airdvr 210 #1 September 7, 2008 http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=301702713742569 The New York Times' refusal to publish John McCain's rebuttal to Barack Obama's Iraq op-ed may be the most glaring example of liberal media bias this journalist has ever seen. But true proof of widespread media bias requires one to follow an old journalism maxim: Follow the money.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #2 September 7, 2008 The media left-biased? Come on. You must be some kind of Fringe-Right, NeoCon, RePUBEican, Nazi, Misogynist, RedNeck, Bible-Thumping, Fascist, Racist (will stop here for brevity) to say something like that "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #3 September 7, 2008 Fox news journalist gave to the democrats but gave zippo to the GOP, thats interesting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #4 September 7, 2008 It's a conspiracy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,156 #5 September 7, 2008 QuoteFox news journalist gave to the democrats but gave zippo to the GOP, thats interesting. They don't have to believe the rubbish that they're paid to promote.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #6 September 7, 2008 QuoteQuoteFox news journalist gave to the democrats but gave zippo to the GOP, thats interesting. They don't have to believe the rubbish that they're paid to promote. Does that mean the others DO beleive the rubbish they're paid to promote?Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #7 September 7, 2008 The cited IBD Op-Ed (reprinted from a blog) is any interesting case, as is the thread title. These are fun lil’ puzzles to me … unfortunately this one wasn’t much of challenge. It was way too easy. Three easy places where the Op-Ed breaks down. (1) Accuracy/reproducibility of data: As someone else pointed out, the figures that William Tate’s used for his Op-Ed note that Fox & Fox News/Fox News Channel (supposedly) gave $41,853 to Democrats and $0 to Republicans. That should be a giant red flag that something is not quite right. Where & how did Tate get these numbers is a valid question? Going to the Federal Election Commission website, which provides an online search engine (paid for with your tax dollars), one can test a few. Encourage anyone/everyone to go do tests for themselves. First, test queried myself and retrieved accurate answers (positive test); second queried my cat and retrieved an accurate answer (negative test). Test 1: Tate asserts individuals associated with the Associated Press gave $2550 to Democrats and $545 to Republicans. Let’s see if Tate’s numbers can be regenerated/reproduced, which should cast some validity or some caution on his figures and analysis. Searching contributions from individuals noting “Associated Press” (entered in the “Employer/Occupation” field) between 01/01/2007 & 09/07/2008 and searching all contributions (both federal contributions and soft money), retrieved the following: BOYLE, SUSAN, WILMINGTON, DE 19802 SPECTER, ARLEN (R-PA) VIA CITIZENS FOR ARLEN SPECTER $250.00 LOTT, C TRENT (R-MS) VIA NEW REPUBLICAN MAJORITY FUND 250.00 GIULIANI, RUDOLPH W. VIA RUDY GIULIANI PRESIDENTIAL COMMITTEE INC $500 REDDAN, ED, NEW YORK, NY 10014 OBAMA, BARACKVIA OBAMA FOR AMERICA $500 DNC SERVICES CORPORATION/DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE $250 Total Contributions: $1750.00 Republican $1000 Democrat $750 So a search using the Federal Elections Commission database generates more donations to Republicans than Tate cites and less for than Democrats than Tate cites for the Associated Press. Test 2: How about New York Times? Tate says $8143 to Democrats and $0 to Republicans. Repeating the test with the same parameters, one finds: MCCOY, RON MR., ATLANTA, GA 30306 MCCAIN, JOHN S. VIA JOHN MCCAIN 2008 INC. $200.00 MCGEE, CELIA, NEW YORK, NY 10023 OBAMA, BARACK VIA OBAMA FOR AMERICA $2300 TSCHINKEL, SIMON, NEW YORK, NY 10016 BIDEN, JOSEPH R JR VIA BIDEN FOR PRESIDENT, INC. $250 Total Contributions: $2750.00 Republican $200 Democrat $2500 (McGee, who does book, movie & theater reviews, likes Obama!) Again, a search using the Federal Elections Commission database generates more donations to Republicans than Tate cites and less for than Democrats than Tate cites for the New York Times. Test 3: Tate claims $104,184 for Democrats and $3150 for Republicans from NBC. NBC is an interesting case to do a test against the FEC database. One finds >>$40,600 (& that’s just through names that begin with the last letter “G”, I stopped there) goes to the GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (GEPAC), which historically contributes more to Republicans than Democrats. Do you think Tate included that data in his Op-Ed, or did he just tally it all into the Democrat column? Dick Ebersol alone has contributed $6900 to John McCain’s campaign. He’s also donated $4600 to Chris Dodd, $4600 to Hillary Clinton, & $4600 to Al Franken. (None to Barrack Obama) In the case of NBC, one individual has given more a Republican campaign than the total for the entire corporation that Tate claims. Test 4: How about one that Tate doesn’t include – the Washington Times? Same method produces the following results: EBERLY, CLARK, ALINGTON, VA 22204 ANDERSON, MARK (R-AZ) VIA MARK ANDERSON FOR CONGRESS $210 JOO, DOUGLAS, BOWIE, MD 20715 ANDERSON, MARK VIA MARK ANDERSON FOR CONGRESS $2300 SUTCLIFFE, WILLIAM, WASHINGTON, DC 20004 BROWNBACK, SAMUEL DALE VIA BROWNBACK FOR PRESIDENT INC $500 Total Contributions: $3010.00 Republican $3010 Democrat $0 Tate doesn’t include that in his figures. Why? And, yes, if one searches the FEC database for Fox/Fox News one does find contributions to John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Ron Paul (as opposed to the $0 Tate claims). If one wants to do a true leftist media source, query “Democracy NOW”, which finds $500 to Obama’s campaign. $0 to Republicans. Additionally if one looks at overall contributions to individual candidates (excluding partisan & non-partisan PACs), per the FEC, the ratio is close to 2:1 for Democratic candidates in the Presidential election. It would not be unreasonable to observe the same basic ratio within any given employment field. (2) Selection bias: There also seem to be a few major media sources not included, such as the Wall Street Journal. (3) Final line technique: Even if one uncritically accepts the Tate’s figures & analysis, the headline “100:1” is misleading and inaccurate. “An analysis [Tate’s] of federal records shows that the amount of money journalists contributed so far this election cycle favors Democrats by a 15:1 ratio over Republicans, with $225,563 going to Democrats, only $16,298 to Republicans. That’s the overall ratio according to Tate’s (selective) analysis. Where did Tate get the 100:1 ratio? He acknowledges selectively eliminating Rudy Giuliani. What else? The 100:1 ratio is the last line of the Op-Ed, a technique to leave the writer’s intended message in your mind. Nevermind if it’s true or not, in this case it’s not per Tate’s own figures. If one wants to believe Tate’s message, one can choose to weigh or rationalize the data however one wants. These are the benefits and risks of a free press and free distribution of rhetoric - ya get both Penn & Teller … and “Loose Change.” The data – as always, I encourage folks to go re-do it yourself: change the parameters, see what you get – doesn’t support Tate’s claims. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,156 #8 September 7, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteFox news journalist gave to the democrats but gave zippo to the GOP, thats interesting. They don't have to believe the rubbish that they're paid to promote. Does that mean the others DO beleive the rubbish they're paid to promote? Well, Bush WAS elected twice.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,156 #9 September 7, 2008 Hmmm - looks like someone is 3 for 3 in posting false info from the GOP in the past few days.Excellent piece of sleuthing! You should send it to factcheck.org ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #10 September 8, 2008 QuoteSearching contributions from individuals noting “Associated Press” (entered in the “Employer/Occupation” field) between 01/01/2007 & 09/07/2008 and searching all contributions (both federal contributions and soft money), retrieved the following: Impossible to re-create without knowing his timeframe. I found different numbers than your by simply expanding the timeframe to include all of 2006.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #11 September 8, 2008 Isn't it amazing at what happens when people get an education....simply amazing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
