Study The Study
Here's an interesting study that suggests Fox News does not have much effect on how people vote. I wouldn't be surprised if this is true. The bigger question, though, is can one extrapolate from this to believe that no news source bias (or even unbiased news) has much effect on how we vote.
I've never been much for blaming things on media bias. Our Mainstream Media doesn't seem to me to lean that strongly Dem or Repub (though things might vary by political issue), nor do I necessarily believe the bias we do have isn't countered elsewhere. But this doesn't mean there isn't any bias or it can't have any effect.
My friends on the right will probably not be too impressed with this study. They may claim Fox News is a drop in the sea against the MSM. Plus, those who seek it out are strong-willed enough to know what they want. On the other hand, the general media puts out the very air we breathe--and it's the Dem's air.
Well, maybe, though I'm pretty sure both right and left believe if the issues were calmly and rationally explained, almost everyone would vote for their side. If nothing else, it's getting unseemly for the Republicans to keep whining when they're winning as never before in our lifetimes.
Columbus Guy says: Not knowing LAGuy's political views, I can't say if he perceives me on the right or the left. But I can say that I don't believe everyone would vote my way if things could be explained. I suspect it's rather a close call and even that things are stacked against me. On my Mencken days, I think most people would rather be coddled, even at immense cost, than have to decide things themselves. I admit, other days I'm Reagan.
BTW, let's get it right. It's Manhattan Media, not Mainstream Media.
UPDATE: Just in case LAGuy's heart is too broken to go back to comments: Graduate teaching assistant Ookami Snow, preparing to end the Best Summer Ever, writes:
Ookami Snow said...
This study is flawed beyond belief. Seriously the *best* that can be concluded from this study is that more people voted for Kerry than Gore. There was no repetition, no direct link, flimsy control, bad assumptions... this was a craptacular job of using statistics.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:09 AM
9 Comments:
If it's the Manhattan Media, then what does MSM stand for?
Ignoring the study altogether (since it was likely more crap fed to us by the MSM), I say that clearly there is bias in all reporting. Clearly basic facts get reported by both sides in a given story. Still all stories get a slant to them (or certainly all but the most basic apolitical) and many get either under or overreported depending on perceived audience reaction coupled with agenda of the reporter. No reporter denies that they have an agenda. All would say (at least)that they want to get the important news out to the people. They (reporters, editors, producers) decide what is "important" largely. Therefore there is bias. Does it affect people's votes?, of course. Often it affects the very issues that will or will not be discussed and voted on or the very candidates who will or will not be voted for.
Anonymous gets it exactly right. Anonymous, on the other hand, is full of shit.
It seems to go without saying that MSM is the widely accepted stylization (I'm not even trying to spell that one) of mainstream media. But I repeat, it is both judgmental and wrong judgment to call Manhattan media "mainstream." They are quite parochial. (And I hope it goes without saying that they are located in DC, too. The reference is to their dominant physical location and the location of their cultural hearts.)
Having now looked at the study (from UC-Berkley), it seems the analysis at least gives big credit to the idea of confirmatory bias. Of course there must be such a thing. People sometimes do try to make the world fit their viewpoint, but people are changing their minds all the time, too. If one looked at polls of Bush's (or any other politicians) popularity one would think people were downright fickle. So, what is the opposite of confirmatory bias?
Also the study seemed old (1996 -2000), as in before Fox news was as big as it is today.
The lead in suggests that Fox news and other right wing outlets that carry the "media bias" meme are having an impact: "THE share of Americans who believe that news organizations are "politically biased in their reporting" increased to 60 percent in 2005, up from 45 percent in 1985, according to polls by the Pew Research Center."
A more general study might look at the number of registered Republicans since Fox News hit the air. Also another factor not measured here which is critical in any political effort is the fervor which people have for their side. Are more or less people out knocking on doors, writing checks, etc.?
I decided to post under my name because it appeared there were several anon.s. I only wrote the anonymous note immediately preceding my own.
As to whether I think if properly explained everyone would agree with me, it is really a silly proposal in many ways.
As an important practicality, in our representative democracy, I don't need everyone to agree with me, just enough people to win on any given point. And I do think that properly explained MORE people would agree with me than currently do. I also think properly explained, a few people would probably disagree who are currently on board for the wrong reasons.
I hope it's clear that I was just kidding when I said Anonymous had it exactly right, while Anonymous was full of shit.
Obviously, in context, I meant it the other way round.
Gee, I was excited about so mamy comments until I saw they were all from Skip or ColumbusGuy.
This study if flawed beyond belief. Seriously the *best* that can be concluded from this study is that more people voted for Kerry than Gore. There was no repetition, no direct link, flimsy control, bad assumptions... this was a craptacular job of using statistics.
Post a Comment
<< Home