 |
To be added or removed from the "The Wall Street Journal" Ping List, FReepmail GOP_Lady. |
Posted on 07/21/2010 6:01:20 PM PDT by GOP_Lady
Everyone knew most of the press corps was hoping for Obama in 2008. Newly released emails show that hundreds of them were actively working to promote him
When I'm talking to people from outside Washington, one question inevitably comes up: Why is the media so liberal? The question often reflects a suspicion that members of the press get together and decide on a story line that favors liberals and Democrats and denigrates conservatives and Republicans.
My response has usually been to say, yes, there's liberal bias in the media, but there's no conspiracy. The liberal tilt is an accident of nature. The media disproportionately attracts people from a liberal arts background who tend, quite innocently, to be politically liberal. If they came from West Point or engineering school, this wouldn't be the case.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Reportergate.
...now we know!
Ping...
What self serving crap. The reason there were so many black conservatives writing for newspapers a few years back was because once they hired a black person the "liberal" in the liberal couldn't fire the person BECAUSE they were black. When a black person was "outed" as a conservative, they were stuck with him. For a while it seems the only conservative journalists were black. I don't remember all the names - just how odd it was... Sowell comes to mind... but there were others... Maxwell when he wrote for the Gainsville Sun - conservative on race issues... The numbers were strange considering that blacks are liberal in the high ninety percentile - but in the eighties and nineties a high percentage of conservative newspaper writers were black.
Newspapers used to say the same about women writers - how women didn't write or didn't apply... and they said the same about blacks before the civil rights movement - and gays before Stonewall. Now they say conservatives don't go into the field. What crap. Don't they know their own history? Conservatives know they won't get a job. If there's one token conservative on staff that's a wonder - not a sign there will ever be two. So why go into the field?
Classy response in this article.
The dots have been connected.
The dots have been connected.My response has usually been to say, yes, there's liberal bias in the media, but there's no conspiracy. The liberal tilt is an accident of nature. The media disproportionately attracts people from a liberal arts background who tend, quite innocently, to be politically liberal.
The reason news service journalism is "liberal" is that everyone is subject to the motive to promote themselves - and journalism is talk rather than action. This ineluctably produces journalism which is promotes talk above action - and anyone who works to a bottom line is an easy target to be picked on by journalists.The news wire is expensive and must be used effectively. And that means attributing objectivity to all journalists feeding the newswire - which means that questioning the objectivity of a journalist is the mortal sin of journalism. So news service journalism will always be herd journalism.
Since journalism is influential in promoting politicians, promoting government over private initiative inherently promotes the importance of journalism. So the news wire inherently produces monochromatic herd journalism which is hypercritical of private initiative and chronically favorable to socialism. An "accident of nature" has nothing to do with the case.
Newswires did not exist in the founding era, and journalism was very different - newspapers were famously fractious. They were actually independent.
hundreds of journalists have gotten together, on an online listserv called JournoList, to promote liberalism and liberal politicians at the expense of traditional journalism.Assuming, counter to all evidence, that "traditional journalism" has ever been objective.
My guess is that this and other revelations about JournoList will deepen the distrust of the national press. True, participants in the online clubhouse appear to hail chiefly from the media's self-identified left wing. But its founder, Ezra Klein, is a prominent writer for the Washington Post. Mr. Klein shut down JournoList last month—a wise decision."People of the same trade seldom meet together even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public or some contrivance to raise prices." - Adam Smith
The Right to Know
The dots have been connected.My response has usually been to say, yes, there's liberal bias in the media, but there's no conspiracy. The liberal tilt is an accident of nature. The media disproportionately attracts people from a liberal arts background who tend, quite innocently, to be politically liberal.
The reason news service journalism is "liberal" is that everyone is subject to the motive to promote themselves - and journalism is talk rather than action. This ineluctably produces journalism which is promotes talk above action - and anyone who works to a bottom line is an easy target to be picked on by journalists.The news wire is expensive and must be used effectively. And that means attributing objectivity to all journalists feeding the newswire - which means that questioning the objectivity of a journalist is the mortal sin of journalism. So news service journalism will always be herd journalism.
Since journalism is influential in promoting politicians, promoting government over private initiative inherently promotes the importance of journalism. So the news wire inherently produces monochromatic herd journalism which is hypercritical of private initiative and chronically favorable to socialism. An "accident of nature" has nothing to do with the case.
Newswires did not exist in the founding era, and journalism was very different - newspapers were famously fractious. They were actually independent.
hundreds of journalists have gotten together, on an online listserv called JournoList, to promote liberalism and liberal politicians at the expense of traditional journalism.Assuming, counter to all evidence, that "traditional journalism" has ever been objective.
My guess is that this and other revelations about JournoList will deepen the distrust of the national press. True, participants in the online clubhouse appear to hail chiefly from the media's self-identified left wing. But its founder, Ezra Klein, is a prominent writer for the Washington Post. Mr. Klein shut down JournoList last month—a wise decision."People of the same trade seldom meet together even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public or some contrivance to raise prices." - Adam Smith
The Vast Left-Wing Media Conspiracy (VIDEO) The Wall Street Journal ^ | 07-22-10 | FRED BARNES
BTTT
I had never heard the word “gravitas” used so much in those few days in all my life, and probably never will. It's as if all the driveby media opened the dictionary to the same page at exactly the same time.
I don't know but I suspect if one were to take a long hard look at media financing(advertising) we might be a step closer to figuring out how they pulled it off. That is, was there a conspiracy, or collusion, between red journalism and advertisers??? How else could they have accomplished their all but complete takeover of the media? A more interesting question might be, why would advertisers have gone along with the plan. Was the red media able or more willing to cut the cost of advertising to cut the legs from under more "balanced" media?
A case in point maybe? Rumor was that in the early days FoxNews was not able to charge their advertisers nearly as much as the "going rate" for say, a cnn. They also had to offer cut-rate deals with satellite and cable providers just to get on the air? Was this just because they were new kids on the block? Maybe, but I don't think so. Fact is, FoxNews' business model has apparently worked to near perfection. Did they turn the tables on red journalism? I dunno, but somebody does...
IMHO advertising is to a certain extent a protection racket - you have to pay newspapers to say what you want them to say, just to balance out the things that they say anyway that you do not want said. It may not be true that "advertising is the only truth to be found in newspapers" - but it is pretty close, and it is even closer to say that advertising is the only good news to be found in newspapers.MY question is, HOW did they achieve dominance in an otherwise wild west journalistic free-for-all?
As you know, my opinion is that journalism became homogenous, essentially part of a Borg, with the advent of newswires. Newswires are expensive, and they are not truth machines but only communication channels. It takes propaganda to convert the communication into belief. That propaganda is the claim of journalistic objectivity. Inasmuch as belief in your own objectivity is an excellent definition of subjectivity, it is impossible to even attempt to be objective at one and the same time that you are claiming to be objective. So "journalistic objectivity" is a self-negating claim - and yet massive repetition has led to its acceptance.Winning acceptance of your claim of objectivity is dominance.
Fred Barnes is a Teddy Bear!
BTW Fred Barnes is the reason I came up with Michael “I just make shit up” Moore.
Michael Moore and Me
From the May 31, 2004 issue: An encounter with the Cannes man.
BY Fred Barnes
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/127ujhuf.asp
BTTT!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.