The Instigator
Wylted
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
tyu
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The media is liberally biased

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/26/2015 Category: News
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,341 times Debate No: 80187
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (29)
Votes (0)

 

Wylted

Pro

The words liberal and conservative can mean a lot of things, so to keep things simple I'll define the terms. The terms are negotiable before accepting, but not afterwords. Since traditionally liberals are pro government and want more of it Wilde fine them as "pro establishment" and the conservatives being against government would be called "anti establishment".

Definitions

Liberal-Pro-establishment
Conservative- Anti-establishment.

------------------

This is a split BOP debate. Con must prove that the mainstream media has a conservative/anti-establishment bias, while I must show the media has a liberal bias. Good luck. First round is acceptance.

Edit: Somebody asked me to specify which media, so I'll specify now. This is the United States Media. I'll also add that this is an "in general" or "on balance" statement, and refers to television media.

Also I need a good reason to change the definitions. Claiming that Democrats like Barack Obama are more anti establishment than Republicans like Ron Paul is absurd.
tyu

Con

I accept this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Wylted

Pro

Wylted forfeited this round.
tyu

Con

I believe my opponent is not here...
Debate Round No. 2
Wylted

Pro

The media is liberally biased as a study a few years ago shows. According to study authors;

"Groseclose and Milyo began with the well-known ratings of the voting records of U.S. senators and representatives by Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), a self-described liberal lobbying group. The researchers used data for the 1990s and adjusted the ADA scores to make them comparable over time and across the two chambers. On a 0-100 scale, with 100 the most liberal, the median member of the U.S. House had an ADA score of 39. Thus, 39 is a reasonable measure of a centrist position. Among well-known senators, Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) had a highly conservative score of 4, whereas Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) had a strikingly liberal score of 80.
THE NEXT STEP MEASURED the tendency of Senate and House members in their speeches to cite 200 prominent think tanks. The citations considered were those that referred favorably to a view or fact presented by a think tank. Not counted were negative citations or those purely descriptive of a think tank's actions. As an example, the Heritage Foundation was cited by legislators whose average ADA ratings were 6 -- that is, very conservative. Also highly conservative were the Family Research Council (rating of 6) and the National Right to Life Committee (7). Left-wing think tanks included the Center on Budget & Policy Priorities (80), the Children's Defense Fund (77), and the Economic Policy Institute (72). Surprisingly, the American Civil Liberties Union was centrist (35), an outcome driven by the ACLU's opposition to campaign-finance reform.
The last step measured the tendency of various media outlets to cite the same 200 think tanks. The researchers considered only "news stories" -- not editorials, letters to the editor, and so on. The periods covered ranged from 1990 to 2003. Again, the citations were those that referred favorably to a view or fact provided by a think tank. The researchers used this information to calculate a right- vs. left-wing indicator for each media outlet -- effectively, an ADA rating. The assumption is that media outlets that refer favorably to conservative think tanks are reasonably characterized as conservative, whereas those that refer positively to liberal think tanks are plausibly labeled as liberal. The final product (in a preliminary table provided by the authors) was a list of computed ADA ratings for the media outlets.
On the conservative end, Fox News Special Report came out with a rating of 27; that is, 12 points more conservative than the 39 of the median member of the House. The only other right-of-center outlet was The Washington Times, at 34.
On the liberal end, Newsweek had an astonishing rating of 72 -- that's 33 points more liberal than the House median. Other highly liberal outlets included The New York Times, Time magazine, the CBS Evening News, USA Today, and NBC Nightly News. These scores ranged from 62 to 64, about 25 points above the House median. For viewers seeking truly "fair and balanced" reporting, the best outlets were ABC Good Morning America and NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. The ADA scores for these programs were 39 and 41, respectively. Places moderately left of center were CNN's NewsNight with Aaron Brown (49), The Washington Post (53), NPR's Morning Edition (55) and ABC WorldNews Tonight (55).
Because of problems in data collection, the list excluded The Wall Street Journal, but it will be added soon. Also excluded is talk radio, which seems to have a conservative bent. Bottom line: The Groseclose-Milyo study shows the media are skewed substantially to the left of the typical member of Congress. Thus, if the opinions of viewers and readers are similar to those of their representatives, the media slant is far to the left of that of most of their customers."
tyu

Con

With all respects, you shouldn't believe everything you hear or just because it got published somewhere. In my opinion, this piece (which to be honest, looks copy and pasted, and totally devoid of your own opinions) does you no favors. Here are my reasons:

1. The time frame studied seems to be from 1990 to 2003. That was 12 years ago. How do I know things haven't changed since then? Maybe some of the media outlets is under new management? What about online media? Does it account for those? The scale it uses is based off the opinions of actual people. I'm pretty sure the political office make-up has changed since then.

2. This article does seem to be written by people knowledgeable in the field so likely when they mean conservative and liberal, they mean the actual definitions of conservatism and liberalism, neither of which really stem from the "establishment" which is how you defined them.

3. In the article, although it only gives 2 media outlets that are classified as right-centrist, it hardly means that the media is "liberally" biased. This kind of ties in with the first point but how I do know there aren't other media outlets that just aren't being listed? Also, perhaps I just misunderstand you but to me, a liberally biased media would mean that ALL outlets would have to give a more liberal perspective vs a conservative perspective. Here, with this article I feel you're just trying to say that the number of liberal media outlets outnumber the number of conservatives which again may not be true. Maybe the authors themselves are just liberals...

Look forward to your reply.
Debate Round No. 3
Wylted

Pro

I really don't care to argue with idiots anymore. I defined liberal in round 1 and none of the substance of the round two arguments has been touched. My opponent is also putting no effort into this, so I don't care. My opponent, stupidly just wrote stuff off the top of her head instead of investing anytime in researching it.
tyu

Con

Wow ok. That escalated quickly. So there are a couple thing here that I'd to touch on:

1) My argument following yours sought to poke some holes into the study. If I can render your proof as irrelevant, then you don't have any support for your claim and that's really half the battle. Since this is technically the closing remarks, let me give you a link to a collection of articles that argue against Tim Groseclose's Theory which is what I think you posted and give way to the idea that the media isn't really that liberally biased:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

You can find many counter arguments. One of which is that a lot of reporters are themselves liberally biased, and/or the intensity of the writers/anchorman as another factor. Another article

https://www.dartmouth.edu...

exposes an assumption of Groseclose, which is that, "advocacy process in which members of Congress cite think tanks and interest groups in floor speeches somehow parallels the journalistic process by which reporters cite those groups in
their reporting." To which he raises 3 possible deviations. They are listed below and if you're interested, you can actually read in more detail in the link above:
- Asymmetries in Technocratic or Subject-Matter Expertise
- Asymmetries in Public Relations and Marketing Skills
- Asymmetries in Citations over time.

2. You did define liberal and conservative but your definitions are counter to your own actual post [which is actually in the 3rd round]. That was my point. I did a search on what I believe to be the original article [http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu...] and out of all 47 pages, there's no mention of the word establishment. Perhaps I missed something but ya...

3. Just intrigued by the assumption that you think I'm female and how you base rant about how I am a poor debater around that...I dunno man, that seems pretty over the line to be honest. We may be getting a female president soon and I'm pretty sure she can debate~

Anyways, let's let the voters decide~ I do have to thank-you though cause I learned a little more about politics from this.
Debate Round No. 4
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
I know :)
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
Not really something I can divulge.
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
Who is going through my debates randomly reporting votes, after the voting period is over?
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: JuliusCaesar// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Well............. that was EXTREMELY easy to vote on.

[*Reason for removal*] Clear vote bomb. The voter doesn't explain any of their point allocations.
************************************************************************
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
Oh I'm here, I just slept late. You should've made an argument there, but thanks anyway
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
I'm not going to argue that the media is pro itself. I'm going to argue they are pro government and big
Posted by Sarra 1 year ago
Sarra
Sorry Wylted, someone else already accepted your debate. The definitions you chose are an easy victory for Pro. Of course news media outlets are going to be pro-establishment. They themselves are establishments and they are going to be pro-themselves.
Posted by kasmic 1 year ago
kasmic
I saw that, I think that is reasonable. I am just surprised that definition was accepted.
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
If I didn't define it, people could easily just move the goal posts on me. I was willing to negotiate the definitions as stated in round 1
Posted by kasmic 1 year ago
kasmic
I would agree that the media is pro establishment and disagree that it is on balance liberally biased.
No votes have been placed for this debate.