posted
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 ]
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 sharePosts: 107 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
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...
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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)
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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) Posts: 107 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
posted
"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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
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. Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
"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.
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.
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
