Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (692901)	7/20/2005 7:20:51 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Thanks, Peter for the link, it's all grist for the mill. My opinion is that most of the studies I've seen thus far (this one included) are far to limited in their scope, narrow in their definitions, faulty in their methodology, or dated to provide any kind of a definitive answer to the question of media bias (which, of couse must be there in the individual case, everyone has biases... but the weighted aggregate is the answer we are looking for.) This particular study you pointed me to takes a novel approach to measuring 'bias'... they note how often particular 'think tanks' are mentioned in the news reporting. This appears at first glanse to be potentially useful, but is likely fraught with methodological problems. For example: some 'think tanks' are much larger then others. Presumably they issue tons of 'press releases' relating to the news events of the day... whereas the smaller 'think tanks' do not produce such a steady stream of readily-quotable verbiage. Does this study attempt to adjust their mathematical models to account for the greater output of some of the 'think tanks', and the fact that reporters are likely fairly lazy... often merely working into their reporting coverage PR pieces (such as the government's stream of PR releases) that are conveniently made available to them, and seem at least generally on-target? If these models are not adjusted in this manner... then what is being ascribed to 'bias' might in fact merely be 'laziness'. At best, using the references to various 'think tanks' as a proxy for 'bias' seems a little strained. They appear to be 'measuring' an incident event that is at some remove from the centrality of bias. Still, it's an innovative attempt, one I hadn't thought of, even as it's tentative conclusion remains at variance with some of the other studies in some respects (one of which --- linked below --- even found the WSJ to be the most 'Liberal' Big media outlet in the land....) ------------------------------------------------- (Previously posted to you, Peter) Here's one recent study that came to some differing conclusions: editorandpublisher.com ------------------------------------------------- The Lichter, Rothman and Lichter, (1986), mentioned in the link you posted, appears FAR TOO OLD to be of much use today. I think most of the studies have looked at entirely too short a period of time, and used entirely too simplistic political definitions to 'classify' things. (Using just 'Liberal/Conservative' labels while totally ignoring the equally valid 'Libertarian/Authoritarian' axis... and also ignoring 'Religiousity' which appears to be fairly independent of both scales.) Furthermore, any study dating from the Reagan period is entirely too dated to be of any use today --- back then 'Liberals' were liberals and 'Conservatives' were conservatives. That was BEFORE Clinton began his policy of 'triangulation', supporting welfare reform, restraining spending with PAYGO rules, supporting NAFTA... and before people putatively calling themselves 'Conservative' began voting for HUGE expansions of the size and power of the federal government (Medicare expansion, Homeland Security, 'No Child Left Behind Act', Patriot Act) and voting for discressionary spending increases in annual budgets that average some 50% higher rates of increase then the Clinton eight years averaged....) IMO, some of that so-called 'Conservative' ranking of FOX channel may not truly represent conservatism... but rather a tendency towards the Authoritarian instinct to support Executive power --- a not altogether 'Conservative' position.