[niknik]

Originally Posted by Kanda444 ↗

so....we do a quick search (since there is no source for this) and we find it here....at a conservative journalist site owned by conservative billionaire Philip Anschutz. the site, i might add, provides no link to the study (what a shocker...luckily, KandaPanda linked it for you )

so, we have a conservative media outlet claiming that the mainstream media is bias against conservatives and their proof is...well, one study that they quote but dont actual source for their readers (best to just trust what they say instead of actually researching it for ourselves, eh? ). The study, while peer reviewed, is in a journal who says it's "key purpose is to provide a space for connecting debates about the emerging field of Big Data practices and how they are reconfiguring academic, social, industry, business and government relations, expertise, methods, concepts and knowledge."

Big Data and Society Journal is a peer reviewed site, so at least we can trust them...now, on to what the study also had to say: about the methodology used in this study, the study says "Analysing the media coverage of the US election using our Big Data approach revealed the strategic positioning of actors around issues in the ‘mediascape’ of online English language news. We used a semantic graph obtained by parsing the text, identifying the noun phrases and the verbs and linking them and used SVO triplets as building blocks for a network. This approach is innovative and has never been applied to a real-world dataset of this scale. " It also concluded, as the article said, "Results suggest that the 2012 campaign was characterised by Obama’s strategy of defending his record on the economic policy and ‘owning the issue’, by his being ‘on the attack’ about a number of issues and forcing Romney and the Republicans to be defensive about salient issues. The set of triplets show that the 2012 campaign was very much focused on the issues of the US economy and civil rights for the Democrats. The agenda-setting effort was directed towards these two areas. Obama challenged the traditional Republican issue ownership about the economy. Other major actors who played an important role for Obama and Romney were Bill Clinton and Paul Ryan. Overall, media reporting contained more frequently positive statements about the Democrats than the Republicans. Overall, the Republicans were more frequently the object of negative statements either by Democrats or other actors. The Republican Party (GOP) is the most divisive subject in the campaign, and is portrayed in a more negative fashion than the Democrats."

in other words, to republicans:



....

You clearly didn't understand the study. Who fucking cares what the Democrat or Republican message was. That doesn't matter. Media bias does, and the way news is presented does.
The messages or strategy has nothing to do with the media, until they decide to promote a strategy over another.

Like I said previously, the bias in the media is obvious.

[Kanda444]

Originally Posted by niknik ↗

You clearly didn't understand the study. Who fucking cares what the Democrat or Republican message was. That doesn't matter. Media bias does, and the way news is presented does.
The messages or strategy has nothing to do with the media, until they decide to promote a strategy over another.

Like I said previously, the bias in the media is obvious.

i understood the study as well as the implications drawn from it. did you even read the study for yourself or did you just read the article you posted?

In the context of a news corpus about a political election, we introduce a slightly different interpretation of SVO triplets based on the observation that candidates define their political positioning through a set of claims or actions through which they either endorse or oppose issues and actors.

in other words, they measured the media's response to the candidate's claims and actions. it was a statistical analysis that searched for keywords and counted how many times those words were said with positive and negative connotations. your article misrepresented the findings of the study, pure and simple.

the fact is, the republican message was what was being commented on and talked about negatively. these arent just arbitrary negative comments aimed unfairly at conservatives....it was a political strategy of the left to put the right on he defensive but illustrating their views on topics like the economy and civil rights...conservatives responded and their response was viewed as negative. that bias was slight (as the study said). to make it more than a slight issue is really to play the victim card.

the media in the US has always been bias....you know this as you are a fox viewer. you watch a source that you know is bias to begin with. to pretend like it matters only when the bias isnt favoring your opinion is a pretty silly argument to make. the statement 'the US media is bias' is a platitude.

[Kanda444]

Originally Posted by TheVrist ↗

I think anyone with half a brain can tell which way a news outlets leans. Which makes them leaning an none existstant issue, imo. To me, the danger in hidden political influences stems from Hollywood productions.

exactly my point. to bitch about media bias and to claim that it's a sever issue is really making a mountain out of a mole hill and to pretend to be victimized by the actions both sides engage in. it's hard for me to think that anybody who watches MSNBC or FOX would feel like they have legitimate reason to bitch about media bias. if media bias is that horrible of an issue.....stop watching news outlets with obvious media biases like FOX and MSNBC. simple as that.

[niknik]

Originally Posted by Kanda444 ↗

i understood the study as well as the implications drawn from it. did you even read the study for yourself or did you just read the article you posted?



in other words, they measured the media's response to the candidate's claims and actions. it was a statistical analysis that searched for keywords and counted how many times those words were said with positive and negative connotations. your article misrepresented the findings of the study, pure and simple.

the fact is, the republican message was what was being commented on and talked about negatively. these arent just arbitrary negative comments aimed unfairly at conservatives....it was a political strategy of the left to put the right on he defensive but illustrating their views on topics like the economy and civil rights...conservatives responded and their response was viewed as negative. that bias was slight (as the study said). to make it more than a slight issue is really to play the victim card.

the media in the US has always been bias....you know this as you are a fox viewer. you watch a source that you know is bias to begin with. to pretend like it matters only when the bias isnt favoring your opinion is a pretty silly argument to make. the statement 'the US media is bias' is a platitude.

Actually you didn't understand it. You're purposely leaving out the most important part. The media's portrayal of the election. You say it was a political strategy to put the Republican on the defensive. Which wasn't carried out by the left, it was carried out by the media.
After say a debate, the Democrat strategy shouldn't dictate the headlines printed. But it does. What they decide to put in articles or leave out.

Take when Obama said the 80's want there foreign policy back. As a response to Romney saying Russia is the biggest geo political foe. The media ran with it, as if Obama was absolutely correct and Romney was out of touch. That's a perfect example of what the study found.

And that same media, you'd think today, as Russia has many times now flexed it's muscle, threatened the west, pointed to their nuclear weapons, and have a full fledge propaganda campaign going. That the media would play that tape, and question weather Obama was absolutely wrong. But they don't. Because they're bias.

[niknik]

[QU OTE=Kanda444;4651615]exactly my point. to bitch about media bias and to claim that it's a sever issue is really making a mountain out of a mole hill and to pretend to be victimized by the actions both sides engage in. it's hard for me to think that anybody who watches MSNBC or FOX would feel like they have legitimate reason to bitch about media bias. if media bias is that horrible of an issue.....stop watching news outlets with obvious media biases like FOX and MSNBC. simple as that.[/QUOTE]

You're blind. You mention msnbc and fox. As if that's it. And I don't have a problem with cnn msnbc or fox. I'm not even discussing those networks. I'm talking about ABC, NBC, CBS. The main networks. On television, there's no independent network. You bring up fox, Fox is a necessity. The lone "right" leaning news on TV. In a sea of left leaning networks. That's why they constantly attack fox, to discredit them to low information people. Just because they're right leaning, in no way means they're wrong.

There's not a problem with Fox or msnbc. Everyone knows those networks favor a side. Not that I agree fox and msnbc are on the same level at all. The problem is the major networks are presenting one side differently. Even protecting the Liberal candidates. The IRS scandal is a perfect example of that.

[Oswald2001]

Originally Posted by niknik ↗

Actually you didn't understand it. You're purposely leaving out the most important part. The media's portrayal of the election. You say it was a political strategy to put the Republican on the defensive. Which wasn't carried out by the left, it was carried out by the media.

Au contraire.

The Liberal media is an Political Organ of the Left.

Just that simple.

[nyazzip]

"Overall, the Republicans were more frequently the object of negative statements,"

well no shit...i wonder why that is?

[Mr Poo]

Originally Posted by Kanda444 ↗

as for media bias.... the study says it's a slight one:



that is the only time the word 'bias' is used in any form in the study. it then goes on to say:



the study is very clear about why these results were like this:



now, why would republicans feel defensive about salient issues?

Good work Kanda.

Look at the words with a negative connotation, and what Republicans talk about and do. Then look at the positively associated words and what Democrats talk about and do..

It's no wonder there are more negative articles about Republicans, since everything they are associated with is what the mass public of the US is against.

[Kanda444]

Originally Posted by niknik ↗

Actually you didn't understand it. You're purposely leaving out the most important part. The media's portrayal of the election. You say it was a political strategy to put the Republican on the defensive. Which wasn't carried out by the left, it was carried out by the media.
After say a debate, the Democrat strategy shouldn't dictate the headlines printed. But it does. What they decide to put in articles or leave out.

Take when Obama said the 80's want there foreign policy back. As a response to Romney saying Russia is the biggest geo political foe. The media ran with it, as if Obama was absolutely correct and Romney was out of touch. That's a perfect example of what the study found.

And that same media, you'd think today, as Russia has many times now flexed it's muscle, threatened the west, pointed to their nuclear weapons, and have a full fledge propaganda campaign going. That the media would play that tape, and question weather Obama was absolutely wrong. But they don't. Because they're bias.

what a crock of bullshit. why not just say 'i didnt fuckin read the study' instead of trying to pretend using assumptions from an article (one that can be found on Infowars, no less)?

Originally Posted by niknik ↗

You're blind. You mention msnbc and fox. As if that's it. And I don't have a problem with cnn msnbc or fox. I'm not even discussing those networks. I'm talking about ABC, NBC, CBS. The main networks. On television, there's no independent network. You bring up fox, Fox is a necessity. The lone "right" leaning news on TV. In a sea of left leaning networks. That's why they constantly attack fox, to discredit them to low information people. Just because they're right leaning, in no way means they're wrong.

There's not a problem with Fox or msnbc. Everyone knows those networks favor a side. Not that I agree fox and msnbc are on the same level at all. The problem is the major networks are presenting one side differently. Even protecting the Liberal candidates. The IRS scandal is a perfect example of that.

jesus....you didnt think that maybe i picked them as they were the most obvious example? they are all AP wire sources that get their stories from one source and manipulate it as they see fit. this isnt news.....like i said, this may be shocking to you but it's platitudes to most of the rest of us. i didnt list every major news organization because i gravelly assumed that even you would be able to understand that it was an intentionally incomplete listing. my bad.

Fox is a necessity.

that comment is just sad.

[Kanda444]

Originally Posted by Mr Poo ↗

Good work Kanda.

Look at the words with a negative connotation, and what Republicans talk about and do. Then look at the positively associated words and what Democrats talk about and do..

It's no wonder there are more negative articles about Republicans, since everything they are associated with is what the mass public of the US is against.

exactly. the media looks at issues like civil rights....the democrats want equal rights for homosexuals, the conservatives wants inequality. pick nearly any topic and this ends up being the case. you look at congress, you find republicans shutting it down and retarding progress.

....then they bitch about people talking about them in sentence with other 'negative terms' (most of those terms...are the foundations of their policies).