|
April 6, 2007 | Every once in a while, we get to read some funny stuff. There is an organization, Accuracy In Media (AIM) with a banner that reads, "For Fairness, Balance and Accuracy in News Reporting". Yes. It does sound a bit like Fox News.
The AIM Mission Statement - Accuracy In Media is a non-profit, grassroots citizens watchdog of the news media that critiques botched and bungled news stories and sets the record straight on important issues that have received slanted coverage. Their site has "stories" they call "columns" and "reports", but if you read these offerings you will see merely "editorials" much like you read here. Maybe we should get a dot org URL? Upon reading the site, we found that the following "story" is rather representative of the organization's offerings for the most part. The story, "NEW EVIDENCE OF LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS", begins with an Editor's Note that reads, " This study found evidence that conservatives were more likely to perceive media bias than liberals, but that both conservatives and liberals detected bias in media outlets that leaned against their political perspectives. In the end, however, because conservatives were more critical of the media both in general and in response to specific outlets, the results seem most consistent with the claim that a liberal political bias exists in the mainstream news media". On the surface, an intelligent reader would think that the Editor's Note was a tickler to get readers whereby the absurdity of the language would be revealed. Not so. Aside from trying to validate the lead in to this "story", poll data used to arrive at the erroneous conclusion suggests that Liberals "were presumed to Strongly Agree with universal health care, embryonic stem cell research, Affirmative Action in college admissions, labor unions, and being Pro-Choice. Conservatives, on the other hand," were presumed to Strongly Agree with allowing school prayer, an amendment to ban same-sex marriages, banning inappropriate books from public libraries, using the military to ensure peace, and in favor of the death penalty." Now, using the above "methodology" definitions and the claim that, "Republicans have turned from traditional news sources to additional media such as Rush Limbaugh's radio program, Bill O'Reilly's TV and radio programs, and the Fox News Channel, while Democrats' viewing habits have remained mostly unchanged" - why can we not say that those defined as Conservative are prone to be narrow-minded, less tolerant, and wildly suspicious of anyone who does not loudly sing "I'm a yankee doodle dandy" before every meal? You might laugh, but the conclusion is as equally ludicrously derived. The definitions seem to point out that religion, sexual intolerance, and censorship are trademarks of conservatives while social responsibility and fairness, equal opportunity for education and allowing for individual choice are seeming trademarks of a liberal. As nutty as these earmarks are, it is easy to see that one side could be more easily mainipulated into intolerance and ignorance than the other. And THIS conclusion "seems consistent with a claim" that just such ignorant and intolerant people would indeed view "Rush Limbaugh's radio program, Bill O'Reilly's TV and radio programs, and the Fox News Channel" as their news of choice. Gee, this kind of logic is fun. Almost as fun as the study inferring that voting records of journalists are indicators of liberal bias in media. Consider - given the definitions above, would you prefer bias from people who seek educated debate or are wholly intolerant of others whose views are in any way opposite? It is the ancient religious fervor, "all or nothing", yet it is the cry of despair. Seriously, look over this "study" and pay close attention to the section entitled "The Key Test" and then read the conclusion closely. It's a real hoot. NEW EVIDENCE OF LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS
4.6.2007 |