Re: I go on.
Joe Nation wrote:
Would someone please dust off Lash's quotes from Walter Cronkite, they must be musty by now. Didn't he say that in 1967? And I could be wrong but I think Evan Thomas is not just a bureau chief anymore I think he's one of the editors of Newsweek now, so when did he say that about the reporters, ten years ago, fifteen?Yes, please dust it off and take it in, because it's still applicable today. Wonder why Cronkite made the statement? Because it was true then, and true now. Will you attempt to discredit the most trusted man in US journalism? Walter leans liberal himself, but at least has the integrity to call it what it is.
I loved Bernie Goldberg at CBS, now retired, five or six years, maybe more. Did you read his book BIAS ? 
Stories about the newsroom and the certain way some people laughed. Hoped it would pay for his retirement, I wish him well in his dotage.
Guilty of agism? He quoted facts about conversations in the newsroom that purposefully slanted news coverage in favor of the Democrat party. Why are you trying to deflect facts?[/[/u]color][quote]
In a survey done of Washington-based Bureau chiefs and correspondents, 91 percent of those surveyed claimed to be either liberal or liberal to moderate in their political orientation, with 89 percent of them voting for Bill Clinton in the last election.
I can't find a link to this survey. Who did it and when? It appears to be identical to something I read, I don't know, forty years ago, only the reporters said they were Democrats and voted for JFK.[/color]
Try Media Resource, if you really want to know the facts. Journalists, and college professors while we're at it, are overwhelmingly biased to the liberal view of things. It's a fact.
Look, I've known lots of reporters, some of them were smart, but none of them were smart enough to get into a good business school and become corporate executives. They were for the most part, forgive me, regular men and women, middle class Joes, working stiffs, ink-stained wretchs, who had to come up with three stories a day for 40k a year. Most of them wanted to be reporters from the time they learned to read a newspaper, most of them wanted to be reporters because they thought it would be a good way to make a contribution to society. And see, that's how a liberal thinks, isn't it? It must have been their upbringing. When you are looking to define a conservative, making a contribution to society, isn't one of the leading characteristics, is it? Biased statement. Are you a journalist?
What they wanted most, above all, was to get the story right, to get the facts straight, and even better, get the story right with the facts straight and get it out first. BS. What they want to do is impress their liberal editors with their liberal stories so they can climb up the liberal news ladder. Do you really think journalists, as a rule, are so much more idealistic than the rest of us?
So, despite their upbring, or maybe because of it, they must have done their jobs because, even being as liberal as Lash would have us believe they are, there are conservative Republicans in control of the House, the Senate, the White House and the Supreme Court. How'd they do that with all that liberal bias standing in their way?Check Media Resouces and Voting records of 'journalists'. They are OVERWHELMINGLY LIBERAL.
The reason Fox is boffing CNN in the ratings is middle of the road, and conservative viewers are sick of the liberal slant.
CNN's main guy quit under fire yesterday, because he is losing so badly to Fox.
[/quote]
Liberals currently on TV:
Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, Katie Couric, Al Hunt, Judy Woodruff, Paula Zahn, Margaret Carlson, Maria Shriver, Mark Sheilds, Phil Donahue...
Will add to list. Fingers tired...
as an aside, for as long as i can remember there has been a consistent allegation that college/university professors are ALL liberals, yet recent surveys show that some depts are mostly liberal such as PolySci/Liberal Arts whereas other depts such as Engineering/Math-Sciences were mostly conservative and the majority of professors were independent/non-aligned. All to often preceptions by the community at large has more to do with factoids rather than facts. i think the media/journalism is in much the same manner misportrayed with most likely a broad spectrum of left/right/moderate.
MARIA SHRIVER....she's the one! There is the smoking gun, the fox in the henhouse, the bad apple, the traitor in our midst, the virus-carrier, the scourge of truth and the American Way! She is probably, right at this very moment... what word or phrase is powerful enough to describe what she is up to and achieving as we speak?!...she is...CRIPPLING THOUGHT, yes, that's it!
I can't believe you guys. This is like a class in civics and logic for a backwards grade school class run by Ed Meese's retarded brother Irving. What is the breakdown on weather reporters? "There is a high pressure ridge forming this morning over Saskatchewan, which as everyone knows, has a government-administered health program that really looks after grandmothers very well indeed and we ought to think about that this morning as we head off to work for those corporate monsters."
Voting Records Of Faculty/Administrators
The above given examples are indicative of the left-wing hegemony in our discipline and higher education in general. One can also see this when reviewing voter registration of faculty. For example, the Cornell Review analyzed public voter registration records of professors at Cornell and several other universities, and the results clearly prove the left-wing supremacy of the faculty.
In total, registered Democrats outpolled registered Republicans 171 to 7 in seven of the larger and more popular liberal arts departments at Cornell: History, Government, English, African Studies, Women's Studies, Economics, Psychology, Anthropology, and Sociology.5
Its no better at Dartmouth. In 1996, student reporters investigated only the departments of English, Government, History, Philosophy and Religion, on the grounds that the politics of physicists and chemists don't really affect their teaching. Transforming the figures into percentages, we learn that:
--62 percent of those who teach economics are registered as Democrats and 6 percent as Republicans (others listed themselves as independents).
--In English, 78 percent are Democrats, 6 percent Republicans.
--In Government, 90 percent Democrats, zero percent Republicans.
--History? Eighty-three percent Democrats, zero percent Republicans.
--Religion: 83 percent Democrats, zero Republicans.
--And, in the mother of learning, philosophy, we have 100 percent Democrats.6
Some of you may be thinking that party affiliation does not reflect voting. Well, I contest that assumption for academics. Let us look at recent elections in Hanover, NH where most of the Dartmouth faculty and administrators live: Republicans won every race district wide, except that for Governor. However, if the township of Hanover were to have decided all of the races, then Democrats would have won every single race by a wide margin. These results are not uncommon.
You may have a point, dys, but math profs don't stand up and pontificate ideas, and push to form thought process. The ones that do, are those mentioned here. Journalists' bent toward left-thinking permeates their work, slants their articles and is an unwelcome force in government and politics.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the thread asks why there are not more libs on TV.
Do you say that the names I mentioned are not libs?
I say there are plenty of libs on TV and named a few.
Because you have some odd reaction to the name of one of them doesn't change the fact that she is a journalist, and a lib.
lash; selecting rather elitist universties of the northeastern area is hardly indicative of universities at large, try looking at Iowa, Nebraska, New Mexico etc. i would not go to UCLA or Berkley to take a sample nor would i go to Bob Jones University or SMU and assume it was representative.
dys!!!
I can't believe you would use BOB JONES as representative of anything.
But, you are right. I didn't intend to say the percentages I cited as a national average. Just an example. But it is an example.
Have been looking for a national average. Haven't found it, yet.
Bet it reveals an overwhelming liberal affiliation of college professors. I'll bet.....my ass.
Actually, Bob Jones university is representative of that small set of universities (set of one) which Republican candidates MUST visit on their way to....well, wherever it is they are on their way to.
lash; take a guess as to what would be the affiliation of say Harvard graduate schools of Business or perhaps Law, which happens to be the most noted departments at Harvard.
This claim about the liberality of universities ranks as High Ninnyness.
Let's assume those who make it actually attended one of the offending institutions (usually, an incorrect assumption). Let's ask them to point out the instances where their Kinesiology professor trained students to always jerk their knees left. Or for those instances where their French Poetry prof drugged the class and blasted La Marseillaise over the loudspeakers. Or where the Epistemolgy assignment was to analyze Bertrand Russel's writings on Relativity for a socialist interpretation of knowledge acceptance.
What we ought to do, is survey hairdressers. Look at the time these devious and slanted minds have to influence women, women who are in such an accepting and susceptible state of mind worrying how they will look an hour hence. The entire culture may be spinning madly off to the north northwest from the dogma promulgated every day in every city by these people.
I was watching the news the other night, and a subtle example of what I call liberally biased reporting jumped out at me. I thought I would share it with y'all. I realize that some will disagree with my belief that this constitutes bias, but at least it will be a bit more clear what I mean when I write of a liberal bias in the mainstream media.
I was tuned to one of the major network news programs, and as you might expect, they were discussing the build-up to war in Iraq. The commentator stated that the events of 9/11/01 left all Americans Deeply saddened, and left President Bush determined to go to war.
Now, both of those statements are true, but do they paint a valid, balanced picture, or serve a specific bias? The way the copy was worded, it gives the impression that only Bush responded by wanting to attack those who attacked us. Clearly this is an impulse or response he shared with millions of Americans, yet the wording chosen by the copy writer gives the impression that Bush was alone in this response.
Do I think this was an intentional bias? No. But I think the bias of the writer led him or her to express an opinion without intending to, and this opinion colors the message delivered. Likewise a conservative news person might inadvertently make choices based on his or her bias that would skew the message to the right, but given that the vast majority of media people are liberals, this effect tilts the news overall more to the left than to the right.
Okay, I am going to dive into my foxhole while I wait for responses. :wink:
I assume in Lash's characterization of journalists that it also applies to conservative reporters. The truth is that most professions, blue collar especially, can be said to follow that model.
Lash, you're providing statistics with no links to cooberate them. Any respectable newspaper editor will demand a verifyable source. Your figures are meaningless with no cites. It's certain, at least, that you're no journalist.
I think your ass is on the line.
You're also busy labeling newscasters as liberals without any proof that they aren't, in fact, moderate Democrats.
blatham wrote:Actually, Bob Jones university is representative of that small set of universities (set of one) which Republican candidates MUST visit on their way to....well, wherever it is they are on their way to.
SEE ABOVE: EXAMPLE OF LIBERAL DUCKING ISSUE AT HAND BY TAKING WIDE SWING AT REPUBLICAN PARTY.
Are the 'journalists' mentioned in my earlier post examples of liberals on TV, or not?
I'm sorry, but I simply don't see the bias--liberal, conservative or any other--in the post of 1/14, 7:02 above.
Could it possibly be that the bias exists in the receiver and not the transmitter?
Lightwizard wrote:You're also busy labeling newscasters as liberals without any proof that they aren't, in fact, moderate Democrats.
Liberal, democrat... anti-GOP. The product of their reporting is the same.
Going off for the link. (Which, I'm sure Lightwizard will find some reason to deflect..."I don't recognise that writer...."That article is old" have already been used. Hope your thinking up a new one.)
I DOUBLE DOG DARE YOU to speak to the content of the link, rather than deflect it.
(I do hope you are ware of the implications of the Double Dog Dare.)
LW, in defense of Lash's cite, I read that article myself sometime back. I have no recollection where I read it, but I recall it. I'm not certain, but I seem to recall also the survey was taken at primarily "Ivy League" schools, but I could be wrong about that.
I do feel there is a leftish tilt to the pillars of Academe at the present. I attribute this to the fact the liberals currently holding tenure are the very same liberals who held picket signs and bullhorns a generation or so ago. Interesting, a number of campuses have seen recent student organization successfuly directed toward reinstating such things as ROTC and investment clubs.
timber
There you go, Lash -- all those that are anti-GOP and especially the radical right are not just liberals. There also referred to as progressives and even libertarians (sic) and some of them are centrist but progressive Republicans like John McCain. What specific thing statements have I made that haven't been relevant to the link? Deflecting an argument isn't a bonefide debate techinque? Where have you been on a debating team? Actually, I see you using deflection in these discussions -- just experimenting? You try to make everything black-and-white when actually, it's in living color. Don't let the peacock deposit anything on your head.
trespassers will wrote:I was watching the news the other night, and a subtle example of what I call liberally biased reporting jumped out at me. I thought I would share it with y'all. I realize that some will disagree with my belief that this constitutes bias, but at least it will be a bit more clear what I mean when I write of a liberal bias in the mainstream media.
I was tuned to one of the major network news programs, and as you might expect, they were discussing the build-up to war in Iraq. The commentator stated that the events of 9/11/01 left all Americans Deeply saddened, and left President Bush determined to go to war.
Now, both of those statements are true, but do they paint a valid, balanced picture, or serve a specific bias? The way the copy was worded, it gives the impression that only Bush responded by wanting to attack those who attacked us. Clearly this is an impulse or response he shared with millions of Americans, yet the wording chosen by the copy writer gives the impression that Bush was alone in this response.
Do I think this was an intentional bias? No. But I think the bias of the writer led him or her to express an opinion without intending to, and this opinion colors the message delivered. Likewise a conservative news person might inadvertently make choices based on his or her bias that would skew the message to the right, but given that the vast majority of media people are liberals, this effect tilts the news overall more to the left than to the right.
Okay, I am going to dive into my foxhole while I wait for responses. :wink:
I've quoted your entire post here, so that i'm not accused of having taken what you've written out of context. I did alter the quote of what you've written (with the use of italics), solely for the purpose of pointing out what i find questionable here. Neither Bush, nor you, have provided any proof that Iraqis were those who attacked, acting
as Iraqis, as opposed to simply being members of the attacking group who happen to be Iraqis. Given that i only know of Bush wanting to go to war with Iraq, i question your analysis here.
If, however, you are referring to the attack on the Taliban within Afghanistan, i would question your analysis once again, in that the President is the chief magistrate who makes war, with the consent of the Congress; so how does such a statement imply that the President, and only the President, wanted to attack the Taliban. If you contend that the reporter in question is saying as much, s/he is only goofy, not necessarily biased against the Shrub.
All of this is complicated by being the sort of information historiographers abhor--hearsay at second hand. Absent a specific, verifiable quote of a named individual, it is not reasonable to expect a defensible response from the other participants of this thread.
