Of course they are. Every news outlet has a bias, and that bias determines what they cover and how much they cover it. MSNBC plays up Las Vegas, Fox plays it down. Fox plays up Benghazi, MSNBC plays it down.
To whom is this not obvious?
How much does right-wing rhetoric contribute to right-wing terrorism?
- Thread starter Goober
- Start date
To whom is this not obvious?
Which kind of begs the question, why does anyone even bother watching the "news" anyway? If all you're going to get is spoon fed information, which may or may not be somewhat fictional (or at least omitting a part of the story), why not just watch complete fiction?
900 channel universe and one of those channels is HBO. Violence, nudity and strong language, beat that FOX/MSNBC!
Seriously, why would anyone bother.?
I think every bat in the world flew over the US and parts of Canada, and they all shat at the same time.
That's a lot of bat shat
Guano take a long time to clear up
Dunno if we have that longl.
I'm not saying that news orgs don't have bias, sadly its pretty much a given these days, but that accusation is a huge leap.
Bornruff got a timeout?
Is being an irritating a$$ actually punishable under the forum rules:lol:
A giant brain fart and he should have known better to have posted a PM. The secondary, well, he may want to chat about that.
Yeah, it sucks when somebody talking about Fox on a blog is as drooling insane as Fox is.
PEW research
I understand they do quality studies???
U.S. Political Polarization, Global Views of Brazil, Bergdahl Exchange
The polarized Congress of today has its roots in the 1970s | Pew Research Center
The researchers aggregated roll call votes to locate each member of Congress, from 1789 to the present day, on a two-dimensional grid. One dimension represents the traditional liberal-conservative spectrum; the second picks up regional issue differences, such as the split between Northern and Southern Democrats over civil rights in the 1950s and 1960s. As Poole and Rosenthal note, those formerly significant regional distinctions have declined in importance — or, more precisely, merged into the overall liberal-conservative divide: “Voting in Congress is now almost purely one-dimensional — [political ideology] accounts for about 93 percent of roll call voting choices in the 113th House and Senate.” So we used just the ideological dimension in our analysis.
We took the vote scores for every senator and representative in five Congresses, one in each of the past five decades, and ordered them from most liberal (scores of -1 to 0) to most conservative (0 to +1). Then we sorted them by party to see how much overlap — if any — there was between Democrats and Republicans (for simplicity, we excluded the handful of independents).
In 1973-74, there was in fact substantial overlap. In the House, 240 members scored in between the most conservative Democrat (John Rarick of Louisiana) and the most liberal Republican (Charles Whalen of Ohio); 29 senators scored between New Jersey’s Clifford Case (most liberal Republican) and James Allen of Alabama (most conservative Democrat).
A decade later, though, that had already begun to change. By 1983-84, only 10 senators and 66 representatives (except for Rep. Larry McDonald (D-Ga.), who scored more conservative than every single Republican) fell between their chambers’ most liberal Republican and most conservative Democrat. By 1993-94, the overlap between the most conservative Democrat and the most liberal Republican had fallen to nine House members and three senators. By 2011-12 there was no overlap at all in either chamber.
What’s happened? In large part, the disappearance of moderate-to-liberal Republicans (mainly in the Northeast) and conservative Democrats (primarily in the South).
I understand they do quality studies???
U.S. Political Polarization, Global Views of Brazil, Bergdahl Exchange
The polarized Congress of today has its roots in the 1970s | Pew Research Center
The researchers aggregated roll call votes to locate each member of Congress, from 1789 to the present day, on a two-dimensional grid. One dimension represents the traditional liberal-conservative spectrum; the second picks up regional issue differences, such as the split between Northern and Southern Democrats over civil rights in the 1950s and 1960s. As Poole and Rosenthal note, those formerly significant regional distinctions have declined in importance — or, more precisely, merged into the overall liberal-conservative divide: “Voting in Congress is now almost purely one-dimensional — [political ideology] accounts for about 93 percent of roll call voting choices in the 113th House and Senate.” So we used just the ideological dimension in our analysis.
We took the vote scores for every senator and representative in five Congresses, one in each of the past five decades, and ordered them from most liberal (scores of -1 to 0) to most conservative (0 to +1). Then we sorted them by party to see how much overlap — if any — there was between Democrats and Republicans (for simplicity, we excluded the handful of independents).
In 1973-74, there was in fact substantial overlap. In the House, 240 members scored in between the most conservative Democrat (John Rarick of Louisiana) and the most liberal Republican (Charles Whalen of Ohio); 29 senators scored between New Jersey’s Clifford Case (most liberal Republican) and James Allen of Alabama (most conservative Democrat).
A decade later, though, that had already begun to change. By 1983-84, only 10 senators and 66 representatives (except for Rep. Larry McDonald (D-Ga.), who scored more conservative than every single Republican) fell between their chambers’ most liberal Republican and most conservative Democrat. By 1993-94, the overlap between the most conservative Democrat and the most liberal Republican had fallen to nine House members and three senators. By 2011-12 there was no overlap at all in either chamber.
What’s happened? In large part, the disappearance of moderate-to-liberal Republicans (mainly in the Northeast) and conservative Democrats (primarily in the South).