You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!
Columbia Univ. School of Journalism: U.S. Election Coverage Harder on Bush than Kerry
Sheds an entirely new light on the liberal media.
And regardless of what anyone here says, the amount of mainstream liberal media sources have always outweighed Fox (etc).
I mean a lot of you indirectly or unknowingly made a point on this topic in regards to voting demographics. Seemed that those within major metropolitan areas leaned to the left. The NY and LA times aren’t written and printed in Boise, Idaho...
NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. media coverage of last year's election was three times more likely to be negative toward President Bush than Democratic challenger John Kerry, according to a study released Monday.
Ouch.
Seems to hurt that much more knowing that the odds where stacked up against Bush three times more than Kerry. And to think Bush got the popular vote too.
As much credibility as John Hopkins? First, journalism isnt nearly as objective as science.
Furthermore, though Columbia U is a highly esteemed school, it is also extremely conservative, the counterwight, if you will, to NYU. There is a good chance that the watchdog group mentioned in the article is indirectly funded by very conservative party (funds given to Columbia and filtered into their side orgs)
I wouldnt throw out the baby with the bath water, but I wouldnt drool over this "earth-shattering" news from Columbia
I think it's possible but highly improbable considering the fact it’s coming from a reputable University. They don't even mention this media watchdog's name in the article once. What’s there to gain that wouldn’t otherwise be forgotten in 5 minutes besides the credibility of Columbia’s Journalism Department? Doesn’t seem worth the potentially damning effort if you ask me.
Can you provide substantial evidence or studies that prove the opposite? You have to wonder what type of hunch influenced this type of study to begin with, don't you?
Better yet... do you honestly expect me to believe that a journalist isn’t affected by the political environment in which they live? This being the same left-leaning metropolitan environments a majority of these media outlets are located in?
Take a look at the NYC area according to the two maps provided by Princeton Univ.:
This is if we assume all journalists leaned to the right initially. Something that isn’t possible in the real world. Now stack up the numbers of those that have been politically influenced to those dem/lib journalists that already possessed partisan flair in their writing styles.
whether or not a school is highly reputable does not negate that they have biases. in fact, all of the major schools have a bias of sorts.
I dont see how bias "damns" credibility. Biasness is commonplace, and it isnt bad. You are biased, I am biased, and these schools are biased.
To reaffirm my position, you need to take the source into account. And again, this doesnt negate their claim. It only sheds more light onto their final outcome as it relates to their study.
BTW, those graphs are pretty, but you need a similar graph that shows the political constituency of the different centers of academia to effectively substantiate your argument.
whether or not a school is highly reputable does not negate that they have biases. in fact, all of the major schools have a bias of sorts.
I dont see how bias "damns" credibility. Biasness is commonplace, and it isnt bad. You are biased, I am biased, and these schools are biased.
Biasness has the potential to damn credibility in this particular instance based on the fact it's a study, not partisan opinion.
Furthermore, you don't affiliate yourself with any group that may have political motive. In this case the media watchdog as you suggested before. Doing so has the potential to damn credibility even further.
You can still have a bias in medicine and science based on practice and theory. The major difference is that if biasness was presented in a Cancer study from John Hopkins University then lives could be lost.
Can you provide substantial evidence or studies that prove the opposite? You have to wonder what type of hunch influenced this type of study to begin with, don't you?
Still waiting on this one.
I'll admit that the map doesn't cover the school but it certainly covers the location of the school. I don't think there's any possible way for Columbia to look like this from the map I presented:
It would take that type of concentration of conservatives to even begin to justify your argument in an already proven dem/liberal environment. This begs the question on how "conservative" Columbia University really is compared to other universities. Something tells me similar to the amount of lib/leftists members belonging to Ducks Unlimited with the NRA being the equivalent to UCBerkeley.
Why can't this be the answer? Why does there have to be political motive or funding from a partisan group? All I'm saying is that the path with of least resistance usually determines the most reasonable explanation for these types of findings.
Sometimes everything is presented right in front of our faces like the American Airlines flight 77 wreckage just outside of the pentagon.
I'm not saying the media isn't bias, nor do I care because I make up my own mind I was just curious.
Yes. But I have a hard time considering a 3:1 ratio as merely being harder. I'd consider that to be pure favoritism.
Your assumption still leaves one of my previous questions unanswered as to what type of hunch influenced this type of study. You know what I mean? I will rescind my argument altogether
if anyone can find similar, credible studies on past Presidential elections that present a 3:1 ratio or higher for the incumbant.
Linear Mode
