full article here: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000517184 Money shot: "Those convinced that liberals make up a disproportionate share of newsroom workers have long relied on Pew Research Center surveys to confirm this view, and they will not be disappointed by the results of Pew's latest study released today. . . . At national organizations (which includes print, TV and radio), the numbers break down like this: 34% liberal, 7% conservative. At local outlets: 23% liberal, 12% conservative. At Web sites: 27% call themselves liberals, 13% conservatives. This contrasts with the self-assessment of the general public: 20% liberal, 33% conservative... While it's important to remember that most journalists in this survey continue to call themselves moderate, the ranks of self-described liberals have grown in recent years, according to Pew. For example, since 1995, Pew found at national outlets that the liberal segment has climbed from 22% to 34% while conservatives have only inched up from 5% to 7%." of course, i'm sure all this has no impact on the way news is covered, but then, one finds little snippets like this one from an article in Saturday's NYTimes on the Bill Cosby kerfluffle: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/22/arts/22COSB.html "Some people said Mr. Cosby's comments had simply brought to the surface long-simmering generational and class schisms among blacks. Some applauded him for using sharp language to reiterate a long-running debate among blacks about the direction of the black struggle. Still others said they feared that his remarks would become fodder for racists or conservatives who believe that blacks alone avoid personal responsibility." does the times believe racists and conservatives are the same thing? or this jaw dropping comment from friday's times: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/21/i...ex=1400558400&partner=USERLAND&pagewanted=all "Iraq has become one of the most dangerous places in the world from which to report, with enormous potential for journalists to be deliberately targeted by either side or caught in the crossfire" tell me, why does the times hate the U.S. military? does it really believe we're targeting journalists, or has it finally slipped over the cliff of anti-americanism?
34% liberal seems a far cry from the "liberal dominated media" whinning we constantly hear about from the whacko radio drones. Who is Pew? Are they reliable? Do they claim to be liberal, conservative or nuetral?
A little more from the original link: <I>When the question of which news organizations actually tilted left or right, there was one clear candidate: Fox News. Fully 69% of national journalists, and 42% of those at the local level, called Fox News "especially conservative." Next up was The New York Times, which about one in five labeled "especially liberal."</I> In other words, while there may be more liberal journalists, the most biased portrayals of the news appears to be tilted more the other way, at least in terms of major sources.
Also from that link: <I>In an essay accompanying the survey, the directors of the sponsoring groups -- Bill Kovach, Tom Rosenstiel and Amy Mitchell --declare that broad conclusions about the political findings should be tempered by analyzing some of the details in the findings. For example, they identify strong "libertarian" leanings among journalists, including doubts about the role of "big government."</I>
remember who is making the characterization of fox as "especially conservative"- it's journalist who self-identify as liberal or moderate.
Why would you rate moderates as biased? Aren't they by definition not? So if 34% are liberal, and 69% (!) say Fox is extremely conservative, far more than any other outlet is anything, what should that tell you? More non-liberals consider Fox extremely ( r especially) conservative than there even are liberals.
LOL Virtually all media outlets are owned by about seven giant conservative mega-conglomerates, and people still decry the "liberal media." I guess we all want to be underdogs.
the times has now removed the reference to targeting journalists from the version of the story on its website.
I have followed this ping-pong match fairly closely lately, and would like to see someone return this one... or is it a successful smash?
see the pew study. it's the members of the media themselves who self-identify as liberal. those same members lament the press is too easy on W. that's not liberal bias? call it a backhand top-spin lob that lands just inside the baseline, leaving the opponent slack-jawed at the net.
Folks, I work in the media. It is all liberal. That is not in dispute. Journalism attracts liberals and at least left-leaning folks. It's not an organized conspiracy, just the rules of the game. Just like business attracts more conservatives, journalism attracts more leftist. The problem lies when they frame the news from their viewpoint without at least attempting to be impartial, which can not be said reading most of the major dailies or watching CNN/ MSNBC/NPR/NBC/ABC/CBS.
So their neo-con bosses choose not to exercise any control over which stories get covered? They just turn their liberal employees loose? There is no back-and-forth there, no power struggle?
Isn't Michael Savage on MSNBC? Not that I've heard him yet -- I've been through a long voluntary news blackout (too depressing, I felt there was not a damn thing I could do about ANY of it, but now I'm trying to catch back up) -- I guess in some segments of the media there is a clear "conservative" advantage, like talk radio (and Donahue was supposedly dumped off MSNBC even though his show was their highest-rated cable TV show, making it seem that these are not all just strictly market-driven decisions...) ?
Man, the more I think about that, the more curious I am -- like you said, bamaslammer, you've got conservatives running the business end, right?, and most of the available employees are liberals or moderates, so how, as a savvy businessman, do you protect your interests? How does that play out? There has to be a story there... no?
Of course that has a huge impact on how and what news is covered. But you won't here it discussed much.
a large percentage of the news we get seems to be "fed" to the media anyway, so aside from putting a spin on a press release they have been handed, this seems to be a fairly moot point. especially if you know how to read critically. the great thing about this country is that we have so many news sources. if you WANT to know the truth about something it is not hard to find (library, internet). we are all biased to some degree. the question is, why do you read the news. to support preconceived notions? to confirm opinions of partisanship? to understand what is actually happening in the world? How many of use will pick up, say, The Weekly Standard or The Economist along with The Nation or Mother Jones? If you're not reading both sides or looking at sources, how can you tell if or to what degree something is biased? as for your point burlesk, I have heard of many instances of the bosses nixing a story for being too "controversial." Journalism, though, looks at itself as a guardian of the people type institution (dating way back) and the big boss media conglomerate is a relatively new trend. Although it has gotten worse in the past couple decades, I think if there was too much of a control put on the press, you would really start to hear about it. I know I've heard plenty of problems when a story conflicts with an advertiser, but those types of problems have been around for decades and most reporters know its a losing battle. One thing that has gotten bad is outright manipulation of the press by both parties. If a paper runs too controversial a story, often times they will be "frozen out" of any exclusives or breaking stories. the bosses know this, thats why, for example, the cia-crack connection story was renounced. It has to be a tough call, though. Conservative boss or liberal boss, they both know big stories sell and thats the, ahem, bottom line.
