Although I seem to be a little late to the party, let's see what I can add.
1. The authors did not receive any funding for this
study. However, in the past they have previously received funding from the three premier conservative think tanks in the United States: the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI), The Heritage Foundation, and the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace. Groseclose was a Hoover Institution 2000-2001 national fellow; Milyo, according to his CV, received a $40,500 grant from AEI; and, according to The Philanthropy Roundtable, Groseclose and Milyo were named by Heritage as Salvatori fellows in 1997.
But since they didn't receive any funding for this study, they're non-partisan? Hmm...
2. From your study:
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 estimated ADA score of a member of Congress who exhibits the same frequency (2:1) in his or her speeches? This is the score that our method would assign the New York Times.
So, essentially, they make the assumption that if a member of Congress cites a think tank approvingly, that makes that source biased. Then, when a newspaper uses that same source, they accept that as proof of the newspaper's bias?
According to your study, the NRA is just barely conservative, scoring a 45.9. Another "conservative" think tank, according to this study? The ACLU, which scored a 49.8. The RAND Corporation, which has very strong ties to the dept of defense, scored a 60.4, making it pretty liberal.
Do you really believe that the RAND corporation is more liberal than the ACLU?
3. What happens when we have a story on race relations? The story will often ask the NAACP for their ideas. For balance, they also ask people on the streets. Does that affect their "balance" score? Of course not. The individuals don't count in this study. For the study to be balanced, according to Milyo, they'd probably have to quote the KKK.
4. Does anyone really believe that the Wall Street Journal is America's most liberal news source?
5. They cite other studies, but those studies are all from conservatives. They completely skip over more substantial, non-partisan studies. For instance, the Journal of Communication
did a meta-analysis of 59 other studies a few years back. Here's a link: http://joc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/conte ... t/50/4/133
They found no bias. No credible study has ever found any bias in the news. Of course, junk-theory finds whatever they want - which is how we end up with this sort of study. This is alegitimate study in the same way that ID is a legitimate science, in other words.
Last edited by Absolutely Adequate on Fri Dec 23, 2005 1:18 am, edited 1 time in total.