No comment

That well-known commie rag*, The Wall Street Journal has a poll up this morning – 14,000 have voted at this point.

YES:  8.5% ;   NO:   91.5%

The question?  Do you support the Texas Board of Education’s plan for social studies curriculum changes that portray America as a nation rooted in Biblical values?

* Fair disclaimer:   The poll comes out of the WSJ news side, not the rancid Editorial side. And other than that twisted department under the guidance of Paul Gigot, it’s a good paper.  But I felt like using the words “commie rag’ this morning.

13 responses to “No comment

  1. The poll comes out of the WSJ news side, not the rancid Editorial side. And other than that twisted department under the guidance of Paul Gigot, it’s a good paper

    In a study measuring media bias, the Wall Street Journal ranked 20 out of 20 as “The Most Biased”. In fact, it ranked more than 50% more bias than such stanchions of neutrality “CBS Evening News”, “New York Times” and the “LA Times”.

    As a note, Fox News ranked 15 out of 20 on the same report.

    Using the Wall Street Journal to measure anything is like using a wet noodle to pick a lock.

    Like

    • Oh my goodness pino – what study pray tell. WSJ consistently ranks among the best reporting organizations in American media.

      For me, it keeps coming back to the fact that WSJ, like the Times, Time mag etc, are the media that Americans PAY FOR. Which suggests rather strongly – if we believe in markets – that these publications fit quite well with the American psyche.

      So if these pubs are liberal, then Americans are too.

      Like

  2. Oh my goodness pino – what study pray tell.

    Before you pick it apart, try to find another bias study.

    sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm

    Like

    • Link is broken. Want to repost it?

      Like

      • Oh thanks! A 2004 term paper! Wordy, wordy. I am reading it, but just wanted meanwhile to toss something out to you – that is the regularly repeated ” journalists, as a group, are more liberal ”

        I’m entirely willing to stipulate that. Liberals are attracted to creative professions – that’s something we pretty much know. Also – speaking as an old newspaper employee – this is NOT a profession that pays well. (not talking about Katie Couric or Britt Hume – they aren’t the ones who do the original reporting that their programs are based on). That also means the profession attracts more than its share of ‘do gooders’ – usually liberal in their outlook.

        I don’t think this can be changed unless people can be changed or we start paying people a few thousand bucks to attend a Water And Sewer Commission meeting.

        Like

      • A 2004 term paper!

        Term paper? These are Professors with PhD’s and everything. Further, one of them comes from the well known conservative stronghold: UCLA.

        Like I said, before you try and pick it apart, find another study that rates the bias in media.

        That also means the profession attracts more than its share of ‘do gooders’ – usually liberal in their outlook.

        I’m willing to buy that and accept that. However, it doesn’t change the fact that the news they print is bias.

        Like

        • The study, in question compares the amount of times a news item is sourced and compares to what US politicians cite or say.

          The authors say:

          “To compute this, we count the times that a particular media outlet cites various think tanks and policy groups, and then compare this with the times that members of Congress cite the same groups.”

          Considering the political climate of the United States calling the media “liberal” is rather misleading considering that on wider spectrum of political distribution both the Democrats and the Republican would be considered ‘centre right’ (the R’s obviously more right than the D’s).

          So before taking a single study and considering it to be ‘gospel’ because it happens to dovetail with your views consider the larger picture and relevant context of the issue at hand.

          Namely, what is considered ‘liberal’ in the US is considered, in the rest of the world, quite conservative.

          Like

        • So before taking a single study and considering it to be ‘gospel’ because it happens to dovetail with your views

          Okay. Show me another study.

          Like

          • Certainly.

            You can watch the video of Manufactoring Consent or read the book or glean what you can from the wikipedia entry . It is an exhaustive analysis of media in the United States.

            It is a methodologically rigorous document I’ve downloaded the JSTOR copy of the study you cite and intend to give it the once over.

            Let’s hope you have the academic integrity to do the same for a work that does not agree with your chosen viewpoint.

            Like

        • [Like I said, before you try and pick it apart, find another study that rates the bias in media.]

          There are probably hundreds. But first let’s take a look at that study you cite. It’s very workmanlike and obviously done by very smart dudes who know their math.

          But I’d posit that the premise is terribly flawed. Their primary measurement was ‘references to or mentions of think tanks” – by media and by congressmen (by party). And to do this they assume all such mentions are equal.

          But that isn’t right. If one compares, say, Cato to Rand Corporation, it’s no comparison. Rand is referenced twice as much as Cato and is referenced more frequently by media and pols. That’s because Rand is huge, produces much much more data and publishes more than Cato can no matter how scholarly their people are (and they are!). Rand covers more areas than Cato and can be cited in more areas – science, biology, politics etc. So if the NY Times cites Rand more frequently, in what context? Molecular biology? Is Cato doing that?

          You can make the same argument with Brooking vs Heritage Foundation.

          Size of the think tank is relevant and I don’t see it accounted for.

          Like

          • Political scientist Brendan Nyhan addressed this study in 2005 and wasn’t happy with it either.

            http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2005/12/the_problems_wi.html

            “1) Technocratic centrist to liberal organizations like Brookings and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities tend to have more credentialed experts with peer-reviewed publications than their conservative counterparts. This may result in a greater number of citations by the press, which seeks out expert perspectives on the news, but not more citations by members of Congress, who generally seek out views that reinforce their own.”

            So if we’re to accept Nyhan’s criticism, the measurements used by the authors end up being apples and oranges.

            Caveat: Pino, I’ll admit I didnt’ read either of these all the way through (way too wonky).

            And remember, I’m agreeing that journalists themselves tend more liberal; I am no agreeing that their reporting does

            Like

  3. Consider an alternate view of Media, discussed in a medium length article by Noam Chomsky called What Makes Mainstream Media Mainstream.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s