There’s a new study out from National Bureau of Economic Research purporting that in areas where Fox News broadcasts that people vote Republican more often. Original story here at Betsy Newmark’s.

The study appears flawed to me in many ways, first a correlation is not proof. They do not norm or analyze several major factors that could also be influencing people’s votes during the same period, and in the same areas (to name three: the blogosphere explosion, the rise of AM radio audience share with the top five slots all conservative hosts, and the greying of america’s baby boomers — demographics demonstrate that as people age they tend to vote more conservatively.)

Now I would characterize this as just another flawed study if the politics of the authors weren’t so obvious — instead this has to be looked at as another case of Democrats in Serious Denial.

Here’s what the NBER purports to be:

Founded in 1920, the National Bureau of Economic Research is a private, nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization dedicated to promoting a greater understanding of how the economy works. The NBER is committed to undertaking and disseminating unbiased economic research among public policymakers, business professionals, and the academic community

Now what verbiage like this usually means is “we live off government grants and do studies you don’t care about.” I have no proof, but I would wager on it. So here we have a hit job on conservative media most likely financed by your tax dollars. (I don’t know how to look that kind of stuff up, anyone out there willing to lend a hand?)

How do I know that the authors are biased? It’s visible in just one quote, italics are mine:

Fox News had a smaller effect in rural areas, in Republican congressional districts, and in the South. Our interpretation of these results is that in these towns more people already voted Republican, and therefore the share of the population at risk of being convinced was smaller.

Notice one phrase: population at risk… now they could have said amenable, they could have said susceptible, they could have said “able to be influenced”. Instead they consider Fox’s ability to influence people a RISK.

At risk of what you might ask? If you have to ask then you are naive, or as one of those conservative radio talk show hosts might phrase it, you must be from Rio Linda. There are probably earlier studies stating that populations listening to AM talk radio are “at risk” as well.

The facts are simple — in their desperate search for the bogeyman who’s stealing their voters, the dems will blame anyone but themselves. There is also one observation in the study that is interesting if true:

“George and Waldfogel (2004) show that, in areas where New York Times circulation expanded in the ’90s, voter turnout in local elections decreased among likely readers.” — So in essence, Pinch’s paper stifles the vote among those who read it

UBL issues another tape, links at Michelle Malkin’s blog. If we do find him and need to make the hit fast here’s one way to get there speedy.