And people cliam MY links are Biased

 


Smooch: Study of 130,213 stories shows Obama bias in 2012 election
 

A sweeping study of some 130,213 news articles on the 2012 presidential match between President Obama and Mitt Romney has proven anew that there was a strong pro-Democratic bias in the U.S. and international press.

 

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/smooch...le/2561554

---

Instead of a sign that says "Do Not Disturb" I need one that says "Already Disturbed Proceed With Caution."

To do a study of how the press treated the election, you have to start with an assumption about how they should have treated the election.   That makes it almost impossible to do a study of political bias without biasing the result.  

 

From the article in the link (which is not the actual study, but an article about the study):

 

"Overall, media reporting contained more frequently positive statements about the Democrats than the Republicans. Overall, the Republicans were more frequently the object of negative statements," wrote the study authors, Their conclusion: "The Republican Party is the most divisive subject in the campaign, and is portrayed in a more negative fashion than the Democrats."

 

Maybe there were actually more positive things to say about democrats than there were about republicans.   Does the media need to be neutral, or objective?   Those are two different things.   I want reporters to call things as they see them.   I don't want them to "make sure" there are as many great things to say about republicans as there are about democrats, or vice versa.    If the media tries to be even-handed, when the facts themselves are not even-handed, that would be bias.   If you take what you see, and put it on the scales, and the scales tip one way or another, that is not evidence of bias.   It's like saying the referee of a boxing match was biased because he awarded more points to one guy over another guy.  

 

And lastly, there are so many ways for the political parties to reach the public, without the "interference" of "objective observers" (the media) that it is simply not credible to say the media swayed the election.   

---

To do a study of how the press treated the election, you have to start with an assumption about how they should have treated the election. That makes it almost impossible to do a study of political bias without biasing the result.


From the article in the link (which is not the actual study, but an article about the study):


"Overall, media reporting contained more frequently positive statements about the Democrats than the Republicans. Overall, the Republicans were more frequently the object of negative statements," wrote the study authors, Their conclusion: "The Republican Party is the most divisive subject in the campaign, and is portrayed in a more negative fashion than the Democrats."


Maybe there were actually more positive things to say about democrats than there were about republicans. Does the media need to be neutral, or objective? Those are two different things. I want reporters to call things as they see them. I don't want them to "make sure" there are as many great things to say about republicans as there are about democrats, or vice versa. If the media tries to be even-handed, when the facts themselves are not even-handed, that would be bias. If you take what you see, and put it on the scales, and the scales tip one way or another, that is not evidence of bias. It's like saying the referee of a boxing match was biased because he awarded more points to one guy over another guy.


And lastly, there are so many ways for the political parties to reach the public, without the "interference" of "objective observers" (the media) that it is simply not credible to say the media swayed the election.

I think the media has a responsibility to be unbiased and neutral but a duty to deliver truth. Nothing pisses me off more than and a reporter interviewing any politician. Getting a canned response and then moving on and never challenging especially when its a lie or a mistruth purely so they can maintain access. This happens way to often

---

I find it difficult to trust a source that says that IRS suppression of the tea party swung the election.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

The actual study http://bds.sagepub.com/content/2/1/2053951715572916

---

Eh, its a back and forth continuous embarrassment. Repubs take the seat and house for 4-8 years and screw everything up so badly that the people vote Dem. And after the Dem screws it all up they vote Repub again.. Just the way it goes.. Both parties are full of idiots..

---