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 "http://post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/barro/popwritings.html"http://pos t.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/barro/popwritings.html Here is Robert Barro?s bio from Harvard: HYPERLINK "http://post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/barro/barro_bio.html"http://post. 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 "http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/bios/barro.html"http://www-hoover.stanford.e du/bios/barro.html 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 a clever statistical analysis of that publication). I accept the point that the study was done earlier and was not sponsored but only reported by them. But is there any doubt about who the author of the following is? 'The study takes the well known rating system issued by the ADA, Americans for 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.' And the plain fact would seem to be that he is Robert Barro, of the Weekly Standard. *When Lawrence says that he supposes he '[does] have a problem with using the 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 as 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 the 'Marxist.' I had this in mind when I suggested that he seemed to have difficulty with the word 'liberal' used in some unqualified sense. (What Noam Chomsky calls himself is irrelevant to anything that is at issue here.) *What is importantly at issue here is not just the accuracy or methodology of this 'clever statistical technique,' but how anyone could assess either without 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 discuss 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