Media bias in favour of Conservatives in 2006 election

[Michael Hardner]

The best report I ever read on media bias in America (sorry, no link) concluded that the bias that exists in media is identical to the bias in the social group that produces journalists: upper middle-class and college educated.

They are fairly liberal socially, but favour lower taxes and defer to authority. They trust corporations for the most part, and believe in American institutions. They're not that religious, as a rule, and are suspicious of firebrand preacher types. They're ambitious and are focussed on their careers.

This is the social group that journalists come from. Yes, they are more liberal socially but also supportive of the corporate world. (No big surprise there, as that is where most of them will spend their working lives.)

That to me was the definitive study, and it did a great deal to enlighten me as to how there's a controversy about liberal media, etc.

[normanchateau]

But exactly the same methodology was employed to show a pro-Jean Chretien bias and an anti-Stockwell Day bias in the 2000 election. How could OMPP have foreseen in 2000 that the bias would be reversed in 2006?

Exactly. This isn't bias they're talking about. If it was, then it wouldn't change with every election.

It's reporting.

Yeah, personal beliefs, preconceptions and biases are far more valid and reliable than scientific evidence-based data.

Norman - there's nothing wrong with the data. What I disagree with is that reporting necessarily constitutes bias.

I agree with you completely that reporting does not necessarily constitute bias. However, keep in mind that OMPP analyzed the data in two ways: (1) by news reports and (2) by opinion pieces. As far as news reports go, I can see your point. As far as opinion pieces are concerned, e.g., editorials, I can't.

[Michael Hardner]

As far as opinion pieces are concerned, e.g., editorials, I can't.

Norm,

That doesn't make sense to me. How can it be called bias if it changes from election to election. Editorials are supposed to reflect opinion and the fact that that opinion changes tells me that there's less bias than thought.

[normanchateau]

As far as opinion pieces are concerned, e.g., editorials, I can't.

Norm,

That doesn't make sense to me. How can it be called bias if it changes from election to election. Editorials are supposed to reflect opinion and the fact that that opinion changes tells me that there's less bias than thought.

To answer your question, I'd have to look at the detailed 2000 results broken down by news vs. opinions.

I don't have that breakdown, only the composite data for 2000. But if you look at the 2006 data, you'll see that three of the seven newspapers actually were more negative with respect to the Conservatives on opinion but not on news. So we'd want to compare the 2000 opinion analysis with the 2006 opinion analysis. One takehome message from all of this is that the composite data (news and opinions) might result in different conclusions than analysis of opinions alone.

[Cameron]

Today, newpapers are like cellphones. They are there to make money.

[normanchateau]

Today, newpapers are like cellphones. They are there to make money.

You mean yesterday newspapers weren't there to make money? Tell that to Conrad Black.

[Cameron]

Today, newpapers are like cellphones. They are there to make money.

You mean yesterday newspapers weren't there to make money? Tell that to Conrad Black.

I would rather get to the bottom of it myself. With help from newspapers. I wouldn't use them as my only source. I would like to see an original document if at all possible.

It also depends on where you get your info. If it's from ndp.ca, to use as an example, that would be a more biased source than a general newspaper article or a journal of some sort.

You see where I'm coming from Normie?

[normanchateau]

Today, newpapers are like cellphones. They are there to make money.

You mean yesterday newspapers weren't there to make money? Tell that to Conrad Black.

I would rather get to the bottom of it myself. With help from newspapers. I wouldn't use them as my only source. I would like to see an original document if at all possible.

It also depends on where you get your info. If it's from ndp.ca, to use as an example, that would be a more biased source than a general newspaper article or a journal of some sort.

You see where I'm coming from Normie?

Yes I do now.