Fox News Went There: Lew Rockwell

And, as noted, when you think a source is good, you'll actually go so far as to ignore evidence to the contrary, no matter which side you're on.

Robear wrote:
They regularly feature conservative commentary in a pretty tongue in cheek manner, though.

Well, I don't see that. They have serious commentary from real conservatives.

I think actually that there's so little representation of liberal views on other outlets that their inclusion in any discussion today leads to charges that the host is biased to the left. NPR is careful to present coverage of both sides where appropriate, much more so than other news organizations, in my experience.

Bear in mind that I'm talking about All Things Considered, Evening Edition and Planet Money.

A FAIR study of NPR from 2004 showed that it used more Republican sources than Democratic between 1993 and 2004. So no, I don't buy the bias argument, the stats are against it.

And here's an Ombudsman's article from 2008:

Potentially, my core belief that they are unbiased is all that keeps me from accusing them of a conservative bias. And as seen earlier in that article, a case can be made for that. :-)

Thanks for the research on NPR -- it's good ammunition. I think when you state that "there's so little representation of liberal views on other outlets that their inclusion in any discussion today leads to charges that the host is biased to the left" above, you're getting a lot closer to what I'm referring to when I say that NPR hangs left of center of its peers.

Beyond that, though, is the choice of material that NPR chooses to cover. No mainstream news outlet I am aware of compares to their coverages of "left" topics -- global warming, environmental abuse, child and domestic abuse, stories where Israel actually looks bad, etc.

I know it's poor form and anecdotal to attempt to use "news coverage choices" as biased in one way or another, but, well, there you go.

MattDaddy wrote:

So much for not turning this into a Fox news bashing thread.

I don't see any bashing going on -- just fair and balanced fact finding regarding Fox News. We'll post -- you decide.

Seth wrote:
Robear wrote:
They regularly feature conservative commentary in a pretty tongue in cheek manner, though.

Well, I don't see that. They have serious commentary from real conservatives.

I think actually that there's so little representation of liberal views on other outlets that their inclusion in any discussion today leads to charges that the host is biased to the left. NPR is careful to present coverage of both sides where appropriate, much more so than other news organizations, in my experience.

Bear in mind that I'm talking about All Things Considered, Evening Edition and Planet Money.

A FAIR study of NPR from 2004 showed that it used more Republican sources than Democratic between 1993 and 2004. So no, I don't buy the bias argument, the stats are against it.

And here's an Ombudsman's article from 2008:

Potentially, my core belief that they are unbiased is all that keeps me from accusing them of a conservative bias. And as seen earlier in that article, a case can be made for that. :-)

Thanks for the research on NPR -- it's good ammunition. I think when you state that "there's so little representation of liberal views on other outlets that their inclusion in any discussion today leads to charges that the host is biased to the left" above, you're getting a lot closer to what I'm referring to when I say that NPR hangs left of center of its peers.

Beyond that, though, is the choice of material that NPR chooses to cover. No mainstream news outlet I am aware of compares to their coverages of "left" topics -- global warming, environmental abuse, child and domestic abuse, stories where Israel actually looks bad, etc.

I know it's poor form and anecdotal to attempt to use "news coverage choices" as biased in one way or another, but, well, there you go. :)

Sigh. I guess I have to agree with that. I have seen absolutely nothing on the major channels on the abuses of Massey Energy and the significance of the EPA changes regarding mountaintop removal. It was all over NPR. Considering I live downstream from West Virginia and will have to deal with the poisoning of MY water supply, I would think that every news channel in the DC area would be interested in it. I would be wrong though.

Seth wrote:
MattDaddy wrote:

So much for not turning this into a Fox news bashing thread.

I don't see any bashing going on -- just fair and balanced fact finding regarding Fox News. We'll post -- you decide. :D

IMAGE(http://fseven.net/images/animations/stevewink.gif)

Thanks for the research on NPR -- it's good ammunition. I think when you state that "there's so little representation of liberal views on other outlets that their inclusion in any discussion today leads to charges that the host is biased to the left" above, you're getting a lot closer to what I'm referring to when I say that NPR hangs left of center of its peers.

There was another study cited there that had NPR as far less biased to the left than the news pages of the WSJ or the New York Times. And the author of that was pilloried by the left despite careful methodology. However, it does contradict my belief, stated above, which means that I was likely wrong on that point. In fact, with Brit Hume's show at 39.7, and only one other new source at less than 50, I would have to turn it around. Except, of course, that the balance of Fox's programming is very heavily biased to right-leaning opinion and commentary.

Timothy Groseclose is a political science professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, who also studies media bias. He and another professor published a study in 2005 that concluded that 18 of the 20 major media outlets studied (including NPR) were left of center, as compared to the average U.S. voter. Only Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume and The Washington Times scored to the right of the average U.S. voter. (Results are on P. 22 of PDF.)

"By our estimate, NPR hardly differs from the average mainstream news outlet," said Groseclose. "It had the same scores as Time, Newsweek and was slightly less liberal than the Washington Post and well to the right of the New York Times and CBS Evening News. One of the surprising findings is that NPR is not as left as everyone says it is."

Groseclose and co-author Jeffrey Milyo, a University of Missouri economist, published their results in the respected Quarterly Journal of Economics. They took no outside research money to avoid any perceptions of bias. They made sure half their researchers had supported a Democratic presidential candidate and the other half a Republican. Their study was scientific and their methods transparent, so the methods could be tested or duplicated by others.

NPR got a score of 66.3, with 50 being centrist and 100 being most liberal. The Wall Street Journal's news pages (not the well-known conservative editorial pages) got an 85.1 and The New York Times and CBS each got a 73.7.
Although this study shows that NPR is relatively less biased that some other major news organizations, I doubt it will sway those who are convinced that NPR is liberal and pro-Obama -- or those who have the opposite impression that NPR is siding with McCain.

So I'm wrong, in the NPR does show a relatively small liberal bias. But compared to other, well-known sources, it's not really very liberal biased.

Robear wrote:

Their study was scientific and their methods transparent, so the methods could be tested or duplicated by others.

But has it been tested or duplicated? I don't know how they are coming up with "average voter," but if Brut Hume and the Washington Times are just to the right of average, holy crap.

Proof that CNN is a left-wing conspiracy to corrupt our youth with intentional misinformation!! Never give the GOP credit for having a black man on their side, it's just not possible!!

http://crooksandliars.com/2006/11/02/cnn-mis-labels-michael-steele-as-a-democrat

MattDaddy wrote:

Proof that CNN is a left-wing conspiracy to corrupt our youth with intentional misinformation!! Never give the GOP credit for having a black man on their side, it's just not possible!!

http://crooksandliars.com/2006/11/02/cnn-mis-labels-michael-steele-as-a-democrat

OK then, CNN is liars, MSNBC is liars, everybody is liars and that makes it OK for everybody to lie about everything.

Can we PLEASE talk about Lew Rockwell now? Does this guy deserve a voice or not?

MattDaddy wrote:

Proof that CNN is a left-wing conspiracy to corrupt our youth with intentional misinformation!! Never give the GOP credit for having a black man on their side, it's just not possible!!

http://crooksandliars.com/2006/11/02/cnn-mis-labels-michael-steele-as-a-democrat

Lol. Michael Steele himself labeled himself a democrat in the MD state senate race with misleading lawn signs because he knew a Republican couldn't get elected in 2008.

He got in all sorts of trouble for printing up a ton of "Steele Democrat" signs and deploying them all over the place. He even made a Facebook page in which he tried to mislead union voters to vote for him with a fake endorsement from the "United Steele Workers".

He's an A-class sleezebag. Anyone who thinks the CNN bit hurt him in his senate race clearly knows absolutely nothing about Maryland politics.

I'm generally in favor of giving people enough verbal "rope" to hang themselves, but the problem with giving idiots like Rockwell an unchallenged platform to spout their views is that it gives them legitimacy they could otherwise not hope to attain.

Edit: Tag me!

LobsterMobster wrote:

OK then, CNN is liars, MSNBC is liars, everybody is liars and that makes it OK for everybody to lie about everything.

Can we PLEASE talk about Lew Rockwell now? Does this guy deserve a voice or not?

I was just answering the call(out), which was met with "Well, Steele is a sleazebag" instead of acknowledging the point: These same kids of things happen outside of Fox.

Also, look at the image: It's from 2006, not 2008.

Calling it.