Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
Debra J. Saunders :: Townhall.com Columnist
News Biz: Unbiased and Out of Business
by Debra J. Saunders
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


Why are most newspaper reporters and editors liberal? I've been working in the business for more than 20 years, and I can't give a quick, definitive answer to the question. But I do think a contributing factor is that editors, like other managers, tend to hire and reward staffers who think as they do. They see their positions as neutral, which is human nature -- and is reinforced by the fact that the folks in the desks around them vote the same way they do.

When they read about complaints of media bias, editors write the criticism off because they see reporters every day trying to cover stories fairly and succeeding. They fail to notice that their shared ideology limits what they see as stories.

Which is why, I believe, that Fox News Channel ratings are so high. As the New York Times reported, CNN reached 271,000 viewers aged 25 to 54 in prime time in April, less than half of Fox News' 668,000. In the first quarter of 2009, Fox News beat CNN and MSNBC combined in the Nielsen ratings.

Liberals mock the news network's "fair and balanced" slogan. But if you read your average newspaper, then tune into Fox News or listen to conservative talk radio, it evens out. People hungry for a conservative outlook in print aren't going to find it in the news or features pages. Liberal newspapers helped build conservative media.

I should note that there's a world of difference between Fox during the day and Fox after dark. Primetime programs feature conservative hosts trading on their opinions, while Fox daytime features straight reportage.

The network's full-tilt promotion of the TEA (Taxed Enough Already) party protests on April 15, alas, undercut the whole network's credibility as reporters covered events at which Fox News biggies like Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck were star speakers. Not fair. Not balanced.

CNN execs have responded to the success of Fox News by noting that their own audience numbers and profits are up. They also argue that their brand is purer because, as CNN president Jon Klein told the New York Times, "There are several networks that reside in the cable news category, but only one that reliably delivers the news unbiased."

Well, not quite. It turns out CNN has its own TEA Party baggage. Covering a protest in Chicago, veteran reporter Susan Roesgen lost her cool. She interviewed a man protesting high taxes and government debt with his 2-year-old and began to argue with him: "Do you realize that you're eligible for a $400 credit?" Roesgen asked him. And: "Did you know that the state of Lincoln gets $50 billion out of the stimulus (package pushed by President Obama)?" It was as if Roesgen thought she were White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.

Then she dismissed the event as "anti-government" and "anti-CNN" -- and the product of the "right-wing conservative network, Fox."

Asked about Roesgen, CNN's response: "No comment." In this space I have lamented what seems to be the advent of Designer News, that allow consumers to cull out undesirable viewpoints and information.

The irony here is that newspapers have written fawning stories about Google and Twitter and free classified ad sites as if they are all good. But when newspapers cover Fox News, they have this need to write the network off as right-wing -- end of story. Nothing to learn there, right?

Clearly there is an insatiable appetite for news from a conservative perspective that the folks who run newspapers continue to overlook -- except in the opinion pages.

There are days I wonder if newspaper and network news execs cannot change by broadening their ideological diversity -- even to save themselves. They'll keep telling themselves that they are unbiased -- up until the end.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Debra Saunders' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Context
Fox News, owned by an Australian who supported Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign and staffed by people of all persuasions, looks like the network of the right mainly because the other networks have set off for the moon. Fox sometimes reports on topics not covered by the _New York Times_. Some of its on-air employees have never worked for Bill Clinton. Fox often lets Republicans, libertarians, and conservatives _speak_. (The other night I saw Lanny Davis on _Hannity_. Would NBC allow Karl Rove to enter its studios?) Fox even gives people to the right of Ralph Nader programs of their own.

Most practicing journalists seem to consider this behavior an unpardonable breach of professional ethics. Still they wonder why newspapers are failing and the alphabet-soup networks are in trouble. Stay clueless, folks. Your possum-on-the-Interstate bewilderment is fun to watch.

Susan Roesgen asked a fair question.
It would have given the man an opportunity for a sound bite. But then she put in that bit about the money Illinois was going to get, which is editorial comment rather than news, and capped it by ranting on air. Not one of her finest moments. (I wonder what she would have done if the man had retorted, "Yes, I get $400. And if someone robs a liquor store and gives me $400, that doesn't make THAT right either.")

my $0.02
i think a large part of liberal media bias stems from idealistic young people going to journalism school as a way to change the world. instead of learning to be good, solid, ethical reporters, they view the media- and their mission- as a means to fix all the world's ills, as they see them. it's doubtful that many journalism degree programs require more than an absolute minimum of history, political science, sciences, and economics, (but somehow journalists think they're experts on all of them) and to whatever extent they do- well, we're well aware of what has happened to the teaching of those disciplines at universities in the last few decades.

heck, from what i've seen of the writing in newspapers in recent years, English requirements are pretty minimal, too. the 5 W's? can't be bothered with those, either...

Marketplace
The marketplace is determining the demise of so many newspapers, and the difficulties of the three major networks. As long as they peddle liberalism, many conservatives and some moderates will look elsewhere. This country has only so many socialists and wannabes; in order to survive, they need to become more balanced. Not necessarily conservative leaning, but fair.

Last night I watched the replacement for Keith Olbermann on MSNBC, and their condescension and far left agenda was too much for me. Now Fox News is not balanced, but it is fair.

Gay Conservative
What about Fox isn't balanced? When a straight news story is reported Fox does it's best to give all relevant information and not spin it to a conservative viewpoint. Even when they go to their commentary shows they make it a point not to make it an echo chamber for the right by having prominent liberals on to give their takes on whatever issues are being discussed. Having people like Lanny Davis, Juan Williams, Mara Liasson, Judith Miller, Jane Hall, Ellis Henican, Bob Burkett, Kirsten Powers, and the like (liberals all, mind you) makes their lineup of commentators and contributors about as balanced a lineup as you'll get.

Hastening the End
Ms. Saunders, you have written an excellent, insightful column.

It's a characteristic of life that when we want control of something, it usually slips through our fingers. The major media is hastening it's own demise.

It started decades ago with radio and TV impinging on the territory of newspapers. The internet has accelerated that. More of us would be buying newspapers if what we read more nearly reflected our viewpoint.

Your concerns of previous columns are well taken - organizations are needed that can field reporters and report facts, not just opinions. I hope the internet will somehow grow these places to replace paper media.

WHAT MAKES A LIBERAL?
Their aversion to sweat, manual labor, the dirt of Mother Earth or grease and grime on their hands or under their fingernails, their 'lust' for power and/or their belief in their entitlement to whatever they want or need by Taking it from others.
As it stands, this despicable group of people are now the majority of Americans.

I'm a J-school grad...
I graduated from journalism school in 1986, albeit at conservative Auburn University. I had great old hardline professors who hammered home lessons of grammar and reporting. We were told to stay out of our stories. Woe be unto us if we had any kind of spin in anything we wrote. I honestly don't remember ever having political discussions with classmates or professors. Of course, that was during the Reagan years, so things were good. We were taught to be anonymous. The only famous reporters were columnists, if they were lucky and good.

Part of the problem with the advent of the 24-hour news cycle, is that reporters are now celebrities. They think of themselves as crafting the stories and making themselves look good. I have no idea where j-students got the idea to enter journalism to "change the world." I was taught to cover the people changing the world and just tell the story, not be the story.

Saunders misunderstands news biz
Socialists are attracted to the media for the same reasons they are attracted to government work, academia, and the entertainment industry. All of those areas have one thing in common – they are heavily insulated from the consequences of being wrong. Civil servants don't get fired and replaced if they fail to meet their objectives, they may have their budgets increased if they fail. Academics are protected by union contracts and tenure, and their pay is not determined by how effectively they teach, but by longevity. For years there were only 3 government-protected broadcast networks, one wire service, and most cities have only one major newspaper. Newspapers and TV news shows don't derive their income from being right, but by circulation or ratings. Advertisers don't care whether what they are spouting is correct, they only care about the numbers of readers or viewers. The readers or viewers have very little direct control over what is presented to them, unlike most other industries (e.g., food, retail, etc.).

When cable and satellite technology made it possible for Fox News and the internet to present an alternative for consumers, the results have been devastating to the traditional news sources.

Saunders also misses the point with Hannity and Beck, who clearly represent themselves to be conservative commentators, not reporters. For Saunders to criticize a conservative commentator for presenting a conservative view demonstrates that she doesn't understand the distinction . Cronkite and his ilk are objectionable because they deceitfully present their viewpoints as factual reporting, thereby deceiving the public.

And there's more...
The libs in media are there because they see themselves as key elements in the government's efforts to brainwash and indoctrinate the public.

"We will tell you what to think, we will tell you how to vote, and where the outcome seems to be going in a direction we don't like, we will simply ignore it, cover it up or lie about it."

THAT is the prevailing ethos of the Pravda press. Sorry.

Left leaning journalists.
Journalist tend to be avid readers and one only has to look at the critics "best" lists, in particular the NYT reviews, to see what types of literature get the awards and acclaim. If it's not of a liberal bent, it gets no exposure whatsoever.

Living in the Past
Media outlets are still trying to recreate the high of getting Nixon to resign. Old time media groups like the NYT seem like they're spending too much time looking for blood, looking for some high powered politician to get booted from office, that people are getting tired of it. They want news, not self-adulation.

check your facts, Georgeann
Fox News enjoys better ratings than CNN and MSNBC combined. There are no other 24-hour news outlets.

All those choices you speak of seem to be dying...has the death knell sounded for the Boston Globe yet? Ratings for the network news are so low they're invisible.

And by the way, please define "extreme right" for me.

Georgann is right
but the irony is that in making the statement she did conservatives a favor by admitting implicitly the bias of the other outlets. Score another point for the need for balance.

extreme right
Def. Extreme right (ik-STREEM Rayht)

Normal people

It's not just the bias
in how they report the stories -- it's the bias of what stories they choose to do in the first place.

I used to like newspapers, but I have no interest in most of the "issues" they cover ad nauseum. "Green" stories of all types bore me to tears and are often laughable in the lack of thought, science, logic presented. Stories about gay marriage or gay rights or gay whatever are similarly uninteresting to me on a daily or several times a week basis. These and other topics like them are niche subjects meaning not a lot of readers will pay to read them.

Then there is the phenomenon seen more and more in newspapers, local TV news, and local radio news of complete race bias in reporting. My husband and I laugh everytime our local news radio station reports a crime because when they describe the offender the police are looking for if he is white they say that otherwise the listener is left to guess. They will say that the police are looking for a suspect and tell you if you know anything to call the police but will not give race as part of the description unless the suspect is white how sad and funny is that?

Liberals & Conservatives
Did you ever finish reading a story in a newspaper, wondering where the rest of the story is? How many surviors, what happened to the person arrested, who was responsible, etc.?
Newspapers today no longer have the budget for investigation. TV has to be able to keep you from switching channels as well as limited time and budget to allow them to switch stories. Ever note how long some commentary shows stay on one subject even with no further info to report? They bring in "theory experts" to start fictionalizing the what if's. Today, magazines do a fairly good job of giving us a more complete picture of the subject matter, but their circulation continues to decline.
Of course, none are responsible for what we perceive from our media outlets. Too often, we forego the story to rant our views without taking the time to further investigate with an Internet search. Just look at blogs and how often we leave the subject, interject non-related info and take umbrage of other opinions, delighting in making it personal.
Liberals are a fact of life and because they take the time to infiltrate academia and media, they do control a good bit of what we see and hear. Haven't you ever wondered why those who protest liberal causes are able to generate large crowds and those who promote a conservative view often have difficulty in getting 50 people together. We can joke it is because conservatives are working and can't afford the time off.
Conservatives, for some reason, have a difficult time aligning themselves with other conservatives. Not sure why, but until this is overcome, we will be more a silent majority than a vocal one that will be listened to.

Ms. Saunders you left something out
Media bias is one thing, agenda is another. If the media were simply a biased organization, I suspect most people would recognize it and adjust their perspectives accordingly. When the media plays an active role in politics, it ceases to be news and becomes propaganda.

It is the media's constant attempt at creating public perception instead of reporting the facts that is responsible for the "death of the media." Media types believe they are smarter than everyone else in the room. Talk about your misperceptions.

Reporters not reporting fairly
You state that most reporters cover stories fairly. I don't agree and I always e-mail those that I think aren't fair. Just think about all of the questions not asked by reporters and you will find a story that is not fair and balanced. A story about a single mother of 5, on welfare about to lose her benefits, and 2 of her children are under 3. It's never asked why this mmother kept having children she knew she couldn't care for. There are many stories just like this on many subjects.

Lj

A well-observed and...
... well-written column.


Georgann
After years of listening to PBS apologists claim they are not biased, it is a pleasure to hear from you that someone finally admits that, yes, PBS is liberal.

Thanks.

Now could you see if you can get my tax money to quit supporting a liberal media network?

Ha ha!!
Thanks, Starman!

IT IS TIME
WE made FOX no. 1...they raked inhuge ad reveues. they present ZERO investigative reports. so far, fox just reads the wire reports and presents both sides of the story. it is time for fox to put our country first. obama, his administration and congress are the most corrupt in the history of this nation and FOX just sits on its ad revenue. it is time they spend some of that ad revenue on REAL REPORTING. EMAIL fox with what or whom you think needs to be investigated and exposed.

Saunders is right.
I heard years ago that Dan Rather considered himself completely bias-free.

Saunders correctly points out that when one lives with others that believe the same things, one can believe that they are "mainstream."

I have strong Christian beliefs, and I associate mostly with other Christians. It's easy for me to believe that most people believe like me. It's only when I read posts on Townhall (or view recent election results) that I realize I am a conservative Christian at odds with much of the country.

The same is true in newspaper offices and in news studios. Most reporters believe they are unbiased, even when they are very liberal.

I'm sure Roesgen probably still believes her interview was unbiased.

To Lois
I see many posts to townhall complaining that reporters don't just report the facts but insert a liberal bias. What you have done in your post is suggest that a conservative bias be inserted in the reporting of facts. The FACT is that the woman in question has x number of children of x ages. Asking her "why she had children she couldn't afford" asserts the bias that she should not have had the children and that she could not afford them. How do you know that? Unless you know the actual facts, you are left with the theoretical possibility that when she had them she could have been married to a dentist making $150,000 a year then he left her for a floozy and is paying no child support (similar cases of spouse- and child-abandonment happen all the time, and sometimes the mother in question does end up on welfare). To assume otherwise is to bow to the influence of stereotype, which clearly has no place in "factual reportage".

What you appear to be suggesting is that newspaper reporters should slant their stories to reflect conservative social prejudice.

Biased vs. Bashing
"There are days I wonder if newspaper and network news execs cannot change by broadening their ideological diversity -- even to save themselves. They'll keep telling themselves that they are unbiased -- up until the end."

Fox News is entertainment. Pure and simple.

For years Fox News did not have a news department, the just simply reported on whatever the AP and other sources were saying.

NPR and PBS are news. The Leher News hour has a liberal bias. There is no-one on the radio or television who is conservative that is comparable to Jim Leher.

Conservative media is rude, juvenile, insulting, mocking deriding, dismissive and brash. It is always entertainment and never informative. Most of the entertainment factor comes in the form of insulting liberals.

People who listen to AM Talk Radio are immature, just as Rush Limbaugh is immature. But you have to at least give Rush his due, he has at least never claimed to be anything he's not. Fox News with "News" in its name and "Fair and Balanced" in its slogan makes a mockery of truth.

Conservative media that was not entertainment, like The National Review, never attracted much attention. It is only when conservatives found a format of entertainment first, news a distant second, that the conservative media took off.

Conservatives are far more interested in the infantile knee-jerk, hate liberals rush that Limbaugh gives them than they are news or fact.

To wit, if you are not immature, if you do not like insults and hating liberals primarily and sometimes news, then the situation with conservative news is the same today as it has always been, slim pickens.

I cannot have my intelligence insulted by watching Fox News. I guess the conclusion is that it is not just liberals who entertainment media is insulting and not worth doing, but huge swaths of conservatives too. The difference is that we conservatives put off by six-year-old maturity level media do not make a fuss.



Free markets
Free markets determine success when a good product is produced and failure when a shoddy product is introduced. See Nissan,Toyota, and Honda vis a vis Chrysler and GM. Now look at Fox News and the World street Journal via a vis Msnbc and the New York Times. Good colunm Debra.

What, No Morning Paper At Your House?
I assume that all who have cancelled their subscriptions to, or have refused to purchase at the newstand, newspapers that they regard as "too liberal", have now all subscribed to the Washington Times and the Wall Street Journal. After all, if you really like reading the paper but you just don't like liberal papers, you are left with a couple of famously conservative papers. Are you reading them?

I subscribe to two major daily papers. I don't agree with everything they print, and I augment their information with plenty of TV and Internet news. Why do I read papers? Because, more than any other news medium, print takes the time and care to spell matters out in careful, precise, analytical language. "Writing maketh an exact man".

What? You don't subscribe to a paper? You get all your news from TV and Google? You'd rather find out what's happening by listening to talk radio? Your friends keep you informed via text and Twitter?

Then your problem isn't that you find the New York Times too liberal---it's that, for whatever reason, you don't care for printed newspapers. And that's not the same thing. Maybe you find reading difficult or tedious. Reading an editorial, of whatever persuasion, is not as entertaining and fun as watching Glenn Beck's antic version of current events.

It's not just the Boston Globe that's shutting down---it's just been announced that, in Chicago, the main downtown Borders Books is closing, as is the big downtown Barnes & Noble, while a midtown Barnes & Noble has already closed. Something is afoot, re the print media, that goes far beyond a reaction to "liberal bias". Unless, of course, you think all the books at Borders are too liberal...........

Determing success
Free markets determine success when a good product is produced and failure when a shoddy product is introduced. See Nissan,Toyota, and Honda vis a vis Chrysler and GM. Now look at Fox News and the World street Journal vis a vis Msnbc and the New York Times. Good colunm Debra.

lilly
I used to subscribe to three papers until their rates went through the roof, the quality went down, and the actual amount of news could easily be printed on 6 sheets of paper.

Popularity, Bias, and Cold Hard Fact
RE: "Fox's high ratings prove that it gives the news without bias": FOX does indeed have high ratings, and that means only that it is watched by a lot of people. That doesn't mean it is without bias. In fact, if the people watching FOX like it because of its bias, or (as I know to be the case for some) to laugh at its bias, then the network's popularity means the exact opposite.

Let's not make the mistake of thinking that popularity or majority opinion is the same thing as fact. There is a (true) story of a kindergarten class that wanted to know the sex of its pet hamster, so the children decided to take a vote as to whether the animal was male or female.

Long years ago when I taught English I found it harder to teach fact vs opinion (a required element of expository writing) than almost anything else. Americans are raised and socialized to believe that opinion sincerely held, or opinion shared by many, IS fact. When that opinion is backed up by religous belief or political ideology, it becomes "unshakable fact". Also, people tend to accept as fact an opinion rendered by someone they like or with whom they identify (like, say, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh).

Fox News and Fox Opinion
Fox news goes on all day long. It is mildly biased towards the right, just as the mainline media are mildly to wildly biased towards the left. When the sun goes down, the fun begins. Fox's commentators are conservative. The mainline's commentators are liberal. As long as you understand the rules, the game is easy. One thing is true of Fox's news commentaries, though. You are far more likely to get a good presentation of a liberal viewpoint by the guests on Fox than you are of a conservative viewpoint on MSNBC, if indeed, they bother to have any conservative viewpoint given.
Studies on media bias such as mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/MediaBias.doc identify a definite liberal slant, while considering Fox either mildly conservative or centrist. This is reflected in Fox's overwhelming dominance of the cable news field-- if it did not reflect the center, it would not have such a large audience. Part of its appeal is the regular input of liberal, articulate spokespersons presenting their opinion in counterpoint, which is often sadly lacking in the other cable news shows. If Fox were merely conservative, it would not have a wide audience. Since it truly does present both sides, it is, despite assertions to the contrary, 'fair and balanced' to a greater degree than the other media.

Vamp Reflection
Thanks for the talking points from Soros and Co. We needed them.

Saunders
I am not sure what you are trying to prove here.
That it is good to be biased, at least if it
has a conservative bent? Are you trying to
convince us that MSM and cable news don't
have opposing views on their channels. Fox
News happens to be the ONLY one that does not
have opposing views. There are a few that are
less snotty than others. That is all.

The worst thing that has happened in American
society is to have news stations that are not
news stations by propaganda outlets.

As for magazines going under, so are newspapers. And the reason is for something
other than what you mention, and you know it.
It is the internet.

Neutral?
If editors were neutral, then they would see no need to ignore pertinent information, or to remove portions of quotes to serve their agenda, or to publish malicious gossip or innuendo and report it as 'news' (i.e., Palin and family). I gravitated to Fox News for several reasons, not the least of which I was tired of not seeing the WHOLE story!

Tammy
Your observation is the standard retort from the left as to why the news paper and MSM are losing subscribers and audience, namly it's the internet. I suspect that is part of the answer except that the WSJ and USA Today are gaining in circulation. Now the USA Today gives their paper away and so one would not expect a drop in circulation from a largely free paper, however the WSJ a conservative newspaper is gaining in circulation as is FOX news couple this with Polls that clearly show a center right population still and the picture should become more clear. People see the MSM and most newspapers as left of center and do not subscribe. That only leaves the question of , how did Obama get elected? He campaigned as a centrist and is governing from the left and many who were sick of the GWB presidency and were enamored with the historic nature of the first black President came out and voted. I believe they will soon regret that vote but we shall in due course see won't we.

m
Your perspective is extremely overpriced, considering what it's worth...

Angler Explains GOP Decline
anglers reward asks "What Makes a Liberal?", and answers thusly: "Their aversion to sweat, manual labor, the dirt of Mother Earth or grease and grime on their hands or under their fingernails, their 'lust' for power and/or their belief in their entitlement to whatever they want or need by Taking it from others."

Many thanks, angler, for presenting your perspective with such insane stupidity. You have made it clear why rapidly declining numbers of people want anything to do with such pathetic morons.

Tammy
Your premise would work if the newspapers were gaining as many online readers as they are losing in hard copy readers -- they are not.

Also, non-news magazines are failing as well, and I believe it isn't just advertising revenues declining in this recession as magazines were failing before the current recession.

I think what we are seeing is readers are sick to death of being told what they should think about a host of subjects as if they needed editorial guidance to form an opinion or make a decision.

at the same time lilly
new bookstores open all over the expanding suburbs and exurbs. Could it be that the population of Chicago can no longer support multiple bookstores with lower employment bringing less suburban residents into central cities on a regular basis?

My borders has a line all day and all night 7 days a week, but I don't live in a major city where the drop-out rate is high or where businesses pay huge taxes to keep their doors open.

Saunders only pretends to "GET IT".
This entire article is BOGUS! Did Saunders watch a fellow journalist ask Barry Dunham what had "ENCHANTED" him during his first 100 days?This was at a PRESS CONFERENCE!

She is one of the liberal media. She has scrambled to make a niche for herself on line because of the demise of print media.

If Saunders truly "GOT IT" she would be outraged at what her fellow journalists are doing. She is not. Saunders is all about ratings and polls but her job as a journalist is supposed to be about truth.

FOX news is not perfect...,but it sure as hell beats out CNNs Blitzer and his stupid "SITUATION ROOM", and it is heads above ANYTHING on MSNBC. Oberman and Madoff rants have as much truth to them as the Easter Bunny bringing baskets full of candy.

Saunders and the rest of her ilk need to understand that many of the people in America have I.Q.s above 75. We want the truth.Only FOX actually tries to report so that we can decide!

Nice try Saunders. I ain't buyin' it.


You Can't Handle the Truth...
The Pew Center (non-partisan research group) surveyed people who get the majority of their news from a range of media outlets, and asked them questions about stories that had appeared in the press in the past week.

The group that answered the most questions about the news stories correctly was the one that got the majority of their news from NPR. The group that got the most questions wrong claimed to get the majority of their news from Fox News Channel. What was most interesting was that the Fox respondents were the most confident in the accuracy of their (most often wrong) answers...

You can see the same mistakes repeated in the posts here on this thread.

Bruce and the Pew Center
Bruce.. please be so kind as to post the link you are pulling your "facts" from in the Pew Research site. I have been looking at the site for over 30 mins and I have yet to find your research "facts" Post the link for all to comment on.


Pew is a known liberal
group.

Lulu
"Pew is a known liberal group"

Thank you for proving my point so eloquently (albeit in such a sad, know-nothing fashion...)

Just because Pew
says they are non-partisan does not make it so. Look at the santing of their questions and the DC, media insider relationships of its managers.

Cronkite said

I remember when Cronkite said that the reason that most journalists were liberal, was because when they first got into the business, their first jobs were to cover the streets, and they saw all the poor people, the ones who need government help.

I thought they would have seen the idiots who dropped out of school, who were dealing drugs, who were robbing stores, and on and on.

Remember, a Liberal sees what he believes, a Conservative believes what he sees.

Or something like that. Do I remember that old “saw” correctly?

A Deeper Explanation?
I wonder if the explanation isn't deeper.

When I was an engineering undergraduate, I observed that the engineers tended to be politically conservative, while the liberal arts majors tended to be politically liberal. I thought then that maybe it had something to do with engineering being, necessarily, rooted in physical reality.

Somewhere since, I've read that societies with beautiful languages -- e.g., Arabic (or French) -- tend to more disconnection from hard reality and absorption into verbal fantasies. "But it sounds so good!"

Or perhaps we've made the mistake in Journalism that we made in Teaching. The teachers colleges focused intently on pedagogy -- how to teach. The unintended nasty side effect was that we graduated many people who were very skillful at getting ideas out of their heads and into the students', but who had no ideas inside their head that were worth knowing! I wonder if Journalism programs haven't made the same mistake: With the exception of sports reporters, few journalism graduates know very much about the subjects they report on. (And television has aggravated that, with news "readers" whose prime job qualification seems to be their well coiffed hair-do.)

Reporters deal heavily in words. And they believe in words. Too often, those words construct a fantasy. And most graduates of Journalism schools -- in spite of their preening to the contrary -- never acquired the critical skills to question whatever some slick & smiling politician tells them.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.