The Lone Libertarian
I read with interest a short question and answer session with John Stossel in TownHall magazine on how he became the lone libertarian in broadcast news. One question posed by Mary Katharine Ham asked "Is the media as hostile to conservative ideas as a lot of conservatives seem to think, or does your success belie that idea?"
Stossel replies, "I would say it's as hostile as most believe it is. Remember, I came in as a liberal, and I was trying to be what I thought was objective. I certainly did not do the point-of-view reporting as I do now. I'm the, to my knowledge, lone libertarian in the mainstream media, and I take some heat for that. To my knowledge there are zero conservatives...on the networks."
Wow, zero, that's unbelievable. Imagine what would happen if there were zero women or minorities in broadcast news, what a ruckus that would be. There is already an uproar that there are so few but what if there were....zero. There is no excuse for zero conservatives except censorship and discrimination. There is no other explanation. If you are conservative or libertarian and want to go into broadcast news-- what are your chances? Zero or possibly a tiny percentage being that there is one libertarian. So why bother--but then, isn't that the idea?
Stossel replies, "I would say it's as hostile as most believe it is. Remember, I came in as a liberal, and I was trying to be what I thought was objective. I certainly did not do the point-of-view reporting as I do now. I'm the, to my knowledge, lone libertarian in the mainstream media, and I take some heat for that. To my knowledge there are zero conservatives...on the networks."
Wow, zero, that's unbelievable. Imagine what would happen if there were zero women or minorities in broadcast news, what a ruckus that would be. There is already an uproar that there are so few but what if there were....zero. There is no excuse for zero conservatives except censorship and discrimination. There is no other explanation. If you are conservative or libertarian and want to go into broadcast news-- what are your chances? Zero or possibly a tiny percentage being that there is one libertarian. So why bother--but then, isn't that the idea?
Labels: liberal hypocrisy
posted by Helen at 1:44 PM
30 Comments:
Looks like it's time for a little affirmative action. We could use a little in Academia, too.
Hopefully that will change over time but as long as FOX is viewed as the "Republican" network, it'll be a long hard fight.
There is no excuse for zero conservatives except censorship and discrimination.
Not to mention that the establishment goes out of its way to make sure that every prospective journalist knows what they are in for if they are anything other than leftist/progressive sycophants... thusly encouraging a lot of self-discrimination on the part of those who decide to enter another field, or stick to relatively "safe" beats, like sports reporting... and self-censorship on the part of the remainder.
Fortunately, unlike (say) the medical industry, journalism is one of those things that can be done outside the system.... so long as the First Amendment stands, we can route around the establishment.
Dave: No Farking Thanks. Religious conservatives, who hope to be the beneficiary of such a thing, will be no better than the Left when it comes to that sort of thing, as John Lewis can tell you.
Let the marketplace of ideas remain free, please.
There aren't many atheists in the clergy either.
Could it be that broadcast media, especially the kind represented by the major networks, appeals especially to a kind liberal personality?
Broadcast news anchors are essentially actors, and I imagine the percentage of top liberal actors coincides pretty well with the percentage of top liberal news anchors.
There aren't many atheists in the clergy either.
You would think so, but as a United Methodist pastor, I can tell you otherwise.
Patrick Stephens,
That's not really a fair comparison. The MSM should not be used to spout leftist propaganda without showing other sides. If they want to do so, they should place a warning on each of their broadcasts to let people know that they are showing only one view. Unfortunately, many people do not realize that what they are watching is slanted to only one view --it is only fair that listeners be told in advance that they will not be hearing from any other point of view what is going on in the world. Those with critical thinking skills can figure this out but those without these skills--the majority of the population-- need to be told up front.
There is no excuse for zero conservatives except censorship and discrimination.
It is too bad that 'censorship' has come to mean filtering or selection of any kind by anybody. Censorship, as practiced by a government and enforced by law and force, is something distinctly different than private self-selection of content, employees, partners or associates.
Hey, I hate the liberal media as much as the next guy but comparing political persuasion to gender/race/ethnicity is like comparing apples to something that is nothing like an apple.
Gender/race/ethnicity are "accidents of birth" and political persuasion is a choice and not an immutable charcteristic. There's no benefit in starting the argument for balance in media coverage from a moot point.
Isn't the point that conservatives don't want to be liberals? Liberals are the ones who impose hiring restrictions and quotas. Conservatives roll their eyes and get their news elsewhere. Television news is a business and will respond to market forces. Why whine? Just shut off the TV.
Seerak has a good point that you can go outside the system in journalism, which is what the internet is about.
Not to change the subject, but the medical industry is by far the worst, most parasitical industry in the U.S. Unlike journalism, its monopoly is legally mandated. It is illegal to go outside of it. This fact alone makes it clear that it is inherently a criminal enterprise.
The FDA, AMA, and licensure of MD's should be abolished. The AMA and medical licensing boards should be declared criminal enterprises and their leaders should be imprisoned for life.
I believe that the medical industry is the single largest albatross around the necks of Americans. It is far, far more parasitical than the media, academia, or even the federal government itself.
That is why Fox News does so well, even though only half the people on Fox are conservatives.
Fox does have a monopoly on a large audience, something the leftist networks are foolishly letting them enjoy.
"Those with critical thinking skills can figure this out but those without these skills--the majority of the population-- need to be told up front."
How is does this fit into a conservative philosopy? This sounds like nannying to me. What's next a junk food tax for people who can't resist Twinkies?
The liberal bias on network news is nothing new nor is it an unknown problem. I have not watched any network news programs for years for that very reason. If the reports of declining ratings for network news and declining circulation for newspapers and magazines are accurate, it could well because a lot of people like me decided not to use their products any more.
Speaking as someone near the end of her career in (print) journalism, I will tell you that there are almost NO conservatives in the newsroom -- ANY newsroom -- at least openly.
Since there are no contrary views, the "baseline" has moved left dramatically over the 35 years I've done this thing. Conversation about political matters is commonplace, but any dissent is in the degrees of disparagement of Bush, America, people of faith, red staters.
News people now just assume that that's just the way everyone thinks. Pauline Kael didn't know anyone who voted for Nixon in 1972, and nothing's changed at the New York Times in 2008. What's changed is that it's now the reality inside every newspaper, TV station and wire service bureau.
Zelda,
Since when is telling people something nannyism? The equivalent would be taxing people who watch the MSM. Where have I proposed that? What about just being like Rush Limbaugh and admitting what you are?
What I find troubling is that these MSM news outlets don't admit that they lean left. They try to hide it by being subtle and trying to pretend they are centrists. They aren't. Most research done shows that they lean left and pretty heavily so. Why not just say, we lean left and are proud? We don't hire conservatives--we don't believe conservatives have the right to speak on the airwaves. Then at least they would be honest.
I understand why the national TV media is leftist. It is centered in Manhattan, and the views of the news networks merely match that of the Manhattan population from which they spawned. This also explains Hollywood's liberalism.
But I don't know why newspapers across the US heartland and small towns are left-wing. A newspaper in Texas or Arizona does not cater to a left-wing audience, so why are the journalists far more left-wing than the population?
How are you going to get networks to run those warnings without making it enforceable by law? It doesn't have to be a tax to be nannyism. I don't think its government's responsibility to protect the gullible from the liberal media.
Anti-liberalism is not the same as conservatism and fighting fire with fire is not likely to yield desired results.
Could it be that media is about selecting the information that some deem important for others? The very thought that some people are smart enough to decide what other people should believe or do is a very "liberal" idea, in the modern sense of the word.
What's "broadcast news"?
Well, if nothing else, zelda, it'd be nice if they'd admit their biases when asked. I am in the media business (print, at small-town paper), and I've seen the dirty tricks they use to pretend they aren't listing heavily to the left. I've also witnessed the shocked lack of comprehension when someone voices an opinion outside of the MSM line. My one venture into MSM work (a Gannett owned mid-sized daily), ended ignominiously, but since it was only a temporary contract, they didn't have to specify why I was the one target of "company cutbacks." But I digress.
Warning labels aren't necessary, nor desired, but it'd be nice if they didn't tell outright lies -- like praising Nixon and Reagan after they die -- to attract conservative's trust, while consistently biasing news copy against still-living conservatives and Republicans.
The media should be in the tank for leftys. It is a good idea.
They brought us the Big O didn't they? In a year when most folks thought the Rs were doomed.
When you only get one side of a story your views get warped. You miss important stuff.
Heh.
The liberal definition of free speech is exercising their right to shout down those who disagree with them.
The liberal definition of censorship is someone dismissing their ideas.
>>Why not just say, we lean left and are proud?
They literally can't.
For starters, they really don't believe that their world view is anything other than centrist, and the way it ought to be. Even if they had some inkling that might be the case, admitting it would shatter the illusion, and be wildly inconsistent with their view that they are the enlightened and unbiased ones acting on high levels of journalistic integrity.
To admit otherwise would pull the thread that unravels the whole thing.
And speaking of journalistic integrity, it's pretty rare that the press will outright ~lie~.
They deceive by other means. The main three are these:
* They will relentlessly repeat little tidbits that support their view of the world.
* They will fail to report truly alternative viewpoints.
* They will quote other organizations who have their sympathy, who lie for them.
For a concrete example, they will report on an organization spouting typical Lefty tropes such as "the rich/evil corporations don't pay their fair share of taxes". For so called "balance", they might briefly mention the apparent opposite of the position, that such people/corps provide jobs and the basis of prosperity. What they !won't! mention is the fact that (leeway please, these are rough figures from memory) something like 85% of the tax dollars collected are paid by people who make more than 100k, which isn't really that hard for any family with two professionals in it, which comprises something like 15% or 30% of the tax base population.
Similarly, whenever a new supreme court justice comes up for confirmation, all the press wants to talk about is Roe v. Wade, which is apparently the end-all-be-all of Constitutional jurisprudence. This is, of course, one of the Big Red Herrings to distract attention from the generally shabby state of Constitutional degeneracy in which we live.
We simply can't have too many people asking "where in the Constitution does it say you can do ~that~, now can we?
All I can say is if you have deeply studied a body of knowledge about a controversial topic, (in my case, gun rights, history, and economics) and then compare that deep knowledge against the treatment of those topics by the MSM, the contrast will reveal striking, ideologically driven discrepancies.
To that end, of course, I suggest that people not take my word for it.
I invite people to deeply study a body of knowledge for themselves, and to replicate my experiments.
Oh come on, there are definitely a FEW conservatives in the mainstream media. And conservatives get their fair share in those one side vs. another things. See, I think the television media is kind of balanced when you take out FOX; although most of it seems more left leaning than right.
Remember, a media that appeals to both sides has more viewers. There is a cost in shoving your opinion down others throats-- one that many broadcasters are willing to take to a slight degree, just as you're willing to pay for the cost of an apple at the store-- and that is losing a lot of people who disagree with you. FOX News has actually turned their cost into a benefit by appealing to a sect of society.
If the mainstream media starts leaning more toward one side, we'll see more stations pop up that lean the other way. It's too bad that, IMO, mainstream conservatives are no better than mainstream liberals in their dearth of intelligence. And libertarians (who, minus the Randians, are collectively extremely smart) are non-existent in the real world; you could never profit a lot from a libertarian news station, unless you keep the libertarianism to a minimum and make it, in general, simply economically right and socially left, which the majority (and I don't mean plurality, thank you) of Americans are.
Related: I once really ticked off a liberal by saying that there should be academic affirmative action for conservatives so students are exposed to a diversity of views. Heh.
The main problem, IMO, is that most journalists aren't actually trained in anything other than journalism. They know how to write, how to ask questions, and in the case of broadcast news, how to inflect their voice correctly and look pretty, but ask one of them to intelligently dissect foreign policy, the economy, et. al and they wouldn't have a clue. Without any sort of intellectual study/critical thinking ability in a given field, like a lot of people, they simply accept what sounds good: liberalism. Maybe part of their education should, you know, actually focus on a few of the topics they're consistently shaping opinion and commenting on so that they wouldn't think government intervention is the panacea to all the world's problems.
But why bother trying to enter broadcast journalism, or print journalism, when their stars are falling and those of the New Media -- the Internet and talk radio -- are rising?
The Old Media will retain some influence for years to come, but present trends continuing, theirs is a losing game. The modern news-consumer wants to select and tailor his own sources, something to which the Old Media are irrevocably hostile for ideological reasons: They demand the absolute privilege of shaping the public's perceptions according to their priorities and preferences.
That attitude was sustainable before the narrowcasting and Internet revolutions. Today it's the anvil around the Old Media's collective neck. They have only two alternatives: continue on as they've done to date, which will doom them in only another couple of decades, or cease to insist upon their unchallengeable position as the "agenda-setters" for the nation, in which case their lag behind the New Media will compel them to allow us within their gates.
So, Old Media: either accept defeat or become what you detest. Lovely choices, aren't they?
#44...Yes, journalism degrees are worthless. Take it from someone who was briefly in a graduate journalism program and dropped out.
Journalism is a trade like plumbing or carpentry, and most journalists, truly, are afraid to get their hands dirty. For most "reporters," the job involves rewriting press releases, taking down notes from friendly sources, and rehashing stuff other people have written to update stories. (Check out Robt. Novak's new autobiography "Prince of Darkness." He's frank about all the deadwood in the D.C. press corps.)
And, #44, most reporters don't know how to write. Been there, I know.
Watergate was what truly destroyed the profession. Every high school kid saw the Robert Redford movie and wanted to be a glamorous Volvo-driving investigative reporter.
That, plus the end of the isolation of newsrooms. If the newsroom is a profit center, it has two choices: a) Become non-controversial (to please advertisers), which means following the lead of the NYT; or b) Become a screaming muckraker (like the British press), but that means you have to depend more heavily on circulation to drive revenue, not ads. Since circ. is declining, option (a) has been the way to go.
The internet is reviving journalism, but now the problem is that eight million bloggers are content to comment on what they see in the NYT and not do their own reporting. All it takes is enough ad revenue or other revenue streams and a blogger could theoretically replace a local newspaper. It will happen once the price of gas goes to $10 gas.
That will be next Thursday, I think.
Some states are wanting to lower the voting age. They say it is because of freedom, military elgibility, etc. But I suspect the real reason is younger voters are far more liberal, so they want to increase this vote. The younger someone is, the less wisdom they have, and the more they tend to vote liberal.
It's applicable to this story because it is what liberals often do. Rather than discuss and persuade, they push their agenda through one-sided channels like education and media, and fill the ranks (be it hiring only liberals or expanding liberal voting blocks) while at the same time trying to hinder opposing channels(i.e., the fairness doctrine).
Who is realy more fair, a liberal reporter slanting news to promote their agenda under the guise of unbiased "journalism," or Rush Limbaugh who openly acknowledges he is a conservative and welcomes those who disagree to challenge his views?
Talking heads. You have to be good looking enough not to offend a viewer's senses so(s)he does not change the channel, and you have to be able to read. Anything else?
I used to actually watch the dinosaur media. I simply can't stand it anymore, and I haven't been able to for close to seven years now.
The whole state of affairs makes me sick. It would be different if conservatives weren't portrayed as stupid in the MSM and if there was at least SOME discussion of the conservative point of view.
I really feel for conservative kids growing up today. They have to endure 12 years or more of indoctrination via the education system.
Lindsey
Glenn Beck on Headline News seems to be the only non liberal on the liberal news waves. Although I like Glenn, I can't quite figure out how he got there. I remember watching one of his shows where as he was speaking, a moving bar came across the base of the screen stating that what he was saying was NOT the opinion of CNN Headline News.
I can't remember who wrote it, but I was reading an article where the author stated the media has always been left leaning; biased. They just never talked about it or said so during the days they basically went unchallenged. Seen any old Walter Cronkite newscasts lately?
Yeah, trust. Rush is straight up. I love his sense of humor. The left really picks on Fox News, which is one network against, well, all the others. Of course they are going to have more concentration of viewers. It's the only place on the boob tube you can go to in order to get a non left view. That ain't rocket science.
Post a Comment
<< Home