Talk amongst yourselves (yet another media thread)

I'll give you a topic:

From ABC News's blog, "The Note":

Like every other institution, the Washington and political press corps operate with a good number of biases and predilections.

They include, but are not limited to, a near-universal shared sense that liberal political positions on social issues like gun control, homosexuality, abortion, and religion are the default, while more conservative positions are "conservative positions."

They include a belief that government is a mechanism to solve the nation's problems; that more taxes on corporations and the wealthy are good ways to cut the deficit and raise money for social spending and don't have a negative affect on economic growth; and that emotional examples of suffering (provided by unions or consumer groups) are good ways to illustrate economic statistic stories.

More systematically, the press believes that fluid narratives in coverage are better than static storylines; that new things are more interesting than old things; that close races are preferable to loose ones; and that incumbents are destined for dethroning, somehow.

The press, by and large, does not accept President Bush's justifications for the Iraq war--in any of its WMD, imminent threat, or evil-doer formulations. It does not understand how educated, sensible people could possibly be wary of multilateral institutions or friendly, sophisticated European allies.

It does not accept the proposition that the Bush tax cuts helped the economy by stimulating summer spending.

It remains fixated on the unemployment rate.

It believes President Bush is "walking a fine line" with regards to the gay marriage issue, choosing between "tolerance" and his "right-wing base."

It still has a hard time understanding how, despite the drumbeat of conservative grass-top complaints about overspending and deficits, President Bush's base remains extremely and loyally devoted to him--and it looks for every opportunity to find cracks in that base.

Of course, the swirling Joe Wilson and National Guard stories play right to the press's scandal bias--not to mention the bias towards process stories (grand juries produce ENDLESS process!).

The worldview of the dominant media can be seen in every frame of video and every print word choice that is currently being produced about the presidential race.

I will say that I don't think that the media is intentionally left or right leaning, but that they are in business to profit (like anyone else) and follows what they (individual outlets) believe will sell. If biases come into play, its in making that decision.

I will say that I don''t think that the media is intentionally left or right leaning, but that they are in business to profit

I think this is absolutely spot on.

I think this is absolutely spot on.

Except of course for the fact that journalists are almost exclusively Democrats. Everyone I know has political biases - but I''m supposed to believe that reporters, who admit to voting Democratic by a vast majority, don''t?

It doesn''t follow that every liberal Starbucks employee in the world hates George Bush and will be happy to tell you with a tongue-ring-clacking tirade, but at the same time highly-educated Democrats whose profession involves following politics have no opinions on the matters they are so invested in. Riiiight..

Well partly it''s called professionalism. Maybe you go to work and inject pro-Bush propaganda into every memo, but when it''s your job to be impartial, I like to think some of them are doing that. Additionally, let''s talk about how many of the executives, managers, presidents, and owners of media outlets are liberals. Don''t forget, reporters also have to keep their jobs.

There''s also a chicken-or-the-egg issue here. Is there something inherent about journalism that draws Democrats to it, or could it be that the increased exposure to new facts and ideas that comes with being a journalist makes Democrats out of them? I have always thought that if you could take everyone in the U.S. and make them live overseas for a year, there wouldn''t be too many Republicans left.

They include a belief that government is a mechanism to solve the nation''s problems

Many people who become journalists like to think they are ""working to change the world"" or ""make a difference."" That is a basic liberal belief.

the increased exposure to new facts and ideas that comes with being a journalist makes Democrats out of them?

I think that they are already liberal and this fact just reinforces their belief. I realize it is a broad characterization, but liberals are more interested in feelings, and good reporting is emotional, while conservatives are more focused on reason and logic (NOTE: I am not suggesting that conservatives are MORE reasonable and logical ).

I would think for this reason that Liberals are better reporters and conservatives are better editorialists.

Well partly it''s called professionalism.

What does that have to do with the press? They are incredibly lazy, and I have caught them (with little effort) reporting urban myths as factual events. Like the guy ""surfing the rubble from the 93rd floor"" story.

Don''t forget, reporters also have to keep their jobs.

Who is going to fire them? The liberal editor? The liberal owner of the paper? Jayson Blair was able to fabricate unresearched stories for years.

"Elysium" wrote:

Well partly it''s called professionalism. Maybe you go to work and inject pro-Bush propaganda into every memo, but when it''s your job to be impartial, I like to think some of them are doing that. Additionally, let''s talk about how many of the executives, managers, presidents, and owners of media outlets are liberals. Don''t forget, reporters also have to keep their jobs.

We don''t need any of that logic!

Well partly it''s called professionalism. Maybe you go to work and inject pro-Bush propaganda into every memo, but when it''s your job to be impartial, I like to think some of them are doing that.

Well there''s hope that you may find religion, if you are willing to base your beliefs on matters of faith like that

I do not discuss Bush in memos at work, but if my job was to write memos about Bush, the content of those memos might well be swayed by my opinions about him. This is what jouranlists do all the time. And you''re right, professionalism may help them to be impartial, but when 70% of journalists vote for one party, you would expect some of that to creep into reporting, and it does.

Also, professionalism cannot conquer worldview. If you really believe that, as has been said in this forum referring to taxes, ""it''s the government''s money"" - this is going to affect the angle from which you write a story on deficits or tax cuts. If you hold this or any number of ingrained beliefs, there is a good chance it will not even occur to you to offer another side to the story - since you have already personally decided the issue for yourself.

But you''re ignoring that reporters are not the endline of a story or how it''s portrayed. With management, editors, and executives who are not necessarily so left-leaning providing a very real check on an assumed journalistic liberalism, there is a very real balancing link in the chain.

With management, editors, and executives who are not necessarily so left-leaning providing a very real check on an assumed journalistic liberalism

Well, we know that journalists are largely liberals from their own admissions. So where exactly do you think management and editors of of media outlets come from? I''m pretty this group isn''t made up of former oil industry executives, but instead consists of people who have worked their way up in the industry, like every other field.

Journalism is a separate field from management, editing, etc. Working your way up the journalism ladder doesn''t lead to management, it leads to better more prestigious journalism careers. Same for editing and management. They don''t really cross. I''ve read several articles that show those in positions of media authority tend to be conservative. I''m afraid I don''t have any links, so you can choose not to take my word on it.

"Elysium" wrote:

Journalism is a separate field from management, editing, etc. Working your way up the journalism ladder doesn''t lead to management, it leads to better more prestigious journalism careers. Same for editing and management. They don''t really cross. I''ve read several articles that show those in positions of media authority tend to be conservative. I''m afraid I don''t have any links, so you can choose not to take my word on it.

Rupert Murdoch, for one. That''s a no-brainer.

It''s amusing that some people won''t acknowledge that the mainstream media is liberally biased, yet have no problem labeling Fox News as a conservative network. If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck and walks like a duck, it''s a duck. Fox news is conservative and the rest are liberals. The Washington Post is a conservative newspapers and the Washington Times slants liberal.

Fox news is consistently the highest rated cable news network. It''s talk shows and news reports dwarf those of CNN and CNBC. If news channels were really in it for ""business"" wouldn''t they want to follow a proven successful model? Nope. The media is filled with elitist liberals who think they are ""smarter"" than their conservative colleagues. It''s the same with academia. It''s the job that attracts that type of person.

The Washington Post is a conservative newspapers and the Washington Times slants liberal.

I think you have that backwards.

Here''s a fine example of worldview creating bias. On the same day that Saddam''s statue was toppled in Baghdad, Peter Jennings'' commentary was as follows:

""Saddam Hussein may have been, or may be, a vain man, but he has allowed himself to be sculpted heavy and thin, overweight and in shape, in every imaginable costume – both national, in historic terms, in Iraqi historic terms – in contemporary, in every imaginable uniform, on every noble horse. The sculpting of Saddam Hussein, which has been a growth industry for 20 years, may well be a dying art.""

Miss the point much, Pete?

Maybe it''s my ""biased worldview"" but that just seems like one of his somewhat snooty attempts at humor to me, ""growth industry"" har har...

If you''re trying to exemplify bias Ral you could''ve picked a better Jennings quote than that, there''s plenty to choose from

I don''t see that he was making a joke. You''re right that it was funny, but only in demonstrating his idiocy.

ral, you need humour consultant. you know- grim guys in suits who love to explain every joke.

ral, you need humour consultant. you know- grim guys in suits who love to explain every joke.

Most, do you even watch Peter Jennings? He isn''t much of a jokster, but he is famous for saying foolish things...

nope, ral, I live in happy oblivion. It might mean that I missed the point here, but I really cant see any way how your quote above could be anything else than joke. I mean - it even stinks like joke. Not particulary good one, but then again - news media jokes are usually pretty lame and half-baked.

ah, except for CNN`s Robert Quest - I love that guy, even though i hated him the first time I saw him.

This week we were surprised to see several hundred artists and writers walking through the streets of Baghdad to say thank you to Saddam Hussein. He had just increased their monthly financial support. Cynical, you could argue at this particular time, but the state has always supported the arts, and some of the most creative people in the Arab world have always been Iraqis. And whatever they think about Saddam Hussein in the privacy of their homes, on this occasion they were praising his defense of the homeland in the face of American threats.""

– ABC's Peter Jennings in Baghdad, concluding the January 21 World News Tonight.

I think Peter Jennings is trying his hardest to paint what he thinks is a ""fair"" picture - kind of like talking about how great Hitler was in his love of theater...

Oh, btw, the quote from Jenings about statues, camebeforethe statue was toppled...