[lit-ideas] Re: The nature of Media Bias

  • From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 00:12:28 -0800

Just one thing:  Robert Barro is not of The Weekly Standard.  He?s of
Harvard.  He does seem to do his publishing instead of perishing mostly for
Business Week if the following list is representative:  HYPERLINK

Here is Robert Barro?s bio from Harvard: HYPERLINK
economics.harvard.edu/faculty/barro/barro_bio.html   Notice: no mention of
The Weekly Standard.


Here is the Robert Barro?s bio from the Hoover Institute: HYPERLINK



As to the criteria for the Measure of Media Bias analysis, I cited the
original data from the original analysis in my previous note.  There is
indication in it of how the ADA items are used.  However, Groseclose & Milyo
refer to ?back of the envelope? conclusions.  They feel their theory is good
and their conclusions broadly sound, but the research and data aren?t as
thorough as they will eventually be (if I understand them) ? and if I
understand what your objection is.


Lawrence Helm

San Jacinto



-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Robert Paul
Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2004 11:03 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The nature of Media Bias


Let me try to clear up one or two things.


Lawrence writes: 'As to the noted statistics being a "Clever statistical

analysis" of The Weekly Standard, that is rather preposterous.' 


*I'm going to understand this as meaning that Lawrence believes I referred
to 'a

clever statistical analysis' on the part of the Weekly Standard (and not to

clever statistical analysis of that publication). I accept the point that

study was done earlier and was not sponsored but only reported by them. But

there any doubt about who the author of the following is?


'The study takes  the well known rating system issued by the ADA, Americans

Democratic Action and develops a clever statistical technique to measure

conservative or liberal bias in the news coverage of major U.S. television

and radio stations, newspapers, magazines, and the internet.'


*My point was that somebody sees this as a 'clever statistical technique.'

the plain fact would seem to be that he is Robert Barro, of the Weekly


*When Lawrence says that he supposes he '[does] have a problem with using

term "liberal"],' he may have forgotten an earlier exchange between us on a

former list. Lawrence had taken to referring to those on the left not simply

liberals but as Marxist-liberals. When I suggested that not only was this

epithet insulting to many on that list (myself included), he agreed to drop

'Marxist.' I had this in mind when I suggested that he seemed to have

with the word 'liberal' used in some unqualified sense. (What Noam Chomsky

himself is irrelevant to anything that is at issue here.)


*What is importantly at issue here is not just the accuracy or methodology

this 'clever statistical technique,' but how anyone could assess either

knowing what the items on this fanciful ADA list _are_; and how they are

weighted. (Is removing the prairie hen from the endangered species list as

significant as occupying Iraq, e.g.?)  So, I should think that far from its

making no difference--as Lawrence suggests--knowing what things have been

surveyed makes all the difference in the world. That is, if one wants to

this project. 


I'm happy to welcome Lawrence to this list and should have said so before.


Robert Paul

Reed College




No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.296 / Virus Database: 265.5.0 - Release Date: 12/9/2004

To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: