The Hilariously ‘Unsophisticated’ Lee Camp
I was laughing more than usual throughout the show. Telling our dad’s new policeman ski buddy that the Old Man “hates cops” had to be the highlight for me, but only because I know how much Pops really does hate cops. That’s going to make for an awkward weekend on the slopes.
Lee Camp’s appearance on the show today topped it off for me. Todd called in with a serious agenda, and I have to say I think he handled himself pretty well on the air… until he tried denigrating Lee. That set Pete off on a Bill O’Reilly-style rant. Oh, the humanity. But Todd made good points about Paul Begala and George Stephanopoulos moving from the Democratic machine into the media, which I think was a counterpoint to Carl Rove moving to Fox News. Lee noted the preposterous imbalance of it all, but Todd’s points were well-made until it all degraded. I think his point was that a party operative moving to a network does not necessarily render the network invalid. Maybe he can clear that up. I’ll say it’s exactly why both CNN and Fox are shams.
Anyway, if you thought Lee was as sharp and funny as I did, check out his website (I guess leecamp.com was taken by a Civil War reenactment group or something) and his MySpace page (2815-friend loser). The priceless clip of him calling Fox News a “parade of propaganda” is on there. He also mentioned 236.com — here’s his link on that site. Busy guy, and very, very unsophisticated.
Brian, your dad doesn’t hate All cops, just most of them. Let’s be honest, you aren’t exactly a cop lover yourself nor is Pete for some very good reasons. This guy is a fellow ski instructor and a friend of Dad’s. Give your poor dad a break, will ya? You too, Pete. Bloggers, their dad is not as bad as they make him out to be. He’s actually a pretty great guy. I, too, enjoyed listening to Lee. Seems like a great guy and is very funny.
Lee,
I do sincerely apologize for losing my patience with you and name calling, if I may rephrase without insult, when you try to paint Fox News as water carrier for Republicans, without apparently realizing the same could be said about other networks and the Democrats, you look like a partisan tool. I’m not saying you are, but … waddle, waddle, quack, quack.
Here’s a link to a UCLA press release featuring a study on media bias. It bills itself as “believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly.”
Brian,
Thanks for being, ahem, ‘Fair and Balanced’ in your assessment of my call.
I like that the British papers openly take sides (by the way, I think Rupert owns papers on both ’sides’). You know which paper is Labour and which is Torrie and there is no pretense of objectivity.
That’s the thing about Fox - they don’t claim to be fair and unbiased. Their personalities span the gamut of opinion. O’Reilly and Rivera went hammer and tongs over immigration (search Youtube, it’s out there).
And to Brian’s point about pretty and dumb reporters for SKY - there is a reason Brits call them ‘news readers’!!
Bottom line - there is no such thing as unbiased reporting, because there is no such that as an unbiased point of view. You can try to be fair and intellectually honest, but lets face it, each of us has a slant which affects the way we view things. It is the reason two people can witness the same event and report it differently.
Does bias mean lie? No. It just means ‘consider the source’.
Todd, that UCLA study has been widely panned. Its methodology, which I realize you may not have seen since the press release (sensibly) doesn’t explain it, is really just bonkers. Here’s what Media Matters (a liberal media watchdog) had to say about the study:
And here’s another cogent critique of the methodology.
Being fucked over by Microsoft right now…IE is being bitchy…thank god i got Safari for windows:) On today’s post, which ain’t up as yet, i do a little piece on both Big Bro and Pete to introduce MY audience to y’all—lawd knows when i’ll get it up [set up there for you Petey boy;)]
ALMOST called in after Todd yesterday.
There’s something like a 30% of the Fox “news” audience that take everythang they say as gospel, then there are those like me who watch it because Fox is funnier than the Daily Show, and we also want to see what NAMBLA Bill O’Reilly’s gonna say next.
Don’t know WHY Big Bro hasn’t pointed out that damn near ALL media in Amerikkka’s owned by Reich-wingers…but it’s the market that dictates their editorial policies!!! You couldn’t have started the Village Voice in Shitcreek Alabama back in the days when cross burnings and lynching was de rigueur…or even give Todd a little history lesson on yellow journalism—how Hearst started a war with it.
i USED to wonder how the hell the nazis came into power until Fox “news” came on the scene
In regards to that Fox 30% M&M, there’s a saying I hear often on Ron Silver’s show.
“You can fool some of the people all of the time…and those are the people we need to focus on!”
Marshall Mathers Revenge.
You are a boob. Got a source for that 30% figure?
Brian,
Thanks for those rebuttal links to the UCLA study. I think they make some good points, especially the Media Matters, which is a first, since the vast majority of that organizations ‘alerts’ are miscontextualized to spin their own left wing view.
Regardless, the method they used was innovative and I’d like to see a similar analysis done with better input samples for the under-represented media outlets, like the WSJ. I think that particular criticism is the most valid - that for some of the organizations they looked at they used over a year of reports, while others were limited to 2 or 3 months.
I would like to see the results with Nylan and MM’s valid criticisms factored in. I think the FAIR study you link elsewhere is also open to methodological criticism. I part because they seem to conflate, as you do, ‘corporate’ with ‘right-wing’. While corporations are certainly going to trend right on economics, I think voter registration and campaign donations conflict with the assumption which assumes they must be right wing. I think many corporate types are socially as liberal/progressive as they come.
Hey Todd, how exactly do you explain the the April, 2007 Pew Research study that found that in terms of knowledge about world events and leaders Fox News viewers are nearly dead last out of 16 “news” outlets? Number one was Daily Show/ Colbert Report. Number two was Newshour with Jim Leher and CNN was in the middle. Let me guess - now you’re going to claim that the Pew Research Center is a liberal think tank. Furthermore, (I can’t find the numbers right now but I will if you really need me to) Fox News viewers have been found far more likely to falsely believe that Saddam was connected to 9-11 and that WMD were found in Iraq. Why do they believe these false things? Because they watch FAUX news.
Todd wrote: “Regardless, the method they used was innovative and I’d like to see a similar analysis done with better input samples for the under-represented media outlets, like the WSJ.”
Their method was certainly innovative, if innovative doesn’t imply sensible. I mean, it is creative, but it’s also completely bonkers and without any grounding in scientific reasoning. And the fact that the people who designed the study have both worked for far-Right think tanks (which they then said were “liberal” for purposes of the study) suggests that they designed the method IN ORDER TO distort the results. So while the word “innovative” might apply, “devious” or “underhanded” or “twisted” would be more apt, I think.
“I think that particular criticism is the most valid - that for some of the organizations they looked at they used over a year of reports, while others were limited to 2 or 3 months.”
Well, sure, that’s a major problem. But how they determined their scale of Right and Left is far more troubling to me. ‘
Come on, Todd, didn’t you think something was up when Brit Hume was considered a centrist? Didn’t that give you pause? Didn’t you think to seek out criticisms of the study? I’ll tell you right now, you won’t find me posting anything to this blog (or anywhere else) until I first look into the veracity of it. You can use that against me in the future. I just think it’s our responsibility to test the information we try to use in our arguments before we share it publicly. It took me just seconds to find criticisms of that study. You really ought to try that before posting erroneous information here. Unless you’re just trying to keep me busy. In which case you should just post stuff that’s harder to refute.
dan,
The study summary is here.
Although, I don’t know that you want to hammer this report, since #3 behind Daily/Show/Colbert and PBS’s Newshour are viewers of O’Reilly. Limbaugh listeners rank 5th just behind NPR listeners. If you combine the High knowledge average with the Med average, O’Reilly and Limbaugh rank 1st and 2nd.
Double-edged sword, anyone?
I think the Pew study can probably be criticized on methodological grounds, however, it is an organization which hasn’t shown itself to be overtly partisan. However, bias is everywhere, so it is a factor. It doesn’t appear Pew overtly skews. The best measure is to read partisan criticisms of Pew’s products to see if any good points made and go from there.
Brian,
One of the most useful aspects of dialog between persons such as ourselves, is that we are both much more likely to know what’s wrong with the opposing view than what is wrong with our own arguments.
I recalled reading and reviewing criticisms of the paper at the time, but somehow missed Nylan (who is center-left, but I believe sincere and fundamentally intellectually honest - such as I believe of you).
I also understand why you would characterize it as you do, but I still maintain their method was innovative. Bias is a hard thing to measure with scientific objectivity, would you agree?
I agree the criticism that they shaped their scope to fit their bias is a strong one, however, I haven’t done enough serious digging to be willing to agree with you as it goes to motive.
You’ve convinced me, however, that the study is flawed enough to withdraw it as a valid counter point.
To Eminems, I have to say Todd is right in expecting you back your own assertions up more. Just because I’m more sympathetic to your views doesn’t mean I can hold them to a different standard. If we’re going to make claims like your 30% figure. You know how to hyperlink, so send us to a source.
On ownership of the media, we don’t even need to talk left and right. All of the major media are owned/sponsored by massive corporations (even NPR and PBS), so what does that tell us? How critical are they going to get? Until we have truly independent media (a monopoly naming a channel Indie Talk does NOT count), we are never going to have reliable information coming in.
That goes for all the blogs and zines and newsletters that rely on advertising. If you’re selling your readers to advertisers, you’re NOT independent. I don’t know or care if the media owners are Republicrats or Demicans, they’re all rich, nearly all white, and nearly all men. How much diversity and fairness should we expect from them?
Pete,
First off let me say that I’m a huge fan of the show. I’ve been listening almost every day since you kicked it off. Because of the unique and open way you’ve decided to run your show, with more dialogue than soliloquy, I honestly believe it has the power to change the way people think in this country over time. I think you have been given a tremendously powerful opportunity and are now shouldered with a tremendously heavy responsibility. That’s why I have to tell you that it sounded way too much like those dramatically, emphatically, dogmatic Patriot and Sirius Left guys you love so much. The guy who called in asking you “Is it white peoples fault that…(insert negative black stereotype here)” clearly hadn’t spent hours thinking of how to best articulate his point, and, yes, he came off as an offensive idiot. The truth is white people aren’t responsible for anything. Neither are black people. Individuals are responsible for their own actions. Seems we often forget this in America. Unfortunately I really don’t think you achieved anything by descending into a condescending war of words with your caller. Now you may feel, and perhaps reasonably so, that this guy didn’t deserve any better, but I think that’s really missing the point: if you handle future situations the way you handled that one you will run the risk of alienating listeners who don’t think the way you do. I didn’t hear you really trying to point out what you considered to be the error in that caller’s thought process. You just went straight to attacking him because you thought he was a douche. Well I’m sure you’ve noticed this already Pete but it’s a douchetastic world out there. You’re going to be fielding a lot of calls from people with douche-like tendencies: douches, douche bags, Douchey McDouchensteins and the like. Consider if you will that those whose opinions you consider the most offensive, least informed, least thought-out, or least valid are probably the same people you really don’t want saying “Screw Pete. I’m listening to Limbaugh from now on.”
And another thing….
Yesterday you made the assertion that, as a white people, we probably shouldn’t say anything about being black in America. I happen to think that mentality doesn’t serve any positive function. Just because I am of one race doesn’t mean I can’t intelligently observe and form opinions on issues affecting another race (do I need to point out that, here in America, what affects one affects all). Nor does it mean that those opinions are automatically rendered invalid by my pasty pasty whiteness. Clearly when I speak on issues affecting a race other than my own I am speaking as someone who has merely observed rather than experienced these issues and anyone listening can choose intelligently how much weight they give to my thoughts based on that fact. It’s quite en vogue these days to say that we need to have an open and honest conversation about race in America: OPEN as long as we don’t say anything negative about anyone whose background differs from our own, and HONEST as long we don’t offend current trends of political correctness.
And while we’re on the subject…
You said yesterday that the few black students who went to your school were, and I quote, “AS WHITE AS I WAS.” Since you did sort of elevate yourself yesterday as one of few white people who really understands the sensitive issue blackness in America I was wondering if you could explain to me what these kids did that made them so white?
What could they have done to be more black in your eyes? My point, Pete, is not that you were wrong to make a comment like that but rather that it is absurd and dishonest to pretend that each and every one of us in this society don’t identify certain traits, characteristics, or behaviors as more white or black or Hispanic or Asian or Jewish. Though we often live next door to one another we often come from vastly different cultures existing side by side within the same communities. That’s America. It is naïve to think that being raised in different cultures will not produce notable differences in behaviors, attitudes, dialects, values, etc. It is the CULTURE of a person, not the RACE, which produces these differences. Can you imagine how many people would be offended by your ‘white as I was’ comment? I think we have reached the point in this society where our ability to be offended is not born from a strong sense of social justice and true outrage but rather we are offended because we have been conditioned to believe that certain things are offensive whether they are valid or not. We have become way too PC. I hope you’ll avoid falling into that trap. For the most part, your voice has been one of openness and true honesty. We need that. Hope the show reaches as many people as possible. Good luck and thanks for doing what you are doing. You are changing minds for the better and that is a monumental task. Keep it coming.
Todd, you’re probably right when you say: “One of the most useful aspects of dialog between persons such as ourselves, is that we are both much more likely to know what’s wrong with the opposing view than what is wrong with our own arguments.”
But back when I was a professional editor, it was my job to test all information that came through, and I had to learn to be especially critical of stuff I was sympathetic to. It’s a really great way to gain confidence in your beliefs and statements. But then again, in arguments, we don’t always share everything we know about our own side’s weaknesses. For me, that’s the hardest part. Which is why I thought it was great when you and me and Travis were all slamming those who poorly represent our “side” of the spectrum. More of that would do us all some good.
I just wanted to take a second and say that I really enjoy what Weston has to say. Keep it up.
I work in the sub prime auto finance industry. You should see the racist crap I see thrown at me/us every single day. These people (many different races) with a previous bankruptcy and reposessions get another chance and then let the car get repo’d again. Almost no finance company will give someone a third shot. We get told that we are racist all the time because of it. Honestly, there is no legal interest rate we can legally charge that would outweigh the risk on loaning these same people more money. BUT, we see lawsuits from various groups saying that we have unfair lending practices and we specifically target latinos and blacks with higher interest rates.
On media ownership, biases, and the like. I try and take in news from as many sources as possible and just infer what I can from all of it. I enjoy the BBC mainly for the accents, but I remember reading a bit about the row they were having regarding their impartiality and how they are trying to impose new guidelines to help keep them somewhat impartial.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6764279.stm
John,
Thanks for the support. I want to make it clear that I’m not trying to promote the idea that it’s good to make assumptions about anyone based on any physical criteria. Individuals should be judged on an individual basis whether we’re talking about corporate hiring standards or interpersonal relationships. It’s unfair to judge a man based on anything other than his own words and actions and whether there is any consistency between the two. I have a similar experience to yours in that I catch shoplifters for a living. The number is not huge but I’d estimate that 1 in 10 african americans I catch shoplifting will either blatently or subtly accuse me of being a racist. Of course it bothers me because I try to follow the golden rule with everyone I come across in life. The truth though is that I’m not really the one his is being hurt by this mentality. It’s the person making the accusation who is hurting themself with this kind of thinking. As long as we find some other person or entity to blame for our own negative behaviors we are bound to repeat them. I guess what I’m trying to shine a light on here is that we seem to be living in the age of entitlement and people are starting to lose touch with the notion of personal responsibility: a trend that really needs to change if our country, the great melting-pot, is to continue to flourish.
Great point Weston. I see this sense of entitlement everyday and I once read an article on “white privilege”; unfortunately the article is no longer available, but it basically outlined the fact that, in a passive way, whites are still privileged in the sense that they still encounter less friction when functioning in today’s society. I totally agree that pulling the “race card” usually hurts the person pulling it more then the intended target. No one, regardless of race, religion, or gender should feel they are entitled to anymore then anyone else.
On the subject of poverty:
The department of health and human services defines poverty for a family of 4 in America as an annual income under $21,200. I think this number should probably be higher but I don’t make the rules so let’s roll with it. By this standard one full time worker earning $10.19 per hour can support a family of 4 and stay above the poverty line. Does anyone out there beleive that, barring mental or physical disability this should be a fairly manageable goal for any literate person with a high school diploma? With the state of our economy, do you beleive that there are many people out there working as hard as a person can be expected and still failing to stay above the poverty line?
Yes, O’Reilly and Limbaugh did rank high - why? Because the Pew study looked at knowledge of world events/leaders, not whether the people actually have their information correct (and the same could be said for those getting their info from Daily Show). People who watch O’Reilly & Limbaugh are people who CARE about events (I would argue they’re getting false info, but that’s for a different debate). So what is more important about the Pew study is what it says about people who simply turn on a news channel for a few minutes a day. It shows that those who get their news from Fox, don’t gain knowledge of world events & leaders.
Plus you failed to address what I said about Fox viewers believing Saddam was linked to 9-11. I’m sure you’ve seen the studies. They must bother you a little as a person who claims to care about the truth.
Also Todd, you argue that CNN and MSNBC are left-wing. If they’re left-wing where were they on the lead up to the Iraq war? Did you ever see a report that wasn’t in lockstep with the administration? Did you see a lot of hippies running around and yelling “give peace a chance!” No. It was pro-war the entire time because they aren’t left-wing. They’re centrist at best!
And finally, there is independent media but it doesn’t get talked about much, Democracy Now for example.
Bryan,
I’m with you. This is why I wonder if some of the sermonizing of Jeremiah Wright doesn’t do more harm than good. He’s trying to point out injustices but is he encouraging people to take the right actions to fix these injustices or merely fostering a mentality of victimization?
Dan, you said:
“Plus you failed to address what I said about Fox viewers believing Saddam was linked to 9-11. I’m sure you’ve seen the studies. They must bother you a little as a person who claims to care about the truth. ”
It is next to impossible to prove a negative. You can only prove that Saddam was involved and not that he wasn’t.
This is why in our country you are innocent until proven guilty. Can you imagine how hard your burden would be if you had to prove your innocence?
On JfC’s last comment, I don’t think anyone is asking for PROOF that Saddam was connected to Al-Qaeda or 9/11. The burden really is just serious EVIDENCE. But even that hasn’t turned up.
But since there’s no legitimate reason to believe Saddam was involved, the only reason to believe it is someone told you it was true, and you’re wicked gullible and did not demand evidence. If we could show that the viewers of a particular news outlet are more likely to believe falsehoods that were presented without evidence, or without critical views of the evidence found elsewhere, we could learn a lot about the viewers of that outlet.
So a willingness to believe Saddam was behind 9/11, besides how illogical it would be, is definitely substantial.
I’m really enjoying all this discussion about race and perspective and the tenor of the show that Weston started. I don’t want to engage right now because I think there’s a lot for me and Pete and the others involved with the show to learn from your open dialog here. But I do want to clear up one thing. Weston wrote:
I think Pete said ONE of his friends was “as white as [he] was” — not all of them. I could be mistaken and I only heard it once when it was live. Maybe someone can clear that up. I won’t comment on whether it was a dumb thing to say or not
Weston,
I wish there was a straight answer to that question. Perception plays a huge role when it comes to interpreting something like Rev. Wright’s sermons. I personally never owned a slave, never bombed a country, and never subjected anyone to torture (unless banging out that last rep at the gym is personal torture) so I don’t believe I should be lumped into any category due to my residency in a particular country, the color of my skin, etc. I believe emphasis should be placed more on the solution then the cause. Blame won’t fix shit.
dan,
Pew was studying public knowledge of current events. This required answering questions about current events and office holder identities.
In your post, you criticized Fox’s low ranking by comparing it to the Daily Show. I was pointing out that Fox’s highest rated show has viewers with high knowledge levels of current events. Also, Fox’s ratings across the 3 categories almost matches the average of all media sources. Does that mean Fox isn’t informing their audience or that their audience is of average intelligence?
The day programming on all 24 hour cable news is aimed at the largest common demographic. I don’t know many smart people who even get their news from cable TV, not in any significant part.
‘Online news discussion blogs’ (like this one) ranked only 2 points higher than Fox News!
I also find interesting the absence of ‘talk radio’ as an aggregate category. I’d also like to see the aggregate numbers on Hume’s Special Report audience.
Regardless, you really should regroup and try a different tack than using this study as evidence of “Faux” news. I would very much like you to point me to the numbers that support your claim that:
Have you taken the online version of the Pew Survey? I scored 12/12/
Brian said,
Why is there no legitimate reason to believe Saddam was involved? Is plotting to assassinate a former US president reason enough to be suspicious? Are training camps with airplane fuselages (Salman Pak) legitimate reasons for suspicion? Do captured documents indicating al Qaeda’s number 2 was in Iraq before the US invaded Afghanistan, returned there for treatment of battlefield wounds after and received stipends from the Iraqi government count as legitimate cause for suspicion?
Weston,
I think your comments on race are spot on. I grew up with very little overt racism or bigotry. Our neighbor in the US AF Academy base housing was a black Captain married to a white woman. Whenever his kid was visiting, I would spend all my time with him. (this was the last year we lived there, so it wasn’t much). Point is, I grew up largely without forming a colored lens of people.
High School was a shock, moving to FL where 25-30 percent of the government HS I attended was black - but more because of culture than color. As a new sophomore I knew, for instance, that I was being taunted when I walked past the self-segregated black lockers, but I had no idea what they were saying. Many of the black guys had their belts/top buttons undone and would be holding their johnsons and making crude comments about every pretty girl (black or white) who walked by.
I already knew enough to know better than to over-generalize all blacks based upon my first experience with black HS culture in Melbourne, FL, but I’ve since met many other people who have had similar experiences.
I guess that is where the umbrage from that race caller whom Pete called a douchebag (by the way Pete, I only called Lee Camp a partisan hack and insinuated he was a dumb ass, isn’t that a nicer way of saying ‘douchebag’?
) - many whites have experienced first hand black anger (usually in government schools, I’d wager) and don’t want to hear about how we should tolerate more of the same as adults because we aren’t black. Well guess what - I am colorblind and a lot of blacks, their experiences with racisms notwithstanding, are just being petulant assholes.
If blacks want some whites to blame for the disintegration of the black nuclear family (which I contend is a primary root cause of the decay of social order, no matter what race) - they should look to the ones who made so many blacks dependent upon government handouts, which are conditioned upon there being only one parent to the children in the home.
Who is the wealthiest woman in the US? What color is she? Did she know black poverty? Who is the Secretary of State? Did she know black poverty? Did she know racism? Were her friends killed in a church bombing?
I’m so f’ing sick of the whining victimized bullshit which dominates our public debate - and that isn’t limited to discussions of race - everybody seems to be doing it.
Okay, I am white and male and I am a victim too. So many times, I or people in my same fallice-having melanin-poor class, get passed up for jobs or promotions because people of other protected classes applied for them.
It’s true John. It’s just as racist for a company to strategically employ certain races in order to be considered a diverse work environment, regardless of the qualifications of the applicants.
Todd, the University of Maryland study you asked for can be found here: http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php?nid=&id=
It’s in PDF format so I can’t send you directly to it. Scroll down to page 15 to see that in this particular study 80% of Fox News viewers had one or more misperceptions as opposed to 55% of CNN viewers and 23% of NPR viewers.
And seeing as you just a moment ago admitted you believe Saddam caused 9-11, the study appears to be correct. Fox News strikes again.
Furthermore, you ask me to take a new tack yet don’t answer half of what I speak about. Would you like to comment on the fact that not one of these supposedly left-wing networks gave regular opposing views to the pro-war drumbeat before entering Iraq? The only anti-war voice on any of the networks, Phil Donahue, was promptly fired by MSNBC. Yeah, there goes that incredly left-wing CNN showing us how well tanks work and how Iraq definitely has WMD. Damn hippies!
dan,
Oh I recall that study now. As I recall at the time it was issued, I thought the conclusion was a little bit premature, considering the time frame - the report is dated barely 6 months after we invaded Iraq. I don’t think the first ISG report was even issued.
Upon skimming it again, I see it was framed more around positive assertions which were unsupported by evidence at the time. So, thank you for the source. I will try to look it over this weekend and the only caution I would offer is that correlation doesn’t equal causation. I know that sounds like I’m pro-Fox News, but really I find most of it unlistenable, but that is true for all 24 hour news. I’m an information age news consumer and think sound bite media is bad for us. Consider me a Jon Stewartite on that score.
As for your snark about me believing in a 9/11-Iraq connection, I don’t believe I said that, did I? One, I didn’t say that, two I don’t watch Fox News. Nice try though.
I wrote,
I regretfully must table this withdrawl after reading Groseclose and Milyo’s response to Geoff Nunberg’s criticisms of their study. It turns out this has been a working paper since at least 2003 and was presented for critique at academic seminars at presented at Stanford, George Mason, Duke, Yale, MIT/Harvard, and Princeton.
Their response seems to address most of the criticisms you’ve linked here, especially those of selective bias on their part. They address that point most emphatically in the Nunberg response. It seems to turn on a misunderstanding of statistical regression analysis, of which I make no claim of expert knowledge, though I do know a bit due to my interest in economy theory.
Anyway, I urge interested readers to check out their defense of their methods and scholarship.
Todd, you’re welcome to your opinion, but I have to say I do not understand how anyone can even think their methodology makes sense. And look at the results of what they did in terms of rating think tanks (according to how they were cited by whom on the floor of Congress). This is from the Media Matters critique:
Anyone familiar with the work of these think tanks knows this is a total sham. Using that scale to judge media groups — as if think tanks are the only important sources anyway! — is just bonkers, and I’ll add shameless. There’s no way the authors didn’t know better.
What’s most telling is the Center for Responsive Politics rating. All they do is collect info on political contributions. Somehow that’s a “liberal” thing to do? They have got to be one of the most non-partisan groups around! Just because they were cited more by Democrats in Congress, presumably, that makes them liberal? Oh my god, how stupid is that? They’re the most popular research group tracking political funds, which means most media outlets use them extensively, which skews those media outlets to the left, no matter how they used CRP’s data… Give us a break!
So essentially what you’re saying Todd is that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"?
Brian,
Did you read their response in its entirety?
Do you have something to point out to me, Todd? Do you intend to argue that RAND and CRP are liberal? Do the UCLA study’s findings convince you that the ACLU is "conservative"? I find it difficult to believe that you can’t yield on this one. At the very least, if RAND is a liberal think tank, then there’s no relevance between that definition of "liberal" and the one most Americans have in mind. Therefore, the study would be completely irrelevant.
What if I spent days trying to convince you that the sky is "green", and you said, no, don’t be ridiculous, it’s blue. And then you came to my house and looked through my window, which has a green tint to it, and saw that, indeed, it does look green through that window. And then I said, everyone should agree the sky is "green". You would say, no, the sky is still blue — everyone else sees a blue sky out their window, and we can’t very well change the definition of "blue" to that of "green."
The UCLA guys are trying to redefine liberal and conservative so they can flip the real bias of the media, or at least muddle it. But without a sensible, generally universal understanding of "liberal" and "conservative", their conclusions are useless, at best, and really just underhanded.
Add to this the fact that both of these goons have been fellows at conservative think tanks, and it doesn’t take a genius to figure out what they were up to.
You two need to go sit in time out for a little while. Really, who cares about this? Will it impact our lives, no. Will it change the way we do things, no.
Can we please move all of this energy into some place a tad more productive?
John,
I think it is productive to have meaningful disagreements, especially over claims of bias in the medium in which most of the public rely for accurate reporting of events which directly affect their lives.
I cannot help that Brian has a huge chip on his shoulder where I’m concerned. I cannot help that he began our ‘relationship’ (kiss, kiss, big guy) with assumptions about my motives and/or intelligence that he cannot let go, despite my attempt to resist my own initial assumptions about him (some of which were clearly wrong).
I also cannot help that he seems to simultaneously hold the view that, on one hand, bias says nothing about honesty (eg, FAIR, which he states is ‘impeccably honest’) yet on the other the association of two scholars as ‘goons’ because of their association with ‘conservative’ think tanks is reason enough to believe the critique from his own biased source.
If that ain’t a double standard, we need a new definition.
Brian,
As for the content of your argument, when the guilt-by-association illogic is stripped away, we’re left with the Media Matters critique and their response. Media Matters says they are cherry picking sources, the authors, both of whom are scholars in their own right, professors at respected universities, with advanced degrees in business, economics, political economics and math & computational science, answer in the link I provided.
This is why I asked if you’d read it. I found the MM critique compelling, until I read the scholars’ response to the specific criticisms. That is why I tabled my withdrawl of their study as a source. It appears a good deal of the MM critique centers on a misunderstanding of statistical regression analysis. The authors acknowledge this in the response link I posted.
They also review other studies of media bias and discuss some of the methodological problems associated with those studies. The ICPP study dan linked the other day is mentioned in this review. I think it makes an important point - that the bias in that study is built in one way. What it doesn’t ask are questions designed to see if there are common misperceptions from the left:
But I digress.
Brian, please read their response and try to get past what appears (to me, at least) to be a serious double standard, as I mentioned above to John. Also, it might not hurt you to actually read their entire study, which was a working paper for 2-3 years and was presented for review by other academics at respected institutions:
Understanding this is key to understanding why the MM critique ultimately has no legs.
By the way, the CV of the study’s authors are here and here
if it matters to anyone.
John, I know what you are saying and I want to agree with you and just back off. The problem is, if this is my blog (mine and Pete’s, but I’m expected to maintain it regularly as part of our arrangement), then I don’t feel right just leaving stuff to hang out there that I think is dreadfully wrong.
Of course, if this blog wasn’t my responsibility, I would easily ignore all of the misinformation and distortion that got posted here, as I ignore it on the rest of the Web. But if I were to let people post erroneous stuff here and not counter it, I don’t think I’d be able to participate here. What I really wish we had was someone with as much time on his or her hands as Todd seems to have who could counter Todd’s prolific postings. Or, better yet, a ton of people who would do it. That’s happening to a good extent, between Dre, Travis, you, and several others. And I’d gladly step back if I thought the role would be filled. Until then, I just can’t let this stuff hang, and I can’t delete even the most erroneous stuff, so I feel kind of stuck…
Or if Todd would in fact back off, I’d be totally relieved. What I can’t figure out is, if he’s not getting paid to comment, and he’s not associated with the blog officially, what on earth could be driving HIM to do what he’s doing. That really boggles the mind…</