Is This Why Most Journalists Are Left Biased?

[depotoo]

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

 

[depotoo]

Why was this moved, mods? It is political.

 

[jwoodie]

Key word: Media

People from broken/dysfunctional homes are more likely to be "left biased" because they feel the world is unfair. I applaud those with the courage to take responsibility for their lives and happiness rather than continually blaming others for their lack of self worth.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.'

 

[Mac1958]

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.

.

 

[Pogo]

Journalism by definition is unbiased. If it's biased, it isn't journalism. The OP premise is inoperative.

I agree this belongs in Media, since it's about journalists. Even if it is a nonoperative premise.

 

[percysunshine]

Journalism by definition is unbiased. If it's biased, it isn't journalism. The OP premise is inoperative.

I agree this belongs in Media, since it's about journalists. Even if it is a nonoperative premise.

Sooo...the New York Times does not practice journalism?

Interesting point.

.

 

[depotoo]

Journalism by definition is unbiased. If it's biased, it isn't journalism. The OP premise is inoperative.

I agree this belongs in Media, since it's about journalists. Even if it is a nonoperative premise.

Sooo...the New York Times does not practice journalism?

Interesting point.

.

We could definitely include NBC in her assessment as well, and a few more...

 

[TheOldSchool]

Is This Why Most Journalists Are Left Biased?

Well most journalists are at least a little intelligent. And they're motivated to report the issues of the day instead of writing an opinion.

Does that answer your question?

 

[percysunshine]

Is This Why Most Journalists Are Left Biased?

Well most journalists are at least a little intelligent. And they're motivated to report the issues of the day instead of writing an opinion.

Does that answer your question?

That is a good point. How are the 'issues of the day' chosen? Not everything can make it into print or onto the screen. Some filtering of issues has to happen. It is only practical.

.

 

[Pogo]

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.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Is This Why Most Journalists Are Left Biased?

Well most journalists are at least a little intelligent. And they're motivated to report the issues of the day instead of writing an opinion.

Does that answer your question?

That is a good point. How are the 'issues of the day' chosen? Not everything can make it into print or onto the screen. Some filtering of issues has to happen. It is only practical.

.

On their importance and how much revenue they'll bring in. Unless you're Fox in which case the revenue is generated by opinion.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Robert Nozick looked at the question of why so many academics are leftists and his analysis applies to journalists, kind of.

For academics, the problem was that they were always the smart kids in class and they have trouble accepting that the kids they surpassed in high school and college are now earning more than them. They feel that the universe is out of kilter because the economy doesn't reward them for their smarts like schools rewarded them.

What they miss is that high earners are rewarded by OTHER PEOPLE for providing a valuable service and most people in the public don't believe that a wymyn's studies professor actually provides a service that is more valuable than what a McDonald's restaurant manager provides.

For journalists, they're not as smart as academics but the see themselves as being smart and using their positions to inform the public. They believe that they should be rewarded well for this and that because they're smarter (in their own liberal haughty self-deluded way) than an engineer, that the market should pay them higher. That it doesn't is proof that the system is wrong and the Marxist version of politics is more sound.

Secondly, as already noted by someone else, there is a self-selection at work too. Like with teaching, journalism draws a lot of people who want to be social revolutionaries, in their own small way. The actual craft of being an impartial journalist isn't that important. There is no pride felt from readers not being able to discern one's political slant. Instead they want to change the world and want to use their writing as the vehicle to do so.

 

[percysunshine]

Well most journalists are at least a little intelligent. And they're motivated to report the issues of the day instead of writing an opinion.

Does that answer your question?

That is a good point. How are the 'issues of the day' chosen? Not everything can make it into print or onto the screen. Some filtering of issues has to happen. It is only practical.

.

On their importance and how much revenue they'll bring in. Unless you're Fox in which case the revenue is generated by opinion.

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.

.

 

[TheOldSchool]

That is a good point. How are the 'issues of the day' chosen? Not everything can make it into print or onto the screen. Some filtering of issues has to happen. It is only practical.

.

On their importance and how much revenue they'll bring in. Unless you're Fox in which case the revenue is generated by opinion.

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.

 

[percysunshine]

On their importance and how much revenue they'll bring in. Unless you're Fox in which case the revenue is generated by opinion.

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.

Fox news and Drudge do not operate in a free market? When did that happen?

Nobody fixes the 'last channel' on your cable remote or edits the 'favorites' list on your browser.

...well, not yet anyway. Give the NSA some time.

.

 

[Rikurzhen]

On their importance and how much revenue they'll bring in. Unless you're Fox in which case the revenue is generated by opinion.

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.

 

[TheOldSchool]

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.

Fox news and Drudge do not operate in a free market? When did that happen?

Nobody fixes the 'last channel' on your cable remote or edits the 'favorites' list on your browser.

...well, not yet anyway. Give the NSA some time.

.

For a summary on what the current conservative butthurt is all you have to do is log on to Drudge. Then if you switch to Fox or listen to con talk radio they'll be saying the exact same things. The brilliance of it is that the GOP can almost effortlessly steer their herd in any direction they want.

The rest of the news involves many channels, websites, and other media. Some report on opinions and they're not very popular. The rest report NEWS. Which conservatives are typically not interested in.

 

[Rikurzhen]

The rest of the news involves many channels, websites, and other media. Some report on opinions and they're not very popular. The rest report NEWS. Which conservatives are typically not interested in.

Liberal media is also known as "the hivemind" because like in an beehive, all the drones do the bidding of the queen. Many channels and websites doesn't matter if they're all coordinated by the same cabal of Journolist movers and shakers. The coordination is amazing to watch.

Look at what happened with the Danish Cartoon controversy. Not one liberal media outlet choose to publish the cartoons in order to show their readers/viewers what all the hubbub was about. People had to seek out some conservative outlets to actually view the pictures.

If the liberal media was all about competition and freedom, they'd have been all over publishing those cartoons in order to put one over on their censorious colleagues who chose to not publish.

 

[percysunshine]

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.

Fox news and Drudge do not operate in a free market? When did that happen?

Nobody fixes the 'last channel' on your cable remote or edits the 'favorites' list on your browser.

...well, not yet anyway. Give the NSA some time.

.

For a summary on what the current conservative butthurt is all you have to do is log on to Drudge. Then if you switch to Fox or listen to con talk radio they'll be saying the exact same things. The brilliance of it is that the GOP can almost effortlessly steer their herd in any direction they want.

The rest of the news involves many channels, websites, and other media. Some report on opinions and they're not very popular. The rest report NEWS. Which conservatives are typically not interested in.

I am pretty sure that every time I pull up 'drudgereport.com', Dick Cheney gets 1 penny. But maybe I am being paranoid.

.