Search results

The purpose of this paper is to reveal perceptions of news organization bias among people who use the internet.

Data for this study were drawn from the Pew Research Center June 2005 News Interest Index. Respondents were asked if news organizations were politically biased in their reporting. Another question asked respondents if news organizations had a liberal or conservative bias. The final question asked respondents to judge news organization bias on political and social issues.

In two of the three perceptions of internet user/non‐user ratings of ideological bias in news organizations, internet news users surveyed rate news organizations as more biased than non‐users. However, when asked to ascertain either liberal or conservative bias in news organizations, non‐internet news users were more likely to claim that news organizations were biased.

More valid measures of the dimension of liberal and conservative bias could help in analyzing the effect of this particular variable on the use of the internet for news. Also, there is the possibility of some confusion in identifying internet news sources.

Advertising revenue of traditional media could decline as news use shifts to internet sources, and customers of the traditional US news networks would continue to migrate to the internet.

As this new media technology has the potential to reach new markets throughout the world, consumers who perceive that traditional news media are ideologically biased may favor the new medium over more traditional sources of news.

Controversy has long swirled over the claim that Donald Trump's base has deeply rooted authoritarian tendencies, but Trump himself seems to have few doubts. Asked whether his stated wish to be dictator “on day one” of second term in office would repel voters, Trump said “I think a lot of people like it.” It is one of his invariable talking points that 74 million voters supported him in 2020, and he remains the unrivaled leader of the Republican Party, even as his rhetoric escalates to levels that cautious observers now routinely call fascistic.

Is Trump right that many people “like” his talk of dictatorship? If so, what does that mean empirically? Part of the answer to these questions was apparent early, in the results of the 2016 American National Election Study (ANES), which included survey questions that we had proposed which we drew from the aptly-named “Right-Wing Authoritarianism” scale. Posed to voters in 2012–2013 and again in 2016, those questions elicited striking responses.

In this chapter, we revisit those responses. We begin by exploring Trump's escalating anti-democratic rhetoric in the light of themes drawn from Max Weber and Theodor W. Adorno. We follow this with the text of the 2017 conference paper in which we first reported that 75% of Trump's voters supported him enthusiastically, mainly because they shared his prejudices, not because they were hurting economically. They hoped to “get rid” of troublemakers and “crush evil.” That wish, as we show in our conclusion, remains central to Trump's appeal.

Although educators would likely agree that values and ethics are important in all disciplines, they have particular importance for practice-oriented fields. These applied professionals need to solve complex social problems that require the application of ethical standards and value perspectives. While the importance of value-engaged practice is known to the applied field, there is little research and conversation about how values can be integrated into teaching. This chapter synthesizes values-education approaches in various practice-based disciplines such as public administration (PA), program evaluation, social work, and public health. This chapter draws from empirical and theoretical works as well as the authors' experiences developing, participating in, and conducting values-based research on professionals and professional education.

Mature student numbers across England’s Higher Education (HE) sector have been declining since the rise in tuition fees in 2012. Leading up to Brexit, there is a need to upskill the national workforce to provide services and skills currently sourced from the EU. Mature students play a key role in this process, as HE study can add to existing industry experiences, knowledge, and skills. Hence, the HE sector in England is beginning to evaluate and change the way in which universities and colleges can provide support to mature students from recruitment to the completion of their course.

Institutions can encourage a sense of belonging in mature students through the use of mature student mentors and ambassadors at open days, and as points of contact throughout any course. It is important to create a mature student community to provide an appropriate support network, but equally academic staff should encourage the engagement of mature students with their younger peers.

This chapter provides an insight into relevant research literature and uses examples from a case study based in a small HE provider setting to make practical recommendations for academic staff, support staff, and areas of institutional practice.

It is apparently becoming the fashion among certain types of self‐sufficient persons in this country to endeavour to bring discredit upon the scientific expert, and—whenever the practice can be indulged in with impunity—to snub and to insult him as far as possible. While this course of procedure is particularly to be observed when the expert is called upon to give evidence in a Court of Law, or to explain technical points before some highly inexpert body, it is not only in these circumstances that he is subjected to misrepresentation, discourtesy, and downright insult. Whenever a case occurs which appears to afford pabulum capable of being twisted into shape for the purpose, certain newspapers— generally, we are glad to say, of the lower class—are invariably ready to publish cheap sneers at science and scientific men, frequently accompanied by insulting suggestions. Other journals of a better class do not indulge in abuse and insulting suggestions, but confine themselves to lecturing the expert or experts with all that assurance which is characteristic of blatant ignorance. Accusations of incompetence and of culpable negligence are common in the gutter Press and in some so‐called Courts of Justice. Even suggestions of bad faith and of failure to honourably discharge duties undertaken are sometimes to be met with. It cannot be supposed that the reason for all this is to be found in the conduct of some very few persons who, in the eyes of all right‐thinking people, have brought discredit on themselves by appearing as “ advocate‐witnesses ” to defend the indefensible. At any rate, the conduct of such individuals affords no justification for tarring everybody with the same brush. The hostile, acidly‐cantankerous, and frequently grossly insolent attitude adopted by certain persons and in certain quarters towards those experts whose duties are of a public character and connected with legal or semi‐legal proceedings, is due to a reason which is not far to seek. It is due, in the first place, to the disgraceful ignorance in regard to scientific matters, even of the most elementary kind, which unhappily pervades all classes of the community;' and, secondly, to that form of jealousy peculiar to the small and mean mind which detests and kicks at anything and everything beyond its power of comprehension. When apparently contradictory evidence is given by scientific witnesses—appearing on opposite sides in a case—it is obviously far more easy and satisfactory to shriek about the “ differing of doctors ” than to admit that one's own miserable ignorance prevents one from seeing the points and from ascertaining whether there is any real contradiction or not. It is far more convenient to suggest that the public analyst, for instance, does not know what he is about, has made some absurd mistake, or has been guilty of scandalous negligence, than to admit that one does not understand his certificate owing to one's own defective education or inferior intellectual capacity.

The Standing Committee of the House of Commons on Trade, presided over by LORD E. FITZMAURICE, met again on July 16th and proceeded with the Sale of Adulterated Butter Bill.