can you say "DE DE DE"

[IronReload04]

accroding to fox news, clear see through purses for woman are the latest fad. Honest to god. ok, let everyone around you know what exactly in your purse so it can magnetized into a thief magnet. re godddamdiculouds.


sorry, i dont have a article or anything, just thought i would share this de de de story.

[chest6]

lol

I say keep cash free in purse!

[tinyguy2]

i really dont need to see some bitches tampoons in her purse...honestly

[hotstuff]

it's the newest fad are you kidding me? maybe three years ago? i wouldn't be caught dead with one.

[fLgAtOr]

Odd, I'm a fox new watcher and didn't catch it...

Are you rocking one out and just wanted to tell us???

It;s cool if you do. I won't tell...I swear.

[QuieTSToRM33]

thats retarded

[J.S.N.]

thats retarded

i agree. fox news is for sheeple.

[RA]

i agree. fox news is for sheeple.

ok

[perfectbeast2001]

i have a see through man-bag.

[RA]

i have a see through man-bag.

tmi

[fLgAtOr]

i agree. fox news is for sheeple.

Not sure I understand?

[RA]

Not sure I understand?

He doesnt like that fact that they dont spit liberal dogma like all the other news broadcasts so hes going to take every opportunity to rag on them.

[J.S.N.]

He doesnt like that fact that they dont spit liberal dogma like all the other news broadcasts so hes going to take every opportunity to rag on them.

lol olbermann is the only liberal in corporate media, unless you count colmes, who is clearly a joke.

[Snrf]

lol olbermann is the only liberal in corporate media, unless you count colmes, who is clearly a joke.

tv news sucks. end of story....


i read a selection of papers most days, if u pick somewhere in the middle ground you'll find the truth.

I once bought the daily mail (right wing) and the Independent (left wing) and for the same story the DM said "556 thousand immigrants swarm into Britain since 2001" (or something like that) while the Independent said "Immigration has fallen from the same period 10 years ago"....if you listened to either side exclusively you'd have a very warped idea of what was really happening.

[monkeyboy1215]

i have a see through man-bag.

You mean you have a see through "murse" (man purse)

[J.S.N.]

tv news sucks. end of story....


i read a selection of papers most days, if u pick somewhere in the middle ground you'll find the truth.

I once bought the daily mail (right wing) and the Independent (left wing) and for the same story the DM said "556 thousand immigrants swarm into Britain since 2001" (or something like that) while the Independent said "Immigration has fallen from the same period 10 years ago"....if you listened to either side exclusively you'd have a very warped idea of what was really happening.

it's a fallacy to believe that the truth always lies somewhere in the middle.

[RA]

lol olbermann is the only liberal in corporate media, unless you count colmes, who is clearly a joke.

You have to be kidding if your claiming that the majority of the media is not liberal.

[gixxerboy1]

it's the newest fad are you kidding me? maybe three years ago? i wouldn't be caught dead with one.

Exactly. Nobody carries one of those. Really its kinda of sad if you are believing fox news for fashion advice.

[Schmidty]

I hate Carlos Mencia to start. But the thread is right. Who the hell wants to show all their tampons and shit to the world

[armbar83]

lol olbermann is the only liberal in corporate media, unless you count colmes, who is clearly a joke.

your joking right?? how about wolf blitzer in the situation room or chris matthews?




Date: December 14, 2005
Contact: Meg Sullivan ( [email protected] )
Phone: 310-825-1046

Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist


While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.

These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly.

"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."

"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.

The results appear in the latest issue of the Quarterly Journal of Economics, which will become available in mid-December.

Groseclose and Milyo based their research on a standard gauge of a lawmaker's support for liberal causes. Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) tracks the percentage of times that each lawmaker votes on the liberal side of an issue. Based on these votes, the ADA assigns a numerical score to each lawmaker, where "100" is the most liberal and "0" is the most conservative. After adjustments to compensate for disproportionate representation that the Senate gives to low‑population states and the lack of representation for the District of Columbia, the average ADA score in Congress (50.1) was assumed to represent the political position of the average U.S. voter.

Groseclose and Milyo then directed 21 research assistants — most of them college students — to scour U.S. media coverage of the past 10 years. They tallied the number of times each media outlet referred to think tanks and policy groups, such as the left-leaning NAACP or the right-leaning Heritage Foundation.

Next, they did the same exercise with speeches of U.S. lawmakers. If a media outlet displayed a citation pattern similar to that of a lawmaker, then Groseclose and Milyo's method assigned both a similar ADA score.

"A media person would have never done this study," said Groseclose, a UCLA political science professor, whose research and teaching focuses on the U.S. Congress. "It takes a Congress scholar even to think of using ADA scores as a measure. And I don't think many media scholars would have considered comparing news stories to congressional speeches."

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.

The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third.

"Our estimates for these outlets, we feel, give particular credibility to our efforts, as three of the four moderators for the 2004 presidential and vice-presidential debates came from these three news outlets — Jim Lehrer, Charlie Gibson and Gwen Ifill," Groseclose said. "If these newscasters weren't centrist, staffers for one of the campaign teams would have objected and insisted on other moderators."

The fourth most centrist outlet was "Special Report With Brit Hume" on Fox News, which often is cited by liberals as an egregious example of a right-wing outlet. While this news program proved to be right of center, the study found ABC's "World News Tonight" and NBC's "Nightly News" to be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found.

"If viewers spent an equal amount of time watching Fox's 'Special Report' as ABC's 'World News' and NBC's 'Nightly News,' then they would receive a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news," said Milyo, an associate professor of economics and public affairs at the University of Missouri at Columbia.

Five news outlets — "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," ABC's "Good Morning America," CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown," Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and the Drudge Report — were in a statistical dead heat in the race for the most centrist news outlet. Of the print media, USA Today was the most centrist.

An additional feature of the study shows how each outlet compares in political orientation with actual lawmakers. The news pages of The Wall Street Journal scored a little to the left of the average American Democrat, as determined by the average ADA score of all Democrats in Congress (85 versus 84). With scores in the mid-70s, CBS' "Evening News" and The New York Times looked similar to Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., who has an ADA score of 74.

Most of the outlets were less liberal than Lieberman but more liberal than former Sen. John Breaux, D-La. Those media outlets included the Drudge Report, ABC's "World News Tonight," NBC's "Nightly News," USA Today, NBC's "Today Show," Time magazine, U.S. News & World Report, Newsweek, NPR's "Morning Edition," CBS' "Early Show" and The Washington Post.

Since Groseclose and Milyo were more concerned with bias in news reporting than opinion pieces, which are designed to stake a political position, they omitted editorials and Op‑Eds from their tallies. This is one reason their study finds The Wall Street Journal more liberal than conventional wisdom asserts.

Another finding that contradicted conventional wisdom was that the Drudge Report was slightly left of center.

"One thing people should keep in mind is that our data for the Drudge Report was based almost entirely on the articles that the Drudge Report lists on other Web sites," said Groseclose. "Very little was based on the stories that Matt Drudge himself wrote. The fact that the Drudge Report appears left of center is merely a reflection of the overall bias of the media."

Yet another finding that contradicted conventional wisdom relates to National Public Radio, often cited by conservatives as an egregious example of a liberal news outlet. But according to the UCLA-University of Missouri study, it ranked eighth most liberal of the 20 that the study examined.

"By our estimate, NPR hardly differs from the average mainstream news outlet," Groseclose said. "Its score is approximately equal to those of Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report and its score is slightly more conservative than The Washington Post's. If anything, government‑funded outlets in our sample have a slightly lower average ADA score (61), than the private outlets in our sample (62.8)."

The researchers took numerous steps to safeguard against bias — or the appearance of same — in the work, which took close to three years to complete. They went to great lengths to ensure that as many research assistants supported Democratic candidate Al Gore in the 2000 election as supported President George Bush. They also sought no outside funding, a rarity in scholarly research.

"No matter the results, we feared our findings would've been suspect if we'd received support from any group that could be perceived as right- or left-leaning, so we consciously decided to fund this project only with our own salaries and research funds that our own universities provided," Groseclose said.

The results break new ground.

"Past researchers have been able to say whether an outlet is conservative or liberal, but no one has ever compared media outlets to lawmakers," Groseclose said. "Our work gives a precise characterization of the bias and relates it to known commodity — politicians."

-UCLA-

MS580

[armbar83]

"Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center"

sorry to hyjack the thread

[goodcents]

So how did we get from see thru purses to a political discussion about reporting bias?

[goodcents]

And to think, I thought I had ADD!

[armbar83]

sorry, i didnt take my adderall today

[J.S.N.]

dude you're going to take as fact the findings of a pseudoscientist in polysci, which is well-known for having a conservative agenda? not to mention that blitzer is well-known to be a mossad agent and former AIPAC lobbiest.

[armbar83]

once again, are you joking? ucla is conservative? and that study is alot more "factual" than any opinions youve thrown out, so yes. its more than even common knowledge, EVERYONE knows the news is liberal...besides bill o reily, hannity, and glenn beck theres not a whole lot of red in the news...

find a study, besides some blog that says something different.

[J.S.N.]

i said political science is conservative, not UCLA.

[armbar83]

i said political science is conservative, not UCLA.

oh in that case, i totally agree with you! the media is wayyy conservative

????

[zodiac666]

it's a fallacy to believe that the truth always lies somewhere in the middle.

but the best way to get to the truth is to get opinions on both sides of the issue instead of just one which is exactly what snrfmaster said. if you disagree, come up with an intelligent rebuttal instead of a meaningless statement.

[RA]

dude you're going to take as fact the findings of a pseudoscientist in polysci, which is well-known for having a conservative agenda? not to mention that blitzer is well-known to be a mossad agent and former AIPAC lobbiest.

You could do that or just have common sense.

[J.S.N.]

but the best way to get to the truth is to get opinions on both sides of the issue instead of just one which is exactly what snrfmaster said. if you disagree, come up with an intelligent rebuttal instead of a meaningless statement.

fine here is a rebuttal. say there is a yellow box behind a door. tom and george both go behind the door and tom tells you the box is yellow, and george tells you it's red. you conclude that the box was orange. were you correct?

if you want a refutation of theat polysci professor's report, then take the fact that he compared media citations to policy, with absolutely no regard to tone. if you were at an NAACP rally and the speaker said "many black people don't even have jobs" and then you went to a KKK rally and the speaker said "many black people don't even have jobs" you would be aware that that the statements are completely different despite the fact that they contain the same exact words.

in fact if you watch a show like the o'reilly factor alot of the issues he covers are stupid things liberals (or at least people painted as liberals) do meant to arouse moral indignation, prime examples being the rabbi threatening to sue the seattle airport or nifong's criminal actions in the duke rape case. should one conclude that o'reilly is liberal?

[zodiac666]

fine here is a rebuttal. say there is a yellow box behind a door. tom and george both go behind the door and tom tells you the box is yellow, and george tells you it's red. you conclude that the box was orange. were you correct?

it was just stated that you shouldnt just get your news from one source because you will always be given their point of view on every subject. instead you should get your news from a variety of sources and come to your own conclusions. no one ever said that you should mash both versions of what happened together to a happy medium, more often than not one sides point of view will probably be more accurate,. you're making an argument where one doesnt exist, your first statement "it's a fallacy to believe that the truth always lies somewhere in the middle." is correct but it doesnt contradict the fact that you should get your news from different sources. no one ever claimed that the truth always lies somewhere in the middle, although now that i think about it, it usually does lie somewhere in the middle just not usually in the dead center.

[J.S.N.]

it was just stated that you shouldnt just get your news from one source because you will always be given their point of view on every subject. instead you should get your news from a variety of sources and come to your own conclusions. no one ever said that you should mash both versions of what happened together to a happy medium, more often than not one sides point of view will probably be more accurate,. you're making an argument where one doesnt exist, your first statement "it's a fallacy to believe that the truth always lies somewhere in the middle." is correct but it doesnt contradict the fact that you should get your news from different sources. no one ever claimed that the truth always lies somewhere in the middle, although now that i think about it, it usually does lie somewhere in the middle just not usually in the dead center.

the thing is corporate news is everywhere; you don't have to seek it out. if you don't seek out alternative sources it's all you'll know.

one thing i'd say to keep in mind is journalism is an extremely subjective medium. they don't go by facts, they go by sources. the best idea is to look into the sources as much as one possibly can, rather than trying to find other media sources that either support or refute a given article, because usually it's just a different spin on the same source or an almoost identical view on the same source..