I had a thought when I was too young to know better, and it hasn't ever left me: What if the prevalence of "liberals" in the media is a result of the mindset which media professions prefer, that of the objective, critical observer? Does a professional duty to examine our own beliefs and biases predispose us to support the left?

Put another way, I thought that being a liberal might just be the result of seeing things as they are, rather than as I wanted them to be. But then, I was a liberal, so...how could I be sure?

Well, I come at this from the other side. I'm a conservative who worked as a journalist for 14 years. It isn't that liberals are smarter or more incisive, and certainly not more objective, than anyone else.

What I found in the industry was that a lot of liberals got into the business because of a heartfelt passion, frequently spawned by having seen "All the President's Men." They were out to "change the world" via the force of journalism -- an attitude that doesn't foster objective reportage.

That attitude, combined with the fact that the only people they personally knew, worked with, or socialized with, gave them a distorted view of where the "center" was in American politics. Because everyone they knew (minus a few conservative nut-jobs. Me, in other words), was liberal, most people must be liberal, and the center was liberal.

But voting shows that the active political center isn't that far left -- there couldn't have been the narrow races in 2000 and 2004 if it were. The new reporters suffer from spectrum bias -- they don't see the entire spectrum and therefore don't or can't report objectively about it, even if they're trying (and the "All the Presiden'ts Men" attitude means frequently they are not).

What is your gripe about "All the President's Men?"

I thought it was a great read and a good flick.

It told the story of two little guys who exposed graft and corruption at the hightst level and spoke truth to power.

You got something about exposing crooks and liars? I thought that conservatives were all about personal responsibility.

I don't have a gripe with "All the President's Men." I prefer the book to the movie, but either way, its an interesting story told well.

The trouble is, most of the time there isn't a conspiracy to uncover. Most journalism is merely viewing an event and writing about it without any deep investigation, simply because there's nothing to investigate. You report the event, meeting, fire, murder, press conference just the way it happened without favoring one side or the other. You shouldn't be there to "change the world." Most importantly, you report the story -- you don't BECOME the story. The Watergate break-in and cover-up scandal would have changed the world with or without Woodward and Bernstein's excellent reportage, but the publicity about their coverage simmered through journalism schools -- "We can use the power of the press to do good, to tear down the bad guys in the world, to shape public opinion toward a brighter future!" And in taking journalists down this road, it took them away from from their first, best reason for being -- to report the news in a clear and unbiased fashion. To speak truth not only to power, but to the powerless and powerful alike.

I have nothing against exposing crooks and liars -- but smearing someone with the implication that they are a crook or a liar, while ignoring the crooked behavior or political lies of their opponents, is another thing. It provides a distorted view. Virtually any politician can be exposed as a liar, or his political promises can be shown to be based on speculation, peculation and unfounded belief -- and so if one is being exposed in this way, so should his opponent. That is clearly not what we've seen in the current political campaign, where the press has been behind Obama all the way. There could be a lot of reasons for this, including the simple fact that Obama is very charismatic and good on camera. It seems obvious to me, at least, that when the entire profession of journalism is made up of liberals, it is going to favor liberal candidates. Yes, that is unfair to the conservatives.

Here in this forum -- hey, look around -- you can find this bias explained away because liberals are smarter or better educated than conservatives, and smarter better-educated people gravitate toward journalism. But George Will is smart and educated and is a conservative journalist. You can find it said that liberal beliefs are more fact based, and journalists are interested in facts, which is why liberal journalists aren't "biased" but are better at reporting facts. This is also untrue -- and the selection of which set of facts are reported is one reason many people see a liberal bias in news reportage (and why hasn't the LA Times released the Khalidi tape, eh?) -- they see facts reported, but not all of them. They see facts reported that favor the liberal candidate, and other facts also reported that harm the conservative candidate -- but never all the facts reported all the way.

For what it's worth, I don't ascribe this behavior to any sort of liberal conspiracy. The reporters are liberals and the people they know are liberals, and the watchful eyes of the editors who read their stories are contained in the heads of liberals -- its unsurprising that the news gets reported from a liberal perspective.

trapdoor:

This is also untrue -- and the selection of which set of facts are reported is one reason many people see a liberal bias in news reportage (and why hasn't the LA Times released the Khalidi tape, eh?)

The LA Times has not released the Khalidi tape because it is not IMPORTANT because Khalidi is not a terrorist!

If he was a terrorist then McCain would have to be arrested for providing support to a terrorist, since he was the director of a group that gave him money not once but twice totaling over $800,000!

You must not have been a very good "journalist", if you would not RESEARCH something like that before wanting to report on it!

Critical: The rumor isn't that Khalidi is a terrorist, but that Obama made anti-semitic remarks at that event. The tape would prove the fallacy of truth of the rumor -- but it hasn't been released. Nonetheless, it is selective reporting -- good reportage would be to reveal it in its entirety and let the public decide whether or not it is damaging.

trapdoor:

Critical: The rumor isn't that Khalidi is a terrorist, but that Obama made anti-semitic remarks at that event. The tape would prove the fallacy of truth of the rumor -- but it hasn't been released. Nonetheless, it is selective reporting -- good reportage would be to reveal it in its entirety and let the public decide whether or not it is damaging.

Watch Sarah Palin call Khalidi a terrorist!

<link>

Why is it not "selective" reporting to NOT call Palin out and ask what PROOF does she have that someone is a "terrorist" when she says things like that to the media?

Why is it not "selective" reporting to not show the tape of Palin addressing the AIP this year in 2008, who are want Alaska to secceed from the union in "any way possible"?

Why is it not "selective" reporting to not show the tape of Palin being blessed by a a "holy man", for protection against witchcraft?

Sarah Palin should be called on that, just as you say. The LA Times should also be releasing the Khalidi video.

Personally I don't have any problem with showing Palin's conversations with the AIP, or with her Inuit blessing (aren't we supposed to be inclusive of other cultures?). But I also think neither of those incidents is as important as whether or not Obama is anti-semitic, in a day and age when we're supposed to be putting such divisiveness behind us.

That opinion, however, has little to do with the overall topic of liberal bias in the media, which is there and is obvious, simply because most journalists identify themselves as Democrats in reputable polls.

trapdoor:

Sarah Palin should be called on that, just as you say. The LA Times should also be releasing the Khalidi video.

Personally I don't have any problem with showing Palin's conversations with the AIP, or with her Inuit blessing (aren't we supposed to be inclusive of other cultures?). But I also think neither of those incidents is as important as whether or not Obama is anti-semitic, in a day and age when we're supposed to be putting such divisiveness behind us.

That opinion, however, has little to do with the overall topic of liberal bias in the media, which is there and is obvious, simply because most journalists identify themselves as Democrats in reputable polls.

You may think it is "ok" and no big deal to hang with rebels who want to secceed from the union, but some of us think it is a BIG deal given that we fought a civil war when some other states tried to do it!

As fas a Obama being "anti-semite", he is descended from a "semite" people, so that is saying he is being anti-self!

In contrary to popular belief not agreeing with the policies of Isreal does not make one "anti-semite", because the Hasidic Jewish people themselves call Isreal a "zionist" state, so are they "anti-semite" also?

The idea that there is some big "liberal" media bias is just another MYTH, because the mainstream media is run by "conserative" corporate executives and that media constantly hold back stories that are damaging to non-liberals, as the run up to the war in Iraq CLEARLY illustrated!

If you want a REAL example of a liberal media, tune into the Pacifica network!

The AIP's desire for independence hardly makes them "rebels" who perforce would desire the overthrow of the U.S. government. It's a sideshow, anyway, there aren't enough of them to be important even in Alaska. In any case, the legality of secession remains an undetermined thing (among other things, it certainly isn't illegal if it is succesful).

You're splitting hairs because you're defining certain African cultures as semitic. If you require me to use the term "anti-Jewish" I will. Khalidi is probably not a terrorist, but he is certainly pro-Palestinian. What method of warfare has been pursued by Palestinians over the last 30+ years? Terrorism -- yes, this means I believe being pro-Palestinian is being pro-terrorism unless a clear statement of denunciating terrorism has been made. Further, Khalidi worked for Wafa, the Palestinian authority's news agency under the PLO. Are you naive enough to say that the PLO never backed acts of terrorism? I think not.

As for who runs the media, I have a simple question. Have you ever worked in the media? If not, have you ever worked in media relations?

I have done both. The actual newsrooms are not run by those conservative corporate executives to whom you refer. The newsrooms are run by editors and news directors, 95 percent of whom identify themselves as liberals, according to Associated Press polling of the profession. As for the run-up to the war, I remember a lot of reporting by voices critical of the idea of going to war without further diplomacy, as though the diplomacy that hadn't worked for the last 10 years was going to magicly dislodge Hussein at that point. I'm sorry, I've worked in or with the media my entire adult life, and I've seen the prejudice against conservative candidates and issues first hand.

I was just wondering: criticalthinkerr, are you, in fact, this Khalidi fellow? Because you sure seem to have a vested interest in him.

Just exactly what does the AIP party desire if not independence from America? That means that they want to steal 663,627 square miles of Amrican territory and 683,478 American citizens along with all their wealth, whether they wish it or not.

The legality of secession is certainly not an undetermined thing. It is treason.

America gave hundreds of thousands of lives to ensure that no such nonsense would happen again. Ever. And certainly not from a bunch of backwards backwoods backstabbers.

Read these last lines from Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

trapdoor:

Sarah Palin should be called on that, just as you say. The LA Times should also be releasing the Khalidi video.

Personally I don't have any problem with showing Palin's conversations with the AIP, or with her Inuit blessing (aren't we supposed to be inclusive of other cultures?). But I also think neither of those incidents is as important as whether or not Obama is anti-semitic, in a day and age when we're supposed to be putting such divisiveness behind us.

That opinion, however, has little to do with the overall topic of liberal bias in the media, which is there and is obvious, simply because most journalists identify themselves as Democrats in reputable polls.

I love how you nailed that "tolerant progressive" in an act of savage mockery and disrespect of Native American culture.

So many of these "progressives" will abandon their supposed core values in a second in the heat of trying to score a point against a so-called "right winger", whether or not you happen to be one.

I noticed a progressive on a different threadcall someone a "homosexual". I pointed out that he was demonizing a member of his own coalition - he was suddenly embarrassed - and backpedaled furiously.

Northwoods: Show me the Supreme Court case that determines that secession is illegal. For that matter, show me the passage in the Constitution that says a state may not voluntarily separate itself from the union (for the record, there is one that addresses the issue tagentially, styled, I think, White vs. United States).

Even Lincoln's eloquence stops at "that this government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth," but there is no evidence that a state's secession would cause that to happen.

But as I said, there aren't enough such people to be a real problem.