The Fox Effect.....

N

NOVA

U. S. NAVY Veteran
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/wa...1/06/16/book-liberal-media-distorts-news-bias

Liberal Media Distorts News Bias
(and we all know it)

The liberal bias of the mainstream media tilts so far left that any outlets not in that political lane, like the Drudge Report and Fox News Channel, look far more conservative than they really are, according to a UCLA professor's new book out next month.

In a crushing body blow to the pushers of the so-called "Fox Effect," which claims the conservative media is dragging the left into the center, UCLA political science professor Tim Groseclose in Left Turn claims that "all" mainstream news outlets have a liberal bias in their reporting that makes even moderate organizations appear out of the mainstream and decidedly right-wing to news consumers who are influenced by the slant.

Just to reinforce what we already know it the truth...:hand:
 
bravo said:
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/wa...1/06/16/book-liberal-media-distorts-news-bias

Liberal Media Distorts News Bias
(and we all know it)

The liberal bias of the mainstream media tilts so far left that any outlets not in that political lane, like the Drudge Report and Fox News Channel, look far more conservative than they really are, according to a UCLA professor's new book out next month.

In a crushing body blow to the pushers of the so-called "Fox Effect," which claims the conservative media is dragging the left into the center, UCLA political science professor Tim Groseclose in Left Turn claims that "all" mainstream news outlets have a liberal bias in their reporting that makes even moderate organizations appear out of the mainstream and decidedly right-wing to news consumers who are influenced by the slant.

Just to reinforce what we already know it the truth...:hand:
Click to expand...

(Excerpt from posted link) Groseclose opens his book quoting a well-known poll in which Washington correspondents declared that they vote Democratic 93 percent to 7 percent, while the nation is split about 50-50. As a result, he says, most reporters write with a liberal filter. "Using objective, social-scientific methods, the filtering prevents us from seeing the world as it actually is. Instead, we see only a distorted version of it. It is as if we see the world through a glass—a glass that magnifies the facts that liberals want us to see and shrinks the facts that conservatives want us to see."(End)

Wrong. Changes makes news and Liberals are for change so it's natural for news to be liberal. From gay marriage to entitlement programs society progresses, or changes. Conservatives tend to want things to stay the same and the same is not news.

For example, the population of Manhattan is approximately 1.5 million. If there was a Gay Pride parade and 2,000 people showed up what would be considered news: 2,000 people attended the Gay Pride parade or 1,498,000 people didn't attend the Gay Pride parade?

The same can be said whether it's a demonstration/"parade' concerning pro-choice or gay marriage or medical care or welfare or housing or ......The news is the people who attend, not the ones who stay home. It's the event. Non-events are non-news.

The news is people demonstrating against what is established and demonstrating is how changes come about and change is progress, be it women's right to vote or women's right to choose or all the other issues facing people today.
 
apple0154 said:
(Excerpt from posted link) Groseclose opens his book quoting a well-known poll in which Washington correspondents declared that they vote Democratic 93 percent to 7 percent, while the nation is split about 50-50. As a result, he says, most reporters write with a liberal filter. "Using objective, social-scientific methods, the filtering prevents us from seeing the world as it actually is. Instead, we see only a distorted version of it. It is as if we see the world through a glass—a glass that magnifies the facts that liberals want us to see and shrinks the facts that conservatives want us to see."(End)

Wrong. Changes makes news and Liberals are for change so it's natural for news to be liberal. From gay marriage to entitlement programs society progresses, or changes. Conservatives tend to want things to stay the same and the same is not news.

For example, the population of Manhattan is approximately 1.5 million. If there was a Gay Pride parade and 2,000 people showed up what would be considered news: 2,000 people attended the Gay Pride parade or 1,498,000 people didn't attend the Gay Pride parade?

The same can be said whether it's a demonstration/"parade' concerning pro-choice or gay marriage or medical care or welfare or housing or ......The news is the people who attend, not the ones who stay home. It's the event. Non-events are non-news.

The news is people demonstrating against what is established and demonstrating is how changes come about and change is progress, be it women's right to vote or women's right to choose or all the other issues facing people today.
Click to expand...

If liberals are for change why do they fight almost any and all changes to education? Why are they fighting changes to Medicare? Why do liberals want to go back economically to the 1950's when taxes were higher and a lot more workers were in unions (not to mention the U.S. produced 50% of the world's GDP compared to 23% today)? We can go on more if you would like but I think you're having the same type of trouble with the definition of words that bfgrn is having.
 
cawacko said:
If liberals are for change why do they fight almost any and all changes to education? Why are they fighting changes to Medicare? Why do liberals want to go back economically to the 1950's when taxes were higher and a lot more workers were in unions (not to mention the U.S. produced 50% of the world's GDP compared to 23% today)? We can go on more if you would like but I think you're having the same type of trouble with the definition of words that bfgrn is having.
Click to expand...

Yea, why would ANYONE want the days when the U.S. produced 50% of the world's GDP compared to 23% today
 
I wouldn't have a problem with Fox if they only had a conservative bias. I have a problem with Fox because they have a conservative agenda and when the truth is in conflict with that agenda they LIE.

I heard Ray McGovern, a retired CIA agent whose expertise was the old Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc countries say the propaganda coming out of Fox News is at the same level as Pravda. But I suspect most Russians knew Pravda was propaganda.
 
Bfgrn said:
Yea, why would ANYONE want the days when the U.S. produced 50% of the world's GDP compared to 23% today
Click to expand...

Hmm, you want to bomb Japan and Germany so they can't compete productively like the 1950's? What are you going to do with Hong Kong and China? Taiwan? South America?

Or did you think it was those taxes that resulted in 50% of world's GDP?
 
Annie said:
Hmm, you want to bomb Japan and Germany so they can't compete productively like the 1950's? What are you going to do with Hong Kong and China? Taiwan? South America?

Or did you think it was those taxes that resulted in 50% of world's GDP?
Click to expand...

Those days are over Annie, but America can still lead instead of follow. We have become a consumer based economy. While we argue over climate change and green jobs, China, Germany and others are kicking our ass. The Chinese government is spending about $800 billion over the next decade in seven green energy areas, namely, wind, solar, nuclear, bio-energy, hydro, coal cleaning and smart power grid.

BEIJING :

The country will seek to reduce carbon emissions per unit of gross domestic product by 17 percent in the 2011-2015 period -- as part of its wider goal to reduce carbon intensity by at least 40 percent by 2020 from 2005 levels.

It will slash energy consumption per unit of GDP by 16 percent by 2015, and hopes to raise the percentage of non-fossil fuels in its energy mix by 11.4 percent from 8.3 percent last year, the premier said.

Wen said the country had made "genuine progress in energy conservation, emissions reduction, ecological improvement and environmental protection" in the 2006-2010 period, and had "vigorously developed clean energy" technologies.

Energy consumption per unit of GDP fell 19.1 percent over the past five years -- close to the original target of 20 percent, the premier said.

In 2011, China will aim to reduce both carbon intensity and energy consumption per unit of GDP by about 3.5 percent compared with last year, the National Development and Reform Commission, the top economic planning agency, said in a separate report.

China has adopted an ambitious plan to boost the use of clean energy such as wind and solar power and also plans to increase its use of nuclear power.

Green China? You'd better believe it
 
cawacko said:
If liberals are for change why do they fight almost any and all changes to education? Why are they fighting changes to Medicare? Why do liberals want to go back economically to the 1950's when taxes were higher and a lot more workers were in unions (not to mention the U.S. produced 50% of the world's GDP compared to 23% today)? We can go on more if you would like but I think you're having the same type of trouble with the definition of words that bfgrn is having.
Click to expand...

Why are Liberals fighting changes to education and Medicare? It's because the Repubs want to go back in time. Back in time when elderly people didn't have medical coverage. Back in time when wealthy people could afford a better education for their child.

As for the 50's, while I'm not a proponent of many of the laws in those days, there was a bigger middle class.

I don't know why some people have difficulty understanding there was a time before unions and Medicare and SS and all the other social programs we have today. So-called "privatization" is nothing new. Everything started out being private as there was a time when social programs didn't exist. They came about precisely because "privatization" didn't work.

Removing or altering social programs resulting in less government control and more individual "discretion" didn't work. It's been tried. It was tried for literally 1000s of years until government programs were initiated. Removing government isn't progress. It's regress.

Remember Obama talking about "the same old, tired, worn out ideas"? That's to what he was referring, the general idea that things which concern the entire population can not be run on an individual basis.

Liberals seek change within the government system, not removing government, because they understand there was a time when government was removed and those times were anything but successful.
 
bravo said:
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/wa...1/06/16/book-liberal-media-distorts-news-bias

Liberal Media Distorts News Bias
(and we all know it)

The liberal bias of the mainstream media tilts so far left that any outlets not in that political lane, like the Drudge Report and Fox News Channel, look far more conservative than they really are, according to a UCLA professor's new book out next month.

In a crushing body blow to the pushers of the so-called "Fox Effect," which claims the conservative media is dragging the left into the center, UCLA political science professor Tim Groseclose in Left Turn claims that "all" mainstream news outlets have a liberal bias in their reporting that makes even moderate organizations appear out of the mainstream and decidedly right-wing to news consumers who are influenced by the slant.

Just to reinforce what we already know it the truth...:hand:
Click to expand...

Oh for God's sakes. First, Fox isn't a new organization, their far right wing propaganda organ. Second, this joker is sooooo far behind the times cause the mythology of the liberal biased media has been so debunked for so long now it aint even funny.

Since when is objectivity a liberal bias?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
goodlord....that has got to be one of the stupidest things ever posted here.....on top of that, what does it have to do with news REPORTERS being liberal
Click to expand...

One has to understand that on which he/she comments. An individual who is either unable to grasp the significance of an event (news) or against any change is more apt to give it a negative slant.

Look at yourself as the perfect example to what I'm referring. :)
 
apple0154 said:
Why are Liberals fighting changes to education and Medicare? It's because the Repubs want to go back in time. Back in time when elderly people didn't have medical coverage. Back in time when wealthy people could afford a better education for their child.

As for the 50's, while I'm not a proponent of many of the laws in those days, there was a bigger middle class.

I don't know why some people have difficulty understanding there was a time before unions and Medicare and SS and all the other social programs we have today. So-called "privatization" is nothing new. Everything started out being private as there was a time when social programs didn't exist. They came about precisely because "privatization" didn't work.

Removing or altering social programs resulting in less government control and more individual "discretion" didn't work. It's been tried. It was tried for literally 1000s of years until government programs were initiated. Removing government isn't progress. It's regress.

Remember Obama talking about "the same old, tired, worn out ideas"? That's to what he was referring, the general idea that things which concern the entire population can not be run on an individual basis.

Liberals seek change within the government system, not removing government, because they understand there was a time when government was removed and those times were anything but successful.
Click to expand...

Outside of your anti-privitization tripe I noticed you didn't address education. "Everyone should have a good education" is a saying. That does nothing to address reality which is the teachers union (and the political party which is a wholly owned subsidiary of them) fight reform every single step of the way. I would love for you to show me I'm wrong.
 
Bfgrn said:
Yea, why would ANYONE want the days when the U.S. produced 50% of the world's GDP compared to 23% today
Click to expand...

I believe most of us would love it. But turning our economic policies back to those of the '50's isn't going to get us there.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Oh for God's sakes. First, Fox isn't a new organization, their far right wing propaganda organ. Second, this joker is sooooo far behind the times cause the mythology of the liberal biased media has been so debunked for so long now it aint even funny.

Since when is objectivity a liberal bias?
Click to expand...
Do you really imagine you have more credibility than a UCLA professor ?

You're a
smilies-748.png
 
What about turning our policies back to the 90s?
Click to expand...


Alas....the Republican Congress, led by Speaker Gingrich in the Clinton years won't be coming back....

The solid economy, low taxes, and exceptional low unemployment of the last decade would be good enough....
 
cawacko said:
Outside of your anti-privatization tripe I noticed you didn't address education. "Everyone should have a good education" is a saying. That does nothing to address reality which is the teachers union (and the political party which is a wholly owned subsidiary of them) fight reform every single step of the way. I would love for you to show me I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

Anti-privatization tripe? Try picking up a history book and learning how well privatization worked before there was SS and Medicare and welfare and other social programs. The problem when discussing social programs is the programs have been in effect for many people's life time (50 or 75 years) so they have nothing to which to compare them. The common refrain is, "The government program isn't perfect so let's privatize it." Unfortunately, privatization was, and is, much worse.

Education, like SS and Medicare, needs to be reformed but kept under government control. In fact, that's precisely what Obama is doing regarding medical care. There were and are more powerful interests fighting against medical care reform than there are fighting against education reform, however, Obama has made the first move. If government can take on the established medical care financial interests it can come up with a solution to reform education and privatization is not the answer.

Privatization has never been the answer for social programs and education is a social program.
 
apple0154 said:
Anti-privatization tripe? Try picking up a history book and learning how well privatization worked before there was SS and Medicare and welfare and other social programs. The problem when discussing social programs is the programs have been in effect for many people's life time (50 or 75 years) so they have nothing to which to compare them. The common refrain is, "The government program isn't perfect so let's privatize it." Unfortunately, privatization was, and is, much worse.

Education, like SS and Medicare, needs to be reformed but kept under government control. In fact, that's precisely what Obama is doing regarding medical care. There were and are more powerful interests fighting against medical care reform than there are fighting against education reform, however, Obama has made the first move. If government can take on the established medical care financial interests it can come up with a solution to reform education and privatization is not the answer.

Privatization has never been the answer for social programs and education is a social program.
Click to expand...

So you have no answer for education reform. I didn't say a word about privitizing education. But it is damn near impossible to make real reform within education without the consent of the teachers union which they do not want to give. I'm talking real issues. You don't have an answer for that.
 
apple0154 said:
Wrong. Changes makes news and Liberals are for change so it's natural for news to be liberal. From gay marriage to entitlement programs society progresses, or changes. Conservatives tend to want things to stay the same and the same is not news.
Click to expand...
This Conservative has consistently supported change of the status quo. From a government that continues to grow and incrementally takes away our freedom to one that is slashed and burned to a short nub of its present size. That's real change, and you pussy liberals can't handle it.
 
apple0154 said:
One has to understand that on which he/she comments. An individual who is either unable to grasp the significance of an event (news) or against any change is more apt to give it a negative slant.
Click to expand...
so your saying the fact we get a liberal slant from the mainstream media is because liberals are less likely to grasp the significance of news events?.........plausible......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top