Well, neither did Bush Jr. or Reagan.

Your point being…?

http://volokh.com/posts/1184443141.shtml

UCLA’s December 14 press release announcing Groseclose and Milyo’s study quoted Groseclose as follows: “A media person would have never done this study. It takes a Congress scholar even to think of using ADA scores as a measure.”

I think he meant “congressional scholar.”

Simply post a refutation of their work, regarding this questionable study from UCLA, by the study’s authors. I’m sure they can debunk the debunk, right?

And why haven’t you posted it by now?

What is conservative misinformation?

Conservative misinformation is news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda. This misinformation distorts the public dialogue on important issues and obscures the truth.

Thanks for the PSA…as examples, you might want to include some of your stinkers, along with a few from your troll-losers buddies who disrupt post here.

When Carlson asked him to explain the study, Milyo misrepresented his own study. Milyo noted that the study did not look at editorials, then said, “Of course, but that’s how bias sneaks into news coverage. The reporter doesn’t say, ‘I think this.’ He says, ‘According to our expert, say, Barbra Streisand, this is true.’ Right? It’s the choice of the experts that allows the opinion to get in.” But Milyo’s example of Streisand — as though a news organization would actually cite her as an “expert” — is flawed, considering that the study examined only mentions of think tanks and advocacy organizations (not of individual experts). Milyo ended his interview by telling Carlson, “My wife’s a big fan [of Carlson].”

Comments?

That right there should have raised red flags for you, Jim. I wonder why they included Drudge? Did he hit on one of the “researchers?”

But they refused to print Clinton pieces as well. Seems like they’re biased towards republicans, given the vast amount of column space they’ve given them these last eight years.

Summary: News outlets including CNN cited a study of several major media outlets by a UCLA political scientist and a University of Missouri-Columbia economist purporting to “show a strong liberal bias.” But 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.

Comments, Jim?

Hey Jim, I see you’ve gotten your pants pulled back up. Innocent Bystander really caughtr you flat-footed didn’t he/she?

The media is dominated by liberals, big business is dominated by conservatives. This ain’t exactly news.

How daft.

“Media” is big business. While some reporters might have a liberal outlook, their corpro-centric editors and network owners squelch any “liberal” viewpoints, before they get on the air (or in print).

You’re just whining.

Jim Wilke:
Any thoughts?
July 22nd, 2008 at 4:13 pm Add Karma Recommend (0) | Report Abuse

He’s checking with the RNC now…he should have a talking point soon.

Summary: News outlets including CNN cited a study of several major media outlets by a UCLA political scientist and a University of Missouri-Columbia economist purporting to “show a strong liberal bias.” But 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.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200512220003

Sounds like more psuedo-science from the climate deniers….

Your thoughts?