Reddit reviews LEFT TURN

Two problems with the article that you cited. One, the author has admitted that he himself is very conservative. While that in and of itself shouldn't disqualify him, it's definitely something to keep in mind. Especially since it undoubtedly helps his books sales, Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind

Two, this score system that they use considers people like Nancy Pelosi to be 100 on the scale. If Nancy Pelosi is a 100 on the liberal scale, then no wonder the media has a "liberal bias". In other words, this scale is heavily skewed so that a 100 is fairly moderate. As a result, the media appears to be liberal as well.

1. Groseclose & Milyo, A Measure of Media Bias, Quarterly Journal of Economics, November 2005. (Later expanded into a book, Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind, 2012) Referenced below by /u/A_Soporific. Abstract: We measure media bias by estimating ideological scores for several major media outlets. To compute this, we count the times that a particular media outlet cites various think tanks and policy groups, and then compare this with the times that members of Congress cite the same groups. Our results show a strong liberal bias: all of the news outlets we examine, except Fox News' Special Report and the Washington Times, received scores to the left of the average member of Congress. Consistent with claims made by conservative critics, CBS Evening News and the New York Times received scores far to the left of center. The most centrist media outlets were PBS NewsHour, CNN's Newsnight, and ABC's Good Morning America; among print outlets, USA Today was closest to the center. All of our findings refer strictly to news content; that is, we exclude editorials, letters, and the like.
   
   
2. Larcinese, Pugliesi, & Snyder, Partisan Bias in Economic News: Evidence on the Agenda-Setting Behavior of U.S. Newspapers, National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper, September 2007. Abstract: We study the agenda-setting political behavior of a large sample of U.S. newspapers during the last decade, and the behavior of smaller samples for longer time periods. Our purpose is to examine the intensity of coverage of economic issues as a function of the underlying economic conditions and the political affiliation of the incumbent president, focusing on unemployment, inflation, the federal budget and the trade deficit. We investigate whether there is any significant correlation between the endorsement policy of newspapers, and the differential coverage of bad/good economic news as a function of the president's political affiliation. We find evidence that newspapers with pro-Democratic endorsement pattern systematically give more coverage to high unemployment when the incumbent president is a Republican than when the president is Democratic, compared to newspapers with pro-Republican endorsement pattern. This result is not driven by the partisanship of readers. There is on the contrary no evidence of a partisan bias -- or at least of a bias that is correlated with the endorsement policy -- for stories on inflation, budget deficit or trade deficit.
   
   
3. Gentzkow & Shapiro, What Drives Media Slant? Evidence from U.S. Daily Newspapers, National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper, November 2006. Abstract: We construct a new index of media slant that measures whether a news outlet's language is more similar to a congressional Republican or Democrat. We apply the measure to study the market forces that determine political content in the news. We estimate a model of newspaper demand that incorporates slant explicitly, estimate the slant that would be chosen if newspapers independently maximized their own profits, and compare these ideal points with firms' actual choices. Our analysis confirms an economically significant demand for news slanted toward one's own political ideology. Firms respond strongly to consumer preferences, which account for roughly 20 percent of the variation in measured slant in our sample. By contrast, the identity of a newspaper's owner explains far less of the variation in slant, and we find little evidence that media conglomerates homogenize news to minimize fixed costs in the production of content.
   
   EDIT: New anecdotal evidence: "CBS News investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson has reached an agreement to resign from CBS News ahead of contract... Attkisson, who has been with CBS News for two decades, had grown frustrated with what she saw as the network’s liberal bias, an outsize influence by the network’s corporate partners and a lack of dedication to investigative reporting, several sources said. She increasingly felt that her work was no longer supported and that it was a struggle to get her reporting on air." Attkisson was responsible for the investigative report on the ATF Gunwalking Scandal where ATF agents knowingly allowed guns illegally purchased in the U.S. to be taken into Mexico by buyers associated with drug cartels; one of these rifles was used to kill a U.S. Border Patrol officer. Attorney General Eric Holder was held in contempt of Congress for his refusal to turn over documents relating to the scandal, and President Obama invoked executive privilege to withhold them.

Ha, good luck winning a war after they have voluntarily disarmed themselves and flocked to cities with no independent sources of food. What will they use as weapons, vegan burgers and plastic Guy Fawkes masks?

The Dems have no solution, only identity politics. The problem is with the 24/7 news cycle the public is getting overdosed with this kind of predictable attack. I don't think the Zimmerman thing and Ferguson thing helped the left at all, both instances made them look like reactionary idiots. The War on Women thing is also wearing pretty thin, the race card is dog-earred all they really have are the young people but liberals aren't reproducing so that's going to dry up as well. We've already seen demographic shifts concerned abortion due in a large part to the fact pro-life people have more kids and pass those values on.

You might enjoy this book, the author and economist, makes the claim, and backs it up that the media basically pulls the country about 25 points to the left. Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind - Tim Groseclose

Here he is on Freakonomics discussing his model.

transcript

Listener questions with Groseclose

Here are some of the interviews he's done on the topic if you're interested.

http://freakonomics.com/2011/08/08/tim-groseclose-author-of-left-turn-answers-your-questions/


>Last week we solicited your questions for Tim Groseclose, a political science professor at UCLA and author of the new book, Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind. The response was fast and furious. A total of 149 questions (and counting) have been posted in the comments section. We selected 14 of them for Groseclose to answer, and he obliged us quite promptly. As always, thanks to all for participating.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1EQiKq_J1s


https://www.amazon.com/Left-Turn-Liberal-Distorts-American/dp/1250002761

You got a source for that? I highly doubt most of the national press is owned by right wing investors. You have a couple of single large ones like News Corp (which even that is arguably not "right wing" in many areas of the company) but the rest are small independents like Breitbart or Rush. ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and all the network affiliates are far larger combined.

This UCLA professor on the other hand concluded the exact opposite - that national press in the US is overwhelmingly liberal and distorts towards the left.

1. The Groseclose-Milyo study is not biased because the author is an admitted conservative. That would make every study conducted by a liberal biased just because it is conducted by a liberal. The methods he uses are not biased and he established the criteria for media bias prior to completing the study. Either way, it is a fascinating study and one that I think should be read by both sides of the political spectrum. The author is very fair in the book even though he admits he is a conservative. But again, this doesn't impact the study itself. Here is his book on the topic. http://www.amazon.com/Left-Turn-Liberal-Distorts-American/dp/1250002761/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1347207808&sr=8-1&keywords=Left+Turn
   
   
2. Yes it is. One is a product. Another is a human being. When abortion was illegal it is true that back alley abortions did occur but abortions as a whole occured far less meaning less lives were taken. Also, you can't just blindly apply that logic to everything since that is a clear recipe for anarchy. There will always be unintended consequences for anything, including law, but you need to look at the whole and determine what will serve the greater good. Outlawing abortion may lead to some more unsafe procedures but in general less abortions will happen. Also, this is all besides the point that it is purely immoral.
   
   
3. It isn't safer for the baby. During an abortion the baby dies 99.999% of the time. During birth the baby usually lives. Also, giving birth in this country is hardly dangerous. Even if you compare the two directly it is so rare for death to occur during birth its really doesn't strengthen your case.
   
   
4. My point here is that people can afford to have children and abortion isn't the only answer. Liberals tend to just push abortion or having your life completely ruined as the only options which is ironic given that they are "pro-choice". I had children at a young age when I was making very little money and my life wasn't ruined by it and we wouldn't have been better off having an abortion. Times were slightly tougher but my life was enriched by having children.
   
   
5. Morality should come into play in a civilized society. Also, it is not a right. We aren't born with the innate right to kill our children and have other people pay for it. We have many rights, many of which are outlined in the constitution, but having other people pay for your killing of your child is not one of them any more than the "right" to have cable TV or an xbox. Also, you keep guiding the argument as if abortion has to happen. If abortion is illegal, there will be far fewer abortions. You are assuming that everyone who gets an abortion now will still get abortions, but just do it in back alleys with hangers.