Quote:
Originally posted by adpiucf
Consider this. In the last two presidential elections---
In 1996, 89% of Washington bureau chiefs and journalists voted for Clinton.
In 2000, 7% ofWashington bureau chiefs and journalists voted for Dubya.
This illustrates that there is a uneven balance of liberal journalists to conservative journalists, thus showing the media angles are disproportionately representative of the American political landscape; conservatives do not have any where near as many conservative media outlets as liberals have liberal media outlets.
|
You may be right but, with no interest in getting into a huge debate, let me point out a couple of problems I have in your theory.
First, why would all of these bureau chiefs and journalists have any interest in letting anyone know how they voted? That's why we have a secret ballot. Saying that 89% of this and 7% of that would indicate that every journalist in DC was willing to waive her or his right to privacy in voting. Otherwise, how can you get a firm percentage? I don't believe the numbers.
Second, at least in theory (I know there's no perfect world), the way a journalist votes should have nothing whatsoever to do with the way he/she reports. Just as the way you vote should not affect the way you do your job.
I have a theory of my own, which I can't prove in any way, so don't bother asking for studies or stastics. (I question most of them anyway because they can be flawed or tainted by those who write them) My belief is that "most" journalists attempt to be pretty fair. In broadcasting, the fairness is held up to government scrutiny by the FCC. Notice that I said broadcasting. Cable is not included, because cable channels are not on the "public" airwaves and thus not under the purview of the FCC. That's how FOX can be right alligned and others allegedly left. I say allegedly because I consider myself to be somewhere close to the center, and I don't find huge discrepencies in most reporting. There are, of course, some print media who have long known political leanings. The print media has no government regulation at all.
But, I digress. My continued theory is that the term "liberal bias" has been force fed to us for years by the political "spin doctors," even before that last phrase was invented. I find that, as well as most of the rest of politics, cynical. One of the best ways to fight someone who disagrees with you is to attack them. We see that here on GC, don't we?
According to several polls, Walter Cronkite, in his day, was considered the most trusted American. He was also, you might recall, one of the main figures in bringing the "spin" the government was giving the Vietnam conflict more into line in terms of what was really happening over there.
I believe it was Lyndon John who said, (paraphrased) "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost the nation." What really lost the nation was the dawning reality that the government wasn't being entirely truthful, and got caught. I don't think that many would consider Johnson to be a bastion of the Conservative Right. So was he a victim of the "liberal press?"
Frankly, if the mainstream broadcasters at least were that far one way or the other, people simply wouldn't watch them. As the population moves more to the right, the electronic media (at least the visual part) automatically seem farther to the left.
From my centerist position, I just don't see it that way. But the media can't really win because there aren't that many of us folks here in the middle. No matter what is reported, it's going to PO one side or the other.
So, finally, although I have never been trained as a journalist, I have worked with them most of my professional life and have found most to be honest, hard working journeymen who take their craft very seriously.
They're also great partiers.
How many real working journalists do you know personally?
Now, you can disagree with my theories -- but for me experience -- what I've seen and heard with my own eyes and ears -- means more than names and labels.