Quoted from Civis Romanus:

Don't believe the liberal media polls. They have a tendency to favor Democrats at this stage of the political campaign and are notorious for trying to influence the vote by claiming likely Democratic Party victories that often don't materialize. The purpose is to trap those weak-minded voters who want to claim they voted on "the winning side" into voting for the Democratic Party candidates by creating the "bandwagon appeal" condition.

I was looking at some polls predicting the outcome of the next Democratic Party primaries, but taking into account the sage advice given above, I wondered if anyone could advise me on which of the following are liberal and should be avoided: Suffolk (University ?), SurveyUSA, ARG, and Rasmussen.

Many thanks.

[This message has been edited by Granite Q (edited 05-20-2008 @ 12:47 PM).]

Civis, The media in the US is "corporate" not "liberal". Saying "liberal media" in every post doesn't make it true. The people who work for mainstream media run the political spectrum. In my experience a great majority are in fact a-political and are only interested in making their deadlines and achieving personal advancement. One thing is true all work for big companies and no matter what your own opinions are you do what your company tells you to do or you don't keep your job.

What I gather is that reporters have a tendency to identify themselves as independent/moderate, they also very disproportionately support and donate to the Democratic party. (and among those who do not identify themselves as independent/moderate, three times as many say Democrat/liberal as Republican/conservative).

Editors are slightly less disproportioned in their support, but still lean the same way in general.

Apolitical profit-mongering at least makes sure that stories on both sides get covered (such as the Dan Rather fiasco), but bias is more often a matter of subtleties. For example, how during political scandals it is much more likely to be mentioned if the perpetrator is a Republican than a Democrat. Or the specific phrasing of language, such as "anti-abortion" to refer to "pro-life" advocates. (which apparently is enforced with search and replace, since I have seen "pro-life" in non-abortion contexts also replaced with "anti-abortion.") And stories are at least somewhat effected, or else, if not for fox news, I would never have seen a positively spinned gun-rights story on the network news.

So while obviously there is no liberal/conservative conspiracy on the networks, I think it's pretty clear that there is an affecting liberal bias. The extent of that, and whether fox news reporting is moderate or right, everyone will undoubtedly judge in relation to their own personal views.

[This message has been edited by The Mad Metapoet (edited 05-20-2008 @ 01:49 PM).]

Pelly your source is conservative political group that is out to prove media bias not a neutral group.

Quoted from Media Research Center:

The mission of the Media Research Center is to bring balance to the news media. Leaders of America's conservative movement have long believed that within the national news media a strident liberal bias existed that influenced the public's understanding of critical issues. On October 1, 1987, a group of young determined conservatives set out to not only prove — through sound scientific research — that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values

That website throws around the term "liberal" and "elite" very carelessly and uses a poll of "elite" journalists' voting record in Presidential elections as it's "smoking gun".

For example, how during political scandals it is much more likely to be mentioned if the perpetrator is a Republican than a Democrat.

The biggest scandals of late have mostly involved Democrats. For example Eliot Spitzer former governor of New York and Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick's Rustbelt F@#kfest

All news outlets are biased. It amuses me to see people holding up the BBC as a shining bastion of neutrality in a politicised world because in reality they're just as bad as anybody else, they're just a lot more subtle about it. To be fair to them, their news coverage is generally to a higher standard than most, but if you watch enough of it you can clearly start to spot how they set out to frame the debate to favour certain points of view.

Quoted from Great Corhnholio:

Pelly your source is conservative political group that is out to prove media bias not a neutral group.

Yeah, I know. What is your point? All of the data is from other sources and properly attributed. At least half of it is from liberally connoted sources: New York Times, Los Angeles Times, California State University, etc.

If George Bush hands me a copy of the Encyclopedia Britannica does it become a right-wing reference?

Quoted from Great Corhholio:

That website throws around the term "liberal" and "elite" very carelessly and uses a poll of "elite" journalists' voting record in Presidential elections as it's "smoking gun".

I don't really care how the site presents its data. It is not even my original source on this information, it is just the first that popped up on google. Feel free to look for a different aggregate.

If you have an argument with the statistics themselves, however, I think you will need to start by finding some sources of equal or greater credibility which document the disproportionately Republican/conservative constitution of reporters and journalists.

Quoted from Great Corhnholio:

The biggest scandals of late have mostly involved Democrats. For example Eliot Spitzer former governor of New York and Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick's Rustbelt F@#kfest

Alright, but I'm not quite certain how that relates to the fact that when the scandal occurs, if it is a Republican responsible the % mention of party by media article is much higher than if the scandal involves a Democrat.

This time you can take your pick of sources.

Great Cornholio: I can understand the point you are trying to make as a media insider who sees the everyday workings, at least within your sphere of activity. However, we on the outside who only see the product, or in my case has been interviewed for the media on more than one occasion and sees the results translated into product, are going to judge by the product we see, hear and read.

Yes, I am intimately familiar with corporate aspects of media. When I use the term "liberal media" I am referring to the preponderance of mass media (radio, television, newspapers and magazines) engaged in reporting or analyzing current events which is weighted heavily with product that in an American perspective is liberally bent. It is a natural by-product of liberal arts, journalistic (mass media) training at the collegiate level which is also prone to teaching and favoring liberalism, even if some students are conservatively oriented. You usually don't get an A for disputing a liberal professor's position on a subject by offering a conservative viewpoint, whether you are right or wrong. It's a rare professor indeed who can be that egalitarian.

But you are correct, Great Cornholio, that you cannot white-wash the media with the label of being liberal all of the time. It isn't. But you can sense, if you have any senses at all, when a mass media outlet is tending to favor certain kinds of news by its selection, the amount of time it gives certain types of news, and even if it entertains the idea of reporting the story at all.

Great Cornholio, The Mad Metapoet is absolutely correct that the product put out today by the mass media tends on average to be designed in such a way as to favor the Democratic Party and liberalism in the United States. It presents harsh images of anything conservative or Republican, and softens anything critical of Democrats and liberals. There are very obvious exceptions in all types of mass media. Many of these are of more recent inception, perhaps only within the last 20 years.

You are arguing that mass media is not biased, it is corporate. Yes, the mass media is a business, but those who create the product are bright enough to know how to design the product to produce revenue and at the same time take advantage of its public nature to get its perspective either overtly or covertly conveyed. If they who design the product daily are not aware of this, then I am totally mistaken about the intelligence of those engaged in that industry, and that would frighten me more than the content of the message they convey.

[This message has been edited by Civis Romanus (edited 05-20-2008 @ 03:46 PM).]

Quoted from Civis Romanus:

I've actually only heard Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, who I consider to be solid conservatives.

Ah well; that'll give you a fair representation of Fox News.

Quoted from The Mad Metapoet:

Actually, Civis was making a very generalized and common sense evaluation of human nature.

A generalized and common sense evaluation limits itself to the general. To say that liberals perceive anything to the right of their world view as conservative is a general statement. To then state that because of the aforementioned predilection, a perceived bias is instead simply an intentional move towards balanced reporting, argues the specific.

If you use general terms to make a specific point, you are no longer speaking in general terms. If you use a generalization to "make a true appraisal", you are not limiting your observations to a generalized evaluation.

Lurking Horror: "Balanced" means "centered" in my lexicon regarding left vs. right on the visual political spectrum. A liberal sits left of center. If a liberal network decides to offer more commentary of a conservative nature it moves on this visual spectrum more to the right. If it offers tit for tat, liberal for conservative viewpoints on the same network, then that network is offering centered commentary, though individual programs are either radically left or radically right.

What I'm trying to say is that a liberal sitting on the left side of the spectrum would see this as a conservative shift and might label the network conservative from that position on the spectrum. As the Metapoet pointed out, an ultraconservative seeing a shift to the "balanced" or "centered" point might perceive the network as being liberal. That's all I'm suggesting. It is not a universal. There are exceptions individually and collectively, but as the Metapoet pointed out, the tendency is within human nature.

I hope nobody interpreted my use of the term "unbalanced" to mean mentally unbalanced. That absolutely was not what I was trying to say.

Quoted from Granite Q:

Ah well; that'll give you a fair representation of Fox News.

Perhaps that explains why I do not go out of my way to see or hear Fox News either on the telly or the radio. On the other hand, in those rare instances when I give them a listen, from time to time they come up with stuff that's obviously been soft-peddaled by other media outlets, or deliberately ignored.

I was looking at some polls predicting the outcome of the next Democratic Party primaries, but taking into account the sage advice given above, I wondered if anyone could advise me on which of the following are liberal and should be avoided: Suffolk (University ?), SurveyUSA, ARG, and Rasmussen.

My suggestion is to make your selection this election year among pollsters listed in your quote, monitor them for accuracy and pick those to follow in years ahead which end up closest in retrospect to reality. Don't let the media select pollster du jour on your behalf based upon the numbers they prefer to publish. Better sage advice?

In California, Swartzenegger was cited as being close (leading) over Gray Davis in the recall election. This was cited repeatedly by both Republicans and Democrats in the media for different reasons. When Arnold's lead widened over Gray Davis the newspapers in my area reported on it once or twice and then ceased to make mention of the widening gap in the polls. Instead, they questioned the accuracy of the polls when citing Arnold with his wide lead. Turned out they truly should have questioned it; for Arnold won with a bigger margin than even the pollsters predicted.

[This message has been edited by Civis Romanus (edited 05-20-2008 @ 07:50 PM).]

I'm not disagreeing with your point about relative perception as a general observation. I'm disagreeing with applying it to specific circumstances. Suggesting that an accusation of biased reporting is simply a matter of lost perspective shifts the target of the discussion on to the accuser, rather than the accused. If Fox News is truly innocent of biased reporting, it should be easy enough to show without undermining the opinions of the accusers.

But the real point is that all media reporting is essentially biased in one direction or another, and that Fox News in this thread is getting heavy criticism from the left because it is very possibly biased towards the conservative viewpoint. I submit that a conservative bias isn't a bad thing, except to those who are liberal-biased. And indeed, if bias is a bad thing in and of itself, the whole of mass media worldwide should be condemned and not one network in particular because it happens to be biased towards conservatism.

[This message has been edited by Civis Romanus (edited 05-20-2008 @ 06:40 PM).]

Except that Fox News is, as was my initial point, going out of it's way to claim that is is not biased in any direction. "Fair and Balanced"? "We report, you decide"?

And yeah, bias in the media is always bad. Liberal or conservative. But marketing a biased viewpoint specifically as a neutral, centrist viewpoint, is (in my opinion) far worse.

[This message has been edited by Lurking Horror (edited 05-20-2008 @ 06:53 PM).]

You used the key word "advertising" which we all know is fundamentally puffery and seldom accurate. That's the corporate aspect of mass media raising its ugly head, exactly as Great Cornholio says it does. That too is rampant, along with bias.

Are you contending that marketing is not persuasive or hold influence? That deliberate inaccuracies in advertising is acceptable or excusable?

Check my profile for my career path, Lurking Horror. I deal with marketeers and advertising all of the time. Every industry employs puffery, even my company, as an advertising tactic. How many "leading suppliers of..." do you think there are in an industry? Philosophically, only one can lead, yet many claim that they do. As GC says, mass media is corporate and a business, and such misrepresentations are to be expected. In Fox's mind it is offering balanced reporting, never mind the array of conservative commentators such as O'Reilly and Hannity it offers along with its news. BTW, Fox News on its website uses the slogan "We report. You decide." I saw no sign of the "balanced" slogan.

We have a TV station that claims it offers balanced news reporting. Hard to say if it is or not since it gives no in-depth reporting, just the bare minimum in a 10 or 15 second treatment of each topic. Except if there's video, it can be maybe 30 to 60 seconds long. I tend to believe the only balanced reporting in all of mass media is the TV weather report, but even then from time to time you get the weather reporter whining about it being too cold or too warm depending upon whether he/she's biased towards summer or winter activities.

But the real point is that all media reporting is essentially biased in one direction or another, and that Fox News in this thread is getting heavy criticism from the left because it is very possibly biased towards the conservative viewpoint. I submit that a conservative bias isn't a bad thing, except to those who are liberal-biased

In general, adding any political element is a bad enough thing in the media. It's not so much that I fear the media is going to start manipulating public opinion one way or another, but rather that it degrades the quality of the content of the news.

It doesn't matter to me what politicizes the issues in the first place, it could be liberal or conservative bias of the commentators, or an overarching desire to assuage both parties in the pursuit of moderation, the point is that it undermines the presentation of facts by necessitating that they be put in a very specific light that ignores which might tend to omit other, more fundamental facets of a topic.

Take illegal immigration in America, for example. It's a complex issue for certain, and one can take any number of views on it. Yet somehow the issue is presented in a very 2 dimensional way. Too much attention is given to how the public sentiment on the matter, between US natives who feel that it's somehow undermining the american way of life, or immigrant families who feel they're cultural heritage or lifestyle is being victimized by popular sentiment. It often seems that lip service is paid to the complex technicalities that make the issue so important in the first place, such as Mexico's trouble adapting to the global market and modernizing its marginal poverty stricken regions, law enforcement in bordering regions, the ins and outs of naturalization in America, and the insider outsider dimensions of the labor force as well as how it affects the interactions between employees and employers. And when they are considered, they're often put in a black and white context. The whole issue doesn't really conform to the political arena per say, yet there always seems to be a push to make the issue conform to the politics of it rather than the other way around.

Hillary,

Please give up. It would make so many people happy.

[This message has been edited by skinn_dogg (edited 05-20-2008 @ 10:11 PM).]

Hillary earneth my respect.

Yeah, she is still pure evil congealed in woman form, but at least she is not outright nuts (*cough* Obama *cough cough* McCain) and maybe an evil, but determined and competent leader is what America needs right now. Our own Genghis Khan.

yeh buts shes lost.

Quoted from Civis:

Don't believe the liberal media polls. They have a tendency to favor Democrats at this stage of the political campaign and are notorious for trying to influence the vote by claiming likely Democratic Party victories that often don't materialize. The purpose is to trap those weak-minded voters who want to claim they voted on "the winning side" into voting for the Democratic Party candidates by creating the "bandwagon appeal" condition.

Oh good grief. Not only is the media liberal, but it's stupid to boot. Wouldn't the nefarious media barons find greater benefit in falsifying the polls closer to the election, rather than at "this point"? The weak minded, after all, have notoriously short memories. Of course, perhaps the liberal media is exploiting the desire of the weak minded to stand out in the crowd -- "rebels without a clue", if you will. Thus the polls will increasingly point to a Republican victory as the election approaches.

My recommendation with regards to polls is to ignore them or, at the very least, try to understand what "margin of error" means. A very nice collection of polling data for the 2004 election can be found here:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2004/info/state-graphs.html

When looking at how the polls "change" over time, be sure to keep in mind most polls have a 2-5% margin of error. You'll find that there is, for most states, no statistically significant difference in the final result and the initial poll numbers, no matter who won.

On a different note, there have been two election highlights for me thus far. The first was an article in Time regarding Ron Paul. One quote was priceless:

In fairness, though, another reason RedState's directors got tired of the Paulistas was that so many of them seemed — what's the polite word? — nuts. Paul's supporters aren't all black-helicopter paranoiacs, but the black-helicopter paranoiacs sure do support Ron Paul.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1724358,00.html

The second highlight has been the repeated comment that Clinton retains better support among "uneducated whites" than Obama. As an (over)educated individual, with tendencies towards Frasier-esque snobbery, I can't help but imagine Joe Sixpack kicking backing in West Virginia (or Kentucky) with a "Hillary Clinton '08, I'm with stupid!" sweatshirt.

Quoted from Civis Romanus:

My suggestion is to make your selection this election year among pollsters listed in your quote, monitor them for accuracy and pick those to follow in years ahead which end up closest in retrospect to reality. Don't let the media select pollster du jour on your behalf based upon the numbers they prefer to publish. Better sage advice?

No, not really. Not being familiar with US pollsters, which obviously you are having advised us to beware 'liberal' polls, I was expecting some specific advice. Never mind.

Quoted from Lurking Horror:

Except that Fox News is, as was my initial point, going out of it's way to claim that is is not biased in any direction. "Fair and Balanced"? "We report, you decide"?

And yeah, bias in the media is always bad. Liberal or conservative. But marketing a biased viewpoint specifically as a neutral, centrist viewpoint, is (in my opinion) far worse.

Quoted from Civis Romanus:

You used the key word "advertising" which we all know is fundamentally puffery and seldom accurate. That's the corporate aspect of mass media raising its ugly head, exactly as Great Cornholio says it does. That too is rampant, along with bias.

Actually Lurking Horror didn't use the word 'advertising' as you claim, not even in his previously edited versions of his post.

'Fair and balanced' is not just an advertising slogan (puffery and seldom accurate) for Fox News, it's far more important than that. It's actually their registered trademark. They brought a lawsuit against Al Franken when he used the same phrase as part of the title of one of his books.

Edit: I believe it was this court case in which Fox News claimed it was under no obligation to tell the truth (my paraphrasing) although I can't find the reference for this at present.

[This message has been edited by Granite Q (edited 05-21-2008 @ 04:52 AM).]

Quoted from Civis:

How many "leading suppliers of..." do you think there are in an industry?

The media is not like other products Civis. It holds a much greater sway over the populace and misrepresentation of information has a greater impact than the rise and fall of any consumer good. It is not in any way shape or form similar to "the leading supplier..." scenario.

Fox News, to the best of my knowledge, is alone in this tactic. If so, they deserve the most scorn.

Quoted from Granite Q:

Actually Lurking Horror didn't use the word 'advertising' as you claim, not even in his previously edited versions of his post.

True. But I did use it in an unsubmitted draft of my post. How did Civis know?!

Scary.

its all very simple actully,

clinton: good on paper bad in reality she is new world order
i liked her till i found that out. very very bad
also i am getting endless amusement at her craptalking
she is so bad at it.she keeps saying that she would answer a 3 in the morning call better then obama and she makes a better commander and cheif NEWS FLASH B**** no preisedent has ever
been a commander alls she would do is tell the generals
as any other pres would no pres is a commander .
i belive the last time a leader was a commander was leonidtas
there is no such thing now adays all our leaders are pencil d*** cowards so hillary might as well just yell at herself in a mirror she only wants to be pres for money and power she doesnt care about anyone and she shows it in every way .
the women is super unstable. ask yourself this"why would a women stay with a man when the whole country knew he was cheating on her" the answer is very simple she craves power
so much it blinds her humanity power is the only reason she is running if she wins i am moving to amsterdam.

maccain : i dont even no where to be begin, this is gotta be one of the dumbest ppl i ever seen like clinton he keeps saying "I would be better as a pres because i was in the white house on 9/11" shut your mouth old man you have no idea what is going on and you never have he doesnt even know what the differnce between a shite and a kaldian
as he so awsomly demonstrated in his retarted speechs
and he keeps saying that obama is a terrorist from iraq
uuuuuuuummmmmmmmmmmm yyyeaahhh ok . i think any child in first grade is smarter and more capable then he
the fact that i even hear his name shows me how stupid amercains are how this man got into the gov all never know it is no suprise that busch likes him being they are both almost at down syndrome intellgence levels. but the fact
that he cannot use his own brain to think is not the point,
point is he supports RFID chip [if you dont what this is google it] and wants to fight with MOTHER RUSSIA
in one interveiw he states that he will put the russians where they belong . i would love to see that mr. brainless fool i dunno if you guys been seeing the news on russia latly but they would put that old confused man where he belongs and talking bad about that country right now is about the dumbest things a can possably fathom.if he wins i am leaving this country before he makes it illegal to leave.
also i think he is using busch tactics to cheat in the election and i also belive the busch adminastration is helping him cheat there is significant evedence of this
because i have never seen a jhon maccain fan in my life

obama: great man i only have one problem with him so far he has hit a lot of subjects that no other politician dare open his mouth about because he doesnt like all the EXTREME goverment curroption and doesnt care if they go to prison like they should but anyway only thing i do not like is i havnt heard him say one thing about big prison bizz
witch is a gigantic massive problem in this country no indepent party should be in charge of or prison systems becuse they are a buissness and all they see is dollar sighns on everyones head they can get into there insanly evil system of so called justice. there is no justice in this country only money and it will tip lady justice scales in moneys favor everytime. but other then that this man is the ONLY hope we have .hopefully he takes the champion of america ron paul as his vice pres i belive if our election system was actully FAIR he would have no problem winning
because its very simple to see that 3/4 of this country
wants him in but due too the insanly broken election system in place it makes it harder because the system is the most blatinlly unfair system of elections any country on the entire earth has ever had . the electorail college was only made because hundreds of years ago everyone couldnt make it to the polls well this no longer applys it now only acts as a way for the inner gov to pick who they want witch is the oppsite of democracy witch is one of the huge lies they teach us in school that we live in a democracy this country was never a democracy it has always been a rich b**** rebublic.


and yes i absoultly massacred my spelling in this post and i dont care and if you care i think you are very foolish
cause anyone with a brain can read this post just fine
also if you think any thing i just said is wroung or you dont belive me go to WWW.GOOGLE.COMand find out for yourself also try watching loose change or zeitigeist
to see how rough of shape our so called goverment is in
it is extremly curropt and i hope obama wins so we can start holding trails for these pathitic money sucking humans where they belong at a FIRING SQUAD

Kman?