|
| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
Ill have a look 
Last edited by twotap on Fri Dec 28, 2007 8:36 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
Thu Dec 27, 2007 9:26 pm |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
One more quick one.
The academic study cited most frequently by critics of a "liberal media bias" in American journalism is The Media Elite,* a 1986 book co-authored by political scientists Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman, and Linda Lichter. They surveyed journalists at national media outlets such as the New York Times, Washington Post, and the broadcast networks. The survey which found that most of these journalists were Democratic voters whose attitudes were well to the left of the general public on a variety of topics, including such hot-button social issues such as abortion, affirmative action, and gay rights. Then they compared journalists' attitudes to their coverage of controversial issues such as the safety of nuclear power, school busing to promote racial integration, and the energy crisis of the 1970s.
The book's most thorough case study involved nuclear energy. The survey of journalists showed that most were highly skeptical about nuclear safety. However, the authors conducted a separate survey of scientists in energy related fields, who were much more sanguine about nuclear safety issues. They then conducted a content analysis of nuclear energy coverage in the media outlets they had surveyed. They found that the opinions of sources who were cited as scientific experts reflected the antinuclear sentiments of journalists, rather than the more pro-nuclear perspectives held by most energy scientists.
The authors concluded that journalists' coverage of controversial issues reflected their own attitudes, and the predominance of political liberals in newsrooms therefore pushed news coverage in a liberal direction. They presented this tilt as a mostly unconscious process of like-minded individuals projecting their shared assumptions onto their interpretations of reality. In principle this meant that newsrooms populated mainly by conservatives would produce a similarly skewed perspective toward the political right. Such accusations have been leveled against Fox News. At the time the study was embraced mainly by conservative columnists and politicians, who adopted the findings as "scientific proof" of liberal media bias.
Many of the positions in the preceding study are supported by a 2002 study by Jim A. Kuypers: Press Bias and Politics: How the Media Frame Controversial Issues. In this study of 116 mainstream US papers (including The New York Times, the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle), Kuypers found that the mainstream print press in America operate within a narrow range of liberal beliefs. Those who expressed points of view further to the left were generally ignored, whereas those who expressed moderate or conservative points of view were often actively denigrated or labeled as holding a minority point of view. In short, if a political leader, regardless of party, spoke within the press-supported range of acceptable discourse, he or she would receive positive press coverage. If a politician, again regardless of party, were to speak outside of this range, he or she would receive negative press or be ignored. Kuypers also found that the liberal points of view expressed in editorial and opinion pages were found in hard news coverage of the same issues. Although focusing primarily on the issues of race and homosexuality, Kuypers found that the press injected opinion into its news coverage of other issues such as welfare reform, environmental protection, and gun control; in all cases favoring a liberal point of view. |
|
|
|
Thu Dec 27, 2007 9:47 pm |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
And of course a very telling book by someone who was and is actually there.
I gotta find that Journalism school survey I was talking about. |
|
|
|
Fri Dec 28, 2007 8:31 am |
|
|
Demeralda
F L I N T O I D
|
A lot of things have changed from 1986. I'm not even sure CNN existed yet, and Fox News most certainly didn't. But still that's not "self-professed", it's just another accuser.
But keep trying! |
|
|
|
Fri Dec 28, 2007 9:48 am |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
A lot of things have changed from 1986. I'm not even sure CNN existed yet, and Fox News most certainly didn't. But still that's not "self-professed", it's just another accuser.
But keep trying!
Demeralda, I dont think their is anything I could do or say that would convince you of the Liberal bias that exists among journalists and most of the TV talking heads. Perhaps your own political leanings allow you to be insulated from what is so obvious to us rightwing Whackos. By the way did you happen to come up with that posssibly less to the left representative for the Journal or are you still trying. You are correct a lot has changed since 86 for sure.Rush and Talk radio exposing the lefties, some of Fox news exposing the lefties, Drudge, Michael Savage, Michele Malkin  ya baby, Ann Coulter kicking their asses. Just a small number compared to the libs but very effective indeed. And of course the pinacle of unbiased reporting Dan Rather getting caught imposing his leftist values with forged documents in the name of changing the world. That sure made my day. |
|
|
|
Fri Dec 28, 2007 12:26 pm |
|
|
last time here
Guest
|
and o'reilly, hannity & colmes, ken hamblin, what a cult!!  |
_________________
Guest post |
|
|
Fri Dec 28, 2007 12:55 pm |
|
|
Demeralda
F L I N T O I D
|
I must not remember something, did I say anything about the Journal?
You don't need to convince me that journalists are leftists. You need to convince me that they are SELF-PROFESSED LEFTISTS, which is YOUR CLAIM. That is the only thing at issue here.
And my understanding about the Dan Rather documents is not that they were ever proved forgeries, but rather that they could not be authenticated, and Mapes tried to talk her way around it. That's not the same as saying they're forged. |
|
|
|
Fri Dec 28, 2007 1:30 pm |
|
|
Dave Starr
F L I N T O I D
|
[img][URL=http://s244.photobucket.com/albums/gg17/davestarr45/?action=view¤t=Dan.flv]
[/URL][/img] |
_________________
I used to care, but I take a pill for that now.
Pushing buttons sure can be fun.
When a lion wants to go somewhere, he doesn’t worry about how many hyenas are in the way.
Paddle faster, I hear banjos. |
|
|
Fri Dec 28, 2007 2:26 pm |
|
|
Dave Starr
F L I N T O I D
|
| Video from photobucket didn't work. What did i di wrong??? |
_________________
I used to care, but I take a pill for that now.
Pushing buttons sure can be fun.
When a lion wants to go somewhere, he doesn’t worry about how many hyenas are in the way.
Paddle faster, I hear banjos. |
|
|
Fri Dec 28, 2007 2:26 pm |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
And my understanding about the Dan Rather documents is not that they were ever proved forgeries, but rather that they could not be authenticated, and Mapes tried to talk her way around it. That's not the same as saying they're forged.
Ya Right
|
|
|
|
Fri Dec 28, 2007 3:23 pm |
|
|
Demeralda
F L I N T O I D
|
| Oh yeah? Well perhaps you can tell me where Mr. Bush was during that period. |
|
|
|
Fri Dec 28, 2007 4:18 pm |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
Lets see WW2 learning to walk, Vietnam learning to fly, during the Dan Rather period, watching Kennedy be a fiscal conservative a social liberal and an admirer of Marilyn, than watching Johnson blunder his way thru the Vietnam war and starting the biggest fiasco in history known as the Great Society, than watching Nixon get us out of Vietnam while falling under his own screwup, on to Ford oh well and of course we next had "Trust Me" Jimmy with double digit infaltion and the must inept presidency in history, my favorite Renaldus Magnus put America back to its greatness, Old man Bush showed how wishywashy a pres could be, El Slicko Willy with the constantly unzipped drawers became the first black prez and gave old a whole new meaning to the term "deskjob"and finally to Dubya who practically killed the conservative movement by sucking up to the likes of fat boy Ted and thumbing his nose at those that put him in the whitehouse in the first place. Hows That?  |
|
|
|
Fri Dec 28, 2007 6:19 pm |
|
|
last time here
Guest
|
dubya never went to vietnam...... 
he was down south skipping out on drug tests 
and bilking investors out of cash for failed oil schemes... 
oh, can't forget the savings and loan debacles.....
yeah, he was busy!!
"desk job" |
_________________
Guest post |
|
|
Fri Dec 28, 2007 8:31 pm |
|
|
FlintConservative
F L I N T O I D
|
Savings & Loan debacle?
"The Keating Five (or Keating Five Scandal) refers to a Congressional scandal related to the collapse of most of the Savings and Loan institutions in the United States in the late 1980s.
Following the deregulation of the banking industry in the 1980s, savings and loan associations (also known as thrifts) were given the flexibility to invest their depositors' funds in commercial real estate. (Previously, they had been restricted to investing in residential real estate.) Many savings and loan associations began making risky investments. As a result, the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, the federal agency that regulates the industry, tried to clamp down on the trend. In so doing, however, the FHLBB clashed with the Reagan administration, whose policy was deregulation of many industries, including the thrift industry. The administration declined to submit budgets to Congress that would request more funding for the FHLBB's regulatory efforts.
In 1989, the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association of Irvine, Calif., collapsed. Lincoln's chairman, Charles H. Keating Jr., was faulted for the thrift's failure. Keating, however, told the House Banking Committee that the FHLBB and its former chief Edwin J. Gray were pursuing a vendetta against him. Gray testified that several U.S. senators had approached him and requested that he ease off on the Lincoln investigation. It came out that these senators had been beneficiaries of $1.3 million (collective total) in campaign contributions from Keating.
This allegation set off a series of investigations by the California government, the United States Department of Justice, and the Senate Ethics Committee. The ethics committee's investigation focused on five senators: Alan Cranston (D-CA); Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ); John Glenn (D-OH); John McCain (R-AZ); and Donald W. Riegle, Jr. (D-MI), who became known as the Keating Five."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_5 |
|
|
|
Fri Dec 28, 2007 10:02 pm |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
| LT Never lets facts get in the way when he's discussing his reasons for hating the Bushs. |
|
|
|
Fri Dec 28, 2007 10:09 pm |
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
