2004 Pew: 34% of Media Are Liberal, 7% Conservative.

[Cicero]

1985 poll of 3,200 reporters:
Self-identified as liberal, 55%
Self-identified as conservative., 17%

1996 survey of Washington journalists:
Self-identified as liberal, 61%,
Self-identified as conservative, 9%

http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics.asp

Over the years, many libs in the media figured out how to change the cosmetics of the score, if not their ideology, by also calling themselves moderates.

The scientists are not interested in cosmetics.

"Nine percent of scientists said they were "conservative" while 52 percent described themselves as "liberal," and 14 percent "very liberal."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/10/only-six-percent-of-scien_n_229382.html

 

[Upchurch]

Over the years, many libs in the media figured out how to change the cosmetics of the score, if not their ideology, by also calling themselves moderates.

Is that the article's conclusion or your own?

 

[Cicero]

Is that the article's conclusion or your own?

Considering that the Pew survey indicated that the moderates political beliefs are in proximity to those of the self-identified liberals while not even in the ballpark of conservatives, and the ratio of liberals to conservatives in the press is consistent, whether it be 4 to 1 or 3 to 1, it is the obvious conclusion.

 

[BeAChooser]

Over the years, many libs in the media figured out how to change the cosmetics of the score, if not their ideology, by also calling themselves moderates.

I think you are right.

http://www.danlawton.com/2009/05/13/do-journalism-schools-need-more-conservatives/

2009 May 13

... snip ...

According to its website, there are 32 full-time professors at the University of Oregon School of Journalism and Communication. According to Lane County voting records, none of them are Republicans. Twenty-six are registered Democrats, one is non-affiliated and five don’t return results in the voter database. If you add in adjuncts, there are 38 total Democrats and two Republicans, both of whom teach technical subjects.

... snip ...

The disparity, as dramatic as it is, mirrors the the political composition of many other journalism schools across the country. A 2005 study of nine top journalism schools by David Horowitz and Joseph Light revealed similar ratios of political affiliation. Columbia University had 15 Democrats and one Republican, while Berkeley had ten Democrats and zero Republicans.

According to a study performed by UO economist Bill Harbaugh in 2006, there are 15:5 registered Democrats in the total UO faculty for every one Republican. The Oregon Daily Emerald reported that 96% of contributions during the 2008 election cycle went to Democratic candidates; in 2004 the figure was 100%.

 

[Cain]

Is that the article's conclusion or your own?

Who cares, it's obviously a conspiracy.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Who cares, it's obviously a conspiracy.

Not a conspiracy, more a case of "cultural ghettoization".

People tend to seek after their own, it's a fact of human nature. If a liberal news director interviews two equally qualified applicants, one liberal, the other conservative, he will likely hire the one he likes more. And it doesn't have to be a deliberate conscious act of philosophical discrimination, it could be something as simple as the liberal candidate opening the interview with a joke like "Hey, did you hear that the reason George Bush can't reform health care is because he thinks "innuendo" is an Italian suppository?" If you can make someone laugh, you can make them more comfortable around you, in this case, our liberal candidate has a serious edge over the conservative.

Once you get a seed population in an area, either geographically or culturally, things tend to snowball. It's essentially the same phenomenon that is responsible for nearly every major city in North America having "chinatowns" or Italian neighborhoods and so on.

To call it a conspiracy theory is both naive and unnecessarily boosts the credibility of real conspiracy theories.

 

[Cicero]

Who cares, it's obviously a conspiracy.

Then I guess the Pew survey that showed scientists to be mostly liberals is also a conspiracy? I wonder why that poll result does not induce indignation in libs the way that the lame stream media poll does?

 

[HereticHulk]

It is too funny that most of the 'skeptics' here still buy into the left/right paradigm.

There is 1 plutocracy/oligarchy at play in this country and that is it.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

then i guess the pew survey that showed scientists to be mostly liberals is also a conspiracy? I wonder why that poll result does not induce indignation in libs the way that the lame stream media poll does?

zing!

 

[Cain]

Not a conspiracy, more a case of "cultural ghettoization".

It seems as though you decided to bloviate rather than address the concerns raised. Cicero claimed journalists who would normally (or should ideally) self-identify as liberal are artificially lowering their numbers in this survey in order to make themselves seem more fair and balanced:

Over the years, many libs in the media figured out how to change the cosmetics of the score, if not their ideology, by also calling themselves moderates.

I accept your apology in advance.

 

[Cicero]

It seems as though you decided to bloviate rather than address the concerns raised. Cicero claimed journalists who would normally (or should ideally) self-identify as liberal are artificially lowering their numbers in this survey in order to make themselves seem more fair and balanced:



I accept your apology in advance.

Please. In the eight years between the last poll 20% of the self-identified liberals in the lame stream media became self-identified moderates. How do you account for this? Why are their answers to the poll questions nearly the same as in 1996? Why the continued decrease of self-identified conservatives?

So you do not challenge the 1996 poll that indicated that 61% of lame stream media are libs? I guess that's progress.

But of course the liberal lame stream media is a myth.

 

[linusrichard]

You still have to connect the dots between members of the media being liberal and the media having a liberal bias. The accusations of liberal bias are part of a strategy of "working the ref," and it's largely worked. Along the way, you bought the myth.

Obviously journalists are going to trend liberal. Once you get over that shock, I have some more surprises for you regarding university professors, Broadway actors, and animal rights activists.

 

[Marc39]

You still have to connect the dots between members of the media being liberal and the media having a liberal bias. The accusations of liberal bias are part of a strategy of "working the ref," and it's largely worked. Along the way, you bought the myth.

Obviously journalists are going to trend liberal. Once you get over that shock, I have some more surprises for you regarding university professors, Broadway actors, and animal rights activists.

Except, university professors, broadway actors and animal rights activists do not shape public opinion in the powerful way the media do.

 

[leftysergeant]

The journalists themselves are liberal, but the ownership of the media is conservative, so the liberal message is actually being suppressed and shouted down by alien-like entities given prime spots on cable news.

The liberal bias, to the extent that it exists, is just a natural outcome of education. When you dig up the actual data, history better supports the liberal view point, which is why the right wing wants to spread more people like Hannity and the fat deaf eunuch all over the air waves.

 

[Marc39]

The journalists themselves are liberal, but the ownership of the media is conservative, so the liberal message is actually being suppressed and shouted down by alien-like entities given prime spots on cable news.

Not necessarily. A few notable exceptions to your theory are GE, parent of NBC/MSNBC/CNBC, in bed with Obama; Mort Zuckerman, publisher of the NY Daily News; Ted Turner, founder of CNN; the Sulzberger family, owner of the NY Times; Katherine Graham, owner of the Washington Post and Newsweek, Jann Wenner, owner of Rolling Stone and Sumner Redstone, owner of CBS.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I always think these topics are odd. Clearly FOX is the biggest news channel, and it is conservative. It is like free marketers have forgotten that people are free to change the channel if they don't like what they are watching and can change to what they do like.

 

[Mitchell314]

Please. In the eight years between the last poll 20% of the self-identified liberals in the lame stream media became self-identified moderates. How do you account for this? Why are their answers to the poll questions nearly the same as in 1996? Why the continued decrease of self-identified conservatives?

So you do not challenge the 1996 poll that indicated that 61% of lame stream media are libs? I guess that's progress.

But of course the liberal lame stream media is a myth.

It's a vast left-wing conspiracy!

Not to not mention that people don't change an iota in their views of the world, or how they perceive themselves in relation to the views of others. Nope. Not a bit.

Of course, it most certainly cannot be that people think that other people in general are more liberal (neither consciously or subconsciously) than their perceptions of time past. They do not adjust themselves to think themselves more moderate relative the current masses.

 

[Cicero]

I always think these topics are odd. Clearly FOX is the biggest news channel, and it is conservative. It is like free marketers have forgotten that people are free to change the channel if they don't like what they are watching and can change to what they do like.

Then why is FOX News lambasted for having a conservative tilt when all one need do is turn the channel to any other network and get the liberal slant?

 

[Cicero]

It's a vast left-wing conspiracy!

Not to not mention that people don't change an iota in their views of the world, or how they perceive themselves in relation to the views of others. Nope. Not a bit.

Of course, it most certainly cannot be that people think that other people in general are more liberal (neither consciously or subconsciously) than their perceptions of time past. They do not adjust themselves to think themselves more moderate relative the current masses.

Have you seen any evidence of this "change" among the "journalists" that populate the lame stream media? Surely they would have revealed their newly acquired moderate ideology during the last Presidential election.

 

[Mitchell314]

Have you seen any evidence of this "change" among the "journalists" that populate the lame stream media?

No, I have not. It is just random . . . rambling. Like accusing the media to be pushing some agenda to befuddle the wise populous into thinking that their selves are more conservative than they thought. Just . . . rambling.

Surely they would have revealed their newly acquired moderate ideology during the last Presidential election.

Thanks for missing half of the point that I was not making about a shift that never happened about the nonexistent views of people of mainstream America. What ever that may not be.