Actually, PBS news shows have a more right wing color. The Nightly Business
Report and the News Hour are more right than left. Guests and commentators
on the latter show are most frequently conservative with weak and infrequent
liberals thrown in. Others, like Frontline (not a news show) may be leftish
or they may merely be reporting on things people don't want to hear about
and it is perceived as leftish.
Much of this attitude about the media (in general) having a liberal bias is
a result of a book published some years ago that "studied" the political
views of journalists and concluded they were mostly liberal and then
extended the conclusion (without testing it) to a bias in the reporting.
The fact is that most journalists, journalism professors, and academics are
liberals. The lifestyle and the professions attract liberal people more
than conservative people but that seems to be about all.
Whether journalists actually write or present pieces that are biased has
been tested. A fairly large number of newspaper, radio, and TV news stories
were given to a panel of people whose political backgrounds and attitudes
were balanced. They also came from several different professions They
evaluated the reporting without knowledge of the name of the reporter or his
politics. They scored each article on a bias scale and the results
analyzed. The results indicated that there was no political bias _in the
reporting_ even though liberals did most of it.
But, to return, if you recall, someone once commented that Gerald Ford was
not so bright because he had taken too many hits on the head when he played
football at Michigan. LBJ set the whole thing in perspective when he said
that Ford's brain was fine but his perception wrong. Ford had played center
for Michigan and was used to looking at the world upside down, backwards,
and through his legs.
In this context, Norm's TS tilts left if you look at it from the back.
At what? That The News Hour has more conservatives than liberals as guests?
That's a simple matter of counting them up and it has demonstrated the exact
point I made. It's been done. Conservatives outnumber liberals as guests
on that show.
Are you laughing at the idea that TNBR is rightish? I think you ought to
take a look at the show. It's pro-big business down the line. Of course,
we all know that Big Business is liberal.... well, in the 17th and 18th
Centuries it was.
If you want to refute the data, bring up some evidence.
So what's your problem? It seems that the experiment was well controlled
and statistically valid. There's no good reason to doubt the results...
unless you just plain don't want to accept the results and your attitude is
colored by your own prejudices. Anybody can make up any kind of
rationalization they want about anything. Someone may look at it and come up
with some other explanation but without evidence against a null hypothesis,
it is accepted. In cases of adequate experimental design where the null
hypothesis is accepted, there's not much that can be said about the
connection between cause and effect, or lack of one in such cases.
The fact (whether believers in media bias like it or not) remains that when
a panel of equal numbers of evaluators from the political left, right, and
middle determined that although the news reports were predominantly from
liberal journalists, there was no liberal bias in the reporting itself.
The panel did not know the politics of who wrote or produced a particular
report and reports from liberal and conservative journalists were presented
to them. They found no liberal bias nor did they find a conservative bias
You seem to say that the panelists could have biased the results
deliberately. I assume you mean that liberals could have ranked a "liberal"
piece as non-biased to skew the data. That doesn't seem at all reasonable
but more a reflection of your own prejudices because conservative panelists
could have done the opposite. Blinding the panelists certainly took that
effect away. Such a problem was not encountered in the study and the
conclusions stand until someone repeats the study and finds a bias.
Man, what school did you ever graduate from? I present a well controlled
scientific study to you (in terms that can hardly be described as a "rant")
and your best response is this crap? Are you at all familiar with the term
"Argument from Ignorance"? How about "Argument from Personal Incredulity"?
Do you know the meaning of the word "fallacy"? Do you know anything about
formal or informal logic? Obviously not.
I've been following this for a bit, and I'll just note that unless I
missed a post somewhere, you haven't presented a single cite for your
allegation of an impartial study having been done.
Can you do so? I'd like to see it. Sounds interesting.
You certainly seem to be a bit prickly on this issue. Your last post
seems to be dipping down into shrill personal insult because someone
is daring to disagree with you.
Take a slow breath...let it out...relax...better? :-)
Please remove the spamtrap to email me.
"I always wanted to be somebody. I should have been more specific..."
Chill Agki, it was only a joke. Perhaps your superior vocabulary
compensates for a lack of sense of humor?
Here in Virginia, "if walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck", we call
it a duck. An operation that thrives on tax dollars and public charity and
its public good is primarily to entertain us, I'd say that is a liberal
One last comment, what the heck does this have to do with woodworking?
Nope, I didn't. One point of taking this stuff this far (without a
citation) was to see if anyone would actually make the effort to do
any research of their own either to gather information from sources
outside their own prejudices or to find the report and falsify it.
I'll see if I can find the original paper. I recall it was a paper
published by some journalism school professors in a sociology journal.
I will look it up.
I felt insulted myself. But what really got me was the clear
rejection of the notion that the actual news reporting could be
without a "Liberal bias" even though the authors may have been card
carrying members of the ACLU. The real kicker was that no one had
anything to offer beyond the Argument from Personal Incredulity.
How about everybody else... I've taken my Prozac for tthe day...
actually, I took enough for tomorrow, too.
Oh, yeah, BTW, I am distinctly NOT a liberal.
I have friend who is "conservative". He is constantly amazed at how
"conservative" my views are because he considers me as a "liberal". In
reality I'm "so left I'm right", and think he is the liberal.
1. On balance, I am moderate to slightly liberal.
2. I don't necessarily agree that reportage is biased, but if it is, I doubt
that there is a truly unbiased source.
That said, the study has a few flaws, the primary being that it is not
really statistical. It is based upon a panel's subjective evaluation of news
stories rather than a rigorous numerical analysis. No matter how many
stories were surveyed, the judgments were filtered through the panel
members' individual sensibilities rather than those of a computer.
Also, you cite the "numerous" stories evaluated. How many? What was their
source(s)? Who selected them?What were the subjects of the stories? In
short, how were controls emplaced to eliminate selection bias?
Who defined "liberal" and "conservative"? Was it left to the minds of the
Interestingly, PBS commentators on the radio and TV refer to the members of
the Communist Party of Russia as "right-wingers." I thought maybe they
just didn't know the historical origin of the left/right orientation, and
were trying to tar with a familiar brush, but now that you mention it, they
would have to look right on the spectrum to see Communists....
Or not so inteestingly. It is not only PBS commentators who use this
nomenclature. It has become standard practice, in case you hadn't
noticed, to refer to members of the old guard (the Communists in
Russia, in this case) as "right-wingers". Historically (as you
suggest), right-wing means refers to conservatives, meaning having "a
disposition in politics to preserve what is established".
Seems to me it is you, George, who is trying to tar with a familiar
brush when you try to paint PBS commentators as being left of the
Communists. I hope you've got your shop apron on before you get some
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.