Okay. But that doesn't say they're not a representative sample, it just says that we don't know that they're a representative sample. That time.
Meaning that we can draw no reliable conclusion from the results.
But if every study shows a bias - the same bias - then unless every sample is non-representative in the exact same way, then the bias is real.
10 bad studies do not make one good study. Sorry.
Every study does show the same bias.
Really? Every study? Perhaps you have some evidence of this?
The bias is real. (Quite apart from being blindingly obvious in the first place.)
Really? I don't watch a lot of TV, so I cannot answer from personal experience. I get most of my news from NPR. Which, interestingly enough, is usually touted as a bastion of liberalism, yet one of the studies above labeled the News Hour with Jim Lehrer as the most balanced source. So much for "blazingly obvious". The only station for whom
I see an obvious bias in their news shows is "fair and balanced we report you decide" Fox. And it ain't liberal. Go figure.
And your claim that this is a Republican lie is a lie.
It is a lie that the study in question proves liberal bias of the media. It is so flawed in its design that it proves nothing. At best it shows the possibility of bias that could be addressed in better controlled studies.
Let me ask a more general question. Can you conclude that a group is biased just because they come to a different conclusion than the general population? Let us say that half the population supports evolution and the other half creationism. If we were to ask science reporters if they supported intelligent design or evolution, and found that 98% supported evolution, would you conclude that reporters were biased? I wouldn't. I would instead assert that the reporters were probably more interested in the subject than the general population, were more intelligent, had more scientific training, had examined the evidence in more detail, and perhaps were less biased by religious beliefs. They had then made a relatively unbiased decision that evolution better fits available data than creationism.
If you will accept that science reporters believing evolution theory does not prove science reporters bias, then it is equally reasonable to accept that even if journalists support Democrats this does not prove journalistic bias. It may simply be a reflection that those who study the political parties in detail for the most part come to the conclusion that the Democratic party has better policies than the republicans.
Take, for example, Reagan and supply side economics. Reagan says he can cut taxes, increase defense spending, and balance the budget. Reporters go out and talk to economists, who by a 10-1 margin (I made up the number) say that this is snake oil: it won't work, and it will lead to huge deficits. The reporters conclude that Mondale's economic policies are better for the country and support him 10-1 in the election (also a made up number). 55% or so of the population, however, buys the snake oil and votes for Reagan. Were the reporters biased, or just better informed? Does the fact that Reagan's policies did lead to huge deficits, and that some of his own economic advisers later admitted that they didn't believe the projections, affect your opinion?
The other hurdle you need to clear is that even if you could prove that 100% of reporters support the democrats, this still would not prove that they cannot put their opinions aside when they report the news. I admit that it is unlikely that some bias would not creep in. A sports reporter may support the hometown team, but he still reports the final score accurately. He may be easier or tougher on the hometown players, but the degree to which this flavors his commentary is far from given.
