Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
squishyx

Romney on the 47%

128 posts in this topic

I don't know why we are going down this road but food for though:

Also there exists no meaningful comparison between Cable and Network news in terms of viewership because Network news is on what, 2, 3 times a day at the most for an hour long? Cable News run 24/7 so their viewer share is diluted over the course of a day.

I don't want to go down the road either, but suffice it to say, I find no value in a study that says whether someone is "tough" on a reporting subject.

Like I say though, it's a minor annoyance. You had presidents elected from both parties when the news was virtually controlled by three networks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A quick chart of a study done in 2004, as more food for thought

http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/02/16/how-biased-is-your-media/

http://www.timgroseclose.com/explanation-of-sqs/

Here’s how 20 major media outlets rank on Groseclose and Milyo’s slant scale, with 100 representing the most liberal and zero the most conservative:

ABC Good Morning America

56.1

ABC World News Tonight

61.0

CBS Early Show

66.6

CBS Evening News

73.7

CNN NewsNight with Aaron Brown

56.0

Drudge Report

60.4

Fox News Spec. Rept. w/ Brit Hume

39.7

Los Angeles Times

70.0

NBC Nightly News

61.6

NBC Today Show

64.0

New York Times

73.7

Newshour with Jim Lehrer

55.8

Newsweek

66.3

NPR Morning Edition

66.3

Time Magazine

65.4

U.S. News and World Report

65.8

USA Today

63.4

Wall Street Journal

85.1

Washington Post

66.6

Washington Times

35.4

Link to the paper itself

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

Our results show a strong liberal bias. All of the news outlets

except Fox News’ Special Report and the Washington Times received

a score to the left of the average member of Congress. And

a few outlets, including the New York Times and CBS Evening

News, were closer to the average Democrat in Congress than the

center. These findings refer strictly to the news stories of the

outlets. That is, we omitted editorials, book reviews, and letters to

the editor from our sample.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why we are going down this road but food for though:

Also there exists no meaningful comparison between Cable and Network news in terms of viewership because Network news is on what, 2, 3 times a day at the most for an hour long? Cable News run 24/7 so their viewer share is diluted over the course of a day.

There was also the UCLA/University of Missouri study that attempted to quantify bias among news outlets using statistical models. The research highlighted surprising conclusions: the news pages of The Wall Street Journal are more liberal than The New York Times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was also the UCLA/University of Missouri study that attempted to quantify bias among news outlets using statistical models. The research highlighted surprising conclusions: the news pages of The Wall Street Journal are more liberal than The New York Times.

A university study about media bias. RED FLAG! RED FLAG!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A quick chart of a study done in 2004, as more food for thought

http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/02/16/how-biased-is-your-media/

http://www.timgroseclose.com/explanation-of-sqs/

Here’s how 20 major media outlets rank on Groseclose and Milyo’s slant scale, with 100 representing the most liberal and zero the most conservative:

The Drudge report is a 60? The Wall Street journal is an 85? (Where 0 = conservative and 100 = liberal) Not really sure what to make of that.

Interesting study, I like that they attempted to quantify bias, it's a start. As I said before though in my opinion this type of analysis is lacking "weight". You need some kind of measure of how many people actually consume the news from the sources. Something to account for the difference of having just two news shows in a day and a 24/7 cable coverage. If 10 million people watch CBS evening news and 10 million people watch foxnews throughout the day but only 1 million tune into Brett Hume, then according to these results you could infer that "liberal bias" is affecting 10x as many people as "conservative bias".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A university study about media bias. RED FLAG! RED FLAG!

Why didn't you call D731's source out as a red flag then?

"Dr. Tim Groseclose, a professor of political science and economics at UCLA"

Edit: After looking at Manta's comment and my previous one, it's probably the same study. Not to pick on you, I am sure I do the same "the source of facts are solid when they support me, and questionable when against".

Edited by squishyx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why didn't you call D731's source out as a red flag then?

"Dr. Tim Groseclose, a professor of political science and economics at UCLA"

Edit: After looking at Manta's comment and my previous one, it's probably the same study. Not to pick on you, I am sure I do the same "the source of facts are solid when they support me, and questionable when against".

I was just kidding around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll have to find it, but I was reading the comments posted by the author of that graph that recently made the rounds that had Obama with only 1.8% spending increase vs Bush at 7-8% year over year. The author had their content published on Forbes. That author stated something along the lines of "of course MSNBC is the most left leaning news outlet out there, just like Fox leans to the right".

Here is a simple test: Was Dan Quayle treated the same way as Biden? Biden says some really really really dumb sh!t but you need to search for it. Quayle was exposed as a dope all the time.

Edit: The contributor to Forbes is Rick Ungar. Here is the link : Linky and here is the quote:

I completely agree that MSNBC leans over to the left the same way Fox leans over to the right.

Yes just one man's opinion. I do however disagree with Ungar's analysis. Numbers may be right but it is flawed.

Edited by devilsadvoc8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drudge is at 60 because of his libertarian leanings, I'm guessing. Stuff like medical marijuana and anti govt spying type stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears that you're pretty liberal. Yet you prefer the more economically conservative guy (Reagan) over the more liberal guy (Romney) because the former appeared to "care" more about the little guy.

Like I said, the chances of me voting for either are pretty low. I'm talking about personal respect, which I feel for Reagan. I disagree with his policy, but believe he sincerely had the best interest of the country at heart, whether his policy was right or not. Romney seems like a selfish, entitled person, who wants power. I don't respect him for that. Similarly, I agreed with John Kerry and Al Gore's policies, but never liked either. I accept that politics and ideals are miles apart. It doesn't mean I can't try to figure out whom I can stand on an ethical level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drudge is at 60 because of his libertarian leanings, I'm guessing. Stuff like medical marijuana and anti govt spying type stuff.

This illustrates the problem with the 2 party system, which results in most people picking the lesser of 2 evils (or voting for a sure loser to get their views into the next election cycle). More and more I feel like Homer Simpson saying "don't blame me, I voted for Kodos."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how they tried to quantify the bias. When I hear people really complain about biased reporting, it's not that the reporter said something like, "Obama did well" or "Obama was awful." People go nuts about bias when parts of stories are left out. Simple example: FoxNews anchor reports that gas prices have gone up 70% under Obama, liberal decries that the report leaves out that those starting prices were in the middle of a recession, accuses FoxNews of bias. It can't be easy to put a number on that. The conservative will say that the statistic is correct as reported, which it is. The liberal will say that the context is pertinent information. So would you score this a full point for bias, or not at all, or just a portion of one, and then how much. . .? I'm always in favor of measuring things analytically, but I just marvel at how difficult it is to do.

Wall Street Journal

85.1

Go figure :blink:

I'll reiterate something that I said before. I don't think that the biases of the reporters have the big effect that people seem to fear. Most people I know are decidedly conservative or liberal, and will only get their news from sources that tend to back their beliefs. This isn't the 1820s where one newspaper arrives at the saloon and everyone in town reads it. People have options and exercise them. Even on the occasion where somebody gets "stuck" with a particular news source (like being in a waiting room with MSNBC on the TV) that they don't like, they just sit there and criticize the reporting and are skeptical of every word that they hear. Doesn't seem to me like people leave room for a reporter to change their minds.

Edited by Devils Dose
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll reiterate something that I said before. I don't think that the biases of the reporters have the big effect that people seem to fear. Most people I know are decidedly conservative or liberal, and will only get their news from sources that tend to back their beliefs. This isn't the 1820s where one newspaper arrives at the saloon and everyone in town reads it. People have options and exercise them. Even on the occasion where somebody gets "stuck" with a particular news source (like being in a waiting room with MSNBC on the TV) that they don't like, they just sit there and criticize the reporting and are skeptical of every word that they hear. Doesn't seem to me like people leave room for a reporter to change their minds.

Well stated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The New York Times as a left wing publication is a great example.

Classic. You can't make this stuff up !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Squishy, you are clearly forgetting the Fox News leads in CABLE news, their rating have yet to touch the "Big 3" who are clearly controlled by and advocate for the left, as they have done for decades.

I guess it is decades now and I had no idea during their reign -- but clearly NBC was republican. David Brinkley's rant against Clinton was fabulous. I never knew Diane Sawyer, Barbara Walters were all Republican. There is a secret shame that you're somehow elitist if your Republican despite it's historically being the party of the uneducated country hick. Everyone thought Brinkley was out of line -- I thought he was right on.

But I have weird values -- they're very Protestant/Lutheran. Too proud to even admit help is needed much less ask for it, too careful about presentation - not keeping up with the joneses as much as making sure the joneses think you have appropriate respect for your home and community. There is a huge drive to succeed but a weird compulsion to not demonstrate success outwardly - modesty is of prime importance.

There have been a lot of articles on why America prospered in the last century - and mostly it's due to the weird moral code Protestants honestly stood by. To exploit people to their detriment reflected badly on you -- now people delight in screwing everyone they can -- just look at driving - just look at the rants on these boards.

I value meaningless thing like grammar vocabulary table manners. I make sure my animals are healthy and happy and clean even if I lose money on the deal. (Sheep! I love my new Shetlands - seriously - smartest most affectionate sheep EVER... but nonetheless sheep). Anyhow I value all things invented by man pretty much to not offend his fellow man. All that is gone now. I'm an outlier and no one knows what the hell I'm talking about. The people most sorely lacking the manners and consideration are now pretty much the people who came from that back-ground. Supreme self-righteous defensiveness has taken over their brains, They have no idea what they thing anymore even. They just spout tea-party garbage when confronted with a moral conundrum. They've forgotten to think for themselves they're so grateful to have founded a group of more or less like-minded people. But then they are racked with guilt at the same time so they even more defensive and thus we have a downward spiral of values.

The people who claim they value human life ok yes - Democrats), I feel are lying and always have been. Democrats do not provide social service unless there is profit for them - individually. The parties are identical with different spin. Whoever says they aren't is just looking for a way to further spin some sort of distinguishing character which doesn't exists. They just think they can't "WIN" if they're two sides of the same coin. I'm depressed because Republicans were mostly truthful - now they're this weird group of liars who pander to the religious right et al..

Maybe the Republicans have been forced into the change -- I know I don't feel the majority of people are capable of making decision based on what's best for all as opposed to what's good for themselves. Liberitarians dont get my support because people are too brazenly stubborn to even acknowledge that selfishness is NOT always good for the whole. if most stupid self-righteous bastards have their way they will make the most destructive decision. They will run a red light killing themselves and/or the person in the other car. Too much "if it feels good do it" has permeated the entire country and everyone thinks THEY are the morally superior group. YEah - so I do hear myself spout some real elitist Democrat bullsh!t when it comes to regulation and such.

ANYHOW -- back for a rant I expect no one to find value in but WTF! I got to boast about my sheep anyhow.

Have a good non-hockey season you all!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Classic. You can't make this stuff up !!

Thanks for proving my point.

Miss Leeds you make a great pet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for proving my point.

Miss Leeds you make a great pet.

Haha Manta is do delusional, she thinks the Holocaust isn't real either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.weeklysta...ads_652973.html

Just another of millions of examples.

This is your "proof" of media bias? Omitting that a politician feels that sometimes his ad's go over the line? Stop the presses... if Romney had said this I would be equally as unimpressed because it's hardly newsworthy. Then again I doubt anything in the 60 minutes interview is.

I'd love to see some other examples because hopefully they contain a little more substance then that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does everyone think of the 60 minutes interviews? I was upset with the lack of follow up questions to both Romney and Obama.

What really irks me about Obama is the job creation. People hear the 4.5M and think "wow what a great job" and fail to go out and research and fact check things. It's really only about 300k. Huge difference. I would respect him more if he told the truth about it. More annoying is why hasn't anyone questioned him about it?

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/05/politics/fact-check-obama-jobs/index.html

I would link it but it's not going through with the new update.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.weeklysta...ads_652973.html

Just another of millions of examples.

Beating you down is hardly grasping at straws. You're funny.

Controversy out of nothing. Making it seem like the footage was banned because of a left wing media conspiracy. Does it even make the president look bad? It's a fluff answer that wouldn't have hurt or helped the president anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does everyone think of the 60 minutes interviews? I was upset with the lack of follow up questions to both Romney and Obama.

What really irks me about Obama is the job creation. People hear the 4.5M and think "wow what a great job" and fail to go out and research and fact check things. It's really only about 300k. Huge difference. I would respect him more if he told the truth about it. More annoying is why hasn't anyone questioned him about it?

http://www.cnn.com/2...jobs/index.html

I would link it but it's not going through with the new update.

I think these 2 charts also add another view to employment that matters beyond the unemployment percentage number.

I'd also link them but the linking is down right now.

EMRATIO_Max_630_378.png

payroll0516111_big.gif

Edited by Devils731

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does everyone think of the 60 minutes interviews? I was upset with the lack of follow up questions to both Romney and Obama.

What really irks me about Obama is the job creation. People hear the 4.5M and think "wow what a great job" and fail to go out and research and fact check things. It's really only about 300k. Huge difference. I would respect him more if he told the truth about it. More annoying is why hasn't anyone questioned him about it?

http://www.cnn.com/2...jobs/index.html

I would link it but it's not going through with the new update.

I don't think that it was ever presented to me that those 4.5 million jobs had anything to do with public sector jobs. Every time I have heard that number, it has been prefaced or followed with how they were private sector jobs. It's pretty well known Obama deeply cut government workers, so that's a pretty crappy "gotcha" fact, to use a Palinism.

Also, I do not want to see a the Post is to the right what the Times is to the left argument. Anyone who feels the need to say that, can PM me 1 BILLION times over and then I will meet them somewhere so they can laugh in my face, but only when the Post receives a Pulitzer. /rant

Edited by ATLL765

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think these 2 charts also add another view to employment that matters beyond the unemployment percentage number.

I'd also link them but the linking is down right now.

http://www.ritholtz....0516111_big.gif

http://www.ritholtz....Max_630_378.png

Those charts tell me that the American people need to be a little more patient, regardless of which party controls the government, when you look at just how bad the recession was.

What exactly would a McCain presidency have done to those numbers? His proposals were basically the same as Bush and Romney and those policies in place before the recession. I am not blaming those policies, I am saying if those that were in place couldn't prevent the fallout, what makes anyone thing they would have helped the problem? If anything it proves that recovering from a recession is hard, but most people know that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0