New Study Says Media Is Biased

[SFL Cat]

Study conducted by UCLA

link

Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist


Date: December 14, 2005
Contact: Meg Sullivan ( [email protected] )
Phone: 310-825-1046

While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.

These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly.

"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."

"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co?author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.

The results appear in the latest issue of the Quarterly Journal of Economics, which will become available in mid-December.

Groseclose and Milyo based their research on a standard gauge of a lawmaker's support for liberal causes. Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) tracks the percentage of times that each lawmaker votes on the liberal side of an issue. Based on these votes, the ADA assigns a numerical score to each lawmaker, where "100" is the most liberal and "0" is the most conservative. After adjustments to compensate for disproportionate representation that the Senate gives to low?population states and the lack of representation for the District of Columbia, the average ADA score in Congress (50.1) was assumed to represent the political position of the average U.S. voter.

Groseclose and Milyo then directed 21 research assistants — most of them college students — to scour U.S. media coverage of the past 10 years. They tallied the number of times each media outlet referred to think tanks and policy groups, such as the left-leaning NAACP or the right-leaning Heritage Foundation.

Next, they did the same exercise with speeches of U.S. lawmakers. If a media outlet displayed a citation pattern similar to that of a lawmaker, then Groseclose and Milyo's method assigned both a similar ADA score.

"A media person would have never done this study," said Groseclose, a UCLA political science professor, whose research and teaching focuses on the U.S. Congress. "It takes a Congress scholar even to think of using ADA scores as a measure. And I don't think many media scholars would have considered comparing news stories to congressional speeches."

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.

The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third.

"Our estimates for these outlets, we feel, give particular credibility to our efforts, as three of the four moderators for the 2004 presidential and vice-presidential debates came from these three news outlets — Jim Lehrer, Charlie Gibson and Gwen Ifill," Groseclose said. "If these newscasters weren't centrist, staffers for one of the campaign teams would have objected and insisted on other moderators."

The fourth most centrist outlet was "Special Report With Brit Hume" on Fox News, which often is cited by liberals as an egregious example of a right-wing outlet. While this news program proved to be right of center, the study found ABC's "World News Tonight" and NBC's "Nightly News" to be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found.

"If viewers spent an equal amount of time watching Fox's 'Special Report' as ABC's 'World News' and NBC's 'Nightly News,' then they would receive a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news," said Milyo, an associate professor of economics and public affairs at the University of Missouri at Columbia.

Five news outlets — "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," ABC's "Good Morning America," CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown," Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and the Drudge Report — were in a statistical dead heat in the race for the most centrist news outlet. Of the print media, USA Today was the most centrist.

An additional feature of the study shows how each outlet compares in political orientation with actual lawmakers. The news pages of The Wall Street Journal scored a little to the left of the average American Democrat, as determined by the average ADA score of all Democrats in Congress (85 versus 84). With scores in the mid-70s, CBS' "Evening News" and The New York Times looked similar to Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., who has an ADA score of 74.

Most of the outlets were less liberal than Lieberman but more liberal than former Sen. John Breaux, D-La. Those media outlets included the Drudge Report, ABC's "World News Tonight," NBC's "Nightly News," USA Today, NBC's "Today Show," Time magazine, U.S. News & World Report, Newsweek, NPR's "Morning Edition," CBS' "Early Show" and The Washington Post.

Since Groseclose and Milyo were more concerned with bias in news reporting than opinion pieces, which are designed to stake a political position, they omitted editorials and Op?Eds from their tallies. This is one reason their study finds The Wall Street Journal more liberal than conventional wisdom asserts.

Another finding that contradicted conventional wisdom was that the Drudge Report was slightly left of center.

"One thing people should keep in mind is that our data for the Drudge Report was based almost entirely on the articles that the Drudge Report lists on other Web sites," said Groseclose. "Very little was based on the stories that Matt Drudge himself wrote. The fact that the Drudge Report appears left of center is merely a reflection of the overall bias of the media."

Yet another finding that contradicted conventional wisdom relates to National Public Radio, often cited by conservatives as an egregious example of a liberal news outlet. But according to the UCLA-University of Missouri study, it ranked eighth most liberal of the 20 that the study examined.

"By our estimate, NPR hardly differs from the average mainstream news outlet," Groseclose said. "Its score is approximately equal to those of Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report and its score is slightly more conservative than The Washington Post's. If anything, government?funded outlets in our sample have a slightly lower average ADA score (61), than the private outlets in our sample (62.8)."

The researchers took numerous steps to safeguard against bias — or the appearance of same — in the work, which took close to three years to complete. They went to great lengths to ensure that as many research assistants supported Democratic candidate Al Gore in the 2000 election as supported President George Bush. They also sought no outside funding, a rarity in scholarly research.

"No matter the results, we feared our findings would've been suspect if we'd received support from any group that could be perceived as right- or left-leaning, so we consciously decided to fund this project only with our own salaries and research funds that our own universities provided," Groseclose said.

The results break new ground.

"Past researchers have been able to say whether an outlet is conservative or liberal, but no one has ever compared media outlets to lawmakers," Groseclose said. "Our work gives a precise characterization of the bias and relates it to known commodity — politicians."

-UCLA-

[GreenMonster]

Did someone pay for this, many others could have finished this in an afternoon..

[Cringer]

bah. It's not tilted right or left, it is tilted towards corporate/power interests.

[MrBigglesworth]

The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left.

This study doesn't even pass the laugh test. If you make Hitler your center point, most things are going to lean left.

Originally Posted by Cringer

bah. It's not tilted right or left, it is tilted towards corporate/power interests.

Your crazy countenance belies the wisdom beneath.

[Ajaxab]

Although this kind of content analysis has merit, simply counting the number of references a given outlet makes to a liberal/conservative source really doesn't lead us to the conclusions these scholars would have us believe. What is more important is how the source is used qualitatively rather than the number of times it appears in a given source. A given media outlet can refer to the NAACP 500 times over the course of a month but if 425 of those citations are critical of the organization, then how is it possible to say the media outlet is liberal? Simply tallying the number of times an organization appears is only part of the story. Of course these political science scholars can claim that a media person would never do this study. Reason being that it doesn't provide a comprehensive picture of what's going on. It's nice to put a shiny, quantitative veneer on the results, but if they don't study how the media outlets are using the source, these scholars are missing (at least) half the point. Citation patterns simply don't provide us with the complete picture.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

Although this kind of content analysis has merit, simply counting the number of references a given outlet makes to a liberal/conservative source really doesn't lead us to the conclusions these scholars would have us believe. What is more important is how the source is used qualitatively rather than the number of times it appears in a given source. A given media outlet can refer to the NAACP 500 times over the course of a month but if 425 of those citations are critical of the organization, then how is it possible to say the media outlet is liberal? Simply tallying the number of times an organization appears is only part of the story. Of course these political science scholars can claim that a media person would never do this study. Reason being that it doesn't provide a comprehensive picture of what's going on. It's nice to put a shiny, quantitative veneer on the results, but if they don't study how the media outlets are using the source, these scholars are missing (at least) half the point.

I bet Mediamatters.org got a 100% conservative rating from these guys

[Subby]

In other news, most people are stupid and will believe everything they are told by people they see on television.

[st.cronin]

This study would have more credibility in my eyes if UCLA's football team had put up some fight against those Trojans.

[Raiders Army]

Tim Groseclose isn't even a doctor. I wonder if he stayed at a Holiday Inn Express the night before he wrote the study?

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by Subby

In other news, most people are stupid and will believe everything they are told by people they see on television.

we're not stupid; we're just distracted and don't have time to think for ourselves.

Next step: pre-chewed food. Shaves like an hour off of the day.

[John Galt]

So you post this study in one thread, a bunch of people respond, you ignore those responses, and then start a new thread on the subject. Interesting.

edit: oops. That wasn't you. I'm not a bright man.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by John Galt

So you post this study in one thread, a bunch of people respond, you ignore those responses, and then start a new thread on the subject. Interesting.

Actually, I'm glad it was posted. I don't pay any attention to the political threads since they're predictably useless so I would have missed this.

As someone who made a living working in a newsroom at one point, I find this sort of stuff interesting. This study seems like an interesting attempt to quantify something that's difficult to nail down -- I'm a little disappointed (though not surprised) at how quickly people want to dismiss this sort of thing when it doesn't fit their pre-decided worldview.

[SFL Cat]

^^^ WTF JG? Are you addressing me?!

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

^^^ WTF JG? Are you addressing me?!

He edited it, looks like an honest mistake...

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

^^^ WTF JG? Are you addressing me?!

see the edit. As I said, I am not a bright man.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Actually, I'm glad it was posted. I don't pay any attention to the political threads since they're predictably useless so I would have missed this.

As someone who made a living working in a newsroom at one point, I find this sort of stuff interesting. This study seems like an interesting attempt to quantify something that's difficult to nail down -- I'm a little disappointed (though not surprised) at how quickly people want to dismiss this sort of thing when it doesn't fit their pre-decided worldview.

I have no complaints with a separate thread. I only had a problem when I stupidly thought SFL Cat was JW.

Either way, the other thread contains some discussion (although more of it had to with JW's ridiculous assertion that the NYT has an active agenda to attack Bush and their publishing decisions are entirely made with that in mind).

[Flasch186]

weve already mostly agreed that it has more to do with Corporate dollar signs and ratings...with some holdouts on the extreme sides to try to defend or attack everything the admin. does.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

This study doesn't even pass the laugh test. If you make Hitler your center point, most things are going to lean left.

Actually they explained why there was that aberration. Most of the stuff listed on Drudge's site are links to other media outlets. The result is that most of his articles will skew left due to how the original author wrote the article.

They suggest that the stuff that Drudge wrote leans right, which makes sense.

I'm actually surprised that no one is crying foul about FOX News being labeled as pretty moderate.

[Maple Leafs]

If you've decided that it's about corporate dollar signs, you're not looking at it hard enough. That's an easy out -- it's all greed, end of story. But if it was all about corporate suits making the calls, the mainstream media would be titled sharply to the right, and it's not.

As I mentioned, I spent several years working in newsrooms. A few years isn't a huge sample size, but it's probably more than most folks here have to go on. I worked for a few papers, and I always knew which way we leaned. I was never told directly -- it's not in any employee handbook -- but it was pretty obvious that if you wanted the editors to like your stuff and wanted your stories to get good play, you had to follow along. There were a handful of writers with enough pull to go against the flow, but they were exceptions.

In one case we knew where the bias came from -- the publisher wanted things a certain way, and he signed the checks. In others, it was just the way it had always been. Never once did I see any sort of direct "corporate" influence. If anything, attacking big money corporations is a first instinct for most journalists (although that obviously gets sticky if the corporation owns the paper, and potentially even if there's ad dollars involved).

The reality is that many news sources do have a bias, and that includes the New York Times. That doesn't meant they're part of some grand conspiracy, but anyone who really wants to argue that the Times isn't titled to the left has a very distorted view of where the "center" is. I'm not even convinced that this is a bad thing, but pretending it doesn't exist just seems silly to me.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

In one case we knew where the bias came from -- the publisher wanted things a certain way, and he signed the checks. In others, it was just the way it had always been. Never once did I see any sort of direct "corporate" influence. If anything, attacking big money corporations is a first instinct for most journalists (although that obviously gets sticky if the corporation owns the paper, and potentially even if there's ad dollars involved).

Saying the media has a corporate bias does not mean that they like or dislike corporations, it means that they do business in a way that is designed to make them the most money. For example, during the run-up to the war it was profitable to lead the pack in terms of hawkishness (see: Judy Miller).

A lot of the scientific reasons why the study is crap have been mentioned already here and in the other thread. It is not just rejected because it doesn't fit a worldview, it is rejected because it is terrible science.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Saying the media has a corporate bias does not mean that they like or dislike corporations, it means that they do business in a way that is designed to make them the most money. For example, during the run-up to the war it was profitable to lead the pack in terms of hawkishness (see: Judy Miller).

I know exactly what was meant. And that's an easy argument to make when you're talking about this blanket creation called "the media", but it doesn't hold up as well when discussing individuals. Do you really think Miller was sitting at her desk day after day wondering "how can I maximize profit for my employer today?"

Miller did a sloppy job of reporting that could be argued to have had catastrophic results. I'm not fan of hers -- she deserves all the vile directed at her. But there are any number of better explanations for her, and cases like her, than just pointing at corporate greed. I realize "big corporations" have become a nice catch-all for everything that's wrong with society today, but it just isn't that simple.

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

A lot of the scientific reasons why the study is crap have been mentioned already here and in the other thread. It is not just rejected because it doesn't fit a worldview, it is rejected because it is terrible science.

Based on what? They work for three years in a controlled academic setting, and a bunch of guys on an internet forum decide that it's "terrible science" based on a press release?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Actually they explained why there was that aberration. Most of the stuff listed on Drudge's site are links to other media outlets. The result is that most of his articles will skew left due to how the original author wrote the article.

They suggest that the stuff that Drudge wrote leans right, which makes sense.

I'm actually surprised that no one is crying foul about FOX News being labeled as pretty moderate.

It's not just that Drudge is an aberration, it's the fact that EVERY news outlet's score is slanted to the left. The reason is because they found a mid-point which was just terrible. They took the average ADA score of congress. Congress today is skewed to the right, even though through the recent presidential elections we can see that the country is evenly divided.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Actually they explained why there was that aberration. Most of the stuff listed on Drudge's site are links to other media outlets. The result is that most of his articles will skew left due to how the original author wrote the article.

They suggest that the stuff that Drudge wrote leans right, which makes sense.

I'm actually surprised that no one is crying foul about FOX News being labeled as pretty moderate.

Also, the Wall Street Journal being just to the left of Democrats...?? I'm sorry, this doesn't pass the smell test at all.

SI

[Ajaxab]

I don't see this as terrible science, but it does privilege the quantitative at the expense of the qualitative. Of course, it's much easier and quicker to do quantitative bean-counting (especially when one has research assistants to do it for you) and then publish an article instead of doing the gruntwork of interpretive qualitative work (something research assistants cannot do for you).

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

If you've decided that it's about corporate dollar signs, you're not looking at it hard enough. That's an easy out -- it's all greed, end of story. But if it was all about corporate suits making the calls, the mainstream media would be titled sharply to the right, and it's not.

Wrong, its overwhelmingly slanted towards the sensational regardless of left or right. Put anyone overwhelmingly in power and most sensational news is going to come out of that pocket. When the Dems get overwhelming power the same thing will happen, and has before.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

I know exactly what was meant. And that's an easy argument to make when you're talking about this blanket creation called "the media", but it doesn't hold up as well when discussing individuals. Do you really think Miller was sitting at her desk day after day wondering "how can I maximize profit for my employer today?"

No, I think Miller was sitting wondering, "how can I maximize my income today?" She does that by pleasing her employer, who in turn is pleased by profits. That's how the entire rest of the world works, I see no reason to just assume it's not how the media works. You said yourself that you used to do stories that made the people signing the checks happy, so I don't see why you are confused by my position.

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Based on what? They work for three years in a controlled academic setting, and a bunch of guys on an internet forum decide that it's "terrible science" based on a press release?

This study has been around for a while, the press release isn't the first time I have heard about it. Search for it on google, you'll find all kinds of stuff. To my knowledge it was never peer reviewed, an obvious sign that something is wrong.

http://media.eriposte.com/2-9.htm

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Also, the Wall Street Journal being just to the left of Democrats...?? I'm sorry, this doesn't pass the smell test at all.

SI

*sigh* As the article states, the news articles are left, the editorial page is right. Since I have begun to read the Journal during lunch at work, I was astounded at how left it was. I wouldn't say it was quite that far left, but it was pretty left.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

It's not just that Drudge is an aberration, it's the fact that EVERY news outlet's score is slanted to the left. The reason is because they found a mid-point which was just terrible. They took the average ADA score of congress. Congress today is skewed to the right, even though through the recent presidential elections we can see that the country is evenly divided.

Is it a surprise to everyone that most outlet's skew left? I was actually surprised that as many outlets were moderate as they had listed. However, they did have FOX News pretty close to where I would have them pegged myself.

Journalists lean left. We all know that. Is it any surprise that the way they report the news skews to the side that they lean? I think it is requires a fair degree of suspension of belief to feel otherwise. Hell, my wife can't watch the news anymore. She was in journalism, and refuses to have anything to do with it, because you have to have a take in every article now days... As she puts it, you're not telling a story, you're editorializing it.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Journalists lean left. We all know that. Is it any surprise that the way they report the news skews to the side that they lean? I think it is requires a fair degree of suspension of belief to feel otherwise.

But editors and owners are overwhelmingly conservative. Wouldn't they have an effect?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

But editors and owners are overwhelmingly conservative.

lol

[JonInMiddleGA]

In other breaking news ... the sky is blue & researchers believe that water may indeed be wet.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

A bitchslap of this study from an actual non-political blog http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/%7Emyl/lan...es/001169.html

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

Although this kind of content analysis has merit, simply counting the number of references a given outlet makes to a liberal/conservative source really doesn't lead us to the conclusions these scholars would have us believe.

For instance, if I search for "Hitler" on Google News, I get 4,690 hits.

If I search for "Mother Theresa" on Google News, I get 688 hits.

Clearly Google is run by fascists.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Jesse_Ewiak

A bitchslap of this study from an actual non-political blog http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/%7Emyl/lan...es/001169.html

I don't know about non-political, but he does raise a lot of points to really discount the study. The fact that the 200 sources used to determine liberal or conservative is, at best, arbitrarily chosen, and at worst a tainted set.

"At another point, G & M explain that they disregarded the ACLU in their final analysis because it turned up with an excessively conservative score, owing to Republicans who cited it for its opposition to McCain-Feingold." That should say all we need to know.

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

For instance, if I search for "Hitler" on Google News, I get 4,690 hits.

If I search for "Mother Theresa" on Google News, I get 688 hits.

Clearly Google is run by fascists.

Well, you gotta admit, Hitler would probably win in a (Google) fight without divine intervention.

SI

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

But editors and owners are overwhelmingly conservative. Wouldn't they have an effect?

As I have said before, that hasn't been my experience. Most editors are definitely NOT conservative. Most media outlets are owned by corporate conglomerates rather than individuals. Administration has little if anything to do with editorial content. The only time they might intervene is if editorial does something to offend advertisers which might result in a loss of revenue (i.e. a big advertiser pulls its account). This situation very rarely happens.

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

For instance, if I search for "Hitler" on Google News, I get 4,690 hits.

If I search for "Mother Theresa" on Google News, I get 688 hits.

Clearly Google is run by fascists.

And we better get that Nazi Al Gore while we're at it because he clearly invented this medium of propaganda.

[Raiders Army]

I'd rather take out Tipper Gore since she started the PMRC.

[JW]

Originally Posted by John Galt

I have no complaints with a separate thread. I only had a problem when I stupidly thought SFL Cat was JW.

Either way, the other thread contains some discussion (although more of it had to with JW's ridiculous assertion that the NYT has an active agenda to attack Bush and their publishing decisions are entirely made with that in mind).

You aren't quite right there. My assertion was that the NYT has an agenda to attack Bush. I did not say the NYT's publishing decisions are entirely made with that in mind, and in fact would not agree with that at all. They have many more fish to fry than George Bush. I would suggest that is it only your perception that my assertion is 'ridiculous.' Many people feel the way I do. And I think that what is ridiculous is the NYT's anti-Bush agenda.

And, yes, I was the one who first posted the study. One thing I've learned about studies is that the typical reaction is to believe those you agree with and disbelieve those you disagree with.

And another thing; I have rarely if ever seen anyone's mind changed by disucssions on an internet forum.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by JW

Many people feel the way I do. And I think that what is ridiculous is the NYT's anti-Bush agenda.

Rob Corddry: How does one report the facts in an unbiased way when the facts themselves are biased?

Jon Stewart: I’m sorry, Rob, did you say the facts are biased?

Corddry: That’s right Jon. From the names of our fallen soldiers to the gradual withdrawal of our allies to the growing insurgency, it’s become all too clear that facts in Iraq have an anti-Bush agenda.

.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

In other breaking news ... the sky is blue & researchers believe that water may indeed be wet.

Now, that is funny.

[JW]

Bigglesworth, no matter how you cut it, many people do believe the NYT is biased, at least as biased at Fox News. What I find interesting, similar to what I noted above, is that people seem to think their favorite news organizations are objective. It is only the other ones that are biased. They are all biased to some extent. In my opinion NYT is more biased than many, despite the crown of objectivity it so loves to wear. I've spent a lot of my adult life in the media or working with media in some way. Humans are biased, and reporters are no less biased than anyone else. I've seen many examples of biased reporters in my lifetime.

Apparently Bob Kohn and I make two people who believe the NYT is biased. Is his book biased? Probably. But it is just an example here. Believe it or not, there is an entire world between the coasts that is distrustful of our media giants.

Journalistic Fraud: How The New York Times Distorts the News and Why It Can No Longer Be Trusted by Bob Kohn

[flere-imsaho]

It now turns out that the New York Times knew, before the 2004 election, about the "spying on Americans" story, but didn't publish it until now (see other thread).

Now, if the NYT was that biased, wouldn't they have published before the election?

[JPhillips]

An update on the writers of this study and the way the "liberal" media didn't report the conservative bias.

None of the outlets that reported on the study mentioned that the authors have previously received funding from the three premier conservative think tanks in the United States: the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI), The Heritage Foundation, and the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace. Groseclose was a Hoover Institution 2000-2001 national fellow; Milyo, according to his CV (pdf), received a $40,500 grant from AEI; and, according to The Philanthropy Roundtable, Groseclose and Milyo were named by Heritage as Salvatori fellows in 1997. In 1996, Groseclose and Milyo co-authored a piece for the right-wing magazine The American Spectator, titled "Lost Shepherd," criticizing the then-recently defeated member of Congress Karen Shepherd (D-UT) and defending her successor, Enid Greene (R-UT); when the piece was published, Greene was in the midst of a campaign contribution scandal and later agreed to pay a civil penalty after the Federal Election Commission found (pdf) that she violated campaign finance laws.

[Flasch186]

ouch

[Easy Mac]

Well I was going to make the "Media finds Study Biased" post, but it seems the facts have beaten me to it.

[Dutch]

How can you left-leaning folks be so sure that Fox News leans to the right?

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by Dutch

How can you left-leaning folks be so sure that Fox News leans to the right?

The same way you right leaning folks can be so sure that CNN leans left.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Dutch

How can you left-leaning folks be so sure that Fox News leans to the right?

It's all just a matter of perception really. And it seems that when you tilt to the left so far that the ground his risen up to meet you, well, perception is apparently skewed just a bit.

[st.cronin]

Does anybody know where the idea of an unbiased media as ideal arose?