Baskadia

Review Left Turn How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind by Tim Groseclose

📪 [𝙋𝙙𝙛] 𝘿𝙊𝙒𝙉𝙇𝙊𝘼𝘿 Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind by Tim Groseclose

Thats work: Get Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind by Tim Groseclose EBOOK EPUB KINDLE PDF

📣 https://bbpiwasakiczlglenn.blogspot.fr/4J4xDG/1250002761

Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind by Tim Groseclose EBOOK EPUB KINDLE PDF. Size: 33,796 KB. Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind Tim Groseclose pdf.

[ BOOK LEFT TURN: HOW LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS DISTORTS THE AMERICAN MIND by TIM GROSECLOSE OVERVIEW ]

Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind Tim Groseclose pdf download read online vk amazon free download pdf pdf free epub mobi download online

download Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind PDF - KINDLE - EPUB - MOBI

Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind download ebook PDF EPUB, book in english language

Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind Tim Groseclose PDF ePub DOC RTF WORD PPT TXT Ebook iBooks Kindle Rar Zip Mobipocket Mobi Online Audiobook Online Review Online Read Online Download Online

You are in the right place for free read : Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind

You Can Visit or Copy Link Below to Your Browser

*Supports Multiple Formats

A leading political science professor provides scientific proof of media bias in this sure-to-be-controversial book

Dr. Tim Groseclose, a professor of political science and economics at UCLA, has spent years constructing precise, quantitative measures of the slant of media outlets. He does this by measuring the political content of news, as a way to measure the PQ, or "political quotient" of voters and politicians.

Among his conclusions are: (i) all mainstream media outlets have a liberal bias; and (ii) while some supposedly conservative outlets―such the
I don't know if that will be a pick up line in the future, but it will undoubtedly find it's way into our lexicon shortly.

Like it or not, but we need a framework to operate in. As long as I understand where someone is coming from (politically) I can appreciate their counterpoints to my points. Likewise in media, I know instinctively that certain news outlets, politicians, and pundits lean left or right...and I cherry pick where I get my information. Like most people, I consider myself well informed on most topics because I have opted for more than one news source...the not so obvious choices (from a conservative standpoint) are CNN, The Daily News, any number of left leaning cross media outlets online. The difference is is that I try to look at how the left and right (where I can find them in left organizations) cover specific topics differently; what facts do they report to support their argument, what do they omit, are they reporting on the same stories, etc. I also learn a great deal from the comment section on any article...comments can teach a whole lot (comprehension, prevailing attitude, what sector has time on their hands, prejudice). The sad truth is that there are not enough conservative journalists covering the topics I'm interested in, which is why many people like me have turned to the alternative media. Take note dying MSM dinosaurs; balance increases bottom line.

Dr. Groseclose turns a statistical eye towards political media and brings the words 'political science' to full fruition. The two measurements he uses are PQ (political quotient) and SQ (slant quotient). Without getting into the science part, he shows that Jim DeMint has a low PQ, whereas Nancy Pelosi has a high PQ...PQ designating the degree of liberalism in any given person or group. When it comes to SQ, the degree of slant or spin in the news (balance of complete truth), he proves that the NYT is higher on the scale than The Washington Times (news only minus opinion pages)...SQ designating the job done to present the whole story in a balanced fashion. The higher the SQ, the more liberal elements outweigh the conservative elements; the lower the number, the more conservative elements outweigh liberal elements. PQ's and SQ's are centered around the middle of 50, or what any fair minded individual would view as centrist or moderate. Dr. Groseclose shows that the media's higher SQ influences those people with a 50 PQ to move to a higher PQ over time through the shear number of high SQ media impressions. And, the higher the PQ, the less likely it is that people will recognize a centrist PQ or SQ over time. The outer edges, which he regretfully calls extremes (I would have preferred the more statistically friendly word 'outliers'), reject a good portion of the media (liberals rejecting Fox, conservatives rejecting MSNBC) because they find the SQ unpalatable. Dr. Groseclose, as an admitted PQ 14 (Outer RINOlandia to me, ht to R. Kuby), does an exemplary job at keeping his personal politics out of data selection...demonstrating exactly how difficult it is to do a politically charged task correctly and completely. The media wants for a news reporter and organization that can earn similar trust. If they use this as a guidebook instead of a football, maybe we, the viewing public, will finally have an evening news again.

In all openness, I received a book from the author for review, but I liked it so much that I purchased a Kindle version so I could refer to it easily and often. While it is slightly difficult to get over oneself, a reader has to make the effort to suppress their own political nature (be it left, right, or center) during the hard-to-take parts of the book. Call it journalistic or media consumer medicine, but these are necessary doses that are sorely needed for the health of the patient. Much like 'Bias' by Bernard Goldberg a decade ago, 'Left Turn' brings the focus back on journalistic choices of topics and the selection of data to report on those topics. I'm certain many journalists attempt to do a balanced job, however, as evidenced by Katherine Kersten of the Minneapolis Star and Brit Hume (pgs. 90 - 96), many great stories are missed because news rooms aren't balanced. I can't help but think that media could increase profits if they had more conservative writers on staff - not to overshadow the liberal journalists, but to offer a clear perspective of the entire news landscape. Bear in mind, I do NOT want a government imposed 'Fairness Doctrine'. Businesses, including media, are best when they self-regulate when reacting to the response from their consumers.

My only minor complaint is stylistic...and moot. Number lines run left (0) to right (100+). I know Dr. Groseclose was building on previous data sets and studies, but I would have liked to see the style match the names...liberal-left (lower numbers)and conservative-right (higher numbers). I realize, however, his SQ would not have made sense with this lower-left upper-right designation if he altered his scale...at least from my viewpoint as a conservative. (i.e. NYT with a lower SQ than The Washington Times doesn't sound right to my ears.)

I predict an instant must-have for every political science and journalist major, as well as for those working in those respective fields. For those who loved 'Bias' a decade ago, 'Left Turn' is clearly the successor to that WAKE UP PEOPLE legacy. I like that we conservatives finally have some quantifiable data to prove our longstanding complaints about bias in the media. Does it go far enough? No, but I don't think we can advance the dialog any further, at least statistically, until we all accept this as a baseline.

And in case you're interested, I'm a 5. (Take the 40 question, multiple choice test on his website). Can a 14 respect a 5 as much as a 5 can respect a 14? That is a theoretical debate that I would welcome with the author, and one that will likely play out the closer we get to 2012.

Name: Edward G. Keating
Rating: 4.0 out of 5 stars
Title: Why Media Bias Matters
Date: Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on July 24, 2011
Review: Building on a seminal Quarterly Journal of Economics article, in this book, Professor Tim Groseclose outlines considerable evidence for left-wing bias in the US media and, perhaps more importantly, argues that the bias tilts the US political system to the left.

When, in the middle of the last decade, Professor Groseclose and his co-author provided innovative quantification of leftward bias in the US media, the thesis was controversial, eliciting extensive (and often mean-spirited) reaction toward the authors. Since then, however, Groseclose's argument has become more widely accepted. Indeed, Hillary Clinton's campaign advisors noted (probably validly) extensive media bias toward now-President Obama in the 2008 primary campaign.

Indeed, "now-President" is the key phrase in the last sentence. Not only is the media biased, but that bias matters, i.e., has affected political outcomes in this country. The importance of media bias is the central thesis of "Left Turn" and the methodological enhancement relative to Professor Groseclose's earlier research. He introduces what he terms "the media lambda," a fancy way of suggesting the leftward pull or power of a biased media.

"Left Turn" is not an excessively equation-laden exegesis (though it has very extensive end notes and references). Instead, it is built on anecdotes of how the media matters, i.e., changes the nature of the policy debate and, ultimately, government policies. The heroine of the book is Minneapolis Star Tribune reporter Katherine Kersten, a rare conservative media member who broke the story of the "John Doe" litigation in which passengers on an airplane were sued by Muslim imams for reporting concerns about behavior the passengers perceived to be unusual and possibly threatening. As a result of Ms. Kersten's reporting, legislation was passed that disallowed litigation against witnesses who report suspicions to authorities.

While the book draws attention to Ms. Kersten's work, its broader point is that there are many more left-of-center journalists whose work is pulling political debate and governmental policymaking to the left than the few right-of-center journalists like Ms. Kersten.

Professor Groseclose's empirical estimates of media impact are sizable, perhaps implausibly so. Absent a biased media (and subject to lots of methodological assumptions), he predicts John McCain would have won the 2008 presidential by 56-42 percent. Except, one suspects, now-President Obama would not have been his party's nominee in such a world (at least according to then-candidate Clinton's embittered advisors).

The importance of this book notwithstanding, it's a very entertaining and quick read. For example, Professor Groseclose visited Washington County in southwest Utah. He identified Washington County as one of the country's most conservative counties of a reasonable size. He was looking for an "inverse newsroom," i.e., a county where conservatives are predominant the way liberals are in a modern newsroom. Though, in fact, he fails in that Washington County has far more Democratic voters proportionally than a typical newsroom has Republican voters. Professor Groseclose visited local denizens including Mike Empey who serves as the Democratic congressional representative Jim Matheson's local outreach coordinator. Mr. Empey's somewhat unenviable job is to try to convince Washington County residents that Representative Matheson is not as liberal as the national Democratic Party. It is interesting reading, both intrinsically with respect to what Mr. Empey deals with and when one reflects that he's living a politically inverted life to Ms. Kersten's. But each is ultimately a salmon, swimming valiantly against a current running strongly against them.

On some level, Professor Groseclose's thesis is unremarkable. People often speak of wanting to "make a difference" when they choose their lines of work. Professor Groseclose's argument is that liberal journalists make a difference, a very big difference. It'd be an unintended irony of "Left Turn" if the book ended up encouraging yet-more liberals to enter journalism (or, perhaps more likely, cause fewer liberals to quit journalism than would otherwise be the case) because this distinguished scholar has found their work has made a genuine difference in US political outcomes.