mcbride
Posts: 333
Joined: 1/14/2005 Status: offline
|
Hmm. I'm considerably more interested in the evidence they lay out, and SpinWatch tends to be one of the more thorough and thoughtful voices on the subject. Likewise, I'm interested in how Milyo presented conclusions that are so different than, and apparently unaware of, all of the academic work that's been done in this and those answers are troubling, As you must know, SpinWatch posted the MediaMatters piece on Milyo's work, presumably because it's thorough and factual, which it is. My professional interest in lobbying and influence-peddling in relation to news media led me to monitor various sites, and SpinWatch does a better, (and again, more factually thorough) job than most, and I find them to be, by any measure, a more balanced source than Milyo. Which is a long way of saying I'm more interested in content and analysis of "bias", from any side. If you're saying the Milyo study is an "interesting" read, but certainly not credible, then we're agreed on that. quote:
ORIGINAL: Thadius quote:
ORIGINAL: mcbride Hey, Thad, you're welcome to imagine that Jeffrey Milyo and his methodology, and his cheques from the Cato Institute, constitute unbiased research, but most people who bother to read the link will see that's a bit of a giggle. It's a longish read, but that's because Milyo's methodology fails in a lot of fundamental ways. I wouldn't expect you to keep a straight face if I started citing Ward Churchill as some sort of oracle of objectivity. Nah, like I said it made for an interesting read. I was just replying to your claim that Media Matters was a "balanced source". Their own description is of a "non-profit progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media." Which is hardly a balanced source or non-partisan.
|