[pugsville]

Reality has a well known left wing bias.

It's unsurprising that anyone who really thinks/writes for a living is regarded as "left wing". It just generally goes with the territory. It's like banking, business and investment attracts "right wing". The Media is right wing, just the way things are framed, what is covered, there a great "right wing" bias. People interested in people are to going to be left wing, people interested in money are going to right wing. The Media is generally about the money.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Reality has a well known left wing bias.

Explain please. What do you mean by this statement?

It's unsurprising that anyone who really thinks/writes for a living is regarded as "left wing". It just generally goes with the territory. It's like banking, business and investment attracts "right wing". The Media is right wing, just the way things are framed, what is covered, there a great "right wing" bias. People interested in people are to going to be left wing, people interested in money are going to right wing. The Media is generally about the money.

How depressing and how simple! If that is your view of the world then you have my sincere sympathy.

Have you read my previous post, pugsville? Journalists identify as left-wing more often than right-wing. How do you explain that?

[pugsville]

Most of the decisions about what is covered and how in Media organizations is not made by journalists but by Money men for economic reasons. The structure and format of news is determined by commercial reasoning this controls the news and the media much more than individual journalist views. TV the major source of news is controlled by very few people and does not generally employ journalists. Faces of TV are generally presenters not journalists.

[Takkon]

Full employment usually means some ideal level of unemployment is reached, but people usually differ on what constitutes an ideal level. However, if you want your government to ensure a certain level of (un)employment, you are firmly left of the political centre in Europe and the US, regardless of whether the level is 0%, 5%, or 10%. No European country ensures it, nor are they planning to. Same for the US of course.

A government ensuring a certain level of unemployment would soon see that level rise. Left does not come from thinking something stupid. Whatever gave you the idea that a leftist means that they automatically hold untenable positions?

I don't think that the term is so vague when used as a political identity. Of course there is bound to be some variation in the definition but I would say that liberals classify themselves quite accurately on the political spectrum. No only that, their self-identification generally agrees with their voting, too. (At least in the US.) As an examples, you can see their views on the issues abortion and homosexuality in my last post. But it also seems to be true in a more general sense:

Abortion and homosexuality. Two things that are least likely to impact someone from a small town, but more likely than not someone from a small town is going to oppose both of them. Have you ever stopped and thought about why someone who doesn't have to deal with an issue would care about it? It's obvious to me there's something at play here that extends beyond simple political views, which is my problem with your analysis. You seem pretty satisfied with just listing off some political views and self-identification, but I already explained to you in my last post why that is ridiculous. Most people, including college professors, simply have not thought about it in any meaningful way. So it all falls back on upbringing, which is cultural, not political. Thus the stark contrast between city/suburban folk and rural folk, it's not a manner of differences in intelligence or common sense, but pure upbringing.

This is the problem with people making top-down analysis. You think that just because you have thought an issue out, and someone agrees with you or disagrees with you, that means that they have thought it out and not thought it out respectively, which is an idiotic notion, I'm sure you can recognize.

I'd say most people on this forum could have a good guess on the average liberal academic's view on discrimination, racism, political correctness, etc.

PC is a defunct issue from the 90's, why are you still bringing it up? Anyway, I also find it incredibly dense to lump PC in with liberalism, seeing as conservatives have their own way they like to pussify and dumb down language and art, like the idea that you shouldn't make fun of or belittle Christians, or the idea that you should not curse in front of kids, or what topics of conversation are acceptable and unacceptable to say in public. Also, do you think that a conservative would want a gay talking about how he ate out someone's asshole the night before? So the idea that there is some kind of adherence to polite language that only liberals ascribe to is simple brainwashing.

Also, the average academic lives in or has lived in a city, and thus can see the contrast between how poor ethnicities live their lives and how suburban ethnicities live their lives. If you saw that you might think there was something going on there too. Honestly though, it again comes from being cosmopolitan. In a rural neighborhood none of that would even be issues because everyone is homogenous.

I'm not sure where I've attacked academics unless you mean my comment 'We are doomed' (which was meant as a joke, hence the smiley). I'm also not so much worried about liberal views as long as we acknowledge the fact that liberal views are overrepresented in academia. However, I'm concerned when being intelligent and educated is strongly associated with being progressive or liberal. I've even seen liberals claim that their over-representation in academia is proof that liberals are in general more intelligent and educated.

Liberals ARE more intelligent and educated. That's what comes about when you promote your ideology based on fundamentalist religion, chauvinistic/jingoistic/reactionary nationalism, and traditionalism. Now, not all conservatives espouse every one of those views, nor are any one of those views inherently stupid. But it does attract quite a crowd of idiots, whom you have chosen to ally yourself with by being a conservative. But hey, that shouldn't be a problem if you believe in a strict hierarchy.

Besides, I don't know what you're complaining about. You're basically making the case for the other side. You want to say that liberals are not more intelligent and educated while lambasting them for being overrepresented at universities.

See the study above. Their views on many issues agrees with their self-identification.

Self-identification with a viewpoint does not mean you've thought it out.

That was not my intention at all. Please explain where I have demonised anybody.

Are you serious? I'm not going to respond to this. Please, I'm sure that if you reread the tone of your posts you would be quite aware of the demonization here. Either you're trying to convince me that the overrepresentation of liberals in academia is bad, or you're saying all this stuff in an encyclopedic manner. The latter just doesn't make sense.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

A government ensuring a certain level of unemployment would soon see that level rise. Left does not come from thinking something stupid. Whatever gave you the idea that a leftist means that they automatically hold untenable positions?

To clarify: Governments ensuring full employment is usually considered to be an (economically) left-wing policy.

What's more, the study found, 65 percent want the government to ensure full employment, a stance to the left of the Democratic Party.

I agree with you that it is untenable.

Abortion and homosexuality. Two things that are least likely to impact someone from a small town, but more likely than not someone from a small town is going to oppose both of them. Have you ever stopped and thought about why someone who doesn't have to deal with an issue would care about it? It's obvious to me there's something at play here that extends beyond simple political views, which is my problem with your analysis. You seem pretty satisfied with just listing off some political views and self-identification, but I already explained to you in my last post why that is ridiculous. Most people, including college professors, simply have not thought about it in any meaningful way. So it all falls back on upbringing, which is cultural, not political. Thus the stark contrast between city/suburban folk and rural folk, it's not a manner of differences in intelligence or common sense, but pure upbringing.


This is the problem with people making top-down analysis. You think that just because you have thought an issue out, and someone agrees with you or disagrees with you, that means that they have thought it out and not thought it out respectively, which is an idiotic notion, I'm sure you can recognize.

Not sure what you are trying to say. Why is it relevant what causes people to become conservative or liberal? And why does it matter whether their views are superficial?

PC is a defunct issue from the 90's, why are you still bringing it up? Anyway, I also find it incredibly dense to lump PC in with liberalism, seeing as conservatives have their own way they like to pussify and dumb down language and art, like the idea that you shouldn't make fun of or belittle Christians, or the idea that you should not curse in front of kids, or what topics of conversation are acceptable and unacceptable to say in public. Also, do you think that a conservative would want a gay talking about how he ate out someone's asshole the night before? So the idea that there is some kind of adherence to polite language that only liberals ascribe to is simple brainwashing.

Of course we don't have to include PC. But you are making my point here by stating exactly which PC issues will be relevant for a conservative. The same is surely true with regards to liberals. So we generally have a good idea about the views of liberals (or conservatives) on political correctness.

Also, the average academic lives in or has lived in a city, and thus can see the contrast between how poor ethnicities live their lives and how suburban ethnicities live their lives. If you saw that you might think there was something going on there too. Honestly though, it again comes from being cosmopolitan. In a rural neighborhood none of that would even be issues because everyone is homogenous.

Please see above. I don't see how that is relevant to the argument.

Liberals ARE more intelligent and educated. That's what comes about when you promote your ideology based on fundamentalist religion, chauvinistic/jingoistic/reactionary nationalism, and traditionalism. Now, not all conservatives espouse every one of those views, nor are any one of those views inherently stupid. But it does attract quite a crowd of idiots, whom you have chosen to ally yourself with by being a conservative. But hey, that shouldn't be a problem if you believe in a strict hierarchy.

Besides, I don't know what you're complaining about. You're basically making the case for the other side. You want to say that liberals are not more intelligent and educated while lambasting them for being overrepresented at universities.

I obviously disagree that liberals are more intelligent and educated. You cannot really claim that just because they are overrepresented in universities.

Are you serious? I'm not going to respond to this. Please, I'm sure that if you reread the tone of your posts you would be quite aware of the demonization here. Either you're trying to convince me that the overrepresentation of liberals in academia is bad, or you're saying all this stuff in an encyclopedic manner. The latter just doesn't make sense.

I've reread all my posts in this thread and I'm serious. Please let me know where I have attacked and demonised anybody. To be honest, I think you have demonised conservatives far more in this thread than I have liberals.

To answer your question, I would prefer a more balanced representation of political viewpoints in universities, but I'm not trying to convince you that the current situation is bad. All I'm arguing is that liberals are overrepresented in (the media, entertainment industry and) unis and that political affiliation and voting patterns generally agree with a person's political views and self-identification.

[The Immortal Goon]

You're trying to break this down with stats that seem to support you but don't.

It went from, "Why is the media, academia, and law leftist?" to, "The humanities department in colleges have more registered Democrats than Republicans."

The two are not the same.

Even if we are to assume that more reporters are to the left, that doesn't mean anything. Do we assume that the guy in the kitchen at Pizza Hut is also in meetings with the CEOs? Why would you assume that a General Electric or Westinghouse employee even further separated from the leadership would have equal control?

The reason the media is owned by giant corporate conglomerates is because they became profitable enough that companies wanted them to make money. The media puts shit on TV and in print that people will buy, because that's what makes money.

That's the extent of the conspiracy, though it goes far enough if you ask me.

The capitalists have always use the term “freedom” to mean freedom for the rich to get richer and for the workers to starve to death. And capitalist usage, freedom of the press means freedom of the rich to bribe the press, freedom to use their wealth to shape and fabricate so-called public opinion. In this respect, too, the defenders of “pure democracy” prove to be defenders of an utterly foul and venal system that gives the rich control over the mass media. They prove to be deceivers of the people, who, with the aid of plausible, fine-sounding, but thoroughly false phrases, divert them from the concrete historical task of liberating the press from capitalist enslavement.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

You're trying to break this down with stats that seem to support you but don't.

It went from, "Why is the media, academia, and law leftist?" to, "The humanities department in colleges have more registered Democrats than Republicans."

The two are not the same.

I have addressed this already. Not only do they vote Democrats, they also hold liberal or left-wing views and describe themselves as liberal or left-wing.

It's also not only the humanities, but all departments except business/economics.

Even if we are to assume that more reporters are to the left, that doesn't mean anything. Do we assume that the guy in the kitchen at Pizza Hut is also in meetings with the CEOs? Why would you assume that a General Electric or Westinghouse employee even further separated from the leadership would have equal control?

Of course we cannot automatically assume bias, I said as much in my first post. But an editor does not have to go to meetings with CEOs to decide which article to publish as long as he stays within certain guidelines set by CEOs. How large that leeway is will depend on the organisation.

For instance, in 2007 an internal report of the BBC (which is mandated to be unbiased) came to the following conclusion:

The report said that while there was no evidence of conscious bias at the BBC, "individuals exercise on occasion a largely unconscious self-censorship out of a misguided attempt to be 'correct' in their thinking". It said programme makers were "generally conscientious and self-critical, but they sometimes inhabit a shared space, a comfort zone" which risked stifling originality.

Senior BBC figures have acknowledged that the corporation could suffer from "groupthink" which tended towards a liberal world view and had led to certain opinions being under-represented on subjects such as Europe and immigration.

Stephen Whittle, a former controller of editorial policy, pointed to a "lack of intellectual curiosity", while former political editor Andrew Marr said there was "an innate liberal agenda".

The report, entitled From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel to reflect the move from a left-right axis to a variety of uneven and contrasting views, also warned that impartiality should not equate to political correctness or "insipid" programme-making. "Impartiality is a coat of many colours, not of a uniform beige. It must always have space for strong and passionate opinion," it said. According to the report, one unnamed senior executive said that impartiality during BBC1's Africa season, which coincided with the Make Poverty History campaign and Live 8, was "as safe as a bloodbank in the hands of Dracula".
[...]

So we can see that a requirement for impartiality (from the top) does not prevent some bias creeping in even if somewhat subconsciously. Employees of the BBC do have an impact and are not entirely powerless. Why should that not be true for employees of private corporations?

Personally, I did not find the liberal bent of the BBC to be particularly worrying but I was pleasantly surprised that they actually fessed up to it.

The reason the media is owned by giant corporate conglomerates is because they became profitable enough that companies wanted them to make money. The media puts shit on TV and in print that people will buy, because that's what makes money.

It goes both ways I think. Media panders to public opinion but it also tries (and sometimes succeeds) to influence it.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Most of the decisions about what is covered and how in Media organizations is not made by journalists but by Money men for economic reasons. The structure and format of news is determined by commercial reasoning this controls the news and the media much more than individual journalist views. TV the major source of news is controlled by very few people and does not generally employ journalists. Faces of TV are generally presenters not journalists.

Sorry, I missed this response the first time around.

I agree that journalists (or employees in general) are not the only influence but, as I've shown above, they still have been found to introduce a bias with the BBC. Why should this not be the case in other organisations?

I also don't see why liberal views cannot be commercially successful.

[Journo]

The media is not leftist. It is right wing, most of the media in this country back the Conservative part. With newspapers, The Guardian is the exception.

[Drlee]

The "media" is not leftwing. Fox is not, WSJ is not, US News is not....etc. If we look at television and newspapers they are profit driven. Having a political position attracts a certain demographic. That demographic appeals to advertizers. Wherever there is advertizing money to be spent, there will be a media outlet going after it.

Media is purely profit driven. James Bond will be a long haired, Birkinstock wearing college professor if there is enough product placement in it.

[liberallad]

This is a bunch of baloney from a mopey right-winged cuckoo. Big media networks are almost always inside of Washington and have stopped playing their traditional role as adversaries to the politicians (almost like a fourth branch too keep the overly powerful legislative and executive ones in check). To get the stories and ultimately the readers/viewers, they need to have an inside line to the news-makers, so they play softball with the politicians. Anything but a surface understanding of today's Washington will tell you that politicians are overwhelmingly right-leaning (yes, especially you Mr. Obama) and for big news networks to get the stories that will get them viewers, they can't go hard on the politicians and thus typically push a right-winged agenda. Don't believe me? Well watch this video of Cenk Uygur explaining why he was forced to leave MSNBC, the supposed vanguard of liberal media.

All of a sudden, a different picture is painted.

[SomeRandom]

Doesn't matter one bit if more journalists self-identify as leftist than right, because the paper they write for is far more likely to be rightist, since it's owned by some right-wing capitalist, so they'll end up side-lining their beliefs as to fit with their papers' editorial stance (and remain employed).

Take our media (or at least the written media, since the broadcast media's regulated to impartiality), and their allegiances last election: Endorsements.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Doesn't matter one bit if more journalists self-identify as leftist than right, because the paper they write for is far more likely to be rightist, since it's owned by some right-wing capitalist, so they'll end up side-lining their beliefs as to fit with their papers' editorial stance (and remain employed).

There seem to be two types of arguments when it comes to the owner:
1) The owner is a right-wing capitalist and is only interested in profits and right-wing views are more profitable.
2) The owner is a right-wing capitalist and pushes his own political beliefs in the media he owns.

You seem to belief 2), SomeRandom. Correct?

Take our media (or at least the written media, since the broadcast media's regulated to impartiality), and their allegiances last election: Endorsements.

You know that the endorsements only changed in 2010, right? Since 1997 Labour was supported by the Sun, the News Of the World, the Times and the Sunday Times. Additionally, Economist and Financial Times endorsed Labour in 2005 but I don't know their stances prior to that. Wiki Link

I think, the last election's endorsements only showed that almost everybody was fed up with the Labour party, not some overall right-wing bias of the media.

The bbc, despite being mandated to be impartial, has admitted to a left-wing bias, btw. (See a previous post of mine on this page.)

Edit: I think the bbc has admitted to a liberal bias if you find that distinction important.

[SomeRandom]

Correct?

Correct.

You know that the endorsements only changed in 2010, right? Since 1997 Labour was supported by the Sun, the News Of the World, the Times and the Sunday Times. Additionally, Economist and Financial Times endorsed Labour in 2005 but I don't know their stances prior to that.

Those papers backed Labour when it adopted all the Thatcherite tenants, and looked the winning party. Before Blair and New Labour those papers supported the Tories, and as such, it's essentially a case of when Labour renounces democratic socialism/social democracy for liberal-conservatism they'll win the backing of the press.

Edit: I think the bbc has admitted to a liberal bias if you find that distinction important.

You don't? A liberal bias essentially means none of the fundamentals of capitalism are challenged, and they merely balance out their daily pro-capitalism with liberal social stances.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

^ I'm basically referring to mainstream political positions or what your average European or American calls left-wing, right-wing, and liberal. And yes, in this case liberal would mainly refer to social issues.

For instance, I would not consider an anti-capitalist stance to be a mainstream position, rather it's almost a fringe position nowadays. As far as I know, all European labour parties have accepted capitalism by now, although they want to 'soften' it to some degree.


Why do you think the political leanings of the owner(s) are the primary influence? It does not make sense to me to be honest. Most media is not owned and controlled by a single person or even by a group of people with the same political leanings.

[lubbockjoe]

Why do you think the political leanings of the owner(s) are the primary influence? It does not make sense to me to be honest. Most media is not owned and controlled by a single person or even by a group of people with the same political leanings.

Concentration of media ownership

[Kaiserschmarrn]

^ Thanks, lubbockjoe.

Could you point to the part of the wiki article that is relevant? How does it show that the political views of the owner(s) are the main influence on the political leanings of a media outlet?

[lubbockjoe]

^

Media concentration closely related to issues of editorial independence media bias, and freedom of the press.

Editorial independence is the freedom of editors to make decisions without interference from the owners of a publication.

I guess I’m not as trusting of humans with power as you seem to be.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

I agree that there is some influence by owners.

But what is the nature and the extent of that influence? Why should we assume that owners push their own political views on their media outlets? And how do we know their political views are the primary influence?

[lubbockjoe]

But what is the nature and the extent of that influence?

The owners fire unapproved editors.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/04/22/us-wallstreetjournal-editor-idUSN2245129320080422

Why should we assume that owners push their own political views on their media outlets?

(Reuters) - The Wall Street Journal's top editor resigned on Tuesday, giving News Corp chief Rupert Murdoch an opening to further put his stamp on the newspaper he bought four months ago. (April 2008)

And how do we know their political views are the primary influence?

Go ask Marcus Brauchli.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

^ No offense, but an article suggesting that Rupert Murdoch has forced a resignation is not going to convince me.

For instance, how do you come to the conclusion that Marcus Brauchli does not share Murdoch's political views and that those differences were the reason for his 'resignation'? Have you actually noticed the WSJ's reporting becoming more right-wing (or left-wing) since Murdoch took over? Is the new editor more in line with Murdoch's political views?