Thursday, February 16, 2006

Moron Mail: Fair and Balanced

A recent KAR study found that 79.7% of people who write letters to the Strib are missing a chromosome. Don't ask questions: it was a totally unbiased study based on non-cherry-picked data conducted by someone with whom you agree - me:

LIBERAL MEDIA?

Study says no


A recent study covering the last nine years of political discussion shows on ABC, CBS and NBC shows a true imbalance in political news coverage slanted toward the right wing (and perhaps the neoconservative).

For every progressive commentator on the Sunday news shows there were four conservatives in the run-up to the 2004 election. It's time to debunk the "liberal bias" myth once and for all.

Those who would accuse the media of a liberal slant would do well to read and understand this report (
mediamatters.org/items/200602140002).

MR. MAGOO, MINNEAPOLIS.

The media is deucedly right wing!

"Proved" by a "study" of Sunday talk shows!

And the study was done by Media Matters!

Which was founded by the same deluded fool who coined the phrase "Right wing noise machine"!
!!!!!

And now we all enjoy a hearty laugh!

[Explosive, sustained laughter engulfs KARNation]

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh and speaking of the "right wing noise machine": I haven't ever received a memo. Has any one? I assume that I am part of this grand machine, yet nobody ever tells me what kind of noise I'm supposed to me making. Anyone?

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!

Sorry. Sorry about that.

Let me compose myself before I make a few observations about the Media (*snort*) Matters (*pfff*) uh, study, that proves -

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

No, no really! I should be serious here because...

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!!

Deep breath. Deep breath.

...

...

Ok. I think I'm ready. Some observations about the "study," which you "would do well to read and understand":

* Media Matters never uses the word "liberal," instead opting for the Orwellian "progressive".

* The "study" concerns itself solely with the one-hour Sunday talkers on the Big 3 networks. This highly scientific methodology doesn't look at the real target of where the vast majority of liberal bias claims are aimed: reporting, editorial decisions regarding placement of stories (did Abu Ghraib merit a front page story ever day for three months on the front page of the New York Times? Not unless you've got an agenda.) and the choice of sources. If you do the calculations, this amounts to approximately 99.99999999976409% of the news media's output (broadcast, cable, print and internet) in a given week. Versus the three hours on Sundays that Media Matters concentrates on.

* The criteria are ridiculously subjective and easily manipulated. One quick example: the "study" counts Zell Miller as a Republican / Conservative. Fair 'nuff - he grew a brain in recent years. However, I would bet a significant amount of George Soros' money that MM did not put guests such as Lincoln Chaffee, Olympia Snow and other Republican equivalents of Zell Miller in the Democrat / Progressive column. MM doesn't tell us.

* David Brock is a flaming tool. Q.E.D.

* MM seems blissfully ignorant of the fact that over the course of the "study" the number of elected Republican officials (the "newsmakers" who generally get booked on these shows), including the entire executive branch increased.

* The "study" merely counts heads. It gives no value to the content (e.g. a conservative guest getting assaulted with withering lines of questioning; a liberal guest getting soft peddled - or vice versa. Doesn't that play into the bias calculus as well?). From pg. 19 (20 in Adobe doc):

Readers should be clear on what we did not do: These classifications do not represent an
analysis of what each person actually said when she/he appeared on a show on a given
date. Coding each guest's comments for their ideological slant would have introduced
enormous difficulties and opportunities for subjectivity. Instead, we simply classified each
guest based on her/his general partisan or ideological orientation.


* The "study" counts George Stephanopolis as "neutral" because he's a "host" now (pg. 21 /22 in Adobe doc).

* No, really: David Brock is a really, really massive tool.

* And George Soros is his sugar-daddy.

* In short, this "study" is worthless for proving MM's, and Mr. Magoo's, thesis.

So there, Mr. Magoo, I read and understood the "study".

If only you understood it too.

No comments: