Never any media bias - well maybe just a little. All the time.

I'm going to miss Melissa Harris-Perry...

And it's not new......yes Nixon did some shady shit, but no worse than any other politician.  The media hate for him was something to behold.   Anyway - the "scandal" that spawned the "Checkers" speech.   If you've never watched it, it's worth the time.

Liberal Media Bias: From Nixon’s Fund to Trump’s Women

So it was that the newly minted Eisenhower-Nixon ticket hit the campaign trail, facing off against a Democratic ticket of liberal icon and Illinois Governor Adlai Steveson and his running mate, Alabama Senator (and segregationist) John Sparkman. After twenty years of Roosevelt and Truman, the country was ripe for change. Eisenhower and Nixon pounded away at what they saw as the three major issues of the campaign: “Corruption, Communism and Korea” (the Korean War was then in full bloom). It was clear that “I Like Ike” was the rising sentiment washing over the country.  And then.

And then, out of the blue, came the story. The New York Post, then a liberal paper owned by the left-wing Dorothy Schiff, the granddaughter of New York magnate Jacob Schiff, had a front page story screaming:

NIXON SECRET FUND

Secret Rich Men’s Trust Fund Keeps Nixon in Style Far Beyond His Salary

Nixon would recall later that the story was a “masterpiece of distortion.” It began:

“The existence of a ‘millionaire’s club’ devoted exclusively to the financial comfort of Senator Nixon, GOP Vice Presidential candidate, was revealed today.”

The truth was that Nixon, not a wealthy man, had a group of supporters who paid for the popular Senator’s political travel so that he would not have to have taxpayers pay for it to the tune of $18,000. Not a cent had gone to Nixon’s personal use. Long before the advent of today’s Federal Election Commission and the standard use of campaign funds for elected politicians of all stripes that do exactly the same thing, Nixon’s “secret fund” was hardly secret and not in the slightest unusual.  In fact, Governor Stevenson had the same fund thing going, as it turned out.  But the media didn’t care. It was Nixon they were after.

And for anyone that wants to condemn Nixon - how he felt about the press was excusable after how he was treated during the Hiss hearings and onward.

As already stated, the 90% number cited earlier is fiction. Thus far I have seen nothing from either of you to support such a claim. Claims of bias to that extent stem from perception and a need to find bias where it otherwise might not exist. While bias certainly exists, it is far less pervasive than the two of you are suggesting. What is also interesting is the source of bias. Again, if it is driven by a demand for confirmation by the consumer, then it is not the news that is at fault. The news would have little incentive to operate in a non-partisan manner.

I would like to support my ideas with anecdotal evidence and screenshots, but I prefer peer reviewed work. I find it funny the two of you source your information from such partisan sources. Your complaining about the lack of objectivity in the news, and then try to prove your points with links to Breitbart articles or something written by Jonah Goldberg. That is like expecting Harbaugh to give you an honest answer about whether or not there was a penalty on MSU while JWJ was running the ball into the endzone. It is also a little bit ironic.

Fair and Balanced? Quantifying Media Bias through Crowdsourced Content Analysis
It is widely thought that news organizations exhibit ideological bias, but rigorously quantifying such slant has proven methodologically challenging. Through a combination of machine-learning and crowdsourcing techniques, we investigate the selection and framing of political issues in fifteen major US news outlets. Starting with 803,146 news stories published over twelve months, we first used supervised learning algorithms to identify the 14 percent of articles pertaining to political events. We then recruited 749 online human judges to classify a random subset of 10,502 of these political articles according to topic and ideological position. Our analysis yields an ideological ordering of outlets consistent with prior work. However, news outlets are considerably more similar than generally believed. Specifically, with the exception of political scandals, major news organizations present topics in a largely nonpartisan manner, casting neither Democrats nor Republicans in a particularly favorable or unfavorable light. Moreover, again with the exception of political scandals, little evidence exists of systematic differences in story selection, with all major news outlets covering a wide variety of topics with frequency largely unrelated to the outlet’s ideological position. Finally, news organizations express their ideological bias not by directly advocating for a preferred political party, but rather by disproportionately criticizing one side, a convention that further moderates overall differences.
http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/content/80/S1/250

Media bias in presidential elections: a meta-analysis
A meta-analysis considered 59 quantitative studies containing data concerned with partisan media bias in presidential election campaigns since 1948. Types of bias considered were gatekeeping bias, which is the preference for selecting stories from one party or the other; coverage bias, which considers the relative amounts of coverage each party receives; and statement bias, which focuses on the favorability of coverage toward one party or the other. On the whole, no significant biases were found for the newspaper industry. Biases in newsmagazines were virtually zero as well. However, meta-analysis of studies of television network news showed small, measurable, but probably insubstantial coverage and statement biases.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02866.x/abstract

THE BALANCED US PRESS
We measure the relative ideological positions of newspapers, voters, interest groups, and political parties, using data on ballot propositions. We exploit the fact that newspapers, parties, and interest groups take positions on these propositions, and the fact that citizens ultimately vote on them. We find that, on average, newspapers in the United States are located almost exactly at the median voter in their states—that is, they are balanced around the median voter. Still, there is a significant amount of ideological heterogeneity across newspapers, which is smaller than the one found for interest groups. However, when we group propositions by issue area, we find a sizable amount of ideological imbalance: broadly speaking, newspapers are to the left of the state-level median voter on many social issues, and to the right on many economic issues. To complete the picture, we use two existing methods of measuring bias and show that the news and editorial sections of newspapers have almost identical partisan positions.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jeea.12101/abstract

What Media Bias? Conservative and Liberal Labeling in Major U.S. Newspapers
This article tests the hypothesis that major U.S. newspapers disproportionately label conservative politicians. We quantitatively analyze ideological labels of U.S. congresspersons and senators in newspaper articles. We then qualitatively review these articles, seeking to discern if any patterns exist, and if so, why. Disproportionate labeling of conservatives exists but not in a way that constitutes “bias,” as newspapers often label liberals, at times more than they do conservatives. These labeling patterns may be explained by the rise of conservatives who entered Congress in 1994, the political pejorativization of the word liberal, and the increased conservative ideological tenor of the Congress during the past fifteen years. We conclude by discussing possible implications of our findings.
http://hij.sagepub.com/content/12/1/17.short

The Liberal Media Myth Revisited: An Examination of Factors Influencing Perceptions of Media Bias
Despite research to the contrary, the general public and a significant number of politicians are convinced the U.S. news media have a liberal and pro-Democratic bias. To understand why many people believe the media have such biases, this study tested whether such a perception is related to an observer's own partisan and ideological positions. Findings based on two large national surveys suggest that audiences' ideologies and partisanships affect how they view the media. Strong conservatives and Republicans are more likely to distrust the news media, whereas the best predictor of a media bias perception is political cynicism.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15506878jobem4901_4

Don't worry. There are plenty of studies that suggest bias is real and is liberal. The problem is that measuring bias is hard and there is nothing even close to agreement on how to measure bias or if it even exists to any great degree. What this means is that your claims are mostly in your head and what you want to exist rather than what might actually exist.

"Finally, news organizations express their ideological bias not by directly advocating for a preferred political party, but rather by disproportionately criticizing one side, a convention that further moderates overall differences."

That's kind of what I was referring to.

It's just strange how often these networks decide to fabricate evidence to prove a point that indicates the bias we're pointing to.

Plus, a lot of your peer reviewed studies aren't taking into account the double standards we're pointing out. All the examples I put up there are examples of one side getting away with certain opinions that would not be tolerated if the tables were flipped.

xsanguine wrote:Plus, a lot of your peer reviewed studies aren't taking into account the double standards we're pointing out. All the examples I put up there are examples of one side getting away with certain opinions that would not be tolerated if the tables were flipped.

Oh yes, I very much agree that your extensive analysis of media bias in this thread is worth far more consideration than any academic study ever completed on the subject. Sorry I left that part out.

Turtleneck wrote:

xsanguine wrote:Plus, a lot of your peer reviewed studies aren't taking into account the double standards we're pointing out. All the examples I put up there are examples of one side getting away with certain opinions that would not be tolerated if the tables were flipped.

Oh yes, I very much agree that your extensive analysis of media bias in this thread is worth far more consideration than any academic study ever completed on the subject. Sorry I left that part out.

Thank you. That's all I ask.

xsanguine wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

Oh yes, I very much agree that your extensive analysis of media bias in this thread is worth far more consideration than any academic study ever completed on the subject. Sorry I left that part out.

Thank you. That's all I ask.

I can certainly accommodate you on this.

Will you also coerce others into giving you their wealth to redistribute my way? Because I'd really like to move out of my parents basement and Apple, Google and Ebay haven't called me back yet about my resume that lacks any work experience. Just waiting on them and all will be kosher... could use some cheddah in the meantime...

republicans seem to be very committed to proving that the "liberal media" myth is real..

it's like when they insist that they're not racists..

Science has a known liberal bias. Rush told me.

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:Science has a known liberal bias. Rush told me.

but really there is a bias.. really.. it exists.

oh, and some of my best friends are black. Really. I'm serious!

Heh

In case you were curious what it's about...

Starts @34:00

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:Science has a known liberal bias. Rush told me.

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:Science has a known liberal bias. Rush told me.

Science has no bias. Which is why it conflicts with both conservative and liberal views.

It conflicts with conservatives outlook on climate change, and it conflicts with liberal's views on gender biology and why there's a wage gap (hint, it has nothing to do with misogyny or unfairness... It has to do with the choices men and women make which has a lot to do with biology)

Robert J Sakimano wrote:republicans seem to be very committed to proving that the "liberal media" myth is real..

it's like when they insist that they're not racists..

You're right Bob. Actually all the nets are biased against the Dems, right?

A 'Name That Party' Round-Up: The News Media’s Double Standard on Political Scandals

A website dedicated to uncovering liberal media bias has discovered liberal media bias? Well, I guess that settles it...

LooseGoose wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:republicans seem to be very committed to proving that the "liberal media" myth is real..

it's like when they insist that they're not racists..

You're right Bob. Actually all the nets are biased against the Dems, right?

I don't know what you mean by "nets".

Turtleneck wrote:A website dedicated to uncovering liberal media bias has discovered liberal media bias? Well, I guess that settles it...

Link me to a website exposing conservative media bias?

Adam Carolla explains the bias well in a discussion with Dr. Drew and Ben Shapiro after the Zoey Tur incident...

Adam Corolla? Jesus, X. Would you like to hear from my dogs on this topic as well?

Turtleneck wrote:Adam Corolla? Jesus, X. Would you like to hear from my dogs on this topic as well?

Did you listen to him or just write him off based on name recognition?

Let's stick to ideas being discussed rather than the sources.

xsanguine wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:Adam Corolla? Jesus, X. Would you like to hear from my dogs on this topic as well?

Did you listen to him or just write him off based on name recognition?

He is dumb. A complete idiot with an incredibly limited capacity to process anything beyond 2+2.

xsanguine wrote:Let's stick to ideas being discussed rather than the sources.

Since you cannot bring any credible sources to the conversation, this is very convenient for you.

Turtleneck wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

Did you listen to him or just write him off based on name recognition?

He is dumb. A complete idiot with an incredibly limited capacity to process anything beyond 2+2.

xsanguine wrote:Let's stick to ideas being discussed rather than the sources.

Since you cannot bring any credible sources to the conversation, this is very convenient for you.

If he's as dumb as you say he is then it should be easy to refute what he's saying, right?

This is the same as the current trend that...."Your opinion is wrong because you're a white male!" Counts as an argument.

The source is the video I posted between Ben Shapiro and Zoey Tur and then a discussion regarding selection bias in the aftermath of that video between two of the main individuals involved in that video.

so... people post mainstream media links to show how crooked the mainstream media is?

okay..

That does make sense, Bob. Posting examples of crookedness, ya know?! (In a high pitched Rod Tidwell [Jerry Maguire} voice)

xsanguine wrote:That does make sense, Bob. Posting examples of crookedness, ya know?! (In a high pitched Rod Tidwell [Jerry Maguire} voice)

exactly.

CBS News Political Director: 'Our Job' to Steer Away from the Clintons' Past

New Host of Face the Nation Advised Obama in 2013 to 'Destroy the GOP'

John Dickerson, replacing Bob Schieffer as the new host of Face the Nation, will continue the same level of objectivity that CBS has brought to viewers for half a century. In 1964, when CBS was one third of all television news, Walter Cronkite and Daniel Schorr repeatedly smeared Barry Goldwater as a crypto-Nazi. His successor, Dan Rather, blew himself up in spectacular fashion with RatherGate in 2004, as dissected by all those bloggers in their Pajamas, to coin a Website name.

LooseGoose wrote:CBS News Political Director: 'Our Job' to Steer Away from the Clintons' Past

Study: Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump, gets the most negative media coverage
http://www.vox.com/2016/4/15/11410160/hillary-clinton-media-bernie-sanders

Lol, so says Vox. Next up is HuffPo releasing a 'study' indicating the media is unfair to Bernie.

Let me guess. It's because of misogyny, too. Her dealings with organized crime get glossed over for 4 decades... But people think she's a liar because she's a woman.

xsanguine wrote:Lol, so says Vox. Next up is HuffPo releasing a 'study' indicating the media is unfair to Bernie.

Lol, so says a study that Vox is citing. Next up is a literate person...

I'll wait for Jezebel's take on the issue before I decide. Maybe Gawker has a new study I can catch up on.

xsanguine wrote:I'll wait for Jezebel's take on the issue before I decide. Maybe Gawker has a new study I can catch up on.

Blanch, the study was not done by Vox. Please post Joe Rogan video to refute study. Anxiously awaiting what Alex Jones has to say as well.

I've changed my homepage to MSNBC so that I can be enlightened on reality.