|
( OT ) Coffee taalk with Bill Moyers
http://www.independent.com/cover/Cover953.htm
extract The mainstream news media, Moyers laments, has taken a dive at a time when the power of the Republican Party has never been more absolute and more morally bankrupt. As a result, public discourse has been reduced to a scream-fest dominated by such unabashedly conservative media giants as Fox, Clear Channel, and Sinclair, who’ve become “echo chambers” for the Bush administration, if not outright propagandists. ***** ‘I never took him as a compassionate conservative. I’m a Texan. I saw what he had done to Texas and I knew he would do to the nation what he had done to Texas. And by God he’s done it.’ — Bill Moyers ****** Q)In your parting shots prior to going off the air, you accused conservative news outlets like Fox of being a propaganda arm of the administration — or at least a vast echo chamber. These outlets are incredibly popular though, bringing to mind Al Capone’s famous line, “I’m just giving the people what they want.” So when you look at the ratings, why shouldn’t we conclude that Fox and O’Reilly are what the people want? R)I don’t dispute that. It’s certainly what the people who watch that want. I’ve never challenged that. They’re giving their ideological audience what that ideological audience wants. They bought into a belief system that can’t be challenged by any evidence to the contrary. ***** I think mainstream journalism has been driven to the lowest priority on the scale of values of the mega media companies that own them. Journalism and the news business don’t always mix. And we now have big media companies that own the journalistic organs and that’s not their top priority. When Michael Eisner says he doesn’t want ABC news covering Disney activities you realize there’s a chilling effect on corporate journalists that proscribes their boundaries. With a few honorable exceptions, you cannot count on the big media companies to put journalism above other values in their hierarchy of values. There was a study done a year ago in which one-third of the journalists who responded said they were asked to kill stories that were offensive to the clientele of their corporate bosses. So you have a very neutered mainstream media, and you have a powerful ideological megaphone in Fox News and talk radio for the right wing. So there’s an imbalance today and the right wing has the dominant megaphone in America. **** RE Bush )I never took him as a compassionate conservative. I’m a Texan. I saw what he had done to Texas and I knew he would do to the nation what he had done to Texas. And by God he’s done it. He’s turned the environment over to the polluters, he’s turned the courts over to big business, and he’s turned the schools over to the religious right. I was not fooled by his prevarications and his camouflage and his deceits. **** But all that was out there in plain view. How do you account for this? There are always a lot of people who prefer the comfortable lie to the uncomfortable truth. In this case, a majority of voters knew exactly what you’re saying, yet voted for him none the less. They did so for one of two reasons. First, Bush had America scared to death. And fear was the dominant issue in that campaign, not moral values. Second, many of Bush’s supporters buy into the belief system that he and his allies have propounded. And in that belief system — which is supported by Fox News and talk radio — no evidence to the contrary can be permitted. Ideologues embrace a worldview that cannot be changed because they admit no evidence to the contrary. ---- It’s a weird phenomenon. I’d also say conservatives have never been more politically dominant and more intellectually and morally bankrupt. Because of that they can keep their troops believing the Big Lie. The Big Lie is that the threat of Al Qaeda is greater to us than the threat of low wages, environmental pollution, the growing inequality in America, or the terrible failure of the Bush policies on schools. People just didn’t want the uncomfortable truth to disturb the comfortable lie. |
How absolutely hilarious. Bill Moyers complaining about what he considers
biased news staions. I guess he forgot he was senior news analyst for CBS and PBS news. Sour grapes. The guy is just ****ed that we no longer have to depend on the 3 TV networks for our news on the tube. |
JimH wrote:
How absolutely hilarious. Bill Moyers complaining about what he considers biased news staions. I guess he forgot he was senior news analyst for CBS and PBS news. Sour grapes. The guy is just ****ed that we no longer have to depend on the 3 TV networks for our news on the tube. He's 70 years old and retired -- how does the number of news outlets affect him? The only one mentioned by name was Fox, with a not so subtle reference to the one Disney owns. |
JimH wrote:
How absolutely hilarious. Bill Moyers complaining about what he considers biased news staions. I guess he forgot he was senior news analyst for CBS and PBS news. Sour grapes. The guy is just ****ed that we no longer have to depend on the 3 TV networks for our news on the tube. To quote Moyers "There are always a lot of people who prefer the comfortable lie to the uncomfortable truth" Seems to fit several in this newsgroup. |
"Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: How absolutely hilarious. Bill Moyers complaining about what he considers biased news staions. I guess he forgot he was senior news analyst for CBS and PBS news. Sour grapes. The guy is just ****ed that we no longer have to depend on the 3 TV networks for our news on the tube. To quote Moyers "There are always a lot of people who prefer the comfortable lie to the uncomfortable truth" Was he referring to Dan Blather, Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, the crew at CNN, the crew at CNBC, the crew at PBS news...or himself? |
JimH wrote:
"Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: How absolutely hilarious. Bill Moyers complaining about what he considers biased news staions. I guess he forgot he was senior news analyst for CBS and PBS news. Sour grapes. The guy is just ****ed that we no longer have to depend on the 3 TV networks for our news on the tube. To quote Moyers "There are always a lot of people who prefer the comfortable lie to the uncomfortable truth" Was he referring to Dan Blather, Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, the crew at CNN, the crew at CNBC, the crew at PBS news...or himself? My bet is on the part you cut "Seems to fit several in this newsgroup. " |
"Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: How absolutely hilarious. Bill Moyers complaining about what he considers biased news staions. I guess he forgot he was senior news analyst for CBS and PBS news. Sour grapes. The guy is just ****ed that we no longer have to depend on the 3 TV networks for our news on the tube. To quote Moyers "There are always a lot of people who prefer the comfortable lie to the uncomfortable truth" Was he referring to Dan Blather, Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, the crew at CNN, the crew at CNBC, the crew at PBS news...or himself? My bet is on the part you cut "Seems to fit several in this newsgroup. " Could be....Krause, Bassy, b(ubble) b(rain), jps, DSK.....and you.....to name a few. ;-) |
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:13:21 GMT, "Jim," wrote:
The mainstream news media, Moyers laments, has taken a dive... He could have stopped right there. It's been taking a dive for a long time, but the word took a while to penetrate. It wasn't until people started seeing a little more of the real news (both sides) that they realized what they were missing. Yup, lots of folks like seeing the real thing and making their own decisions. You, Jimcomma, should try it. You might like it. |
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:52:42 GMT, "Jim," wrote:
JimH wrote: How absolutely hilarious. Bill Moyers complaining about what he considers biased news staions. I guess he forgot he was senior news analyst for CBS and PBS news. Sour grapes. The guy is just ****ed that we no longer have to depend on the 3 TV networks for our news on the tube. He's 70 years old and retired -- how does the number of news outlets affect him? The only one mentioned by name was Fox, with a not so subtle reference to the one Disney owns. All of the rest were mentiones under the heading 'mainstream news media'. Remember, that's who took the dive. |
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:54:15 GMT, "Jim," wrote:
JimH wrote: How absolutely hilarious. Bill Moyers complaining about what he considers biased news staions. I guess he forgot he was senior news analyst for CBS and PBS news. Sour grapes. The guy is just ****ed that we no longer have to depend on the 3 TV networks for our news on the tube. To quote Moyers "There are always a lot of people who prefer the comfortable lie to the uncomfortable truth" Seems to fit several in this newsgroup. There are several in this newsgroup who like to see both sides of a story and reach their own conclusions. Sometimes the truth is uncomfortble, sometimes it's pleasant. |
John H wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:54:15 GMT, "Jim," wrote: JimH wrote: How absolutely hilarious. Bill Moyers complaining about what he considers biased news staions. I guess he forgot he was senior news analyst for CBS and PBS news. Sour grapes. The guy is just ****ed that we no longer have to depend on the 3 TV networks for our news on the tube. To quote Moyers "There are always a lot of people who prefer the comfortable lie to the uncomfortable truth" Seems to fit several in this newsgroup. There are several in this newsgroup who like to see both sides of a story and reach their own conclusions. Sometimes the truth is uncomfortble, sometimes it's pleasant. I work out at the local YMCA 3x/week on the sweat and suffer machines (heart condition). They have maybe 10 TV sets mounted so you can see them (unless you're at too much an angel). You can listen through earphones to any of the channels. I usually watch the women and listen to CNN or CNBC. Except a couple of days they had Faux in place of CNN. I'm listening and thinking what the hell happened to CNN -- this sounds like a Republican add. Turns out that in a way it was. Blindfold me, and play all the major news networks -- betcha I can pick out Faux. I won't claim to be able to ID any others. |
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 00:32:19 GMT, "Jim," wrote:
John H wrote: On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:54:15 GMT, "Jim," wrote: JimH wrote: How absolutely hilarious. Bill Moyers complaining about what he considers biased news staions. I guess he forgot he was senior news analyst for CBS and PBS news. Sour grapes. The guy is just ****ed that we no longer have to depend on the 3 TV networks for our news on the tube. To quote Moyers "There are always a lot of people who prefer the comfortable lie to the uncomfortable truth" Seems to fit several in this newsgroup. There are several in this newsgroup who like to see both sides of a story and reach their own conclusions. Sometimes the truth is uncomfortble, sometimes it's pleasant. I work out at the local YMCA 3x/week on the sweat and suffer machines (heart condition). They have maybe 10 TV sets mounted so you can see them (unless you're at too much an angel). You can listen through earphones to any of the channels. I usually watch the women and listen to CNN or CNBC. Except a couple of days they had Faux in place of CNN. I'm listening and thinking what the hell happened to CNN -- this sounds like a Republican add. Turns out that in a way it was. Blindfold me, and play all the major news networks -- betcha I can pick out Faux. I won't claim to be able to ID any others. Compared to CNN, NBC, CBS, et al, *any* fair and balanced presentation would seem like a Republican ad! That's my point. |
John H wrote:
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 00:32:19 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:54:15 GMT, "Jim," wrote: JimH wrote: How absolutely hilarious. Bill Moyers complaining about what he considers biased news staions. I guess he forgot he was senior news analyst for CBS and PBS news. Sour grapes. The guy is just ****ed that we no longer have to depend on the 3 TV networks for our news on the tube. To quote Moyers "There are always a lot of people who prefer the comfortable lie to the uncomfortable truth" Seems to fit several in this newsgroup. There are several in this newsgroup who like to see both sides of a story and reach their own conclusions. Sometimes the truth is uncomfortble, sometimes it's pleasant. I work out at the local YMCA 3x/week on the sweat and suffer machines (heart condition). They have maybe 10 TV sets mounted so you can see them (unless you're at too much an angel). You can listen through earphones to any of the channels. I usually watch the women and listen to CNN or CNBC. Except a couple of days they had Faux in place of CNN. I'm listening and thinking what the hell happened to CNN -- this sounds like a Republican add. Turns out that in a way it was. Blindfold me, and play all the major news networks -- betcha I can pick out Faux. I won't claim to be able to ID any others. Compared to CNN, NBC, CBS, et al, *any* fair and balanced presentation would seem like a Republican ad! That's my point. GOD! I almost ruined my keyboard when I read that. Fox chants "Fair and Balanced" about every 5 minutes -- but saying so doesn't make it real. To quote Moyers "There are always a lot of people who prefer the comfortable lie to the uncomfortable truth" |
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 02:33:13 GMT, "Jim," wrote:
John H wrote: On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 00:32:19 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:54:15 GMT, "Jim," wrote: JimH wrote: How absolutely hilarious. Bill Moyers complaining about what he considers biased news staions. I guess he forgot he was senior news analyst for CBS and PBS news. Sour grapes. The guy is just ****ed that we no longer have to depend on the 3 TV networks for our news on the tube. To quote Moyers "There are always a lot of people who prefer the comfortable lie to the uncomfortable truth" Seems to fit several in this newsgroup. There are several in this newsgroup who like to see both sides of a story and reach their own conclusions. Sometimes the truth is uncomfortble, sometimes it's pleasant. I work out at the local YMCA 3x/week on the sweat and suffer machines (heart condition). They have maybe 10 TV sets mounted so you can see them (unless you're at too much an angel). You can listen through earphones to any of the channels. I usually watch the women and listen to CNN or CNBC. Except a couple of days they had Faux in place of CNN. I'm listening and thinking what the hell happened to CNN -- this sounds like a Republican add. Turns out that in a way it was. Blindfold me, and play all the major news networks -- betcha I can pick out Faux. I won't claim to be able to ID any others. Compared to CNN, NBC, CBS, et al, *any* fair and balanced presentation would seem like a Republican ad! That's my point. GOD! I almost ruined my keyboard when I read that. Fox chants "Fair and Balanced" about every 5 minutes -- but saying so doesn't make it real. To quote Moyers "There are always a lot of people who prefer the comfortable lie to the uncomfortable truth" If you are comfortable with your choice of major media outlets, stick with it. The truth is both comfortable, at times, and uncomfortable, at times. With Fox, you'll get both sides. With your choices, you won't. Simple. John H |
Jimcomma, apparently you missed this. Well worth the read.
Most enlightening! Perhaps some of the Fox News bashers should start tuning into Fox News' Special Report. Then they'd get to see *both* sides of a story. Jeffrey Milyo ) (Department of Economics, University of Missouri-Columbia) Tim Groseclose (Department of Political Science, UCLA) Abstract In this paper we estimate ADA (Americans for Democratic Action) scores for major media outlets such as the New York Times, USA Today, Fox News’ Special Report, and all three network television news shows. Our estimates allow us to answer such questions as “Is the average article in the New York Times more liberal than the average speech by Tom Daschle?” or “Is the average story on Fox News more conservative than the average speech by Bill Frist?” To compute our measure, we count the times that a media outlet cites various think tanks and other policy groups. We compare this with the times that members of Congress cite the same groups in their speeches on the floor of the House and Senate. By comparing the citation patterns we construct an ADA score. As a simplified example, imagine that there were only two think tanks, and suppose that the New York Times cited the first think tank twice as often as the second. Our method asks: What is the typical ADA score of members of Congress who exhibit the same frequency (2:1) in their speeches? This is the score that we would assign to the New York Times. 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. Consistent with many conservative critics, CBS Evening News and the New York Times received a score far left of center. Outlets such as USA Today, NPR’s Morning Edition, NBC’s Nightly News and ABC’s World News Tonight were moderately left. The most centrist outlets (but still left-leaning) by our measure were the Newshour with Jim Lehrer, CNN’s NewsNight with Aaron Brown, and ABC’s Good Morning America. Fox News’ Special Report, while right of center, was closer to the center than any of the three major networks’ evening news broadcasts. All of our 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. For more info, see the actual study at: http://www.missouri.edu/~econwww/Wor...0501_milyo.pdf John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes |
John H wrote:
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 02:33:13 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 00:32:19 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:54:15 GMT, "Jim," wrote: JimH wrote: How absolutely hilarious. Bill Moyers complaining about what he considers biased news staions. I guess he forgot he was senior news analyst for CBS and PBS news. Sour grapes. The guy is just ****ed that we no longer have to depend on the 3 TV networks for our news on the tube. To quote Moyers "There are always a lot of people who prefer the comfortable lie to the uncomfortable truth" Seems to fit several in this newsgroup. There are several in this newsgroup who like to see both sides of a story and reach their own conclusions. Sometimes the truth is uncomfortble, sometimes it's pleasant. I work out at the local YMCA 3x/week on the sweat and suffer machines (heart condition). They have maybe 10 TV sets mounted so you can see them (unless you're at too much an angel). You can listen through earphones to any of the channels. I usually watch the women and listen to CNN or CNBC. Except a couple of days they had Faux in place of CNN. I'm listening and thinking what the hell happened to CNN -- this sounds like a Republican add. Turns out that in a way it was. Blindfold me, and play all the major news networks -- betcha I can pick out Faux. I won't claim to be able to ID any others. Compared to CNN, NBC, CBS, et al, *any* fair and balanced presentation would seem like a Republican ad! That's my point. GOD! I almost ruined my keyboard when I read that. Fox chants "Fair and Balanced" about every 5 minutes -- but saying so doesn't make it real. To quote Moyers "There are always a lot of people who prefer the comfortable lie to the uncomfortable truth" If you are comfortable with your choice of major media outlets, stick with it. The truth is both comfortable, at times, and uncomfortable, at times. With Fox, you'll get both sides. With your choices, you won't. Simple. John H Yep FAux wing of the GOP -- "Fair and Balanced" -- Like I said i almost ruined my keyboard. Luckily I had just set down my coffee cup |
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 13:55:56 GMT, "Jim," wrote:
John H wrote: On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 02:33:13 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 00:32:19 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:54:15 GMT, "Jim," wrote: JimH wrote: How absolutely hilarious. Bill Moyers complaining about what he considers biased news staions. I guess he forgot he was senior news analyst for CBS and PBS news. Sour grapes. The guy is just ****ed that we no longer have to depend on the 3 TV networks for our news on the tube. To quote Moyers "There are always a lot of people who prefer the comfortable lie to the uncomfortable truth" Seems to fit several in this newsgroup. There are several in this newsgroup who like to see both sides of a story and reach their own conclusions. Sometimes the truth is uncomfortble, sometimes it's pleasant. I work out at the local YMCA 3x/week on the sweat and suffer machines (heart condition). They have maybe 10 TV sets mounted so you can see them (unless you're at too much an angel). You can listen through earphones to any of the channels. I usually watch the women and listen to CNN or CNBC. Except a couple of days they had Faux in place of CNN. I'm listening and thinking what the hell happened to CNN -- this sounds like a Republican add. Turns out that in a way it was. Blindfold me, and play all the major news networks -- betcha I can pick out Faux. I won't claim to be able to ID any others. Compared to CNN, NBC, CBS, et al, *any* fair and balanced presentation would seem like a Republican ad! That's my point. GOD! I almost ruined my keyboard when I read that. Fox chants "Fair and Balanced" about every 5 minutes -- but saying so doesn't make it real. To quote Moyers "There are always a lot of people who prefer the comfortable lie to the uncomfortable truth" If you are comfortable with your choice of major media outlets, stick with it. The truth is both comfortable, at times, and uncomfortable, at times. With Fox, you'll get both sides. With your choices, you won't. Simple. John H Yep FAux wing of the GOP -- "Fair and Balanced" -- Like I said i almost ruined my keyboard. Luckily I had just set down my coffee cup Stick with whatever provides you comfort, Jimcomma. |
John H wrote:
Jimcomma, apparently you missed this. Well worth the read. Most enlightening! Perhaps some of the Fox News bashers should start tuning into Fox News' Special Report. Then they'd get to see *both* sides of a story. Jeffrey Milyo ) (Department of Economics, University of Missouri-Columbia) Tim Groseclose (Department of Political Science, UCLA) Abstract In this paper we estimate ADA (Americans for Democratic Action) scores for major media outlets such as the New York Times, USA Today, Fox News’ Special Report, and all three network television news shows. Our estimates allow us to answer such questions as “Is the average article in the New York Times more liberal than the average speech by Tom Daschle?” or “Is the average story on Fox News more conservative than the average speech by Bill Frist?” To compute our measure, we count the times that a media outlet cites various think tanks and other policy groups. We compare this with the times that members of Congress cite the same groups in their speeches on the floor of the House and Senate. By comparing the citation patterns we construct an ADA score. As a simplified example, imagine that there were only two think tanks, and suppose that the New York Times cited the first think tank twice as often as the second. Our method asks: What is the typical ADA score of members of Congress who exhibit the same frequency (2:1) in their speeches? This is the score that we would assign to the New York Times. 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. Consistent with many conservative critics, CBS Evening News and the New York Times received a score far left of center. Outlets such as USA Today, NPR’s Morning Edition, NBC’s Nightly News and ABC’s World News Tonight were moderately left. The most centrist outlets (but still left-leaning) by our measure were the Newshour with Jim Lehrer, CNN’s NewsNight with Aaron Brown, and ABC’s Good Morning America. Fox News’ Special Report, while right of center, was closer to the center than any of the three major networks’ evening news broadcasts. All of our 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. For more info, see the actual study at: http://www.missouri.edu/~econwww/Wor...0501_milyo.pdf John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes Wish I could cut and paste from this report. as just one example It says that only 8% of Washington reporters voted for Bush Question arises -- HOW DO THEY KNOW who voted for who? If the numbers are correct (which I doubt) It MIGHT be because the Washington reporters get a closer look at Bush than the average American. While U of Mo has a good reputation as a good school for journalism, I really have my doubts about this report -- one of the writers is an economist even. |
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 14:21:13 GMT, "Jim," wrote:
John H wrote: Jimcomma, apparently you missed this. Well worth the read. Most enlightening! Perhaps some of the Fox News bashers should start tuning into Fox News' Special Report. Then they'd get to see *both* sides of a story. Jeffrey Milyo ) (Department of Economics, University of Missouri-Columbia) Tim Groseclose (Department of Political Science, UCLA) Abstract In this paper we estimate ADA (Americans for Democratic Action) scores for major media outlets such as the New York Times, USA Today, Fox News’ Special Report, and all three network television news shows. Our estimates allow us to answer such questions as “Is the average article in the New York Times more liberal than the average speech by Tom Daschle?” or “Is the average story on Fox News more conservative than the average speech by Bill Frist?” To compute our measure, we count the times that a media outlet cites various think tanks and other policy groups. We compare this with the times that members of Congress cite the same groups in their speeches on the floor of the House and Senate. By comparing the citation patterns we construct an ADA score. As a simplified example, imagine that there were only two think tanks, and suppose that the New York Times cited the first think tank twice as often as the second. Our method asks: What is the typical ADA score of members of Congress who exhibit the same frequency (2:1) in their speeches? This is the score that we would assign to the New York Times. 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. Consistent with many conservative critics, CBS Evening News and the New York Times received a score far left of center. Outlets such as USA Today, NPR’s Morning Edition, NBC’s Nightly News and ABC’s World News Tonight were moderately left. The most centrist outlets (but still left-leaning) by our measure were the Newshour with Jim Lehrer, CNN’s NewsNight with Aaron Brown, and ABC’s Good Morning America. Fox News’ Special Report, while right of center, was closer to the center than any of the three major networks’ evening news broadcasts. All of our 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. For more info, see the actual study at: http://www.missouri.edu/~econwww/Wor...0501_milyo.pdf John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes Wish I could cut and paste from this report. as just one example It says that only 8% of Washington reporters voted for Bush Question arises -- HOW DO THEY KNOW who voted for who? If the numbers are correct (which I doubt) It MIGHT be because the Washington reporters get a closer look at Bush than the average American. While U of Mo has a good reputation as a good school for journalism, I really have my doubts about this report -- one of the writers is an economist even. Maybe they asked, "For whom did you vote?" Economists can't do math? Are you implying you haven't heard about this report in the major media news reports you watch? |
John H wrote:
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 14:21:13 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: Jimcomma, apparently you missed this. Well worth the read. Most enlightening! Perhaps some of the Fox News bashers should start tuning into Fox News' Special Report. Then they'd get to see *both* sides of a story. Jeffrey Milyo ) (Department of Economics, University of Missouri-Columbia) Tim Groseclose (Department of Political Science, UCLA) Abstract In this paper we estimate ADA (Americans for Democratic Action) scores for major media outlets such as the New York Times, USA Today, Fox News’ Special Report, and all three network television news shows. Our estimates allow us to answer such questions as “Is the average article in the New York Times more liberal than the average speech by Tom Daschle?” or “Is the average story on Fox News more conservative than the average speech by Bill Frist?” To compute our measure, we count the times that a media outlet cites various think tanks and other policy groups. We compare this with the times that members of Congress cite the same groups in their speeches on the floor of the House and Senate. By comparing the citation patterns we construct an ADA score. As a simplified example, imagine that there were only two think tanks, and suppose that the New York Times cited the first think tank twice as often as the second. Our method asks: What is the typical ADA score of members of Congress who exhibit the same frequency (2:1) in their speeches? This is the score that we would assign to the New York Times. 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. Consistent with many conservative critics, CBS Evening News and the New York Times received a score far left of center. Outlets such as USA Today, NPR’s Morning Edition, NBC’s Nightly News and ABC’s World News Tonight were moderately left. The most centrist outlets (but still left-leaning) by our measure were the Newshour with Jim Lehrer, CNN’s NewsNight with Aaron Brown, and ABC’s Good Morning America. Fox News’ Special Report, while right of center, was closer to the center than any of the three major networks’ evening news broadcasts. All of our 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. For more info, see the actual study at: http://www.missouri.edu/~econwww/Wor...0501_milyo.pdf John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes Wish I could cut and paste from this report. as just one example It says that only 8% of Washington reporters voted for Bush Question arises -- HOW DO THEY KNOW who voted for who? If the numbers are correct (which I doubt) It MIGHT be because the Washington reporters get a closer look at Bush than the average American. While U of Mo has a good reputation as a good school for journalism, I really have my doubts about this report -- one of the writers is an economist even. Maybe they asked, "For whom did you vote?" When asked by surveyors, I either tell them to go to hell or lie. Economists can't do math? You need an economist for simple addition and percentages? Are you implying you haven't heard about this report in the major media news reports you watch? I have not. -- must be a faux thing |
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 14:30:10 GMT, "Jim," wrote:
John H wrote: On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 14:21:13 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: Jimcomma, apparently you missed this. Well worth the read. Most enlightening! Perhaps some of the Fox News bashers should start tuning into Fox News' Special Report. Then they'd get to see *both* sides of a story. Jeffrey Milyo ) (Department of Economics, University of Missouri-Columbia) Tim Groseclose (Department of Political Science, UCLA) Abstract In this paper we estimate ADA (Americans for Democratic Action) scores for major media outlets such as the New York Times, USA Today, Fox News’ Special Report, and all three network television news shows. Our estimates allow us to answer such questions as “Is the average article in the New York Times more liberal than the average speech by Tom Daschle?” or “Is the average story on Fox News more conservative than the average speech by Bill Frist?” To compute our measure, we count the times that a media outlet cites various think tanks and other policy groups. We compare this with the times that members of Congress cite the same groups in their speeches on the floor of the House and Senate. By comparing the citation patterns we construct an ADA score. As a simplified example, imagine that there were only two think tanks, and suppose that the New York Times cited the first think tank twice as often as the second. Our method asks: What is the typical ADA score of members of Congress who exhibit the same frequency (2:1) in their speeches? This is the score that we would assign to the New York Times. 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. Consistent with many conservative critics, CBS Evening News and the New York Times received a score far left of center. Outlets such as USA Today, NPR’s Morning Edition, NBC’s Nightly News and ABC’s World News Tonight were moderately left. The most centrist outlets (but still left-leaning) by our measure were the Newshour with Jim Lehrer, CNN’s NewsNight with Aaron Brown, and ABC’s Good Morning America. Fox News’ Special Report, while right of center, was closer to the center than any of the three major networks’ evening news broadcasts. All of our 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. For more info, see the actual study at: http://www.missouri.edu/~econwww/Wor...0501_milyo.pdf John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes Wish I could cut and paste from this report. as just one example It says that only 8% of Washington reporters voted for Bush Question arises -- HOW DO THEY KNOW who voted for who? If the numbers are correct (which I doubt) It MIGHT be because the Washington reporters get a closer look at Bush than the average American. While U of Mo has a good reputation as a good school for journalism, I really have my doubts about this report -- one of the writers is an economist even. Maybe they asked, "For whom did you vote?" When asked by surveyors, I either tell them to go to hell or lie. Economists can't do math? You need an economist for simple addition and percentages? Are you implying you haven't heard about this report in the major media news reports you watch? I have not. -- must be a faux thing Thanks, you made my point. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:02 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com