Journalism is in disgrace. As late as the 1970s, journalist were still considered trustworthy, but that’s changed. For the past four decades, we’ve seen a never-ending parade of journalists skewing facts to favor the left, selectively reporting stories, adding spin instead of research, politicking, carrying water for leftist causes, and even flat out lying and distorting events and facts. This has destroyed their credibility, which is now down to 40% of the public believing them to be free of bias, and only 26% finding them to be ethical.
This actually fits perfectly with Pew Poll results which found that only 6% of journalists consider themselves conservatives (compared to 40% of the public) and 24% admit to being liberal. . . with the rest claiming to be “moderate,” which is usually a codeword for liberal. In fact, a 1992 poll found that 89% of journalists voted for Clinton.
In fact, if you want evidence suggesting much greater bias than these numbers predict, consider campaign contributions – which most news organization claim to ban, but really done. A study done in 2008 found 235 journalists who donated to Democrats compared to only 20 who donated to Republicans. But don’t worry, the Los Angeles Times assured us, this doesn’t mean they are biased. Backing this up, a similar study by MSNBC of 2004 donations found that 141 of 144 journalists examined gave to campaigns with the breakdown going 125 to Democrats, 16 to Republicans.
This is very bad news for a profession that trades in credibility.
So every once in awhile, along comes an article like the Politico article to convince the weak minded that journalists really aren’t as biased as the rest of us believe. Indeed, if you accept the headline, then you would actually believe that journalists split politically. Further, here is how the article begins: “Reporters for Romney? Editors for Obama?” Interesting. So apparently, reporters prefer Romney and editors prefer Obama, right? Well, not really.
See the article then proceeds to discuss various journalists who gave to each side. Giving to Romney were (1) two editors from the Washington Times, a known right-leaning paper, (2) an editor from an obscure Florida newspaper, and (3) a sport editor at a television station in Philadelphia. That’s hardly the A-Team. By comparison, those giving to Obama included ten specific individuals from organizations like the Wall Street Journal to the New York Daily News to Bloomberg to Reuters. Moreover, each of these journalists did so despite policies in place forbidding the giving, but their editors found reasons to excuse them each time.
What you have here is more evidence that the media is deeply biased (on the order of 8-1 if you follow the money), and yet they insist on lying about it to make you think otherwise. The fact that they can violate their own company policies against giving to political campaigns and yet face no consequences is evidence of just how much those policies about being non-biased are for show.
And don’t forget that
Also, don’t forget how many journalists got their start working for Democratic White Houses, and how many are married to prominent Democrats. How about these examples:
● George Stephanopoulos was Clinton strategist before becoming Chief Washington Correspondent for ABC News.I could give you pages and pages of this, with one exception. . . I can’t give you conservative equivalents.
● Jay Carney left Time to work for Biden and the Obama.
● Shailagh Murray left the Washington Post become Biden’s communications director.
● Jonathan Allen of Politico worked for Debbie Wasserman Schultz
● Andy Barr of Politico worked for the DNC
● Linda Douglass left ABC News to push Obamacare for the White House
● NBC’s Chuck Todd is marred to a DNC staffer and worked for Democrat Tom Harkin.
● Chris Matthews worked for congressional Democrats and Jimmy Carter.
So when you see a headline like this, don’t buy it. And when you hear journalists claim they are unbiased, don’t buy it. And don’t let your friends believe it either.
41 comments:
Friends don't let friends become journalists.
I remember as a kid one of the Phoenix newscasts opened with-
"Blessed is the nation, whose God is the Lord"
That was back in the 70's, in the eighties there was another newscaster who had a dove pin on his lapel.
I have a friend that stated all the news is right slanted, he is genuine ivy league dupe. Since he is a ignorant socialist, he perceives everything as right wing of his beliefs.
No, no, they are not biased, it's not newsworthy that Oboma was willing to write off an entire US embassy(including staff).
BUT THAT GENERAL FOOLING AROUND!!! OH MY GOD!!!!!!!
But it's OK for Bill Clinton to give white house tours with his pants around his ankles.
After all sex with an intern doesn't count, it's not infidelity.
Isn't Hilary so smart.
Uh, Yea right. Give me a break.
You forgot to mention Journo-list. The on line journalist club that coordinated their leftist talking points so they could hit the news with a simultaneous attack - thereby simulating an anti-conservative meme.
It supposedly got broken up thanks to Breitbart, but if the performance of the press in this election is any indication was just driven underground.
The media has always been biased/had an agenda. We should keep hammering the point home, but that truth might have reached the point of diminishing returns.
I read a recent article in the National Review which stated that conservatism has enough pundits and analysts, what it needs are more reporters.
Morning folks. It's 5:00 am and I'm hopped up on cold medicine wondering why I didn't take that pneumonia vaccine when I had the chance... kids, stay off drugs except the good ones....
Joel, I think that should be the other way around, conservatives make their friends become journalists. As with Hollywood and teachers, we need to flood the profession.
K, Good point. Here's the original article on the Journolist (LINK), which was a large group of "unbiased" journalists getting caught coordinating smears and attacks on conservatives.
Also, here's an article (LINK) on campaign contributions by media organizations, with this "money quote" (pardon the pun):
See, it turns out that 88% of the contributions of the employees of ABC, CBS and NBC were made to the Democratic Party. Indeed 1,160 network employees -- executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, etc. -- gave a total of $1,020,816 to Democratic campaigns in the 2008 election cycle. By comparison, only 193 of their employees gave to Republicans ($142,863).
Max, My European friends and relatives are equally stupid. "We see your news and it's all slanted to the right." Retards.
One of them actually claimed the BBC was unbiased! Setting aside the ludicrousy of that statement on its face, she still needed to ignore decades of scandals to hold that opinion. But that's what you do when you want to see the world in a particular way.
And no doubt she'll ignore the current scandal as well.
Anthony, I think that's true. We are awash in pundits, most of whom stink, but what we really need are more reporters to go find stories.
I'm not a big fan of James O'Keefe because I think he elevates isolated incidents into claims of systematic problems, but at least he's out there investigating things that conservatives should be looking into but aren't because all of our journalists sit around spouting opinion rather than digging.
That said, I think journalism is a lost art in any event. The days of real reporting are long gone and all anyone does now is call press offices and ask for statements and then spin them.
As another aside...
All week, I've seen articles that Europe had finally turned the corner. So today, we learn they are back in recession and are going the wrong way.
Anyway, within the article is this quote:
The eurozone's economy is worth around €9.5 trillion, or $12.1 trillion, which puts it on a par with the U.S. economy. The region, with its 332 million population, is the U.S.'s largest export customer, and any fall-off in demand will hit order books.
Ok, let's look at this. The US has only 308 million people, meaning the Eurozone has around 8% more people. Yet, our GDP is around $16 trillion. In other words, despite having 8% fewer people, our economy is 33% more powerful. Is that really "on a par"?
Putting this in football terms, that the difference between being 9-7 and 12-4. Would you say those teams are "on a par"? Would you say a boxer who weighs 200 pounds in "on a par" with a boxer who weighs 266 pounds? Would you say that someone who drove from DC to Salt Lake City is on a par with someone who drove from DC to Los Angles?
Talk about sloppy thinking.
I think the 90% standard pretty much still applies. Although it is called legacy media, the old fashioned news dailies are just as bad. Here in Knoxville, our paper is owned by Scripps. The editor of the paper is an avowed liberal as is the editorial page editor. Having the latter spot be Democrat friendly is one thing, but the overall editor spot is a bit more insideous since that is supposed to be a beacon of truth and objectivity.
We all know how the game is played, particularly by organizations like the AP. First is merely the choice of what to print and what to ignore (Libya, anyone?) Second is product placement so to speak. Front page banner headline or buried on page 11 below the fold. Misleading headlines? You betcha. And give the Democrats side first. Talk to three Democrat friendly "experts" to every "Republicans claim". Oh, and don't forget the ever popular "ANALYSIS" where the AP reporters get to give their nuanced take (read liberal biased slant" on things. Conservatives are labled as such, whereby Brookings is "the prestigious Brookings Institute." An so on, and so on, and so on.
I am boyhood friends with the editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer who was just brought back after being forced out a few years back for not being tech savy enough. I'm sure he is liberal, but believe he has enough integrity to try and hang onto journalistic integrity
Oh, and I forgot to mention the headline in the Knoxville Paper this morning: "Obama urges 'fiscal cliff' deal". Don't want people to not think it isn't Republicans in the House who are the obstructionists.
On the subject of news, I heard on my local news yesterday that Berkshire has shut down one of the local papers it bought. That in itself isn't particularly newsworthy. After all, it was an under-performing paper that maybe needed to go. However, the pains taken by the Berkshire spokesperson quoted in the story to emphasize that there are no more shutdowns planned, and he repeated, and again, no more shutdowns planned... Well, he protested just a little too much. Probably worth keeping an eye on.
Ron Paul said: The Internet is the alternative to ‘government media complex’ that controls the news.
Truth Bomb
But, we've known this for some time. Now to convince the sheeplez.
Tony Snow as President Bush's Press Secretary. Fairly balanced guy and that's all I've got.
"One of them actually claimed the BBC was unbiased!"
If you'll excuse me I have to go start laughing.
Europe? Oh boy, I could go on for ages.
One thing I love to bring up is Great Britain.
At the start of the 20th century(1901 AD) she was a world power with industry to match.
At the end of the 20th century (2000 AD) her greatest contribution is entertainment and tourism.
Not unlike the rest of Europe with the exception of Germany, who figured out how to dominate Europe without firing a shot.
I'm sure the press will not say anything about that. After all isn't Europe so much more sophisticated than the US.
Again, yea right. Any country that makes David Hasselhoff a pop star is more sophisticated?
Jed, I have no faith anymore in liberals to separate their politics from their jobs. They have completely combined the two and I think they now considered it just part of life to impose their views on others.
tryanmax, I heard that the owner of a huge number of Dennys said today that he's going to add a 5% surcharge on his menu and cut his employee's hours to 28. I'm sure Berkshire would never do that either... until they do.
Explanation of Media Cross Ownership Rules
I remember as a young CPA, researching tax code in Prentice Hall at 1 am Friday morning for a return coming accross a strange line of provision that gave aq tax break for a specific type of communications outlet, publishing in a specific region of the country and involved in a set group of activities. I forget what it was but reading the very specific rules in the guideline could not help thinking "there must onkly be one newspaper company in the US that can get this tax break".
I also remember hearing that a newpaper in Massachutsetts owned by an enemy of Ted Kennedy was smearing him in the editorial section during a campaign. A waiver of the cross ownership rules was rescinded and the owner had to sell the newspaper because he wanted to keep a TV station in New York.
I have always thought that there is an intrinsic political bias built into government agencies. Since the GOP is for cutting budgets this affects them economically and means the average bureaucrat will skew left and to government spending. We have given the US government a great deal of power over communications and it has led to a monopolization into a few companies and I beleive the bias may have been engineered by politicains and government over that time.
good point, Indie. The federal government is like one big old style corporation with zillions of mid-level managers bound and determined to personally survive, but it is their sole job to justify their fiefdoms (both staff and budget.)
Patti, I don't know that you can ever convince the sheeple? They seem quite happy in their cocoon of failure.
Eric, There are a couple here and there, but nowhere near the numbers on the left.
Someone like National Review should put together a huge database of his showing them all so that it becomes really apparent to anyone who wants to see the bias. I'll bet there are thousands actually.
Kit, That's pretty daft isn't it? But what do you expect, like most Europeans, she lives in a bubble where her country is still relevant to the world and everything they do is noble and perfect.
I've coined a new name for all of this - "Crony Corruption". That's when politicians/bureaucrats use/overlook government rules to penalize their political opposition.
Max, If we're being honest, Europe is a failure. It has a zombie economy with massive structural problems. They hide this by simply claiming it's not true, by distorting their statistics, by acting morally smug, and by saying things like "we're comparable to the US," which is a load.
Right now there are three players in the world: the US, China and India. There are a second tier of up and comers, but they have serious problems (like Brazil). Then there are the rest. I would put Europe in the third tier of countries as a nice place to visit, but not really relevant to the world anymore.
What's funny to me though, is how arrogant the Euros I know are about their countries.... yet, they accuse of us of arrogance. It strikes me too that they are truly beset by groupthink and uncritical acceptance of what they are told by their governments.
Indi, There is no doubt that the media companies have used the government just like all the other cronies. That is what you do when you buy favors.
Jed, The Federal government is the perfect corruption machine... and it pays out every time you sink money into it.
Dear Journalists: If you're going to be biased, be biased, but don't lie to me and say you're not. Okay, thanks.
The BBC unbiased? That's like a teacher I had once who said that the New York Times was a conservative newspaper. I wasn't fifteen yet, but I think I asked him if he was high.
Bev, Crony Corruption? Works for me. That makes our system a cronytopia.
T-Rav, As I said, this same person thought that all the American news was right-wing biased. And they actually claimed to be a "conservative."
I agree about journalist, I don't care if they are biased, but I do want honestly. But being dishonest is part of the game because that lets liberals believe that they aren't being fed liberalism, they get to feel like their views are being affirmed by unbiased authorities.
What's really interesting to me, is that liberals only see the bias when it's something like Fox. They don't hold their own people to the same standards.
between all our crony corruption and crony capitalism/socialism, "cronytopia" is a good name for the US.
as an aside, I went and had my oil changed yesterday at lunch - bad timing! Although our oil change places have Fox News on the lobby TVs, I was there just in time for TOTUS' hour long press conference. I now know why I need a smartphone - I simply did not have enough to do to keep me from having to hear him. The upside was the negative response comments from the others stuck listening. Times like these I am so glad of my so conservative WTX!!!
OOPS - meant to say too: the best line of the whole thing: TOTUS said, "I don't have any more elections". Next best, about Benghazi, "come after me".
rla, just start supporting the Dems for a while and Obama will give you a smartphone! Problem solved!
T-Rav, I want a free smart phone. Where do I sign up?
rlaWTX, I turn the TV off when he appears. I don't even want to see the putz.
Andrew, I think it's being handled by a Nigerian prince. All you have to do is give him some personal information (DOB, Social Security and credit card numbers, mother's maiden name) and hey presto!
Andrew
My point is that it is the other way aqround. the governemnt has used their power to support newspaper companies that have a particular ideology. Making it easier for liberal owners and harder for conservatives. I think much of this could have been simply because one side is much more forgiving of larger budgets for governments.
I think it also important to note that the monopolization of ideological thought began in the early 70's and 80's when the GOP was going to small government themes under Reagan and Goldwater and moving away from Big Government Rockefeller Republicans like Nixon.
T-Rav, You laugh, but people actually respond to those e-mails... amazingly. I'm getting about 50 a day at my blog e-mail. Apparently, the search the web for viable e-mail addresses.
I'm almost tempted to play along at some point just to see what happens.
Indi, I think it's all too incestuous to separate media companies from the government and vice versa. They really are so related, with people moving back and forth so freely, and they use each other so effectively that they might as well be the same entity.
Post a Comment