So I hear all these accusations that the mass media is leftist. Aside from the fact that this may or may not be correct, HOW did the media get the way it is?
Why is the stereotype the way it is? If it's correct, how did it get that way? Is the media following something other than left or right?
I'm torn on this and besides the idea that people who go into the field of journalism and mass media are intellectuals and/or actors who have the world view that other people stereotype as leftist, I'm stumped.
Thoughts?
[ October 27, 2004, 12:10 AM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Hmmm. As for whether it's "leftist" or not. I don't know if this qualifies, but there's a website that tracks the donations to the campaigns for democrats/republicans and about 66 to 70% of "media" based donations go to the democrats and about 30% to the republican side.
As to how it got that way? You'd have to go back to the early print days, then onto film, then radio then television and look at the historic trends.
As it sits, even though "religion" is a "personal aspect" of people's lives try the following:
Name the regular church attending people who appear on Radio, TV or Movies.
Name the openly homosexuals on Radio, TV or Movies.
It might not be a fair comparison, but it's interesting and it's ramifications are interesting.
I thought one interesting thing happened in the world of film this year that paints a "stereotypical" picture.
Michael Moore approached Harvey Weinstein (who is VERY liberal) and said, "I'm going to make a film bashing President Bush". Harvey Weinstein gave him $8 Million to make it.
Mel Gibson wanted to do a movie based on the "Dolorous Passion of Jesus Christ". No Studios would give him a dime to make it. So he had to put up $25 Million of his own money. After it was made, no big distributors would touch it with a ten foot pole for release.
There's a bottomless list of "liberalism" in film since the 50's. TV is the same. Literature has been alot longer both liberal and conservative, although the later is considered "propaganda" and the former "art".
How it got there is a huge discussion. There are books on the subject that would do it better justice than I ever could.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's true that people who go into journalism, popular entertainment and communications are more likely to be liberal, probably because liberals perceive more value in these things. This can color the perspective of the "media," insofar as you can consider the media to be one huge thingy instead of hundreds of mouths competing for blood.
Posted by Shepherdess (Member # 6115) on :
A similar and related question would be--Why are universities so leftist? One reason I've heard is that people on the left tend to "think" while people on the right "do". I realize that's a gross oversimplification, but even within a university people in the humanities (and other non "hard science" fields) tend to lean left more than people in, say, Engineering.
There has been a lot of discussion on that topic around here recently due to several incidents in which conservative students at UNC were ridiculed or chastised by the professor for voicing their opinions in class discussions. There was another recent article in the local paper about the percentage of campaign donations going to conservative v. liberal candidates from employees at UNC. The records showed that only one (yes, ONE!) UNC employee had contributed to the Bush campaign. Democrats get lion's share Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
And that's one thing that is important to note. No matter how "unbiased" someone claims to be, it's almost impossible because everyone has a mind and thinks and has a view. Someone who believes Organized Religion to be bad is not going to make a movie where Organized Religion is the "save all" and atheistic beliefs, etc. are the "bad guys".
Most of the time the "liberal agenda" or "liberal themes" are put right in there on purpose and admittedly so by the creators.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
That sounds like my "Creative Writing" class I took my first year of college. Want to know what the Textbook was called?
"Writing about Diversity". I still have it. Written by Irene Clark...oh and fancy that...she taught and developed the "writing curricular materials" at....Tada! USC. (it's in the preface)
I like the questionnaire on page 39: "Are you Really a racist?"
Diversity in Language in part 6
Political Correctness in part 7
Men and Women relationships in part 8
Diversity and the Family in part 9
Workplace Diversity in part 10
Workplace and Diversity in part 11
And here I thought I was taking "Creative Writing". Instead I guess I was taking "Liberal Journalism and Indoctrination 101".
I wonder if a "Creative Writing" class at a public university that required it's students to "read the Bible, Koran, Book of Mormon, etc." would meet with any kind of resistance?
EDIT: Shepardess you should start a new thread on that topic.
[ October 27, 2004, 12:56 AM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:How did the media get the way it is?
Because watching, listening to, or reading conservatives is boring.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
How strange, I've read lengthy excerpts from the Bible, the Koran, and several other religious texts in my Comparative Literature course at a public university. The Book of Mormon doesn't qualify, this is World Literature Before 1500.
There are plenty of other courses dealing with those texts, including several exclusively on various religious works.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Yeah, I thought it was weird when I took the class. I could see if it wasn't a required class. It just seems odd that of the 'required' core classes, there isn't a conservative list of classes and a liberal list of classes for the same requisites.
That would be cool. Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
The media got the reputation for being leftist from the fact that most members of the media are liberals, and because the Republicans based a campaign on that fact to label the media "liberal."
In actuality, however, since 9/11, the arrival of FOX News, and the popularity of a number of conservative TV personalities with formats in which they get to editorialize, the media actually leans conservative. Just today in the news the BBC has argued that the American media was overly patriotic and failed to properly criticize the Bush administration during the lead up to the Iraq War - signs of a very conservative media.
There is a connection between the media and the left though... The fact of the matter is, the entire liberal ideology is based on the notion of using novel facts (rather than tradition) to derive conclusions about how to act in the world. In this sense, liberalism is built with news as it's foundation. News, facts, and reasoning are the base upon which liberalism builds its ideology - which is one reason the news has a natural alliance with the left.
[ October 27, 2004, 01:33 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: The Book of Mormon doesn't qualify, this is World Literature Before 1500.
*jab* In your opinion. Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
The BBC being controlled by the British Labor party which despite Tony Blair's membership is staunchly against the war in Iraq. It editorializes on regular basis and doesn't even pretent to be fair and balanced.
The media leans left for several reasons. First, the people becoming journalists are coming off of college campuses which are overwhelmingly liberal. Second, its popular to be liberal because of Hollywood. Finally, liberals tend to be more liberal (big suprise) when it comes to be media's rights. For example liberals tend to favor the media's rights to protect their anonymous sources while conservatives believe the media should have to reveal their sources in criminal matters.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I'd think it was simpler than all that.
I think a lot of people go into journalism because they think they can make a difference. People who saw the world and wanted to expose injustices. That tends to attract liberals.
Before this, conservative journalists were generally those who had a previous job and became journalists on similar subjects after they retired.
Of course now conservatives become journalists because they see the media world and want to expose injustice there...
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
The amino acids in your body are all left handed (they rotate plane polarized light to the left). From here it doesn't take a huge mental leap to realize that anything slanted to the left is better than things to the right. Especially things like political leanings. It just makes sense.
Science marches on!
(And don't nobody be bringing up D-sugars 'round here)
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Is there a liberal bias in the media? Yes.
I worked in it daily for a dozen years. Here's my perspective of why it takes a liberal bent more than anything else.
1. Journalism must take a slightly adversarial position against the powers that be, whether it is government, business or religion. This is part of its watchdog function. It must investigate the status quo and find the cracks in the system.
2. There is a generational effect at the top end of the media at this time. Those in power (producers, media company heads, editors) now are from the generation that eas educated and grew up in the late 1960s through the early 1980s. Liberal causes were at their highest in these times, from the Vietnam War to Watergate to Feminism to the Environmentalist movement among others. The people who took to the streets then are now those in charge of the television news and print media.
3. The media must always pander, somewhat, to the masses. The news, and how it is presented, must appeal to the majority more than to the individual. Honestly, which headline grabs your attention and feelings more: "Corporation saves $5 million by trimming unnecessary labor costs" or "3000 lose jobs in recent labor cuts"? Or "War proceeding as planned, hard work continues" or "Difficulties abound in War, Additional troops may be needed"?
4. The move from journalism to editorializing has hurt the entire field. John Stewart is doing a wonderful job recently of pointing this out.
5. Finally, the liberal slant of the media has been promoted from slant to bias by numerous folks on the conservative side. It has been a studied and effective campaign. It's become "the messenger is the problem, not the message of what happened." It has unmasked some of the most liberal sides, but it has also damaged some serious, objective journalists.
Just my take on the situation.
Posted by Shepherdess (Member # 6115) on :
Yeah, but in the secondary structure of proteins the alpha helix ALWAYS turns to the right. (So when amino acids grow up and become proteins, they turn to the right) Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Does that make people who are more moderate beta-sheets?
Now I understand why people call Kerry flat and boring and Bush kinda twisted. You can't escape your biology, kids, you just can't.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I can.
Hobbes Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I haven't done my own survey of news to decide whether it is liberal or not, but there is no question that every media outlet in which I have ever read a story about abortion is so incredibly leftist that the other side isn't even in sight, much less given any respect.
In Time, Newsweek, NPR, and NYT, the story is always that a select few, against all reason, logic, and popular opinion, are plotting to make it illegal again. The statements from pro-life groups are inevitably wild-eyed, and restrictions of any kind are portrayed as the first step of a horrible slippery slope. You would never, ever know from any of the stories that 20% of the nation thinks it should be illegal under all circumstances, and another 55% thinks it should be legal under certain circusmstances. Those who think it should be illegal except in cases of rape, incest, and a dire threat to the mother's life are classified in the 55%.
That means 75% of the nation holds a different viewpoint from the one portrayed in almost every story about abortion I've ever seen. The portrayal of that 75% as marginal and dangerous is a serious problem in journalism. This is the only issue I'm dead certain is gotten wrong, but it casts doubt on everything else.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
kat, I think that's glossing over the fact that the current reality of abortion today is that it IS restricted in certain circumstances. Roe v. Wade did provide a framework beyond "we won't stop you".
How many of that middle 55% would agree with the restrictions already laid out?
-Bok
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"The media leans left for several reasons. First, the people becoming journalists are coming off of college campuses which are overwhelmingly liberal. Second, its popular to be liberal because of Hollywood. Finally, liberals tend to be more liberal (big suprise) when it comes to be media's rights. For example liberals tend to favor the media's rights to protect their anonymous sources while conservatives believe the media should have to reveal their sources in criminal matters."
Wow. I somehow manage to disagree with every single one of NFL's "reasons." I don't think they're really relevant factors at all, and I was a liberal journalist.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Bok, I'll see if I can find some more detailed statistics.
The article in Newsweek I am thinking of was about partial-birth abortions, and how restrictions against it are the beginning of the end of freedom. It wasn't something far to the right or extreme they were protesting.
I noticed the story NPR especially because the final note was a quote for an abortion activist group about the dangers of what would happen if Bush was elected again. Considering this was a month before the election, it was practically a campaign ad.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
The media's job simply entails being somewhat liberal. It's about finding new information and challenging traditional authority - which means a dose of liberalism is necessary to do the job well. The same is true for acadmia, which shares those qualities.
In contrast, churches lean conservative. This is true even in religions oriented around a very liberal foundation, like Christianity (founded by a teacher who was the very definition of challenging traditional conservative authority in his time.) This is because the job of a church is to defend traditional values and ceremony - a job that entails some conservatism. The same tends to be true for the military.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:kat, I think that's glossing over the fact that the current reality of abortion today is that it IS restricted in certain circumstances. Roe v. Wade did provide a framework beyond "we won't stop you".
How many of that middle 55% would agree with the restrictions already laid out?
The framework of Roe is such that an abortion could be obtained at any time throughout pregnancy.
Casey did not change this - none of the measures at issue prevented anyone from receiving an abortion.
Both decisions leave open the possibility of additional restrictions, but none have been approved to date.
Dagonee
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I thought it was broken down by trimesters, as far as what states (since, technically, the feds don't fund abortion clinics directly) can regulate. Wide open 1st trimester, Some regulation allowed in 2nd trimester, and only in extraordinary cases for the 3rd trimester?
kat, I'm sure that some of the articles you read were biased; I just think you overstated your case by a fair amount.
-Bok
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:The fact that this election is so close is a product of the fact that the media in general covers both sides of the issue.
Actually, I'd say the fact that this election is so close is a product of the fact that the media doesn't do a very good job of covering both sides of the issue. It's more like it doesn't cover EITHER side of the issue, and instead covers the way in which politicans from both are trying to spin their side of the issue. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I thought it was broken down by trimesters, as far as what states (since, technically, the feds don't fund abortion clinics directly) can regulate. Wide open 1st trimester, Some regulation allowed in 2nd trimester, and only in extraordinary cases for the 3rd trimester?
That's how Roe breaks it down. However, the rules on the third trimester require allowing it when the mother's health is at risk.
A case decided the same day as Roe ruled that essentially any mental distress qualified as a risk to the mother's health, effectively eviscerating any restrictions Roe allowed.
Dagonee
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Also another aspect of why the media is liberal is "willingness to sacrifice you beliefs for your work".
In Hollywood, this is a given. You won't swear, or do nudity? Sorry, you won't go far here. And it gets worse because the people in Hollywood (like in all aspects of life) make the choices to surround themselves with people of "like mind".
In "reporting" this is a given as well. If your priorities are "Family First, Job Second" the liberal who doesn't have a family or is willing to sacrifice it for their work, is obviously going to get the job (that's not to say all liberals don't have families, but that case is valid stereotypically).
Also, there is no "consensus" on what is news. It's up to the "producers/editors" to decide on what "news" is and what you see. What makes print/live and what doesn't. If it has an agenda or slant they don't agree with it, the chances of it getting aired get reduced dramatically.
I still know of not one media icon or hollywood celebrity (besides a very select few) who are conservative, as vocal about it as liberals, and successful. Usually it's a career death sentence.
However, you can sell yourself and your morals and make it to the top. That's respected, encouraged and rewarded.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:kat, I'm sure that some of the articles you read were biased; I just think you overstated your case by a fair amount.
Bok, I don't think I am. This wasn't a conclusion reached hastily, and I'm thinking of a perponderance of articles where that viewpoint was expressed.
You're welcome to think so, and I'd be delighted to see some articles on abortion from mainstream print media that go against the trend I have noticed.
[ October 27, 2004, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Also another aspect of why the media is liberal is "willingness to sacrifice you beliefs for your work".
Umm...there's nothing liberal about sacrificing your principles for your work. Remember Enron? Corporate executives sacrifice principles for work with some regularity, and they lean conservative.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
The media seeks to be what people want it to be, which often involves morphing everything into a David and Goliath story. That means elevating the plight of the little man, and turning all the big men into murderous Philistines.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: Umm...there's nothing liberal about sacrificing your principles for your work. Remember Enron? Corporate executives sacrifice principles for work with some regularity, and they lean conservative.
You're correct that there are indeed "conservatives" who sell out some of their principles for personal gain, etc.
But in the media is where I am talking about. As it applies to media. Like winning Miss America, having it taken away because you posed for Playboy, and having those "in the decision making positions" in Hollywood "feel sorry for you" and give you the ability to become a "mega Hollywood Star". Or having someone announce their Gay and being lauded and applauded, while someone becomes "straight" from Gay and is shunned/blacklisted.
There is a "blacklist" in media today and it's slanted to favor the liberal agendas and shun the conservative.
I am fully aware that there are people on both sides willing to sacrifice their "beliefs" for work, just that in Hollywood the "sacrifice" asked alot of times is much greater than a conservative is willing to do.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Removed when I realized that the troll had gotten to me.
[ October 27, 2004, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: Sopwith ]
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
Chad, do you speak from experience? I remember you said you are an aspiring film maker.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
Oh, and by experience I don't mean selling out. I mean the experience of having been discriminated against in Hollywood because of your conservative beliefs.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Chad,
Are you aware that many liberals value free speech very highly, and have to sacrifice work because conservatives in the media want censorship? It goes both ways. Conservative values are by no means the only ones sacrificed in order to work in the media.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Also another aspect of why the media is liberal is 'willingness to sacrifice you beliefs for your work.'"
I suspect we're having a definitional problem. Chad is apparently under the impression that "liberal" means "scumbag."
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
German Filmmaker Roland Emmerich interview on "Day After Tomorrow" which as a political film is pretty tame (compared to "The Contender", etc.):
quote: You also make some not-so-subtle references to Bush and Cheney.
Well yeah, when you make a movie about global warming causing a new ice age that takes place in America, you have to portray a government. If you want to make it real you have to portray it somewhat, the political government which is in place right now. And it's a fact that they kind of don't do anything. They think it's all a big hoax.
Jake Gyllenhaal interview on the same film and another:
quote: And this is an action movie with a message.
Yeah, I think for me whenever I would get down or I’d be having a hard time or I’d be in the middle of nowhere in the cold in Montreal I’d always say to myself, “At least this movie has something to say.” I don’t think it was like (about) us looking at the monitor and being like, “did you get that minority in there?” It wasn’t like that. I think from talking to us I’m sure you can tell that we think it’s an issue that’s really important.
Did Roland push that when he was preparing you for the role? Did they talk about that?
Yeah, it was like when I was auditioning for Bertolucci. He was like, “You’re going to have to get naked in this movie and if you don’t want to get naked you can’t do it.” And Roland was like, “Look, this is a movie about the environment and if you don’t want to help the environment and get out of the car and recycle you can’t be in this movie.’” (Laughter) It was a very similar discussion. So, yeah, and I know there’s no irony in print either, so...
That's just one example of a film that purposely had an agenda inserted. The Bertolucci reference was good as well.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
kat, I was talking about your assumptions of the makeup of your percentages (you seem to think that all of the 55% in the middle would not agree with current restrictions), not about the stories you've read.
Sorry if I didn't make that clear.
-Bok
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: suspect we're having a definitional problem. Chad is apparently under the impression that "liberal" means "scumbag."
Sorry Tom I wasn't more clear. I tried clearing it up in the subsequent post.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"So, yeah, and I know there’s no irony in print either, so..."
Can you speculate, Chad, on why Mr. Gyllenhaal would have said this? What purpose do you think he might have had for pointing out that irony is difficult to make obvious in print?
--------
Chad, unless you believe that feeling sorry for women who pose naked is a definitionally liberal trait, I'm not sure you cleared it up much in your follow-up.
[ October 27, 2004, 11:36 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: That's just one example of a film that purposely had an agenda inserted.
If I was making an environmental movie I'd be more likely to hire people who cared. If I was making about book about the death of Christ I'd be more likely to hire people who believed, right? I wouldn't want people laughing at what they'd just screen after I'd called cut; where would be the authenticity in that?
Nowadays, it's hard to make something in the media without it leaning one way or the other. Fifty years ago, everyone thought that cultural leaning was dead, and from then on there was only going to be rich and poor- and we were going to solve that. 1929 had the largest split between poor and rich, then the stock market crashed. Now, we're back to the same difference. After the crash, in 1950, everyone thought that cultural differences would fade and everyone would work for more equal pay.
But now, cultural differences are everywhere. If I put a gay person in my story and root for him then I am leftist, no matter if he's a billionaire. If I make someone fundamentally religious and she is the protagonist, then she's most likely to be conservative even if she lives in a slum or on the street. You can't write about or make movies about a society without giving it a twist one way or the other.
[ October 27, 2004, 11:55 AM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: If I was making about book about the death of Christ I'd be more likely to hire people who believed, right?
Do you know who played "Mary Magdalene" in POTC? I would refer you to the movie "Malena" it's message, theme and content.
I'd say he'd have a reason to discriminate against her, but didn't.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:(you seem to think that all of the 55% in the middle would not agree with current restrictions
I understand now. I did not mean that all 55% agreed on the same restrictions, but they did agree that a woman should not have carte blanche over the life in her womb.
What was interesting to me was that 20% of the nation think there should be no allownces - not danger to the mother's health, not rape, not incest, not any of that. That's a larger percentage of the nation than that of black people in America. That's a huge number, and I've never seen an article or a story treat that point of view as anything other than dangerously radical and held by a few crazy people.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"That's a huge number, and I've never seen an article or a story treat that point of view as anything other than dangerously radical and held by a few crazy people."
What if it's a dangerously radical idea held by a large number of crazy people?
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: What if it's a dangerously radical idea held by a large number of crazy people?
Then that would be your opinion. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
If that's the opinion of the paper, then it belongs on the editorial page. If someone was looking for facts and a true picture of how abortion is regarded in America, they won't find it from those who claim to be purveyors of truth.
That's irritating. And it casts doubt on everything that comes from such a source.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, no, it's not actually my opinion. But that aside, what obligation does a reporter have to word an article in a way that correctly represents and rewards the relative popularity of a political position, regardless of its sensibility?
68% of the country cannot name all three branches of government. If a reporter mentions this fact, should he do so fairly and reverentially, explaning why it's so common for people to get this wrong and how it's perfectly understandable for people to feel this way?
[ October 27, 2004, 11:55 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
When an article gathers quote in an attempt to paint a picture of public opinion about an issue, it's sheer dishonesty to select sources and portray positively sources that only support one point of view.
45% of this nation think abortion is/should be an all or nothing issue, and they are split almost down the middle when it comes to who picks all and who picks nothing. Gathering quotes and treating respect only those who pick one side is shoddy journalism.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: more likely to hire
Please note the "more likely". It is there for a reason.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Ah...I've got no chance with Joel Shumacher (sp?).
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Was that directed at me? If so, I have no idea who Joel Shumacher is but if he's what I think he is (someone who doesn't make absolute statements becaue he knows they are wrong) then yes, I am like him.
I cannot make absolute statements because I know there is fact that disallows that possibility.
Also, Monica Bellucci may have played in, shall we say, risque movies but as far as I can tell her religious views are never mentioned and the two parts of a potential person are not mutually exclusive. Please point me in the right direction if I am wrong.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote:The fact that this election is so close is a product of the fact that the media in general covers both sides of the issue.
And the idea that people's opinions are always and forever shaped by the media and the money that controls it.
Well... if media is not only TV but radio, newpapers, internet, etc... I guess we don't have much choice, eh?
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
No, I was just saying that if people only associate/hire those with the same views, I won't be hired by Joel Shumacher because we have different views. (or Barbara Streisand for that matter) It wasn't directed at anyone...I don't think. Just a statement about myself in the context of your view.
quote: Also, Monica Bellucci may have played in, shall we say, risque movies but as far as I can tell her religious views are never mentioned and the two parts of a potential person are not mutually exclusive.
Very true. But I doubt she would have made a movie making Conservative Italians look like monsters if she was in fact conservative.
I agree with your point. Those that share certain views tend to adopt, promote and allow those views to be diffused through their work.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:(that's not to say all liberals don't have families, but that case is valid stereotypically).
My stereotype of people in general is that they have families.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
This is a nice idea - I wonder if everyone would do it?
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
No liberal bias there. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yeah, I think you'll find that most of the staff at Slate are informed, intelligent people, and as such are more likely to support Kerry in this election. Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
And hence their only flaw.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
What's particularly interesting is that a surprising number of them feel exactly the same way about Kerry as I do, and almost exactly the same way about Bush. As someone who was originally drawn to journalism, myself, it's always nice to hear from kindred spirits. *laugh*
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
And a good correlation on "Why is the media liberal".
"Birds of a feather, flock together."
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
To state the semi-obvious, part of the problem with the "Liberal Media" stereotype is that it is often used as an excuse to ignore evidence that goes against a conservative candidate. For instance, when attacks occur in Iraq, claiming the media is liberal for reporting on them does not make the problem go away.
It may be true that the media is (in some parts) liberal, but it is not a good idea to go around trying to counter this bias by reading only conservative viewpoints or conservative-supporting news. This is the big problem with FOX News: It thinks it's okay to be extremely conservative in order to balance out all the other networks. But since it does this on purpose and the other networks generally try to fight their bias, FOX ends up being extreme to the point of misleading.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, no, speaking for myself, the thought that I might go into journalism to hang out with people just like me was really never a consideration.
Really, Chad, every single one of your speculations on motivation has rung remarkably false to me.
I suspect, as I said earlier, that certain careers attract certain types precisely because of the nature of the work involved. Accountants, for example, tend in my experience to be serious-minded, dull, exacting people who care a great deal about details but have difficulty seeing big-picture issues; this is a good thing for their career, but would make them terrible circus clowns. Journalists tend to be willing to work long hours with poor pay in order to bring a message to the world, to root out "truth" and strike down the monolithic forces of injustice -- or, at least, that's the image they like to wear. They're also expected to attempt to see both sides of every issue, even if they don't agree, and give voice to the voiceless. Is it any wonder, then, that liberals are drawn to that career?
[ October 27, 2004, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Funny, because Fox is the highest rated News Channel in the country and the only one that brings in "conservative" viewpoints into the discussion at all.
In a war it is necessary to report the GOOD and the BAD to be unbiased.
The liberal news organizations haven't figured that out yet, but still claim to be "unbiased".
You have the "In Memoriam" of the soldiers killed in Afghanistan and Iraq (negative spin) but you don't have a weekly sojourn with the troops in Iraq portraying the positive to balance it out.
The fact that some people focus only on the negative (tons of weapons are missing!) doesn't negate the fact that the positives exist and are newsworthy (400,000+ tons have been secured).
The problem with those that claim the media has no liberal bias generally dismiss any facts not reported by the Liberal media as not true.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"The fact that some people focus only on the negative (tons of weapons are missing!) doesn't negate the fact that the positives exist and are newsworthy (400,000+ tons have been secured)."
You're right, and I apologize. When I reported on a killing in Gary, it never occurred to me to observe that, while the shooter fired four shots, only two of them hit and killed his target. I should have been looking on the bright side.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Or the reasons why it happened to help understand the situation.
In a killing there are two sides to every story. Did you report both of them, or just the "assumptive" one of the victim?
That's what I am talking about.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
I think you are mistaken about accountants, incidently. Having known some going into the field, I'd say they are practical-minded but need a very firm grasp of the big picture. And their motivations tend to vary widely with the particular type of accounting they prefer. Corporate accountants seem to like the money, importance, and prestige - whereas individual tax accountants often want to help people - and so on.
Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
Strangely enough, I've found Fox's presentation of the news to be fairly even-handed. Now once it slips into the editorializing "shows" it does drift fast and heavily to the conservative.
Their news gathering and reporting, though, is among the better, but not the best. For news on the fly, I still hold CNN to be just a notch better.
Once again, news coverage, not "news-based" opinion shows.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Chad, I think you missed the point of my observation. When a bank is robbed of $15K, an article rarely follows that up with something like, "$48K remained in the vault." If tons of weapons are stolen, the tons that are not stolen don't magically become part of a "fairer picture" of the incident.
[ October 27, 2004, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Funny, because Fox is the highest rated News Channel in the country and the only one that brings in "conservative" viewpoints into the discussion at all.
All news channels include conservative viewpoints - watch them and you will see frequent conservative commentary, including often from the administration itself. FOX News is just the only channel that seems to care more about presenting the conservative viewpoint than the actual news itself. I mean, this is a channel that has its talking heads refer to insurgents in Iraq as "terrorist thugs". If that isn't deliberate propoganda, I don't know what is.
It's probably one reason it is popular too. Sadly, many Americans are more interested in being entertained by radical commentary than actually hearing the news.
But the liberal media stereotype probably adds to the problem... As I said, when people think the media skews one way, they may react by intentionally ignoring evidence that supports that side. They will end up inclined to buy the view that FOX News is "fair and biased."
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: But the liberal media stereotype probably adds to the problem... As I said, when people think the media skews one way, they may react by intentionally ignoring evidence that supports that side. They will end up inclined to buy the view that FOX News is "fair and biased."
And likewise with people who dismiss FOX news, as it appears you have done, dispite the facts.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Chad, I think you missed the point of my observation. [Smile] When a bank is robbed of $15K, an article rarely follows that up with something like, "$48K remained in the vault." If tons of weapons are stolen, the tons that are not stolen don't magically become part of a "fairer picture" of the incident.
I agree that the amount of unstolen explosives isn't news, but the progress of reconstruction projects is, and that gets scant attention.
It's not exciting, but it's very important.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Which is a much more valid complaint. And I agree wholeheartedly; I left journalism largely because I was sick to death of "exciting" news being given priority over "important" news.
People shouldn't be worried about a liberal bias; they should be worried about sensationalism, which is a more insidious and altogether more troublesome thing.
Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
Tom is right on the money.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: Chad, I think you missed the point of my observation. When a bank is robbed of $15K, an article rarely follows that up with something like, "$48K remained in the vault." If tons of weapons are stolen, the tons that are not stolen don't magically become part of a "fairer picture" of the incident.
No your arguement is flawed IMHO but would be correct if you said. $15K was stolen, but $14K was recovered.
In death, theft, etc.
It's the same in a trial. There is the prosecution side and the defense side. You don't just hear one side and reach a verdict.
Maybe you actually think that the reporting of the "Missing Tons" of weapons grade explosives and purposely ignoring the amount that was successfully secured is "balanced reporting" then more power to you.
The report shouldn't have been "Tons of X missing" but a GOOD journalist would think "outside" their little box and say "X tons of 400,000+ tons missing".
Unless of course, you are trying to "spin" your "news" to make a point.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I liked Dag's response.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:a GOOD journalist would think "outside" their little box and say "X tons of 400,000+ tons missing".
Why? As I pointed out, no one would report "$15K of $48K stolen" or "Two out of four bullets fired kill local man." Most articles I've seen did in fact list the total amount of explosives to be secured in the body of the article, mainly to provide context for a number people cannot easily grasp, but there's no reason to do so in the headline.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:And likewise with people who dismiss FOX news, as it appears you have done, dispite the facts.
Despite what facts?
It is a channel that uses the term "thugs" to refer to soldiers fighting us. It is owned by conservative interests. Its editorials are dominated by conservative views. It tries to claim it is the only "fair and balanced" station - indicating the opposite. I watch it all the time and the story it is discussing is almost always one slanted to favor conservatives. What facts am I missing?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:People shouldn't be worried about a liberal bias; they should be worried about sensationalism, which is a more insidious and altogether more troublesome thing.
I agree that sensationalism is by far the biggest problem in journalism.
quote:Which is a much more valid complaint. And I agree wholeheartedly;
That's two threads we're agreeing in. Do you think it's the eclipse?
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I've often observed, Dag, that you and I differ mainly in our premises, not the tools we use to reach decisions. On any subject on which we share premises, I would actually expect us to share similar conclusions.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:First, the people becoming journalists are coming off of college campuses which are overwhelmingly liberal.
The people becoming lawyers, MBAs, marketers, engineers, and kindergarten teachers are also coming off of college campuses. Most americans have some college education, so the idea that journalists are liberal because universities are liberal simply doesn't hold water.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: And not all universities are so liberal. I mean, think about BYU.
BYU is a privately owned university. I think they are referring to State Sponsored sites of Higher Education.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
I'm going to say that sensationalist news is not the biggest problem - the "stupidification" of the news is.
I mean how much can we learn from a soundbyte, particularly if the soundbyte is a contentless catch phrase? Everything seems to be oversimplified into terms that generate false impressions of the truth. I don't know if this is anything new, but it definitely is a problem.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
And I agree on the sensationistic approach as well.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:And not all universities are so liberal. I mean, think about BYU.
BYU has a journalism department too. The question still stands, why are jounalists more likely to be liberal than other University graduates.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Perhaps it is a self-fulfilling stereotype?
It doesn't hold that idealistic people who value the pursuit of the common good over money are necessarily liberal. I know many people for whom that description is accurate, and they are overwhelmingly conservative.
Jounalism doesn't pay as much as other means of employment, but that's true for a lot of the "idealistic" professions. Maybe the idealistic liberals become journalists and the idealistic conservatives work in churches and non-profits.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I think Tom made the claim that they "had a message" that they wanted to get out.
I think they have opinions/beliefs that they want to share, the same as conservatives, but they have no "organized" religion/group to share it with. So they go into journalism to spread their "Good news"
So do ecclesiastical missionaries.
I might be wrong, but whereas missionaries have methods of getting their message out, the "non-religious" do not have an organized way to do it (no support group) so they turn to "media" as a way to spread their "point of view". Michael Moore is a prime example of a Preacher of Liberalism who has alot of Media Propaganda for his cause/beliefs.
Would that be a correct interpretation?
Religious people have a "way" to get their message out.
NON-Religious people don't have a defined "way" and so they turn to the only other organized way of getting their message accross: Media.
Like I said, I could be totally wrong, but just an idea.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I'm increasingly disturbed by the stereotype that religious = conservative. I know that statistically more conservatives tend to be religious than liberals, but it's by no means a one-to-one correlation either way.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
<off topic>
I dislike the religious (christian) = conservative non-religious (not Christian) = liberal division.
Is it really that true in America? Is the dividing line so split along religious lines?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Would that be a correct interpretation?
Probably not, unless you're conflating "non-religious" with "liberal" with "journalist." Are you?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The religious = conservative is another stereotype, but I've heard from many polls and places that the most accurate indicator of someone's vote is no longer race or economic status, but how often they go to church.
I'm not sure why that is.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
About the universities, engineers are a prime example of those who have to attend universities and yet have a very high percentage of conservitives (over 50%, no clue what the official satistic is), and as an engineering student in college I feel qualified to speculate.
The effect is exagerated for engineering, but is true for any vaguely specializied field, that the school you go to is very different than the school people in other majors go to, even if it's on the same campus. Engineering will keep you for almost your entire college education surronded only by other engineers, you do take some general education classes, and a few begining physics and the like, but the vast majority of time is spent entirely with other's in your proffesion. Now, even more pronounced, and more universal across proffesional disciplines, is the faculty themselves, who pretty much are entirley interacting with either faculty from the same department, or students in their discipline. It's almost like seperate worlds, enough like it that it has it's own mini-evolution. A similar ides is if one cuts off communication between two islands long enough, their languages will diverge, and form unique manifestations. Of course faculties aren't islands, but the it's more a matter of degree than of true difference, ideas, political, buisness, ideas in general will form independent of the other campus groups.
Two things to note about this, if you took 100 people, all of whom had about the same ideas on language, usage, defenitions, and split them up for 200 years, there would still be language differences after that time, not because the two groups had two different ideologies about speaking, but because of choas, random variations in speech patterns that occur from minimal differences in population or enivroment. So I would say that political differences on campus would occur even if there was nothing within the departments that caused differences of opinions to be an obvious outcome.
Seconds thing is, there are many profoundly different ways of going about solving any problem, and each way of solving that problem leadsd different views on the best way to get it solved (obviously). Perhaps I'm taking a big abstractual leap here, but in a way, different discplines of learning are all about problem solving, and they tend to be differentiated by the type of problem they're solving. The thing is, different problems have different ideal types of solutions, and so an engineer would use one type of method, where as a journalist would go about solving the problem in an entirley different manner. I would have no qualms in saying that an engineer's problem solving process, or at least their focus on the keys of the problems, lends itself to an approach that is best embodied by the typical conservitive line of thought. I would assume journalism is the same, only for liberals of course, though I'm not, nor was I ever a journalist so it's not like I can back this up.
So my idea is that the faculty and the students each enter into their own world created by the problems they've choosen to solve, and each mini-world is where they view the larger world from. And I think we can agree that by changing one's perspective we can change one's opinion.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
If so, I have no idea who Joel Shumacher is but if he's what I think he is (someone who doesn't make absolute statements becaue he knows they are wrong) then yes, I am like him.