posted
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.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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*
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
posted
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.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 472 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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."
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
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?
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[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.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
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.
