Salty

iTrader: (14)

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...

http://reuters.myway.com/article/200...REPORT-DC.html

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.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

This deserves a sticky.

Having this type of study done by Columbia’s Graduate School of Journalism holds as much water as a study on medicine by John Hopkins.

famink

iTrader: (1)

:LOL: does this mean Jeb in 08?

good to see people dont pay attintion to mass media

dub2w

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

Salty

iTrader: (14)

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.

dub2w

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.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

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.

gpatmac

iTrader: (3)

Ha ha ha. A little OT, but I love how the Goooooooogle banner ads at the bottom of all of the i-club pages are so intuitive.

http://dontblamemeivoted4kerry.com/

VIBEELEVEN

iTrader: (2)

:rotfl:



because the other 240,945,913 are dumber



it's not a red x is it?

gpatmac

iTrader: (3)

Nope

Salty

iTrader: (14)

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.

EricDaRed81

iTrader: (10)

Isn't the media always harder on the incumbant?

They just have more ammo.

I'm not saying the media isn't bias, nor do I care because I make up my own mind I was just curious.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

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.

Until then, this sticky will remain.

EricDaRed81

iTrader: (10)

You like da sticky

Salty

iTrader: (14)

I like this sticky.