- Joined
- 2 July 2008
- Posts
- 7,102
- Reactions
- 6
Kerry O'Brien's second Freudian slip on election night leaves little doubt, that in his mind the ABC and the ALP are the same thing, viz, "the ABC are leading in..."
That the ABC put him up yet again, and very specifically asked him this question yet again, is strong verification of their own political bias, (if we needed any.)
Just to set the cat amongst the pigeons
(pdf only - people.anu.edu.au/andrew.leigh/pdf/MediaSlant_media.pdf)
Anything evidence-based to counter it?That's a pretty subjective cat however.
Anything evidence-based to counter it?
It's far less subjective than the post I was referring to, although that in itself is subjectiveYou seem to be under the misapprehension that the document is "evidential". It's not, it's subjective.
Just to set the cat amongst the pigeons
(pdf only - people.anu.edu.au/andrew.leigh/pdf/MediaSlant_media.pdf)
Of course my post was subjective, Mofra. But it doesn't purport to be anything else, unlike the quoted 'study' which is apparently presented as a scientifically valid and methodologically sound piece of research.It's far less subjective than the post I was referring to, although that in itself is subjective:
Of course my post was subjective, Mofra. But it doesn't purport to be anything else, unlike the quoted 'study' which is apparently presented as a scientifically valid and methodologically sound piece of research.
Reading further through your link shows criticism from Chris Berg, a research fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs, who says "the study's findings are ridiculous". "e.g. it classifies individuals like Phillip Adams and Germaine Greer as right-wing intellectuals and people like Keith Windschuttle as left-wing intellectuals"
Further he says "when you've got results like that you have to wonder whether the study has found anything at all of relevance or of interest."
And let's remember that during most of the period of the study the Coalition was in power, so fairly obviously as the government it's going to draw more mentions/comments than the Opposition.
Further, just counting mentions of one side or the other as proof of bias hardly seems valid, does it? Wouldn't these mentions have to be further categorised into positive and negative to be statistically significant? And how would you classify a purely factual piece of reporting, e.g. "the government welcomes the appointment of the new American Ambassador" etc?
Chris Berg must have been responding to questions rather than to the paper itself - always risky. Mofra's link includes a magazine article by the authors of the actual paper (which is also online if anyone really wants to get obsessive), where they explain the methods they used, including how Adams and Germs came out as right wing (that's a distortion of the paper BTW), and how they analysed media coverage.Of course my post was subjective, Mofra. But it doesn't purport to be anything else, unlike the quoted 'study' which is apparently presented as a scientifically valid and methodologically sound piece of research.
Reading further through your link shows criticism from Chris Berg, a research fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs, who says "the study's findings are ridiculous". "e.g. it classifies individuals like Phillip Adams and Germaine Greer as right-wing intellectuals and people like Keith Windschuttle as left-wing intellectuals"
Further he says "when you've got results like that you have to wonder whether the study has found anything at all of relevance or of interest."
And let's remember that during most of the period of the study the Coalition was in power, so fairly obviously as the government it's going to draw more mentions/comments than the Opposition.
Further, just counting mentions of one side or the other as proof of bias hardly seems valid, does it? Wouldn't these mentions have to be further categorised into positive and negative to be statistically significant? And how would you classify a purely factual piece of reporting, e.g. "the government welcomes the appointment of the new American Ambassador" etc?
Was he? Evidence for this? And what difference does that make anyway?Chris Berg must have been responding to questions rather than to the paper itself - always risky.
Absolutely not interested in being as obsessive as you suggest, but by any measure it's pretty difficult to see either Adams or Germain Greer being classified as right wing.Mofra's link includes a magazine article by the authors of the actual paper (which is also online if anyone really wants to get obsessive), where they explain the methods they used, including how Adams and Germs came out as right wing (that's a distortion of the paper BTW), and how they analysed media coverage.
Well, ghoti, I'll continue to be dismissive of what seems simply a bit silly until you can provide clear evidence to the contrary. The right/left distinction may well be outdated, but it's nonetheless still meaningful to a large chunk of the population. How would you suggest it be replaced?I don't have an opinion about this particular study, partly because I think the right-left distinction is about 40 years past its use-by date (the authors comment on that too). But I do wish we could all get over the habit of dismissing surprising or counter-intuitive findings on the basis of a quick reading of short summaries and an assumption that professionals can't apply common sense to their own fields.
Ghoti (Not as cranky as this sounds)
Ghoti is a constructed example word used to illustrate irregularities in English spelling. It is pronounced /fɪʃ/, just like fish:
* gh, /f/ as in laugh, /l?f, l?ːf, laːf/;
* o, /ɪ/ as in women, /ˈwɪmɪn, ˈwɪmən/; and
* ti, /ʃ/ as in nation, /ˈneɪʃən/.
Looks really weird, but here's the link for further enlightenment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghoti
Yep! Well spottedGhoti, is you name really Fish?
Yep! Well spotted
Ghoti (it's shorter than Galaxias truttaceus http://www.nativefish.asn.au/galtrutt.html
Beautiful!!! May I steal it? Do you want a royalty payment... in mosquito larvae perhaps.<*((((>< equals Ghoti
....and an assumption that professionals can't apply common sense to their own fields.
Agree with your post ghotib, but specifrically the two points raised here. For all the claims of bias, Kerry O'Brien tends to give both sides of politics a grilling when they appear on the 7:30 report which is absolutely the way it should be - someone needs to scrutinise the substance of government or opposition policy, and the mainstream media tend to focus their scrutiny on soundbites or the spin, not the substance.FWIW, I agree with Berg that the paper isn't very exciting and that shows such as 7.30 Report tend to be more anti-government than anything.
The right - left thing just strikes me as hopelessly inadequate to cover the range of issues and groupings that we have to deal with.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?