With some surprising results.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664

wrote in message
nk.net...
With some surprising results.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664

Read the whole report he
http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/...dia.Bias.8.htm

wrote:

wrote in message
nk.net...
With some surprising results.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664

Read the whole report he
http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/...dia.Bias.8.htm

Gee, the debunking didn't take long to start:

http://kirghizlight.blogspot.com/200...3566507 79579

Methodologically, it seems rather suspect of me to simply tally
'citations' of 'think tanks' as a measure of bias. No wonder the results
seem a bit screwy. I think this paper will be properly eviscerated within
a few days.



--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
wrote:

wrote in message
nk.net...
With some surprising results.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664

Read the whole report he
http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/...dia.Bias.8.htm

Gee, the debunking didn't take long to start:

http://kirghizlight.blogspot.com/200...3566507 79579

Methodologically, it seems rather suspect of me to simply tally
'citations' of 'think tanks' as a measure of bias. No wonder the results
seem a bit screwy. I think this paper will be properly eviscerated within
a few days.



Perhaps, but there seems to be some reason to think it's accurate. Drudge
is a clipping service, his news stories are gathered form other sources.

I doubt that many people are going to argue that Brit Hume's Speical Report
is somewhat right of center.

I don't read the WSJ so I can't comment on their news pages, but I'm fairly
certain their editorials are right of center.

In any case, peer review will be interesting.
--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing
stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

From:
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 01:19:02 GMT

Perhaps, but there seems to be some reason to think it's accurate.

Perhaps a strong predisposition on your part to believing that it's
true, based on several years of the Right berating the 'liberal media'?
What other 'reasons' are there? Please be specific. No quoting Rush
Limbaugh in your answer.

In any case, peer review will be interesting.

There won't be any. That's how the Right works. A quick sound bite,
then off to new attacks elsewhere. Even if there is a peer review
nobody will recall the report by the time it's complete. If nothing
else, the Republicans are very slick marketers.

This guy wrote for _American Spectator_ and wants to be taken seriously
as an unbiased investigator? And you swallow it whole? LOL!

Have Ann Coultier, Sean Hannity, Karl Rove or Rush peer review it. Or
maybe DeLay. He may have some spare time soon. Better yet, how about
Frist? Not only will he potentially also have some free time soon, but
he can diagnose brain dead people's prognosis from family videotape. He
wouldn't even need to read the report or study its method. Dick Cheney
can add commentary.

For an alleged libertarian you are sounding more and more like a shill
for the right.

Shhhh! said to duh-Mikey:

For an alleged libertarian you are sounding more and more like a shill
for the right.

Mickey's response to every criticism of his beloved Republicans is that
the Democrats were, are, or would be worse.

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


Shhhh! said to duh-Mikey:

For an alleged libertarian you are sounding more and more like a shill
for the right.

Mickey's response to every criticism of his beloved Republicans is that
the Democrats were, are, or would be worse.

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


Shhhh! said to duh-Mikey:

For an alleged libertarian you are sounding more and more like a shill
for the right.

Mickey's response to every criticism of his beloved Republicans is that
the Democrats were, are, or would be worse.

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


Shhhh! said to duh-Mikey:

For an alleged libertarian you are sounding more and more like a shill
for the right.

Mickey's response to every criticism of his beloved Republicans is that
the Democrats were, are, or would be worse.



Or, "at least" could be worse.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...
From:
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 01:19:02 GMT

Perhaps, but there seems to be some reason to think it's accurate.

Perhaps a strong predisposition on your part to believing that it's
true, based on several years of the Right berating the 'liberal media'?
What other 'reasons' are there? Please be specific. No quoting Rush
Limbaugh in your answer.

In any case, peer review will be interesting.

There won't be any. That's how the Right works.

What are you talking about? By peer review I meant other researchers.

A quick sound bite,
then off to new attacks elsewhere. Even if there is a peer review
nobody will recall the report by the time it's complete. If nothing
else, the Republicans are very slick marketers.

The study was done by UCLA, not known for their right wing agenda.

This guy wrote for _American Spectator_ and wants to be taken seriously
as an unbiased investigator? And you swallow it whole? LOL!

I gave reasons why I thought the report sounded plausible.


Have Ann Coultier, Sean Hannity, Karl Rove or Rush peer review it. Or
maybe DeLay. He may have some spare time soon. Better yet, how about
Frist? Not only will he potentially also have some free time soon, but
he can diagnose brain dead people's prognosis from family videotape. He
wouldn't even need to read the report or study its method. Dick Cheney
can add commentary.

For an alleged libertarian you are sounding more and more like a shill
for the right.

And you sound like every other radical left winger.

then off to new attacks elsewhere. Even if there is a peer review
nobody will recall the report by the time it's complete. If nothing
else, the Republicans are very slick marketers.

The study was done by UCLA, not known for their right wing agenda.

No, the study was done by a professor who *is* known for his right-wing
agenda that happens to work at UCLA.

And you sound like every other radical left winger.

Um, 'radical' means "One who advocates fundamental or revolutionary
changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions." Hm,
changing education, social security... That sounds kind of like the
Bush administration and other 'conservatives' to me. Ironic, huh? You
conservatives have even radically changed the meanings of words.