Posted on 05/25/2004 5:31:25 AM PDT by shortstop
Of course reporters are more liberal than other Americans, we all know that.
What we don’t know is why.
Though I’ve got some theories.
First, the numbers. A study by the Pew Research Center this weeks shows that national reporters – TV, radio and newspaper – self-identify as liberals 34 percent of the time and as conservatives 7 percent of the time.
Most say they are moderates, but 34 percent say they are liberals and 7 percent say they are conservatives.
Which is way out of sync with the rest of us.
Among Americans in general, 20 percent of us say we’re liberal and 33 percent of us say we’re conservative. So, if you do the math, liberals are almost 75 percent more common in the media than they are in society, and conservatives are almost 80 percent less common in the media than they are in society.
Translation: When America looks at the news media, it doesn’t see itself. It sees a population that is heavily skewed, philosophically, away the main stream.
The news business nationally is far more welcoming to liberals than society in general, and far more hostile to conservatives.
Why is that?
Well, discrimination is part of it.
Like likes like, and liberal bosses and liberal news organizations tend to hire people who reflect their thinking and worldview. People who do not – conservatives – don’t tend to be hired. If the difference was skin color, we’d have the Justice Department all over this. But because it’s only philosophy, nobody even bats an eye.
In effect, liberals have “taken over” the news business in percentages dramatically out of proportion to their representation in society. And their liberalism does not only apply to politics. It also relates to religion.
For example, among journalists, less than 15 percent believe that faith in God is a necessary part of being a “moral person.” Among the American population, however, the number is 60 percent. Americans in general are four times more likely to value religion as a part of personal morality than are journalists.
Simply put, the people in the newsroom are very different from the people on Main Street. And yet the people in the newsroom, with a minority viewpoint, daily pass judgment on the people and events of Main Street.
No wonder so much of the news is negative and condemning. No wonder it seems so hostile to society – it is reported by people who are on the fringe of society.
Part of the reason for this is education.
About a quarter of adult Americans have a bachelor’s degree. More than 95 percent of reporters, by some estimates, have a bachelor’s degree. That makes them more educated, and more brainwashed. The American university is the missionary field of the liberal movement, and it graduates converts every spring.
Another reason is American journalism’s worship of diversity. The news business, particularly in the giant media companies, is driven by multiculturalism and diversity. Not merely of racial minorities, but of lifestyle and religious minorities. And though these workers are recruited and promoted in the name of diversity, it is seldom more than tokenism. They are welcome, but they must parrot the company line. It’s great to have a different skin color or lifestyle, but don’t you dare have a different point of view. The diverse people are all the same -- political liberals.>p>
They may be racially or socially diverse, but they are philosophically monolithic.
And that is what daunts America.
That is what disserves America.
Because while the American press is free, it is not trusted. And that makes it useless. The free press has been hobbled not by government censorship, but by its own perversion. It has been taken over and subverted.
So what do we do?
The news remains useful and informative. You can’t intelligently boycott it. But neither should you uncritically accept it. The answer to this adulteration of the news business is, ironically, not to use it less, but to use it more.
With the Internet and cable or satellite television, an incredible number of news sources are available. Different versions of the same story can be accessed, to sift out the truth. And primary sources – like government documents and entire press conferences or interviews – are available, removing the filter of reporter interpretation.
With modern technology, those who are interested in the news can sidestep the news organizations. It is often possible to witness or read things directly. You watch it, you decide.
For now, that is the solution.
Possibly someday there will be a revolution of the American media, and a return to the honesty of traditional journalism. But that’s not apt to happen soon.
In the short term, all we can expect is more of the same. The discrimination that keeps conservatives out of the news business will continue, and the rift between Americans and American journalism will grow ever wider.
tragedies sell papers, magazines and air-time
Same with me, but toting FAIR as evidence of anything is silly. Ask a journalist his or her political inclinations, you're going to get "centrist" because that's the official response. Most journalists consider themselves centrists because that, in their mind, enables them to be "objective" observers, vice engaged participants.
I went to J-school. Fully everyone in every class I took except for me would identify themselves as political centrists, yet every time any discussion got political, it was everyone versus me. I'm more or less a (l)ibertarian, but I was treated and cornered like I was Ghengis Khan crossed with Stalin crossed with Hitler crossed with the KKK.
The study isn't bogus, the data is bogus. If you look at the study, liberals in the news media overwhelmingly identified themselves as moderates, not liberals. This is the big disconnect in the media--liberals actually think their ideology and philosophy is representative of American society as a whole, therefore they are mainstream centrists, or moderates.
I think the Pew folks would have done better to apply a test to each response, e.g. ask respondents who they voted for in the last 3-4 presidential elections, or whether they tend to overwhelmingly vote for democrats. If they do, then this "moderate" is more likely a liberal and gets labeled as such.
Agreed. Liberals graviate towards professions which provide a means to influence others. I've got my own crude theories as to why.
1) "I am aware it is possible the study is biased."
DUh. Why post such lame rubbish. Do a simple search, here, on media bias. Then, after reading the enormous evidence, report back and tell us what you have found.
2) "...it is irrational to label them so without any proof of contrary."
Let's see...an ACLU lawyer with a CV that includes NPR, Donahue and a litany of blood-guilt defends the objectivity of the press. Hmmm. I guess the jury's out on that one.
Please, this site isn't here to teach you to wipe yourself. This site exists because most of us share fundamental convictions and the 'debate' process related to basic realities is redundant.
3) "If you made a similar research, would it be impartial? If the answer is yes, you'll have to rethink your claims."
See answer to No. 2.
4) "I do appreciate all the insults though because they speak of you in volumes."
Of course you do. Every day, through a thousand outlets, the media and it's leftist defenders shower the entire nation with their brand of smug and smarmy arrogance. I suggest to you that turn about is more than fair play. If you don't care for my 'tone,' go home, troll.
"I'm a republican but unlike some of you, I'm not blindly loyal."
Here's a newsflash, Edward R. Murrow. Most people here would likely identify themselves as conservative - not Republican. In addition, there is far more criticism of Bush that is principled and reasoned here than any outlet I know of in the mainstream media. The objections here are, more often than not, based on specifics of policy, not ideology.
POINT!
The data is bogus because it is based on self-identification, not classification by objective measures. Other studies (often quoted here on Free Republic) show that while journalists CALL themselves "moderates" or "centrists," their views are actually very liberal
A. They abhor capitalism, and since journalism doesn't pay much, they are not weighted down with the guilt which money would bring, and
B. Journalism enables them to tell others how to live and think, thereby filling the financial void with self-importance.
Exactly. Any statistician or mathematician will tell you that the most unreliable statistical data is that which is offered up by humans, i.e. opinion.
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.
- Benjamin Disraeli
You are correct. In this study, they allowed the reporter to describe themselves as liberal or moderate or conservative, and naturally nearly all liberals call themselves "moderate" due to the fact that most liberals are deceiptful in the first place.
Of the two newspaper newsroom I've been intimately involved with, the news writing staff REALLY WAS 90 percent liberal.
The Bucks County Courier Times, near Philly, supported Clinton by a 19-4 margin in 1996 (I actually went around and polled each writer and editor in the newsroom)
At the paper I am at now, the newsroom hates President Bush by a tally of 11-2.
And I mean they HATE president Bush to the point of making juvenile and derogitory comments each time GWB is shown on the TV saying something in a speech.
I am the only person who admits to their preference, which to me is the first step toward being a truly objective reporter.
The liberals assume themselves to be so superior, so correct in thier biases that they feel no guilt about putting them into their work.
Needless to say, I've been getting an ulcer in recent months as the entire media (almost) is drooling over themselves with the thought they are destroying evil, racist Republicans.
True. I have an aunt that's the editor of a newspaper in a medium-sized town (pop. ~500K). I was surprised at how little she made. I asked her how much an average newspaper reporter made--around $12 - $15/hour (this was several years ago).
B. Journalism enables them to tell others how to live and think, thereby filling the financial void with self-importance.
The Jesus Christ Complex.
This unbelievable hate for President by the liberal media is just tearing me apart. The re-election of President Bush will be the greatest things that happens to America in the last fifty years not only because we can guarantee that we will win the war on terror through his strong and steady leadership but also it will be a fatal blow for the liberal media. President Bush re-election means that the liberal media cannot anymore sway public opinion in elections. This will be a monumental event in the history of American politics.
From your lips to God's ears.
1. The media is liberal
2. The Pope is Catholic
3. A bear sh**s in the woods..
Yeah, but is Helen Ready??
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.