Posted on 07/31/2004 11:44:15 PM PDT by Plutarch
AS John Kerry celebrates his nomination with a coast-to-coast bus trip (this may be the first time the word "celebrates" has appeared so close to "coast-to-coast bus trip") conservatives are complaining about his good press. They say that journalists' liberal bias has colored the reviews of the Democratic convention and his speech.
But do journalists really want John Kerry to defeat George W. Bush? It depends where they work and how you ask the question, at least according to the unscientific survey we conducted last weekend during a press party at the convention. We got anonymous answers from 153 journalists, about a third of them based in Washington.
When asked who would be a better president, the journalists from outside the Beltway picked Mr. Kerry 3 to 1, and the ones from Washington favored him 12 to 1. Those results jibe with previous surveys over the past two decades showing that journalists tend to be Democrats, especially the ones based in Washington. Some surveys have found that more than 80 percent of the Beltway press corps votes Democratic...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Was this in the print edition?? Page 33G on the inside back page of the Classifieds?? Nah too many people actually read those...
Contrary to the skewed perceptions of the media, the population of the USA does not care overmuch about media ratings or their skewed reports.
Thank God!
This is the second recent article admitting bias. I think some people at the NYT are starting to wake up to the fact that their blatant liberal bias has hurt the bottom line. Money talks, and I think that maybe they are beginning to see the writing on the wall. When FoxNews shreds the liberal news channels, the money people take notice.
Actually, I read the rest of the article and they go on to deny the bias by claiming that journalists would rather cover a Bush administration than a Kerry one. Therefore, my previous post was incorrect. The NYT still sucks as much as ever. :^)
This is in a series of little capsule articles, which I believe would be deep inside an inner section. The web site doesn't provide a grave marker to see where the article is buried.
That gets a chuckle...
Nicely done!
The only surprise is that the numbers from this poll of "journalists" are so low for Kerry. I always figured closer to the 95% range were Democrats. Whatever. Newspapers are a dying institution, thank God. The sooner they fold and die, the better.
I love how clueless the New York Times is. They think they're objective because a subsample of journalists ONLY favor Kerry by the razor thin 3 to 1 margin.
That is, assuming the reporter actually talked to these people and isn't just making it up ala Jason Blair.
Perhaps Kerry is too leftwing even for the majority of reporters outside of DC? Lord knows the man is the most leftwing candidate to ever win a major party nomination in American history.
Only the NYT considers this news.
So what else is new?
I always feel gratitude towards people who post summaries from the NYT. It must be a horrible thing to have to read that, and I am grateful for the volunteers who do it, in the same sense I am grateful when Roto-Rooter unplugs the toilet. Both may be unpleasant jobs, but someone has to do them.
Yes, and the reason that the reporters say they would rather cover a Bush administration is because the members of that administration are so horrible, they are good press. They feel that a Kerry administration would be so noble and honorable that they wouldn't have anything to write about.
Imagine that. Bush believes in God. How terrible--how Un-American.
While Kerry (and Clinton before him) profess deep faith, the reporters all know that they are as atheistic as the reporters are. They give them a pass because Democrats need to tell the "little people" that they believe in God in order to get elected.
Re your post #9, I think it may well be the case that newspapers are dying. They may not completely disappear but their influence will drop sharply as their editorial stances continue to diverge from those of the populace (one exception comes to mind: "The Washington Times").
The Internet can do all that newspapers can do already, all for a few cents in electricity.
".......Newspapers are a dying institution."
Who needs a newspapaer when the internet supplies all the news you can possibly read from all kinds of sources? The only thing my newpaper provides for me is shopping coupons.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.