Editor and Publisher has an item about the Seattle Times newsroom meeting where some employees cheered the announcement of Karl Rove's resignation. E&P posts a memo from Times Executive Editor David Boardman to staff:
If we wore our politics on our sleeves in here, I have no doubt that in this and in most other mainstream newsrooms in America, the majority of those sleeves would be of the same color: blue. Survey after survey over the years have demonstrated that most of the people who go into this business tend to vote Democratic, at least in national elections.I'll send Boardman a postcard if and when I sense that scenario is imminent.
...
But if we allowed our news meetings to evolve into a liberal latte klatch, I have no doubt that a pathological case of group-think would soon set in.
In the meantime, the Seattle Times might expand its Commitment to Diversity to encompass diversity of, um, thought, or something.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at August 16, 2007 10:25 AM | Email ThisBoardman has not figured out yet that if you attend left leaning universities, where they have mostly left leaning professors, and especially in left wing journalism classes. And then you graduate and go to the majority of newsrooms that are left wing, you might just find that your only viewpoint is SURPRISE, left wing! It is group think, because these people have grown up in a Blue Cocoon and exist in a Blue Cocoon. And moreover, if you do have conservative instincts in such a sea of blue, and you speak out, you know it is going to be a long uphill battle. So most folks with anything more than clear blue ideas keep their mouths shut.
Thus the Mainstream Media remains a solid blue.
Posted by: Jeff B. on August 16, 2007 10:22 AMAll the more reason to rename the Left Red and the Right Blue.
N'est ce-pas?
Posted by: Rey Smith on August 16, 2007 10:35 AM"Every other White House office was up and running. The faith-based initiative still operated out of the nearly vacant transition offices.
Three days later, a Tuesday, Karl Rove summoned [Don] Willett [a former Bush aide from Texas who initially shepharded the program] to his office to announce that the entire faith-based initiative would be rolled out the following Monday. Willett asked just how -- without a director, staff, office, or plan -- the president could do that. Rove looked at him, took a deep breath, and said, "I don't know. Just get me a f--ing faith-based thing. Got it?" Willett was shown the door."
Kuo also writes that Rove referred to evangelical leaders as "the nuts," and claims Rove deputy Ken Mehlman "knowingly participated in a scheme to use the office, and taxpayer funds, to mount ostensibly 'nonpartisan' events that were, in reality, designed with the intent of mobilizing religious voters in 20 targeted races."
Kuo has many local connections to the local evangelical community, his book was a turning point for me, and such as Rev. Fuiton.
Posted by: murtz on August 16, 2007 10:57 AMTune into Dan Lewis and Kathi Goertzen on KOMO any night, and you'll see the mainstream thinking process. (Mary Nam is easy on the eyes as well.)
Celebrate diversity, just celebrate it somewhere else.
Posted by: Libertarian on August 16, 2007 11:37 AMObviously there are some conservative writers out there, they just go to places where their views are more in tune with that of the management/editorial board.
If you don't like them, don't read 'em.
Sure we are. And some do. But if we are looking for local news? News that impacts the Puget Sound region?
Posted by: jimg on August 16, 2007 11:55 AMHow about the Puget Sound Business Journal? Or maybe you could read Sound Politics, but the site seems obsessed with linking to PI articles.
Maybe you could start your own paper, provide a Right Wing alternative to say a publication like The Stranger. I'm sure Rupert Murdoch would have no trouble financing you.
P.S.: Yup, I should have used You're (my bad).
Cato--yes, we are free to read other publications. What you didn't mention is that the Times has now moved about as far left as the PI. Most of the conservative columnists are gone (I think George Will's column is allowed on occasion). And how often do they refer to a website, prominent person, think tank, etc. with the "liberal" label attached compared to how often they tag a person, group, or entity as "conservative" or "Republican"?
The publications you mention show it is possible to do decent reporting; Blethen just chooses not to run the paper that way. Their biased reporting on local issues is a huge disservice to the public. It makes it very difficult for the average Joe to get complete information on a topic and I don't think it is realistic to expect the general public to have to do the work the journalist should have done in the first place.
Posted by: Burdabee on August 16, 2007 12:27 PMFor example, my economics professor in college was an Indian man who had migrated to the UK. He began one lesson by extolling the virtues of socialized medicine in the UK. And he did it by relating a personal story of the birth of his child. He carefully wrapped the message in an emotional story to gullible young college sophomores. Were it not for the the fact that I later read many an economist that had a completely different and demonstrably more realistic economic models, I may have come away thinking that his views were the only views. No attempt was made to shed a balanced view of differing schools of economic thought.
The same is true with Iraq war coverage in our mainstream news media. Or climate change coverage, etc. And when there is a small nod to a differing viewpoint that is so overwhelming that is cannot be dismissed, it is still almost always carefully crafted in towards the bottom of an article so as to skew the reader back to the central and left leaning thesis of the writer.
If you can't see this bias, then it is probably because you yourself are not reading outside of these mainstream and entrenched sources. Or perhaps that as long as it is going the way you'd like, you can conveniently ignore other differing viewpoints.
Posted by: Jeff B. on August 16, 2007 12:38 PMThey are also the ones who fully realize how destructive Bush has been for the country and how the Republican party might be on the outs for a generation.
Perhaps you might try to remember that the Democrats liked having Gingrich in the public eye and a bunch of 'em LIKED having Newtie to point at.
I read the stuff posted on here don't I, I doubt anyone on here would call me a conservative. =)
Don't expect the major papers in this town to change just because they don't suit your point of view. Maybe the time is right to round up some News Corp. reporters and get them working on exposing the ills of the region instead of sitting on some blog ranting about how poorly the local media is serving you.
I don't mean to imply that academics and journalists are more intelligent or valuable to society than, say, farmers, firefighters, and business owners. (I'm sure someone will flame me for saying that, but I'm not.) But their professions do give them more opportunity than most to reflect on what's happening in the world.
Posted by: Bruce on August 16, 2007 01:46 PMP.s. If you prefer your satirists to be partisan lapdogs, Colbert is your shihszu.
There weren't a ton of jobs out there for journalists or academics (at least that paid a salary), so I didn't go into that field.
I had the desire for truth, though, and was able to expose a lot of untruths in my profession throughout the years. But, you know, I didn't have the burning desire or knowledge to think I made a difference if I entered journalism or academics.
I guess you could say I didn't have the "pie-in-the-sky" drive or "liberalism" that it seems today's "journalists" say they have. Maybe others have the same or different experiences, I don't know.
Posted by: swatter on August 16, 2007 02:07 PMAs for academia... well, I going to go out on a limb and venture to guess that spending your days discussing the nuances of 18th century French literature or listening to man-hating professors of Women's Studies simply doesn't appeal to most conservatives.
Posted by: Mike H on August 16, 2007 02:14 PMExtra points to anyone who can answer the question without an underhanded swipe at those professions.
I see no evidence for BillH's idea that these liberals are following a "mission to indoctrinate". Why would liberals be more inclined to indoctrinate than conservatives?
Posted by: Bruce on August 16, 2007 02:30 PMFor academia - those who can do, those who can't teach.
For journalism - easier than business classes in college. Same with most other "liberal arts" classes as well.
Posted by: Palouse on August 16, 2007 02:56 PMPeople in both professions have never been in real business but find themselves in a position where they THINK they are in a position to critique those that participate in capitalism in all it's forms.
For some reason, newspaper people long ago forgot they were supposed to seperate news and editorial. As an example of this, look how they lionize Edward R. Morrow, the man who arguably corrupted news by adding outrage to the newscast. Here's a dose of reality for you. Morrow is widely celebrated for "taking down McCarthy and McCarthyism." When the soviet union fell and we got hold of their secret papers, we found out that McCarthy was 100% right about what was going on - but hey, they still celebrate him anyway because he turned newscasts into an activist media.
The academic elite for some reason feel like they have the right and responsiblity to critique capitalism even though they don't really participate in it. I mean for Pete's sake, if you have a job where you practically have to kill someone to get fired, you aren't living in the real world, pure and simple. How many of thes people go to work every day knowing that if they aren't on their A game, they could be out of a job? But that doesn't stop them from getting on a soap box to tell us how to do it.
I'm sorry and you asked me to be respectul, so I'll try, but the idea that either of these professions study "reality" is laughable.
Professors go out of their way to discuss the theoretical. They live their lives in non-reality and will tell you so if you ask them. Outside of the Accounting and MBA programs, most of these people couldn't make their way through a profit and loss statement if their lives depended on it. Deal with them in the simplest business situation (and I have) and not a one of them is ever willing to make a decision without more red-tape and "consensus building" than any real business could ever afford to do.
As for Newspaper reporters, they spend their time mostly with either pr hacks, politicians or representatives of special interests. (Usually victims groups.) Neither politicians or PR flacks or activists of any stripe have any desire to present a real-world or balanced view of any situation.
Tell me a single reporter in the last 40 years that has earned any award because they told a truly impartial story that just stated the facts and I'll show you 100 that earned their award for "uncovering the plight" of some victims group or by uncovering "the greed" that led to some other company that dared to make a profit and in the process made some mistake.
To summarize, newspaper people and academics somehow got the opinion somewhere along the line that they were "experts' on the real world and they earned this how? Not by actually participating in the real world, that's for sure.
I'd sooner listen to a ballet instructor trying to cover the NFL that listen to most of these eggheads trying to tell me how to run my life or my business.
Posted by: Bruce on August 16, 2007 03:11 PMToday news has become big business. Bill Murray said it best in "Scrooged"... "It's not good enough that they want to see it. They've got to be so afraid to miss it!"
So they play hard and loose with the facts to "get it first" instead or "get it right" and the more spectacular the better.
I mourn the loss of integrity in journalism. Most of what you read today is opinion disguised as a story. If there was really truth in the news, the opinion page would make up the majority of the paper and the rest would be comics.
Posted by: Ken on August 16, 2007 03:14 PMThe Dem's use to be RED in the 1980. But the news services changed the REP to Red during GW time.
I wonder why?
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on August 16, 2007 03:23 PMThose that toe the company line tend to stay.
Say, for example, you, as a cub reporter, are covering Gregoire for the P-I. You want to tell the whole story and not just the press release. Let's even say you do get your article through the editors.
All of a sudden, half the newspaper audience is calling the publisher ranting and raving. Maybe even more so than Rossi side would. Sorry, then, cub reporter is looking for a job.
For the record, I've met outstanding 'reporters', but they are now gone, leaving Blethen.
Posted by: swatter on August 16, 2007 03:48 PM1. We all know why.
2. Thank you for your service to our country. (What era? RVN 67-68 for me....)
Posted by: Rey Smith on August 16, 2007 03:50 PMSeveral reasons come to mind, Bruce. One that applies to both professions is also one that also explains why liberals tend to go into social services and Peace corps type careers... they're do-gooders who want to change the world. That tends to be a liberal tendency. Most conservatives I know with that tendency end up becoming missionaries, cops/firefighters/paramedics, military, doctors/nurses, or grade school teachers. But ultimately, they want to change the world.
I wouldn't go so far call it a "mission to indoctrinate" as it smacks of something along the same lines of "vast right-wing conspiracy", but if you want to change the world, there is no better way than to be a "positive" influence to young people (academia), or to tell people about all that's "wrong" with the world in order make them spring into action (journalism). I'm being awfully simplistic in those explanations, but if you want a short generalization, there you go.
Also, I don't think those reasons are necessarily bad. Actually, I think that they're fairly noble... but quite a few of the folks probably never had a "real" job before, save for maybe bussing tables their sophomore year of college. They've lived in a fairly insular world... save for a do-gooder trip to go help "those poor people in [name your third world country of choice]" for a week or two... and generally only associate with like minded folks, so they tend to have a very skewed view of the world... and then think their view is really the only view since they live in an echo chamber.
I once had a 23 year old newsroom peon tell me that I was the only Republican she knew (relax, folks, she ended up going into sales, not news). You would be hard pressed to find a conservative in either academia or journalism who would ever say "I only know one or two Democrats". When you get that many people with such a similar world view in one place, you end up with group think. When you end up with group think and start to have a serious lack of (and sometimes... in the case of academia... hostility to) differing ideas, your world view becomes more and more warped from reality, causing those folks with those differing views to stay away and choose something else.
I have to be fair, I work with quite a few journalists who, if I know their politics, are either right of center or independent/middle of the road. That doesn't account for most of the ones I know, but they're out there, and more so than most conservatives want to admit. But I also work in television, so I'm not going to speak about print, as that's an entirely different animal altogether.
Posted by: Mike H on August 16, 2007 03:58 PMI wonder why?
Army Medic/Vet, it's a really simple explanation. The networks used to alternate every presidential election. 2000 just happened to be the year for red=Rep/blue=Dem. After that close election when people started breaking down the demographics of the blue states and red states and, particularly on the internet, people began referring to them not as red states and blue states but as "Red States" and "Blue States" proper, it just sort of stuck that blue=Dem and red=Rep.
Posted by: Mike H on August 16, 2007 04:09 PMTranslation: Libs haven't got the nards to succeed in business or the true professions. And they get a kick out of slandering those who dare to disagree with them while they hide behind the First Amendment and/or manipulating impressionable young people.
Kinda Blue. Miles and Trane.
http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/davidpostman/archives/2007/08/a_newsroom_reprimand_at_the_times.html
Kind of like the "liberal scientists" who are hyping global warming in order to build support for democrats, the "liberal media" remains pretty much right in the center.
Posted by: nate on August 16, 2007 06:31 PMApparently you didn't read my previous posts, or read Postman's later posts. The "liberal media" is, well, full of liberals. Not that they all are, but most members of the media vote Democrat. My personal experience, plus numerous studies (which Boardman cites) back that claim up. I'm sure Don Ward would also be happy to chime in with his own personal experience. Postman even states in later posts that there were more people than he thought in the post you cite that were cheering Rove's departure.
Is it a "vast left wing conspiracy"? No, but the bulk of the media is made up of liberals... especially in a city like Seattle. To claim the the bulk of the mainstream Seattle media is full of right-wingers is to live in a fantasy land... that or your perspective of "right of center" means someone like Ron Sims is a centrist.
Posted by: Mike H on August 16, 2007 08:46 PMWhich puts them right where their readers are. Seattle voters overwhelmingly elect Jim McDermott to Congress. The editorial page of the Seattle Times has recently supported many more Republicans than the Times's city and state, not to mention its whining about the estate tax. And on the most important issue in recent years, Iraq, the news section of the Seattle Times (and the NY Times for that matter) blindly repeated the Republican lies.
Posted by: Bruce on August 16, 2007 09:10 PM1. Have Seattle voters had a viable alternative to Mc Dermott?
2. Seriously, are you claiming the NYT Times is anything other than the propoganda arm of MOVEON?
3. Regarding liberal bias:
Can the Media Be So Liberal? The Economics of Media Bias - all 11 versions »
D Sutter - The Cato Journal, 2001 - cato-institute.com
The Challenge to the Presumption of Bias Many conservatives charge that the
national news media exhibit a liberal bias, despite surface appearances of
impartiality. Charges of a liberal bias essentially require the existence ...
Cited by 23 - Related Articles - View as HTML - Web Search - BL Direct
News media incentives, coverage of government, and the growth of government
D Sutter - Independent Review, 2004 - independent.org
B oth the form and the content of the news industry changed dramatically in the
twentieth century. Americans at the end of the nineteenth century received news
from newspapers that, although no longer funded by political parties, ...
Cited by 4 - Related Articles - View as HTML - Web Search - BL Direct
[BOOK] Pattern of Deception: The Media's Role in the Clinton Presidency
T Graham - 1996 - Media Research Center
Cited by 4 - Related Articles - Web Search - Library Search
[BOOK] Partners & Adversaries: The Contentious Connection Between Congress & the Media
ES Povich - 1996 - Freedom Forum
Cited by 4 - Related Articles - Web Search - Library Search
Advertising and Political Bias in the Media - all 5 versions »
D Sutter - American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 2002 - ingentaconnect.com
A BSTRACT . Many observers of the media argue that advertiser support of the
news insulates business from critical scrutiny. News organiza- tions know better
than to bite the hand that feeds them. I examine several weaknesses in this ...
Cited by 5 - Related Articles - Web Search - BL Direct
[CITATION] Why is the Media so Liberal?
B Goff, R Tollison - Journal of Public Finance and Public Choice, 1990
Cited by 6 - Related Articles - Web Search
Is Network News Coverage of the President Biased?
T Groeling, S Kernell - The Journal of Politics, 1998 - JSTOR
Is Network News Coverage of the President Biased? 1087 Soley, Lawrence. 1992.
The News Shapers. The Sources Who Explain the News. New York: Praeger. Tims,
Albert R., David P. Fan, and John R. Freeman. 1989. "The Cultivation of ...
Cited by 23 - Related Articles - Web Search - BL Direct
An Indirect Test of the Liberal Media Thesis Using Newsmagazine Circulation - all 2 versions »
D Sutter - Manuscript. University of Oklahoma, 2004 - sjsu.edu
An Indirect Test of the Liberal Media Thesis Using Newsmagazine Circulation ...
Department of Economics University of Oklahoma Norman, OK 73019-2103 ... Tel:
(405) 325-5844 E-mail: ... I would like to thank Tyler ...
Cited by 2 - Related Articles - View as HTML - Web Search
[BOOK] The Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything You've Heard about Gun Control is Wrong - all 3 versions »
JR Lott, JR Lott Jr - 2003 - books.google.com
"I have cited John Loft's More Guns, Less Crime on my show as an argument
winner. Now, in his new book, The Bias Against Guns, he goes one better. He
shows us how the anti-gun crowd prevents pro-gun facts from getting out. ...
Cited by 20 - Related Articles - Web Search - Library Search
[CITATION] Finding Biases on the Bus
J Tierney - New York Times, Sunday, 2004
Cited by 3 - Related Articles - Web Search
The ST reads like a bad college newspaper. If it wasn't for the comics, and if there was a balanced local alternative available, I'd drop it like my neighbor's dog with a pellet gun. It is useful, though, to point out to your kids what media bias looks like.
Posted by: Organization Man on August 16, 2007 10:11 PMI am going to have to slightly disagree with you. While it is true that past editors of newspapers like the LA Times, for example, may have actually counted the number of persons of color or those with alternative life styles appearing in their papers, my thesis is this: the current crop of the lamestream media is more likely to focus on philosophy and religious orientation, no matter the color.
Why is it that the model for Black leadership promoted by the lamestreams is the Sharpton/Jackson model of I never met a mike or camera I didn't like. It is because that model of leadership supports the ideology of the lamestreams and doesn't ask people to do the tough things described by Cosby like get an education, don't have children you can't care for and stay out of trouble.
It was the Washington Post, to their credit, that broke the story of Hillary getting $800,000 from hip hop thug Timbaline and not the New York Times.
I suppose you may feel excluded because of your color, but the lamestreams exclude a lot of persons of color with conservative messages in favor of those that have their same views and act as mirrors to themselves.
Posted by: WVH on August 16, 2007 11:38 PMThank you sir and the same to you.
71-72 Cam Ranh Bay and many other areas. 57th Medevac. ( The first Dustoff unit)
I disagree, because the concept of "diversity" is one of race, not of opinion or thought.
A group of 3 white guys, one conservative, one liberal and one libertarian, each with different religions and economic status, is NOT considered diverse. Make the 3 guys black, and they have magically become diverse.
Posted by: Seabecker on August 17, 2007 07:37 AMYou are certainly correct with this assertion--I would say that a black (or hispanic) conservative is treated as the lowest form by the media and the "mainstream" black leadership and the Democrat party. One only has to look at how Clarence Thomas was (and continues to be) treated. Even a hugely popular person like Bill Cosby (as you intimated) is treated as a pariah for daring to challenge the liberal view of the black leadership.
I am very impressed by the courage of conservative black politicians/personalities such as Clarence Thomas, Ken Blackwell, Michael Steele, Bill Cosby etc. that stand up to accusations of being Uncle Tom's, sell-outs, etc. just for taking a different point of view than the "black leadership".
Posted by: Bill H on August 17, 2007 08:38 AMI was with a line company of 1/28 Infantry, 1st Inf Div, basecamped at Quan Loi in III Corps. Your predecessors (or their counterparts) were life-savers. Literally. Thanks again.
Posted by: Rey Smith on August 17, 2007 08:52 AMWOW buddy, you were right on the border. (ONE HOT AREA)
I spent many Dust-off missions in Pleiku area.
Mountains & Trees really suck.. LOL
Ever been back? Other than dreams and memories?
Posted by: Rey Smith on August 17, 2007 01:40 PMI think that we are in essence saying the same thing. The lamestream media's definition of diverse suits their political agenda and even though they operate in a capitalist system and are quite willing to live off the fat of the land, many do speaking engagements for fees and books and so on, they bite the hand that feeds them with their theories. I can't tell you the number of Marxists I have met from Pacific Palisades, Beverly Hills and the Upper West side of New York. David Horowitz in his campaign to make universities more diverse includes diversity of thought. So, for that matter do Black conservative intelluctuals.
Posted by: WVH on August 17, 2007 10:25 PM