<< FINALLY, A REASON NOT TO LISTEN TO BJORK ~ MAIN ~ PETA-EAT-A-CRITTER DAY >>
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY CLAIMS ...
Pro-war bloggers were wrong. There was no media bias. Everything was good. Dogs are made of helium. Silk causes bone cancer. The Melbourne Age rocks.
“Pro-war” bloggers reflects a certain bias, don’t you think?
Posted by Mystery Meat on 2005 03 14 at 11:57 AM • permalinkThese internet warriors can claim some credit for the resignation 12 months ago of New York Times executive editor Howell Raines, despised because of his liberal sympathies.
Ummmmm…..if the executive editor of the most “prestigious” newspaper in Ameria has “liberal sympathies”, isn’t that indicative that maybe there is a certain trend setting of a liberal bias?
And I’d like to see their “classification parameters”. Could interesting there, especially the Columbia University School of Journalism ran the study.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 03 14 at 12:26 PM • permalinkThey don’t go into the standards the study uses to classify “bias”, but I suspect it’s along the lines of:
“‘bias’ is defined as being whatever Tom Rosenstiel feels like calling bias at any given moment during the study.”
Posted by tim maguire on 2005 03 14 at 12:41 PM • permalinkConservative bloggers - who far outnumber liberal ones - have run a relentless campaign against what they see as the liberal bias of the mainstream media.
If you’re the most liberal person on the planet, you’d find that _all_ bloggers are conservative, talk about outnumbering liberals.
So we have a calibration of the author from this.
Pig bladders do not prevent earthquakes, the pig gall-stones however can predict them - I read it in an eco-blog.
Posted by -keith in mtn. view on 2005 03 14 at 03:40 PM • permalinkI love this bit…
Fox News ran twice as many positive news stories from Iraq as negative ones, while CNN was more even-handed
What exactly does even handed mean? What happens if there are twice as many good news stories? If the moon landings happened today, would CNN follow interviews of Aldrin and Armstrong with a live cross to an the strangely non-triumphant head of the Soviet space program and an African witchdoctor who thinks that the moon is made of green cheese?
As the left/ liberal world view is the natural or default position of most MSM journalists, they actually define their hostility to the liberation as a “centrist” position. Alternatively, they characterise it as skepticism of government action - an ultimate compliment in their world. So Margo claims she does not approach Iraq from an ideological position - she is only “defending democracy”. How Ironic!
Because, left is actually centre in their world, not only are most MSM journalists biased, they cannot even admit their bias to themselves.
This is the same Columbia Journalism Review group that was the focus of last weeks Media Watch story.
Posted by Villeurbanne on 2005 03 14 at 06:52 PM • permalinkMost were “straight” news reports, according to the survey’s director, Tom Rosenstiel, with 25 per cent of the stories positive and 20 per cent negative. The rest could not be classified one way or the other.
So in reality Tommy thinks that the coverage of the Iraq was not biased. Oh the quality of research today.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
An� authoritative� study in which over 50% of the stories examined could not be reconciled with the study’s standards…
“...explain to me again this new knowledge of how pig’s bladders may be used to prevent earthquakes…â€?