In very broad terms, are journalists as right wing as they appear to be?

[Stinky The Clown]

To clarify: We all know there's a decided right wing bias in the media. We all know there are right wingers posing as honest brokers in the foruth estate. But they're simply the stars. This question really isn't about the Novaks or the Cavutos or the Blitzers of the world. It is about the whole journalist community. Do you think they're as right wing - as a group - as they appear in the media ..... or are they simply doing as they're told as a way to keep their jobs?

In short, are they idealogues or cowards?

Edit for grammer, not content)

[Newsjock]

1. Or just incompetent?

At many smaller and midsize newspapers, the people writing your front-page headlines are just barely out of college, often don't know about places like DU (or even FR), and simply take everything that comes down the wire at face value with no sense of history or perspective.

When newspapers pay only $25k/year to make a front page, they get what they pay for.

[Stinky The Clown]

2. I have no doubt that's true

The same would seem to be true of small market local teevee news. Some of the rporters are barely able to speak coherently ... and man-o-man do they look like children!

[liberal N proud]

3. Outside of FAUX news they are just corporate pawns

You have to take FAUX news out to the equation because they are a core part of the right wing fundamentalist organization.
The rest of them are victims of the corporate system that forces them to ride the company line or sit on the sidelines. And they are just too chickenshit to do anything about it.

[Alexodin]

4. As Noam Chomsky observed in his opus

Manufacturing Consent, and I'm paraphrasing from memory, they have been selected for their position because they have already internalized certain values. It is, therefore, not necessary to censor them actively because they will censor themselves.

You will never see a counter culture style person delivering the news on a corporate venue. People who exercise independent thinking cannot be trusted to do the job of an automaton.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

5. They defer to power and their corporate keepers...

...to preserve their jobs, and for now, that means they toe the Neocon line. Self serving, careerist, cowards, is closer to the truth for most journalists than ideologues.

[SteppingRazor]

6. Grrr... stupid anti-journalist broad brushes...

I'm taking my toys and going home! :P


Kidding aside, as a journalist with many, many contacts and friends in the industry, I can tell you that right-wing ideologues are pretty rare among the folks in the trenches. And I wouldn't say the problem is even cowardice. The problem is laziness. It's so much easier to just gloss over a story, quote the talking points given to you by politicos, bang out a few column inches, and call it done. Digging deeper requires more work, and you're getting paid the same amount either way.

[Stinky The Clown]

7. Between your reply and Newsjock's .....

I ahould have added 'lazy' and 'stupid' to the poll. :)

That's why we have the ever-popular 'other'.

[welshTerrier2]

8. laziness? or something more?

when we talk about journalists being, or not being, idealogues, i don't interpret that to mean that they are neocons or liberals or whatever label gets ascribed to them ...

but i do think that most journalists, as opposed to the wild, wild west of online blogs, are herded like cattle into a very narrow range of thought ... whether this is caused by the dictates of their employers or their own narrowness remains to be seen ...

let's take a few positions i hold ... i have no desire to argue the merits of these positions but only to show that i can't turn on my TV or read most newspapers to hear my views expressed ...

suppose we talk about solutions global warming ... one might argue that, if indeed all life on the planet could be destroyed by global warming as some suggest, it MIGHT be worth regularly covering the issue ... one need not necessarily agree with the extent of the problem some propose ... so, for example, one might write regular articles talking about the societal impact of the automobile ... or one might write about the need for citizens to start understanding that personal sacrifices, uncomfortable sacrifices, are going to be necessary ...

and let's talk about the military-industrial complex ... i think our defense budget is out of control ... i think critically needed resources are being squandered on unnecessary defense programs ... is there anything about that issue in today's paper? the topic, in my view, confronts us daily but journalists rarely if ever even address the issue ...

i am not trained in the ethics and propriety of journalism ... but it seems to me the MSM needs to do far more than merely parrot the words of the political elite ... where is the coverage of divergent views? merely by what topics and what people are covered, it seems to me there is a massive bias in the media ... whether journalists are to blame for this or whether they are succumbing to their employers remains to be seen ... either way, the result is that large sections of the ideological spectrum are never heard from ...

and if that's true, how can we not conclude that there is an ideological bias in the MSM? this, of course, in no way rules out laziness as an added element to the problem ...

[SteppingRazor]

9. OK, let's take your global warming example...

you don't think the media covers global warming? Really? It made the cover of Time and Newsweek magazines this year. A Lexis/Nexis search -- a search engine used by journalists for research that scans through published articles in a given date perameter -- turns up literally THOUSANDS of hits on the phrase "global warming" in the last couple years.

The problem you seem to have is that journalism is pinned to the issue of timeliness. Yes, the defense budget is out of control. But it has been since the end of World War II. How is that newsworthy? Nothing has changed, really, to open up the discussion, and no one in Washington seems to be talking about it. No legislation is being proposed. There is, in other words, nothing new to report. Are you suggesting, then, that journalists turn this into an issue, create the news in other words, by reporting on this when no one they cover is talking about it? Most journalists would argue that it's not up to them to create the news.

Look at the issue of global warming. There's been tons of coverage of global warming in the last year. Why? Mainly because of Al Gore. He created a movie, brought the issue to the forefront, and journalists covered it.

[welshTerrier2]

12. "it's not up to them to create the news"

well, that's the crux of it right there ...

first of all, it's not "creating the news" to write about the out of control defense budget (i'll stick to this example for now) ... it certainly is fair to argue that when there's a big story, like, for example, when Congress passes a large defense appropriation, it gets coverage ... no disagreement there ...

but millions were spent 10 days ago and 9 days ago and 8 days ago and so on ... what are the requirements of good journalism? should the story only receive coverage in response to an annual budget cycle? doesn't that sort of suggest that journalists have the attention span of gnats?

do authors and professors and left-wingers speak out on this issue almost everyday? is what they are saying getting coverage? do they get to appear on MTP or are their little speeches covered in the NY Times? is the issue given the kind of prominence it deserves given that it is strangling our country and that it is draining precious resources away from so many other programs?

i understand the point you're making ... i suppose some might be comforted by the idea of a non-agenda driven press merely calling the balls and strikes after the pitcher throws the ball ... i see the role of the media very differently ... i think a healthier state of affairs would include a vibrant press that aggressively pursues the diversity of views in the society and thoroughly analyzes them on a regular basis ... i see a health media as the voice of ALL the people ... and i see a healthy media as one that regularly challenges the status quo and exposes the society to alternatives ...

in the more passive view, which i think is far more prominent, the media do little more than give voice to those in power ... whether ideological or otherwise, today's MSM becomes a tool for the rich and powerful and opposing opinions are not very welcomed ... perhaps it is laziness or perhaps it is some view of "journalistic ethics" (we just "report" the news), but the result is that the "fourth estate" has abdicated its responsibilities to act as a check and balance on the ruling classes ... instead, it has become their press agents ...

[Thirtieschild]

13. Big difference between the "stars" and the rest

I've been associated with journalism, one way or another, since I was 18 (and that covers more ground than even I can believe). I know writers/editors/reporters for a large metropolitan daily (one I'd describe as regional), as well as a few local tv reporters. I don't know a right-winger among them. The people I know who work for CNN also seem upstanding, but then they aren't the "talent" but the folks behind the camera. However, I knew them when they worked for Ted Turner, haven't had much contact since Time-Warner took over. Know one graphic designer who worked for CNN part-time in spring, summer 2003 and she said the difference between what went out on the International wire was a world away from what we were fed. She also said that they were ordered to watch Fox for ideas.

[zbdent]

10. I think you're trying to compare apples

to televisions ...

Today, we have few "right-wing" journalists ... just people who parrot what they read off the blast-faxes ...

[Redbear]

11. I picked "other."

I think their primary bias is economic. War gets ratings. Missing White Female of the Week gets ratings. Celebrity news gets ratings.