What percentage of them belong to a union?

I thought it was 89%?

I was being conservative (no pun intended) - do you know of a link to a news article?

What percentage of them belong to a union?

"...Harris is famous for another recent media poll which showed that 89% of congressional correspondents and their Washington-based editors voted for Bill Clinton in 1992. Only 7% voted for George Bush..."

http://www.opinioninc.com/current/december/121396.html

hope this helps- in the future, try typing in key words "Washington press corps poll conservative liberal" or something like that in google- it works really well.

What percentage of them belong to a union?

they all belong to a union...its required....

FOXNews Sunday transcript. Tthe panel said that only 3 or 4% of the press voted for Bush.

There was an article here, I think last week, that discussed a recent poll where some of the questions were about political identification. I took a quick look for it, but couldn't find it. Maybe somebody out there remembers.

My point exactly.

Selective Negativity by Michael Kelly in the W@@hington P@@t"

• Clinton received far more coverage than Bush in his first 60 days: 41 percent more stories on network TV, in newspaper section fronts and on opinion pages.
• In the tone of stories, 27 percent of the Clinton stories were positive vs. 22 percent for Bush; both scored the same -- 28 percent -- for negative stories.
• Bush did better in his first month than Clinton, with 27 percent positive stories to 23 percent negative, compared with Clinton's 22 percent positive and 32 percent negative. But Bush's coverage tanked in the second month: 36 percent negative to 17 percent positive.
• Bush fared much worse than Clinton in the editorial and op-ed pages of the New York Times and The Washington Post, with half of all editorials and 40 percent of all op-ed columns critical of Bush and only 20 percent of editorials and 16 percent of columns positive. Forty percent of Clinton's editorials were positive, and only 20 percent were negative.
• Clinton was portrayed far more as "a man of the people" than Bush has been, while Bush is portrayed far more as a Washington "insider."
• Clinton was hammered in his first month for missteps in management, but "his coverage became more positive because his policy positions on the budget, free trade, health care and reinventing government were depicted as widely popular."
• For Bush, the dynamic was reversed: "After expressing clear doubts about Bush's intelligence and competence . . . the press gave the new president high marks" for competence in the early days, but "that began to give way when Bush's budget plans were released and more of his policy positions became clearer, including such issues as global warming, water pollution, bankruptcy law and mining cleanup."

For a detailed documentation of liberal media bias, see the Media Research Centre at http://mrc.org


For detailed information including various surveys, you might want to look at http://mrc.org/news/MediaBiasBasics.html

The operative word here is "poll." It was a poll, supposedly, of bureau chiefs, I think. But who knows how the poll was constructed and whether its honest? I'm skeptical that a bureau chief or reporter for a major news outlet would answer the question at all. They'd be thinking, "Who is this calling and how did they get my name and number?"

Here's why your poll is flawed:

You only take into account the reporters, which is like reviewing a Salad, but only mentioning how much you hate tomatoes.

Did you poll the Reporters? Yes.

Did you poll the Editors? No. This one is Obvous enough.

Did you poll the Shareholders? (Most are publicly held) No. NBC is not going to discredit it's parent company, General Eletric, or hurt it's business. That is too Obvious.

Did you poll the controlling family? (A few are still held this way)No. But, there is a good chance you might find Liberals here.

Did you poll the Advertisers? No. There are very few anti-capitalists in this column. Therefore, a full page on gun-control (which I'm against, naturally) is shocking to you amidst all the Pro-State, Pro-Capitalist, Pro-Reactionary coverage, a whistleblower or investigative report into US practices abroad, is of course going to be liberal.

Watergate was overblown, right? And I'm not going to be a hypocrite and say that Clinton wasn't supported by the democrat reporters.

Your study is incomplete.