Enjoy fast, free delivery, exclusive deals, and award-winning movies & TV shows with Prime
Try Prime
and start saving today with fast, free delivery
Amazon Prime includes:
Fast, FREE Delivery is available to Prime members. To join, select "Try Amazon Prime and start saving today with Fast, FREE Delivery" below the Add to Cart button.
Amazon Prime members enjoy:- Cardmembers earn 5% Back at Amazon.com with a Prime Credit Card.
- Unlimited Free Two-Day Delivery
- Instant streaming of thousands of movies and TV episodes with Prime Video
- A Kindle book to borrow for free each month - with no due dates
- Listen to over 2 million songs and hundreds of playlists
- Unlimited photo storage with anywhere access
Important: Your credit card will NOT be charged when you start your free trial or if you cancel during the trial period. If you're happy with Amazon Prime, do nothing. At the end of the free trial, your membership will automatically upgrade to a monthly membership.
Buy new:
$20.52$20.52
FREE delivery: Monday, Feb 5 on orders over $35.00 shipped by Amazon.
Ships from: Amazon Sold by: M.T.O Store
Buy used: $12.19
Other Sellers on Amazon
+ $3.99 shipping
93% positive over last 12 months
FREE Shipping
96% positive over last 12 months
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind Hardcover – July 19, 2011
Purchase options and add-ons
- Print length304 pages
- LanguageEnglish
- PublisherSt. Martin's Press
- Publication dateJuly 19, 2011
- Dimensions5.92 x 1.09 x 8.45 inches
- ISBN-100312555938
- ISBN-13978-0312555931
The Amazon Book Review
Book recommendations, author interviews, editors' picks, and more. Read it now.
Customers who bought this item also bought
Editorial Reviews
Review
I'm no conservative, but I loved Left Turn. Tim Groseclose has written the best kind of book: one that is firmly anchored in rigorous academic research, but is still so much fun to read that it is hard to put down. Liberals will not like the conclusions of this book, which in my opinion, is all the more reason why they should want to read it. (Steven Levitt, Professor of Economics, University of Chicago, and co-author of Freakonomics.)
This book--an evolution from the pioneering article in the 2005 Quarterly Journal of Economics by Groseclose and Jeffrey Milyo--uses a clever statistical technique to construct an objective measure of conservative or liberal bias in news coverage. This method and those now adopted by other serious researchers show clearly that most U.S. news outlets lean left. Most frighteningly, we learn that the media bias actually affects the ways that people think and vote. (Robert Barro, Professor of Economics, Harvard University, and Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution.)
This book serves up the most convincing evidence for media bias I have seen, ever. Tim Groseclose is the leading academic scholar in the area, but this is a smartly-written book which every person can read for enlightenment and also for pleasure. (Tyler Cowen, Professor of Economics, George Mason University, and co-author of the internationally acclaimed economics blog, MarginalRevolution.com.)
In writing this book Professor Groseclose has done a great service for our country. (Congressman Allen West (R-Fla.), (Lt. Col. U.S. Army, ret.))
About the Author
TIM GROSECLOSE is the Marvin Hoffenberg Professor of American Politics at UCLA. He has joint appointments in the political science and economics departments. He has held previous faculty appointments at Caltech, Stanford University, Ohio State University, Harvard University, and Carnegie Mellon University
Product details
- Publisher : St. Martin's Press (July 19, 2011)
- Language : English
- Hardcover : 304 pages
- ISBN-10 : 0312555938
- ISBN-13 : 978-0312555931
- Item Weight : 13.4 ounces
- Dimensions : 5.92 x 1.09 x 8.45 inches
- Best Sellers Rank: #611,257 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #750 in Journalism Writing Reference (Books)
- #1,273 in Political Conservatism & Liberalism
- #2,044 in Popular Culture in Social Sciences
- Customer Reviews:
Important information
To report an issue with this product or seller, click here.
About the author

(from http://timgroseclose.com/)
Dr. Tim Groseclose is the Marvin Hoffenberg Professor of American Politics at UCLA. He has joint appointments in the political science and economics departments. He has held previous faculty appointments at Caltech, Stanford University, Ohio State University, Harvard University, and Carnegie Mellon University.
In 1987 Groseclose received his B.S. degree in Mathematical and Computational Sciences from Stanford University. In 1992 he received his PhD from the Stanford Graduate School of Business (specializing in the School's Political Economics field).
His research has focused on Congress, the media, and mathematical models of politics. He has recently published a book, Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind. He has published more than two dozen scholarly articles, including several published in the American Economic Review, Quarterly Journal of Economics, American Political Science Review, American Journal of Political Science, and Journal of Politics.
He currently lives in Los Angeles, California, with his wife and two children.
In Left Turn (Chapter 3: "But I've Been to Oklahoma"), Groseclose notes the following about his birthplace, upbringing, and political views:
"On September 22, 1964, Barry Goldwater made a campaign stop in Tulsa, Oklahoma. That morning, Tulsa residents awoke to read on the front page of their newspaper: 'Tulsa World Endorses Goldwater.'
"I was born on that day in Tulsa. To this day, I consider Goldwater one of my political heroes. Four others are Ronald Reagan, Jack Kemp, Bob Dole, and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. Four other heroes, in addition to being successful politicians, are true scholars: Newt Gingrich, Phil Gramm, Dick Armey, and Dick Cheney.[1]
"My own PQ is approximately 13. This means that I usually side with conservatives on controversial issues. For instance, I favor lower taxes, less government regulation in the economy, a stronger military, and fewer restrictions on guns. I believe that "Roe vs. Wade" was unconstitutional--namely, it violated the Tenth Amendment, which reserves abortion-law decisions for the states. On some issues, however, I agree with liberals. These include: (i) allowing the government to pay for stem-cell research; (ii) giving partial amnesty to illegal immigrants (as would have been required by the 2007 Comprehensive Immigration bill, sponsored by John McCain and Ted Kennedy, and endorsed by President Bush); and (iii) increasing gasoline taxes. Although it is based only on casual observation, I believe that if you conducted a systematic study, you'd find that my views are to the right of Bill O'Reilly's, while left of Sean Hannity's.
"Six politicians who have PQs similar to mine are (i) Governor John Kasich (R-Ohio) (PQ=14), (ii) former Congressman Joe Scarborough (R-Fla.) (PQ=16), (iii) Senator Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) (PQ=15), (iv) former Senator Bob Dole (R-Kan.) (PQ=12), (v) former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (PQ=11), and (vi) Senator John McCain (R-Az.) (PQ=16). Nearly everyone who has studied their voting records would agree that they are significantly more conservative than all Democrats currently serving in Congress. And they are more conservative than moderate Republicans, such as Maine Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. Meanwhile, however, they are not as conservative as far-right Republicans such as Michele Bachmann or Jim DeMint.
"There. I have now done something that almost no journalist will ever do. I've given you a detailed account of my political views, including some information about my political heroes and the birthplace that influenced those views.
"Is this book biased? On one level, it matters not a whit where I was born or what my political views are. The methods that I use to measure media bias are completely objective--indeed, a computer executes them.
"But on another level my views and background do matter. As I will explain, the topics that journalists choose depend partly upon their political views and the views of the people who surround them. So let me admit, I don't think I would have written a book about media bias if I weren't conservative or if my parents hadn't instilled Central Time Zone values in me."
[1] Gingrich, Gramm, and Armey earned PhDs--Gingrich in history, and Gramm and Armey in economics. All three began their careers as professors. Although Cheney was never a professor, nor obtained his PhD, he was once enrolled in the political science PhD program at University of Wisconsin. Unlike 66% of political science professors in the Ivy League, and 56% of the political science professors at Harvard, Cheney has published in the top academic journal in political science, the American Political Science Review. Another academic credential of Cheney is the fact that he has an Erdos number. Named after the great mathematician, Paul Erdos, who was famous for his prolific scholarship and his numerous co-authors--an Erodos number is calculated as follows. All of Erdos's coauthors have an Erodos number of one. Anyone who has co-authored with one of Erdos's coauthors has an Erdos number of two. Anyone who has co-authored with a co-author of one of Erdos's coauthors has an Erdos number of three. And so on. Cheney's Erdos number is no more than seven. He wrote his American Political Science Review article with Aage Clausen, who has coauthored with Greg Caldeira, who has co-authored with me, who has co-authored with Keith Krebiel, who has co-authored with John Ferejohn, who has co-authored with Peter Fishburn, who has co-authored with Erdos.
Customer reviews
Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Learn more how customers reviews work on AmazonReviews with images
-
Top reviews
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
I don't know if that will be a pick up line in the future, but it will undoubtedly find it's way into our lexicon shortly.
Like it or not, but we need a framework to operate in. As long as I understand where someone is coming from (politically) I can appreciate their counterpoints to my points. Likewise in media, I know instinctively that certain news outlets, politicians, and pundits lean left or right...and I cherry pick where I get my information. Like most people, I consider myself well informed on most topics because I have opted for more than one news source...the not so obvious choices (from a conservative standpoint) are CNN, The Daily News, any number of left leaning cross media outlets online. The difference is is that I try to look at how the left and right (where I can find them in left organizations) cover specific topics differently; what facts do they report to support their argument, what do they omit, are they reporting on the same stories, etc. I also learn a great deal from the comment section on any article...comments can teach a whole lot (comprehension, prevailing attitude, what sector has time on their hands, prejudice). The sad truth is that there are not enough conservative journalists covering the topics I'm interested in, which is why many people like me have turned to the alternative media. Take note dying MSM dinosaurs; balance increases bottom line.
Dr. Groseclose turns a statistical eye towards political media and brings the words 'political science' to full fruition. The two measurements he uses are PQ (political quotient) and SQ (slant quotient). Without getting into the science part, he shows that Jim DeMint has a low PQ, whereas Nancy Pelosi has a high PQ...PQ designating the degree of liberalism in any given person or group. When it comes to SQ, the degree of slant or spin in the news (balance of complete truth), he proves that the NYT is higher on the scale than The Washington Times (news only minus opinion pages)...SQ designating the job done to present the whole story in a balanced fashion. The higher the SQ, the more liberal elements outweigh the conservative elements; the lower the number, the more conservative elements outweigh liberal elements. PQ's and SQ's are centered around the middle of 50, or what any fair minded individual would view as centrist or moderate. Dr. Groseclose shows that the media's higher SQ influences those people with a 50 PQ to move to a higher PQ over time through the shear number of high SQ media impressions. And, the higher the PQ, the less likely it is that people will recognize a centrist PQ or SQ over time. The outer edges, which he regretfully calls extremes (I would have preferred the more statistically friendly word 'outliers'), reject a good portion of the media (liberals rejecting Fox, conservatives rejecting MSNBC) because they find the SQ unpalatable. Dr. Groseclose, as an admitted PQ 14 (Outer RINOlandia to me, ht to R. Kuby), does an exemplary job at keeping his personal politics out of data selection...demonstrating exactly how difficult it is to do a politically charged task correctly and completely. The media wants for a news reporter and organization that can earn similar trust. If they use this as a guidebook instead of a football, maybe we, the viewing public, will finally have an evening news again.
In all openness, I received a book from the author for review, but I liked it so much that I purchased a Kindle version so I could refer to it easily and often. While it is slightly difficult to get over oneself, a reader has to make the effort to suppress their own political nature (be it left, right, or center) during the hard-to-take parts of the book. Call it journalistic or media consumer medicine, but these are necessary doses that are sorely needed for the health of the patient. Much like 'Bias' by Bernard Goldberg a decade ago, 'Left Turn' brings the focus back on journalistic choices of topics and the selection of data to report on those topics. I'm certain many journalists attempt to do a balanced job, however, as evidenced by Katherine Kersten of the Minneapolis Star and Brit Hume (pgs. 90 - 96), many great stories are missed because news rooms aren't balanced. I can't help but think that media could increase profits if they had more conservative writers on staff - not to overshadow the liberal journalists, but to offer a clear perspective of the entire news landscape. Bear in mind, I do NOT want a government imposed 'Fairness Doctrine'. Businesses, including media, are best when they self-regulate when reacting to the response from their consumers.
My only minor complaint is stylistic...and moot. Number lines run left (0) to right (100+). I know Dr. Groseclose was building on previous data sets and studies, but I would have liked to see the style match the names...liberal-left (lower numbers)and conservative-right (higher numbers). I realize, however, his SQ would not have made sense with this lower-left upper-right designation if he altered his scale...at least from my viewpoint as a conservative. (i.e. NYT with a lower SQ than The Washington Times doesn't sound right to my ears.)
I predict an instant must-have for every political science and journalist major, as well as for those working in those respective fields. For those who loved 'Bias' a decade ago, 'Left Turn' is clearly the successor to that WAKE UP PEOPLE legacy. I like that we conservatives finally have some quantifiable data to prove our longstanding complaints about bias in the media. Does it go far enough? No, but I don't think we can advance the dialog any further, at least statistically, until we all accept this as a baseline.
And in case you're interested, I'm a 5. (Take the 40 question, multiple choice test on his website). Can a 14 respect a 5 as much as a 5 can respect a 14? That is a theoretical debate that I would welcome with the author, and one that will likely play out the closer we get to 2012.
TG is the co-author (with Jeff Milyo) of a famous article on media bias which studies the reference points used by journalists, principally the think tanks whose members they quote. Since much journalism is opinion and not fact, the citing of authorities gives weight to opinion. The authorities cited indicate the politics of the writer. This article created a mini kerfluffle on our campus at one of the A&S chairs meetings. Yes, I am the dean referred to in the incident recounted on p. 6. When Jeff MIlyo's conclusions were challenged we set up a public debate where the issues could be addressed in proper academic fashion rather than be subjected to offhand criticism and innuendo. As always, Jeff gave a very good account of himself and we were all proud that we could address the very important issues raised in the article in a rational manner.
TG generally argues that the media distort rather than lie. They highlight certain issues to the exclusion of others. On an issue where the facts are accurate but can be characterized in different ways (he gives the extended example of the Bush tax cuts), each 'side' hits their talking points harder than the other's. Each uses language which reinforces one point of view over the other. And (what we often forget) each writes about issues which are of concern to their 'side'. I am always struck, e.g., by the fact that many papers continually run stories about those who are least likely to actually read and/or subscribe to their papers. The 'human interest' stories often dominate the news, even in the face of external realities of vast economic, political or military importance. That is because the authors of the stories are more interested in the plight of the subjects of the human interest stories. A steady diet of 'certain kinds' of stories told from certain points of view eventually sways the reader and shapes his or her political opinions and his or her voting practices.
This is where the book gets very interesting. Most reasonable people, I believe, will acknowledge the existence of media bias; it can be demonstrated (and here it is demonstrated very persuasively). The effects of that bias are a whole other ballgame, particularly when they are quantified. TG argues, e.g., that the 'natural' political orientation of an American is far more conservative than one might imagine and that the 'moderates' on the political spectrum are actually so positioned because of the fact that they have been moved there by a diet of biased reporting. He even argues that the biased media move the voting needle by approximately 8-10 points. Absent that bias we would see voting patterns more like those of Utah than of Ohio. His arguments for the existence of these effects are based on previous studies and his own mathematical calculations, which become very subtle.
The bottom line is that the book is endlessly fascinating though most readers will argue that its proofs do not, ultimately, compel belief. Along the way are a vast number of insights and asides which illuminate our political realities. One of my favorites is the relativism which characterizes our perceptions, a relativism that is exacerbated by contemporary extremism. Joe LIeberman, e.g., whose political quotient is very close to those of his democrat counterparts, is somehow seen as a moderate and those on the far, far left criticize those who are actually on the far left by their voting practices as too conservative.
No one will find this book to be dull.


