Is This Why Most Journalists Are Left Biased?

[depotoo]

And your point is? If you had thoroughly read my post, you will see an etc. there. But, you seem to think it makes a difference to my premise that it also includes others within the industry. Guess what, it doesn't.
But since you seem to think my research is lacking, let me add this, so it makes you feel better-
"We are part of many communication media: wire services, newspapers, magazines, labor information services, broadcast news, public service and dot com companies."

Funniest phrase of the OP:

"my research"

Speaking of, the union you refer to represents not only reporting and editing positions but ad sales, circulation, marketing, web design, photography, typography, truck driving, commercial art, tech, service, maintenance, mail handling, translation/interpretation and pagination. You know, all that "biased" stuff that has sooooo much to do with the content of the news.

That's from your own link.

 

[depotoo]

Is This Why Most Journalists Are Left Biased?

No, it's why your an ignorant rightwing hack.

You truly are an idiot – just because someone belongs to a union doesn't mean he's 'left.'

And because journalists report factual, accurate, objective accounts of events that conflict with failed, subjectivp rightwing dogma, doesn't make the media 'left biased.'

yeah, right
CNN controversies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
MSNBC controversies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[depotoo]

Thank you for your interesting perspective. I can see how the industry would attract the types you speak of. However, it would seem to me that some would be affected by the union, in my opinion. Do I have anything more than speculation? No, but it is like with public sector employees, I also tend to believe that there are those that have a tendency toward a left bias due to their union membership.

It dawned on me this morning, why is it most journalists do lean so far left, what is their incentive? Is it more than just their idealogy? Well, my research led to to the fact most are members of a union. Could this explain it? So, when listening to, reading news, if you truly want to know how truthful they may be, remember this fact. Always research what you hear to see if, indeed their bias is showing. And if possible don't just visit other news sites to see if they say the same. Find other sources. I also caution people with using blogs as sources. Check their history to see if they report with a bias as well.
Does anyone else find this to be a problem?

Today's Top Stories | The Newspaper Guild
with 32,000 members in the US, and 2 of their goals-" Foster friendly cooperation with all other workers; Promote industrial unionism in the jurisdiction of the Guild."
In other words, they are unionized. Seems that would keep a less than fair bias in their reporting. In 1997, they also joined with Communication Workers of America, a union which has 600,000 members in news media, telecommunications, etc. - cwa-union.org

No, they're not liberal because they're in unions. And there's a lot of people in the media who are not in a union. I was in that goofy business for 18 years, and I was only union for about five or six.

The media is primarily liberal because that's just the kind of person it attracts. More artistic, theoretical, observational. But the days of "reporting the news" are gone for the most part - now their task is to "determine the truth" and tell a story. Well, when you're a liberal or a conservative, your version of "the truth" is going to be skewed -- and since the media is largely liberal, that's the direction it goes overall (with exceptions, of course).

And as with any other partisan ideologue, they are convinced that their version of "the truth" is the only one. Plus, it's pretty damn easy to skew a story to match your political agenda if you're that type of person. And many are, this is a crusade for them.

And it gets worse. My first assignment in my first class (literally Journalism 101, no kidding) on my first day in college was to read "All the President's Men". It was fairly new way back then. I think that book caused more damage than it helped. Journalist as celebrity. The environment seemed to change, journalists grew an ego that wasn't quite so obvious before. Reporting the whole story with humility became reporting "the truth" with flash.

Meh. It is what it is. At least most of the public knows the media isn't on the straight and narrow. Its reputation is down there with politicians and lawyers.

.

 

[depotoo]

Let's break this down a bit. So you are saying that 'importance' and 'revenue' are used to determine which issues get air time. The revenue part is self explanatory, but who decides what is 'important', and what are the criteria for that decision?

I would submit that the 'importance' part is at the discretion of the specific editors and is looked at through the prism of their own point of view.

.

Drudgereport and to a lesser extent Fox News steer conservative 'news.' All other news has to run its course through the free market. And I'd argue that makes it more important.

What the heck are you smokin' dude? The liberal media are known as "gatekeepers" for a reason. The NYT was caught with its pants down on a number of occasions as stories which had percolated in the conservative press finally broke through and the liberal media had to play catch-up, to explain to their readers why their first story on an event was appearing 3 months into the process.

Liberal control of "what constitutes news" has no relationship to "running its course through the free market."

Then you have all of these secret e-mail groups where liberal journalists coordinate with activists to shape the news, how to report it, who to suppress it, how to counter particular facts, etc. Collusion is not a key plank of the free market. Collusion has greater resemblance to Soviet Central Planning.

Well said.

 

[Pogo]

And your point is? If you had thoroughly read my post, you will see an etc. there. But, you seem to think it makes a difference to my premise that it also includes others within the industry. Guess what, it doesn't.
But since you seem to think my research is lacking, let me add this, so it makes you feel better-
"We are part of many communication media: wire services, newspapers, magazines, labor information services, broadcast news, public service and dot com companies."

Funniest phrase of the OP:

"my research"

Speaking of, the union you refer to represents not only reporting and editing positions but ad sales, circulation, marketing, web design, photography, typography, truck driving, commercial art, tech, service, maintenance, mail handling, translation/interpretation and pagination. You know, all that "biased" stuff that has sooooo much to do with the content of the news.

That's from your own link.

If I need to make the point even simpler -- the fact that you're trying to squeeze "leftist bias" out of the simple fact of a union membership --- in a profession where bias is unethical -- is laughable enough; I didn't even touch that since other posters are covering it and you seem unable to defend it. The point here was that you want to cite the Newspaper Guild's 32,000 members (out of 56,000 journalists) as evidence of "most" belonging to a union, yet you left out the fact that a lot of those 32,000 are truck drivers, typesetters, salespeople, circulation managers, people who have nothing whatever to do with news content.

Your "etc" came with mention of the CWA. If you want to bring that in, now you're adding telephone workers, flight attendants, electronic and furniture workers, police, EMTs, firefighters, social workers, transportation workers and others. Your case gets more and more diluted. And of the small segment of that that includes workers in broadcasting, telecasting and recording (which is what I do), most of those are going to be involved in what takes up the largest part of it: music and entertainment. And on top of all that you don't mention stringers -- freelancers who do a large part of the reporting work in broadcast and print, especially when a foreign or out-of-the-way place makes news.

You don't have a whole lot of room left for those evil biased journalists with all those bus drivers in the room. I did you a favor by not going to the EMTs and flight attendants and telephone workers and stringers. Now you're even more deluded.

Sorry, I meant diluted. Really I did.

 

[Mac1958]

Thank you for your interesting perspective. I can see how the industry would attract the types you speak of. However, it would seem to me that some would be affected by the union, in my opinion. Do I have anything more than speculation? No, but it is like with public sector employees, I also tend to believe that there are those that have a tendency toward a left bias due to their union membership.

It dawned on me this morning, why is it most journalists do lean so far left, what is their incentive? Is it more than just their idealogy? Well, my research led to to the fact most are members of a union. Could this explain it? So, when listening to, reading news, if you truly want to know how truthful they may be, remember this fact. Always research what you hear to see if, indeed their bias is showing. And if possible don't just visit other news sites to see if they say the same. Find other sources. I also caution people with using blogs as sources. Check their history to see if they report with a bias as well.
Does anyone else find this to be a problem?

Today's Top Stories | The Newspaper Guild
with 32,000 members in the US, and 2 of their goals-" Foster friendly cooperation with all other workers; Promote industrial unionism in the jurisdiction of the Guild."
In other words, they are unionized. Seems that would keep a less than fair bias in their reporting. In 1997, they also joined with Communication Workers of America, a union which has 600,000 members in news media, telecommunications, etc. - cwa-union.org

No, they're not liberal because they're in unions. And there's a lot of people in the media who are not in a union. I was in that goofy business for 18 years, and I was only union for about five or six.

The media is primarily liberal because that's just the kind of person it attracts. More artistic, theoretical, observational. But the days of "reporting the news" are gone for the most part - now their task is to "determine the truth" and tell a story. Well, when you're a liberal or a conservative, your version of "the truth" is going to be skewed -- and since the media is largely liberal, that's the direction it goes overall (with exceptions, of course).

And as with any other partisan ideologue, they are convinced that their version of "the truth" is the only one. Plus, it's pretty damn easy to skew a story to match your political agenda if you're that type of person. And many are, this is a crusade for them.

And it gets worse. My first assignment in my first class (literally Journalism 101, no kidding) on my first day in college was to read "All the President's Men". It was fairly new way back then. I think that book caused more damage than it helped. Journalist as celebrity. The environment seemed to change, journalists grew an ego that wasn't quite so obvious before. Reporting the whole story with humility became reporting "the truth" with flash.

Meh. It is what it is. At least most of the public knows the media isn't on the straight and narrow. Its reputation is down there with politicians and lawyers.

.

I dunno. I guess it's possible that they're driven further left by their union membership, but I really don't see it.

First of all, in that industry anyway, union membership rarely enters into a workday (when it does, it's pretty fucking ridiculous, but that's another story). I never went to a "union meeting", nor do I remember ever discussing the union, except when I couldn't get something done that I could have done myself because there wasn't a union member to do it (see "pretty fucking ridiculous", above).

Second, the True Believers, those who will leverage their position to "change the world", sure as hell don't need coaxing. The rest are pretty much set in their ways. People tend to be more narcissistic in that field than in most others, very protective of their status as a "journalist", very proud. I was like that too, when I was young, but I was lucky to have a mentor who taught me otherwise.

There are always exceptions, but I can't think of a situation in which a person changed their viewpoint to any discernible extent. A large majority of "journalists" are liberal long before they sign a union agreement. Interesting hypothesis, though.

.

 

[Politico]

There have no real journalists for over 20 years. When that 'dawns' on you let us know and we can have an honest discussion.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Journalists are intellectually curious and have access to information. That combination gives them the appearance of leaning left.

I completely understand why nutters are searching for some other reason, though.

 

[rdean]

Is This Why Most Journalists Are Left Biased?

If they are, they don't report like it. How much GOP nuttiness do they actually report? Because if they do, it will piss off their corporate bosses and they feel it will make them look biased. They let Bush lead us into war and never reported what smart people said would happen. The smart people were right. The journalists made it sound as if everyone was on board and it was only a little mistake.

Republicans on the USMB didn't even know the GOP blocked the BP investigation.

 

[midcan5]

MSM is corporate owned and operated, it cannot be liberal unless your concept of liberal fits into the corporate mindset. All one has to do is view the opinion of unions in MSM to recognize the OP makes no sense.

"The corporate grip on opinion in the United States is one of the wonders of the Western world. No First World country has ever managed to eliminate so entirely from its media all objectivity - much less dissent." Gore Vidal


http://www.usmessageboard.com/media/336924-is-there-a-liberal-media-bias-3.html#post8520585 - and - http://www.usmessageboard.com/media/336924-is-there-a-liberal-media-bias-5.html#post8525317

Conservative media: http://www.usmessageboard.com/media/78547-conservative-media-hates-america.html


“The American press exists for one purpose only, and that is to convince Americans that they are living in the greatest and most envied country in the history of the world. The Press tells the American people how awful every other country is and how wonderful the United States is and how evil communism is and how happy they should be to have freedom to buy seven different sorts of detergent.” Gore Vidal

 

[Mac1958]

.

Ideological iberals are perfectly content with the way the media reports the news.

That certainly makes sense.

.

 

[Pogo]

MSM is corporate owned and operated, it cannot be liberal unless your concept of liberal fits into the corporate mindset. All one has to do is view the opinion of unions in MSM to recognize the OP makes no sense.

"The corporate grip on opinion in the United States is one of the wonders of the Western world. No First World country has ever managed to eliminate so entirely from its media all objectivity - much less dissent." Gore Vidal


http://www.usmessageboard.com/media/336924-is-there-a-liberal-media-bias-3.html#post8520585 - and - http://www.usmessageboard.com/media/336924-is-there-a-liberal-media-bias-5.html#post8525317

Conservative media: http://www.usmessageboard.com/media/78547-conservative-media-hates-america.html


“The American press exists for one purpose only, and that is to convince Americans that they are living in the greatest and most envied country in the history of the world. The Press tells the American people how awful every other country is and how wonderful the United States is and how evil communism is and how happy they should be to have freedom to buy seven different sorts of detergent.” Gore Vidal

Exactamundo.

When news media is commercially based (as opposed no noncommercial) its root interest is, like any other for-profit enterprise, profit. Whether that profit comes from disseminating news (or "news"), or whether it comes from selling books or movies or sports, makes no more difference than if it comes from selling tires or iPods or chicken nuggets; the commodity is always secondary to the prime directive. Hence the universal mass media maxim, "if it bleeds, it leads".

You don't get to that profit via Ideology A or Ideology B; you get it from simply attracting attention to your avenue, rather than somebody else's avenue. Therefore which commodity (A, B, or neither ideology) you go with is only a matter of picking which audience one wants to milk -- on that channel.

Where I live you can hear right-wing talk radio on one station and left-wing talk radio on another, whichever you prefer --- both stations are owned by ClearChannel. Clearly they don't care which one you follow, as long as it puts money in their pocket. Whether that's the left pocket or the right pocket is irrelevant. Except to the microcosmic puppet show they sell to set each other off -- the macrocosm is the message. Just as when I sell a record album on eBay, I also sell a second similar record album to compete with it and drive up the interest in both. Just as Coke and Pepsi present the illusion of competing with each other while they both know full well that either one's advertising sells the idea of drinking brown fizzy sugar water. And the illusion of competition simply enhances that image for both. Macrocosm (the mindset) is where the profit lies; microcosm (whether you choose Coke or Pepsi, whether you choose MSNBC or Fox) is just the puppet show to drive you there. Door number one or door number two; same door company.

And when you own a massive international media megacorporation, your corporate octopus can control so many avenues -- TV and radio and internet and movies and books and magazines and newspapers and music and billboards and websites -- you literally get to dictate not only what the news is, but what the entire culture is. And if you make the wrong choice and decide that the news is a threat to that corporate profit prime directive, well then your corporate octopus gets to dictate what the news isn't and demonstrate exactly who's really driving this bus.

("Don't you (reporters) tell us what the news is. We paid three billion dollars for these stations, we'll tell you what the news is -- the news is what we SAY it is!")

Mass news media doesn't dabble in "right" or "left", not in any meaningful way beyond the superficial. It reflects the power channels that run its country and its government: the corporatocracy it's part and parcel of.

“I’ve gotten balanced coverage, and broad coverage—all we could have asked. For heaven sakes, we kid about the ‘liberal media,’ but every Republican on earth does that.” -- Pat Buchanan

“I admit it, the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures.” -- Bill Kristol (link to both)

Like the basis of this thread, too many still point to the puppet show and ignore the puppeteers. "Right wing media" and "left wing media" is simple bread and circus for the peasants; another illusion to sell the idea of brown fizzy water, regardless whether the label on that water says "Coke" or "Pepsi". Either way it's brown, fizzy and full of empty calories.

 

[LoneLaugher]

.

Ideological iberals are perfectly content with the way the media reports the news.

That certainly makes sense.

.

Who are you referring to? Name one person here who is perfectly content with the way that the media reports the news. Nevermind here. Name anyone anywhere.

Earmuffs.

 

[peach174]

Is This Why Most Journalists Are Left Biased?

No, it's why your an ignorant rightwing hack.

You truly are an idiot – just because someone belongs to a union doesn't mean he's 'left.'

And because journalists report factual, accurate, objective accounts of events that conflict with failed, subjective rightwing dogma, doesn't make the media 'left biased.'

Journalists do not report factual, accurate accounts of events. They protect the Democrats.
If they did they would have reported accurately that the Dems shut down the government because they refused to negotiate with the republicans over the delay in the health care mandate.
Instead they reported that the Republicans shut it down.
How the media helped shut it down.
Live Blog: Media Coverage of Government Shutdown.

Majority of media vote for Democrats.
Media Bias Basics and Newspaper Journalists
Media Bias Basics

 

[peach174]

Proof of how the media and left wing entertainment help to influence Americans thinking.
2009


2012


2012

 

[peach174]

Almost 90% of Americans Think Media Helped Get Obama Elected | NewsBusters

Almost 90 percent of Americans believe the news media helped Barack Obama get elected president last November.

Beyond this, 70 percent feel the press are promoting his presidency, with 56 percent saying they're pushing ObamaCare "without objective criticism."

Such were the findings of a new national poll taken by Sacred Heart University.

In fact, according to Wednesday's press release, almost half of Americans "have permanently stopped watching a news media organization, print or electronic, because of perceived bias

 

[Mac1958]

In fact, according to Wednesday's press release, almost half of Americans "have permanently stopped watching a news media organization, print or electronic, because of perceived bias

I have some pretty serious issues with Rush Limbaugh, but I think his one great achievement was opening the eyes of news consumers about the slant of the national media. Long after he's gone, people will cast a wary eye on those people.

Good.

.

 

[mamooth]

I think everyone sees the strong conservative slant of our nutty corporate conservative media. Well, everyone who isn't a right-wing party hack.

We liberals would be ecstatic to get equal time in the media. Every Democrat knows he's running against the Republicans and the media. We know that if we get equal time, we win. We see networks like MSNBC giving equal time, and have no problem with it. Conservatives see a network giving equal time and go berserk. On some level, all conservatives know they need 100% media control to survive, and that their current 90% just doesn't cut it.

 

[Mac1958]

I think everyone sees the strong conservative slant of our nutty corporate conservative media. Well, everyone who isn't a right-wing party hack.

We liberals would be ecstatic to get equal time in the media. Every Democrat knows he's running against the Republicans and the media. We know that if we get equal time, we win. We see networks like MSNBC giving equal time, and have no problem with it. Conservatives see a network giving equal time and go berserk. On some level, all conservatives know they need 100% media control to survive, and that their current 90% just doesn't cut it.

[MENTION=39072]mamooth[/MENTION]

Do you consider MSNBC to be a good, comprehensive, responsible, journalistic news source?

.

 

[mamooth]

Better than most. All that Joe Scarborough time reduces their credibility, but that's necessary in the name of balance.

(I hope you don't now descend into cherrypicking fallacies.)