This just in...

... the sky is blue, the grass is green, the sun is hot and the media is biased:

While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.

These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly.

"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."

"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.

You umm... heard it here first...

Comments

[Zossima]

Yeah, the Times sits on a killer story about a frat-boy President circumventing the Constitution and decades of Supreme Court precedent. Wow, what a bunch of liberals!

[Rick]

Zoss...

You're full of... hot air...

Take a breath and go read this from someone who normally thinks along your leftist leaning ways and who has... well... a different take...

[Zossima]

"leftist leaning"?

I am pro-life, support a balanced budget ammendment to the Constitution, deplore judicial activism, am a fairly strict constructionist on Constitutional matters, and believe the Declaration and the Constitution are the finest documents ever written by mortal man. I favor low taxes, limited government, and pro-business policies to boot. I favor the right of localities to legislate and police themselves. I own all or a substantial part of 3 businesses, one of which I intend to become very large. Sounds pretty damn conservative to me.

But somehow, because I don't support frat-boy Bush's deliberate (and so painfully obvious) campaign of lies and deliberate and willful violation of our laws and Constitution, I'm "leftist"? Hogwash.

Your boy's true ways are becoming very apparent. His own party is beginning to turn on him. Looks like you've decided to go down with the ship. That's too bad.

No, Rick. I'm not a "leftist". Bush isn't a conservative. Period. He's a petulant, power-grabbing, crony capitalist, and he's abandoned the principles of conservativism on which the party of Lincoln was based. Conservatism hasn't changed. This is Nixon redux.

[Rick]

Zos,

You simply lose credibility with me when you paint the President as a frat boy, as a liar, as someone who is willfully breaking the law and violating the Constitution, as a pwer grabber, etc...

It's something I expect out of Michael Moore, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and other partisan idiots lacking a molecule of honesty, decency or integrity...

I'll gently suggest you spend some time over at PowerLine where saner minds are cogently dissecting what some are calling SnoopGate and I'd add that maybe you should spend less time making unsubstantiated charges, claims, and attacks against the President that simply don't hold water.

For integrity's sake...

[Zossima]

Rick, I'll suggest that you look up the word "unsubstantiated". You're free in our country to disagree with evidence---or to utterly disregard it because it doesn't fit your preconceptions. But to say that it is "unsubstantiated" that Bush didn't show up to guard duty or to say that it is unsubstantiated that he was involved in rigging (when there is plenty of, at least, circumstantial evidence) pre-war intelligence or to say that it is unsubstantiated that they didn't have a plan for post-war Iraq or to say that it is unsubstantiated that he has engaged in croniism (can anyone say "FEMA") and on and on shows that you need to get a grasp of the English language.

[Rick]

Zos,

Unlike so many on the left who consider the charge itself as evidence enough for wrongdoing, I tend to hold to the traditional meaning that suggests strongly that charges of wrongdoing ought to be based on actual (and not contrived) evidence supported by verifiable fact.

You paint the President as a frat boy. What's your point? You paint him as a liar which would then mean that just about everyone in every nation who had some political influence before the Iraq war is also a liar. You say there was no post war plan but the facts suggest that there was (albeit one that proved to be flawed). You bring up crap about his guard service and we know to what lengths people have gone to attempt to convince others on that, this despite the fact that to this day none of the charges made have stuck (largely because they've proven to be what they are, political machinations intended to embarass for political purposes).

You can lay claim to a new definition of substantiation Zos, and and you're welcome to do so, but don't be surprised or get your [expletive deleted at the behest of Momma] up if someone like me holds your feet to the fire.

You're bloviating brother. And it's unbecoming.

Yea, Bush has some flaws. Yea, he's made some mistakes. But a criminal? Someone who's circumventing the constitution? [Expletive deleted at the behest of Momma]. There are legal minds sharper than yours and mine put together who disagree with that ludicrous claim.

You want to continue to assert, a la Michael Moore, a la Al Franken, a la every other moonbat with half a brain, then go for it. Someone once said that when a person is hell bent on making an ass of themselves, you should get out of the way.

Consider this post to be my intent to do just that.

Bloviate away Zos... but know that I hold you to a higher standing, a higher threshold.

[Zossima]

Rick, I'll ignore the 4th grade name-calling (straight from the Rove playbook). It doesn't work on me. And it is beneath you.

I welcome you holding my feet to the fire, as long as you define your objective standard for doing so. What is it? Lay it out, and I'll submit every accusation I've ever made of Bush to it. I don't make my accusations up, and there certainly is credible evidence to support everything I say. You may certainly question the evidence. You may certainly question the conclusions. Again, please define your objective standard for doing so.

I'm happy to articulate mine, should you be interested.

Oh, and my standard for words like 'unsubstantiated' is the dictionary. I most certainly have not redefined it, hence my call for you to actually get your dictionary down and look it up. But maybe the dictionary isn't your standard?

[Rick]

Rick, I'll ignore the 4th grade name-calling (straight from the Rove playbook). It doesn't work on me. And it is beneath you.

I called you nothing Zos... I described particular behaviors you seem to be mimicking. I believe you're the one calling the President a frat boy and a liar and a law breaker etc. Once again, you seem to have problems with the meaning of words. Check the mirror pal and let's see who's calling people names.

I welcome you holding my feet to the fire, as long as you define your objective standard for doing so. What is it? Lay it out, and I'll submit every accusation I've ever made of Bush to it. I don't make my accusations up, and there certainly is credible evidence to support everything I say. You may certainly question the evidence. You may certainly question the conclusions. Again, please define your objective standard for doing so.

That's not the way I play this game Zos... you're the one with the accusations that are baseless, and speaking of playbooks, you're the one that seems to be reading from one, the one written by George Soros and other moonbats. My objective standard is plain. Substantiate your claims with something other than opinion.

I'm happy to articulate mine, should you be interested.

Oh, and my standard for words like 'unsubstantiated' is the dictionary. I most certainly have not redefined it, hence my call for you to actually get your dictionary down and look it up. But maybe the dictionary isn't your standard?

Maybe once again you're simply wrong and spewing hot air like Old Faithful (or old faithful liberals). The word substantiate is defined this way:

To support with proof or evidence; verify: substantiate an accusation. See Synonyms at confirm.

To give material form to; embody.
To make firm or solid.
To give substance to; make real or actual.

Wow Zos... it seems the words that I've used substantiate my claim that I'm using the traditional definition. Perhaps you want to tell us what dictionary you're using.

I doubt it.

Bloviation is another word I tend to use to describe that behavior usually engaged in by those who haven't a substantive thing to say but like to have their say anyway. Look that one up too Zos... but please, use my dictionary.