WaPo Columnist: Yes, Journalists Lean Left, and Reason Why 'Would Infuriate You'(STUNNING)

NewsBusters ^ | 10/24/2006 | Tim Johnson

[tobyhill]

Whenever a writer for one of America's most influential newspapers states his or her opinions about liberal media bias, it should be brought to the attention of NewsBusters readers (unless, of course, said writer merely offers some variant of the lame, threadbare "we get complaints from both the right and the left, which tells me our coverage is balanced" argument).

Washington Post humor columnist Gene Weingarten also occasionally writes long pieces for the paper's Sunday magazine. In a Monday web chat concerning Weingarten's admiring profile of Doonesbury's Garry Trudeau, a questioner charged that the Post ran that story and others in order to help the Democrats in the upcoming midterm elections. In today's chat, when the same questioner posted a good-humored follow-up, Weingarten addressed media bias in general terms (emphasis added):

In terms of coverage of news, newspapers honestly do make a strong effort to be nonpartisan. I can tell you there is NEVER any covert hidden agenda, wherein editors will say or think or act on the notion of: "Hey, the election is coming up and we think the Dems are better this year, so let's have some nice stories about them to help sway the votes." Never happens.

This does not mean there is no subtle bias. There is, and it is of this nature: Most journalists personally lean liberal. You and I could have a long debate about why this is, and my views would infuriate you, but it is true and it is silly to deny it.

[Fiddlstix]

Presented as a Public Service
Certain FReepers may need this

Click the Pic

[backhoe]

From my file "89% Voted"( for Clinton...)--

Public disclosure: Media are finally admitting their biases.

D.C. journalists favor Kerry 12 to 1: N.Y. Times informal poll confirms media lean left

Creator of 'Mr. Sterling' Admits: We TV Writers Are '99% Leftist'

Professor's Study Shows Liberal Bias in News Media

No Bias in Media, ha ha, tee hee

---92% voted for Clinton.

-Poll confirms Ivy League liberal tilt--

The Politics of Hollywood

---

From my own files:

-The Old Grey Info-Slut... the NYT/Jayson Blair Affair--

-The Access of Evil-- CNN's Duplicity --

-That "Rush" to Judgment- Limbaugh Links--

Scams, Scalawags, and an all-too-gullible Public...famous frauds sold to America

-The lies of Paul Krugman-( BLAIR, BRAGG, DOWD ... KRUGMAN? ) --

-60 Minutes to Infamy- those forged memos and The Shot Heard Round the World--

[Petronski]

I can tell you there is NEVER any covert hidden agenda, wherein editors will say or think or act on the notion of: "Hey, the election is coming up and we think the Dems are better this year, so let's have some nice stories about them to help sway the votes." Never happens.

Statements of absolutes like always and never are most often complete BS.

[x]

I'll tell you, though, that most good writers are aware of their biases, and make an effort to counteract them. I am sure many, many stories in the Post have included pretty invalid dissenting opinions, not because the writer felt that the truth of the story demanded it, but because he or she was bending over backwards to get another view in. Sometimes, our biases result in a story imbalanced in favor of the other side.

That's comical. Maybe we could understand it this way: the Post writers are so convinced of the truth of what they say that they assume that any opposing arguments are bound to be weak and unconvincing. So they work such weak and unconvincing opposing opinions into their stories. The result is that their own views are made to appear stronger and more well-grounded than they really are. So while the writers make their own arguments look artificially strong, they pride themselves on their toleration of opposing viewpoints. It's a scam.

[Liberty Valance]

I'll alert the media...

[WashingtonSource]

Liberal bias today is not like liberal bias of yesteryears. Today's liberals are far left wing. They have no respect for the institution of journalism or fair minded reporting. They are knowingly lying when they say they are trying to be fair. They know they are not trying to be fair. They're just trying to fool us into thinking they are not as bad as they are. They are the enemy.

[RedCell]

Thanks a bunch!

[Chances Are]

Read: Journalists loathe the religious right.

Earlier this week, Imus (hey, don't blame me - my wife is the one who has it on!) was blabbing on about the upcoming election, and mentioned the need to counterbalance the "Jesus freaks".

He then turned to Charles and said, "What would call them?"

Charles replied, "Christians would be appropriate."

Imus is a d***** bag for sure, but this is simply symptomatic of not just MSNBC, but the broadcast media in general.

(In my defense, when my wife leaves the room, or goes to take a shower, etc., I turn on the local news. Enough is enough!)

CA....

[Obadiah]

Excellent point. Nailed it!

[therut]

I am so mad right now after watching a whole hour of Chrissy Matthews being biased I have already been seen spiting like he does. He is so elitist and obvious. I wish someone would take his street smart yankess butt and stomp it. He thinks to South is full of racists and he is pure lilly white and the North has no racism. I have got news for him. Go to any bit city in the North and you will see racism everywhere you look. They are segrated to an amount I have never lived in such hell holes. My gosh he lives in a multimillion dollare home and has to nerve to call the Southern people racists while his big white rear sucks in money by spitting and drooling. Gosh I am mad. And Buchannan can kill my you know what too. He is just as bad and biased.

[ladyinred]

They are biased, and the worse part is, they think it is okay! They are after all the one's who are right about things! That seems to be the attitude of this article in my opinion. I was a journalism student, and there is supposed to be NO bias in any article except those clearly marked editorials!

[muawiyah]

I think all the election financing laws should be abolished and the folks who wrote those laws tossed onto history's rubbish heap.

You cannot regulate campaign financing without regulating speech.

Freedom is always better than no freedom.

[muawiyah]

Imus gives bigotry a better than deserved reputation ~ unfortunately.

Do you remember when he used to be funny ~ back when he was a a fulltime junky?

[bray]

Course they have never done a pro-Republican story, but that doesn't mean they're biased. Just because 95% of them vote straight Dem Party ticket, doesn't mean they're biased. Being Liberal means your unbiased.

Pray for W and Our Troops

[bray]

There is more racism in Boston or NY than there is in Bama!

Pray for W and Our Troops

[Dianna]

"Note: When the media-bias issue was raised in one long-ago chat, Weingarten asserted, essentially, that journalists are more liberal than the average person because they are better informed than the average person."

I was told that college educated people support gay marriage because they are smarter (those college educated folks) than everyone else.

I looked at the 20 year old sweet little thing who said it (dumb as a stump, too) and almost couldn't contain my laughter. She's too stupid to be taken seriously.

[dragonblustar]

"In terms of coverage of news, newspapers honestly do make a strong effort to be nonpartisan. I can tell you there is NEVER any covert hidden agenda, wherein editors will say or think or act on the notion of: "Hey, the election is coming up and we think the Dems are better this year, so let's have some nice stories about them to help sway the votes." Never happens."

 

 

[Billthedrill]

Weingarten asserted, essentially, that journalists are more liberal than the average person because they are better informed than the average person.

This seems to be an article of faith amongst journalists. I once heard Daniel Schorr state in an interview that the American people don't have time to develop expertise in multiple fields and "so we [journalists] are your experts."

That is a touching faith but it is tragically wrong. Certainly a reporter who does a few hours' worth of research on, say, firearms, is in a position to be better informed than someone who has never seen one. That is not expertise, it is a blithe assumption that a superficial look at a topic constitutes expertise. And the result is that every - and I admit of no exceptions - story printed in the mainstream media concerning firearms contains at least one major technical error and generally many of them. Shall we list other topics of which that is true? The military. Economics. Environmentalism. Medicine. Aviation. Technology in general. Literature. Law. History. It's a long and depressing list of incompetency masquerading as expertise and with the advent of the new media it's simply not going to work anymore. Were I in need of advice pertaining to a journalistic career Mr. Schorr would perhaps be able to function as "my" expert. Were the topic anything he reports about the answer is firmly negative.

[Riverman94610]

I combat idealogical bias in the media by doing something really radical-thinking for myself!
Sadly,most Americans are like bedazzled sheep,waiting for Oprah and Katy to tell them the real deal.Its a very sad state of affairs,made worse by a school system that blindly parrots every liberal cliche in the book.