Or, the “Left” answers, to be more specific. See the video at James O’ Keefe Investigation: Rutgers Education Professor in Pay-for-Play | MRCTV to see how a Rutgers education professor agrees not to make a deal until the research shows what he wants it to be.
We know how wildly biased media and education can be, but I’ve never given much thought to how many things the Left can hide in academia. Think of the studies that allegedly show how well kids turn out in gay/lesbian households. But what makes you think they wouldn’t hide a study that showed otherwise?
However, a new in-depth review of 59 studies on gay parenting has concluded that such “strong assertions” about gay parenting are “not empirically warranted.”
Most of the 59 gay-parenting studies involve children of high-income white lesbian mothers or tended to use very small samples; studied children but not teens; and either had no comparison families or compared lesbian-led homes with single-mother-led homes, wrote Louisiana State University family science professor Loren Marks.
These and other weaknesses cannot support broad statements that there are “no significant differences” between being raised in same-sex versus mother-father homes, wrote Mr. Marks, whose analysis was included in the Oct. 15 briefs filed by the House of Representatives in its defense of DOMA in Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management.
Eternity Matters 
I think it’s better to continue the conversation here, seeing as this is your blog and not John’s.
Anyway, as I was saying before, I’m afraid you are still missing the point that I am trying to make. You are fixating on specific instances in which an argument may or may not be able to be made on clear biases in specific cases. And that’s fine. I’m not arguing that there is no “Left” bias in reporting or academic publications, but this is not the whole story. By merely fixating on one side of the fence, and not drawing attention to the bias that can be found on the other side of the fence, you are further – and needlessly – marginalizing the political spectrum. This is not conducive to constructive criticisms of the other’s position, but only serves to demonize.
“Bias reporting”, from both the Left and the Right, is a serious issue and should be treated as such. Rather than attacking only one side, why not criticize all forms of bias? If you’re merely using this blog as your own personal soapbox, rather than providing an outlet for actual conversation, then I don’t think there’s any point in continuing with this. But if you do intend for this blog to function as an outlet for honest conversation, then please don’t focus on only criticizing those who do not hold your beliefs.
LikeLike
Sorry, I forgot to say:
Bias is not merely a “Left” problem. It is a problem. If you want to criticize the Left for doing something that you don’t agree with, that’s fine. But “bias” is not something that only the Left is guilty of, and by treating it in this matter, you are being – intentionally or unintentionally – dishonest to your readers.
LikeLike
I pointed out on John’s blog that universities are dominated by the Left, and you agreed. And I didn’t deny the the Right might do this as well. So I’m not sure what your point is. If you don’t like my blog, don’t visit. I’m not on commission.
But if they hold my beliefs there isn’t much to criticize 😉 . Hey, I oppose any wrong-doing by Republicans. If they profited from insider trading I’d love to see them replaced (and, in the future, jailed). And so on. I’m quite consistent.
LikeLike
The exact philosophy holds true for other “studies.” It is well-known that when you take a fossil or rock sample to have dated by the laboratories which do such things, you have to tell them the date you are looking for. Any dates that come up outside of that parameter are tossed; after all, we wouldn’t want information that doesn’t agree with the evolutionist’s ideology.
I have yet to hear of a study by conservatives that was hidden or tossed because it didn’t have the right answers, but it seems to be quite the norm for the liberals to do so.
LikeLike
@Neil
I apologize if I’m not being clear. I’m glad that we agree on a few things, which at least gives a good footing to go off of.
There’s nothing wrong with a blog focusing on promoting “Right Wing” issues (and I’m sorry if I unintentionally implied that), which would therefore lead to much criticism of the Left. ‘Bias’, however, is one of those things that is perpetrated by both the Left and the Right. Furthermore, bias is not an issue that only right-wingers accuse left-wingers of, and vice versa, but rather is an issue that should be tackled within a non-partisan context; or, at least, highlighting that both parties are guilty of bias. By merely going at this pervasive issue in the matter that you did, it makes it seem as if you think that only the Left is guilty of bias, when you expressed (in the comments section) that you think bias is not merely a Left issue.
Again, I’m not referring to you writing posts about issues that you don’t agree with that are perpetrated by the Left. If you continue to do that, godspeed. The only point that I am trying to make is that ‘bias’ is not a problem for only one party, but is rather an issue found throughout the political spectrum and, as such, should be tackled more comprehensively. As I said before, by merely “calling out the Left” you’re unnecessarily – and unjustifiably – demonizing the Left because you agree with me that the Right is guilty of the same thing.
@Glenn
To first address your FB comment:
I hope you are not under the impression that the ‘Right’ is synonymous with fundamental Christians. Given that you brought up evolution when we are talking about bias in politics, I’m not exactly sure what to make of your comment.
You’re comment on here, though, sort of sheds a bit more light on your thought process. But again, we’re talking about politics. I really don’t want to argue about both science and politics within the same post when the OP was solely referring to politics. Although, I do have to ask, do you think that only “evolutionists” are guilty of fudging data to suit their agenda? (Note: I’m not conceding that “evolutionists” do this in the first place.)
@John
Ok, I think there were two issues at hand here. Regarding the first sentence, I’m not sure if you’re saying that only the Left is guilty of bias, or if only the Left is guilty of the things you listed further on in your comment. If it is the former, must I really trudge out youtube clips of FOX reporting? Do I really have to use ‘Expelled’ as a reference for bias? I think that it is rather well-documented that the Right is also guilty of biased reporting. If it is the latter, I, to an extent, agree with you, but again, that’s not really the issue at hand. I will agree that, predominantly, the Left can be accused of being the most vociferous which then leads to actions being committed that are less-than-cordial (to put it mildly). However, I would hesitate to say that only the Left is guilty of this. Having said that, how does the vociferous nature of either party impact biased reporting/studies/etc.? While you could argue that biased reporting leads to vociferous actions, the reactionary actions do not address bias, which was the intent of the OP.
LikeLike
Oscar,
No, I’m not confusing “right” (as in political right) with real Christians, although real Christians by biblical worldview would have to be political right.
Evolutionism is indeed politics. It isn’t science, and it is politics that drives it very often. It is politics that allows evolutionism to silent all dissent in the educational institutions, being it grade school or college. If anything, it is religion and not science. But it has great control in the political realm. So my claim has everything to do with this post. It is the LEFT – the political and philosophical LEFT – which drives evolutionism and the studies it throws out.
LikeLike
Hmm…wow…well, now I see where you are coming from. Suffice it to say, I don’t agree with – anything – you just said. There are little things that you said (like “real Christians”) which have peaked my interest, but I don’t think it’s appropriate for this thread. Also, you didn’t answer my question…
LikeLike
I said “real” Christians as opposed to your “fundamental” Christians, because the implication was “fundamental” meant nutcases, which is what most people use it for; you know, the legalistic Bible-beaters. However, “fundamental” merely means one who follows the fundamentals of what ever they profess. In other words, a REAL Christian has to be a fundamental Christian. After all, wouldn’t you want a fundamental pilot flying the plane you are in?
LikeLike
Good point about fundamentalist pilots! It is too bad that the word “fundamentalist” got distorted over the years.
LikeLike
Yeah…I meant “fundamental” in the proper sense…? I’m not sure why you assumed I was being antagonistic. I don’t think I was.
LikeLike
I didn’t think “antagonistic,” rather I thought “condescending.”
LikeLike
Either way, after re-reading what I sad, “fundamental” doesn’t seem to me read as pejorative. Not all “liberal atheists” are evil…
LikeLike
Wow. That last statement of mine was riddled with grammar and spelling mistakes. Let me try again:
Either way, after re-reading what I said, “fundamental” doesn’t seem to me to read as pejorative. Not all “liberal atheists” are evil…
LikeLike
I don’t know how this conversation began, but it seems to me that the problem of bias doesn’t concern whether or not both sides can be or work in a biased manner. The real issue is whether or not that bias manifests in false, distorted or not fully accurate reporting. One must take care not to include opinion pieces (though they sometimes purport to reveal facts), but only actual reporting. Do they give the full story in as objective a manner as possible, not using terms that put a purposeful positive light on favored people and/or a purposeful negative light on those with opposing positions? Do they leave out important aspects of a story to provoke sentiment in the viewer, or give the story as it happened so as to allow the viewer to decide? Do they only report the negative stories of political opponents and only positive stuff regarding candidates they favor? This is when bias is a problem, and it can be said that the average media outlet, proven to employ those who usually support Democrats, does not always treat each side equally.
LikeLike
I notice that Oscar doesn’t give any examples of supposed “right wing” bias in news reporting. For liberals, it’s supposed to be a given that some sources (their favorite “example” is Fox News). My contention is that most of these “biased” sources are actually ideologically neutral; the Left simply thinks it is “biased” toward the Right because they’ve become so accustomed to left-wing bias that they think of it as the norm.
Think of it this way; you spent your entire life walking diagonally, with your body tilted to the left. Everything else that’s also tilted left, appears as though it’s vertical. When you encounter something that’s really straight up and down (as opposed to parallel to your point of view), which way does it appear to be “leaning?”
When someone’s ready to produce real examples of supposed right-wing bias from actual mainstream news sources (some whackadoodle blog doesn’t count), then we can talk. Until then, my contention is that all the bias is on the Left; and furthermore this includes most of what we call “news.”
LikeLike
Agreed, and he’d have to find sources for right-wing bias on college campuses, which is what this story was about.
LikeLike
Seriously???
Ok, firstly: ematters, the scope of the issue at hand is “media and education” as first proffered by Neil. So I’m well within the purview of this discussion to bring up media reporting.
Secondly, to both cylar and ematters, are you two truthfully under the impression that only the Left is affected by bias? Even when Neil himself affirmed that the Right may be guilty of it, as well? This attitude towards demonizing only one side of the political spectrum is why I had an issue with this post in the first place. No one is arguing that the Left is not guilty of bias, this is absurd. But writing posts like this only serves to further unjustly castigate the Left, as can be evidenced from both cylar’s and ematter’s remarks. I really did not think that it was possible for someone to be under the impression that only “his party” is wholly just and therefore couldn’t possibly succumb to the faults of this world. How far-removed from reality must one be to say that only one party is guilty of bias?
Forgive me for being less-than-cordial in this response, but this is exactly one of the main problems with the democratic process right now. People are no longer anti-[insert issue here], the state of affairs is such that people are anti-opposing political party.
If you’re really that unaware of bias found within right-wing reporting:
http://www.youtube.com/user/LiberalViewer#p/p
LikeLike
The Left should be castigated. Using your logic any time one side is 1% wrong then you’d consider the whole topic a coin flip (and no, I didn’t say it is 99 to 1 in this case . . . just close to it).
LikeLike
@ematters
I’m not exactly sure which logic you are referring to. Could you be a bit more specific? I don’t think I said anything that really employs the use of logic. My only assertion throughout has been that everyone is guilty of falling prey to bias and to explicitly say otherwise is being willfully ignorant of reality.
LikeLike
Even when Neil himself affirmed that the Right may be guilty of it, as well?
Okay, let’s see what he actually said:
I pointed out on John’s blog that universities are dominated by the Left, and you agreed. And I didn’t deny the the Right might do this as well.
He said didn’t deny. That is a wholly different statement from affirmatively saying it exists. It’s neutral at best.
Furthermore I don’t speak for Neil and neither does ematters. Unlike the Left, we don’t rely on others for our marching orders. He “admitted” that it might come from both sides because he was trying to be kind and charitable to you in the interest of having a civil discussion.
You are still unable to give any examples of right-wing bias in media reporting. If your contentions about it being evenly distributed were true, it should be easy for you to find some for us. No cherry picking allowed, either. Meanwhile, Bernard Goldberg has written an entire book on left-wing bias and how it distorts public opinion.
It is true that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but if something is there, you should be able to tell us where it is. Remember, you’re the one making the claim. It’s up to you to advance your point.
LikeLike
Also, if I may ask, why do you think “the Left” should be castigated, as opposed to merely the “liberally-biased media”? The impression from your statement is that everyone on the Left should be castigated by sheer virtue of having opposing views than your own…
LikeLike
Forgive me for being less-than-cordial in this response, but this is exactly one of the main problems with the democratic process right now.
Believe me, I know just how you feel. It’s hard to be civil to people who call you a bunch of racist, nativist, facist tea-baggers…for making the assertion that it’s time for government to be pushed back into its Constitutional boundaries and the statutes on everything from immigration to gun control, actually be enforced impartially.
I passed the point of being “less than cordial” with progressives a long time ago. Frankly I don’t think there is any dealing with them.
http://www.youtube.com/user/LiberalViewer#p/p
This is laughable. You’ll have to do better than that.
LikeLike
@cylar
Sorry, this thread is a continuation from a FB post. But, let us just say for the sake of argument that Neil’s attestation was neutral. I do (believe it or not) understand that you -or people, in general- do not necessarily formulate their beliefs based on the opinions of others. My point in mentioning Neil in the first place was to merely point out that he did not necessarily agree with your position, which it seemed like you were under the impression that he was – hence, affirming the overall thesis of my comments. By merely calling out the Left in this post, he is ostensibly taking a stance that may not mesh with what he actually believes, thus propagating unwarranted, and perhaps unintentional, demonization. Moreover, in the FB thread, I even conceded the fact that the Left may be guiltier of bias, but this is hardly the point. The point is that the Right is also guilty of bias. My concern is not with how much either side is influenced by bias, but that they are.
Lastly, I won’t provide any more sources unless you actually address why the source I provided is “laughable”. I can certainly make the off-hand comment that Goldberg’s book is laughable at best without providing justification for my criticism; in both cases, we would both be left wanting an explanation. So I ask: what – specifically – makes the source I provided “laughable”?
I’m giving you a serious conversation on an important issue. Please don’t be so flippant with my responses as it’s not conducive to actual constructive conversation.
LikeLike