Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Banner
By Garth Sundem | February 23rd 2009 05:00 AM | 6 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
.

More The Geeks' Guide to World Domination articles

All

About Garth Sundem

Do you need a Monday morning shot of geekery?

If so, you've come to the right place. Every Monday, early, I'll drop splendid geekery from the fields of physics, math, computer science, zoology


... Full Bio

It is every geek’s dream to join a think tank and thereby rule the world with nifty numbers and influential ideas—for no think tank is completely without agenda. John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis (not to be confused with the Emmy-winning actor of the same name, most known for his role as the beer-swilling husband on the TV series Roseanne) even-handedly describes the difference in approach of first-rate liberal versus conservative think tanks, saying, for example, “The Brookings Institution is more likely to investigate unmet needs and ask what governmental programs could solve this problem. The NCPA is more likely to investigate how government policies are causing the problem in the first place and ask how the private sector can be utilized to solve it.”

Courtesy of the BBCLess even-handed think tanks such as Seattle’s Discovery Institute write, for example, about their “belief in God-given reason and the permanency of human nature” in their mission statements. (On the other end of the political spectrum, the Tellus Institute hopes to “advance the transition to a sustainable, equitable, and humane global civilization”.)

But just how left and how right are these shadowy think tanks that control law, public policy and thus the world as we know it?

The best—but certainly not flawless—answer comes from a 2005 study by Tim Groseclose (UCLA/Stanford) and Jeff Milyo (Harris School Public Policy, U. of Chicago), who used newspapers’ citation rates of various think tanks to judge media bias (positing that if a newspaper cites a conservative think tank more than they cite a liberal one, the paper itself is more conservative). Of course, to explore media bias via their citation rates of think tanks, Groselclose and Milyo had to first define the relative conservatism/liberalism of the think tanks themselves. Generally their methodology states that because we can fairly accurately describe the political leanings of members of Congress (by ADA scores), we should be able to describe the leanings of a think tank by how often these politicians cite it (if politician X is always blathering on about the findings of think tank Z, it’s likely they share ideologies).

Here are the Groseclose/Milyo rankings of the 20 think tanks most cited by Congress, from liberal to conservative (Groseclose, T. and J. Milyo 2005. “A Measure of Media Bias,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120(4):1191-1237):

1. (Most liberal): Council on Hemispheric Affairs
2. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
3. Children’s Defense Fund
4. Economic Policy Institute
5. AARP
6. Amnesty International
7. Common Cause
8. The RAND Corporation
9. (Centrist) The Brookings Institution
10. The ACLU*
11. The Cato Institute
12. American Enterprise Institute
13. National Taxpayers Union
14. Citizens Against Government Waste
15. Alexis de Tocqueville Institute
16. National Federation of Independent Businesses
17. Center for Security Policy
18. National Right to Life Committee
19. Heritage Foundation
20. Family Research Council

* The web lights up with criticism of the ACLU’s placement as slightly right of center. Groseclose/Milyo explain this placement as the result of the ACLU’s opposition of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance bill, which congressional conservatives cited very often, skewing the results. Are other results skewed as well? Decide for yourself. (Groseclose and Milyo, both former fellows at conservative think tanks, calculated an overall liberal bias in the media, with print leaning substantially left of TV and radio. Hmmmm. Suspicious.)

**Join me every Monday morning for more grandtastic goodies from The Geeks' Guide to World Domination. Or if you like your geekery delivered fresh, consider subscribing to my rss feed or joining my Facebook Fan Page.

Comments

rholley's picture
My father used to say something like this: that a conservative would stick to any cause, however ill-founded it might prove,  as long as it was ours; while a liberal would abandon any cause, however well-founded it might be, as long as it was expedient.

It's not quite symmetrical, but then life isn't, either.


Interesting post.

Everyone's biased, from think-tanks to government agencies, academia, the news and the average person walking down the street. There's nothing wrong with it; it's empty to "accuse" someone of being biased, as if it were a crime. If the bias is blinding, it should come through in the work.

Hank's picture
Bias is a not a crime, everyone has some.   It's when the bias is the motivation that we run into problems.   Neither Rush Limbaugh nor Keith Olbermann can be really considered objective journalists but they don't claim to be.   The important thing studies like this do is help us calibrate the sources of the data.

I am not surprised by bias in the media.   It used to be that was because journalists didn't go to college, they started out writing at small newspapers and they covered the courthouses at night and jails and crime - and they really saw the worst of society.  Why wouldn't they think there was a better way than what existed?

Later, when celebrity journalism came into vogue, journalists were liberal because they were supposed to be liberal - conservatives were ostracized in subtle ways just like blacks and women once were.    Fiascos like Dan Rather and doctored photos caused a collapse in trust which caused a business collapse which media blame on the internet.

I think some industries are overwhelmingly biased.   If you are in a union, you are voting Democrat.     But I don't think journalism is as bad today as it was 20 years ago, it just still has that rap.   I don't know anything at all about think tanks so I got a little smarter reading this.

I'm pretty familiar with think tanks, & have close friends & family who work in both liberal & conservative ones. One of the retorts you often hear - especially against private conservative tanks - is of course they concluded so & so, look where their funding is from. After a while though, those accusations start to sound hollow, b/c usually the people accusing them of bias are receiving funding from more liberal sources. It would be like if a Republican came down conservative on a bunch of issues, and then you accused him of having a conservative bias.

Hank's picture
Sure, that happens in any political climate.    One MIT legend in climate research who said Al Gore was wrong (as indeed, later he was found to be wrong on some points by many others) got excoriated by zealots people because 15 years ago he took a $5000 funding grant from Exxon.     So he was disqualified despite his expertise by those people who ignore how much money James Hansen and Al Gore have received from George Soros - millions of dollars.

Like I said, this just helps people calibrate.    Kooks on the fringes will always claim people who disagree with them are shameless and unethical and look for rationalizations.

People fund people who are doing research they already like.    The John Templeton Fund is not going to fund a professor doing studies saying how great abortion is and Union of Concerned Scientists will never fund anyone who is skeptical about a CO2 basis for global warming.    So it goes with think tanks but so it also goes with government funded studies - anyone who thinks science studies favorable to Democrats won't get funded now but they were somehow penalized when Republicans were in charge is not thinking clearly.

Garth Sundem's picture
Sorry, Hank. My intention certainly wasn't to make anyone smarter. Though, I think the real gem in this post is evaluating Groseclose/Milyo's methodology. Do Congressional citation rates really infer (or in this case, define) shared ideology? Maybe. I'm not sure...it's certainly a slick hypothesis, making for a nifty evaluating tool. But are liberal politicians more likely to cite think tanks than their conservative counterparts? The other way around? Is either group willing to be more even-handed, citing think tanks from across the aisle? And look at the ACLU: it ends up right of center due to its one, counterintuitive stance. Are the results further skewed by the likelihood of congressional reference when a think tank comes down opposite of what's expected? ("Even liberal think tank X agrees that we should follow conservative doctrine Y".)

Hmmmmm. It's definitely interesting stuff...

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.