6% of journalists Surveyed Call Themselves Conservative

[apdst]

Link (http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080318/NATION/418533987/1002&template=nextpage)

Right underrepresented in press's diversity
By Jennifer Harper
March 18, 2008
Conservatives remain scarce in the news media landscape.



Only 6 percent of the national press corps describe themselves as "conservative" in a population that includes reporters, editors and producers from major television and radio networks, daily newspapers, news wires and online sources.



Those who consider themselves "very conservative" amount to just 2 percent, according to a wide-ranging survey of 585 journalists and news executives released yesterday by the Project for Excellence in Journalism.



In contrast, 36 percent of the overall population generally consider themselves conservative.



There are more conservatives in broadcast than print — 10 percent and 2 percent, respectively. Among online journalists the figure was 8 percent.



The majority of nationally ranked journalists — 53 percent — described themselves as moderate, 24 percent were liberal and 8 percent "very liberal."



The findings have remained "basically flat" since 2004 when a similar survey was taken, said Amy Mitchell, deputy director of the media research group.



However, the mainstream press might not be quite as elite as it used to be.


"There is a pervasive sense of financial uncertainty. Journalists are wondering where the future lies. No one has that answer yet," Ms. Mitchell said.



Indeed, 55 percent of the national press corps said business and financial woes were the most important problem in journalism today, up from 30 percent four years ago. Twenty-two percent cited the quality of coverage as the biggest problem, 20 percent cited the "media environment," 9 percent cited flagging press credibility and 3 percent cited "ethics and standards."



Journalists were troubled by the state of their craft as well: 82 percent said the scope of coverage has been cut too much and almost two-thirds said the line between reporting and commentary has blurred. Another 62 percent said journalism is heading in the "wrong direction."



As for declining audiences, most — 81 percent — said Americans simply had a wider range of news choices beyond the traditional newspaper or network fare. Less than half said they are either too busy or weary of scandal coverage; about a third cited public disinterest in "serious" news. Only 18 percent said coverage is too boring.



The surge of blogs and other forms of feisty citizen journalism poses no threat to the press.



More than three-fourths of the respondents said they welcomed user comments on news sites and more than two-thirds favor video sites such as YouTube and online "news aggregating sites" such as Google News. More than half favor citizen-based news sites and journalist blogs.



But the convergence of electronic and traditional media remains a work in progress: 42 percent said the Internet strengthens traditional news values; 41 percent said it weakens them.



The survey, which included open-ended questions and multiple responses, was conducted Sept. 17 to Dec. 3.

[Go Fish]

And, at this juncture, 100% of your respondents call themselves "Conservatives".
Please re-post that article about the sun coming up in the East. That was really thought-provoking.
I feel your pain, my brother.

[Truth_and_Power]

You shouldn't be posting this, you are just emboldening the liberal journalists by propagandizing against your side in the propaganda war for control of the propaganda machine.

[Elrathin]

I guess that proves your best SHTICK is conservative radio, stick to it, it's all you got hehehe.

[apdst]

So much for the Conservative controlled media. eh?

[dgun]

53% consider themselves moderate. I gather this means that they are equating moderate with objective in their lives as professional journalists. And I use the term professional only to mean that they are getting paid for what they do.

But take all of this with a little grain of salt. If you go back 40 years, 50 years, or what have you, and you conducted a similar survey, you would still find that the majority of national news media would consider themselves liberal.

Yet most all of them would have political beliefs that equate with what is today considered conservative.

Conservativeliberal is a sliding scale. And amongst people who consider themselves intellectuals (and I would think that would be all journalists), both liberals and traditionalist conservatives, the neocon ideology (if you can really call it an ideology) is vastly unpopular (because it is an obvious failure, lacks consistency, and is promoted on a national level by extreme pundit hacks). And due to the reaction to this failed and miserable set of political beliefs, in which we must now consider the prefix ‘neo’ to mean ‘not at all’, it does not surprise me that journalist shy away from labeling themselves as conservative.

A more interesting and useful study, instead of just asking journalist what they consider themselves, would have been to give them a test of their political beliefs and classify them according to some points system.

However, there is no doubt that media has always leaned ‘left’ (which is really right byw, but in America we have this whole left-right thing backwards). Conservatives in America have a strong authoritarian streak and for the free press to survive over the long haul it must always lean ‘left’.

Just compare FOX news with CNN.

Does CNN lean ‘left’? I think so. Do they spin stories to favor the American ‘left’? I think so. But didn’t they play nonstop stories about Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky during the late 90’s that mostly hurt Clinton? Of course there was spin. ‘It was only sex’, for example. But overwhelmingly, the coverage was straightforward and very negative.

Think about FOX news for a minute. During the entire time Bush has been in office, and through every scandal and every volatile debate that concerned the essence of our nation and government (separation of powers, habeas corpus, 4th amendment), they have vehemently and zealously defended him. Show me one single story about Bush and/or his administration from FOX news that has been negative.

And this is the major failing of extremely conservative media. They are more than willing to be total sellouts and slaves to which ever political authority proclaims the right set of beliefs. And thus the major reason and necessity that the media always lean ‘left’. Because the day it leans ‘right’ we are done as a free society.

[Scribbler1]

A journalist can be liberal or conservative. It doesn't matter, as long as the journalist does his JOB of reporting the news, straight up. If a reporter or journalist lets his personal prejudice influence his reporting he should be out of a job.

And, although I think they do a fair job of reporting for the most part, the Washington Times is generally considered to be a conservative leaning paper.

Although the "Reverend" Sun Myung Moon is most definitely right wing.

[Go Fish]

53% consider themselves moderate. I gather this means that they are equating moderate with objective in their lives as professional journalists. And I use the term professional only to mean that they are getting paid for what they do.

But take all of this with a little grain of salt. If you go back 40 years, 50 years, or what have you, and you conducted a similar survey, you would still find that the majority of national news media would consider themselves liberal.

Yet most all of them would have political beliefs that equate with what is today considered conservative.

Conservativeliberal is a sliding scale. And amongst people who consider themselves intellectuals (and I would think that would be all journalists), both liberals and traditionalist conservatives, the neocon ideology (if you can really call it an ideology) is vastly unpopular (because it is an obvious failure, lacks consistency, and is promoted on a national level by extreme pundit hacks). And due to the reaction to this failed and miserable set of political beliefs, in which we must now consider the prefix ‘neo’ to mean ‘not at all’, it does not surprise me that journalist shy away from labeling themselves as conservative.

A more interesting and useful study, instead of just asking journalist what they consider themselves, would have been to give them a test of their political beliefs and classify them according to some points system.

However, there is no doubt that media has always leaned ‘left’ (which is really right byw, but in America we have this whole left-right thing backwards). Conservatives in America have a strong authoritarian streak and for the free press to survive over the long haul it must always lean ‘left’.

Just compare FOX news with CNN.

Does CNN lean ‘left’? I think so. Do they spin stories to favor the American ‘left’? I think so. But didn’t they play nonstop stories about Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky during the late 90’s that mostly hurt Clinton? Of course there was spin. ‘It was only sex’, for example. But overwhelmingly, the coverage was straightforward and very negative.

Think about FOX news for a minute. During the entire time Bush has been in office, and through every scandal and every volatile debate that concerned the essence of our nation and government (separation of powers, habeas corpus, 4th amendment), they have vehemently and zealously defended him. Show me one single story about Bush and/or his administration from FOX news that has been negative.

And this is the major failing of extremely conservative media. They are more than willing to be total sellouts and slaves to which ever political authority proclaims the right set of beliefs. And thus the major reason and necessity that the media always lean ‘left’. Because the day it leans ‘right’ we are done as a free society.

Frankly, I don't base my opinions on partisan news outlets. I'm one of those dimwitted assholes who decides for themselves what is going on, what it means to me, and what I'm going to do WRT to it.
I'll take Fox news over the commie bullshit the rest of the media offers every goddamned day. When the leftist outfits quit lying, they'll earn my time.

[Scribbler1]

What do they lie about?
I've found CNN, FOX and MSNBC do a pretty good job reporting facts. Where they show their bias is when they have some "analyst" come on right after a news item and "explain" it to us.

So I just focus on the facts they report and ignore the spin. It's not that hard to do, really.

[apdst]

If a reporter or journalist lets his personal prejudice influence his reporting he should be out of a job.

IMO, a bunch of'em should be out of a job.

[Scribbler1]

Agreed. The press in this country have too often violated their ethics, from BOTH political perspectives.

[dgun]

Where they show their bias is when they have some "analyst" come on right after a news item and "explain" it to us.

Or how about when FOX news anchors spontaneously burst into commentary for no apparent reason? Or how about how FOX news carefully picks and carefully frames stories that advocate for one very narrow brand of American conservatism? How about the fact that their entire network is essentially a cheerleading squad for the Republican party? How about the fact that FOX news has not run a single negative expose on any aspect of the Bush Administration the entire time Bush has been in office?

Frankly, I don't base my opinions on partisan news outlets

I'll take Fox news

So, you're independent minded, yet you watch a news program that carefully tailors itself to match what just happens to be your exact beliefs? Dude, you have been had.

Have you ever wondered why beer commercials often have hot chicks in them? Many people who like beer, like hot chicks. That's the audience they go after.

And see, with beer commercials, it's not that big of a deal. But news was once considered a little too important to custom fit it to a specific demographic, which is precisely what FOX news does.

[Go Fish]

What do they lie about?
I've found CNN, FOX and MSNBC do a pretty good job reporting facts. Where they show their bias is when they have some "analyst" come on right after a news item and "explain" it to us.

So I just focus on the facts they report and ignore the spin. It's not that hard to do, really.

CBS let Dan Rather run wild. Kronkite, at least, showed some respect for citizens while he was bloviating. At worst, he was a communist mouthpiece. Rather straight-up lied repeatedly. Wann'a talk about Keith Olbermann?

[apdst]

How about the fact that FOX news has not run a single negative expose on any aspect of the Bush Administration the entire time Bush has been in office?

Such as the expose that Dan Rather did? I'd say that FNC made a wise decision not to go after that story. In fact, most the the so called, "exposes", that come from the Liberal press are lies, or at the best, unsupported.

[davo]

Conservative or Liberal, one thing is clear about journalists and newspaper editors: The reason why they're paid 6 figure salaries is to not give an honest opinion.

Here's a classic example of an insider speaking of media bias (taken from http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/money-masters.html)

John Swinton, the former Chief of Staff of the New York Times, called by his peers "the Dean of his profession", was asked in 1953 to give a toast before the New York Press Club. He responded with the following statement:


"There is no such thing as an independent press in America, if we except that of little country towns. You know this and I know it. Not a man among you dares to utter his honest opinion. Were you to utter it, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print.

I am paid one hundred and fifty dollars a week so that I may keep my honest opinion out of the newspaper for which I write. You too are paid similar salaries for similar services. Were I to permit that a single edition of my newspaper contained an honest opinion, my occupation - like Othello's - would be gone in less than twenty-four hours.

The man who would be so foolish as to write his honest opinion would soon be on the streets in search of another job. It is the duty of a New York journalist to lie, to distort, to revile, to toady at the feet of Mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread, or what amounts to the same thing, his salary.

We are the tools and the vassals of the rich behind the scenes. We are marionettes. These men pull the strings and we dance. Our time, our talents, our lives, our capacities are all the property of these men - we are intellectual prostitutes."

[dgun]

CBS let Dan Rather run wild.

So much so that he no longer works for them. But if you will notice, I have already stated that mainstream media leans 'left'.

Such as the expose that Dan Rather did

Dan Rather has never worked for FOX news as far as I know.

Wann'a talk about Keith Olbermann?

What about him? Oh, I see. You're confused about the difference between 'news' and 'commentary'. That doesn't surprise me considering you watch FOX news and they never make a distinction between the two.

[Go Fish]

Who does? Considering the fact that conservative news outlets are outnumbered 60-1, it's no wonder that people are still supporting Obama.

[davo]

Where they show their bias is when they have some "analyst" come on right after a news item and "explain" it to us.

Or how about when FOX news anchors spontaneously burst into commentary for no apparent reason? Or how about how FOX news carefully picks and carefully frames stories that advocate for one very narrow brand of American conservatism? How about the fact that their entire network is essentially a cheerleading squad for the Republican party? How about the fact that FOX news has not run a single negative expose on any aspect of the Bush Administration the entire time Bush has been in office?

Frankly, I don't base my opinions on partisan news outlets

I'll take Fox news

So, you're independent minded, yet you watch a news program that carefully tailors itself to match what just happens to be your exact beliefs? Dude, you have been had.

Have you ever wondered why beer commercials often have hot chicks in them? Many people who like beer, like hot chicks. That's the audience they go after.

And see, with beer commercials, it's not that big of a deal. But news was once considered a little too important to custom fit it to a specific demographic, which is precisely what FOX news does.


Excellent post except with one minor flaw. FOX news isn't a cheerleading squad for the republican party. It's a cheeleading squad for the Neocons. It certainly doesn't support the Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan elements of the republican party - the ones that involve limited government, less foreign entanglements, less inflation and taxes, and following the constitution.

[Go Fish]

Where they show their bias is when they have some "analyst" come on right after a news item and "explain" it to us.

Or how about when FOX news anchors spontaneously burst into commentary for no apparent reason? Or how about how FOX news carefully picks and carefully frames stories that advocate for one very narrow brand of American conservatism? How about the fact that their entire network is essentially a cheerleading squad for the Republican party? How about the fact that FOX news has not run a single negative expose on any aspect of the Bush Administration the entire time Bush has been in office?

Frankly, I don't base my opinions on partisan news outlets

I'll take Fox news

So, you're independent minded, yet you watch a news program that carefully tailors itself to match what just happens to be your exact beliefs? Dude, you have been had.

Have you ever wondered why beer commercials often have hot chicks in them? Many people who like beer, like hot chicks. That's the audience they go after.

And see, with beer commercials, it's not that big of a deal. But news was once considered a little too important to custom fit it to a specific demographic, which is precisely what FOX news does.

You have stepped on your dick so many times in this reply that it has begun to look like a beaver's tail. I'm so independent-minded that I actually watch ALL of the news I can given the time I have, and then research the facts relating to important issues myself. You, clearly, do not. Keep me updated on those beer commercials though. You never know when a tit might pop out. "Dude".
(This is why I have mixed emotions about hanging around this board. No standards whatsoever.)

[Drocket]

It certainly doesn't support the Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan elements of the republican party

They certainly gave Buchanan enough air time tonight to say vaguely racist things about Obama...

[dgun]

I'm so independent-minded that I actually watch ALL of the news I can given the time I have, and then research the facts relating to important issues myself.

I'll take Fox news over the commie bullshit the rest of the media offers every goddamned day. When the leftist outfits quit lying, they'll earn my time.

:shock:

:dork:

Keep me updated on those beer commercials though.

Go Fish, FOX news specifically markets to a particular demographic. The same way Coors markets their beer to a target audience. With beer, big deal. But when you are calling your product news and a large number of people actually take the half-ass thinly veiled bullshit propaganda you report as truth, that is a problem. It is a violation of a traditional public trust inherent in the concept that the airwaves belong to the public.

I have no problem with FOX news being biased. That's fine. They have every right to be bias, it's protected speech. But for God's sake they should have some freaking dignity and honor and journalistic integrity, instead of pimping themselves out like nasty street whores to that bunch of imbecilic assclowns running the Bush Administration.

The Washington Times is a conservative publication. But they do not engage in the kind of scandalously piss poor propaganda that FOX news calls reporting.

[brien]

dgun wrote

How about the fact that their entire network is essentially a cheerleading squad for the Republican party? How about the fact that FOX news has not run a single negative expose on any aspect of the Bush Administration the entire time Bush has been in office?

FACTS:madlaugh:

Any evidence to support your facts?:ponder:

On the contrary, here is a factual negative story on Bush and the Republicans by Fox:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,192468,00.html

More Americans disapprove than approve of how George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and Congress are doing their jobs, while a majority approves of Condoleezza Rice. President Bush’s approval hits a record low of 33 percent this week, clearly damaged by sinking support among Republicans.


Overall, 57 percent of Americans disapprove of the job Bush is doing, and the most frequently mentioned reason is Iraq (48 percent). The other top reasons include generally "doing a bad job" (24 percent), disagreement on issues (22 percent) and the economy/jobs (17 percent).

I would call the story above negative, so your facts seem to merely be fabricated to fit your own agenda. Now who is cheerleading for whom here?:ponder: But, let's not let facts get in the way now.:dizzy:

[Drocket]

He said expose.

PS: Are you actually saying you have to go back to 2006 to find a report on Fox about Bush's low poll numbers? :lmao:

[brien]

He said expose.

PS: Are you actually saying you have to go back to 2006 to find a report on Fox about Bush's low poll numbers? :lmao:



Nope.. Just went to the first one I found on the net. Expose??? Just what the hell is an expose? Does Fox news even do "exposes" on anyone, Democrat or Republican?

Please give me a break... The poster was stating that Fox is a cheerleading squad for Republicans and GWB and it just isn't true. The poster is trying to state he posted fact....and it isn't a fact, and I showed it isn't a fact.. Now that's a fact.:dizzy: :lmao:

[Scribbler1]

What do they lie about?
I've found CNN, FOX and MSNBC do a pretty good job reporting facts. Where they show their bias is when they have some "analyst" come on right after a news item and "explain" it to us.

So I just focus on the facts they report and ignore the spin. It's not that hard to do, really.

CBS let Dan Rather run wild.How so? You seem to forget the secretary who typed up the letter SAID that, while the letter itself was fake, the information IN it was true.

[Scribbler1]

Where they show their bias is when they have some "analyst" come on right after a news item and "explain" it to us.

Or how about when FOX news anchors spontaneously burst into commentary for no apparent reason? Or how about how FOX news carefully picks and carefully frames stories that advocate for one very narrow brand of American conservatism? How about the fact that their entire network is essentially a cheerleading squad for the Republican party? How about the fact that FOX news has not run a single negative expose on any aspect of the Bush Administration the entire time Bush has been in office?What they choose to run is their business, and the same can be said for any other media outlet.
I'm talking about factual news stories. I see them and I also see when the spin comes into play. And so do you, apparently. If you NOTICE when they break into "commentary" then you can filter that out.

FOX does a credible job of news reporting, but their spin just feeds the right wingers, who take it as fact.

[apdst]

the secretary who typed up the letter SAID that, while the letter itself was fake, the information IN it was true.

LMAO!!!!!

[dgun]

I would call the story above negative

A brief snip about poll numbers is a negative story? Are you serious?

Anyone who spends 30 minutes watching FOX news should be able to see that it is a propaganda machine.

Look, like I said, I have no problem with FOX being bias. I have a problem with FOX distorting news, constantly pushing an agenda, blurring the line between commentary and news, and then being allowed to carry the banner of a legitimate news agency.

If you NOTICE when they break into "commentary" then you can filter that out.

The problem Scribbler1, is that it’s unprofessional and breaks well established journalistic standards with the intent of influencing and manipulating people. “We report, you decide” is a fiendishly clever little slogan.

[4Reaganomics]

Why would people want to get their news from FoxNews when they can get it from a credible character like

http://www.augustcelebrity.com/pics/2007_09/Dan_Rather.jpg

[ECW]

Why would people want to get their news from FoxNews when they can get it from a credible character like

http://images.salon.com/news/sports/col/kaufman/2003/10/02/thursday2/story.jpg


I fixed your post. It's more accurate now.

[brien]

Look, like I said, I have no problem with FOX being bias. I have a problem with FOX distorting news, constantly pushing an agenda, blurring the line between commentary and news, and then being allowed to carry the banner of a legitimate news agency.


One could substitute the word Fox with ABC, CBS or NBC, or a host of other so called news agencies, and it wouldn't make a bit of difference. They all seem to distort the news and slant it toward their own agendas. If anyone in this consumer market for so called news thinks otherwise, they are not aware of the reality in the news business. This isn't unique to Fox.

[dgun]

One could substitute the word Fox with ABC, CBS or NBC

No, one couldn't. There is no comparison between the extreme level of intentional, well focused propaganda put out by FOX news and the traditional mild left leaning bias of the mainstream networks.

[preservanation]

Why would people want to get their news from FoxNews when they can get it from a credible character like

http://images.salon.com/news/sports/col/kaufman/2003/10/02/thursday2/story.jpg


I fixed your post. It's more accurate now.
Rush...Captain Chaos.
The Man Who Rules America!
:worship::worship::worship:

[apdst]

There is no comparison between the extreme level of intentional, well focused propaganda put out by FOX news and the traditional mild left leaning bias of the mainstream networks.

Stop! My ribs hurt from laughing so hard!

[Troubadour]

Conservatives remain scarce in the news media landscape.


Conservative coverage, however, remains ubiquitous


Only 6 percent of the national press corps describe themselves as "conservative" in a population that includes reporters, editors and producers from major television and radio networks, daily newspapers, news wires and online sources.


Apparently they wield disproportionate influence.


Those who consider themselves "very conservative" amount to just 2 percent, according to a wide-ranging survey of 585 journalists and news executives released yesterday by the Project for Excellence in Journalism.


What they consider themselves is a lot less relevant than what they actually do, isn't it?


There are more conservatives in broadcast than print


Naturally - broadcast is a less intellectual medium, with lower standards and less accountability.


The majority of nationally ranked journalists — 53 percent — described themselves as moderate, 24 percent were liberal and 8 percent "very liberal."


In other words, liberals are also "underrepresented" relative to their proportion of the population. Does this article have a point of some kind?


However, the mainstream press might not be quite as elite as it used to be.


An obtuse way of saying its relationship to journalism becomes ever more tenuous.


Indeed, 55 percent of the national press corps said business and financial woes were the most important problem in journalism today, up from 30 percent four years ago.


In other words, the overwhelmingly conservative media financiers whose agendas determine content have no interest in funding journalism.


Journalists were troubled by the state of their craft as well: 82 percent said the scope of coverage has been cut too much and almost two-thirds said the line between reporting and commentary has blurred.

Many "lines" have been blurred - fact and fiction, relevance and irrelevance, significance and triviality, importance and frivolity, etc. Marketability has superseded every rational and moral distinction, creating a soup of mass-psychosis in which the consumer gravitates toward their point of maximum consumption - i.e., the point at which what they hear is a direct reflection of what they believe, and from which no moral or intellectual progress is possible.

Moreover, the irony of the statement can't be overemphasized: The clumsy title of the Washington Times article is "Right underrepresented in press's diversity" - an article neither posted in the Opinion section of WT's website nor otherwise distinguished from general coverage. The author and approving editor need a review of high school journalism if they're unaware that "underrepresented" outside of quotation marks is a value judgment, not a fact.


But the convergence of electronic and traditional media remains a work in progress: 42 percent said the Internet strengthens traditional news values; 41 percent said it weakens them.


Case in point of my comment immediately above: Why is this particular statistic meaningful? Of what relevance to the public interest is the format in which news is delivered, let alone the opinions of journalists about the effect of one format on the bottom line of another? Who exactly is the audience for this article? No analysis of these questions is given despite being clearly raised by the coverage, proving even further than the title that the study is only being covered at all as a vehicle for the political identification statistic. WT once again proves itself a right-wing supermarket tabloid, if not political pornography.

[Scribbler1]

If you NOTICE when they break into "commentary" then you can filter that out.

The problem Scribbler1, is that it’s unprofessional and breaks well established journalistic standards with the intent of influencing and manipulating people. “We report, you decide” is a fiendishly clever little slogan.
Yes, it is, and that's ALL it is, a slogan. If they report NEWS, there is nothing TO "decide", but their fans miss that part I suppose.
It is also unprofessional. But you don't have to be fooled by it.