Cnn: Clinton News Network!

[amicus]

Chuckles....not that anyone watched the presidential candidates debate last evening, but I did.

Turns out that the Clinton campaign, the Democrat campaign in general, YouTube, who sponsored the debate and CNN....salted the viewer questions from YouTube with Democrat plants who attempted to ask embarrassing or pointed questions of the seven Republican candidates debating.

So...from here on on, as CNN is left wing anyway, with Lou Dobbs leading the way and MSNBC, if it had any listeners at all, with lefty Chris Matthews, would be a close second, I shall henceforth, every time I tune into CNN, think of it as the CLINTON NEWS NETWORK, CNN...

Heh!



Amicus...

 

[slyc_willie]

It was a sham. The questions were planted, the video clips were chosen to make Reps look like they'd rather see the South rise again, and then there was the General from the audience who was given a mic (and who, as it turns out, though apparently no one told Anderson Cooper, is closely associated with HC).

There's a lot I don't like about the Republican party, but this whole CNN/YouTube farce was anything but a dignified and fair debate.

 

[starrkers]

Serious question: where on the internet do I go to find a (relatively) unbiased approach to news in the US?

 

[amicus]

Serious question: where on the internet do I go to find a (relatively) unbiased approach to news in the US?

~~~

My opinion, starrkers, is that there is no specific site either online or via satellite television that offers an unbiased reportage.

I tried associated press and Reuters news agencies, the BBC, I watch six different news channels in the early morning here, the network and cable outlets and it is both frustrating and amusing.

My solution my not suit you, I watch as many as I can and compare the commentary and then hit the search engine for original sources and legitimate resources that offer verbatim quotations.

Wish I had a better answer for you.

Amicus...

 

[slyc_willie]

Indeed. You can't really trust any single source to give a fair portrayal of events in and concerning the US, whether it be mundane events, politics, or Iraq.

Fox is typically very conservative, CNN typically liberal. Watch both, then check out other sites or network about individual stories.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

"CNN: Clinton News Network!"

Le plus ça change, le plus c'est la même chose.





~~~~~~

One exception: Clinton I was pro-free trade. Lou Dobbs is - not.

 

[amicus]

"CNN: Clinton News Network!"

Le plus ça change, le plus c'est la même chose.





~~~~~~

One exception: Clinton I was pro-free trade. Lou Dobbs is - not.

~~~

{pssst...I think she likes me...}



ami

 

[Misty_Morning]

Ummm...EVERYONE has been calling CNN the Clinton News Network since the mid 90's.

You just now figured that out?

 

[starrkers]

~~~

My opinion, starrkers, is that there is no specific site either online or via satellite television that offers an unbiased reportage.

I tried associated press and Reuters news agencies, the BBC, I watch six different news channels in the early morning here, the network and cable outlets and it is both frustrating and amusing.

My solution my not suit you, I watch as many as I can and compare the commentary and then hit the search engine for original sources and legitimate resources that offer verbatim quotations.

Wish I had a better answer for you.

Amicus...

I had a feeling yoiu were going to say something like that.
That's pretty much what I do when interested in a particular story. Otherwise I flip a coin and go for one or two and hope for the best.

Been doing that kind of thing for years - even had a subscription to the local Communist Party rag (when that kind of thing got you an ASIO file) to see the far left point of view.

 

[amicus]

Ummm...EVERYONE has been calling CNN the Clinton News Network since the mid 90's.

You just now figured that out?

~~~

Sighs....a day late and a dollar short, story of my life I guess...heard it for the first time just today on FOX. chuckled at what I considered the originality, shudda known better, just to good to be new.



ami

 

[donny_r75]

Who is really the liars

I haven't figured out who is the worst liars.
CNN (Clinton News Network) or Congress.
NBC, ABC, and CBS are also trying to be the worst.
Dan Rather did tell the truth when he lost his job
for being a LIAR. He said that the documents were
authenic until they were forged. Now remember,
all documents are authenic until they are forged.
Rather was fired for telling the truth in this case.
Telling the truth in the new media business is
really unheard of and frowned upon.

 

[amicus]

Donny....do a bio search on Rather, he was always pushing left wing issues and ideology, from day one. He fabricated the entire story about Bush to influence and election and was fired for his overt partisanship.

Amicus...

 

[keeblercrumb]

~~~

My opinion, starrkers, is that there is no specific site either online or via satellite television that offers an unbiased reportage.

I tried associated press and Reuters news agencies, the BBC, I watch six different news channels in the early morning here, the network and cable outlets and it is both frustrating and amusing.

My solution my not suit you, I watch as many as I can and compare the commentary and then hit the search engine for original sources and legitimate resources that offer verbatim quotations.

Wish I had a better answer for you.

Amicus...

I hate to bust up this ludicrous redicule-a-thon..... I think it is extremely telling that you can find no news source you would deem to be "unbiased" ... In truth, what you are saying is that you have a hard time finding a "news source" that somehow distorts reality to fit your absurd "conceptual" randism.

Perhaps.... you just do not want to accept the truth when you hear it or more likely do not recognize it when it is there for the rest of the world. It’s a bitch when reality does not agree with your fantasies….

Instead? You actually quote "FOX" news as your source for information.. the ONLY major network which overtly adopts a political bias as a marketing strategy.....

Are there "biases" in the news... You bet..... News stories which are salacious, atrocious, ridiculous and, most importantly, have good tape available will always trump stories that don't. But political bias? Now that Pravda has gone straight... .that pretty well leaves Fox news.....

I find your characterization of Chris Mathews as a "leftie" particularly amusing.... I can hardly imagine which of your purple prose toes he stepped on for you to award him such an honorarium.......

I was not privy to the You Tube debates.... but given the last several hullabaloos about "planted questioners"... (which CNN gave major play to... at least in my "International" and web editions) I find the assertion highly unlikely... Maybe the questions were embarrassing because the answers were....

-KC

 

[amicus]

FOX markets, "Fair and Balanced", in case you didn't notice.

You need not take my word, go to any independent agency that critiques the industry, choose anyone you wish, they all agree, the news has a left wing bias and has for a generation.

At least take a baby step into the 20th century.

Amicus...

 

[Pure]

lots of horseshit, here,

don't you paranoid guys remember the run up to the Iraq war? how CNN handled that? it was rightfully then, known as Pentagon News. it 'bought' the bush lies and supported his chosen war, hook line and sinker. Powell's UN speech was reported without even a raised eyebrow.

left wing bias of the news is evident to the likes of amicus in the following sorts of ways: they will say, "In a speech today, Hillary Clinton said...."

ami would prefer the objective appraoch, "In a speech today, the lying commie lesbian Hillary Clinton claimed....."

---
PS. To any but the paranoid right, Bill Clinton is NOT on the left. Hillary is a bit harder to peg, given her electon stance, but is at best marginally left. And if you don't believe me, well, you go ask my friend Hugo Chavez, yourself.

 

[amicus]

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

Do the major media outlets in the U.S. have a liberal bias? Few questions evoke stronger opinions, and we cannot think of a more important question to which objective statistical techniques can lend their service. So far, the debate has largely been one of anecdotes (“How can CBS News be balanced when it calls Steve Forbes’ tax plan ‘wacky’?”) and untested theories (“if the news industry is a competitive market, then how can media outlets be systematically biased?”).

Few studies provide an objective measure of the slant of news, and none has provided a way to link such a measure to ideological measures of other political actors. That is, none of the existing measures can say, for example, whether the New York Times is more liberal than Tom Daschle or whether Fox News is more conservative than Bill Frist. We provide such a measure. Namely, we compute an ADA score for various news outlets, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, USA Today, the Drudge Report, Fox News’ Special Report, and all three networks’ nightly news shows.

Our results show a strong liberal bias. All of the news outlets except Fox News’ Special Report and the Washington Times received a score to the left of the average member of Congress. And a few outlets, including the New York Times and CBS Evening News, were closer to the average Democrat in Congress than the center. These findings refer strictly to the news stories of the outlets. That is, we omitted editorials, book reviews, and letters to the editor from our sample.

To compute our measure, we count the times that a media outlet cites various think tanks and other policy groups.[1] We compare this with the times that members of Congress cite the same think tanks in their speeches on the floor of the House and Senate. By comparing the citation patterns we can construct an ADA score for each media outlet.

As a simplified example, imagine that there were only two think tanks, one liberal and one conservative. Suppose that the New York Times cited the liberal think tank twice as often as the conservative one. Our method asks: What is the estimated ADA score of a member of Congress who exhibits the same frequency (2:1) in his or her speeches? This is the score that our method would assign the New York Times.

A feature of our method is that it does not require us to make a subjective assessment of how liberal or conservative a think tank is. That is, for instance, we do we need to read policy reports of the think tank or analyze its position on various issues to determine its ideology. Instead, we simply observe the ADA scores of the members of Congress who cite the think tank. This feature is important, since an active controversy exists whether, e.g., the Brookings Institution or the RAND Corporation is moderate, left-wing, or right-wing.

Some Previous Studies of Media Bias

Survey research has shown that an almost overwhelming fraction of journalists are liberal. For instance, Elaine Povich (1996) reports that only seven percent of all Washington correspondents voted for George H.W. Bush in 1992, compared to 37 percent of the American public.[2] Lichter, Rothman and Lichter, (1986) and Weaver and Wilhoit (1996) report similar findings for earlier elections. More recently, the New York Times reported that only eight percent of Washington correspondents thought George W. Bush would be a better president than John Kerry.[3] This compares to 51% of all American voters. David Brooks notes that for every journalist who contributed to George W. Bush’s campaign, 93 contributed to Kerry’s.[4]

These statistics suggest that journalists, as a group, are more liberal than almost any congressional district in the country. For instance, in the Ninth California district, which includes Berkeley, twelve percent voted for Bush in 1992, nearly double the rate of journalists. In the Eighth Massachusetts district, which includes Cambridge, nineteen percent voted for Bush, approximately triple the rate of journalists.[5

~~~

In simple easy to understand numbers, all media broadcasts, print, broadcast and cable are 80% Liberal, pushing left wing issues and opposing right wing views.

Amicus...

 

[keeblercrumb]

FOX markets, "Fair and Balanced", in case you didn't notice.

You need not take my word, go to any independent agency that critiques the industry, choose anyone you wish, they all agree, the news has a left wing bias and has for a generation.

At least take a baby step into the 20th century.

Amicus...

I hardly expect Fox to brand their marketing as "The Rush Limbaugh Ditto Head News"..... And if you truly think their news is "Fair and Balanced" you are more disturbed than I thought... The reality is they were scrounging around looking for a niche market and found one.....

Your "independent agencies" have to be as equally "Fair and Balanced"..... or they are just flat clueless...

As for "liberal bias", it is the function of the "Free Press" fourth estate to keep the government honest...... That their scrutiny and criticism has been directed to conservative administrations is because that who has been there for most of the last generation.... Go back a little further and you will find them hounding Kennedy, Johnson and Carter with equal venom.... It is how they function..... They try to stir up news....... The more good video the better.....

I certainly do not remember this great left wing conspiracy protecting Clinton very much... the whole fucking planet knows who Monica Lewinsky is even if most of them never understood exactly what the problem with her blowing Bill was.......

Thanks for the invitation to join you in your whimsical travels back to the "good old days" under Herbert Hoover but I believe I will stay in the 21st Century... Thanks anyway.

-KC

 

[Pure]

Amicus joke reference

We provide such a measure [of liberal bias]. Namely, we compute an ADA score for various news outlets, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, USA Today, the Drudge Report, Fox News’ Special Report, and all three networks’ nightly news shows.

Our results show a strong liberal bias.

yes, an ADA score for a 'news outlet'. makes perfect sense. Americans for Democratic Action. authors of well known sociometric tool. (it's a rough rating system for the liberal leanings of Congress members).

utter rubbish.

where was it published, incidentally?

//Publisher Info

Paper provided by Department of Economics, University of Missouri in its series

Working Papers with number 0501.

Postal: 118 Professional Building, Columbia, MO 65211
Phone: (573) 882-0063
Fax: (573) 882-2697
Web page: http://economics.missouri.edu/
More information through EDIRC


Other versions of this item:

Article
Tim Groseclose & Jeffrey Milyo, 2005. "A Measure of Media Bias," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 120(4), pages 1191-1237, November. [Downloadable!] (restricted) //

=====

IOW, it's a working paper and we are not shown the version actually published, possibily with altered claims.


here's a neat finding.

One surprise is the Wall Street Journal, which we find as the most liberal of all 20 news outlets. We should first remind readers that this estimate (as well as all other newspaper estimates) refers only to the news of the Wall Street Journal; we omitted all data that came from its editorial page. If we included data from the editorial page, surely it would appear more conservative.

Simple reporting of facts gets the WSJ in trouble with the right wing loonies. Damn facts.