Harvard's research center and "Project for Excellence in Journalism" study: Media has liberal bias

[antiimperialist]

I know nothing about this "Shorenstein Center" or the Project for Excellence in Journalism. If this had been a Heritage foundation article, I would not gone ahead with it. These are the results:

It's unclear to me how they determined what is a positive, negative, or neutral story. It is also worth noting that opinion columns that tell us how to interpret the news are proved to be biased towards the right.

But these are the results. Draw your own conclusions:

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=278808786575124

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Most Of Their Coverage Of The Holocaust Is Also Negative

Q.E.D., they are biased.

[bonito]

2. Self indulging aristocrats n/t

[Nevernose]

3. They didn't prove bias. Maybe the RW just screws up more?

Maybe, as much as she is disliked here, the reason Hilary gets more positive coverage is that she's s a damn sight better than any of the Republican candidates, and with fewer skeletons to boot? (And if you don't like Hilary, insert the Democratic candidate of your choice; personally, I'm hoping for a Gravel/Kucinich landslide :) ).

Maybe there just aren't as many good things to report about Republicans lately (or since the Civil War, for that matter)?

And agreed with the OP: how do they define "positive" and "negative?" During World War II, did the American press demonstrate an anti-Fascist bias?

Breaking, AP:
Harvard study shows that American media culturally biased against Pol Pot regime...

[Sparkly]

4. As Colbert points out, "The facts have a well-known liberal bias." nt

[Nevernose]

7. Who needs facts when you've got truthiness?

I haven't finished the book, yet. I'm somewhere past the part where the sidebar said something like "It's not homophobia, it's homo-cidal." I lost it, like the first time I watched "The Boondocks" cartoon, and the little girl opened with a prayer -- except she replaced the instance of "Jesus Christ" with the words "Santa Claus." Some of the stuff he says on air I'm still a littel shocked he can get away with (my inner conservative?).

The guy manages to walk a fine line, and does it brilliantly.

And screw the Emmys. Stewart and Colbert deserve Peabodies for reporting.

[nickgutierrez]

5. I don't think they're a reliable source.

IBD regularly runs the political cartoons of Michael Ramirez, who appears to me to be a pretty standard ignorant, hateful, dishonest Republican.

Based on a quick scan through their archives, they also appear to be deniers of global warming, and active critics of Al Gore.

[theoldman]

6. Maybe the media is liberal biased because they are more

educated. If the media were conservative they would have to be either ignorant or blind to facts.

[DBoon]

well if you oppose torture, secret detention, and illegal wiretaps

of course you have a liberal bias.

If you care about centuries-old rules of law and justice you are a radical.

[DBoon]

8. dupe

dupe

[papau]

9. here is the study - it seems reasonable - unlike the RW summaries of it

http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/presspol/miscellaneous/invisible_primary.pdf

[mark414]

10. well, there isn't much positive going on in the republican party right now.

that's not bias, that's truth.