I am thoroughly impressed with this series so far, and it really should be an eye opener for the naive and clueless (maybe you should email all Parts to all of the cable, broadcast, and big paper/magazine editors). Well done! My curiosity leads me to ask, are there any more "Parts" coming in this series?

I have to read (and hold my nose so that I don't retch) what is revealed at the Daily Howler every day. While his snark is sometimes over the top, he does outstanding work. I guess I was too asleep during the 2000 Campaign to realize the extent to which the media was so complicit in aiding Bush by collectively and unfairly bashing Gore.

Too bad more people aren't tuned in to these sites and open to challenging their political and world views. Keep it up!

I find it interesting that we are talking about myths here. In my previous post (under the open thread), I said that the blue states and democratic-controlled municipalities should show Republicans "how it's done" by converting government buildings to solar power and offering large tax incentives to home owners to convert their homes to solar power. I believe a more insidious conspiracy is being perpetrated by corporations; that conspiracy is spreading the fallacy that solar power doesn't work or is inefficient.

Many have constructed new homes or modified their existing homes to eliminate their dependence on electric power provided by utility companies. It is not in the interest of BP, Exxon (the highest-valued company in the world now by the way), Dynegy, or any other energy producer to tell you that you don't need them. Unfortunately, many are repeating the lies here.

If people in MAINE can build homes with solar-panel arrays that not only power their homes, but in some cases produce a surplus of power that they sell back to the electric company (http://www.solarhouse.com), I find it hard to believe that people in the rest of the country cannot achieve comparable (if not superior) results given that they have longer and sunnier days.

So, if you tell me solar power wouldn't/couldn't/doesn't work, I would retort by saying that the Panama Canal can't be built, supersonic travel is impossible, and manned spaceflight is just someone's daydream. Just remember that "Can't never did nothing" and with the right amount of investment we can break the chains of dependence on oil.

Well, I manged to read most of your Three Part Series on why you think that there is a myth to the liberal media claims. First of all, you're writing style is a bit meandering. It sure takes you a long time to wind down the road to make a point. Next, are you really making a point or are these just more crazy allegations from a political party that's been hung out to dry since 2000?

Muck, are you saying that the media does have a liberal bias? If so I would like the proof because I gaurantee I can give you numerous examples of conservative bias in the media.

Yeah well, for every one example you give me, I can find two or three liberal bias articles for you. That's what makes this 3-part column a bunch of hooey.

A couple additional notes on the use of headlines to show bias:

1) Headlines -- especially front-page and front-section ones -- are written by copy editors, not the reporters who write the articles nor by those who determine the content of the newspaper. I doubt copy editors are a good measure of overall content and presentation based media bias, if only because for a paper that employs 1,000 people, only about 25 of them are copy editors.

2) Headlines are generally re-written at each newspaper for stories from the AP wire or other papers, thus the number of unique stories corresponding to the release of certain economic information is likely far overestimated by counting headlines.

3) Urban areas are more likely to have numerous newspapers, and as we know from last November, are also usually blue spots. If editors and reporters for urban papers are chosen from the local area, they're statistically more likely to be liberal. Also, more urban papers means more stories with liberal readership, which could affect both the content and headlines....headlines are written to fit a story and grab the audience. Liberal reporter produces a story with liberal bias, which inspires a left-leaning headline. Liberal reader sees liberal headline, buys newspaper. Lather, rinse, and repeat. Even if the survey were not just headlines, I would expect liberal readership and liberal areas to be over-represented.

I wish I could find the statistics for it, but I can only present it as anecdotal evidence that copy editors are *the* most liberal sub-group in the media. (I think I recall a nationwide poll of copy editors that came up with only 9% of the respondents in the conservative/Republican camp.)

George T, you can expect about 4 or 5 more parts next week.

J, thanks for the notes. I have mentioned in the more detailed coverage on the Lott/Hassett paper (at ICM) that copy-editors are the ones who write the headlines. I'll keep your points in mind but if you can provide some URLs to back up your numbers that will be helpful.

I concur on the excellence of the series.

That's what makes this 3-part column a bunch of hooey.

Well, stick to the headlines, muck. Or you could take a little ritalin so you can maintain focus for more than 12 seconds and follow a topic.

I find it hard to believe that people in the rest of the country cannot achieve comparable (if not superior) results given that they have longer and sunnier days

Canadians get good results with shorter and less sunny days.

muck reporting the facts/truth does not constitute a liberal bias...just remember that when you post all your "instances" of liberal bias here.

You guys are hillarious. A great example of brain washing and a "cult mentality."

Muckdog, it would seem more appropriate to be "brainwashed" by facts (as we seem to be) than brainwashed by fiction (which you seem to be). The AEI may have openings for more fiction writers such as yourself. It might be lucrative too.

Hey, thanks for dredging up that post and linking to it. As you might have guessed, I'm a professional journalist, and I've written a fair amount of similar posts to that one. These few, among many others.

Checking up on the media critics
Checking up on the media critics II
Media critics: Haifa street execution photo edition

Although I suppose lately I've grown a bit tired of that kind of fact-checking -- there's just not a big call in the blogosphere for someone interested in *defending* the media, or in taking a critical look at accusations of bias.

Ryan,

Thanks for the links. I will review them in due course. I am a fervent media critic but mostly for inaccurate reporting or lack of reporting. In the weeks ahead there will be occasions where I will defend the media - selectively. Feel free to drop by and take a look.

Muck, It is simple. Apply the Clinton test. If Clinton were president and did exactlly the same as Bush did>>>> Gannon/Guckert=impeached, Lied about war=impeached, etc.

Eriposte,

I'll look forward to reading what you write. Just to make it clear, I strongly believe in media criticism, and I strongly believe that bloggers on the whole can be a mechanism to force the news industry to do its job better. But I see far too many attacks on the media that just can't be backed up by any facts, and I think these hurt bloggers' credibility.