If there is no liberal bias in the media...

Scrat wrote:

Thomas - I assume you read Mr. Carroll's memo. Did it read to you as if he were asking anyone to tilt their coverage to the right?

As it happens, it did. As you can easily check by searching the medline database for the string "abortion breast cancer", the correlation between abortion and breast cancer has been thoroughly researched in dozens of scientific studies. They have come up with no evidence whatsoever for such a correlation. There is no reason for doctors to tell women that an abortion would increase breast cancer risk. As best we can tell, it doesn't. And we can tell it quite well.

Let me put this as clearly as I can: This piece of junk science has no merit -- except if scaring a women out of an abortion is a merit for you. The government has no business passing bills to make doctors lie to their patients. The author of the article had every reason to put a "so-called" in front of the word "counseling" when he addressed this mandatory lying by doctors. And the editor had no reason to take issue with it. Moreover, the editor had no reason to suggest in his last paragraph that journalists address abortion as "a philosophic and religious problem" when the issue of the article is the science of it. And he had no reason to claim it is a scientific problem. The breast cancer risk from abortions is a settled scientific matter. It is much, much less of a scientific problem than global warming for example, an issue where you and I agree the government shouldn't do anything about it. The only reason why an editor would suggest otherwise is a political bias, not a concern for journalistic accuracy.

scrat wrote:

I find the responses here fascinating. They range from attempts to paint my words as something they are not to efforts to assert that this is no big deal either way.

Given that it really is no big deal, what are we supposed to say? As you remember, the question at the beginning of your post is "If there is no liberal media bias, why did the editor of the LA Times, John Carroll, instruct his staff to refrain from displaying their liberal bias in the LA Times? ". This does sound as if you believe that this episode is about liberal media bias in general. This impression was supported when Sozobe asked you "So all you're saying, scrat, is that the L.A. Times took steps to ensure that a possible liberal bias was corrected, nothing more general. Right?", and you didn't answer "yes, right". You didn't answer at all.

scrat wrote:

I would hazard a guess that, had I complained one week ago that I felt I perceived a liberal bias in the report on the abortion/cancer link found in the LA Times, the majority here in A2K would have argued the point with me, claiming that it was my conservative bias that led me to think so.

Correct, as far as I am concerned.

scrat wrote:

I find the knowledge that the paper's own editor believes the report was biased a more credible source for that point of view than am I. I also find it telling that he points to the article in question as part of a larger problem, not as a single errant case of biased reporting.

He's wrong to say the article has a liberal bias, and his reference to a more general problem is correct insofar as the alleged liberal press bias in general is a non-problem either.

scrat wrote:

If that means nothing to you, fine.

Conservative claims that American media have a liberal bias do mean something to me. I just haven't seen any evidence it's true. The memo you posted didn't change that.

-- Thomas

0 Replies

Thomas - I found this in a MEDLINE search. It seems to suggest that your assessment of the current status of the abortion/breast cancer link question is not accurate (bold mine):

Quote:

Long-term physical and psychological health consequences of induced abortion: review of the evidence.

Thorp JM Jr, Hartmann KE, Shadigian E.

Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599, USA. [email protected]

Induced abortion is a prevalent response to an unintended pregnancy. The long-term health consequences are poorly investigated and conclusions must be drawn from observational studies. Using strict inclusion criteria (study population >100 subjects, follow up >60 days) we reviewed an array of conditions in women's health. Induced abortion was not associated with changes in the prevalence of subsequent subfertility, spontaneous abortion, or ectopic pregnancy. Previous abortion was a risk factor for placenta previa. Moreover, induced abortion increased the risks for both a subsequent preterm delivery and mood disorders substantial enough to provoke attempts of self-harm. Preterm delivery and depression are important conditions in women's health and avoidance of induced abortion has potential as a strategy to reduce their prevalence. Only review articles including the single published meta-analysis exploring linkages between abortion and breast cancer were relied upon to draw conclusions. Reviewers were mixed on whether subsequent breast neoplasia can be linked to induced abortion, although the sole meta-analysis found a summary odds ratio of 1.2. Whatever the effect of induced abortion on breast cancer risk, a young woman with an unintended pregnancy clearly sacrifices the protective effect of a term delivery should she decide to abort and delay childbearing. That increase in risk can be quantified using the Gail Model. Thus, we conclude that informed consent before induced abortion should include information about the subsequent risk of preterm delivery and depression. Although it remains uncertain whether elective abortion increases subsequent breast cancer, it is clear that a decision to abort and delay pregnancy culminates in a loss of protection with the net effect being an increased risk. TARGET AUDIENCE: Obstetricians & Gynecologists, Family Physicians. LEARNING OBJECTIVES: After completion of this article, the reader will be able to define the terms and, to outline the epidemiologic problems in studying the long-term consequences of abortion, and to list the associated long-term consequences of abortion.

In light of this information, your suggestion that we should infer bias from Mr. Carroll's position seems baseless, and his arguments and knowledge of the subject seem sound.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Thomas - I found this in a MEDLINE search. It seems to suggest that your assessment of the current status of the abortion/breast cancer link question is not accurate

I disagree. In the past, there have been theoretical reasons to suspect breast cancer might be an issue for abortion patients, but every time this theory was put to a test in a clinical study, no evidence could be found in support of it. Your reference -- a review article of review articles, as far as breast cancer is concerned -- reiterates these concerns without considering the newer clinical studies that have put them to rest. You can find some of these clinical studies in the five search results before yours. If you go back to medline and turn up a controlled clinical study on at least hundred abortion patients that reveals a connection between breast cancer and abortion, I'll consider myself refuted on that point.

But your post points to an important issue. Scientists will rarely achieve an crystal-clear, 100% consensus on statistical evidence. When doctors counsel patients, some common sense has to kick in when evaluating the evidence. In the case of our medline search, the first page turns up several clinical studies, none of which came up with evidence that abortion and breast cancer are correlated. It turns up several articles with an obvious political motivation, on both sides of the issue. In between, there are some review studies. One of them is by Science, the world's leading science magazine, and its title says it all: "Cancer risk. Review rules out abortion-cancer link". Another review article contains factual assertions that can be refuted by looking at the other articles in the medline search. It is published in the obscure magazine Obstet Gynecol Surv, and comes up with a mostly theoretical case in favor of a correlation. It also happens to be the one you chose to single out.

Given this, the common sense assessment is that the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly against the alleged link between abortion and breast cancer, and that the people who allege the existence of this link anyway are either politically motivated or have such a week case they have to publish in the obscure kinds of scientific journals. The LA Times article is consistent with this common sense assessment, and the editor's complaint is not.

-- Thomas

0 Replies

Reproductive factors and familial predisposition for breast cancer by age 50 years. A case-control-family study for assessing main effects and possible gene-environment interaction.

Quote:

RESULTS: Familial predisposition showed the strongest main effect and the estimated gene carrier probability gave the best fit. High parity and longer duration of breastfeeding reduced breast cancer risk significantly, a history of abortions increased risk and age at menarche showed no significant effect.

(bold mine)

0 Replies

Thomas: Excellent analysis of the editor's blindness to the weight of evidence. It is "so-called " counseling.

If we were under a tree and trying to determine what kind of tree it was by looking at the fallen leaves on the ground and we found thousands of oak leaves amongst a hundred other kinds we could reasonably conclude that it was an oak tree. The overwhelming present evidence that this editor wants balanced by presentation of these other leaves shows his inability to be objective or scientific. He is holding on to a refuted idea. Meanwhile, as we look up at the oak tree, scrat has found a maple leaf.

0 Replies

Ooh! I love maple syrup. I wonder if there's a waffle left in the freezer...

0 Replies

In case it needs stating, Thomas, you could be completely right in your assessment of the editor's motives. I don't think you have reason to be as sure of your opinion as you seem, but then it is your opinion, so who am I to say how sure you should be, right? :wink:

0 Replies

Okay, Scrat --

I could argue that a history of abortions can be an indicator of other things that increase cancer risk, and that by itself your factlet doesn't tell us whether a particular woman increases her cancer risk by choosing to abort. But the point I had made was narrower, and I admit you have refuted me on that one.

Now, what about your assertion that a liberal bias in the LA Times perceived by its editor is somehow indicative of a liberal bias in the American press in general. How can you support that?

0 Replies

By the way, if anybody is interested in a competent, non-partisan review of the scientific literature, I recommend a visit to the National Cancer Institute at the National Institute of Health. Their conclusion supports the LA Times journalist and contradicts the editor. Here's how they sum it up:

The National Cancer Institute wrote:

The relationship between induced and spontaneous abortion and breast cancer risk has been the subject of extensive research beginning in the late 1950s. Until the mid-1990s, the evidence was inconsistent. Findings from some studies suggested there was no increase in risk of breast cancer among women who had had an abortion, while findings from other studies suggested there was an increased risk. Most of these studies, however, were flawed in a number of ways that can lead to unreliable results. Only a small number of women were included in many of these studies, and for most, the data were collected only after breast cancer had been diagnosed, and women’s histories of miscarriage and abortion were based on their “self-report” rather than on their medical records. Since then, better-designed studies have been conducted. These newer studies examined large numbers of women, collected data before breast cancer was found, and gathered medical history information from medical records rather than simply from self-reports, thereby generating more reliable findings. The newer studies consistently showed no association between induced and spontaneous abortions and breast cancer risk.

I've reported, you decide Wink

-- Thomas

0 Replies

It makes you wonder if that editor ever did any reading. Well reported Thomas!

Joe

0 Replies

Thank you, Thomas. You do some of the best-researched and written comments around. For what it's worth, my doctors feel the same way.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Okay, Scrat --

Now, what about your assertion that a liberal bias in the LA Times perceived by its editor is somehow indicative of a liberal bias in the American press in general. How can you support that?

Thomas - I've gone back through this entire discussion and skimmed all of what I wrote to be sure, and I find nowhere did I assert what you contend I did. I see no need to support claims I have not made.

If you disagree, cite for me what I wrote that you interpret in this way and I'll either explain what I did mean (as opposed to what you took it to mean) or I'll offer a mea culpa.

FWIW - I do not think a single example of liberal bias acknowledged by the editor at a major paper can be used to support the claim that there is a liberal bias in the media. I do think it can be used to refute the claim that there is not.

I could offer reams of examples of what I consider to be liberal bias in the media, but we both know that liberals here would simply disagree with me on what constitutes bias. I found the memo noteworthy due to its origin within the system we are discussing.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

If you disagree, cite for me what I wrote that you interpret in this way and I'll either explain what I did mean (as opposed to what you took it to mean) or I'll offer a mea culpa.

Fair enough. So here's how I read this thread.

Right in the beginning of this thread, you wrote:

If there is no liberal bias in the media, why did the editor of the Los Angeles Times, John Carroll, instruct his staff to refrain from displaying their liberal bias in the LA Times?

To me -- and presumably to most other people in this thread -- the straightforward reading of this sentence was that you were referring to a frequently raised conservative concern: that American media outlets have on net a liberal bias. My impression was that in your opinion, many people on A2K believe this concern is unfounded, and that you quoted the editor's letter as evidence against that belief. Perhaps it is instructive to consider what you did not write in your first sentence. You did not write "if there is no liberal bias in the LA Times, ...." (thereby making a much narrower point) or "if there isn't a single US media outlet out there that has a liberal bias, ...." (making your case stronger, but also much less relevant because no liberal claims that). You wrote: "If there is no liberal bias in the media, ...." (emphasis mine). This made me sure that your point was about American media in general.

A little later, Sozobe followed up to see if your your claim might indeed have been narrower. She wrote:

So all you're saying, scrat, is that the L.A. Times took steps to ensure that a possible liberal bias was corrected, nothing more general. Right?

In response to Sozobe's follow-up, you wrote:

Needless to say, you were under no obligation to respond to Sozobe's follow-up, or to any other post in particular. But for what it's worth, Sozobe gave you an obvious opportunity to clarify things by answering her question with a "Yes, right." By not taking this opportunity, you reaffirmed my original interpretation. Can you see now how this misunderstanding occured, if it was one?

-- Thomas

0 Replies

Thomas - I was simply pointing out a source that suggested an instance of liberal bias. (I've answered this before, by the way.) I was not attempting to prove the positive regarding the media as a whole, but to disprove the negative as a step in that direction.

So, I do think this bears on the question of an overall media bias, but I do not think it proves the case, nor was I attempting to state or imply that it does. (Showing you one white horse does not prove that most horses are white.)

As to sozobe's comment, I missed that (too busy rastlin' with Setanta). My answer to it should have been, yes. Cool

0 Replies

Oh, you're talking about me!

Yes it is then. Pretty narrow little example there. I don't believe for a second that you weren't trying to state or imply that there was a liberal bias in the media, but nice to, after 8 pages, have your position clarified. The L.A. Times took steps to ensure that a possible liberal bias was corrected. Fini.

0 Replies

I could not agree more with Sozobe or Thomas.

Scrat's initial comments were headed in a particular direction -- and only when the logic of the initial assertion was questioned by so many -- did Scrat attempt to change that direction.

Unfortunately, in her attempts to do so, she has essentially tried to evade responsibility for what her remarks were obviously intended to convey.

Beating this particular horse seem futile.

0 Replies

Sozobe - So nice of you to call me a liar. Cool

0 Replies

Anytime!

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Sozobe - So nice of you to call me a liar.

totally beyond comprehension Evil or Very Mad

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

Scrat wrote:
Sozobe - So nice of you to call me a liar.

totally beyond comprehension

You are? How so? Confused

0 Replies

If there is no liberal bias in the media...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know