Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Sept 11, 2008 17:26:41 GMT -4
Then you just have statistical parity between two opposing groups... I think that is the definition of the median. Isn't the median what we're trying to find?
|
|
|
Post by dmundt on Sept 11, 2008 17:32:20 GMT -4
Then you just have statistical parity between two opposing groups... I think that is the definition of the median. Isn't the median what we're trying to find? I think you are describing a statistical median -- but not a centrist position. You can have a statistical median with no actual data points near the center.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 11, 2008 17:33:24 GMT -4
Listing random facts doesn't prove anything, Jason. For every "fact" you bring up, I can show you any number of stories slanted to your side of the table. It proves nothing. Perhaps you had better dig up the stories you claim you can find to prove that there is in fact some kind of parity between the two. And it will need to be from relatively mainstream sources - something comparable to the Washington Post will have to be used to counter the Washington Post, for example.
|
|
|
Post by dmundt on Sept 11, 2008 17:36:30 GMT -4
I'm not going to do that. It is a waste of time because it is all just a matter of opinion. A story about Obama's wife could be fair game or it could be unfairly slanted based on my opinion or your opinion. Listing random facts does not prove anything.
And a thorough analysis is very difficult to do -- for the reasons I have been explaining.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Sept 11, 2008 17:49:24 GMT -4
I think that is the definition of the median. Isn't the median what we're trying to find? I think you are describing a statistical median -- but not a centrist position. You can have a statistical median with no actual data points near the center. What else do we have to measure bias other than statistics? I asked you to define what data we can use to measure it and you had no answer. In the absense of any other method, a statistical mean seems to be the best option available.
|
|
|
Post by dmundt on Sept 11, 2008 18:06:21 GMT -4
Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. But setting up that statistical survey would be very difficult exactly because of the bias problem. You and I might agree on what is left and what is right and what is center, but those are all just subjective viewpoints. Getting a definitive answer based on subjective goal posts is a tricky proposition.
I'm not trying to be evasive -- I just think it is a fairly complex problem to solve and I don't think anyone has really solved it to this point.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 11, 2008 21:52:31 GMT -4
I'm not trying to be evasive -- I just think it is a fairly complex problem to solve and I don't think anyone has really solved it to this point. Ah - exactly like my position on Global Warming. ;D
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Sept 12, 2008 8:56:13 GMT -4
Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. But setting up that statistical survey would be very difficult exactly because of the bias problem. You and I might agree on what is left and what is right and what is center, but those are all just subjective viewpoints. Getting a definitive answer based on subjective goal posts is a tricky proposition. I'm not trying to be evasive -- I just think it is a fairly complex problem to solve and I don't think anyone has really solved it to this point. I think you’re too quick to dismiss the value of polls. I agree online polls are worthless because they simply reflect the views of the particular demographic that visits the website. However, there is a science to the poll taking done by groups such as Gallup and others. Bias will always be present so we have to make an effort to cancel it out by polling across a wide demographic representative of the population at large. As you know, there will always be a margin of error, but polls are capable of revealing statistically significant trends. Referring back to the Rasmussen poll I linked to earlier: when 69% of respondents believe say they are witnessing a media bias, when there is a 5-to-1 margin between those who think the media is pro-Obama versus pro-McCain, and when even among Democrats there are more who believe the media is pro-Obama versus pro-McCain, then that is statistically significant. Numbers like these seem to extend well beyond party and left-right bias. To dismiss such statistics by waving your hand and claiming it is just someone’s opinion is unjustified; particularly when you seem to agree that the perception of media bias is a matter of personal opinion. I think you are showing your own bias, wdmundt.
|
|
|
Post by dmundt on Sept 12, 2008 9:05:04 GMT -4
But then you have this poll: Since the primaries ended, on-air evaluations of Barack Obama have been 72% negative (vs. 28% positive). That’s worse than John McCain’s coverage, which has been 57% negative (vs. 43% positive) during the same time period.www.cmpa.com/Studies/Election08/election%20news%207_29_08.htmAnd this is from what is generally considered to be a conservative group. Could people's opinions (in the poll you've linked to) be influenced by the constant claims from the right that the media is biased? The left doesn't make this claim day in and day out, so the public is only hearing it from one side.
|
|
|
Post by dmundt on Sept 12, 2008 9:22:45 GMT -4
I am biased, in a way. I'm biased against most news organizations. I think the news media today display a shocking lack of interest in digging into the stories they report.
As a little background, I taught in a fairly large school of journalism for six years. Now -- that doesn't make me any more or less qualified to speak on the subject of media bias -- but I can tell you that journalism schools today pretty much suck. It isn't bias toward the left or right, but rather bias toward money. Undergraduates are just cannon fodder. Instructors aren't hired to teach undergraduates, but are hired to bring in research grants. Whether or not they are qualified to teach undergraduates is hardly given lip service.
The main emphasis is on graduate studies, because this is where the money is. Now that makes sense in a science and research field, but journalism is not that kind of thing. A journalist with a master's degree or a Ph. D. is just a journalist with that many years less experience.
Journalists don't become better or more well-rounded by studying diffusion theory. Journalists become better and more well-rounded by practicing journalism. Student journalists need to learn from instructors with practical experience, rather than from someone with a Ph.D. who has never worked in the business.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Sept 12, 2008 10:36:59 GMT -4
But then you have this poll: Since the primaries ended, on-air evaluations of Barack Obama have been 72% negative (vs. 28% positive). That’s worse than John McCain’s coverage, which has been 57% negative (vs. 43% positive) during the same time period.www.cmpa.com/Studies/Election08/election%20news%207_29_08.htmI believe there is some truth to that study considering that it is "since the primaries ended". It does seem that there's been a bit of a reversal in the last week. Barrack Obama is getting blamed (unjustifiably in many cases) for some of the negative attacks on Sarah Palin and John McCain seems to have gotten a big boost from the telling of his personal story at the RNC. However, prior to the primaries it seemed that Barrack Obama was the media darling. Polls are only a snapshot of public opinion and think the last week has been somewhat atypical. Or perhaps the right complains more because they have good reason to. Either way, we're getting into the realm of circular reasoning. My biggest complaint with the news media is that it has become more about entertainment than about the news. They can't just report the facts, they have to follow it up with a panel discussion in which they all give their opinions. The constant bickering gets very tiresome. I sometimes long for the days of Walter Cronkite.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 12, 2008 11:56:21 GMT -4
Walter Cronkite was just as opinionated - he just did a better job of being detached while reporting. Many conservatives blame the loss of the Vietnam War in a large measure on Walter Cronkite. His reaction to the Tet Offensive was devestating to American morale precisely because he was such an influental figure. The Tet Offensive was in fact a major military disaster for the North Veitnamese, but the American people believed, largely because of analysis like Cronkite's that it was a sign that the North Veitnamese would never give up and that the best that could be acheived was a stalemate, so they decided to quit instead. Note that just about the same thing happened in 1944-45, when the Allies thought the Germans were already beaten. With the Battle of the Bulge the Germans were able to mount a winter offensive that completely surprised the Allies and nearly turned the war around, but there was no Walter Cronkite to tell the American people on national TV that "we are mired in stalemate," and the U.S. went on to win the war.
|
|
|
Post by dmundt on Sept 12, 2008 12:06:17 GMT -4
The Tet offensive was in 1968. The war ended seven years later. It's hard for me to understand that logic.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 12, 2008 12:37:41 GMT -4
The Tet Offensive was the point at which American public opinion turned strongly against the war. After that it was a slow deterioration until the final retreat of American troops and withdrawl of American support for the South Vietnamese. Gen. Westmoreland wrote "The war still could have been brought to a favorable end following the [communist] defeat...But this was not to be. Press and television had created an aura, not of victory, but defeat."
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 12, 2008 17:43:01 GMT -4
An example of media bias - a reporter for the Associated Press praises Cuban efforts to evacuate before Hurricane Ike hits. Ah, if only people in New Orleans had been poorer - then looting wouldn't have been such a concern when Katrina hit! The story implies that they are killed by storms, not the government, but it's a bit ambiguous. Do American journalists really yearn to live in a country where authorities "quickly put an end to doubts"?
|
|