Redstate

The Drum post was probably designed more to elicit gleeful guffaws from his commenters rather than to seriously address any question you may have had.

Why don't usually hear journalists call those who oppose abortion anti-choice? Or call Mickey Kaus a Republican?  Or call Fox News an extremist political action committee? As far as I can tell, it's because the efficient and polite thing to do is label such groups as they label themselves: pro-life, self-loathing Democrat, and Fair and Balanced.  

Maybe the Heritage Foundation will decide to change it's own label to "centrist defender of the middle class,"  which would also be much too cute.

Or CNN/CBS/BBC/The New York Times left-wing agitprop? Or pro-abortion groups pro-baby-murder (or even pro abortion)? Or A.N.S.W.E.R. a Stalinist organization?

In fact, while we're at it, when in the heck do they call pro-life groups pro-life? I always see "anti-abortion," and if memory serves, that's what the A.P. style book calls for.

Indeed.  Pro-lifers are "anti-abortion activists."  Those who think our taxes are too high are "anti-tax activists."  I've even, on occasion, heard those defending the second amendment described as "anti-gun control activists" or worse, "anti-gun safety," when by all measure, "pro-gun" would be a lot easier to say.

You know, that's a lot of activists for a side that isn't particularly given to activism.

Now, I don't have a problem with the media shunning self-naming, if they are fair about it.  Want to call pro-lifers "anti-abortion"?  Fine.  It's not inaccurate.  But if you do so, make sure you call those who favor it "pro-abortion," not "pro-choice."

Which brings me to something I've always wondered (okay, not really wondered...): shouldn't the pro-choice label be more rightly applied to Republicans, who want to give people choices about how their Social Security money is invested, where their children go to school, etc.?

But no.  These are loony "privatization" schemes that would no doubt ruin the country.  Or at least, I think that's what I heard on the evening news.

Watching Kevin tie himself up in knots is just old fashioned fun and there are so many opportunities.

... doubtless Kevin really believes the NAACP is nonpartisan too.  After all, they never call themselves liberal or a big-D Democratic organization.  What's more, I guess Kevin thinks Fox really is fair and balanced, because they say so.  How we describe ourselves is the only thing that matters.

P.S. Cole is right, we shouldn't devote too much print (bytes?) to Kevin unless he's writing something substantive.  (He is, to his credit, one of the few liberal bloggers who writes things worth engaging intellectually.)  Tit-for-tat on nitpicking is fun but doesn't win us any ideological victories.  This time, however, was good for a few snickers as well as some traffic from our liberal friends.

media the term "partial birth abortion" without the preceeding qualifier "so-called."

...before you started hurling spitballs at Kevin.  I think his post was more about the laziness of reporters if you really think about it.  He's just saying they didn't bother to look past the front put up by the organizations presented.  

Good snarking, though, all around.

Given the media's coverage during this election season and the fact that the EPI is financed and populated heavily with Union forces, aka Democratic party, I have to say this is more than just lazy reporting.

Yes they could've dug deeper, analyzed the figures more -- but to fall back on "well that's how they describe themselves" or "just repeating what they're saying" is not an excuse I'd expect from a professional organization.  Putting a "6 million" figure throughout your headline and article and not identifying its ideological origins (when the opposite is done for critics of that figure) is pretty clear bias.  But perhaps this subject has been beaten into the ground pretty thoroughly...

Hey--what part of your own ideological biases don't you think get in the way of your belief that there is a liberal media bias?  Why do you think liberals say there is a conservative bias?  There is not ONE academic study demonstrating a consistent ideological bias exists accross mainstream news media.  Not one.  And its not for a lack of trying.  What you see in one instance is often countered by another, and often not even what really occured.  When someone says thay never refer to pro-life without saying anti-abortion instead, your memory is faulty.  Systematic searches of ALL news content fail to find these things you think you see.  One instance, or even several, does not demonstrate a bias.  It must be systematic and routine and one-sided.  And its not.  Biases to fret include $$ and lazy journalism, not ideology (although FOX might be giving this one a run for its money).

"(although FOX might be giving this one a run for its money)"

:)

Although I agree with your larger point.  From my own experience, people ready to complain about the media (which sometimes seems to be just about everybody online) tend to see it as having a bias that's an exact reflection of their own views; thus, I perceive a slight leftward bias, NRO sees out-and-out liberals a go-go, Alterman can't throw a rock without hitting a cut-out-your-heart-and-eat-it-raw conservative, etc, etc, etc...

If you really pushed me, I'd admit that the only large publication that I believe has a consistent and systemic bias, a bias that is profoundly partisan, a bias that causes it to ignore big stories that conflict with its views and publish shoddy articles in attempts to attack ideological opponents... is The New York Times.

There is not ONE academic study demonstrating a consistent ideological bias exists accross mainstream news media

There is something wrong about asking the liberal elites in academia to tell us if there is liberal bias in the media.

What you're describing is not called "investigative journalism."

Investigative journalism is when a journalist devotes all his/her time to a buried issue, like what's going on behind the scenes at a state agency. No one involved will straight up tell you, so you have to dig through old files to find the answer.

What you're describing is research.

What you're describing is research.

I'm happy to agree with your terms. All the more reason that basic research should have been done.

you create a situation where you discount any source if it disagrees with your conclusion.  As if Rush were an equally valid source as trained social scientists...

It's accuracy in description.

Semantics is pro-killing babies vs. pro-choice.

...I see conservative bias everywhere I look.  I know it's probably not there all the time, but I see it.  I think you guys are right to notice that it may not be consistent bias, but a bias of perception (at least for the most part).  

I always here people bust out that "80% of reporters are liberals" thing.  Even if that is true (I doubt it, but have no proof one way or the other), the media is owned by large corporations, and we know which way they vote (well, their supporters vote).  And then there's Murdoch.  Once again, I think these forces may balance one another out, but that's the basis from which I conjure up (which is to say, I do accept that I probably create it in my head) perception of conservative bias in the news media...

There are also the overtly liberally biased and overtly conservatively biased "news sources" that I admire for their forthrightness.  For instance, Salon on the left and NR on the right.  You know what you're getting and by virtue of that can learn a lot by taking everything with a grain or two.  Read sources on both sides and you can learn a hell of a lot.  That's why I also frequent blogs on both sides o the sphere.  That's my take on it.  Bias-shmias.  

since you want your complaint to be taken seriously, here's a serious question:

why not just cut to the chase and tell us what the appropriate methodology is for determining with finality whether a given entity is "conservative" or "liberal?"