While I don’t have much to contribute on whether journalists are liberal, or why, I’m happy to take issue with the notion that they are reliably well-informed.
One subject about which I know a reasonable amount is aviation. And when an aviation story make its way into the headlines, the misinformation routinely offered up in news stories is often little short of appalling. It’s clear that the reporters involved not only do not know their subject, but are unashamed to display rank ignorance.
I think it’s a bit much to expect journalists to be well informed on specific technical topics, like aviation. I, too, cringe when I read certain scientific stories, but the issue being debated here whether or not they are more well informed, in general, the average person, which I suspect they are. As to whether they are liberal because of this, one would need to look at how many start out being conservative and then tend more liberal as they learn more on the job. I haven’t a clue as to whether that is true or not.
The average journalist is NOT, IMHO, better informed than the average member of the public.
You’d be surprised (or maybe not) at how many news stories are re-written from press releases or taken from wire services, and whilst there are many good journalists who do their homework, there are also many journalists who just ask their source to “explain it to them” and then run with that.
I have never known of a newspaper or television news report that I had first-hand knowledge of to be even 50% correct in its details. Even simple things like the location of an automobile accident have been off by several blocks. I’ve come to believe that most newsworthy events simply provide the basic premise for the reportage, which the journalists then flesh out as needed without bothering much with such things as details and exactitude. I think they know that 99.99 percent of their readers/viewers aren’t gonna know the difference anyway, and they’ve got competition to contend with and deadlines to meet. In other words, the car crash or shooting or whatever is what the public is going to be interested in, and not whether a thrust reverser is called an aileron, or that the crash actually happened at 53rd and Sheridan rather than at 48th and Sheridan as reported.
As I said, factshave a well known liberal bias:
The only facts that have a liberal bias are liberally-biased facts. There are plenty of facts out there that have a conservative bias.
And generally they make more sense.
Remember, as William F. Buckley once said of conservatism, “Life is our secret weapon.”
We could solve the energy crisis by hooking a dynamo up to him as he spins in his grave.
No, there aren’t. Conservatism is pretty well detached from reality. Especially these days, when it has largely withdrawn into a bubble of its own creation, composed of true believers talking to each other uncontaminated by facts.
I’d be very keen to hear an example or two of a fact that has a conservative bias.