What other factors are there? We could start with elitism. Reporters and editors are assiduously courted by politicians, and the Democrats have historically been better at it than Republicans. The GOP thinks it should prevail on the strength of its ideas. The Democrats need a cozy press in order to win and preserve their fragile coalition of society's "takers." So the Democrats have cultivated the notion that the press is ELITE - a fourth branch of government, a group to be lavished with food and wine and as many favors as possible...the so-called "A-List Cocktail Party Circuit." To write a story that would anger this coterie of society is unthinkable. And it would endanger all the perks and privileges that newsers think they're entitled to.
Add to this group The Do-Gooders and Activists. Colleges and universities have largely created this subgroup of reporters in the last 30 years or so. Some start out with the idealism of youth and a bent to "change the world." Others are molded by disaffected communists or other left-wingers who, excluded from mainstream thought, find their way into the classroom and somehow gain tenure. If you take a Do-Gooder or an Activist reporter and give him/her Elitism, then you've got one very powerful propogandist - one that will ignore all inconvenient truth in order to press a viewpoint.
A third subgroup are those with the Politics Of Convenience. A loose-moraled lothario likes abortion as a convenient way out of an unwanted pregnancy. The Democrats like abortion, so this reporter leans Democrat. There is a huge number of "if-it-feels-good-do-it" generational members in the press corps today - and Democratic policies appeal to them more than personal responsibility. At that age, I fell for it, too. Then I grew up. And although a great many of the feel-good-do-it generation HAVE, in fact, grown up to a degree, the fact is that they still like permissive societal attitudes, and that makes them Convenient Democrats. Not to mention the fact that if they ever somehow commit some infraction against the law, it's a lot easier to get away with it (in most cases) if you're a Democrat.
And then, to top it all off, you have the ignorant and intellectually lazy. These are people who are only curious about PEOPLE and EMOTIONS - and feel that FACTS often get in the way of a good story. They do not wish to learn how things work. They, instead, prefer to concentrate on how PEOPLE FEEL about things. You'll find them committing grievous errors in their reporting on aviation, electronics, monetary matters(and anything to do even remotely with math), the sciences, history - to bluntly lump it, anything technical or anything requiring a degree of factual precision. Add to this a propensity this group has for a startling lack of attention to perspective - i.e., what a story MEANS - and you've got the recipe for journalistic disaster. Oh, they've been taught that this approach "makes good TV," but if it does, it only succeeds on the Jerry-Springer level.
Not even touched is the business angle news organizations must face. They are, after all, businesses that are expected to make a profit. To make a profit, you must take in more revenue than you spend, and that revenue is solely in the form of cash paid by advertisers. To attract advertisers, you need readers and viewers. The more of each you have, the more you can charge for your advertisements. So the economic pressure is severe to make as many people watch and read as possible. This pressure then invades the realm of news judgement - and stories selected for air (and their treatment, often) are functions of what the management feels will attract the most desireable audience.
This inevitably leads to the lurid and sensationalistic, an emphasis on crime stories (even though all stats say crime in this country is DOWN), and pieces designed to evince a visceral reaction. In so doing, many times only part of a story is told - that part which the editors feel will get the most attention.
I'm hoping that the book this author has reviewed will have touched more upon these other pressures, as they all influence what is covered and how it's covered. I'll buy a copy and find out. If it is as comprehensive as I hope it is, I'll forward it to a particular TV news director who is sorely in need of a little awakening.
Michael
...these organizations are composed of people who are hired because of their similar worldview.
Taking it a step further, the ones that are best at expressing this worldview thrive in this environment and end up in the anchor and editor desks of their respective organizations. It doesn't take a PHD for the underlings to figure out what it takes to rise to the top.
Reporters and editors are assiduously courted by politicians, and the Democrats have historically been better at it than Republicans.
Well, IMO, primarily because they just happen to be reading from the same playbook. I would submit that the media "elite"; not the politicos, are in a position to set the political and social agenda because of their unique ability to reach the masses. Politicians that don't follow the game plan set by the media are offered up as lepers to the unwashed by various and sundry methods. Hence, pols that want the good face time follow the media's lead. i.e., the pols need the media more than the media need the pols. Our constitution all but guarantees the survival of the "free press" regardless of their politics or social agenda.
...it would endanger all the perks and privileges that newsers think they're entitled to.
They ARE entitled. The Dims owe their very existence to the media. So, just who is running the show here anyway??????
Democratic policies appeal to them more than personal responsibility. At that age, I fell for it, too. Then I grew up.
Sounds like you nailed 'em here bub. "Teenagers In Suits" one and all. At some point in the growth process, idealism gets tempered with reality and, you're right, some never make it. And, these people are driving the pace car. God help us.
So the economic pressure is severe to make as many people watch and read as possible.
...stories selected for air (and their treatment, often) are functions of what the management feels will attract the most desireable audience.
Two very different statements. If the first one is true, why do they constantly risk alienation of over half their potential audience by playing to, well, socialism? I suspect that, in fact, many conservatives watch and read this drivel for their own reasons; not suspecting they are really supporting something diametrically opposed to their basic values. Too many conservatives don't have a clue. Their guts tell them something is wrong, but they can't quite put their finger on it. They need to be checked for nose rings.
I'm more inclined to believe, based on a study by some foundation whose name I can't recall, that the (broadcast)media actually targets a particular demographic; that is the 18 - 40ish female; the "buyer" in the houselold. A demographic that is "predominately" liberal and given to emotionalism and impulsiveness(I would actually like to see someone refute this). What kind of "news" would you design for this group, assuming you had no other agenda?
This inevitably leads to the lurid and sensationalistic, an emphasis on crime stories...
SOME crime stories. You and I both know there are many sensational crime stories that hardly see the light of day; buried below the fold or given short shrift on the evening news. What's with that??????? Rhetorical; don't bother ; )
All in all, it seems we're stuck with this bunch of closet(?) socialists for the time being. Would that I could wave a magic wand and be rid of 'em, but there's that reality once again. Given that these organizations surreptitiously,(or NOT so surreptitiously) are inadvertantly(?) advocating actual change in our system of government, why can't we bring enough pressure to bear to call them on the carpet?
Cheers,
FGS