Posted by Dave on 12/22/05 at 11:12:43 am
Categories: Political Ravings, Entertainment Ravings

Back in April I discussed a new study on media bias from UCLA. The study examined how often media outlets cited conservative or liberal think tanks. Those that cited "liberal" think tanks more often were considered liberal, and those that cited "conservative" think tanks more often were considered conservative. The study found very few outlets that would be considered "conservative" using this method. I talked about how the study was very flawed, especially in its methodology and assumptions.

Well, the article is now getting published and has received a lot of attention in the last few days [hat tip Honzo]. And unfortunately the study is not any different than it was eight months ago, meaning that it is still a worthless study. Media Matters has responded to the study pointing out both the fault methodology and the inherent bias in the researchers:

News outlets including CNN cited a study of several major media outlets by a UCLA political scientist and a University of Missouri-Columbia economist purporting to "show a strong liberal bias." But the study employed a measure of "bias" so problematic that its findings are next to useless, and the authors -- both former fellows at conservative think tanks cited in the study to illustrate liberal bias -- seem unaware of the substantial scholarly work that exists on the topic.

I will not deny that many media outlets (especially reporters) may lean to the "left". But this study fails in its desire to prove it.

It is sad that a study like this received so much attention without much attention to what the study did. It appears as though people don't even read the study, but just quote the "findings." Methodology is important in good social research, and when the methodology and assumptions are flawed to begin with, the result will almost always be flawed.

1 comment | Permalink