What self serving crap. The reason there were so many black conservatives writing for newspapers a few years back was because once they hired a black person the "liberal" in the liberal couldn't fire the person BECAUSE they were black. When a black person was "outed" as a conservative, they were stuck with him. For a while it seems the only conservative journalists were black. I don't remember all the names - just how odd it was... Sowell comes to mind... but there were others... Maxwell when he wrote for the Gainsville Sun - conservative on race issues... The numbers were strange considering that blacks are liberal in the high ninety percentile - but in the eighties and nineties a high percentage of conservative newspaper writers were black.
Newspapers used to say the same about women writers - how women didn't write or didn't apply... and they said the same about blacks before the civil rights movement - and gays before Stonewall. Now they say conservatives don't go into the field. What crap. Don't they know their own history? Conservatives know they won't get a job. If there's one token conservative on staff that's a wonder - not a sign there will ever be two. So why go into the field?
The dots have been connected.My response has usually been to say, yes, there's liberal bias in the media, but there's no conspiracy. The liberal tilt is an accident of nature. The media disproportionately attracts people from a liberal arts background who tend, quite innocently, to be politically liberal.
The reason news service journalism is "liberal" is that everyone is subject to the motive to promote themselves - and journalism is talk rather than action. This ineluctably produces journalism which is promotes talk above action - and anyone who works to a bottom line is an easy target to be picked on by journalists.The news wire is expensive and must be used effectively. And that means attributing objectivity to all journalists feeding the newswire - which means that questioning the objectivity of a journalist is the mortal sin of journalism. So news service journalism will always be herd journalism.
Since journalism is influential in promoting politicians, promoting government over private initiative inherently promotes the importance of journalism. So the news wire inherently produces monochromatic herd journalism which is hypercritical of private initiative and chronically favorable to socialism. An "accident of nature" has nothing to do with the case.
Newswires did not exist in the founding era, and journalism was very different - newspapers were famously fractious. They were actually independent.
hundreds of journalists have gotten together, on an online listserv called JournoList, to promote liberalism and liberal politicians at the expense of traditional journalism.Assuming, counter to all evidence, that "traditional journalism" has ever been objective.
My guess is that this and other revelations about JournoList will deepen the distrust of the national press. True, participants in the online clubhouse appear to hail chiefly from the media's self-identified left wing. But its founder, Ezra Klein, is a prominent writer for the Washington Post. Mr. Klein shut down JournoList last month—a wise decision."People of the same trade seldom meet together even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public or some contrivance to raise prices." - Adam Smith
The Right to Know
The dots have been connected.My response has usually been to say, yes, there's liberal bias in the media, but there's no conspiracy. The liberal tilt is an accident of nature. The media disproportionately attracts people from a liberal arts background who tend, quite innocently, to be politically liberal.
The reason news service journalism is "liberal" is that everyone is subject to the motive to promote themselves - and journalism is talk rather than action. This ineluctably produces journalism which is promotes talk above action - and anyone who works to a bottom line is an easy target to be picked on by journalists.The news wire is expensive and must be used effectively. And that means attributing objectivity to all journalists feeding the newswire - which means that questioning the objectivity of a journalist is the mortal sin of journalism. So news service journalism will always be herd journalism.
Since journalism is influential in promoting politicians, promoting government over private initiative inherently promotes the importance of journalism. So the news wire inherently produces monochromatic herd journalism which is hypercritical of private initiative and chronically favorable to socialism. An "accident of nature" has nothing to do with the case.
Newswires did not exist in the founding era, and journalism was very different - newspapers were famously fractious. They were actually independent.
hundreds of journalists have gotten together, on an online listserv called JournoList, to promote liberalism and liberal politicians at the expense of traditional journalism.Assuming, counter to all evidence, that "traditional journalism" has ever been objective.
My guess is that this and other revelations about JournoList will deepen the distrust of the national press. True, participants in the online clubhouse appear to hail chiefly from the media's self-identified left wing. But its founder, Ezra Klein, is a prominent writer for the Washington Post. Mr. Klein shut down JournoList last month—a wise decision."People of the same trade seldom meet together even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public or some contrivance to raise prices." - Adam Smith
The Vast Left-Wing Media Conspiracy (VIDEO) The Wall Street Journal ^ | 07-22-10 | FRED BARNES