Journalists give $$$ to Democrats 9-to-1

You say they do - any examples?

There are very few conservative reporters you can choose from

I am not disputing that there are fewer conservative journalists than there are liberal journalists. I only ask you if you presume that only liberal journalists slant the news. and your answer would be...?
 
I am not disputing that there are fewer conservative journalists than there are liberal journalists. I only ask you if you presume that only liberal journalists slant the news. and your answer would be...?

I know of no conservative reporter who slants the news

Since they would have to get the story by the liberal Editior - chances are slim it could happen
 
NPR Snobbery: 'Feather-Brained' Men Might Dip Into Porn If Denied Their Sports Pages
Posted by Tim Graham on June 21, 2007 - 23:17.
National Public Radio commentators can establish one reality very quickly: they won’t cross the feminists. "I am not dumb enough to castigate women en masse," said sports writer Frank Deford in a commentary on Wednesday’s Morning Edition as he blamed them for the popularity of celebrity gossip. But men? That’s easier. They’re diverted from serious news by the sports pages. Sure, Deford said, "there are an awful lot of feather-brained fans who could rattle off the entire roster of the Kansas City Royals before they could name their own congressman." But deny them their sports, and they won’t become C-SPAN fans. "Probably, in fact, their new devotion would be to something more base like pornography."

This is a strange attitude to take for a sports writer. "Hello, my audience, you’re mostly feather-brained potential porn addicts." But it passes for commentary on NPR. It’s funny that NPR signed up Deford to discuss sports, not usually a field for snobbishness, and yet the snobbishness still kicks in occasionally. Deford argued that sports is unique in its celebration of merit and grace, but he has a much higher opinion of sports than he does of sports fans.

The inspiration for the Wednesday commentary was Al Gore’s book The Assault on Reason and his attack on celebrity gossip in the news, and how Jack Shafer of Slate.com argued if Gore was courageous, he would insist sports was a waste of time diverting our public attention.
http://newsbusters.org/node/13654

and

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11203216
 
I know of no conservative reporter who slants the news

Since they would have to get the story by the liberal Editior - chances are slim it could happen


Good. You agree with me then. Like I said previously, writers don't get to write whatever the heck they want. It has to be edited and approved by Editors and Publishers.

Interestingly, the only scientific and statistically significant poll of the political leanings of editors and publishers (not writers), suggest that editors and publishers are overwhelmingly republicans:


The Editor & Publisher/TIPP poll also asked who the editors and publishers plan to vote for themselves next week. In another surprise, those willing to reveal their vote named Bush by a 2-1 margin. Publishers will vote for Bush at a 3-1 ratio, with editors favoring the Texas Governor by a narrow margin.

http://www.tipponline.com/articles/00/ep110200.htm



So, as you stated, the final say in what is written lays with Editors. Who are mostly republican


So, by your logic, the media is biased towards conservatives and/or republicans.
 
Good. You agree with me then. Like I said previously, writers don't get to write whatever the heck they want. It has to be edited and approved by Editors and Publishers.

Interestingly, the only scientific and statistically significant poll of the political leanings of editors and publishers (not writers), suggest that editors and publishers are overwhelmingly republicans:


The Editor & Publisher/TIPP poll also asked who the editors and publishers plan to vote for themselves next week. In another surprise, those willing to reveal their vote named Bush by a 2-1 margin. Publishers will vote for Bush at a 3-1 ratio, with editors favoring the Texas Governor by a narrow margin.

http://www.tipponline.com/articles/00/ep110200.htm



So, as you stated, the final say in what is written lays with Editors. Who are mostly republican


So, by your logic, the media is biased towards conservatives and/or republicans.

1) that isn't his logic

2) could it possibly be that conservative editors/publishers just aren't teh censoring type?
 
Quite funny how the libs will trip all over themselves with their convoluted reasoning to confuse an issue or spin the point of the thread...
The MSM is liberal....whats passed off as news is written and reported with a liberal slant....it doesn't even have to a conscious act...its as natural as breathing....if you are a lib. you will write a news article from a certain perspective...and so will a Conservative newsman....
The fact of the matter is that so high a percentage of news people are liberal and left leaning, so a high percentage of news coverage is from that perspective.....only a hack would to try to deny it....its not right or wrong, its just the way it is.....
Sometimes its so subtle that you don't even realize it the first few times you see it....but if you see a major earthquake or something reported on page 30 and a Republican dogcatcher stealing dogfood on page one, it pretty obvious....
 
Quite funny how the libs will trip all over themselves with their convoluted reasoning to confuse an issue or spin the point of the thread...
The MSM is liberal....whats passed off as news is written and reported with a liberal slant....it doesn't even have to a conscious act...its as natural as breathing....if you are a lib. you will write a news article from a certain perspective...and so will a Conservative newsman....
The fact of the matter is that so high a percentage of news people are liberal and left leaning, so a high percentage of news coverage is from that perspective.....only a hack would to try to deny it....its not right or wrong, its just the way it is.....
Sometimes its so subtle that you don't even realize it the first few times you see it....but if you see a major earthquake or something reported on page 30 and a Republican dogcatcher stealing dogfood on page one, it pretty obvious....

Alpha,

I agree. It only makes sense that this would be the case....even if ever so slightly! :)

I think there are some checks and balances within the system, with editors etc being a little more conservative leaning, to keep it from getting out of hand.

This does not mean that I believe the media is not reporting the TRUTH, just that it may have a slight slant of the actual inner journalist, whether they be liberal of conservative in their personal lives.

They are suppose to CHECK this at the door though!

---------------------------

I don't think any journalists should be donating to any political cause or party btw.

Care
 
Quite funny how the libs will trip all over themselves with their convoluted reasoning to confuse an issue or spin the point of the thread...
The MSM is liberal....whats passed off as news is written and reported with a liberal slant....it doesn't even have to a conscious act...its as natural as breathing....if you are a lib. you will write a news article from a certain perspective...and so will a Conservative newsman....
The fact of the matter is that so high a percentage of news people are liberal and left leaning, so a high percentage of news coverage is from that perspective.....only a hack would to try to deny it....its not right or wrong, its just the way it is.....
Sometimes its so subtle that you don't even realize it the first few times you see it....but if you see a major earthquake or something reported on page 30 and a Republican dogcatcher stealing dogfood on page one, it pretty obvious....



Another example of the liberal media slanting the news

No Bias Left Behind for NYTimes Voucher Story
Posted by Ken Shepherd on June 22, 2007 - 14:21.
Update with link added below.

Reporting a new survey on the success of a federal voucher program in the District of Columbia, New York Times reporter Sam Dillon portrayed the federal program as a failure, albeit one that makes parents of voucher students feel good on the taxpayers' dime.

Here's how Dillon opened his story (emphasis mine):

Students who participated in the first year of the District of Columbia’s federally financed school voucher program did not show significantly higher math or reading achievement, but their parents were satisfied anyway, viewing the private schools they attended at taxpayer expense as safer and better than public schools, according to an Education Department study released yesterday.

Nowhere in his article does Dillon dive into problems that have plagued D.C. public schools that have helped push parents to seize the opportunity to send a child to private school on the public dime.

Instead, Dillon goes to lengths to castigate parents of voucher students as out-of-touch with reality about their child's education:

Parents of students using the vouchers were significantly more likely to give the school their child attended a grade of A or B than were parents of students rejected by the lottery, the study found.

Joseph P. Viteritti, a professor of public policy at Hunter College, said those findings were consistent with studies of other voucher programs.

“To me,” Mr. Viteritti said, “it just means that parents are happy to have a choice.”

for the complete article

http://newsbusters.org/node/13670
 
Alpha,

I agree. It only makes sense that this would be the case....even if ever so slightly! :)

I think there are some checks and balances within the system, with editors etc being a little more conservative leaning, to keep it from getting out of hand.

This does not mean that I believe the media is not reporting the TRUTH, just that it may have a slight slant of the actual inner journalist, whether they be liberal of conservative in their personal lives.

They are suppose to CHECK this at the door though!

---------------------------

I don't think any journalists should be donating to any political cause or party btw.

Care

Most of the MSM is liberal Care

Once in a wahile they even admit it. Most of the WH Press Corps are liberal and have openly expressed their contempt for the administration - and they are the ones "reporting" the news from the WH?
 
over conservatives of course theres a huge liberal media bias.........this is to be expected............


MSNBC.com investigative reporter Bill Dedman
By Bill Dedman
Investigative reporter

MSNBC
BOSTON - A CNN reporter gave $500 to John Kerry's campaign the same month he was embedded with the U.S. Army in Iraq. An assistant managing editor at Forbes magazine not only sent $2,000 to Republicans, but also volunteers as a director of an ExxonMobil-funded group that questions global warming. A junior editor at Dow Jones Newswires gave $1,036 to the liberal group MoveOn.org and keeps a blog listing "people I don't like," starting with George Bush, Pat Robertson, the Christian Coalition, the NRA and corporate America ("these are the people who are really in charge").

Whether you sample your news feed from ABC or CBS (or, yes, even NBC and MSNBC), whether you prefer Fox News Channel or National Public Radio, The Wall Street Journal or The New Yorker, some of the journalists feeding you are also feeding cash to politicians, parties or political action committees.

MSNBC.com identified 144 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 17 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.

See the rest of this article at
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485

It all depends what you are trying to prove, SE.

I assume it is that the evil Communists and Jews are a fifth column that stabs Germ…ooops...wrong Nazis!...I mean that the evil DEMOCRATS stab America in the back in all its wars of lucrative liberation and utterly corrupt its Biblical moral base.

Lemme tell you that any alien looking in at America knows its media is rabidly pro-war and right wing, regardless of whether it is Librul or Republi\!/ - according to global standards.

You do realise that many democrats are pro-war and pro-Jesus, don’t you? And that the average American Democrat would pass as far-right conservative in most other countries on earth?
 
It all depends what you are trying to prove, SE.

I assume it is that the evil Communists and Jews are a fifth column that stabs Germ…ooops...wrong Nazis!...I mean that the evil DEMOCRATS stab America in the back in all its wars of lucrative liberation and utterly corrupt its Biblical moral base.

Lemme tell you that any alien looking in at America knows its media is rabidly pro-war and right wing, regardless of whether it is Librul or Republi\!/ - according to global standards.

You do realise that many democrats are pro-war and pro-Jesus, don’t you? And that the average American Democrat would pass as far-right conservative in most other countries on earth?

The liberal media no longer tries to hide their bias - they show it openly now
 
The liberal media no longer tries to hide their bias - they show it openly now

You mean these mincing mealy-mouthed HIV infested Commumuslim poofters are now OPENLY expressing their opinions?!! :omg: :omg:

Opinions that fly in the face of everything that is decent, wholesome, holy, and...and.. SEMI-DIVINE about Murka? EVIL anti-Moral Majority stuff that is poofy and touchy feely - even EFFEMINATE :shock: - not to mention downright anti-John Wayne and Audie Murphy denyin' :shock: about America's puffed-up opinion of itself?

WHY I OUGHTA...:mad:
 
the idea of "liberal editors" is as ridiculous as "liberal publishers"

but the right NEEDS to keep repeating it like a mantra.

I understand.
 
the idea of "liberal editors" is as ridiculous as "liberal publishers"

but the right NEEDS to keep repeating it like a mantra.

I understand.

You just got done asking, rhetorically, why can't people in the media have politcal affiliations. Now your claiming it's ridiculous that they have politcal affiliations?

You can't have it both ways.
 
You mean these mincing mealy-mouthed HIV infested Commumuslim poofters are now OPENLY expressing their opinions?!! :omg: :omg:

Opinions that fly in the face of everything that is decent, wholesome, holy, and...and.. SEMI-DIVINE about Murka? EVIL anti-Moral Majority stuff that is poofy and touchy feely - even EFFEMINATE :shock: - not to mention downright anti-John Wayne and Audie Murphy denyin' :shock: about America's puffed-up opinion of itself?

WHY I OUGHTA...:mad:

They express their opinions, but on the op ed page and not on the front page.
 
Originally Posted by DeadCanDance:

Good. You agree with me then. Like I said previously, writers don't get to write whatever the heck they want. It has to be edited and approved by Editors and Publishers.

Interestingly, the only scientific and statistically significant poll of the political leanings of editors and publishers (not writers), suggest that editors and publishers are overwhelmingly republicans:

The Editor & Publisher/TIPP poll also asked who the editors and publishers plan to vote for themselves next week. In another surprise, those willing to reveal their vote named Bush by a 2-1 margin. Publishers will vote for Bush at a 3-1 ratio, with editors favoring the Texas Governor by a narrow margin.

http://www.tipponline.com/articles/00/ep110200.htm

So, as you stated, the final say in what is written lays with Editors. Who are mostly republican

So, by your logic, the media is biased towards conservatives and/or republicans.



1) that isn't his logic

2) could it possibly be that conservative editors/publishers just aren't teh censoring type?


So, let me get this straight:

1) Writers, who presumably are largely democratic, are highly biased in their professional work....

BUT......

2) Editors and Publishers - who actually control what gets written - and who lean mostly republican, are unbiased in their professional work.



Yeah, that makes sense.

(rolls eyes)


Thank you for playing another exciting round of: "Are You a Partisan Hack?"
 
So, let me get this straight:

1) Writers, who presumably are largely democratic, are highly biased in their professional work....

BUT......

2) Editors and Publishers - who actually control what gets written - and who lean mostly republican, are unbiased in their professional work.



Yeah, that makes sense.

(rolls eyes)


Thank you for playing another exciting round of: "Are You a Partisan Hack?"


To some extent yes.

Let's play another game shall we called know the basics of your political ideolgies.

Start out with the basic fact that reason and emotion are opposites.

These two states are integral parts of the liberal and conservative ideologies. Liberals tend to handle situations on a more emotional level while conservatives handle things on a more reasoned level. I believe a reasoned objective approach is better than an emotional approach.

Writers being more liberal as we have already identified then will tend to let their emotion override their reasoning and there ability to be objective because emotion and reason work against each other and if personality type is prone to one way or the other one of those states will be overriden.

Assuming for a second the publishers, those in control, (i still don't buy this really) are conservative of course are not going to interfer with the stories of their writers because to do so would simply be an emotional response to something they don't like.
 

Forum List

Back
Top