goldberg is nothing more than a stammering nit with no more than a thimble of insight.  if that's what you hang your hat on then you're depth is equal to his.

Ed, that's a good one!!!

Strange CBS thought quite highly of him till he wrote his book. Kinda like Stossel won all sorts of awards till he became a libertarian, then nada. Coincidence?????

Nah, Bernie Goldberg is a good journalist who's done some fine work.  Now, I don't agree with much of his opinions on stuff, I think he's a bit of an ideologue at times.  But I'd never question his journalist chops.  That said, that also doesn't make him the  source of knowledge on media bias.  Goldberg says CBS was biased, Rather says not.  Both were good journalists who did good work, Rather got higher up the food chain than Goldberg but both were in CBS when it had a tradition of getting the story right.  To believe Goldberg and discount Rather is to be biased...b/c Goldberg doesn't have any special insight or knowledge or wisdom on this issue.  I think it's more about perspective.

And like I said in my initial post, the media clearly has biases but anyone who focuses on the left-right thing (unless it's a media arm like FOX or Limbaugh or MSNBC that clearly seeks to foist an agenda) is missing the point.  The bias the mass media has is mostly about being first, looking for big stories, distrusting voices of authority.  And then with TV, you add the biases of looking for stories that are telegenic or display well (which is why the S&L crisis was under covered and why the American people still don't understand the financial crash of 2008).

Ed

Nah, Bernie has done surveys of his own that didn't include his own bias.

Well, if I find a survey that states the opposite will you accept it?

Without debate?

Of course, he is.

Oh, and what are you?  Who are you?

Nice try.

heehee

Jay, I'd accept the survey if the methodology made sense.  But that's not the point.

I provide a study with interesting data (short-term though) with a methodology link.  Your response is "Bernie Goldberg says the media has a liberal bias" which is both non-responsive  and irrelevant.  I think the 4th Estate release actually says that they're not measuring political views of media members, only the out puts.  Thus, it doesn't matter if Brit Hume is liberal, moderate, or conservative, or right wing.  He gets measured not on his believes but on the percentage of his comments that are negative about Romney or negative about Obama.  So you could point out that John Stoessel claims the media is full of liberals and that still doesn't answer the data from the study.

Ed

Okay, what's the point?   (before I bother)

And who decides when the methodology makes sense?  (seems you won't blindly accept a survey I may present but expect me to accept yours without debate)

I've challenged the methodology of several ''liberal surveys'' in the past and you've never agreed with me on those...

just saying


Again, maybe Obama really is that bad.

eh. same old same old from the left...

Jay, you make an assumption that this group is a "liberal" group.  You didn't comment on the methodology.  I'd like to think that if someone makes some reasonable points to explain limitations to a study approach, than that would be acknowledged.

For instance, I'll give you two limitations right now to this study:
--it's May-July.  So it's not talking about data pre-May.
--it covers Presidential campaign, it doesn't attempt to look at broader GOP/Democratic perspective.  Specifically it's looking at comments on Romney and Obama, not the broader issues.

I think it's a shame how it's become gospel among many right wingers that "the media" is liberal and out to get whomever the GOP candidate is.  My personal opinion is that the national media do have biases but they're biases specific to media and not a political agenda.  That sometimes results in more negative comments about a GOP agenda or candidate and sometimes the reverse.  But other than some outlets that have a determined political agenda (b/c they feel they have to counteract someone else's agenda), those biases aren't driven by a political agenda.  That's my personal opinion.  And as I stated at the beginning, that's based on a narrow perspective:  15 years working mostly overseas.

Ed

Please quote my words where I said that.

You've assumed...

as one seeking pertinent information i am the audience he seeks.  some are stupid enough to think he's brilliant.  others like myself see him as an idiot.

the fact is this, he made his name in sports.  he was seen as clueless and virtually thrown out.  he turned to right-wing politics and remained an idiot where the difference between that and sports is many stupid people aren't smart enough to know the score.

congrats if you fall into that.

I have answers to this.

1. Republicans have lately been saying some really stupid shit.  The media loves reporting when people do or say stupid shit.

2. President Obama is the President.  It just wouldn't be "normal" for the media to not always be hounding the President, regardless of party.  So because he's President, he's going to be in the news more.

What'd you expect to happen when you publicly trash your former bosses (justified or otherwise).

Questioning authority and the status quo is a liberal thing to do.

Journalism itself is liberal by nature.

Good insights!  That's actually my thinking as well and I think that explains some of the coverage numbers from the 4th Estate research.  If I were critiquing the study, I'd argue that the challenge in simply comparing negative coverage is that the incumbent has the benefit of a bully pulpit but b/c they're the incumbent will therefore have more negative coverage.  Romney isn't trying to get stuff through Congress or negotiating with adversaries overseas or dealing with a war--that would be true if he was a Democrat too, he's a challenge.

And Jay, I won't claim to have read all of Bernie Goldberg's work.  But someone publishing a book does not a study make.  I'm not trying to put the 4th Estate research on a pedestal.  But media analysis is full of impressions and anecdotes.  This is actually an attempt to do a quantitive analysis of content--which is rare (not the first, but rare).  Additionally, Goldberg accuses the media of being overwhelmingly liberal in terms of sentiment.  What I posted above doesn't address that issue (though I think it's mostly irrelevant for a couple of reasons).  What I did post was about COVERAGE for a specific time during the Presidential coverage.

And you're correct, you didn't accuse 4th Estate of being a "liberal study" but the way you posted (intentionally or not) implied that you thought it was ("I've critiqued liberal studies before...."...a comment that isn't relevant unless you believe 4th Estate is a liberal group).

Finally, as for my take on John Stoessel, separate from his politics, I think his journalism has veered much more strongly to advocacy journalism the past 10-12 years.  And doing consumer journalism doesn't pay well or let you keep jobs (b/c you end up irritating advertisers).  He also accepts lots of speaking money from industry groups (which some other talking heads to but to be upfront, most newspapers and serious investigative journalists view as selling out).

Ed

I guess you missed when GWB was President...it's amazing to me that people can't see how slanted the media is in the US.

I don't think that's what he's saying.  GWB presided over 2 wars (both of which took bad turns while he was in office), and a recession followed by a financial collapse.  Whether history vindicates him or praises him, it would be natural for ANY President in that situation to take heat.  That doesn't mean the media is biased.  And that was my point earlier and Christopher's--Presidents take heat.

Now, one can claim that all journalists (outside of FOX) are liberals and have a crush on Obama.  But that doesn't change the data.  During the Presidential campaign, looking at national media outlets, from the months of May-July, Obama got substantially more negative coverage than did Obama.  And we already know that (by ad counts) that there have been more Romney attack ads on the air vs. Obama-funded attack ads.  So the argument that Romney has been the victim of a massive Obama negative campaign or that the media is out to get him is born out by the data.

Ed

Not all.  As the President, he was regularly trashed.

Clinton, leftist, regularly trashed. 

The "main stream" media very left biased.  But they'll sell out their mothers for a story.  They are more about ratings/viewers/readers than they are reporting the news.  You are more likely to see a news clip of the president accidentally yelling "SHIT" because he stubbed his toe than you will about some major conference he attended for the reduction of nuclear weapons.  Why?  because no one pays attention boring conferences, but a President saying the word "shit"...now that is news.

Pretty much.

I'm not so sure I'd agree about the "very left biased" but you're absolutely on-point about the REAL biases of the media.  Also, if it isn't a story that is conveyed well by pictures then there is little interest (your example of a conference on nuclear weapons is a great example of something that broadcast journalists would go "meh" on unless it involves pictures of mushroom clouds or rockets being launched).

If a story emerged that Sarah Palin had falsified all of her travel vouchers at the level of felony violations (and it didn't involve stuff they good film like a jet taking off or an Applebees) than that story would be ignored over one that involves the VP hitting someone with his drive on the golf course...as long as it's on video.

Ed

HEY! I Love Bernie!  Smartest guy in the room.

Hmm, it appears that he is not ''seeking you as an audience'' at all -- your closed mind is not seeking information.

Idiot, indeed...

Sorry Ed, Pew Research Center disagrees with you:

http://www.journalism.org/analysis_repo … ves_sector

with this same response in another thread that i was in agreement with, i also stated the reality of affirmation.

the critical view here is taking that in context, specifically in the talk-radio genre where there are far more seeking hot-button components that crossover to other forms of media. 

it's statistically correct to see radical conservative radio, rush, beck et al, is far more prevalent than radical liberal radio hosts.  that will skew the findings and such results allows them to leap into television that seeks the same audience affirmation.

that in itself will confirm the results that point to one direction or another, regardless whether that's the ideology of the right or left.

and per this thread gaining new life, i still stand on goldberg as one seeking new life in his career.  a far lean to the right is an obvious way to do that.  dennis miller is another example of that.

First thoughts:

1. LMAO. The media, in total, has a strong liberal bias. You can't spin that. If Romney gets more "coverage" then it's because the jackals are trying to shred him. Obama is not covered, because he gets protected, or gets a pass.

2. The media are attention whores, and their purpose is to sell more advertising and air time. Therefore, it's in their interest to convince us that the race is exactly 50/50, and inject panic rather than seek solutions, understanding or policy that moves us forward together as a nation, from the beginning of the campaign until the day we vote. That produces the maximum amount of attention for them, and therefore ratings and revenue.

It's like sticking a knife in the American public, and turning, turning, turning, ... until everyone hates each other.

The more it bleeds, the more it leads.

---

During these campaigns, who's in it for the wholesome truth?

Republicans? Democrats? Mega-media?


So there it is. Try to filter it as you wish. Try to include all the important things they are not telling us.

There are so many enormously important issues that dramatically affect our future as a nation that are totally blotted out of the headlines of this media frenzy.

---

My grandfather used to say "Today's news wraps tomorrow's garbage" ... back in the days when they used newspapers for such things.

Bless his soul.