From: Ant McWatt (antmcwatt@hotmail.co.uk)
Date: Mon Jan 31 2005 - 21:46:33 GMT
Platt Holden stated January 30th:
Thanks for the quote. I wrote the following poem in 1990 to my daughter
who was dying of brain cancer. If I understand what Merrell-Wolff says, my
poem reflects his view, at least partially. I wonder if you agree.
Ant McWatt states:
That's a very thoughtful poem which will be a keeper.
In comparison the post that I had written about media bias over the weekend
seemed rather trivial but as I had already said that it would be sent in (to
properly support my previous conclusion about Goldberg), here it is - for
what it’s worth:
Platt Holden stated January 27th:
Check "Media Bias Basics" on the MRC website.
Ant McWatt responed January 28th:
I have now looked at this page and will provide my full analysis of it over
the weekend though I will state now that if it was a student essay I would
fail it as regards providing reliable academic sources.
===================================
Ant McWatt expands on the above conclusion:
The most prominent and credible report on the MRC’s "Media Bias Basics"
webpage is provided by S. Robert Lichter (of George Washington University).
However, not only is this report now twenty-five years out-of-date, it
relies on a fallacy that just because a majority of journalists (seemingly)
have a “liberal” bias then the media organizations that they work for will
also have liberal bias. This doesn’t follow, as I think Mark H has pointed
out elsewhere. The mass media are predominately right-wing because they are
owned by a few capitalist supporting media corporations who dictate
editorial policy. So even if a capitalist owned newspaper has a majority of
communists making-up its journalist contingent, the newspaper will still
tend to have a conservative bias.
Secondly, there is the issue with advertisers – as the majority of these in
the US and the UK are capitalist companies and corporations – any
publication that goes too far out of line (e.g. starts having an anarchist
editorial policy) will have its advertising withdrawn and, as a consequence,
often lose critical revenue.
Thirdly, Robert Lichter is very much biased towards a conservative agenda.
Lichter was a fellow of the conservative American Enterprise Institute which
was endorsed by leading right-wing figures (such as Ronald Reagan, Pat
Buchanan, Ed Meese and Pat Robertson) and his public statements reveal a
conservative worldview. Moreover, the Scaife Foundation, a major right-wing
funder, provided money for Lichter and his wife money towards their book,
“The Media Elite”. However, as Jim Naureckas’s confirms in his 1992 paper
“Study of Bias or Biased Study?” the book was criticised by academics
because of its methodological flaws:
“The study featured in the book, based on interviews with journalists
conducted in 1980, was widely criticized by scholars for methodological
flaws. (See Columbia Journalism Review, Nov/Dec ‘85, March/April ‘87;
Journalism Quarterly, Winter ‘87; Journal of Communication, Spring ‘88.)
Although it has long been touted as proof of liberal journalistic bias, the
study (based on a small, dubiously representative sample) failed to prove
much of anything.”
“Despite the Lichters’ objective posture, the methodology used in most of
their research is not scientific. They have used it in the past to "prove"
entirely dubious claims, such as the idea that Jesse Jackson was the
candidate with the most positive news coverage in 1988, or that George Bush
got as much negative coverage as Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War.”
“In analyzing media coverage, the Lichters single out what they judge to be
‘thematic messages’—explicit statements of opinion or evaluation. Usually
the Lichters determine that such statements make up a very small proportion
of the statements found in news reporting—yet proceed to generalize about
coverage as a whole based on this tiny percentage.”
“The Lichters’ tendency to generalize from a narrow sliver of data is the
principle way that their studies end up supporting their preconceived
conclusions of left bias. Take the Center’s report on Gulf War coverage
(Media Monitor, 4/91) and its widely cited claim that ‘nearly three out of
five sources (59 percent) criticized U.S. government policies during the
[Gulf] War.’ This, of course, is not 59 percent of all 5,915 sources, but of
those 249 sources (4.2 percent) who in the Lichters’ judgment stated an
explicit position. This leaves only 148 sources, or 2.5 percent of all
sources, who made explicit criticisms of U.S. policy (from the left, right
or center).”
“On what basis can you generalize from the 4 percent of sources who
supposedly expressed overt opinions to the 96 percent who didn’t? Doing so
results in absurd claims, such as, ‘Surprisingly, the U.S. government fared
little better than its Iraqi counterpart in the soundbite battle.’ That
would be surprising, considering that 44 percent of total news sources were
from the U.S. government, according to their own research...”
http://www.fair.org/reports/lichter-memo.html
===============================================
Naureckas also notes numerous other flaws with Lichter’s research
methodology.
As far as the other papers cited on the MRC’s "Media Bias Basics" webpage I
couldn’t see any other independent university study other than possibly a
1982 report which the MRC vaguely refers to by “scholars at the California
State University at Los Angeles”. Without any further bibliographical
details it would be difficult to check what report this exactly is, who
wrote it and whether or not, it was sponsored.
The sponsored university research cited by the MRC included only two studies
anyway. The first is a 1992 study carried out by “two Indiana University
professors” (again very vague) who were funded by the Freedom Forum. This
would require further analysis into exactly what the Freedom Forum
organization is and the restrictions, if any, that they stipulated for the
research they funded. The only other university research cited was the
“American Journalist in the 21st Century Survey” by Weaver, Beam, Brownlee,
Cleveland Wilhoit and Voakes in collaboration with the Indiana University
School of Journalism and sponsored by the John S. and James L. Knight
Foundation. Again, this would require further analysis into exactly what
the Knight Foundation is and the restrictions, if any, that they stipulated
for the research they funded. The MRC was also very selective about what
it reported from the latter three studies which is suspect as far as what
the general conclusions of these studies actually were. No links to the
full reports were given.
Finally, though there were a number of studies on the "Media Bias Basics"
webpage concerned with the political affiliations of journalists (such as
the four mentioned above) there were no studies examining the affiliations
of CEOs or the owners of mass media organizations.
As such, unless some other genuine corroborating research can be found
elsewhere for Bernard Goldberg’s books, we have to conclude that Mark
Heyman’s January 18th assertion about Goldberg seems largely accurate:
“Platt’s example of Goldberg’s books is unconvincing. These books offer
nothing to corroborate the author’s opinions: no notes, no internal memos,
no references, nothing even approximating legitimate research. There is no
way to verify that his opinions are anything more than a vague web of
anecdotes, hearsay, and unsupported generalizations stemming from some
personal ax-grinding.”
Best wishes,
Anthony.
_________________________________________________________________
Use MSN Messenger to send music and pics to your friends
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries -
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jan 31 2005 - 21:57:50 GMT