no use for facts, data or evidence you only need a echo chamber and talking points and you have your reality.

 

[3664shaken]

The reason being Fox news has repeatedly failed to report news that may not align with their republican "right" agenda. This is not new information.

Once again all of the unbiased, non-partisan studies done say the exact opposite. This is a talking point that is repeated with no unbiased evidence to back it up.

The center can see through the tricks of the right.

They can also see through the tricks of the left -

"The Hill Poll: Most voters see media as biased and unethical

Most, 46 percent, believe the media generally favor Democrats, while 22 percent said they believe Republicans are favored, with 28 percent saying the media is reasonably balanced."
The Hill Poll: Most voters see media as biased and unethical - TheHill.com

How can you discount the cover of TIME magazine not reporting a major historical event that we will see in our lifetime??

I never brought this up - but the reason IMHO was twofold

1) Covers are designed to SELL magazines - in Time's opinion the cover in the US will sell more to Americans than the other cover would.

2) Time is trying to protect OWS and not associate them with violent mob activity elsewhere in the wold.

If you would like to continue watching Fox news, then do so with your head in the sand.

FALSE assumption - I don't watch TV.

Besides who has their head in the sand - people who prattle out a false meme about Fox or those that are educated about the facts, data and evidence???????

Meanwhile, the rest of the citizens of the U.S. want to know exactly what is going on, and who's doing what to resolve it.

Congratulations but you won't get the information from hard left sources any more than you will get it from hard right sources and until you can use unbiased facts, data and evidence; without letting your ideology get in the way, you will incredibly uninformed.

 

[deleted15807]

You cannot be taken seriously :24::24::24:...

Huuum have you been keeping track? Has anyone in this thread taken you seriously? I'm still waiting for your footnotes.

BTW - You should really take up learning how to use the multi-quote function. Your serial posts are rather tiresome.

 

[vince]

Interesting. I view most of the media and what I read in it with more than a pinch of salt. Especially ones such as The Hill which was referenced above. The Hill is owned by News World Communications, Inc., which in turn is the media arm of Reverend Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church. Reverend Moon founded NWC in 1976. The Moonies cult also founded The Washington Times and own UPI. That cult's Supreme Leader's right wing bias is well known and I think it is alarming that foreign businessman and "churches" own large media empires in the USA.

 

[deleted15807]

^ Rupert is an American citizen. He specifically became one so he further his media empire and bring his unique brand of yellow journalism to the U.S.

OUTFOXED : Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism

 

[3664shaken]

Huuum have you been keeping track? Has anyone in this thread taken you seriously?

Slavery was quite popular, along with blood-letting and a whole host of other idiocies.

Popularity, especially on LPSG political forum, which is about 80% extreme leftists doesn't mean shit.

I'm still waiting for your footnotes.

- If you are talking about unbiased, non-partisan sources I gave quite a few, please pay attention. You gave. . . . . . . partisan BS.

BTW - You should really take up learning how to use the multi-quote function. Your serial posts are rather tiresome.

I prefer talking to individuals - hard leftists ascribe to group identity politics so I understand that you view each other as a homogeneous entity.

People on the right then to view people as individuals and think that each person may have a different viewpoint on the subject.

I tend to agree with the right on the issue of group think vs individual viewpoints. Sorry you don't, but that was highly predictable.

 

[Klingsor]

I prefer talking to individuals - hard leftists ascribe to group identity politics so I understand that you view each other as a homogeneous entity.

People on the right then to view people as individuals and think that each person may have a different viewpoint on the subject.

I tend to agree with the right on the issue of group think vs individual viewpoints. Sorry you don't, but that was highly predictable.

All of which would sound much more "individual" if it weren't such a clichéd right-wing talking point.

 

[deleted15807]

- If you are talking about unbiased, non-partisan sources I gave quite a few, please pay attention.

Actually you didn't. Of course it's virtually impossible to find a non-Fox source that says Fox is 'middle-of-the-road' as you call it. Which of course is the biggest lie in the entire political forum. Huge. Massive.

No you pay attention. Where are your sources for this steaming pile you wrote:

The reality is that Columbia school of Journalism, Cornell school of Communication, George Mason university, Scientific American, peer-reviewed studies all of have found that Fox is pretty fair and balanced and middle of the road.
​

 

[Bbucko]

Gentlemen: why are you letting yourselves be trolled?

 

[Klingsor]

Gentlemen: why are you letting yourselves be trolled?

Can't speak for anyone else. In my case, *far* too much time on my hands. :smile:

(This is assuming you were including *me* among the "gentlemen," which, now that I think of it, is a dubious proposition at best).

 

[Rikter8]

Gentlemen: why are you letting yourselves be trolled?

Good point.
Back on topic - how the mass media is covering up world events.

 

[Fuzzy_]

People on the right then to view people as individuals and think that each person may have a different viewpoint on the subject.

I tend to agree with the right on the issue of group think vs individual viewpoints. Sorry you don't, but that was highly predictable.

If only the right really were as individualized as the left. Instead, they cower together like predictable sheep--afraid of rocking the boat or being different. If conservatives weren't ideologically bound together so strongly, religious persecution wouldn't exist.

One thing that Fuzzy loves about liberals is their willingness to debate an issue and change their minds. This asset can become a problem when it comes to solidarity or collective decision making, unfortunately.