Your presumption that that is a problem.
[derailment]
Of course, Brian, studies show a giant tilt towards the left, which gives a real basis to support there is left leaning bias. The internet and and youtube pile on with supporting evidence that it goes beyond the media and right into the public school system. (The area of liberal schooling I experienced first-hand but it’s for another time and topic)
Alas,
“…a survey conducted by the American Society of Newspaper Editors in 1997, 61% of reporters stated that they were members of or shared the beliefs of the Democratic Party. Only 15% say their beliefs were best represented by the Republican Party.”
More recently,
“…it was revealed that the Democratic Party received a total donation of $1,020,816, given by 1,160 employees of the three major broadcast television networks (NBC, CBS, ABC), while the Republican Party received only $142,863 via 193 donations.[16] Both of these figures represent donations made in 2008.”
"What the … !!!"'s comment has a solid foundation.
[/derailment]
Old news IntelliQ, reporters are in any case more professional than that and they do know who is buttering their toast.
From the book: Witness to a century- By George Seldes: In the "Spain broke the heart of the world.” chapter:
J.David Stern was the owner of the New York Post. In a conversation, George Seldes mentioned that Stern was a liberal, and that liberalism was not being reflected at all in the obvious conservative slant that the news from the Spanish civil war were getting. Stern replied:
“What do you want me to do, take a quixotic stand, print the truth about everything including bad medicine, impure food and crooked stock market offerings, and lose all my advertising contracts and go out of business- or make compromises with all the evil elements and continue to publish the best liberal newspaper possible under these compromising circumstances?”
Amazingly, that was in 1936, and it looks like things have not changed much:
In a recent Charlie Rose interview in PBS, circa 2002. The New York Times knew that Enron’s economic models were bananas and Enron was likely not a good investment or a failure to come.
The Times economic reporter had this commentary, on why they did not report much of that conclusion:
Because “Other things came up!”
Charlie Rose, by not making any follow up questions to that whitewash of an answer just completed the picture, media that depends on corporation revenue will have many inconvenient points of view not covered much if at all.
More recently the issue of Global Warming does demonstrate this, there has been a huge drop of reports on the issue, inexplicable if your points there have weight in what is reported, in the end liberals do not control what corporate media does report about.
People do in fact sense unfair reporting. Omission mostly, but we get those youtubes and gotchya moments caught on video now and again of extremely partisan liberalsm (last one i remember was a cnn media woman covering a protest). It happens, it seems silly to argue it doesnt.
Money can do funny things, I dont know of anyone who says differently. I’m not sure how this exonerates a demonstrably left wing media from biased reporting.
Lastly, (ill take this up in another thread of your choice if you want to, just message me the link so Im aware of it), I have to throw out here if the mainstream media was comprised mostly of conservatives we would see a conservative agenda. I wouldnt for a moment discount it, but that’s not the case.
And we do, this is a case were the problem is not bias but a faulty calibration of what the bias is, just check the documentary Spin by Brian Springer.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7344181953466797353
What I do think is related to the matter at hand is that just like Snopes there may be a bias, but the problem is that many are not aware of what the bias is, in the current environment in the mainstream media mostly right of center or centrist ideas are considered, truly left leaning ideas are given the short end of the stick.
I don’t see any of that going to published content, and without that it is irrelevant.
It is relevant… unless you really, really, really do believe that professional liberal journalists don’t listen to those little angels on their shoulders.
…and how about unpublished content?
First: learn what a fucking ellipse is, and what it’s for.
Second: would that be journalists that are professionally liberal ? Or professional journalists who happen to be liberals ? 'Cause the latter is pretty much dealt with in journalism school. If you can’t write/report neutrally, you don’t really get to graduate.
As for unpublished content, who the hell cares what they write in their secret diaries ? Does it, or does it not colour their reporting (i.e. published material) ?
No ? Then what are you mentioning their private convictions for, if not muddle the waters and poison the well ?
Yes ? How about you produce some evidence, then ?
Like the diaries they keep under their pillows?
edited to add: And the little angels that read them in the middle of the night?
The angel on one shoulder says “Stab! Stab him now!” The other one is more cautious, he says “Wait till he turns his back!”
We’re discussing journalists here. The second angel would say “Wait and see if he picks up the bar tab.”
Watching Fox News makes you stupider. (Actual study.)
First… No
Second… hilarious!!!
Third… I should have left it at “unpublished” or “uninvestigated” or “stuff that isn’t newsworthy (according to educated liberal journalists)”.
Fourth… evidence of what? I forget what we’re talking about …Snopes or Bill Moyers or David Gregory or Chris Matthews.
None of the above. Hint:Scroll up to the top of the page and read the title of the thread.