Salty

iTrader: (14)

You have got to be joking. Kerry's campaign was ridiculously focused on Bush. I'd go as far to say it was the backbone of Kerry's campaign. I heard more about his questionable service record, incidents as a youth, addiction to alcohol, inability to speak eloquently etc. more than the 2000 election ten fold. Liberals and Dems where foaming at the mouth to get him out of office and Kerry was masturbating to the idea of Camelot. Even major liberal organizations were formed to slam Bush.

It was one of the main reasons Kerry got labeled John "I have a plan" Kerry. Reporters often asked about Foreign policy, Iraq, the borders whenever they could get a word in edgewise when he wasn't bashing. Every time Kerry insisted that he had a plan. The problem was that it was always way too open-ended and diluted to even be considered real.


How is a study biased? Nobody has proven it wrong either so what am I missing?

Even dub2w said "Project for Excellence in Journalism" was legit through his eyes. This opinion moves mountains based on the fact he suggested Columbia to be a very conservative school.

Unregistered

What should of been focused on instead of Jr? He is the president and Kerry wanted his job so of COURSE he would focus on Jr. Every single election has been like this, or you don't remember Clintons re-election? God talk about not remembering the past.

Are you kidding me?! He gave a freaking BOOK about what he planned. Didn't you watch the debates were he OWNED Jr on every single issues he was asked about? How could you NOT know what his plan was after watching the debates? I knew before that, but if you had no clue after then your attention was on something else. The problem why Kerry, the better canidate in my mind, didn't win was more do to Jr and his croonies destracting from the real issues at hand. But whatever that is neither here nor now. Jr won so lets move on.


How is a study biased?! You can ask loaded questions to get the responces you want. His opinion is HIS opinion and in my opinion their is almost always bias in most studies that have to do with how things are percieved. Just like I stated in my point of view Kerry got the short end of the stick in the main stream media. One reason is that I believe every owner of the news networks are Republicans.

But what I don't understand is why does this even matter? Jr. won the election, no matter if the media was leaning towards Kerry or not. So why harp on this issue?

dr3d1zzl3

iTrader: (1)

With all the **** ups bush has had in the last 4 years (WMD's anyone?) and you are trying to say that the attention he got wasnt deserving?

For ****s sake man pull your head out of your own ***...

He didnt even get half of what he deserved.. He OWNS the press corps.. plain and ****ing simple, they are very very very very effective at what they do.. I give them kudos for that.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

Maybe if he stuck to a purposeful campaign instead of focusing on Jr. he would have been elected.



I read 'A Call to Service' and also read his first book, 'The New Soldier" back the Army. I actually got my hands on the original copy with the flag upside down and his hippy brethren.

The problem with publishing a book during an election is that it's obviously going to be full of sugar cookies and daffodils. When it came to speaking in public he could never stay on target. He always followed it up with "but dubya is doing this." He hardly ever presented a plan that could hold any water because he was too hell-bent on smearing. Made you wonder if he wrote the book or if the DNC wrote the book. And polls and public opinion were about even on the debates. To add salt to the wound the book was expensive and very boring. Great campaign strategy if you ask me! Look how well it all worked for him!


Great. Back on topic.

So where's the loaded question regarding the analysis of data from past election coverage? If the data is all on the table then where's the bias you speak of?

All Republicans? lmfao. Ted Turner was the first person that came to my mind when you said this.


Because all I heard of pre November and even now from Dre is "Fox news this and that." You can't argue that Fox news leans to the right. I don't watch fox news because of this.

The point of this article was that the cards where in the Dems favor the entire time and they ****ed it all up. I got so tired of hearing every Dem/Lib here complain about a non-liberal media that blatantly existed and still exists to this day. Face it. You guys cannot argue this thread. Give it up. Why do you think Dre is so pissed? Let me rejoice

Unregistered

Again I disagree, but that won't change anything.

Why bother posting this, we both already know you're ill informed about this. Remember the last time you said that Kerry left vets behind in Vietnam? Plus, atleast he can write a book on his own unlike Jr....

Your kidding me about the debates being even?! Time to go look up what you yourself posted about the debates... Bush got beat down in all three. It was plain and simple to see. Especially in the first one, he looked like a freaking moron. And Kerry did WAY more than just write a book.


Ok then fine, http://mediamatters.org/items/200411240001
http://www.liberalslant.com/mediaownership.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1014-05.htm
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/45/deadline-finke.php


Ted Turner owns ONE, while the rest are mostly right leaning.

So you bring it up after so many months why? Its pointless, and go read up on who else owns the news stations besides Ted Turner. For godsake they wouldn't even run the commercials for F 9/11 on some networks news programs during the elections.

No the cards did not favor the Dems, if anything it is very hard to unseat a incumbent President. This article is way biased. Also think of it this way. If you are a big company it disfavors you economically to be for democrats since they are for increased taxes. You as a big buisness would want someone who is less inclinded in uping the taxes to win. And since Republicans are for big buisness etc, you could easily conclude that most news stations would have a conservatives lean. Just read those four links I provided that should finish this discussion. So if you want I can easily argue some more about these points. And I assure you that tv networks are not liberal biased.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

Please find those threads I say he won all three. I think I said he won one of the debates and that the rest were a draw.

Let's move everything aside and focus on this one thing. I find that arguing with you is often a love it or leave it circle jerk. I honestly think you'd say bias on anything that didn't suit your tastes unless those conducting the study were castrated cyborgs without any hint of personal thought or stance. You still haven't clearly explained how the article is "way biased" when they are dissecting information that cannot be easily interpreted as something that it is not.

What I have a hard timing grasping is why you continue to argue this study when your know-it-all family (great source btw) has already confirmed the study as a no brainer? What's the point of arguing the so-called bias in this case when it comes in at a distant 3rd to the concrete evidence your family has presented?


What I’m trying to say is that it doesn't matter whether or not you think there's a bias in this case because nobody has been able to prove the study wrong. You compare this election to past elections as similar in coverage. I find this hard to believe because I wonder what triggered this type of study to begin with? I'm no super genius but maybe it had something to do with the fact it was the most controversial smear campaign ever? Just throwing that out.

So find a study that proves this study wrong

MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

This paper uses a very analytical approach to show that, regardless of a 'media bias', voters are barely affected at all by the media during elections.

http://www.wallis.rochester.edu/conf.../mediabias.pdf

Makes this whole thread completely irrelevant.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

I read the whole paper. He sites Anthony Downs as his only source and mentions the relations to be "very small." Although Downs is a major player in the political science world, his book was written in 1957. His opinion doesn't include the numerous media outlets of today (internet, numerous TV/cable outlets) and our inability to get past laziness in turning off the TV or coming up with original thought.

He also contradicts himself earlier in the paper by saying, "Even though they remain skeptical of possibly biased news stories, individuals have a demand for news because news reports provide information on which they may base individual and collective actions." So which is it then? And which example is more pertinent to our time?

But whatever. I can play your game. It is still very relevant because the determining factor of the election was "very small" according to most of those here. That being the 118,599 (2.1% of Ohio ballots) vote difference in Ohio for the electoral and the 3,012,497 (3% of national ballots) vote difference for the popular vote.

MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

The paper does address 'new media', including the internet. Additionally, what you point out as a contradiction is not one. The author says the people use the news to make decisions, HOWEVER in election time there is overwhelming statistical evidence to show that the news does not sway even 1% of voters, which makes 'media bias' not relevent in the last election.

I am not arguing that the media is biased, the original paper in this thread from Columbia could be right. But even with the assumption that there is a bias, this paper shows (with much more attention to statistics and math, I might add) that the bias doesn't affect voters enough to change an election. If you can go through his stats and math and show me where he made a mistake, and that news watchers really DO vote by who the news treats better, then maybe you should take his job at Stanford from him.


You asked for a paper that proved yours wrong. Instead, I presented one that makes yours insignificant. Please don't cling to a fleeting argument again Salty, this one is over.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

Please cite where it says this from the paper (verbatim please) .You may have to open two browsers as it’s a .pdf file. I searched for what you wrote and go "0" on results on a .pdf search. Not saying it doesn't exist, but...


Let me get this straight. You made my paper seem insignificant by presenting a paper written by an indivual rather than a reputable graduate research group that specializes in this area? Furthermore, it's a paper that skims the surface on the media’s influence on the public as opposed to study based on media coverage from the 2004 media election. You see the difference in this case

MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

Einstein was an individual who came up with more original (and as it turns out correct) theories and papers than any 'research group'. I'm not saying this paper is like an Einstein one...but your argument that group>individual is flawed.

I do see the difference, but the Columbia paper does not look at the media's influence on people either...it looks at how the media portrayed the candidates. Which is irrelevant, apparently, because people do not use the news as a guide for who they will vote for.

I mis-spoke when I said the Columbia paper is insignificant. It is significant, and it shows that there is a 'liberal media bias'. Many other papers come to the same conclusion, and I will not argue with that. However, good analysis shows that this bias does not negatively affect conservative cadidates. So while the Columbia paper is significant, it is not relevent (especially in the context of this thread and the 04 election).

Salty

iTrader: (14)

Also got this from the same paper you posted:

Didn't read that part of the study did ya?

MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

This paragraph is the last of the paper, and it is what I was refering to. I guess the '1%" slipped in there...my bad...but since the conclusion of the paper (supported by his math) is that an individual's politics (or any other aspect of a person) is not swayed by the media's bias, I assume that his margin for error is around 1-2% as this is the standard range for errors in published statistical studies.

"The impact of the media on political attitudes and behavior has been studied empirically, and rather than develop the implications of the present theory for those studies only one observation will be offered. Some studies of elections have shown that individuals’ beliefs are not affected by news reports, and the model has this feature in the sense that individuals adjust their beliefs anticipating bias. Empirical testing using ex post data; i.e., after a story has been published, would
show that bias reduces the number of individuals taking precautions, i.e., ˆαL is increasing in σ. Moreover, individuals would report that they took bias into account and adjusted their beliefs appropriately. The journalist’s decision to bias her news report, however, is an ex ante decision; i.e., when preparing the news report, and bias results in a higher probability of a particular story being reported. Media bias thus would not be found using ex post data but could be found using
ex ante data on the frequency with which particular stories appear."

To me, the bottom line is that even though the media can hype anything they want, the effect they have on the general population is minimal.

I'd be interested to see a study where it is shown that the media can sway people's votes in significant numbers. That would validate the Columbia group's findings in a big way.

MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

Actully, I did read that. BUT, as I have stated, I am not arguing that the media is un-biased. The statement that "The media is liberally biased" and the statement "The media is liberally biased, which effects the results of elections" are two very different things. My stance, based on both papers in this thread and a few others, is that 'The media IS liberally biased, however this bias does NOT sway voters away from voting for one party and towards another.'

It shows something that I think we all know: the news is about 90% (biased) entertainment and 10% information/current events.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

So according to this portion of the paper it's safe to say that "some studies of elections have shown that individuals' beliefs are not affected by news reports." It also suggests that "individuals adjust their beliefs anticipating bias" and "individuals would report that they took bias into account and adjusted their beliefs appropriately."

So how is that "overwhelming statistical evidence" as you suggested? Seems like all this is saying is people are taking their information from the media with a grain of salt.


Now that this has soaked in go back and re-read post #57 so you can feel even more foolish. Please don't cling to a fleeting argument again MVWRX, this one is over.