Re: OT: Fox News--New Low, possibly illegal



Spender wrote:

The vast majority of journalists identify as liberals,

"Vast"? You got a citation?

Four times more journalists identifying as liberal vs conservative?
Yeah, I'd say that's a vast difference. Though I was actually
thinking of polls indicating that journalists overwhelmingly report
voting for democrat candidates.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2008/03/19/four-times-more-journalists-identify-liberal-conservative

so yes, of course they have a liberal bias.

Does not necessarily follow. Must be demonstrated.

It is impossible to demonstrate that to you because you will simply
deny that any given example is liberal at all, let alone bias.

I happily accept that journalists tend to be liberal, both because studies
have shown that and because I've known plenty of journalists. Bernard
Goldberg's book Bias offers real-world examples of that bias at work,
although some of his methodology is shaky. But even Goldberg says the
infamous liberal bias tends to be unconscious, journalists as a rule don't
wake up in the morning and ask what they can do to advance the liberal
agenda. However the difference between Goldberg and you, Spender, is he has
the courage of his convictions, he puts his cards on the table. By crying
that any evidence you produce will just be ignored you have wimped out, big
time.

BTW, a website dedicated to countering liberal media bias is perhaps not the
best source you can quote on whether there is liberal media bias, they're
probably just a bit biased themselves on that subject. You should also note
that these particular goofs until recently were insisting the liberal media
was paving Hillary Clinton's way to the White House.

The owners of the media outlets couldn't care less for the most
part. Just as long as the company makes money. But all media
outlets do cater to their advertisers in one way or another.

Seems to contradict your illogical deduction (as well as being
internally contradictory). Hmmm....

It isn't contradictory. It should occur to an educated man such as
yourself that such things, as I put it in another post, are not
doctrinaire and absolute.

Pity there are so many real-world examples to the contrary. What's the
political stance of the San Francisco Chronicle? Fox? The NY Times? The
Chicago Tribune? Clear Channel? The Wall St. Journal? Anyone with a clue
can say in response: liberal, conservative, liberal, conservative,
conservative, conservative. If big media companies aren't influenced in
broad political terms by a particular doctrine, why are so many of them
associated with a strong political stance?


.



Relevant Pages

  • Re: obviousman the movie
    ... Why does this have to be a disclaimer everytime I talk about such bias?? ... presented as the news media is advocating for Democrats and piling on Republicans. ... If you want to talk about the blind spots that journalists develop because of the homogeneity of their background that is a great topic to explore. ... scale outfits happen to set the tone for alot of the coverage the rest of us get. ...
    (rec.arts.comics.strips)
  • Re: First Amendment as vulnerable as Second
    ... That's not libel, that's bias. ... As for journalists and the shield laws, as I said, I generally agree ...
    (rec.crafts.metalworking)
  • Re: OT: Fox News--New Low, possibly illegal
    ... I happily accept that journalists tend to be liberal, ... Goldberg's book Bias offers real-world examples of that bias at work, ... that these folks work hard to remain unbiased in their reporting. ... they typically have more education in their background--a college degree. ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)