Quote:
Originally Posted by longsuffering
|
This is basically the same, well-established physchology seen in "Hostile Media Effect" and "Confirmation Bias" that I've referenced in the past in this forum.
In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias (or confirmatory bias) is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions, leading to statistical errors
http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles...ation_bias.htm
and
The hostile media effect, sometimes called the hostile media phenomenon, refers to the finding that people with strong biases toward an issue (partisans) perceive media coverage as biased against their opinions, regardless of the reality. Proponents of the hostile media effect argue that this finding cannot be attributed to the presence of bias in the news reports, since partisans from opposing sides of an issue rate the same coverage as biased against their side and biased in favor of the opposing side.[1] The phenomenon was first proposed and studied experimentally by Robert Vallone, Lee Ross and Mark Lepper.[1][2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_media_effect
I was actually wondering how long it would take for someone to notice how the left treated Homeland Security warnings in the Bush era versus the Obama era.
In terms of the occasional warnings, it doesn't look like much has changed from one administration to the other - as it probably shouldn't - but the way they're perceived by various sides certainly has.
Bookmark that op-ed piece in the Times today. Both hilarious and sad at the same time. Great job by the author.
Cowperson