It went something like this: First, look at the ADA ratings of members of Congress. See how often each one cites different think tanks to determine which think tanks are liberal or conservative.

Then measure how often news organizations cite each think tank. If a newspaper cites the same think tanks that Ted Kennedy cites, then the newspaper must have liberal bias.

Of course, none of this bothers to examine the content of the cites. If the Kalamazoo Courier quotes the Center for American Progress as saying Apple Pie tastes good, it’s a liberal rag. If it cites CAP on apple pie and the Heritage Foundation saying gay marriage will make everyone’s hair fall out, then the paper is “balanced.”

Keep on trying buddy. Your inability to grasp ideas and put them together into a logical structure does make it pretty clear why you are an “ex”Phd student in Film Studies though….

Their methodology is seriouesly flawed, Here’s one reason why:

It is not hard to imagine perfectly balanced news stories that Groseclose and Milyo would score as biased in one direction or the other, given the study’s methodology. For instance, an article that quoted a member of Congress taking one side of an issue, and then quoted a think tank scholar taking the other side, would be coded as “biased” in the direction of whichever side was represented by the think tank scholar. Since Groseclose and Milyo’s measure of “bias” is restricted to citations of think tank and advocacy groups, this kind of miscategorization is inevitable.

BUt that’s from Media Matters, Here’s the response from the Wall Street Journal, which the report found to be more liberal than the New York Times:

By contrast, the research technique used in this study hardly inspires confidence. In fact, it is logically suspect and simply baffling in some of its details.

http://poynter.org/forum/view_post.asp?id=10808

That’s interesting. Based on its methodology, the report found that the Wall Street Journal was more liberal than the New York Times and that the ACLU was a “Conservative” think tank. Are you telling me you agree with this assessment?

But wait, the Wall Street JOurnal points this out:

Third, the reader of this report has to travel all the way Table III on page 57 to discover that the researchers’ “study” of the content of The Wall Street Journal covers exactly FOUR MONTHS in 2002, while the period examined for CBS News covers more than 12 years, and National Public Radio’s content is examined for more than 11 years. This huge analytical flaw results in an assessment based on comparative citings during vastly differing time periods, when the relative newsworthiness of various institutions could vary widely.

Four months vs 12 years? Does that sound like a reasonable comparison?

Not only is the reports methodology seriously flawed, bias can manifest itself in countless ways in reporting that simply can’t be quantified like that. It’s totally subjective term. For every instance of liberal bias

So, ya, Pedro, go find another report. Of course we all know what a problem you have with reading
statistics.

I guess I better go looking for another paper then eh Paul?

What an idiot….

http://mediamatters.org/items/200512220003

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

This highly researched paper circa 2004 is from YOUR own alma mater (well, maybe, are you still matriculated Paul?)

Please read the article to find the factual basis for my statement….

The sign of a true Kool Aid drinker. You’re awesome, pedro, truly awesome.

Try the Wayback Machine.

As you libs are crowing about your “enormous” victory, look at the historical number of seats won by an opposition party in an off-year election. You will find you hit the average. No where near the drubbing that the liberals got in 94 when the republicans “beat” the average by almost 50% ……

If Ollie has the courage to keep his posts up for more than a year, so we can go back and check…see me in ‘08. I just wish OW was able to keep some of those posts from a few years ago so we can see how “flexible” Ollie’s opinions really are..

OK. How many in 1998? You know, that time the President was in the impeachment dock?

This from the idiot who just wrote: “..there is an unquestionable leftist media bias …”

In 2008, 33 Senate seats will be up for grabs. How many are currently held by Republicans?

Looking inward and then electing the same gang of bozos to leadership positions?

What is it they say about the definition of insanity?