Anatomy of a Biased Headline: Part Deux

Photo of Rusty Weiss.

We've covered it here before.  It's akin to that old child's game where one person whispers something into another's ear, passes it on to several others, until the final statement is no longer vaguely recognizable as being related to the first.

So, here we go again with Anatomy of a Biased Headline...

Let's start with a recent study funded by the National Science Foundation, in which researchers lay claim to this finding: 

Some Political Views May be Related to Physiology

Science Magazine's actual headline was similarly non-insulting:

Political Attitudes Vary with Physiological Traits

Seems pretty neutral right?  Let's see how the media took that headline and ran with it...

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

The Toronto Star took words from the very same study, placed then in a hat along with a few other descriptors, shook it up, and out came:

Liberals flinch less, conservatives more, study finds

Of course, the NSF study measured how hard one blinks in response to startling pictures.  No word on how much dust was in the room of the subjects, or whether or not they were allergy prone.  Or, if they just tend to blink more in general.  That said blink speed can also be affected by fatigue, eye injury, medication, and disease, and I'm sure all of these things were taken into account. 

But with such a vast pool of subjects to choose from, surely those other factors become watered down.  Well, the NSF revealed the large sample group actually contained:

46 people who identified themselves as having strong political opinions.'

That's 46 people from the Lincoln, Nebraska area by the way.  Hardly a sprawling, representative sample.

But wait, wasn't it the liberals (specifically, Andrea Mitchell) who had an issue with Sarah Palin's lack of blinking in a recent interview, when asked of the prospect of running for vice-president?  As it says in the article, blinking is a sign of wisdom for liberals.  Now I'm really confused.  And blinking.  Heavily.

Onward...

National Geographic took up the conservatives = cowards theme with their headline:

Conservatives Have Stronger Startle Reflexes?

This one struck me as a little more clever than most.  The bias is mildly concealed by calling the startle reflexes ‘stronger.'  Hinting that a group of people are weaker by using the adjective ‘stronger' is very clever indeed.  My paltry conservative mind barely noticed the subtlety, or should I say, I overcame my strong lack of intelligence.

The Daily Mail went with this gem:

Right-wingers more startled by sudden noises and spiders than liberals, study finds

See, one of the images in the study was that of a person with a very large spider on their face.  Somehow, the fear of spiders can be linked to opposition to gay marriage, I guess.

Sky News decided this would be fair and balanced:

Nervy? You're Probably Right-Wing

Were you aware of how nervous conservatives are as a people?  Neither was I...

ABC News had this to say:

Easily Startled? It Could Reflect Your Politics

Those Who Startle Easily More Likely to Favor Iraq War, New Study Says

Now it seems, ABC would like you to know right off the bat that those who are easily frightened support the war in Iraq, according to the study.

Wired Science decided to dispense with the theatrics, and just cut to the heart of their biased viewpoint, flat-out referring to conservatives as ‘scared.'

Conservatives Scare More Easily Than Liberals, Say Scientists

Odd, that's a far cry from the first two headlines above.  And it should also be noted that the NSF article makes no mention of either the word scared, or nervous.  They were simply attempting to measure reactions to what they deemed to be startling images, by counting the number of involuntary blinks.

But why is this such a big deal you ask?  What does the headline matter, as long as the article itself is presented factually?

This site, which tracks the effectiveness of news Web sites in attracting viewers, sums up the tendencies of readers here:

‘With a headline larger than the blurb and on a separate line, people tended to view the headlines and skip the blurbs; they scanned the headlines throughout the page...'

We live in an on-the-go society.  People get their news by scanning headlines.

Yet through all of this conservative bashing comes a lone ray of hope.  Hope that exemplifies the entire conservative versus liberal debate in nearly every facet.  New Scientist saw things a little differently and chose this headline:

Voting Republican may be a survival response

Ain't that the truth?

Photo Credit:  Sky News


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Retarded autonomic response

Retarded autonomic response can be a symptom of serious disorder

New headline

"Liberals' physiology shows striking similarities to brain-damage."

Right-wingers more startled

Right-wingers more startled by sudden noises and spiders than liberals, study finds.

Left-wingers more startled by sudden rational thoughts and people who are kind by nature than conservatives, study finds. 

Left-wing moonbats more startled by women and blacks holding a different ideological view from their own than vice-verse for conservatives, study finds. Study also finds that they are quick to intolerantly dismiss them as traitorous sluts or uncle toms, and that conservatives view their black/female counterparts as simply holding to different political views from their own.

Left-wingers are found to be mental midgets, study finds. 

 

NOW PLAYING:
Governor Palin Get Your Gun

 

AND.....

Funny how "study finds" sounds strikingly like "some say".

 

NOW PLAYING:
Governor Palin Get Your Gun

 

re: Headlines

I love it when you guys add your own versions of the headlines!

Keep 'em coming...

Rusty

Voting Republican may be a

Voting Republican may be a survival response

Exactly!

...they may have wanted to take a good example of a group from... oh say 46 people in the military...eh?

 

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

On the flip side...

"Voting Republican may be a survival response"

Voting Liberal may mean death to a nation.

Right, liberals only belive

Right, liberals only belive Bush is a secret neo-nazi, every company is out to get them, most food is toxic, and Co2 will kill us all. They don't flinch, no siree.

headline...

"Slow to Respond?  You Might be a Liberal"

"Liberals tend to be indicicisve"

"Retarded Response = Liberal Mindset"

"Liberal Thought Slows Brain Activity"

"New Study Leads to Potential Discovery of 'Liberal Gene'; Increased Abortion Likely Result"

needs more cowbell

"Those less affected by

"Those less affected by horrific images are more likely to kill an unborn child, study finds..."

When asked if he went to war with Iraq  to derail the impeachment vote:  “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).

"Those un-fazed by

"Those un-fazed by unnatural images more likely to wed same sex partners..."

When asked if he went to war with Iraq  to derail the impeachment vote:  “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).

"Those unaffected by

"Those unaffected by blood-sucking spiders are more likely to want the blood-sucking government to steal other peoples' money and give it to them..." 

When asked if he went to war with Iraq  to derail the impeachment vote:  “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).

FOURTY SIX?

How is a study of FOURTY SIX people generalized to AN ENTIRE GROUP OF VOTERS?

Dear God, the inhumanity of it all.

One could take 42 people from another city and probably get the exact opposite results, then what would it prove about this "study"?

That these studies shouldn't get Federal funding?  (the NSF is funded by our tax dollars)

And only a liberal would use this pretzel logic:

"protect privacy and encourage gun control."

You can't DO BOTH you morons.  The best way to ensure your PERSONAL privacy is with guns.  My guess is that liberals are so mentally absolved from reality that they don't react quickly to any stimuli.  They just load up their bumper sticker mantras into their minds, and when they see the spider it doesn't match any of their pre-loaded responses so they don't know how to respond.

Palin has accomplished great things, while Obama has continued to make empty promises that the world owes you a living.

My headline

 

Study finds liberals to behave like deer in headlights when confronted with unknown stimuli.

Study links neanderthal behavior of caring about the environment to liberal mindset.

Palin has accomplished great things, while Obama has continued to make empty promises that the world owes you a living.

Rusty... I find the study

Rusty...

I find the study is misleading as the liberal rags that interpreted the study.

Personally, I find liberals to be afraid of their own shadows. Just look at which side of the idelogical aisle is scared to death at the mere mention of an issue like AGW. It is they that keep screaming..."the sky is falling"!

Hate Rush Limbaugh Week - Again

 

 

Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/  

Rusty - Actually research says, liar liar, pants on fire.

Rusty - it's a lot more biased than one might think. There is a heck of a lot more study out there than these little shallow journalist want-to-be scientists/shrinks wish to see.

Some Political Views May be Related to Physiology

Indeed, this has been shown to be true; however one should start at the roots of the scientific findings and not cherry pick the agenda.

It begins with white matter vs gray matter in the brain.

People with more white matter tend to be more creative; artists, creative writers, etc. They tend to show more emotion. They also tend to have a more difficult time deciding - they are so busy analyzing the issue to death - they see the issue in shades of gray, instead of black and white, so that their determination today, may look different to them tomorrow. Folks with more white matter, researchers have found, tend to lie more often.

Folks with more gray matter, on the other hand - well look at your C.E.O's. They see life more in black and white. It's not so confusing out there for them. You attack us - we hit back. You mess with my daughter - talking about counseling is not on the table.

Researchers found was that the liars had significantly more "white matter" - the wiring in the brain - and slightly less "gray matter", than the truthful subjects. The researchers explained that white matter is the "networking" tissue that holds together and links the grey matter. Apparently, pathological liars have a surplus of white matter and a deficit of gray matter, meaning they have more tools to lie, coupled with fewer moral restraints.

Now. Let's really have some fun with this: Liar, Liar:

Apparently, pathological liars have a surplus of white matter and a deficit of gray matter, meaning they have more tools to lie, coupled with fewer moral restraints. When compared to the normal control subjects, liars had a 22 percent increase in white matter and a 14 percent decrease in prefrontal gray matter.

[..]

"When people make moral decisions, they are relying on the prefrontal cortex. When people ask normal people to make moral decisions, we see activation in the front of the brain," he explained. "If these liars have a 14 percent reduction in gray matter, that means that they are less likely to care about moral issues or are less likely to be able to process moral issues. Having more gray matter would keep a check on these activities."

Get the picture (thank you Dennis Quaid); less gray matter ='s more white matter ='s more difficult to determine the absolute truth ='s telling more lies (but don't think that they are lies ='s more flip-flopping.

The LA Times summarized all of this in one article once with the final anaysis being that President Bush makes a decision and sticks with it - Iraq War; while John Kerry keeps bouncing back and forth on the issue; Bush more gray matter and Kerry more white.

Written all over this: White (and the libs are going to hate this) ='s Democrats, and Gray ='s Republicans. The good liberal spin on this, is of course, is that "liberals could be expected to more readily accept new social, scientific or religious ideas." Big surprise.(;~> gary  

Gary

Thanks for the link to the Liar, Liar article. I'm wondering if Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., M.D reviewed the British Journal study before he wrote the Liberal Mind.

I sent an email to Rush Limbaugh with a link to your NewsBuster analysis of the study, as well as the link to the scienceagogo article. Rush would appreciate another reaffirmation as to why liberals lie, or to put in a politer way: "handle the truth so  recklessly."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

"They are actively promoting the decline of America." ~ Rush Limbaugh on liberals and Democrats

 

And MSM reporters lie so bad flames come out their ears

MSM and the National Sicko Foundation can take a hike.

Scared of shadows

I can attest to the accuracy of this study, but they didn't have to spend the money. Years ago a bunch of fairly conservative guys participated in a real live experiment. The country had called, some answered, some didn't. By the time we got dirty, yes we were startled by sudden noises, things moving in the dark like spiders and rats, flashes of light. Scared? Then, on the liberal side, I guess they were back in San Fran. Smokin' and doing what they could find. Probably their pupils would have a hard time responding to any stimulus. Hell, I later saw some liberals who wouldn't respond to my boot on their ass. No kidding!

jaywl... Hear, hear! My

jaywl...

Hear, hear!

My sentiments exactly...You expressed what I was lamely trying to in my post above with such a poor example compared to yours..

Just wanted to express my appreciation...you said it all for me.

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

So this explains why almost

So this explains why almost all of the doomsday crises come from the conservative side of the fence???!!!

I guess I got it all backwards. I thought Global Warming catastrophe, the population bomb, chemical poisoning, water contamination, ozone depletion, mass extinction, evironmental catastrophe, killer flu, the energy crisis, and cancer epidemics were all in the Democrat/liberal closet of anxieties.

All along it's been us conservatives running around like Chicken Little. Who woulda thunk?             

A gun in your hand beats a cop on the phone.

Study finds people who want

Study finds people who want to save polar bears and trees, support abortion.

www.theholyrosary.org

"There is no problem, I tell you, no matter how difficult it is, that we can not resolve by the prayer of the Holy Rosary."  -Sister Lucia

On the subject of Biased Headlines

can I hijack this item and add the unbiased headline from today's Weekly Standard correcting the headline this week that reported Mc Cain could not fire the SEC commissioner? (of course I can).

The president can fire SEC commissioners. As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit stated last month in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, "[m]embers of the [SEC] . . . are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate and subject to removal by the President for cause; its chairman is selected by and serves at the pleasure of the President." Thus, it is an error to suggest that the president cannot fire an SEC commissioner, including Chairman Cox. The president can SEC commissioners, at least for cause (a limitation subject to dispute, as described below), and he certainly can demote the SEC Chairman at pleasure.

No Flinch

"Dope-smoking Commies Flinch Less Than Normal Americans"

"People Who Don't Flinch At The Thought Of A Baby Being Slaughtered, Don't Flinch At Much Besides Maybe Joining The Military"

"People Who Swallow Obama's BS Whole Also Have Very Slow Reaction Times To Other Stimuli"

"Telephone" is the name of

"Telephone" is the name of the children's game(fun to play as an adult, too).

That said blink speed can also be affected by fatigue, eye injury,
medication, and disease, and I'm sure all of these things were taken
into account."--NB

And, don't forget, contact lens wearers blink more frequently, too.  So, could it be that more Conservatives wear contact lenses??

Biased?

I am truly taken aback.

How to lie in polls

Pollster:  "would you rather give free health care to poor people or let babies die?"

Conservative: "ummmmm.. well, I don't want babies dying..."

Headline:  MOST AMERICANS SUPPORT FREE HEALTHCARE

 

"I've now been in 57 states -- I think one left to go." ~ Barrack Hussein Obama ~

"You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.... I'm not joking." ~ Sen. Joe Biden

Sounds about right.

Study finds that people who support killing babies are less likely to be startled. While those supporting family values tend to be shocked when others support killing babies.

Sounds about right to me.

Ask not what your country can hand to you.