Posted on 05/23/2004 7:55:14 PM PDT by aft_lizard
NEW YORK Those convinced that liberals make up a disproportionate share of newsroom workers have long relied on Pew Research Center surveys to confirm this view, and they will not be disappointed by the results of Pew's latest study released today.
While most of the journalists, like many Americans, describe themselves as "moderate," a far higher number are "liberal" than in the general population.
At national organizations (which includes print, TV and radio), the numbers break down like this: 34% liberal, 7% conservative. At local outlets: 23% liberal, 12% conservative. At Web sites: 27% call themselves liberals, 13% conservatives.
This contrasts with the self-assessment of the general public: 20% liberal, 33% conservative.
The survey of 547 media professionals, completed this spring, is part of an important study released today by The Project for Excellence in Journalism and The Committee of Concerned Journalists, which mainly concerns more general issues related to newsrooms (an E & P summary will appear Monday).
While it's important to remember that most journalists in this survey continue to call themselves moderate, the ranks of self-described liberals have grown in recent years, according to Pew. For example, since 1995, Pew found at national outlets that the liberal segment has climbed from 22% to 34% while conservatives have only inched up from 5% to 7%.
(Excerpt) Read more at editorandpublisher.com ...
ping
for later
And they're still befuddled by the success of Fox News. You see, they go into journalism because they can't do math, just like the lawyers.
Those that label themselves "moderate" are actually liberals, so that changes the dynamics considerably. For instance, right now Hillary is calling herself a "moderate" as does Clinton. Right!
Not that we needed a study to tell us this.
Who'da thunk it.
As another freeper so succinctly put it: "The crossing guards are down, the light is flashing, but the train train never comes"
And yet the editor of the LA Slimes gets up at a media convention recently and rails against the bias of FNC. Pathetic.
They can call themselves "moderate" but a moderate what?
The answer is they are moderate Socialists.
Moderate is the word liberals (esp. journalists) hide behind. Another word they hide behind is 'independent'.
A lot of liberals do that, to try and make conservatives look like "extremists".
Chuck Schumer calls himself a moderate all the time. And we all know how leftist he is.
media ping
And Pew, if I remember correctly, is a liberal outfit. Thus, if anything, they probably understate the problem.
At a newspaper I worked at near philly, the newsroom was in favor of Clinton over "any Republican" by a tally of 19 to 4. How did I know??
I took a survey of all the news reporters in the newsroom in 1995 after I was told by colleagues that taxcuts were racist and that I had to be more diverse in the people I quoted in my stories.
The paper I work at now, although the editorial page leans to the right, is about the same percentage of liberals in the newsroom. (12 libs to two conservatives)
My theory is that people who think they know it all and want to change the world (in other words, Libs) are more prone to becoming "journalists".
As for myself, I just fell into it by chance, and don't even have a college degree in journalism.
I was always a decent writer in high school, and have good contacts with people in the community.
What amazes me is that news rooms who tout the benefits of diversity don't seem to include political diversity.
Well, I suspect that journalists completing a private survey are less inclined to be dishonest about their beliefs than liberal politicians who are democratically accountable. So the survey may be less skewed than you think.
The other factor to consider is that journalism is a for-profit enterprise, like any other. Senationalism sells. If that means to focus on the downside of the war in Iraq, that's what journalists will do. If, on the other hand, it means talking about Monica Lewinsky 24/7, they'll do that, too. So regardless of how many journalists actually voted for Clinton, they still gave big coverage to his scandals and helped make him ineffective (which, I'd say, is a good thing) for the last two years of his presidency.
I would also say that, on economic issues at least, Clinton was very much a moderate -- considerably to my left, to be sure, but then again, I'm a conservative. Other than his health care plan, he had no big liberal ideas. The minimum wage increase was modest compared to what the unions were requesting, and his domestic agenda hardly got more ambitious than the Family Medical Leave Act (overwhelmingly popular), expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit (Reagan-approved), and the almost-irrelevant anti-gun laws (stupid as they were, also very popular). He rightly refused to sign on to the Kyoto Protocol, and indeed, Clinton was downright conservative on free trade, corporate mergers, the death penalty, the war on drugs, and arguably, depending on whether you think his motives were cynical or sincere, welfare reform.
Now I still voted against Clinton and thought he was too liberal. But compared to the general electorate, calling him a moderate makes some sense.
On abortion, of course, Clinton was a nutcase -- just like almost every other elected representative in his party, all indebted to the pro-abortion lobby. And at heart, I'm sure he was no moderate on gay rights either, even though his only concrete policy (the "don't ask don't tell" compromise on gays in the military) turned out that way. But we shouldn't confuse him with an across-the-board liberal like Jesse Jackson, Nancy Pelosi, or Ted Kennedy.
What, is this some sort of news or something...
And they're still befuddled by the success of Fox News. You see, they go into journalism because they can't do math, just like the lawyers.
Indeed! They may have the majority of news outlets, but when it comes to readership/listenership, efficiency is not their strong suit as they continue to bombard the public with their sole strategy being that if they tell lies for long enough hopefully some of them will stick.
This just in; with the internet and satellite and cable news channels, the playing field just got a little bit more level to understate matters. Meanwhile, Americans are getting more and more educated on government and politics and it's getting harder and harder to fool them b/c they're intelligent for the most part and not the dupes that the left assume they are.
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.