some have asked for proof of media Bias. here it is.

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by JBA
You have a hard time making sense don't you.

[/B]

And you have a hard time making sense of basic research methodology apparently.

What "non-randomness" are you talking about? I sited a specific instance of bias. And what population am I generalizing, The established media? You don't need to be bias in every instance. Just as long as you commit the offence you are guilty.

In order to generalize to the population (that is, take a sample and draw inferences from it about population characteristics), you need to draw a large, random sample.  You're selecting on your dependent variable, bias, meaning that you're finding a single case of possible media bias and erroneously concluding that this one example represents the general state of things.  Who's to say that, once we draw a large random sample, we wouldn't observe equal liberal and conservative bias?  Or no statistically significant measure of it.  Since you've only given us one observation, we can't know for sure.  

Saying that it "seems" biased isn't good enough.  You've proven nothing.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[Gunslinger]

To see this issue more closely all you have to do is read the papers during the invasion of Iraq.  If you ONLY read a few of them you'd have thaught we were losing the war and getting slaughtered on every corner.  Even some of the times reporters were pissed cause there storys were edited in such a slanted way.  

This is nothing new, there is no juicyness in it so why report it?

[lord dolf vader]

yea the deaths didn't really pick up till the peace was declared.


i work in tv media have been at 3 stations and media are hoars.
they do what makes um the most money.




virage said

"corporate highjacking of the government is what you are to be distracted from"

quote of the month.

[JBA]

Originally posted by Dead Man Flying


And you have a hard time making sense of basic research methodology apparently.

 

In order to generalize to the population (that is, take a sample and draw inferences from it about population characteristics), you need to draw a large, random sample.  You're selecting on your dependent variable, bias, meaning that you're finding a single case of possible media bias and erroneously concluding that this one example represents the general state of things.  Who's to say that, once we draw a large random sample, we wouldn't observe equal liberal and conservative bias?  Or no statistically significant measure of it.  Since you've only given us one observation, we can't know for sure.  

Saying that it "seems" biased isn't good enough.  You've proven nothing.

-- Todd/Leviathn [/B]

New York Times  1
La Times             2
Post                    3

There are only about 5 newspapers of record in the US, Chicago Trib, Boston Globe, and these 3. I think my sample pool is large enough to conclude that 75% got it wrong with a bias slant.

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by JBA
New York Times  1
La Times             2
Post                    3

There are only about 5 newspapers of record in the US, Chicago Trib, Boston Globe, and these 3. I think my sample pool is large enough to conclude that 75% got it wrong with a bias slant.

These are not random samples, not of newspapers or of issues.  In addition, the sample size in no way approaches what you would need for a valid claim.  Add to that the fact that numerous alternative hypotheses exist (e.g. the Haliburton story didn't sell newspapers and thus was abandoned) and you have an unsubstantiated claim of bias.

Keep stretching though.  It "seems" like bias, so it must be!

-- Todd/Leviathn

[JBA]

Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
These are not random samples, not of newspapers or of issues.  In addition, the sample size in no way approaches what you would need for a valid claim.  Add to that the fact that numerous alternative hypotheses exist (e.g. the Haliburton story didn't sell newspapers and thus was abandoned) and you have an unsubstantiated claim of bias.

Keep stretching though.  It "seems" like bias, so it must be!

-- Todd/Leviathn

The stretch is getting less difficult each day.

Network newscasts don’t usually publicize the exclusive interviews with an author to be aired later on a competing network, but the networks were so excited by former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill’s blasts at Bush -- as 'a blind man in a room full of deaf people’ -- that on Friday night ABC and NBC picked up on the shot at Bush released by CBS to promote his appearance on 60 Minutes. The Saturday and Sunday Washington Post and New York Times also featured stories.

Over on the NBC Nightly News, anchor Brian Williams announced: “One of the few top officials ever fired by President George W. Bush is tonight firing back at his old boss. Former Alcoa aluminum CEO Paul O’Neill, the President’s first Treasury Secretary, has said in an interview the President is disengaged and didn’t ask a single question in their first hour-long meeting. He likened Bush’s cabinet meetings to, and we quote now, 'a blind man in a room full of deaf people.’ His story is part of a new book on the early Bush years.”
     The CBS Evening News, which on Saturday led with O’Neill’s charges, on Friday featured a plug for 60 Minutes announced by Mike Wallace, who intoned over video of O’Neill and Bush walking up the steps of the Old Executive Office Building next to the White House: “When a former George W. Bush insider says that at cabinet meetings the President acted like blind man talking to the deaf, that’s a story for 60 Minutes. Sunday.”

[Nakhui]

Originally posted by JBA
'a blind man in a room full of deaf people.’

O'Neill has clarified his comments, and the news media is spreading those clarifications.

So if they are biased... why would they do that? Why don't they keep running with the bogus story?

And Fox news is supporting Bush's Illegal Worker plan... seems like they are rather balanced - in tipped to the right kind of way.

But hey that's common knowledge.

[Eagler]

the media has always been left, it will always be left - they think they are an extension of Hollywood ...

most are registered handsomehunkcrats and flavor their reporting accordingly..

if you don't see it, you have rocks for brains

[Montezuma]

Originally posted by JBA
Do some of your own research. You'll find more.
 

Don't claim other people's writing as your own, blog parrot.

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Eagler
the media has always been left, it will always be left - they think they are an extension of Hollywood ...

most are registered handsomehunkcrats and flavor their reporting accordingly..

if you don't see it, you have rocks for brains

"The Media"

TV News - More left than right
Most Newspapers - Even split.
Radio News / Talk - more right than left.

"Rocks in your head" comes mostly from sticking it in the sand.

[Charon]

Didn't Diane Sawyer just run a puff piece where she interviewed the Bushes? I didn't see it but from the teasers it looked pretty mild.

Charon

[kappa]

Did we consider the media 'leftist' while former pres. clinton was in office?

[Eagler]

Originally posted by kappa
Did we consider the media 'leftist' while former pres. clinton was in office?

of course, if a republican did what he did in the oral office, he'd been run out of town

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Eagler
of course, if a republican did what he did in the oral office, he'd been run out of town

If a republican gave us 8 years of peace and prosperity you would consider him a god.

[Eagler]

Originally posted by midnight Target
If a republican gave us 8 years of peace and prosperity you would consider him a god.

is that what slick gave us?

you consider him a god then?

ain't the way I see it ....