While interesting arguments are presented on this conspiracy moon landing, an……

I don’t know. According to Michelle Malkin a moonbat seems to be someone tha……

Actually, sxs537, I believe if you check, you’ll find I’ve guided you to try to argue on that basis – versus the way you had been going. You just haven’t made an argument that’s impressed me. I don’t mean that as a dig since in the grand scheme of all things it really doesn’t matter if I’m unimpressed. And I’d venture my being impressed or not won’t cost you too many nights sleep!

“We conservatives should not be drawing conclusions on questionable studies to support our statments. Rather we should have solid data and valid studies which nobody in the world should be able to dispute.”

Not affiliated politically here.

You may not be aware of the many studies and polls which have consistently shown a MSM left wing bias. This expose just further illustrates that fact. One could argue against the sheer preponderance of the evidence, but I think it would be unwise.

You are right that, if there were only one study/investigation, it might be meaningless. This particular item is just an interesting inclusion to an already-full plate of evidence. Of particular interest here is the denying & protesting too much of the media types involved. Of further note is of the rarity of this study; a MSM outlet voicing a mea culpa.

By way of a primer of sorts, with historical polling and other supporting data: from the Media Research Center -

Media Bias Basics

The keyword is representative sample. One aspect of the representative sampling is that it has to be random. Secondly the smaller the sample size the higher the error percentages become (assuming a constant confidence level). Well this study is not random and also the sample size is very small. Hence the error would be high and probably statistically irrelevant (I did not calculate the percentages)

2)What I mean to say when I made the stamenet about overwhelming journalists not violating ethical norms was just making a logical deduction. You are drawing conclusions from my deduction. For example:

If I am a journalist and I do not contribute monetarily to any political party (or affiliation thereof), then regardless of my politcal leanings I am following ethical norms.

Now whether my writing is biased due to my leanings is a seperate issue. That is what I meant by doing a comprehensive survey in my first comment. There are tons of research houses who can prepare a survey questionnaire and randomly survey journalists (like you mentioned about polling). That would be a more apt study to show the left-leaning political bias of journalists than the MSNBC study.

That is the crux of my argument about the statistical validity of the study rather than the conclusion. We conservatives should not be drawing conclusions on questionable studies to support our statments. Rather we should have solid data and valid studies which nobody in the world should be able to dispute.

Thanks for the dialogue. Over and out

“I don’t understand. Things that I do as a private citizen?

“We’re not a traditional news network in the sense of NBC or Fox or CBS.

“We’re sensitive about equal time or fairness. We’re non-biased.

“I mean, what the f—-, man?

“I came back from doing coverage in Iraq and was very moved by what I saw. I was never told by my boss or anyone that we couldn’t give to a campaign.

“I’m not a journalist now. Writing fiction.

“I would never qualify what we do as journalism. Ninety percent of what we did was simple identification, after 9/11: Who is Rumsfeld? Who is Colin Powell? Who is Al Qaeda?

“I try to call it as you see it.

“After my second trip to Iraq in 2004, I felt the conventional news media was not doing a good enough job of conveying the horrors and the failures of the war in Iraq.

“At 18 I was a registered Republican. At 24, I was a registered Democrat.

“I tried very hard — our job was not an indoctrination process — I tried to be as professional as possible whenever possible.

“We were a non-traditional news outlet. We were nonpartisan.

“”OK, I’ve been rebuked. Thank you for spanking me in public.

“Do you hand in all your rights as a public citizen when you do this?

“I mean — who’s your editor? I’m going to call him right now.”

MSNBC lists journalists’ donations to political parties and as Matt Drudge headlines with the 9 to 1 swing to the Democrats over the Republicans in the piece Journalists Campaign Cash. On a similar note, Michelle Malkin weighs in on the…

Just imagine if these journalists were contributing to republican candidates in this extremely large percentage…….Can you imagine the uproar?

Where you’re going wrong on the math is in incorrectly citing the relevant numbers.

While it may be tempting to take the 60000 and say “but only 125 gave to liberals”, the thing to look at is the percentages.

“You just cannot pick a miniscule subset of people (journalists who contribute to political parties) and say that it represents a broad general trend…… It is not done in statistics”

That’s obviously incorrect. In fact, it’s done all the time. To wit:

When a polling company wants to get an accurate feel of what people as a whole think or do, it does not interview the 6-7 billion people on planet earth. It takes what’s called a “representative sampling” to get a percentage.

In this case rhe percentage of those who give to left wing candidates is 125 of 144 journalists. That is over 86 percent; and that’s the pertinent figure.

As for the “the overwhelming number of journalists do not violate”. That’s what you’ve read into it. It would be just as correct to say that many of them have not yet confessed to or been caught giving $$$ to liberal politicians.

Making value judgments as goodness or badness based on a lack of info doesn’t work. Take either of above “reads” & a couple bucks and a person has enough for maybe a cuppa joe and a sinker. But not much else.

You can argue the merits – or lack thereof – of the MSN nose-counting on this, That’s fair game. But you’d have to provide solid data as to why it’s not valid.