Perhaps his more critical, and really, it hasn't been all that critical
To
you. We can agree to disagree, since we're definitely reading/viewing different things (both only accessing a teensy bit of the vast US MSM)-- to name one of the multiple factors that shape our perception of bias.
But I will agree, however, that I don't think there is a way to get to a black and white assessment of bias. How could I? It's much more complicated than one person's perception (like my own which changes depending on a number of things), conventional wisdom or even the mathematical formula in that study I cited. Not that both aren't helpful--I don't discount any of those possibilities working together at any number of points. All I said was that I find money on the whole more persuasive than ideology. But
it's not an either/or proposition.I do, however, dispute the conventional wisdom in the US (evidenced by the Gallup survey of Americans who feel the news is more liberal) that coverage is defined by a liberal tilt
alone. I am also skeptical of the idea that the media has
always treated Obama with kid gloves and continues to do so. I find that notion reductive. I don't think it acknowledges all the possible factors that make up coverage and it's ups and downs, which are probably impossible to pin down that definitively.
The MSM is huge and ever-changing, anything but chaos and disorder within it is hard for me to believe, especially when thinking about it over time.
*shrug*
alcyone
