Proving Media Bias

It’s an odd notion that one has to scientifically prove what is patently obvious, that the mainstream media is overwhelmingly liberal in the manner in which they report the news. But we live in an upside-down world where the obvious is frequently deemed an illusion and illusion is spun as reality

YouTube Preview Image
This entry was posted in Media and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comment Rules


Seraphic Secret is private property, that's right, it's an extension of our home, and as such, Karen and I have instituted two Seraphic Rules and we ask commentors to act respectfully.

  1. No profanity.
  2. No Israel bashing. We debate, we discuss, we are respectful. You know what Israel bashing is. The world is full of it. Seraphic Secret is one of the few places in the world that will not tolerate this form of anti-Semitism.

That's it. Break either of these rules and you will be banned.


5 Comments

  1. Posted August 6, 2012 at 7:38 pm | Permalink

    I agree with his investigation of past events. I think there’s no doubt the NY Times is left-leaning, but I’d really like more information about his hypothesis — that is, if the media reported events unbiasedly, the average citizen would vote 20-25% more conservatively — I’m think that may be a leap in logic and he didn’t back it up with many facts. Now, off to see what my PQ score is at Prager University!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    • Posted August 7, 2012 at 8:40 am | Permalink

      Hmm, my score was 12 which puts me in line with Richard Nixon and Newt Gingrich. The thing that puzzles me (in this quiz) is that it lists the political results before you answer. for example, it’ll say something like:
       
      <blockquote>In June, the Senate passed TARP which spent $700 Billion dollars to aid auto manufacturers, banks, etc. Democrats voted 60-0 and Republicans voted 0-40.
      You would:
      A) Vote YES in support.
      B) I don’t know.
      C) Vote NO in opposition.
      </blockquote>
       
      It seems to me that giving the results beforehand might skew the answers a bit…
       

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  2. Bill Brandt
    Posted August 6, 2012 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

    Ted – if you listen to enough sources – and thank G*d for the Internet allowing us to read from overseas – if you read enough and can see a consistent pattern of “our” MSM omitting information, you can see a pattern. 
     
    I find it a bit ironic to believe the newspapers fro the UK are more objective in political reporting than our own mainstream papers.
     
    if you think there is no bias turn most situations around – if John McCain had been to a Rev Wright style church would he have gotten the same coverage as Obama – or would his membership be splashed on page 1 for a long time? This is a fun exercise that you can apply yourself – don’t have to listen to anyone but your own conscience.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  3. GubuWorld
    Posted August 6, 2012 at 12:09 pm | Permalink

    I think the video is nonsense. 

    When people agree with what they hear in the media they think it’s fair and balanced. When they disagree they think it is biased.

    Ted  

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

    • exdemexlib
      Posted August 6, 2012 at 12:39 pm | Permalink

      When people agree with what they hear in the media they think it’s fair and balanced. When they disagree they think it is biased.

      But what about when the people are witnesses to an event that the media reports, and they clearly see that media misrepresents what happened ?

      Example,
      during several public events carried out by Jihad watch or Atlas Shrugs,  which were peaceful, and unprovoking, and then there is a counterdemonstration where leftists and Islamists are violent, and police arrest them, and the media reports  “Violence and arrests at anti-Jihad event”  and leaves out the facts that the violence was solely by the leftist and jihadist demonstrators,
      then it’s media bias that is independent of whether one agrees with the viewpoint or not.

      Simple and fair criteria would be:

      [1] Did what was reported, really happen in the way it was reported ?

      [2] Did other significant things happen which the media saw, but did not report?

      [2] If the names/affiliations of the parties were changed to the names of other groups, would the descriptions of the events, and the omissions, remain exactly the same?

      If the answer to the above is not yes,
      then there is real media bias, independent of whether one agrees with the view or not.

      There are countless media stories, all three criteria were grossly violated.

      Unfortunately, the overwhelming way in which they are violated, is toward a pro-Muslim bias.

      Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0

One Trackback

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting