Adam's Apple
Senior Member
- Apr 25, 2004
- 4,092
- 449
- 48
Interesting survey.
What Future for Newspapers?
By Cal Thomas, The Washington Times
March 17, 2006
The New York Times, the so-called "paper of record," which shapes much of what appears on broadcast television, had a pathetic 38 percent favorability rating among the public (the Times criticizes President Bush for having approval numbers just slightly under its own). Forty-seven percent believe press criticism of the military weakens the country. That figure is the highest in 20 years. A solid majority (60 percent) believes the press should watch over politicians, but only 43 percent find journalists "moral."
What especially stands out is the gap between journalists and the public. The survey questioned 547 print and broadcast journalists. Researchers found their values differ markedly from nonjournalists. Some examples: the survey found only 6 percent of journalists believe faith in God is necessary to be moral, while 58 percent of the general public believe that. A whopping 88 percent of journalists believe society should accept homosexuality, but just 51 percent of the public agree. While 20 percent of the public describe themselves as "liberal," 34 percent of journalists are self-described liberals; 33 percent of the public say they are conservative, but a paltry 7 percent of journalists claim to be conservative.
"Most liberals don't see a liberal point of view," the researchers said. It is revealing how out of touch journalists are with the people they are supposed to serve when less than a quarter of the liberal journalists could name an "especially" liberal news organization, but 79 percent could name a conservative outlet. The 7 percent of conservative journalists had an easier time naming conservative and liberal outlets (68 percent for both).
This survey, as has been the case with so many others, reveals that the problem in journalism isn't solely the popularity of the Internet. It is a loss of credibility in the profession that has caused people to lose the habit (or never acquire it) of consuming news, as presented to them by the big news outlets, which are considered out of touch with their views.
There is much talk of "diversity" in newsrooms, but it is all about race and gender, not ideology. Maybe journalism should conduct an "affirmative action" program to aggressively seek out more conservative reporters and editors who will report more stories that reflect something other than a consistently liberal viewpoint. Journalists will, if they want to save their jobs and help their profession. They won't, if they keep their eyes, ears and minds closed to surveys like this.
for full article:
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20060316-085159-5673r.htm
What Future for Newspapers?
By Cal Thomas, The Washington Times
March 17, 2006
The New York Times, the so-called "paper of record," which shapes much of what appears on broadcast television, had a pathetic 38 percent favorability rating among the public (the Times criticizes President Bush for having approval numbers just slightly under its own). Forty-seven percent believe press criticism of the military weakens the country. That figure is the highest in 20 years. A solid majority (60 percent) believes the press should watch over politicians, but only 43 percent find journalists "moral."
What especially stands out is the gap between journalists and the public. The survey questioned 547 print and broadcast journalists. Researchers found their values differ markedly from nonjournalists. Some examples: the survey found only 6 percent of journalists believe faith in God is necessary to be moral, while 58 percent of the general public believe that. A whopping 88 percent of journalists believe society should accept homosexuality, but just 51 percent of the public agree. While 20 percent of the public describe themselves as "liberal," 34 percent of journalists are self-described liberals; 33 percent of the public say they are conservative, but a paltry 7 percent of journalists claim to be conservative.
"Most liberals don't see a liberal point of view," the researchers said. It is revealing how out of touch journalists are with the people they are supposed to serve when less than a quarter of the liberal journalists could name an "especially" liberal news organization, but 79 percent could name a conservative outlet. The 7 percent of conservative journalists had an easier time naming conservative and liberal outlets (68 percent for both).
This survey, as has been the case with so many others, reveals that the problem in journalism isn't solely the popularity of the Internet. It is a loss of credibility in the profession that has caused people to lose the habit (or never acquire it) of consuming news, as presented to them by the big news outlets, which are considered out of touch with their views.
There is much talk of "diversity" in newsrooms, but it is all about race and gender, not ideology. Maybe journalism should conduct an "affirmative action" program to aggressively seek out more conservative reporters and editors who will report more stories that reflect something other than a consistently liberal viewpoint. Journalists will, if they want to save their jobs and help their profession. They won't, if they keep their eyes, ears and minds closed to surveys like this.
for full article:
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20060316-085159-5673r.htm
