The Bias Wars

NEW YORK Michael Rowett may be the last Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reporter anyone expected to leave for a job with the Democratic Party. Just four years ago, Rowett broke the story that several members of a state ethics committee investigating President Bill Clinton had given contributions to either Clinton or the Democrats. "He went after that as a thorough and dogged reporter, not knowing what he would find," recalls Griffin Smith, Democrat-Gazette executive editor.

"He was a stalwart of capital coverage. I had no idea what his politics were." So when Rowett gave up reporting to become communications director for the Arkansas State Democratic Party in May, Smith was as surprised as anyone. "He had strong political views, strong enough to leave journalism for a job with a political party," Smith observes. "But they didn't get reflected in his coverage."

But is this the norm in many other newsrooms? And did Rowett's political leanings really remain completely disconnected from his work? Some might even argue that he dug harder into the Clinton story because he did not want to appear soft on the party he favored.

In today's increasingly divisive political climate -- and highly scrutinized media landscape -- constant attention focuses on the real or potential bias of reporters and editors. As reputable polls continue to suggest that most journalists are moderate or liberal, with relatively few conservatives, questions mount: What effect do political beliefs and social values have on news coverage? Are newsrooms politically imbalanced? And if so, what could or should be done to correct that?

A recent survey by the Pew Research Center, which appeared to uphold the notion of an ideological tilt in newsrooms -- both print and broadcast -- only added fuel to the fire. It suggested that self-described moderates dominate the newsroom, but liberals outnumber conservatives by a ratio of about 5-to-1 at larger print outlets and about 3-to-1 at local papers. National Public Radio ombudsman Jeffrey Dworkin commented that these findings are "likely to follow news organizations around for the rest of the political year like Marley's ghost."

Journalism veterans interviewed by E&P disagree about why an ideological schism exists. Some say fewer conservatives enter journalism because the profession offers modest financial rewards and promotes aggressive questioning of the establishment. As Tribune Media Services columnist Cal Thomas put it, "It's just not the kind of thing conservatives do." But others contend that conservatives feel unwelcome in today's newsrooms because they contradict the "group think," to quote one editor.

But if left-leaning journalists outnumber those on the right in newsrooms, what does that really mean for the end product? Can a reporter or editor be truly objective? Should they even try? What is a liberal or conservative, anyway? Do the historical definitions come even close to describing the mishmash of views many people hold?

E&P sought to probe some of these issues with a fresh eye, and with our particular audience in mind (while recognizing that follow-up reports would be required). In addition to speaking with j-school chairs and media critics, we also interviewed -- at length -- nearly two dozen editors at a cross-section of newspapers, from Tacoma, Wash., to Tampa, Fla. Far too much attention on this issue has focused on a handful of national papers, and even more so, on network and cable news. We wanted to look at how this debate plays out in the wider range of news outlets read by tens of millions of Americans each day.

Yet we are also aware of the outsized importance of the national outlets. Many smaller papers carry wire and news service articles beamed in from afar, and the national media sets the tone for coverage everywhere. Fran Coombs, managing editor of The Washington Times, warns that even papers with balanced ideological staffs often pick up New York Times articles or use syndicates perceived by some to be left-leaning.

Although views, of course, vary, what was most surprising in talking to editors was that, after all the controversy, so few acknowledged that a political imbalance exists at their paper or, if it does, that it was anything they were particularly concerned about or acting vigorously to correct. The majority of editors said they did not care about the ideological makeup of their staffs, and they seemed to sincerely believe that professionalism -- their own, and their reporters' -- regularly overcomes any personal beliefs.

None of the editors said they had ever asked potential reporters about their political leanings, or plan to in the future, and few believe an "ideological affirmative action program" is needed to bring more conservatives into newsrooms.

While it may seem like a recent phenomenon, the debate over alleged liberal bias in newsrooms has simmered for decades now, going back to the Nixon era when Vice President Spiro Agnew attacked the "nattering nabobs of negativity" in the press.

Evidence from polling was slow to surface until a 1981 survey of 240 journalists at national news outlets by S. Robert Lichter and Stanley Rothman found that 81% of that "media elite" sample said they voted for Democratic candidates for president in every election between 1964 and 1976. Lichter, now president of the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA), a Washington, D.C.-based research organization, jokes that he became "the flavor of the month for conservatives" when that study was released.

Since then, a wide variety of surveys have probed deeper, though results have generally agreed that the national press skews further to the left than the general public (the local press, somewhat less so). A 1985 Los Angeles Times study of 2,700 journalists at 621 newspapers found this sample to the left of the public on issues relating to abortion, gun control, prayer in schools and defense spending.

Like Lichter's 1981 study, some surveys focused strictly on the elite but were then wrongly cited by others to suggest all reporters reflect that pattern. In 1999, the American Society of Newspaper Editors kept a narrow focus, surveying 1,037 reporters at 61 newspapers of all sizes. It found that 53% said they were liberal or Democrat or leaned that way, and only 15% called themselves Republican or conservative or tilted that way. The trend was not as evident at smaller papers, but still existed.

All of these surveys covered mainly reporters. But what about editors? In January 1998, a survey commissioned by E&P of 167 editors around the country found much less of an imbalance, with 57% saying they voted for Clinton in 1996, versus 49% of the public. Only 14% said that journalists "often" let their opinions influence their coverage, with 57% conceding this "sometimes" happened.

As poll results emerged and partisan groups and news outlets fanned the flames, public perception of bias -- or at least a growing tendency to complain about it -- grew. It culminated, many argue, in the creation of Fox News, and inspired books such as Bernard Goldberg's 2001 bestseller Bias. An Indiana University School of Journalism survey in 2002 found that Democrats topped Republicans by about a 2-1 margin in newsrooms, but the number of Democrats (37%) was at its lowest ebb since 1971.

And what of the public view of all this? In September 2003, a Gallup Poll found that 60% of self-described conservatives think the news media is too liberal, as did 40% of moderates and even 18% of liberals. A growing number of liberals, about 30%, feel the media slants to the right, a view promoted by Eric Alterman in his book, What Liberal Media?

The bias war was now raging. In this setting, the Pew report on newsroom attitudes released this year on May 23 was certain to set off sparks (see results below). The following month, another Pew survey of the general public found that conservatives now distrust just about every major media outlet. Even The Wall Street Journal's "believability" quotient among Republicans has plunged, without apparent cause.

Does that mean that most media outlets are biased, and increasingly so, or just that more people today, left and right, are looking for news coverage that validates, rather than tests, their world view -- and when it doesn't, they charge "bias"? Bruce Bartlett, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, doesn't quite see it that way, believing that bias "jumps out at readers from time to time, and rather than write or call to complain, they say, 'I'm tired of reading that liberal claptrap,' and just cancel their subscriptions."

In any case, if there are more liberals than conservatives in newsrooms, why is that? Editors disagree, but many point to the traditional mission of the news business, particularly newspapers, to be a public watchdog and challenger of authority. Also, there always seems to be a steady stream of advocacy-oriented journalism school graduates ready to re-stock newsrooms.

Journalism professors across the country are noticing skyrocketing numbers of students choosing to study public relations. It is the fastest-growing major over the last decade at Syracuse University. A lot of students at Syracuse, in fact, start out majoring in newspaper or broadcast and decide to switch to public relations. Lee Coppola, chair of the journalism department at St. Bonaventure University in Olean, N.Y., says 75%-80% of his students have no interest in being daily reporters.

A commonly held belief is that one's political persuasion factors into the eventual career choice, that a liberal student is more inclined to take a job at a newspaper, while a conservative is more likely to choose public relations, advertising or broadcasting. There's anecdotal evidence for this, but no polling data. However, it would explain why the liberal tilt in newsrooms seems to endure as years pass.

Bob Zelnick, chair of the journalism department at Boston University, disagrees. "If a journalism school graduate goes into public relations, it's more because of the economy," he says. "They may have found a journalism job unsatisfying or they are in debt and need a higher-paying career."

A more unusual theory comes from Professor David Baron of Stanford University, who in a February 2004 research paper theorized that profit-hungry news corporations tolerate leftward bias because it helps them attract liberal journalists who tend to accept working for a lower wage. Thus liberal bias "is shown to be consistent with profit maximization."

Indeed, observes executive editor Smith of the Democrat-Gazette, "There are probably more social reformers in journalism than accountants. We tend to attract a certain kind of person."

But by the same token, do newsrooms tend to deflect certain kinds of people? Smith admits conservatives may not feel as wanted in newsrooms if they believe they are dominated by liberals and moderates: "Conservatives need to feel welcomed."

Cal Thomas, known to take a conservative viewpoint now and then, backs the "unwelcome" argument, but adds that the profession "doesn't pay all that well unless you get to a certain level," discouraging many conservatives. Larry King, executive editor of the Omaha (Neb.) World-Herald, agrees that conservatives "have more of a background that is perhaps more attuned to the financial aspects of the world."

William McGowan, media critic and author of Coloring the News: How Political Correctness Has Corrupted American Journalism, disagrees, arguing that plenty of conservatives seek to enter journalism, and not only feel unwelcome but are barred from jobs because of their beliefs. "It is mainly a self-selecting group," says McGowan. "They get stopped at the door."

Joe Worley, executive editor of the Tulsa (Okla.) World, confirms that more conservatives are interested in news than in the past, but not necessarily newspapers: "There are a lot more conservative journalists out there, but they are often attracted to publications that espouse their conservative view."

Despite the imbalance, few editors interviewed by E&P consider recruiting conservatives a priority in today's era of budget cutbacks and revenue problems. In fact, only a handful would even guess at the ideological makeup of their newsroom, and fewer still ask about a potential reporter's political views in a job interview.

"I don't know the politics of my newsroom, and I don't care to hear them," declares Rich Oppel, editor of the Austin (Texas) American-Statesman and the father of two reporters. "I am interested in their professional skills, and their professionalism. For me, your politics are not important." When asked if he would question a job applicant about his or her political leanings, Oppel offers a resounding "No," but adds, "I will ask questions that allow them to meander into that area; where they grew up, what the talk was at the dinner table, how much they read."

William "Skip" Hidlay, executive editor of the Asbury Park Press in Neptune, N.J., also dismisses much of the ideological chatter, citing strong journalistic skills as the key for reporters. "I have never asked a reporting or editing candidate their political beliefs. I don't think it's valuable," he says. "In my opinion, it is irrelevant because good people keep political leanings out of their stories."

Dennis Ryerson, editor of The Indianapolis Star, says it's different, however, when it comes to hiring political activists, explaining why his paper had turned away an applicant for an editorial page position "who had recent involvement in an anti-abortion group."

Jim Witt, executive editor of the Fort Worth (Texas) Star-Telegram, warns against sacrificing the best possible newsroom talent available to achieve political diversity. Says Witt, "You can't put together a newspaper like a football team."

Most editors, in fact, punted when asked to define "liberal," "moderate" or "conservative." This is a confusing era, after all, when it's the Democrats who rail against budget deficits and the Republicans who champion foreign intervention. "The label stuff bores me," says Charlie Waters, executive editor of The Fresno (Calif.) Bee, who also pooh-poohed efforts to dig into employee ideologies. "To me, it's a non-starter."

Such attitudes may be surprising at a time when newspapers are desperately seeking more diversity in the hiring of women, blacks and other minorities, a mission that strongly surfaces at annual journalism conferences hosted by the American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE) and the Associated Press Managing Editors (APME). Media critic McGowan portrays it this way: "You put so many diversity czars in charge, and their priority is to recruit journalists of color." If the urgency of getting other minorities into newsrooms is so great, why isn't it equally important to have an ideological balance?

"I don't think it is the same thing," replies Ryerson. "I can see why we look at the number of women, the number of blacks or other minorities. I don't think it is fair to assess the political leanings of a newsroom."

Cal Thomas recalls a visit to a Texas newspaper years ago, which he declined to identify, where he says he saw an ad for a gay reporter on the wall. But he doesn't want to see ads for conservatives either. "I don't think you ought to be advertising for that: Democrat, Republican, gay, straight, Catholic, or Jew," Thomas says. "It hurts the industry. It's like cafeteria journalism." Like some others, he may believe that the last thing the industry needs is more reporters with an ideological chip on their shoulder.

John Leo, columnist for U.S. News & World Report and frequent critic of the liberal newsroom, tells E&P, "The last thing anybody would want is a conservative quota.

But I think editors should try to have diversity in editorial conferences -- people of all backgrounds, religions and opinions. We all know that conferences changed the day the first black attended. And it was a very good thing. ... I don't care how many Democrats or liberals there are in the newsroom, so long as we do something to change the one-note newsroom culture."

But a handful of newsroom veterans and others do argue for making an extra effort to hire more conservatives. "I wish we had more conservatives in the newsroom to give us a more balanced report," admits David Zeeck, executive editor of The News Tribune in Tacoma, Wash., which he claims has a "fairly liberal" news staff. "I think the liberalism can show up in a kind of 'group think' here."

Editorial Director Ken Chandler of the Boston Herald concurs. "I'm all for diversity in every respect," he says. "Racial diversity and political diversity." When asked how to get more conservative reporters and editors into the business, observers suggest ideas ranging from broader recruitment at colleges not traditionally known for journalists, to giving those in other professions a shot at the daily miracle.

"Don't always go to liberal arts colleges to recruit; you can go to business colleges," says Ben Marrison, editor of The Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch. Tom Rosenstiel, former dean of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, agrees. "We can also look for career switchers," adds Rosenstiel, whose group co-sponsored the May 2004 Pew survey. "People with varied kinds of backgrounds, ex-teachers, ex-military and whatever to broaden the perspective." Even so, are there enough conservatives out there with a true interest in journalism to make much of an ideological inroad?

Now, hold on. Even if there are more centrists and left-leaners at today's newspapers, does that really affect day-to-day reporting?

Some inside newsrooms seem to think so. In the recent Pew survey of newsroom attitudes, about four in 10 of their sample declared that journalists too often let their ideological views show in their reporting.

But most editors interviewed by E&P contend that good reporting trumps any ideological background.

"Most of us have a level of professionalism that filters that out," says Doug Clifton, editor of The Plain Dealer in Cleveland. "Does that mean our biases don't creep in? No. But you emphasize a professional obligation and ensure the editing is rigorous." Karin Winner, editor of The San Diego Union-Tribune, agrees. "I think we know how to turn off our affiliation when we walk through the door," she says. "It does not come up."

How does this play in Peoria? Says Jack Brimeyer, managing editor of the Peoria, Ill., Journal Star: "We always talk about different ways of doing things and we don't have an agenda." But he adds: "Maybe it is so subtle that those of us inside the newspaper don't see it."

Some point to less obvious influences that reporters' and editors' political leanings can have, including choice of stories, decisions on news placement, and even how much space to give a source.

"There are subtleties that you have to look at," comments Thomas Mitchell, editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, who took the issue head-on in a recent column that surveyed his newsroom and found, in this conservative area, that more than half were moderate, 28% liberal, and 15% conservative. "It helps to have a few people recognizing that there are two points of view on things."

Frank Denton, editor and vice president of The Tampa (Fla.) Tribune, agrees. "What we do is very subjective, and it has to be challenged by checks and balances," he says, citing reader reaction to his paper's coverage of the ongoing violence in Iraq. "Some readers have said we are not reporting enough of the good news. That was a reminder to make sure we talk about the rebuilding that is going on, as well."

But not everything, or perhaps, anything, can be simply viewed through a "left" or "right" lens, or political-party affiliation. Values, culture, religious interest, even sports and hobbies can factor in.

"We live lives different from our readers," admits editor Ryerson of the Indianapolis Star. "We typically have higher educations, higher incomes, and many of us don't do the things our readers do."

Mike Connor, executive editor of The Post-Standard in Syracuse, N.Y., believes "the greater bias is often a narrative bias -- that there is or is not a story here. I don't think it is political; it is more [about] lifestyle and social issues." Connor notes the sometimes one-sided coverage of gun rights, saying, "we don't do enough stories about the pleasures of gun ownership. That it is a source of pleasure for some people." He also cites his paper's failure to cover NASCAR adequately when it first grew in popularity. "We came sort of late to it," he says. "We didn't pay too much attention to it partly because no one in the newsroom was interested in it."

Lichter, of the Center for Media and Public Affairs, says, "The backgrounds and attitudes of journalists affect the way they see the world and present the world. But that does not mean they are getting up in the morning, looking into the mirror, and saying, 'How can I screw the Republicans today?'"

A particularly significant fault line lies in the area of organized religion. Most Americans still attend religious services fairly often; most journalists, surveys suggest, only rarely. Frank Newport, editor in chief of The Gallup Poll, tells E&P, referring to journalists, "They don't go to church." Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center, notes that one of the big surprises of his recent poll was that journalists are much more secular than the public at large. "Religion is difficult for reporters to cover," he adds, " because they don't come from that world. That's the real values gap."

Indeed, one of Pew's sharpest findings this year was that while 58% of the general public holds that one must believe in God to be a truly "moral" person, only 6% of national journalists feel that way, and 18% among the local press.

Sometimes, newsroom leaders say, reacting to readers' letters and e-mails and talking to groups is enough to help keep coverage in balance. "We have readers come into our news meetings twice a week; that gives us some real input," says Bobbie Jo Buel, executive editor of the Arizona Daily Star in Tucson, citing a growing trend across the country. She explains, for example, that the paper's coverage of illegal immigrants crossing at the Mexican border was evened out once staffers began regular communications with American Border Patrol, a conservative group seeking to tighten control of illegal crossings. "That's a point of view of the people who live near the border that we are more likely to check in with than we had a few years ago," she says. "They raise the issue."

Nancy Conway, editor of The Salt Lake Tribune in Utah, offers similar experiences in her paper's coverage of a local nuclear waste dump, which has strong advocates on both sides.

Los Angeles Times Editor John Carroll noted the dangers of letting bias get in the way in a now-famous staff memo he sent out in May 2003 that warned reporters about reporting on abortion. "I want everyone to know about how serious I am about purging all political bias from our coverage," the memo said. "We may happen to live in a political atmosphere that is suffused with liberal values (and is unreflective of the nation as a whole), but we are not going to push a liberal agenda in the news pages of the Times."

The memo came in reaction to a story that had just run on a Texas bill requiring abortion doctors to counsel patients that an abortion might increase their risk of breast cancer. Carroll criticized the article for failing to quote any scientific sources up front and for giving more space to the critics of the theory. "It is not until the last three paragraphs of the story that we finally surface a professor of biology and endocrinology who believes the abortion/cancer connection is valid," the memo added. "But do we quote him as to why he believes this? No. We quote his political views." Carroll now declines to discuss the issue further.

Phil Bronstein, editor of the San Francisco Chronicle, says some stories that are incomplete are often the victim of poor reporting, not bias. "They more often reflect a lack of knowledge," he says, but adds that his area does have a strong liberal population that can sway coverage. "There is a liberal-to-progressive political assumption in this area, and it is incumbent upon our reporters to challenge that assumption."

Bronstein cites coverage of the homeless problem in San Francisco, which can be looked at too often simply from a liberal viewpoint. "You have to keep in mind that it is not just sad times for some people," he remarks. "You've got to make sure you reflect also what the merchant thinks about the people on the sidewalk in front of his store."

Leonard Downie Jr. of The Washington Post has gone so far as refusing to vote since he became the Post's managing editor 20 years ago, and urges his staff to follow. "Ideally, I would like everyone on the staff to be that way, but obviously I can't make them," says Downie, who has been executive editor since 1991. "I would like my mind and others to be as open as possible. All other political activism is banned. This puts us even more above the fray."

Still, there are those who say the best check and balance on perceived bias -- liberal or conservative -- is to simply include voices of both sides in the daily newsroom discussions. "We have a couple of conservatives in the newsroom, and occasionally in a news meeting when the group presumes a liberal approach, one of them will say, 'Hey, have we looked at it this way?'," says David Zeeck of Tacoma. "Everyone will sort of react to it -- they have to."

The Columbus Dispatch's Marrison says his newsroom has similar discussions, with a fair amount of changes resulting. "We have a good mix of liberals and conservatives, based on the debates we have in the newsroom," he says. Marrison points to a recent seven-day series the paper ran on hunger, which looked at nearby food lines and soup kitchens. "One editor thought it was too biased and had too little reporting from conservative views," he explains. "We went back and re-edited it, and it turned out the one part that sparked questions had mostly liberal sources. We made some changes to make sure it was balanced."

Oppel recalls a situation during his time as editor of The Charlotte (N.C.) Observer when the paper was covering the PTL scandal (a story which resulted in a Pulitzer Prize). An evangelical graphic artist on staff helped give perspective on the religious community, including leads to sources.

In Omaha, Neb., executive editor King mentions a recent incident in which the paper changed its map of the Middle East after a business reporter who was of Palestinian descent pointed out that the wire service file did not offer clear boundaries for the West Bank and Gaza Strip. "We would not have changed it otherwise," King says. "It is a little thing, but it is something."

Still, not every editor believes a wide-ranging ideological newsroom is a requirement for such fairness debates. "I've never worked in a newsroom where someone's bias affected their work," says Charlie Waters, executive editor of The Fresno Bee. "Are there instances where peoples' experiences or life lead them to do certain stories? Certainly. But it is one of the roles of the editor to filter through that."

Witt of the Star-Telegram in Texas agrees. "That is what editing is all about," he says, adding that he has never thought about his newsroom's ideological makeup. "Before a story gets in the paper, four or five people have read it and hopefully that makes sure that no one person can decide how we're going to write a story."

Nearly every editor interviewed agreed that truly objective reporters don't exist, but stressed that fair reporting is still possible, and expected.

"There is no such thing as an objective human being," declares Executive Editor Peter Bhatia of The Oregonian in Portland. "There is such a thing as fair and truthful reporting. I think most reporters are committed to being fair." Adds Buel of the Arizona Daily Star, "Not a single one of us is objective. But you can be curious and include the other point of view." A few editors, such Marrison in Columbus, do admit to seeking objectivity in their reporters.

"Good reporters write balanced, rounded stories," says David Cay Johnston, a Pulitzer Prize winner now covering tax issues for The New York Times, who has lectured widely on journalism issues. "I have worked at five major newspapers and sat next to people who held political views that ranged from fascist to communist, and I would be hard pressed to find any sign of that in their work as reporters or editors. A better test than the liberal-vs.-conservative paradigm would be ideological-vs.-non-ideological, and rounded-vs.-not rounded.

"Fundamentally, I think this is sort of a phony issue," he continues. "It's the wrong rabbit hole to go down. You want a newsroom with a wide range of voices, but I don't think that is an issue of being liberal or conservative. Very few reporters in my experience are ideological. Journalists, especially young ones, routinely discover things that show them that the world is not as they believed it to be."

Still, Robert Lichter warns of what he calls the "Socrates Syndrome," whereby "nobody knows what's best for Americans except journalists." Several top journalism educators agree that pure objectivity is an ideal, but not a reality. Nicholas Lemann, dean of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, prefers a different term altogether. Objective, he says, "implies journalism is a scientific or numerical discipline, and it's not. I am more comfortable with the term 'intellectually honest.'"

But can newspapers go too far in their effort to guard against bias or "unbalanced" stories? Where does the line get drawn between solid watchdog journalism and unfair advocacy? If newsrooms get too caught up in appearing unbiased, and perfectly "balance" every story, do they risk losing their role in reflecting community concerns or exposing wrongs?

"There is that danger," says Clifton. "You wind up being bland, and abdicating the responsibility of being a watchdog. You are better for asking the dirty questions."

Says King of the World-Herald in Omaha, "When you choose a topic because you perceive it as an issue, that is a subjective decision. I wouldn't call it advocacy, just aggressive, investigative journalism."

Worley, the Tulsa editor, promotes grabbing an issue "if it continues to fester in the community." Austin's Oppel also doesn't believe in "advocacy journalism," but adds, "If we can improve things by marshalling information others don't have, I think we are doing our job."

Where does this leave us (besides promising to return to this issue in the near future)? "What we are looking for is breaking out of the mold where we deny that personal experience and beliefs impact the newsroom," observes Tom Rosenstiel of the Project for Excellence in Journalism. But, as he points out, "there is no magic formula" for what comes after that.

In the end, most editors, and many others in the field, believe that the answer to charges of bias, right or left -- right or wrong -- is to fully embrace the basic fundamentals of accurate, fair and complete reporting, and make sure this remains the focus of newspapers. Otherwise, newspapers will continue to fall victim to the dangerous trend that finds consumers of news only reading, or listening to, what they agree with -- "information segregation," as it is known.

But no one should expect the charges of "liberal bias" at newspapers to go away anytime soon -- with the presidential election in full swing, hostilities continuing in Iraq, and the nation's population more politically divided than ever.

When Northwestern University assistant professor Michele Weldon recently discovered the president of the university's College Republicans was in one of her classes, she was stunned. Weldon estimates that 70-80% of the journalism students at Northwestern are politically liberal. Bob Zelnick, chairman of the journalism department at Boston University, agrees that his students "on most of the issues, they lean more liberal than the general population."

But does this stereotype hold at most j-schools, especially those based far from major cities? At St. Bonaventure University in Olean, N.Y., Lee Coppola, dean of the j-school, says the majority of the j-students are "moderate-to-right" but those choosing a newspaper track tend to lean left. But Maria Marron, chair of the journalism department at Central Michigan University, in Mt. Pleasant, said prospective journalists there "are a fairly conservative bunch."

While there is anecdotal evidence to suggest there is something to the notion of the liberal j-student, the level of political involvement among them appears low. Zelnick says that the students don't care much about politics but there are values they hold dear, including environmental protection, gay rights, and a woman's right to an abortion. "Journalism tends to attract wide thinkers -- people who are idealistic and not narrow in their beliefs," says Northwestern's Weldon.

How much are these students, from any or no political stripe, influenced by their teachers? Many professors concur that the faculties at journalism schools lean liberal. "You are more likely to see liberal faculty at Columbia, but this is not a comment on how they teach journalism," says Nicholas Lemann, dean of the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism.

Most of the journalism faculty members at New York University are liberal, according to Jay Rosen, chair of the journalism department. "They certainly would be Democrats if you asked them," he says. When asked if any conservative professors came to mind, he could not name one. Out of the 23 full-time j-faculty at Boston U, about 17 of them are liberals, Zelnick guesses. "Bush would be lucky to get five or six votes against Kerry," he says.

But none of these educators believe liberal "indoctrination" is an issue. Every semester for 14 years, David Rubin, dean of the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications at Syracuse University, has been reading teaching evaluations of its journalism professors. "With very few exceptions, I don't read student complaints that professors were indoctrinating them on some social issue," he reports.

Rosen says that if faculty indoctrination exists at New York University, "it would have to do more with the culture of the newsroom and the ideology of the profession, not necessarily political ideology."

Not everyone agrees. Editorial Director Ken Chandler of the Boston Herald slams college instructors: "A lot of people who teach are left-wing, and they fill their heads with a lot of crap. It's one thing to have a social conscience, but you need to be able to see both sides of a story." -- Charles Geraci

What about newspaper Web staffs? That weird group in the corner with all the young people wearing arty eyeglasses and constantly plugged in to their iPods? They're probably more liberal than the main newsroom, right?

Well, maybe not. There isn't much research on the ideology of online journalists, but the recent Pew survey, which included a sample of 68 journalists working for the online outlets of national and local news organizations, didn't show much difference between old and new media.

Most Web journalists (57%) in that study classify their political thinking as "moderate." And a smaller percentage of the Internet group call themselves "liberal" than the old-media groups (25% Web, vs. 36% national print and 28% local print). While 10% of the Web group considered themselves "conservative," 8% of the national print group and 11% of the local print group did so.

One area where differences are pronounced: the online group was less likely to view the press as being too cynical. Only 24% of the Pew sample agreed with the statement that the press is too cynical, while 76% said this wasn't a valid criticism. But 38% of national print and 42% of local print finds the press too cynical, according to Pew.

Bill Cassidy, a journalism professor at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, found similar results in an online survey that he conducted for his dissertation last summer at the University of Oregon. "Since the online folks that I looked at were affiliated with traditional media organizations, I wasn't expecting to see much difference," said Cassidy, who surveyed 456 print and 199 online journalists.

The cliches about the "weird, young" dot-com people also didn't show up in the Pew survey. Among the respondents, the average age of the Internet group was 42, compared with 46 for the rest of the sample. And several commentators have remarked that recent newspaper new-media conventions have been dominated by men "of a certain age." Consultant Peter M. Zollman calls them "FOWMs" -- fat, old white males.

Steve Outing, a longtime commentator on the online news industry for E&P, The Poynter Institute and other outlets, notes that "as online media has grown up, more traditional-media journalists have made the transition to working in online media. So while I have no evidence one way of the other, my gut instinct is that political leanings are pretty much the same between old- and new-media journalists." -- Carl Sullivan

Conservatives might not outnumber liberals in newsrooms, but they do trump them on Opinion pages. A 2002 E&P study found 35 conservative, 30 liberal, and dozens of harder-to-categorize columnists distributed by the eight biggest syndicates, and the 2004 numbers are similar. Also, the two Op-ed columnists with the most newspapers -- a combined 1,000 or so -- are conservatives Cal Thomas (syndicated by Tribune Media Services) and George Will (Washington Post Writers Group).

"Syndicates respond to trends. For example, Rush Limbaugh commands a huge audience, so it's an economic bandwagon worth jumping aboard," says Suzette Martinez Standring, president of the National Society of Newspaper Columnists (NSNC). But Mike Leonard, immediate past president of the NSNC and a columnist for the The Herald-Times of Bloomington, Ind., points to another factor: "Newspapers are falling all over themselves to counter the drumbeat of 'liberal media.' Editors and publishers are caving in." -- Dave Astor

Conservative editorial cartoonists aren't as plentiful as liberal ones -- as illustrated by the two major syndicates that list their artists by ideology. Tribune Media Services (TMS) offers 10 liberal and four conservative editorial cartoonists, while Universal Press Syndicate has a ratio of 8 to 2.

One possible reason for this disparity: The bigger dailies that hire many of America's cartoonists "tend to be more liberal," says Colin Hayes, co-founder of Rightoons.com and creator of "The Leftersons," a DBR Media-distributed comic that spoofs liberals. "If the smaller papers could get it together to hire a few [staff] cartoonists, then there would probably be a net gain in conservative editorial cartoonists. It's a free market thing," adds Matt Davies, incoming president of the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists and winner of a 2004 Pulitzer Prize for the cartoons he does for The Journal News in White Plains, N.Y., and TMS.

Davies did note that some cartoonists labeled as liberals aren't actually far to the left. And he says "there are quite a lot of conservative editorial cartoonists out there" with relatively low profiles because they don't have much to criticize at a time when Republicans control the federal government. -- Dave Astor

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Strupp with Shawn Moynihan and Charles Geraci

From the "89% Voted" file:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/918370/posts

Creator of 'Mr. Sterling' Admits: We TV Writers Are '99% Leftist'
NewsMax.com ^ | 5/27/03 | Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

Professor's Study Shows Liberal Bias in News Media

CyberAlert -- 05/07/1996 -- NQ CyberAlert
... recent Freedom Forum survey of Washington reporters and bureau chiefs revealed 89
percent voted for Clinton versus 7 percent for Bush in 1992. Do you think the ...

Great Debate#9
... opinions skew their professional writing. Nuzzo pointed out that a 1995 Freedom
Forum survey showed 89 percent of the media voted for Bill Clinton while the ...

Break up Microsoft?...Then how about the media "Big Six"? [ ...
... Why? They're usually wrong. 92% voted for Clinton. Libertarians, by contrast,
much enjoy being Right. You may (continue to?) derive your understanding of ...

-Poll confirms Ivy League liberal tilt--

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/896865/posts

The Politics of Hollywood
Uncommon Knowledge ^ | July 20, 2001 | Peter Robinson

A poll by the Center for the Study of Social and Political Change in 1992, eighty-three percent of film and television writers, directors and producers voted for Bill Clinton. Eighty-three percent. The vote that Clinton received in the country at large, forty-three percent.

No Bias in Media, ha ha, tee hee

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.