Media Matters debunks UCLA study
By on Dec 22nd, 2005 at 9:25 am
Media Matters debunks UCLA study
purporting to “show a strong liberal bias” in the mainstream media. “The study employed a measure of ‘bias’ so problematic that its findings are next to useless, and the authors — both former fellows at conservative think tanks cited in the study to illustrate liberal bias — seem unaware of the substantial scholarly work that exists on the topic.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
If you don’t like the research, just discredit the authors, right? Actually the research was unnecessary, as everyone who is not a mongoloid retard knows the major media is liberally canted.
December 22nd, 2005 at 9:31 amSpoken like a true mongoloid retard, Mr. Phelps.
Who funds you, AFI or Fox?
December 22nd, 2005 at 9:50 am…everyone who is not a mongoloid retard…
Real nice way to talk about people with DOWN SYNDROME
BTW: They happen to be the sweetest people on this earth.
They love and accept ALL people.
YOU could learn something from them.
Merry Freakin Christmas.
December 22nd, 2005 at 9:58 am1. And, I suppose Fox is truly “fair and balanced?”
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:01 amHaving been involved in of such studies for many years I have found that for the most part the study is structured to prove what the authors want to prove. Very few of the studies are purely objective with no internal bias. Any number of studies have been done that supposedly prove just the opposite about the MSM. The fact is that the media will take on the bias of those that pay for the media. It is a dangerous misconception to believe that the whole of the MSM can be lumped together and tagged with an evaluation that is true of each individual part. The truth is that no generalization is worth a damn, including this one.
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:02 am#5
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:09 amThat Groseclose study sounds a bit like the debunked unbalanced “study” conducted under Ken Thomlinson which supposedly found bias at PBS.
Media Matters? Media Matters!!?!? ROFL
Paid propagandists denying the obvious, who would’ve guessed?
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:23 amThe NeoCons have infected my alma mater, yuck.
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:28 amwwallybaby – why don’t you show us 1 thing mediamatters has put in print that isn’t true.
You can’t. They back it all up with links. Idiot.
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:47 amMy Dear Friend Wally has again managed to prove my point quite well, thank you. Rather than use the elements and arguments of the study to debate the critics Wally uses the tried and true method of all incompetent detractors: eschew obfuscation. Having no case to support the study Wally resorts to name calling” “Paid Propagandists.” This term, in and of itself is an oxymoronic statement of fact. All propagandists are “paid” by definition, whether it be in monetary gain on gain due to the results of the propaganda. Propaganda may be used to support ones own position or debase the position of an opponent. Hence the term has a qualitative value dependent upon the position of the viewer. Groseclose and Milyo are themselves paid propagandists, no different than Media Matters except for their relative position on this issue. If anyone is in denial it is friend Wally. The common ploy for math professors when faced with the crucial quantum leap in their proof is the term: It is intuitively obvious that …” Lacking any means, method, manner, or mentality to counter the argument Wally makes his own quantum leap by “denying the obvious.” Thanks, Wally, with you on Bushie’s side who needs impeachment. You will all just self destruct.
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:49 amClyde: thanks for the unpleasant flashback to my college calculus course
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:53 amI expect the media to be liberal since most smart people are liberals
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:17 amAt least the study didn’t do any damage! The right wing has always stated that the media is liberal, no matter what is said or studied. At least during my lifetime.
Of course any news that discredits their position comes from the “liberal” media and therefore doesn’t count. How convenient.
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:26 amMordecai Phelps: If you don’t like the research, just discredit the authors, right? Actually the research was unnecessary, as everyone who is not a mongoloid retard knows the major media is liberally canted.
Any relationship to the bigot homophobe Fred Phelps?
Let’s take your argument here Phelps, and that the media is in fact liberally biased. Can you explain to me why I should immediatly trust a conservative bias news media? In what ways can you benchmark for us in how a conservative media establishment is by default a more trustworthy source of facts that resemble reality as the implication made by people like yourself is that a liberal media is dishonest.
Go ahead. Answer that. Remember I am looking for some kind of metric that proves by default that a liberal media is dishonest and by its inherent nature a conservative tells the truth.
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:31 amIf the MSM were indeed objective, and animated by an investigative impulse and a nonpartisan, government-watchdog instinct, they might thoroughly cover and inquire into the following:
Why Joe Wilson appears to have lied when he denied that his wife, Valerie Plame, recommended him to the CIA to investigate the claim that Saddam Hussein sought uranium yellowcake from Niger. They might also examine Wilson’s bragging about debunking certain forged documents on his trip – documents that were not even discovered until eight months later.
Senator Durbin’s unconscionable likening of America’s treatment of terrorist detainees to the treatment of prisoners by Pol Pot, the Nazi regime and the Soviet Gulags.
Why one of their own standard-bearers, the vaunted New York Times, sat on the surveillance “scandal” story until the week Congress was debating reauthorization of the Patriot Act.
Where Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid gets off demanding an independent investigation about this NSA surveillance – a practice that essentially began under President Clinton and about which Reid and his colleagues were privy to a dozen briefings.
How Democratic leaders have continually accused President Bush of lying to get us into war when they had access to the same WMD intelligence as President Bush and voted to authorize him to attack Iraq.
Why only a handful of Democratic senators availed themselves of their access to certain detailed reports on Iraqi WMD.
Why Democratic leaders claim their plainly unconditional authorization to attack Iraq was based on further conditions.
Upon what evidence the Democrats base their slanderous allegation that the Bush administration, as a matter of policy, engages in the systematic torture of terrorist detainees.
How Democratic leaders could justify their irresponsible call for a specific withdrawal timetable for Iraq without playing into the terrorists’ hands.
Why most of those Democrats, when Republicans called their bluff, were afraid to back up their destructive rhetoric with their votes.
The Democrats’ conspicuous inability or unwillingness to offer a single alternative plan for Iraq, though they ceaselessly condemn President Bush’s policies on it.
Why senators who voted for the Patriot Act are now refusing to reauthorize it despite the lack of a credible case that the administration has abused its authority or compromised civil liberties.
How Democratic senators can complain about the government’s failure to connect the dots concerning the terrorists’ 9/11 plot and at the same time take action that will virtually guarantee our inability to connect future dots.
On what basis Sen. Harry Reid charges that the present Congress is “the most corrupt in history.”
The remarkable progress in Iraq of the training of Iraqi security forces and the rebuilding of the Iraqi infrastructure.
The positive morale of the American troops in Iraq despite the endless distortions by the MSM and Democratic politicians.
The robustness and resilience of the American economy under President Bush.
The MSM have been largely silent or slanted on these stories, along with many others that don’t support their preferred template.
Yet, in the face of this evidence, the MSM mostly deny their bias. What’s scary is that many of them actually believe they aren’t biased, which is as much a result of self-deception as deception of others.
This is because they operate in the type of stifling bubble they believe envelops President Bush. They surround themselves only with people who share their decidedly leftist, secular worldview. They harbor a myopic arrogance that regards contrary opinion as aberrant, perverse and evil. They oppose at all costs anything that advances that worldview, including the dissemination of the truth.
Thus, their professed allegiance to the truth must yield to their jaded perception of the higher good. Their pretense toward objectivity must be subordinated to their desired political ends.
This explains their concerted suppression of the undeniable historic significance of the Iraqi elections in favor of their timed release of the story on the surveillance scandal. It explains CBS’s John Roberts’ obliviousness to how he embarrassed himself in asking President Bush – on the heels of this remarkable news about the burgeoning Iraqi government – to confess his worst mistake in office.
While I am mindful and appreciative of the profound counterbalancing impact of the New Media in the interest of truth, we must remember that the MSM are still alive and kicking and hell-bent on shaping the news and public opinion in conformity with their worldview.
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:33 amWell RBA, seeing as you can mention this stuff so easily, must show that the liberal media, isn’t so liberal… otherwise you’d never heard of these “issues” cause the Liberal media would act in its best interest to suppress them. But it feeds your paranioa, and your buddies in the right-wing world of non-reality serve it to you well from the silver spoons they are born with.
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:42 am#15
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:45 amWay to plagarize David Limbaugh’s column… instead of appearing smart this makes you look stupid.
#16 Boy, the Limbannity talking points are set on hyper-drive today. Here’s a cracker you parrot.
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:48 amThe truth hurts huh morons.
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:49 amI know it’s his brother, but they don’t call
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:50 am‘em dittoheads for nothing
#20, #19. YOu guys are so smart, please answer my post in #14.
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:51 amquicksand, who are you talking to? The comments for me seem to be numbered differently…I was talking about RBA’s list.
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:54 amMLDB, nope, sorry.
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:56 amWe hear all the time about those liberals paying reporters under the table to push the liberal agenda! Oh, sorry, it always seems to be the right wing that does this.
Besides the obvious Armstrong Williams and Fort Bragg recent stories, anyone have anything about rightwing shills online?
I just can’t imagine with all the money the repubs have (thanks to DeLay!), they wouldn’t be paying to push their position on redstate.org and other sites. It sounds just like something they would do.
December 22nd, 2005 at 12:02 pmGuess what, I’m skeptical of most ALL media. It is the responsibility of the individual to find truth, not blindly accept information out-of-hand. Most media (especially television) is in the business of making money, not providing truth. Where humans are involved, you will find bias. Label the bias how you will, but at the core, it is a lazy and naive person who doesn’t look into things for themselves to build their world-view.
December 22nd, 2005 at 12:07 pm“15
Way to plagarize David Limbaugh’s column… instead of appearing smart this makes you look stupid.”
Comment by M. Duchamp — December 22, 2005
No kidding. Quoting Limbaughs’ idiot brother, who never had an original thought in his life, shows what a big thinker red state worrier is
December 22nd, 2005 at 12:16 pm#15
RBA, “..we must remember that the MSM are (Sic*) still alive and kicking and hell-bent on shaping the news and public opinion in conformity with their (Sic*) worldview.” This is as it should be. It is as you are attempting to do in your above diatribe as I did in my above dissertations, choice of words intentional. The difference being that you and wwallace adopt false premises, place a derisive value judgement on the detractors, and proceed to “prove” your point through rhetoric while the more rational contributors to the debate review the subject and proceed to present arguments to support their position or disprove the arguments of the opponents. While all of your points in your diatribe have the same errors in presentation and argument I will counter just one to make my point. “The positive morale of the American troops in Iraq despite the endless distortions by the MSM and Democratic politicians.”
Your first error is claiming a positive morale for the American Troops when there is no evidence that you present to support this fact. I could present over 2000 facts to disprove your point but unfortunately they no longer care (had I wanted to emulate your style I would have claimed they had been murdered by Bush and his corrupt republican cronies). You claim that the troop morale is high “despite the endless distortions by the MSM…” yet you offer nothing in support of your argument. You cite no examples of distortion and no evidence the distortion, if any, has no end. You have appended Democratic politicians to the MSM in an attempt to show bias of the MSM with no logical explanation for the connection. If I were to resort to a more primitive argument to counter your position I could state all privies and Republican politicians are full of poop. My argument, however, may be closer to the truth than you are willing to acknowledge.
*MSM (Main Stream Media) is a singular collective noun and requires a singular verb and pronoun.
December 22nd, 2005 at 12:23 pm#26
I wasn’t even going to touch on the merits of that column, because it’s pretty obvious that the column is guilty of its own accusations of bias: how ironic.
What’s truly funny, is that RBA posted that as his/her own thoughts. There were no quote marks or credits, just straight-up theft. So, if anything, one can truly say, without bias, that RBA is a thief.
December 22nd, 2005 at 12:28 pmLiberal bias in the media is yet another republican myth comparable to creationism. It’s just retarded nonsense of the unscientific and illiterate minds of republican fools.
December 22nd, 2005 at 12:41 pmFirst – I want to apologize for the plagarism. But if I attached the link, would many of you even bother to go to it? Second, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that most of the mainstream media is biased liberally. Although, none of you will ever be caught admitting to it, you know that it is true. You accuse us all of the time of facism and goosestepping, well this has got to be mother of all lockstep moves of all time. What you fail to realize, however, is that your monopoly on the media is ending. Fox News and others are cutting in on your action. Newspaper sales have been down for a long time. If you say that media is in business to make money, then if that were really true, they would change and tone down their liberal overtones and draw more viewers and readership.
December 22nd, 2005 at 1:14 pmEveryone here needs to read “Do as I say, Not as I Do” by Peter Schweizer. I’ll bet after a few of you read it, you’ll no longer want to be a liberal. It exposes the hypocrisy of the left with facts that are undeniable. For example, why would Michael Moore, who claims to never have owned any shares of stock of any company, own shares of Halliburton. It will change your life for the better.
http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/schweizer200510250827.asp
December 22nd, 2005 at 1:22 pmRBA,
All of the crap you’ve posted has been thoroughly debunked on this site, and all over the web. Your claims of ‘liberal bias’, come from the fact that you clearly get all of your news from biased and debunked republican blogs. The national review is already known as an untrustworthy neocon propaganda mouthpiece – with it’s editor being one of the FOUNDERS of the NeoCon movement.
You’re easily duped, and your ‘obssession’ with factually debunked myths shows you have a tentative grasp on reality at best. Get some counseling, you are NOT a well person.
December 22nd, 2005 at 1:25 pmRSA,
If you ‘have’ fox news as you say, why haven’t they investigated, proven and provided the evidence necessary to prosecute as you ‘claim’ is possible on all of those whacko stories? Because all of the ‘lies’ they print are debunked daily at mediamatters.org, and unlike the lies at fox/faux news, mediamatters actually links you to the physical source material that debunks the nonsense.
The fact that you allow yourself to be so easily duped just means that you care more about your ‘delusion’ and your ‘preconceptions’ than you do about america. It figures, osama shares your personality, and that’s why he justifies violence, torture, murder and mahem just like you do. You are not different from the terrorists, you ARE the terrorists.
December 22nd, 2005 at 1:29 pm#30 CaughtRedHanded
First, don’t patronize us by accusing us of laziness, when it is evident that you are the one who is guilty being biased, manipulative and lazy. You didn’t post a link, because you knew that it would aid in discrediting your stolen opinions. The fact is, you took Limbaugh’s writing, changed a couple of phrases to suit your purposes, then posted it here as your own. I, for one, do read links. I also do quite a bit of research on my own, which is how I found out that you’re a thief.
Second, whose monopoly on media are you talking about? Spend a little time researching at this media watchdog site Columbia Journalism Review, and you’ll clearly see the vast majority of large mainstream media outlets are owned multi-national corporations, not a “liberal†monopoly of activists. Corporations are in the business to make money, not spread liberal ideology. You are parroting a right-wing talking point with no evidence to back up your claim. Care to prove otherwise?
December 22nd, 2005 at 1:43 pmRBA, I am in the process of reading the article you’ve asked us to read. Not too impressed by ad hominem attacks, I rather discuss the merits of one worldview over another which is what I have asked you and your fellows to address in my post #14.
December 22nd, 2005 at 1:52 pmRBA,
If you want to be an intellectual more power to you but please learn the basics of written argument. It is essential that you learn to spell before you pontificate.
December 22nd, 2005 at 1:59 pmIn post number 30 you misspelled “plagiarism” by omitting the first “i”. Another courtesy common to those individuals who understand the ethics of debate is to respond to all challengers, not just those you can smear. I would not mind hearing some meaningful comments on the posts I directed to you, however, I won’t miss lunch while waiting, or probably breakfast tomorrow as well.
No one here can honestly admit that when they watch the Today show, MSMBC (with the exception of Joe Scarborough), CBS News etc, that there isn’t the slight bit of bias toward the president or the Republican party? Of course, you all have your studies that prove otherwise, but really, you know what I am talking about. If a news program is to be presented with some objectivity, then the personal opinion of the reporter should be left at the door. But they don’t. They speculate, not report the news. The choice of news stories are also biased. Every now and then, you do get some good news but its few and far between. If things in this country were really as bad as the people here make it sound, then wouldn’t most of America be grabbing their pitchforks and storming Washingtion? The fact is they are not. The economy is much stronger than the MSM would like you to believe and things have been going much better in Iraq than you have heard. The fact is they have been unwilling to give Bush any credit. Period. I am an optimist. Always have been. All I see through your posts are pessimistic opinions to reality. When voters cast their ballots in next year’s mid-year election, who do you think they will vote for; the party that offers nothing but critism or the party that offers hope that things will and are getting better? (Check out the political cartoon in today’s USAToday) I think the choice is obvious. Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
December 22nd, 2005 at 2:11 pmThe remarkable progress in Iraq of the training of Iraqi security forces and the rebuilding of the Iraqi infrastructure.
Jumping the shark? Yeah, that lack of electricity, running water, semblance of security… Remarkable, indeed. Thanks for proving the point that Fox News(sic) is far from reliable, or truthful.
December 22nd, 2005 at 2:29 pm“No one here can honestly admit that when they watch the Today show, MSMBC (with the exception of Joe Scarborough), CBS News etc, that there isn’t the slight bit of bias toward the president or the Republican party?”RBAhole
I can, but then again I live in the real world, and not a fascist terrorist creation of insanity that you’ve clearly crawled out of. Most of those outlets slant the story and do not provide the same sort of direct and negative stories they slanted at Clinton, even though bush’s crimes are real, and Clinton’s weren’t.
” Of course, you all have your studies that prove otherwise, but really, you know what I am talking about.”
Yeah, screw math, studies and science, who needs them when you have anecdotal preconceptions, fairy tale religious beliefs, and mythological understanding of the world. I know EXACTLY what you’re talking about, you practice ‘wishcraft’. You ‘wish’ things to be true, and delusionally pretend they are in the fact of evidence that proves you wrong. That’s what a ‘lunatic’ does, you need help!
December 22nd, 2005 at 2:32 pm“If a news program is to be presented with some objectivity, then the personal opinion of the reporter should be left at the door.” RedNeckAHole
I agree, so why do all of the Conservatives (limbaugh, OLeilly, Hannity, Scarborough) do the opposite of this? You say you want personal opinions at the door, yet you use ‘fox’ as an example of the news you like, and they do the exact opposite.
You don’t want opinions left at the door, you want ‘liberal’ opinions left at the door, and simply because you disagree with them. You’re the worst kind of immoral liar and fool!
December 22nd, 2005 at 2:34 pmRBA,
Thanks for your faith in the Democratic Party. I will give you two point: (2) things will be better next year as they can’t get any worse. (3) The Democrats do offer a lot of criticism (properly spelled) but, unfortunately, it is all well deserved.
December 22nd, 2005 at 2:35 pmRBA,
This is a test: Find the typo in Post #41.
December 22nd, 2005 at 2:37 pmSecond, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that most of the mainstream media is biased liberally.
Of course it doesn’t take a rocket scientist: it takes a demagogue. Yeah, GE is real liberal. Disney and Viacom, too. New York Times, printing front page stories about fictional WMD, sitting on the spying story for a year because Bush asked them to. Regular Bolsheviks and Fellow Travelers.
December 22nd, 2005 at 2:40 pmRBA: No one here can honestly admit that when they watch the Today show, MSMBC (with the exception of Joe Scarborough), CBS News etc, that there isn’t the slight bit of bias toward the president or the Republican party?
I don’t watch much television, nor do I have cable tv. I get most of my news the old fashion way… I read it in the paper or get it online and fact check with the use of internet.
Now this bias you bring up torward the President you are implying that it is otherwise unwarranted. Oh really? So you just trust your President in all things? Extrodinary claims require extrodinary evidence RBA. Any claim of truth must be vetted. The POTUS lies and is called out on it, retreating to the canard of “liberal-media” does not remove the stink of the deceit RBA. Also, the Repubs are in controll so its only natural that the media will be focused on them.
They speculate, not report the news. The choice of news stories are also biased. Every now and then, you do get some good news but its few and far between. If things in this country were really as bad as the people here make it sound, then wouldn’t most of America be grabbing their pitchforks and storming Washingtion?
You’re still avoiding the point I made in post #14. Until you can establish why a conservative media is by default closer to reporting facts and that the liberal media, for the sake of argument, is by nature inherently dishonest – you have nothing more than wishful thinking.
Your “storming” comment is a strawman and irrelevant.
The economy is much stronger than the MSM would like you to believe and things have been going much better in Iraq than you have heard. The fact is they have been unwilling to give Bush any credit. Period.
Okay, for the sake of argument, lets give Bush all his credit for the economy. By the same token, you must credit Bush for his illegal and unconsitutional acts against humanity and Americans inherent right to privacy, and lieing us into a war that was unnecessary.
I am an optimist. Always have been. All I see through your posts are pessimistic opinions to reality. When voters cast their ballots in next year’s mid-year election, who do you think they will vote for; the party that offers nothing but critism or the party that offers hope that things will and are getting better?
December 22nd, 2005 at 2:49 pmOh so if you point out the abuses by this administration that person is a pessimist? Completely irrelevant RBA. Completely irrelevant.
Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
When voters cast their ballots in next year’s mid-year election, who do you think they will vote for; the party that offers nothing but critism or the party that offers hope that things will and are getting better?
This unfortunately may be true. If the Dems want to be the party to fight the CoC (Culture of Corruption), then they may have to present the voters with some really hard facts about what it would take to secure our country (the right way), fight Global Warming, rebuild NOLA, Afganistan and Iraq, while being fiscally realisitic and responsible.
Coming out and blaming Bush for everything may not go over well with “some people.” Focusing on the solutions and how to actually unite the country to solve our problems will of course be constantly disrupted by “some people” who would be trying to get back into power.
December 22nd, 2005 at 3:36 pmRyan,
If you are so fricken smart, what are you doing posting on this site? You should be the President of the United States by now.
December 22nd, 2005 at 8:53 pmThe so-called “liberal” bias of the media is easy enough to debunk if you keep in mind this simple rule: the media is only as liberal as the entity that owns it.
Friendly suggestion to the wingnuts: try renting the movie “Network” and pay close attention to the monologue of Arthur Jensen (Ned Beatty’s character). ‘Nuff said.
December 23rd, 2005 at 7:34 amcredit counseling program
I found your post comments while searching Google. Very relevant especially as this is not an issue which a lot of peaople are conversant with.
March 23rd, 2008 at 5:17 ammedia release
Hey nice read!
April 1st, 2008 at 8:26 pmPayday Advance
April 19th, 2008 at 2:40 pmAnti Virus Antivirus Filing Bankruptcy
I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me
May 28th, 2008 at 5:26 amPet Adoption Pet Classifieds Pet Beds
I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me
May 29th, 2008 at 12:22 amGay Sex Gay Ass Gay Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
May 30th, 2008 at 5:24 amAdopt Online Pet
Are you sure it will give the results expected?
June 6th, 2008 at 1:28 am