New Media Bias Study

[Cornbread Maxwell]

http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664

How is this one going to be discredited?

[acsguitar]

I don't understand the method they used.

Anyways Republicans are still evil and there is no arguing that

[davidmarver]

I don't understand the method they used.

Read.

[acsguitar]

I don't understand the method they used.

Read.

Well I read it but I don't see how that makes sense. Comparing what congress voted for with the amount of times words were said having do to with thinktanks or the NAACP?

[dannyolbb]

I don't have time to argue this right now, but any report that claims that The Drudge Report is a liberal mouthpiece has its head on backwards.

[RugbyD]

I don't have time to argue this right now, but any report that claims that The Drudge Report is a liberal mouthpiece has its head on backwards.

that's why you need to read the report. drudge editorializes very little and is really nothing more than an aggregation of news headlines. when he does have something to say, its conservative, but it very rarely happens on the website.

all in all an interesting approach and the most objectively based i've seen thus far, though it still suffers from a certain level of subjectivity, but not of the researchers themselves.

[blankman]

I don't have time to argue this right now, but any report that claims that The Drudge Report is a liberal mouthpiece has its head on backwards.

Maybe try reading the whole article. The author explains it.

Another finding that contradicted conventional wisdom was that the Drudge Report was slightly left of center.

"One thing people should keep in mind is that our data for the Drudge Report was based almost entirely on the articles that the Drudge Report lists on other Web sites," said Groseclose. "Very little was based on the stories that Matt Drudge himself wrote. The fact that the Drudge Report appears left of center is merely a reflection of the overall bias of the media."

[WharfRat]

Using citations is problematic. Questions worth asking:

1) If a story gives one organization a total of 15 column inches devoted to its view, and gives two organizations 3 column inches to express their views, would this then count as a liberal story?

2) Is use of a source automatically a sign that the reporter subscribes to that source's views, or that the reporter is even subconsciously trying to facilitate the pervasion of those views? Or does equating sourcing with intent = a leap of faith?

3) Given the occasionally dramatic influence of PR operations on news operations, might this mean that certain liberal organizations have more effective media operations? What proportion of potential news stories pitched by liberals get covered, as proposed to conservative pitches? Do liberals simply make more noise from left field, getting them more coverage?

4) What role has real-world politics played on coverage? Was there a spike in liberal coverage, coinciding with the election of George W, since conservative groups are less newsworthy with conservative power as the current DC status quo? Was there a spike in liberal coverage during the Congressional Republican push to impeach Clinton?

5) If Tony Blankley is writing a story, mentions his critics four times, and only mentions his allies once, does this then count as liberal +3?

I don't think anybody should be getting worked up over this in any way until some of these things are made clear.

[Big Pimpin]

Anyways Republicans are still evil and there is no arguing that

When you're right, you're right.

I'm totally against the death penalty for murderers and other violent felons.
And I'm all for the slaughter of innocent unborn children.
And I'm all for paying a bigger share of my hard-earned money so that unemployed slackers can live a better life. After all, it's not their fault they don't have a job.
And I'm all for taking guns away from the law-abiding citizens of our country so that the only armed people in the US are criminals.
And I'm all for infringement upon my civil liberties.
And I'm all for universal health care. It's working so well in Canada.
And I totally stand for dis-incentivizing personal initiative. What good is that?
And I'm definitely against asserting our country as a world power. We should just be making friends with everyone else instead.

Oh wait, nevermind.

I guess I'm a Republican.

[acsguitar]

Anyways Republicans are still evil and there is no arguing that

When you're right, you're right.

I'm totally against the death penalty for murderers and other violent felons.
And I'm all for the slaughter of innocent unborn children.
And I'm all for paying a bigger share of my hard-earned money so that unemployed slackers can live a better life. After all, it's not their fault they don't have a job.
And I'm all for taking guns away from the law-abiding citizens of our country so that the only armed people in the US are criminals.
And I'm all for infringement upon my civil liberties.
And I'm all for universal health care. It's working so well in Canada.
And I totally stand for dis-incentivizing personal initiative. What good is that?
And I'm definitely against asserting our country as a world power. We should just be making friends with everyone else instead.

Oh wait, nevermind.

I guess I'm a Republican.

Evil