We [journalists] reached our intellectual adulthood with daily close-ups of the inequality in a nation that was founded on the commitment to equality for all. So we are inclined to side with the powerless rather than the powerful. If that is what makes us liberals so be it, just as long as . . . we adhere to the first ideals of good journalism. -- I hope we all get along as we go along. I expect that occasionally we will have some differences of opinion. I expect to be provocative. After more than 60 years as a journalist, I have some ideas about the state of our nation, of our world, of our culture, and I wouldn't be true to the purpose of a column if I didn't vent them here. My hope is that you will find my commentary interesting, informative, perhaps occasionally amusing (deliberately, that is), and, at all times, fair and as unbiased as it is possible for opinion to be. You are going to disagree with me from time to time, and I will be disappointed if you don't. That fulfills the provocative requirement of a column like this. When the nation was deeply divided over the Vietnam War, we at CBS got a lot of mail complaining about our coverage. I was disturbed until we found out that the number of letters condemning us as being government lackeys in support of the war almost precisely balanced those condemning us as being sympathetic to the war protesters. I relaxed with the simple philosophy that if you are being shot at from both sides, you must be in the middle of the road. Let's face this one down right now: I am neither Republican nor Democrat. I am a registered independent because I find that I cast my votes not on the basis of party loyalty but on the issues of the moment and my assessment of the candidates. Basically I am a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, but those who rabidly support those positions will be more often disappointed in my views than otherwise. I believe that most of us reporters are liberal, but not because we consciously have chosen that particular color in the political spectrum. More likely it is because most of us served our journalistic apprenticeships as reporters covering the seamier side of our cities -- the crimes, the tenement fires, the homeless and the hungry, the underclothed and undereducated. We reached our intellectual adulthood with daily close-ups of the inequality in a nation that was founded on the commitment to equality for all. So we are inclined to side with the powerless rather than the powerful. If that is what makes us liberals so be it, just as long as in reporting the news we adhere to the first ideals of good journalism -- that news reports must be fair, accurate and unbiased. That clearly doesn't apply when one deserts the front page for the editorial page and the columns to which opinion should be isolated. The perceived liberalism of television reporters, I am convinced, is a product of the limited time given for any particular item. The reporter desperately tries to get all the important facts and essential viewpoints into his or her piece but, against a fast-approaching deadline, he or she must summarize in a sentence the complicated story. That is where the slippage occurs, and the summary too frequently, without intention, seems to emphasize one side or the other. (The answer to that problem, as with much else in television news, is in more time for the dominant evening newscasts. In our ever more complicated and confusing world, those newscasts need an hour.) Incidentally, I looked up the definition of "liberal" in a Random House dictionary. It gave the synonyms for "liberal" as "progressive," "broad-minded," "unprejudiced," "beneficent." The antonyms it offered: "reactionary" and "intolerant." I have always suspected those fine folks at Random House of being liberals. You just can't trust anybody these days.
Here is my favorite part of the article: Incidentally, I looked up the definition of "liberal" in a Random House dictionary. It gave the synonyms for "liberal" as "progressive," "broad-minded," "unprejudiced," "beneficent." The antonyms it offered: "reactionary" and "intolerant." That just about sums it up for me.
Unfortunately, half the country doesn't share Walter's politics, or the politics of about 80% of all reporters. I do think it is honest of Walter to admit this though. It is important for people to understand what Walter is saying, so we can judge news outlets through the appropriate filters.
I think it's pretty obvious. About a week ago I was watching a PBS special on how important it was to have government funded pre-school for all families. They went over to France and showed how much better it was than here, and they talked to families who were struggling, and basically made it look like a crisis. I was actually starting to get convinced. Towards, the end, they asked, why don't we have it here? Well, it turns out only 20% of Americans support such an idea! But hey, it's a great liberal idea, that won't stop them from pushing it hard. I can think of some things that probably have at least 20% support that PBS won't make into a special anytime soon- flat tax, repeal affirmative action, repeal Roe v. Wade, invade North Korea, expose the extremists teachings of Islam in the Middle East, etc.
I think reporters would tend to be liberal, for the most part. But not all. I think the media, being corporate owned (General Electric [re: defense contractors] own NBC, for Chrissake!) are easily controlled by outside forces. If the government doesn't want us to know something (and there's a lot of news that doesn't make the news), the only way to find it is through the foreign media or so-called "progressive" magazines and such. And what Walter Cronkite says is painfully obvious. I've been saying that for years about why many reporters would tend to be liberal. The stories they can reach out for would involve people living at the feet of the elephant. The elephant itself, however----ah, yes. Try to cut its feet out from under it and it can squash you.
reporters don't make the news, editors and owners do gee, let's poll the guys at the Mobil plant and see if they are more liberal than the owners and top management editors decide which stories run, which parts of which stories run, and which journalists get to cover which stories. they don't do so to please the journalists, but to please the business people for whom they work. part of that is making the commercial base happy and continuing their support. the news is overwhelmingly conservative, and one need only watch news in any other language or from any other country to know that. Canada, Australia, UK, and Mexico all show news NONE of this country's TV News channels will show. They do not seek to chum up to the White House the way domestic news organs do. This president has faced the press about once every 4 months since becoming president, and he doesn't really answer questions when he does. Only a lap dog press would sit still for that. Ours is a lap dog press, and not a single network will take the white house on.
We [journalists] reached our intellectual adulthood with daily close-ups of the inequality in a nation that was founded on the commitment to equality for all. So we are inclined to side with the powerless rather than the powerful. If that is what makes us liberals so be it, just as long as I agree with Walter. People who actually have a lot of contact with the poor and struggling and KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON are liberals.. They can't be fooled by the bs that comes out in the conservative press: that they are all poor or disabled or in jail because it is their own fault; they didn't take enough personal responsibility; or pray to Jesus enough; or the "science" of Econ 101 dictates that that is all they deserve. Journalists and otherw who have such personal contact don't fall for the bs used to justify selfishness and tax breaks for in many cases the extremly rich. To paraphrase Walter many middle class educated conservatives reach intellectual adulthood without daily close-ups of the inequality in a nation that was founded on the commitment to equality for all. Therefore they are inclined to think America is living up to its ideals and side against the powerless and for the powerful.
By that definition, many people who are labeled liberal, well, aren't. The truth is, the words liberal and conservative have become "technical terms" when used in the context of politics. As such, regular dictionary definitions are for the most part meaningless. The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy does a better job defining these words in their political sense. http://www.bartleby.com/59/13/liberalism.html Just because you've got the right word doesn't mean you've got the right term. I would think they teach that in Journalism 101. According to the Random House definition, most of us would probably agree that liberalism is a good thing, generally speaking. It's when we use the right definition for the context (which always seems to be helpful) that people begin to have disagreements. I suspect Walter understands this. He was just trying to create prejudice because of his intolerant and uncharitible disposition toward political conservatism. It's foolish comments like that that add fuel to the "There's a liberal media conspiracy" fire. He's counting on people being too stupid or intellectually lazy to realize that the Random House definition has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
I believe its gross exaggeration to assume you 'don't know what's going on' or 'haven't had contact with the poor and struggling' if you're conservative. There are plenty of 'conservative' organizations and people that work with the poor both in this country and abroad. And there are plenty of 'middle class liberals' that never spend a day around the 'poor and the struggling either. Look, I believe in social spending. But characterizations like this simply force people apart instead of focusing on solutions. Name calling is a waste of time.
glynch -- i spend a lot of time with people from my church helping the homeless. when i'm there, at the soup kitchen, i find that it's predominantly Christian groups that are there helping out. some individuals would identify themselves as political conservatives...some would identify themselves as political liberals. try to show some modicum of respect to those people who spend their days (and some, their lives) assisting the poor. and yes...those people on both sides of the political fence are still praying to Jesus.
Hayes, Sorry you disagree with Walter and my thoughts on the matter. I do think, for instance, that aside from journalists there are many more liberals than conservatives in such fields with contact with the poor such as government agencies, social work, public school teaching, non-business related law and so forth than conservatives. Agreed, there are both liberals and conservatives.with little contact with the poor and struggling. The difference is that these liberals still support policies such as increased minimum wage, food stamps, mental health services, midnight basketball tournaments, school lunches etc. They are not part of the problem leading to such widespread poverty in this rich country. The conservatives with no contact support politicians who push to reduce taxes on the wealthy which inevitably reslts in these programs being gutted. They are part of the problem. As a supporter of social spending how do you explain the hostility of these conservatives to social spending? If it isn't lack of contact, what is it? I'm sorry,but if you give a damn about these people and are in favor of social spending, the overaarching thrust of conservatism to defund social programs has to be opposed.
Maybe conservatives have seen what a disaster welfare programs have been to the poor and know that it only worsens the situation to subsidize a lifestyle and culture of poverty and crime.
