The recent incident of "Joe the Plumber" being sent to the Mideast to provide news coverage would also tend to bias people.

Right now, the conservative point of view is a shambles of misperceptions, loudmouth analysis, preemptive resentment, and panic. Someone who plagiarizes a liberal blog is guilty of presenting clear analysis, well expressed, as one's own. Someone who plagiarizes a conservative blog is guilty of stealing words in order to sound like an idiot.

I take it the RW wingnuts are reduced to their usual screaming/shrieking about bias in the news. So whose bias should anyone really listen to? Theirs? The MSM did for 30 fucking years and look how that turned out.

What's next? I don't know if you can play a CD or MPEG backwards to hear Satan's voice, but they're more than welcome to try.

This is another example of the claim from the right that you are biased unless you read and quote just as much meretricious nonsense as fact-based reasoned argument.

My conservative friends are always complaining that the universities are full of liberals. My answer is simple - yes, it's true. Universities are places where smart, educated people congregate and smart, educated people tend to be liberal.

Nice smackdown Nate Silver (but too subtle for the rightwingnuts to get I'm betting)...still I continue to be amazed at the number of people online who do not perceive the difference between the "BLOGGER" and the "COMMENTER"...of course there are useless spoutings by bloggers on both sides of the issues and those who comment on those sites are often even more infantile and insulting (providing no insight or thoughtful commentary) but IF/WHEN one reads those sites carefully researched and presented there is much of value to be acquired...if only the stimulation to read further and continue to get informed (a decidedly LIBERAL, lefty trait)...

Malkin is full of Hot Air. She's just cherry-picking which media outlets to pay attention to.

Why, editors and columnists from The Journal of Abnormal Psychology spend a LOT of their time reading right-wing blogs! And their standards for citation are much, much higher than the NYT, so there!

...or maybe media professionals rely on left-leaning blogs because reality has a liberal bias

If Malkin wants to fix the problem, she should invoke the fairness doctrine. I bet she's also very upset that journalists are more likely to listen to right wing radio than left wing radio and watch right wing TV than left wing TV, since she is nothing if not fair and balanced. Either that or create a blog with some insights that journalists will read because it's informative rather than because it's funny.

Also, why don't you want to dwell on a case of plagiarism at America's newspaper of record that is being excused completely by that paper without any investigation or even any slap on the wrist? Have newspaper standards dropped so low that we should just be glad that they manage to get words on the page every day? Why is an act that would not be tolerated at a junior high paper perfectly fine for the New York Times?

Well, we're only talking about two examples. Of course that's all it takes for wingnuts to perceive a lefty conspiracy.

However, if there were a large, definable trend, and we needed devise an explanation, can't we give credit to the superior journalism conducted by left-leaning sites? Not all do journalism; most don't. But do any right-ish sites do any journalism - that is, reporting and fact-based analysis?

The ADN "smoking gun" is a joke email that happened to be posted at Kos. The Dowd/TPM example is more on point. Josh Marshall's analysis was built solidly on TPM's in-house and newswire shoe-leather reporting.

TPM's reporters broke open the US Attorneys scandal. HuffPo's Sam Stein got picked at an Obama press conference. Salon, Slate... good journalism.

What's the right got? "Reason" (ok, maybe rarely, but more often it's Stossel-ism) Drudge? He just shouts "fire" for kicks. NRO? It's a 'zine, but it's not journalism.

This whole "Liberuhl Meediahhhhh!!!!" shiboleth ignores what I think is clear: good journalism requires a small-l liberal mindset.

Kind of hard to omit Drudge in this analysis, since I would figure the press has taken its marching orders from Drudge more than all the prominent lefty blogs put together over the years.

I mean, I never heard a prominent media figure say "Kos rules our world" or "Josh Marshall rules our world".

Maybe this means Drudge has competition.

I mean, I never heard a prominent media figure say "Kos rules our world" or "Josh Marshall rules our world".

Of course you haven't. That stuff only gets discussed on JournoList, the super sekrit liberal media cabal, as its members decide how to journalistically manipulate the country straight into gay, gunless and unpatriotic dirty fucking hippiedom.

Malkin and the wingnuts have moved so far to the right that they're clinging to the edge of their flat little earth. From that distance, anyone to the left of Barry Goldwater -- Democrats, Greens, anarchists, communists -- all look the same.

It's how they can call Justice David Souter a liberal and actually believe it.

(For the right, this is powerful evidence -- if journalists are spending time on left-leaning websites, it must mean they're left-leaning, too).
One-how anyone that has an IQ above 10 can refer to MoDo as a journalist is one of the modern wonders of the world.
Two- MoDo left leaning?WELL DUH!!

The only conservative blogs worth reading also happen to fall into one of two categories: conservatives who switched and/or voted for Obama (John Cole & Andrew Sullivan), and conservatives who write intelligently (The American Scene, The Volokh Conspiracy). But the former group is often now lumped in with liberals, and the latter group just doesn't generate the kind of traffic that the fire-breathers do.

But what paper that wants to hold itself up as some sort of paragon of virtue in the realm of public discourse would quote Hot Air or Red State? So if you want the high-traffic blogs that also feature high-quality thought, you have to quote the liberals more than the conservatives. But of course Hot Air and Red State don't recognize this; why would they recognize their own shittiness?

All of which is to say: their whining about it is a necessary logical consequence of them sucking.

Oh, and Dancer: as bad as that is, I continue to be amazed by the steadily increasing number of bloggers who can't seem to distinguish between a "blog" and a "post," as in, "New blog today." Which, it turns out, does not lead to a new blog but to a new post on a long-existent blog. Bastards.

...straight into gay....?

Shortstop, a-hem....What?. BTW, we never say straight, girl.

Nate's response is just stupid. The question is influence on a particular demographic, not on the internet culture at large. The question isn't, why are some blogs more popular than others, but why do mainstream reporters read and cite some but not others. The reason may be political affinity, but Silver only gets to that at second hand. Which is why Silver is hardly worth bothering with. Unless there's a regression analysis in his post he's just a cheerleader.

And TPM is just crap. I've read it pretty much every day for more than 8 years, and it isn't what it was. The quality of the commentators other than JMM is very low, and the investigate work is like a poor man's Sy Hersh. Essentially JMM sold out quality for leftwing notoriety; he's building a business after all, and he needs the hits from the morons.

But there's another, more plausible, explanation. Nate Silver explained yesterday, "The reason that liberal blogs are cited more often in the mainstream media is because they are more plentiful and more widely-read than conservative blogs.

Plus, liberal blogs unlike conservative ones also tend to rely more on actual and verifiable facts, figures, research and citations. Though, to be fair, that's only because reality has a liberal bias.

Shortstop, a-hem....What?. BTW, we never say straight, girl.

I'd hoped someone would catch that. ;) You gay fellows sure have eagle eyes.

The liberal bias lies in the fact that Dowd can offer such a complete and utter lie in her defense and still keep her job.

The liberal bias lies in the fact that Dowd can offer such a complete and utter lie in her defense and still keep her job.

Someone who plagiarizes a liberal blog is guilty of presenting clear analysis, well expressed... Boolaboola

I was wondering how someone caught the MoDo copy & paste so fast.

I just read Thomas for more than 8 seconds, and it was complete crap.

No, Nate. The reason that journalists gravitate toward progressive bloggers and blogs is because they are fact-based, evidence laden,correctly sourced,and they use reason and logic to drive their arguments.

but some on the right are using the incident to draw the wrong conclusion.

So what else is new?

A prominent conservative site called Hot Air, a project created by Michelle Malkin, considers the incident evidence of media bias

And in other startling news, dog bites man!

DougJ noted how amusing it is to see "a blog called 'Hot Air' making fun of another blog for being called 'Talking Points.'"

No, it was making fun of Maureen Dowd for getting her talking points from Talking Points. Oh, I forgot, you guys have a more finely attuned sense of humor.

The reason that journalists gravitate toward progressive bloggers and blogs is because they are fact-based, evidence laden,correctly sourced,and they use reason and logic to drive their arguments.

Nice one. What else happened in Candyland today?

The real tragedy here is that Michelle Malkin is getting more free publicity. Let her and the other flat-earthers wallow in obscure self pity while nurturing their comically oversized victim complexes. We have a nation to rebuild.

"Media professionals who admit to referencing blogs seem more likely to rely on liberal sites than conservative ones (Drudge notwithstanding)"

Since when is Drudge a blog? He's just a clearinghouse for right-wing headlines.

Nice one. What else happened in Candyland today?

Okay, Jim, why don't you cite a few conservative bloggers that are fact-based, evidence laden, correctly sourced,and use reason and logic to drive their arguments?

I'm sure it'll be an execerise for a finely attuned sense of humor.

Put up or shut up.

Wasn't Malkin found guilty of some extreme plagiarism herself? Or am I "misremembering"?

Oh, I forgot, you guys have a more finely
attuned sense of humor.

Yes, "nutroots" is an example if such sophisticated wit that it just goes right over our "pinheads." Liberals are so stupid that they think Stephen Colbert is one of them! Conservatives know better (http://hij.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/14/2/212), though. By the way, the image of the Shepard Fairy-style ape on your website is also hilarious, you know, if you think Jim Crow-era imagery is funny...

And Malkin's point was that TPM is just liberal talking points, right? So, what does that make Hot Air? Logical consistency ever factor into your arguments, Treacher?

What else happened in Candyland today?

Bush kept us safe, Nancy Pelosi is about to resign, torture actually does work and didn't cause hundreds of American deaths in retaliation, global warming is just a liberal/Jew conspiracy, the teabaggers constitute a silent majority, Republicans need to be more conservative to win, and you right-wingers are all heterosexual.

When conservative bloggers like you can have your arguments casually destroyed, why would anyone cite you intellectual/moral lightweights?

Right blogs like "Hot Air" are insults to intelligence. They are not rational and use rumor rather than fact as keystones to their posts. They are filled with rage (the posts, setting aside the comments sections...when allowed) demeaning anyone who disagrees. No one even knows what Malkin herself is outside of media whore. Where left leaning female pundits might get together to discuss issues, when righties like Malkin and Coulter get together it's to get drunk and see who can piss off rooftops the furthest and hopefully hit some liberals walking by underneath (hahahahaha as they dribble on their feet).

Theirs is the rhetoric of exclusion, fear and hate which makes all of humanity defensive, not just liberals. Little is gained from reading their deception rhetoric but much is gained from reading progressive blogs. (Evidence is as you point out...how ignorant and blind does one have to be to miss the irony of making fun of the name of a sight called "Talking Points" when your own is called "Hot Air"...pretty much says it all)

The MSM are biased against the left. Just look at the treatment of Clinton and Gore and compare it to the kid gloves used on George W. Bush. That says it all.

Nothing earth shattering in the above but just wanted to return the debate to the proper framing.

The MSM is biased against the left in favor of the right. Read Eric Alterman and Eric Boehlert for proof.

[Debate is welcome. Trolling gets deleted. And making a statement like "no you jump through my hoops" is classic trolling behavior. We can move on to banning if you want to continue being a dick. That's my hoop, pal. The choice about whether to jump or not is entirely yours. --Mod]

Power is great, isn't it?

Not as great as intellectual dishonesty, it seems.

Longer Jim Treacher: I know you are, but what am I?

Sheesh.

Here's a hint, Jim: You shouldn't accuse others of intellectual dishonesty when you're busy demonstrating it. I invited you to cite a few conservative bloggers that are fact-based, evidence laden, correctly sourced, and use reason and logic to drive their arguments. Shall we take your lame response, which a middle schooler would likely be embarrassed to utter, as the best you can do? It's fine with me.

You set what you seem to think is a logic trap of some sort, and then become indignant when the target won't take the bait. Whoops, I guess that's intellectually dishonest of me.

Okay, delete this, please.

You want scientific proof of media bias. Okay. http://www.cmpa.com/media_room_4_27_09.htm

Would you like anecdotal evidence as well? "Most of you covered me (pause)... All of you voted for me" The press in the audience, at the WHCD, didn't just respond with laughter. They actually cheered. They proudly confirmed their bias in favor of the Democratic administration with a roar of applause. How on earth can such a one sided group living within a fish bowl of like minded parroting produce anything but biased coverage? All one has to do is examine the voting habits of the media to see where their allegiance lies & it is with the Democratic Party.

The University of Connecticut�s survey in 2004 of 300 journalists nationwide is but one example. The results showed that 52% supported Kerry while only 19% supported Bush. The rest declined to answer or supported Nader. This is the most generous survey, given that older studies showed an even more pronounced support for Democrats among journalists. See S. Robert Lichter's book The Media Elite.

The media bashed Bush over Iraq, but they've given Obama a pass even though he is perpetuating Bush's policies. If you cannot recognize that bias you may want to buy a dictionary & look up the meaning of the word.

Brendan M:

Thank you for confirming the paranoid liberal stereotype of seeing racism and offense everywhere. If there's a picture of an ape on a conservative site it MUST be evidence of Jim Crow-style racism. I mean, there's no other possible explanation, right?

I also enjoyed seeing you have to twist facts to try to make a point/win an argument. Malkin's point was not that TPM was 'just liberal talking points' but that it was ironic for a liberal columnist to actually obtain talking points from said ironically named blog. If you've got an example of a conservative columnist directly lifting talking points (aka 'hot air') from Malkin's site, feel free to provide it.

Bush did keep us safe-that's a fact. I really hope Pelosi doesn't resign so the dems can continue to implode in hilarious fashion, torture actually does work and didn't cause hundreds of American deaths in retaliation (how can anyone 'retaliate' in a war they started that is driven by nothing other than their own pure hatred of all things 'infidel'?), global warming isn't so much a conspiracy as a religion for people who think humans are to blame for every evil anywhere on the planet, 'teabaggers' are not yet a majority, silent or otherwise, Republicans absolutely need to be more true to their values to win (what's the point of being Dem lite when you can have the real thing in all is horrifying glory?) and I know a great many right-wingers who are not heterosexual. No one on the planet ever said otherwise.

Other than all that I agree with you 100%. I hope the next time you 'casually destroy' conservative arguments by just listing sarcastic interpretations of your own simplistic misunderstanding of conservative positions I will somehow be able to rise to the challenge of undoing it all. But by definition I'm a lightweight so that means you don't actually have to openly and honestly consider any viewpoints other than ones that confirm your narrow worldview.

Stickeenotes, I would refer you to an actual academic study conducted by researchers at Indiana University. There is a liberal bias in the media, all right. But it is a bias against liberals.

Maria Elizabeth Grabe and Erik Bucy, both associate professors in the Department of Telecommunications of IU's College of Arts and Sciences, report their findings in their book, Image Bite Politics: News and the Visual Framing of Elections (Oxford University Press).

"We don't think this is journalists conspiring to favor Republicans. We think they're just so beat up and tired of being accused of a liberal bias that they unknowingly give Republicans the benefit in coverage," said Grabe, who also is a research associate in political science at the University of Pretoria in South Africa. "It's self-censorship that journalists might be imposing on themselves."

Wow. Lenin and Goebbels were right. Lies are mighty powerful things, and if you repeat them often enough they become true, or at least are accepted as so - with the added benefit of making those who don't believe the CW suspect.

Those are some damned fine role models, don't you think?

Bush did keep us safe-that's a fact.

Actually, the worse attack on American soil took place on George Bush's watch after six months of warnings by intelligence agencies here and abroad that it was going to happen.

Perhaps you slept through it?

If you've got an example of a conservative columnist directly lifting talking points (aka 'hot air') from Malkin's site, feel free to provide it.

O'Reilly does it on his show a couple dozen times a year. Does it not count because it's on the teevee?

Also, it was the liberal community that held Dowd to account. Malkin's point is exactly...what? Josh Marshall's quality of news reporting makes Malkin look like an eighth-grader writing for journalism class. She traffics in innuendo, smears, and hysteria, while Josh is writing pieces on policy and analysis.

But by definition I'm a lightweight so that means you don't actually have to openly and honestly consider any viewpoints other than ones that confirm your narrow worldview.

You are pretty clearly a lightweight. You are a particular variety of wingnut commenter that shows up here fairly often and through argument by assertion and lofty language tries tells us we're not nearly as intelligent as you.

global warming isn't so much a conspiracy as a religion for people who think humans are to blame for every evil anywhere on the planet

Actually no, it's a well-documented phenomenon with hundreds of thousands of scientists across dozens of disciplines describing its effects, which are easy to experience.

Thank you for bringing your half-witted analysis tho this blog, it's always fun to dispense with the factually impaired.