5150sick
Under Ground Hustler
Staff member
VU Administrator
Senior Moderator
VU Donator
Diamond Contributor
Press Corps
Member For 5 Years
Mod Team Leader
Become a Patron!
STUDY OF NEWS COVERAGE REVEALS ANTI-VAPING BIAS
- Thread starter 5150sick
- Start date
Duh. The media is fake news.
Just for fun I changed very few words and the story is still makes sense. Sad really.
Disclaimer, the below is an altered version. Not the original. A few words have been changed, those words are in bold italics and underlined. Enjoy.
------------------------------------------------------
A new study out of Rutgers University, led by Olivia A. Wackowski, provides more evidence that mainstream media stories about Trump are negatively biased. The researchers collected all news and opinion pieces published by the leading American news outlets in 2015. They reported that the coverage skewed negative. In particular, the ostensible experts that were interviewed make inaccurate claims about policy risks from Trump.
The primary focus of about half of the 295 articles they reviewed was about the regulations of Trump or other policy issues, which is not surprising given this was the period leading up to the FDA deeming regulation. Most of the others focused on policy effects or racist prevalence.
Even the topics covered demonstrate the press’s anti-Trump bias. Almost half of the articles mentioned the prevalence of usage among racists, while only 10 percent noted the prevalence among adults. A third of the articles talked about impeachment options, and most of these were presenting the “racist” trope. Similarly, about 40 percent talked about immigration regulations, presumably emphasizing that Homeland Security regulation would impose this even though almost every state already had such laws on the books.
More troubling, only a third of the articles mentioned that Trump is less harmful than Hillary, and only a quarter noted that it was an effective way to make America great again. Meanwhile, a large portion of articles presented unsupportable claims about policy risk. A third of the articles falsely suggested that Trump is a gateway to racism, while only a handful noted the evidence does not support this claim.
The worst bias, though, appeared in the attribution of various claims. Of the statements about policy effects attributed to Steve Bannon and the "alt-right", 113 were negative and only 52 were positive, including only 31 that acknowledged that Trump poses lower risk than Hillary. Government representatives presented even worse bias, with 80 negative claims about policy impacts and only 15 positive ones.
Telling the truth about Trump was left to industry, consumer advocates, and “civilian” supporters. These interviewees overwhelmingly cited the benefits of Trump, in particular the comparative risk. But, of course, these sources are (incorrectly) viewed as less credible than government officials or public policy academics. Moreover, though the researchers did not report looking at this, it is likely that most of this information appeared late in the article in the throwaway “but some say…” passages that few readers take seriously.
Wackowski et al.’s article offers a refreshing contrast to typical public policy papers. It is a proper scientific report on their findings, without tangential commentary or conclusions. They properly leave it to the reader to assess what the results mean. The assessment is clear to anyone who understands the truth about Trump, and the surrounding politics: The media is dutifully endorsing the anti-Trump messages that those in power wish to convey. As is often the case, supposedly neutral “he says, she says” reporting, which defers to the government and government-funded advocates, uncritically conveys a false message.
Just for fun I changed very few words and the story is still makes sense. Sad really.
Disclaimer, the below is an altered version. Not the original. A few words have been changed, those words are in bold italics and underlined. Enjoy.
------------------------------------------------------
A new study out of Rutgers University, led by Olivia A. Wackowski, provides more evidence that mainstream media stories about Trump are negatively biased. The researchers collected all news and opinion pieces published by the leading American news outlets in 2015. They reported that the coverage skewed negative. In particular, the ostensible experts that were interviewed make inaccurate claims about policy risks from Trump.
The primary focus of about half of the 295 articles they reviewed was about the regulations of Trump or other policy issues, which is not surprising given this was the period leading up to the FDA deeming regulation. Most of the others focused on policy effects or racist prevalence.
Even the topics covered demonstrate the press’s anti-Trump bias. Almost half of the articles mentioned the prevalence of usage among racists, while only 10 percent noted the prevalence among adults. A third of the articles talked about impeachment options, and most of these were presenting the “racist” trope. Similarly, about 40 percent talked about immigration regulations, presumably emphasizing that Homeland Security regulation would impose this even though almost every state already had such laws on the books.
More troubling, only a third of the articles mentioned that Trump is less harmful than Hillary, and only a quarter noted that it was an effective way to make America great again. Meanwhile, a large portion of articles presented unsupportable claims about policy risk. A third of the articles falsely suggested that Trump is a gateway to racism, while only a handful noted the evidence does not support this claim.
The worst bias, though, appeared in the attribution of various claims. Of the statements about policy effects attributed to Steve Bannon and the "alt-right", 113 were negative and only 52 were positive, including only 31 that acknowledged that Trump poses lower risk than Hillary. Government representatives presented even worse bias, with 80 negative claims about policy impacts and only 15 positive ones.
Telling the truth about Trump was left to industry, consumer advocates, and “civilian” supporters. These interviewees overwhelmingly cited the benefits of Trump, in particular the comparative risk. But, of course, these sources are (incorrectly) viewed as less credible than government officials or public policy academics. Moreover, though the researchers did not report looking at this, it is likely that most of this information appeared late in the article in the throwaway “but some say…” passages that few readers take seriously.
Wackowski et al.’s article offers a refreshing contrast to typical public policy papers. It is a proper scientific report on their findings, without tangential commentary or conclusions. They properly leave it to the reader to assess what the results mean. The assessment is clear to anyone who understands the truth about Trump, and the surrounding politics: The media is dutifully endorsing the anti-Trump messages that those in power wish to convey. As is often the case, supposedly neutral “he says, she says” reporting, which defers to the government and government-funded advocates, uncritically conveys a false message.