FOX News Most Balanced, Says Independent Study

Sadly I lost faith in those studies after the Wall Street Journal was "proven" to be the most liberal newspaper in America. :p
 
From Sourcewatch, who I am sure that you will dismiss as a bunch of "Libs"

CMPA's claim to be 'non-partisan' is undermined by an analysis of its sources of funding. Information provided by mediatransparency.org [4] reveals that the overwhelming proportion of CMPA's funding comes from conservative foundations. The funding information, covering 1986-2002, lists the following donors:

Carthage Foundation, part of the Scaife Foundations - $267,000 from 5 donations
Earhart Foundation
John M. Olin Foundation - $730,000 from 15 donations
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
Sarah Scaife Foundation, part of the Scaife Foundations - $760,000 from 9 donations
Smith Richardson Foundation - $416,916 from 3 donations
Thus, out of the total of $2,523,916, nearly all of it ($2,173,916) came from just three sources: the John M. Olin, Scaife, and Smith Richardson foundations. In other words, CMPA received 86% of its funding from those 3 donors. Here is a sample of other right-wing causes funded by these 3 donors, as listed by their respective SourceWatch articles:

John M. Olin Foundation - American Enterprise Institute, Project for the New American Century
Scaife Foundations - American Enterprise Institute, Heritage Foundation
Smith Richardson Foundation - American Enterprise Institute, Hudson Institute
According to Salon journalist Joe Conason, the availability of this information does not indicate an openness on the part of the Center for Media and Public Affairs. In a Jan 2003 exchange of views with Lichter, Conason said "The IRS form 990 returns filed by [Lichter's] center redacts the names of all the individuals and organizations that contribute to it, thereby concealing them from public scrutiny. But the watchdogs at Media Transparency have collated the 990 returns filed by the conservative foundations, which disclose their contributions to Lichter's outfit." [5]

As at August 2004, the CMPA website contains no information about the Center's sources of funding.
Click to expand...

So a Scaife funded front group gives the true belivers some stats to show that "Dems" and "Libs" are wrong and that Fox IS "Fair and Balanced"?

You are going to have to do better than that.
 
On the other hand, the study covers only the stories on evening news covering primary races for presidential nominations. Also, in a fit of "No ****!", they state, "FOX Is Most Balanced (not a typo)".
 
Even with serious media groups, Fox shows really well for fairness, since all of their programs are labeled "commentary" and only the news ticker gets examined.
 
For a Republican Religious Right Nutjob propaganda point of view waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out in right field, nope, not even close to fair or balanced.
 
LOL, what a joke... exactly the sort of thing that every right-winger will fall for each and every time. I wonder why they bother creating fake "non-partisan think tanks", when we know right-wingers would believe it was honest even if the place were called the Darth Vader Institute of Crushing the Rebel AllianceLiberals.
 
I can get Fox News on satellite as it is one of long list of news channels available. I would be pushed to call it a news channel as it seems to focus more on entertainment issues than anything else. I recall flipping through the news channels a while back and while most channels were covering international issues Fox had cameras outside Paris Hilton or Jackson's (or someone of that ilk) house hoping to catch a glimpse of them. This seemed to go on for hours as I it was still happening as I flipped through channels two or three times during the evening.

To be fair I haven't watched Fox much as it has desperately frequent and long advert breaks and I can't be bothered with that. The little I have seen tends to be very studio based and loaded with far from neutral comment. I think the fact that it is much loved by those who lean to the right tells me that either

1) Conservatives are fascinated by celebrity

and/or

2) Conservatives think Fox strokes their particular prejudices and they just grin and bear the rubbish on Paris Hilton et al.

Of all the US news channels I find Bloomberg the most neutral politically.
 
Cicero said:
http://www.cmpa.com/releases/07_12_21_Election_Study.pdf
Click to expand...

From the release:
Methodology
The Center for Media and Public Affairs is a media research organization that uses scientific content analysis to study news and entertainment media content. CMPA is affiliated with the George Mason University, where CMPA President Dr. S. Robert Lichter is Professor of Communications.
Click to expand...
Is there a reason that the Methodology section of the release does not contain their methodology? "Scientific content analysis" doesn't actually tell us anything about what criteria they were using or how they reached their conclusions.
 
Upchurch said:
From the release:

Is there a reason that the Methodology section of the release does not contain their methodology? "Scientific content analysis" doesn't actually tell us anything about what criteria they were using or how they reached their conclusions.
Click to expand...

It does...

CMPA has monitored every presidential election since 1988 using the same methodology, in which
trained coders tally all mentions of candidates and issues and all evaluations of candidates. We report
the evaluations by non-partisan sources, excluding comments by the candidates and campaigns about
each other, because research shows that non-partisan sources have the most influence on public
opinion, and they are also more subject to the discretion of reporters. However, we maintain data files
on partian evaluations as well.
Click to expand...
 
Upchurch said:
From the release:

Is there a reason that the Methodology section of the release does not contain their methodology? "Scientific content analysis" doesn't actually tell us anything about what criteria they were using or how they reached their conclusions.
Click to expand...

It is only a 2 page press release, not the actual study. The actual study is not up on their site and their previous studies have not been transitioned to their new website, so this thread will be long dead before the methodology is revealed.

The bit you missed from the box in the Methodology section (quoted above) helps, but again is not the complete methodology.

More importantly, I demand equal coverage for Ron Paul
 
Last edited:
Rob Lister said:
It does...
CMPA has monitored every presidential election since 1988 using the same methodology, in which trained coders tally all mentions of candidates and issues and all evaluations of candidates. We report the evaluations by non-partisan sources, excluding comments by the candidates and campaigns about each other, because research shows that non-partisan sources have the most influence on public opinion, and they are also more subject to the discretion of reporters. However, we maintain data files on partian evaluations as well.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Fair enough, but that is only the barest outline. It still doesn't give an outline what they classify as a source (are they including all Fox News programming including the vast amount of commentary shows or, as corp was joking, just the news ticker). What definitions of positive and negative references are they using? How do they control for bias in the coders?

I realize this is just a press release and not the full study, but as near as I can tell, the full study is not available. There is no way to evaluate the reliability of this study.
 
gtc posted while I was writing...

gtc said:
It is only a 2 page press release, not the actual study. The actual study is not up on their site and their previous studies have not been transitioned to their new website, so this thread will be long dead before the methodology is revealed.
Click to expand...
In other words, their unsupported claim will be pointed to again and again by right wing kooks with the promise of an actual study that can't be shown because of technical problems?

Compare to Indiana University, which performed an analysis on Bill O'Reilly's use of rhetoric and who actually provided the full study and tables before issuing a press release.

I smell baloney, but I'm willing to withhold judgment until I see the actual study. I wonder if Cicero and pomeroo will do the same?
 
Extra! Extra! Conservative Media Group Proclaims Conservative Media Outlet to be Most Balanced! Also, Water is Wet! Read All About It!
 
JoeEllison said:
LOL, what a joke... exactly the sort of thing that every right-winger will fall for each and every time. I wonder why they bother creating fake "non-partisan think tanks", when we know right-wingers would believe it was honest even if the place were called the Darth Vader Institute of Crushing the Rebel AllianceLiberals.
Click to expand...


You were asked to cite specific errors Bernie Goldberg made in Bias. What exactly did he get wrong? Why hasn't your side been able to show errors of fact in that book? Why do you refuse to read it?

I often watch Fox newscasts. They contain none of the blatant partisanship that characterizes the major networks. You rely exclusively on mockery because you're intellectually bankrupt.
 
Last edited:
Upchurch said:
gtc posted while I was writing...


In other words, their unsupported claim will be pointed to again and again by right wing kooks with the promise of an actual study that can't be shown because of technical problems?

Compare to Indiana University, which performed an analysis on Bill O'Reilly's use of rhetoric and who actually provided the full study and tables before issuing a press release.

I smell baloney, but I'm willing to withhold judgment until I see the actual study. I wonder if Cicero and pomeroo will do the same?
Click to expand...


You cite a study that shows a conservative commentator to be a conservative commentator. O'Reilly deserves to be lambasted for his disingenuous profession of neutrality. He is only slightly more neutral than the talking heads of the major networks who attend Democratic fundraisers and actively promote liberal causes. But--The O'Reilly Factor is not a news show. It doesn't pretend to be. If you and I were to sit side-by-side through the evening newscasts on each of the major networks, I could easily point out examples of liberal bias. You would be hard-pressed to show me comparable examples of conservative bias on a Fox newscast.
Try that experiment for yourself.
 
Upchurch said:
From the release:

Is there a reason that the Methodology section of the release does not contain their methodology? "Scientific content analysis" doesn't actually tell us anything about what criteria they were using or how they reached their conclusions.
Click to expand...


I watched Lichter explain that liberals will criticize the study because they resent its findings. If you find that you automatically dismiss anything that runs counter to your prejudices, a la Joe Ellison and skeptigirl, you understand what he's getting at.
 
pomeroo said:
You cite a study that shows a conservative commentator to be a conservative commentator.
Click to expand...
Calling people names once every 6.8 seconds is being "a conservative commentator"? In practice, I tend to agree. I'm just surprised that you do.


pomeroo said:
He is only slightly more neutral than the talking heads of the major networks who attend Democratic fundraisers and actively promote liberal causes.
Click to expand...
Who are you referring to?

pomeroo said:
But--The O'Reilly Factor is not a news show. It doesn't pretend to be.
Click to expand...
From Fox New's website:
Now in its tenth year on the air, “The O’Reilly Factor” on the FOX News Channel remains the dominant number one cable news program in the USA. In fact, it has been the highest rated broadcast for more than 200 straight weeks! Blending news analysis with investigative reporting, “The Factor” has gained international prominence as well — it is now seen in more than 30 countries.
Click to expand...
It refers to itself as a news show twice ("cable news program" and "investigative reporting").

pomeroo said:
You would be hard-pressed to show me comparable examples of conservative bias on a Fox newscast.
Try that experiment for yourself.
Click to expand...
It is truly amazing how much you assume without any actual knowledge. I have watched Fox News newscasts before and it is not hard to find conservative bias at all.

pomeroo said:
I watched Lichter explain that liberals will criticize the study because they resent its findings. If you find that you automatically dismiss anything that runs counter to your prejudices, a la Joe Ellison and skeptigirl, you understand what he's getting at.
Click to expand...
You'll notice I actually read what was available and criticized it based on its lack of information.

Do you find that you automatically dismiss anything that runs counter to your prejudice, like that guy in the Bill O'Reilly thread who dismissed the idea that there are 200,000 homeless vets because John Edwards said it?
 
Tonight on the Factor, Democrats, should they all move to Quebec? Stay tuned!
 
pomeroo said:
You were asked to cite specific errors Bernie Goldberg made in Bias. What exactly did he get wrong? Why hasn't your side been able to show errors of fact in that book? Why do you refuse to read it?

I often watch Fox newscasts. They contain none of the blatant partisanship that characterizes the major networks. You rely exclusively on mockery because you're intellectually bankrupt.
Click to expand...

GOLDBERG (page 57): During the Clinton impeachment trial in 1999, as the senators signed their names in the oath book swearing they would be fair and impartial, Peter Jennings, who was anchoring ABC News’s live coverage, made sure his audience knew which senators were conservative—but uttered not a word about which ones were liberal.
REALITY: Goldberg paints the picture that Peter Jennings identified every conservative in the Senate. He called THREE senators conservative.

GOLDBERG: Claimed that that the liberal press corps refuses to ID Rob Reiner as "liberal."
REALITY: Apparently, Bernie missed this report by Claudia Eller in the Los Angeles Times: ELLER, 8/16/00: In 1987, Horn went into business with yet another liberal activist, director Reiner, who starred in "All in the Family" and became one of Horn’s four partners in film and TV producer Castle Rock Entertainment.

Perhaps Bernie didn’t get his paper the day this appeared in the Washington Post: WILLIAM BOOTH, 10/22/98: The California Children and Families Initiative, better known as Proposition 10, is the brain child of Rob Reiner, the actor...Joining Reiner, an avowed liberal, on proposition mailers, radio and television spots are some odd bedfellows, including actor and National Rifle Association President Charlton Heston, millionaire former representative Michael Huffington (R), crooner Pat Boone and former surgeon general C. Everett Koop.

Does Bernie read USA Today? If so, he surely caught this: JILL LAWRENCE, 6/17/98: Reiner played the long-haired, liberal son-in-law on the 1970s sitcom All In The Family. His real politics are similar, and he feared Californians would dismiss his initiative as a liberal cause. Then Conservative Republican Michael Huffington called. He sized up Reiner over lunch. "After we were finished talking, there wasn’t even an ounce of reservation," Huffington says. He immediately signed on as co-chairman and now calls Reiner "my new best liberal Democrat friend."

GOLDBERG In Chapter 9, Bernie goes on about the way the mainstream press mistreats men. (page 134): Take a story by Times reporter Natalie Angier that begins this way: "Women may not find this surprising, but one of the most persistent and frustrating problems in evolutionary biology is the male. Specifically…why doesn’t he just go away?" [Goldberg’s ellipsis]

REALITY: The 1800 word article had absolutely nothing to do with males and females of our tribe ("men" and "women") and just talked about evolutionary reproduction. Indeed, here’s a part of the wicked horse-whipping we "males" were receiving this day: ANGIER: But evolutionary biologists point out that most mutations are potential trouble, and the entire system of copying chromosomes from one generation to the next has evolved to prevent accidental alterations to the genetic text, not to court them. Thus, Dr. Redfield’s new calculations underscoring the mutational guilt of the male put a heavier burden than ever on theorists seeking to explain the purpose of sex.

GOLDBERG (page 161): Edward R. Murrow’s "Harvest of Shame," the great CBS News documentary about poor migrant families traveling America, trying to survive by picking fruits and vegetables, would never be done today. Too many poor people. Not our audience. We want the people who buy cars and computers.

REALITY: Does it strike anyone as odd that Goldberg would be calling it liberal bias for a news agency to kill a story about poor immigrants? How does that strike Goldberg as liberal?

GOLDBERG (page 57): Robert Bork is the "conservative" judge. But Laurence Tribe, who must have been on CBS Evening News ten million times in the 1980s (and who during the contested presidential election in 2000 was a leading member of Team Gore, arguing the vice president’s case before the U.S. Supreme Court), is identified simply as a "Harvard law professor." But Tribe is not simply a Harvard law professor. He’s easily as liberal as Bork is conservative.

REALITY: According to LEXIS, Tribe has appeared on the CBS Evening News just nine times since 1993 (as far back as LEXIS can go in this case) On one occasion, CBS used Tribe and Bork together; on May 14, 1994, they were asked to comment on Stephen Breyer’s appointment to the Supreme Court. Note how the professorial pair were ID’ed by reporter Jacqueline Adams:

ADAMS: A year ago, Judge Breyer discussed the last Supreme Court opening with President Clinton, but then hid his disappointment over coming in second to Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Today, legal scholars from both ends of the political spectrum applauded Breyer as the intellectual counterpoint to conservative Justice Antonin Scalia and as a proven consensus-builder.
 
Oops, it looks like I made a mistake here.

The study claims that 30 minutes of Fox "News" was slightly "more balanced" on a single issue during a specific time frame than the network evening news, not that the network itself is fair and balanced. So, I was wrong to think that the study asserted that FNC was fair and balanced.
 
Since the JREFer libs are incredulous about the George Mason University study, how about the Harvard University study? Of course both universities are inhabited and run by extreme conservatives, so this may impact the results.


http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/presspol/miscellaneous/invisible_primary.pdf

"Whether FOX News channel was uniformly positive about Republicans or negative about Democrats is not manifest in the data."

But as in every media study, CNN is still the champion when it comes to cable liberal bias.
 
JoeEllison said:
Oops, it looks like I made a mistake here.

The study claims that 30 minutes of Fox "News" was slightly "more balanced" on a single issue during a specific time frame than the network evening news, not that the network itself is fair and balanced. So, I was wrong to think that the study asserted that FNC was fair and balanced.
Click to expand...

Because of your inherent liberal bias, you rejected the GMU findings out of hand before even reading it. Now that you found a passage that substantiates your preconceived notions, you revise your impressions of the article. Your mind has a permanent geschlossen sign on it.
 
Can one have a liberal or conservative bias on 2 hours of coverage on Britney's latest self destruct button?
 
Lurker said:
GOLDBERG (page 57): During the Clinton impeachment trial in 1999, as the senators signed their names in the oath book swearing they would be fair and impartial, Peter Jennings, who was anchoring ABC News’s live coverage, made sure his audience knew which senators were conservative—but uttered not a word about which ones were liberal.
REALITY: Goldberg paints the picture that Peter Jennings identified every conservative in the Senate. He called THREE senators conservative.
Click to expand...



I don't think you'll be able to con me. I was riveted to those hearings and, for reasons I've never quite understood (masochism, perhaps), I used to watch Jennings every night. Peter was an egregious offender in what the National Review used to call the "ultra" game. That magazine offered a prize to any reader who could spot the term "ultra-liberal" in the N.Y. Times. After ten years or so, a reader claimed the prize, but his claim was disallowed when a closer look disclosed that the Times was talking about a communist in Eastern Europe. The point, obviously, is that the Times recognizes hundreds of ultra-conservatives, but not a single ultra-liberal. Jennings routinely identified Republican politicians as conservatives, but extreme liberals such as Ted Kennedy were somehow portrayed as middle-of-the-road. Jennings acknowledged in an interview that he inherited his anti-American streak from his mother.


Lurker said:
GOLDBERG: Claimed that that the liberal press corps refuses to ID Rob Reiner as "liberal."
REALITY: Apparently, Bernie missed this report by Claudia Eller in the Los Angeles Times: ELLER, 8/16/00: In 1987, Horn went into business with yet another liberal activist, director Reiner, who starred in "All in the Family" and became one of Horn’s four partners in film and TV producer Castle Rock Entertainment.

Perhaps Bernie didn’t get his paper the day this appeared in the Washington Post: WILLIAM BOOTH, 10/22/98: The California Children and Families Initiative, better known as Proposition 10, is the brain child of Rob Reiner, the actor...Joining Reiner, an avowed liberal, on proposition mailers, radio and television spots are some odd bedfellows, including actor and National Rifle Association President Charlton Heston, millionaire former representative Michael Huffington (R), crooner Pat Boone and former surgeon general C. Everett Koop.

Does Bernie read USA Today? If so, he surely caught this: JILL LAWRENCE, 6/17/98: Reiner played the long-haired, liberal son-in-law on the 1970s sitcom All In The Family. His real politics are similar, and he feared Californians would dismiss his initiative as a liberal cause. Then Conservative Republican Michael Huffington called. He sized up Reiner over lunch. "After we were finished talking, there wasn’t even an ounce of reservation," Huffington says. He immediately signed on as co-chairman and now calls Reiner "my new best liberal Democrat friend."
Click to expand...


Typically, you distort Goldberg's identification of a media tendency and pretend that he's claiming that nobody has ever identified the far-left Reiner as a liberal. He is making a point that is obvious to everyone whose ideological blinkers don't obstruct their vision: Chuck Norris is always "conservative" or "rightwing" actor Chuck Norris; Rob Reiner is not routinely labeled "far-left" or "liberal" actor Rob Reiner.


Lurker said:
GOLDBERG In Chapter 9, Bernie goes on about the way the mainstream press mistreats men. (page 134): Take a story by Times reporter Natalie Angier that begins this way: "Women may not find this surprising, but one of the most persistent and frustrating problems in evolutionary biology is the male. Specifically…why doesn’t he just go away?" [Goldberg’s ellipsis]

REALITY: The 1800 word article had absolutely nothing to do with males and females of our tribe ("men" and "women") and just talked about evolutionary reproduction. Indeed, here’s a part of the wicked horse-whipping we "males" were receiving this day: ANGIER: But evolutionary biologists point out that most mutations are potential trouble, and the entire system of copying chromosomes from one generation to the next has evolved to prevent accidental alterations to the genetic text, not to court them. Thus, Dr. Redfield’s new calculations underscoring the mutational guilt of the male put a heavier burden than ever on theorists seeking to explain the purpose of sex.
Click to expand...



You would be better off actually reading Goldberg's book than relying on someone else's tendentious interpretation. Goldberg alludes to Angier's article in a chapter entitled "Targeting Men." One incident he recounts is worth reflecting on. Katie Couric asked a bride who had been jilted at the altar: "Have you considered castration as an option." Ha-ha, big yucks. Warren Farrell, author of Why Men Are the Way They Are and several other books, wondered what the reaction would have been if Matt Lauer, Couric's co-host, asked a jilted groom, "Have you considered the option of cutting off her breasts." Well, he didn't really wonder--everybody knows what the reaction would be, and Lauer would be unemployed. So, let's try this version of Angier's lead sentence: Men may not find this surprising, but one of the most persistent and frustrating problems in evolutionary biology is the female. Do you think that the clueless author of that gem might--just might--be required to rewrite it? If you figured out that the probability of getting that lead published in a major daily is zero, you're beginning to get the idea.


Lurker said:
GOLDBERG (page 161): Edward R. Murrow’s "Harvest of Shame," the great CBS News documentary about poor migrant families traveling America, trying to survive by picking fruits and vegetables, would never be done today. Too many poor people. Not our audience. We want the people who buy cars and computers.

REALITY: Does it strike anyone as odd that Goldberg would be calling it liberal bias for a news agency to kill a story about poor immigrants? How does that strike Goldberg as liberal?
Click to expand...


Goldberg is contrasting a real liberal, Edward R. Murrow, who practiced real journalism with the ersatz variety he finds in today's newsrooms and the shoddy journalism they produce. It strikes you as odd because you can't accept the reality that Bernie Goldberg was a liberal Democrat who got disgusted with what he was seeing. It is necessary to demonize him, to transform him into a rabid rightwinger, in order to avoid confronting his message.


Lurker said:
GOLDBERG (page 57): Robert Bork is the "conservative" judge. But Laurence Tribe, who must have been on CBS Evening News ten million times in the 1980s (and who during the contested presidential election in 2000 was a leading member of Team Gore, arguing the vice president’s case before the U.S. Supreme Court), is identified simply as a "Harvard law professor." But Tribe is not simply a Harvard law professor. He’s easily as liberal as Bork is conservative.

REALITY: According to LEXIS, Tribe has appeared on the CBS Evening News just nine times since 1993 (as far back as LEXIS can go in this case) On one occasion, CBS used Tribe and Bork together; on May 14, 1994, they were asked to comment on Stephen Breyer’s appointment to the Supreme Court. Note how the professorial pair were ID’ed by reporter Jacqueline Adams:

ADAMS: A year ago, Judge Breyer discussed the last Supreme Court opening with President Clinton, but then hid his disappointment over coming in second to Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Today, legal scholars from both ends of the political spectrum applauded Breyer as the intellectual counterpoint to conservative Justice Antonin Scalia and as a proven consensus-builder.
Click to expand...



Again, you're trying to invalidate a general assertion by using a single example. Anybody who reads the NY Times or watches a network news broadcast understands that Robert Bork is always identifed as "conservative" or "rightwing" judge Robert Bork. Tribe is simply not routinely identified as a liberal.

I ask again--why not read Goldberg's book?
 
Last edited:
Nogbad said:
Can one have a liberal or conservative bias on 2 hours of coverage on Britney's latest self destruct button?
Click to expand...

Good question. LOL

The so-called study is worthless inasmuch as it lacks documented rigor. That doesn't mean it's not true. I find fox as 'balanced' to the right as I find CNN 'balanced' to the left. It is my opinion that they really do even out, pretty much. It's such a subjective thing that I know of no way to objectify it other than using my gut.

Not that I really care. If I wanted unbiased news that was 'just the facts' I'd paint the wall and watch it dry (with an occasional break outside to watch the grass grow).

Bias is aways going to be part of news. No way to avoid it.
 
pomeroo said:
I don't think you'll be able to con me. I was riveted to those hearings and, for reasons I've never quite understood (masochism, perhaps), I used to watch Jennings every night. Peter was an egregious offender in what the National Review used to call the "ultra" game. ....
Click to expand...

Yet in the event that Goldberg described, Goldberg certainly leads the reader to believe that Jennings identified each and every conservative as conservative. Such was not the case as he identified only three. You asked for errors in Bias and I provided one.

Typically, you distort Goldberg's identification of a media tendency and pretend that he's claiming that nobody has ever identified the far-left Reiner as a liberal. He is making a point that is obvious to everyone whose ideological blinkers don't obstruct their vision: Chuck Norris is always "conservative" or "rightwing" actor Chuck Norris; Rob Reiner is not routinely labeled "far-left" or "liberal" actor Rob Reiner.
Click to expand...
Um, Goldberg said the media refused to identify Reiner as liberal. I provided a few quick examples where they did. You asked for errors in Bias and I provided one.


You would be better off actually reading Goldberg's book than relying on someone else's tendentious interpretation... So, let's try this version of Angier's lead sentence: Men may not find this surprising, but one of the most persistent and frustrating problems in evolutionary biology is the female. Do you think that the clueless author of that gem might--just might--be required to rewrite it? If you figured out that the probability of getting that lead published in a major daily is zero, you're beginning to get the idea.
Click to expand...
The problem being why sex evolve? What was the evolutionary means to create a male? Both you and Goldberg read far more into the word "problems". It is a problem in the science of evolution. Your reqrite is not a problem for me and your imagined result is just that, your imagination.


Goldberg is contrasting a real liberal, Edward R. Murrow, who practiced real journalism with the ersatz variety he finds in today's newsrooms and the shoddy journalism they produce.
Click to expand...
How does shoddy journalism reveal liberal bias? Don't take your eyes off the central tenet of his book. His book was not written to expose shoddy journalism, it was to expose liberal bias. The anecdote he provided here does not support his conclusion. It may support a secondary insight but that is all. I think we both can agree that shoddy journalism is not the sole purview of either political stripe.

Again, you're trying to invalidate a general assertion by using a single example. Anybody who reads the NY Times or watches a network news broadcast understands that Robert Bork is always identifed as "conservative" or "rightwing" judge Robert Bork. Tribe is simply not routinely identified as a liberal.
Click to expand...
Um, isn't that what Goldberg does? Prove his "point" via anecdotes? Then you have the temerity to disapprove when I do it against him? All I am trying to show you is where Goldberg got it wrong. Bottom line, Goldberg said Tribe had been on millions of times (I know he was exaggerating) when he actually had been on 8 times. Goldberg said Tribe was not identified as liberal. I showed that was false. I note how YOU insert "routinely" in an effort to inoculate Goldberg from being wrong. That is hallmark "moving the goalposts".

Pomeroo, you asked where Goldberg was wrong in Bias. I showed you a few examples and also mentioned the larger picture of the danger of Goldberg using anecdotes and making sweeping generalizations from them. Goldberg makes assertions from anecdotes. Sure, they are not just one or two anecdotes but his whoile book is just anecdotes. Even Coulter attempts better research than Goldberg as she seems to know how to use Lexis-Nexis. Goldberg can't even use that!

Can you honestly say with a straight face that Goldberg has provided any scientific evidence for his claims? Studies? Research? Anything?
 
Lurker said:
Yet in the event that Goldberg described, Goldberg certainly leads the reader to believe that Jennings identified each and every conservative as conservative. Such was not the case as he identified only three. You asked for errors in Bias and I provided one.


Um, Goldberg said the media refused to identify Reiner as liberal. I provided a few quick examples where they did. You asked for errors in Bias and I provided one.



The problem being why sex evolve? What was the evolutionary means to create a male? Both you and Goldberg read far more into the word "problems". It is a problem in the science of evolution. Your reqrite is not a problem for me and your imagined result is just that, your imagination.



How does shoddy journalism reveal liberal bias? Don't take your eyes off the central tenet of his book. His book was not written to expose shoddy journalism, it was to expose liberal bias. The anecdote he provided here does not support his conclusion. It may support a secondary insight but that is all. I think we both can agree that shoddy journalism is not the sole purview of either political stripe.


Um, isn't that what Goldberg does? Prove his "point" via anecdotes? Then you have the temerity to disapprove when I do it against him? All I am trying to show you is where Goldberg got it wrong. Bottom line, Goldberg said Tribe had been on millions of times (I know he was exaggerating) when he actually had been on 8 times. Goldberg said Tribe was not identified as liberal. I showed that was false. I note how YOU insert "routinely" in an effort to inoculate Goldberg from being wrong. That is hallmark "moving the goalposts".

Pomeroo, you asked where Goldberg was wrong in Bias. I showed you a few examples and also mentioned the larger picture of the danger of Goldberg using anecdotes and making sweeping generalizations from them. Goldberg makes assertions from anecdotes. Sure, they are not just one or two anecdotes but his whoile book is just anecdotes. Even Coulter attempts better research than Goldberg as she seems to know how to use Lexis-Nexis. Goldberg can't even use that!

Can you honestly say with a straight face that Goldberg has provided any scientific evidence for his claims? Studies? Research? Anything?
Click to expand...


You really don't get the idea that Goldberg is examining liberal bias in the media from the perspective of a reporter for CBS News. When he writes that Tribe appeared "a million times," he doesn't expect us to believe that the number is literally true. He is saying that Tribe is not routinely identified as a liberal in the same way that Bork is routinely identified as a conservative. His point is valid. You are ignoring it. When he quotes Dan Rather making the insane statement that "most reporters vote every which way," and reminds us that they certainly don't--they vote overwhelmingly Democratic, he is addressing the mindset that is responsible for the problem he has identified. Why this silly buzz-word "scientific"? What do do liberals care about objective evidence for their emotion-driven claims? Do you see the bias in Dave Marash's remark in his story about Magic Johnson: "Our curiosity about people with AIDS has often been limited to one hostile question: How did you get it?" Why the word "hostile"? Would it be regarded as "hostile" to ask a lung-cancer victim if he smoked? Wouldn't the revealtion that he smoked three packs a day be used to bash those evil corporations who produce tobacco products? Yet it is assumed that asking about a sexual preference that is conducive to the spread of the AIDS virus reflects "hostility" on the part of the questioner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom