|
|
August 8, 2004
"The Crowd's Reaction Made Some Unity Delegates Uncomfortable."Last week's convention of minority journalists was the largest ever-- 7,000 strong. Kerry spoke: standing ovation. Bush spoke: no ovation. Traditionalists in the press said: unprofessional! Critics on the right cried foul. Unity, coalition of minority voices, didn't know what to say. And group think appealed to all. Here's my critique of that. Plus (scroll down) reactions from the press and the blogs. A debate simmers.See my subsequent post, with letters in reaction to the debate: Unity and the Ovation for John Kerry: Letters 1-3. Includes mine to Romenesko. Quite a display of muscle by minority journalists in Washington this past week. Their annual Unity convention had over 7,500 registrants, the biggest convention of journalists ever in the U.S., according to Unity president Ernest Sotomayor of Newsday. President Bush, John Kerry, and Colin Powell all agreed to speak. In Washington, clout like that is noticed. Unity has clout. Major corporations were there too as sponsors, including GM, Philip Morris, Apple, Toyota. The organizers had several revenue streams (check out the ads) and expected to turn a profit on the event. A study released during the convention (headline: “Washington press corps virtually all white”) got good pick-up in the press. And the event as a whole received fawning attention in the Washington Post. It’s official, then: this is one powerful group. “Unity opened with a mix of pride in the big numbers of journalists who made their way to the Washington Convention Center,” said Editor & Publisher, “and frustration at the slow pace of integrating more people of color into the newsrooms of newspapers and other news organizations.” Unity is a coalition: the National Association of Black Journalists, the National Association of Hispanic Journalists, the Native American Journalists Association, and the Asian American Journalists Association joined together to create it, “to heighten the need for diversity in print and broadcast newsrooms,” acccording to the Convention’s official newspaper. The first convention was at Atlanta in 1994, the second was in Seattle in ‘99. Amid all the good feeling at a very successful convention there were some controversies last week. The convention turned out to have a few critics— within the press and without. Complaints appeared after John Kerry, interrupted repeatedly by applause, received a standing ovation from some in the crowd. (The next day, President Bush got a polite but mixed reaction— no standing ovation and audible grumbling at times.) From the USA Today account by Mark Memmott: WASHINGTON — Journalists usually are polite but not enthusiastic when politicians speak at their conferences. In the USA, at least, most reporters and editors try to appear to be non-partisan…. Minority journalists showing their partisan colors? Unity’s president didn’t think so. He minimized the incident: The reception for Kerry “surprised me a little, but should not be viewed as an endorsement of him or his policies,” Sotomayor said. He said many Unity members, including those who were covering the speech or plan to report on it in the future, weren’t cheering. As for the others, “they’re people who vote, and they have a right to express themselves” when they’re not working, Sotomayor said. So it’s minority journalists who have a right to political expression when off duty vs. the sin of “acting like citizens, not reporters.” That sin is not too strong a word was shown by other reactions after journalists learned of Kerry’s reception in Washington. At the Seattle Times blog, J. Patrick Coolican wrote: Just off the phone with Seattle Times reporter Florangela Davila, who’s at the Unity convention in Washington D.C. Not just unprofessional, but as bad as it gets. Offensive, awful, inappropriate, ridiculous. Listen to the open-and-shut case described by ethics expert Bob Steele of the Poynter Institute, who is the go-to guy for reporters writing about such incidents. First in soundbite form for USA Today: Journalists risk losing their credibility if they let their politics show, said Bob Steele, an ethics specialist at the Poynter Institute, a school for journalists in St. Petersburg, Fla. They should be “observers guided by the principle of independence,” he said. A more nuanced view might recognize that off duty journalists who stand and applaud a political figure are declaring their independence from people like Steele and the monoculture in journalism that he speaks for. Perhaps journalists do lose credibility with some Americans when they let their politics show. Meanwhile, they lose credibility with other Americans by denying that they have any politics at all. Press ethics should be able to handle both ideas, since both have force. But Steele’s “shoulds” are sealed tight. There is one right answer. And no diversity is allowed on the matter of the journalist’s right to political expression. Here’s Steele writing on the Poynter site: We can, and should, express our personal beliefs and indicate our choice of candidates, but we should do so in the privacy of the voting booth. But whether we’re on duty or not, we should not be overtly partisan in our public behavior. To do so undermines our professionalism and erodes our credibility. It’s okay, according to Steele, to be civil and show respect. “We can stand when they enter and depart. And, if we are in the audience, we may even offer respectful applause to welcome and to give thanks.” But we, as journalists, should not abdicate our unique and essential role as professional observers of the political process. We should not tarnish our responsibility as reporters of issues and chroniclers of the candidates. “Those critics” are out there, for sure. Michael Graham at National Review’s The Corner was struck—as I was—by this observation from Washington Post columnist Donna Britt, a Unity supporter: Enough [minority journalists] have done well that editors and news directors shouldn’t have to be reminded—year after year at conventions such as this one—why it’s so important for the journalists who report the news to be as varied as the population they cover. At some point, it seems, diversity shouldn’t be a goal. Here’s Graham’s reaction from the right’s corner: This about a gathering of “journalists” who gave Democratic partisan John Kerry a standing ovation and repeated huzzahs. From a gathering of reporters in an industry where, according to the New York Times, 80% of their fellow employees are Democrats. From a gathering in Washington—where journalists back Kerry over Bush by a 12-1 margin. Writing in the Philadelphia Daily News, Michelle Malkin had a similar point: The diversity being sought is, by definition, skin-deep. They call themselves “journalists of color.” Not journalists of substance. Or integrity. Or independent thought. What Malkin called “rainbow group think” is only one of the varieties on display in this dispute. Here’s my partial list:
Donna Britt’s notion—that it’s “important for the journalists who report the news to be as varied as the population they cover”—is worth taking seriously. But the monoculture in newsrooms works against that. It seems hopeless to deny that diversity in mainstream journalism is a liberal project. Bush voters are a small minority in the political press, but Unity is not going to be expanding any time soon to include them. And if that’s the case, then why should participants in a liberal project have to deny that they’re liberals? What’s wrong with greeting President Bush politely, and John Kerry enthusiastically? And how is it possible that newsrooms need the perspectives that minority journalists bring to the table, but not the politics they add to the mix? Please advise. After Matter: Notes, reactions and links PressThink exclusive: Ernest Sotomayor, President of UNITY writes as a guest critic. The President of Unity Says Don’t Blame Us for the “Liberal Media” Charge. (Aug. 10) PressThink: Unity and the Ovation for John Kerry: Letters to the Debate, 1-3. (Aug. 9) Includes mine to Romenesko and two from journalists Linda Picone and Jeff Shaw. From my letter: Unity has a lively convention home page and an experiment in real time blogging going. Why don’t they say something— preferably real, interesting and responsive? Unity 2004 convention program. Intellectual tip: I urge you to zap around this site to get a feel for the whole convention, since the Kerry and Bush reactions were only a small part of the event. Unity 2004 was literally historic: biggest gathering ever among professional organizations in journalism. If you believe these groups are important because they can stand for things, as well as discuss and debate them—and I believe that—then it’s obvious that putting journalism and its limitations under discussion by more than 7,000 people, in the nation’s capital, with the major candidates for president (was Nader invited?) there to address you because your opinions count, and you are newsworthy… all this is a pretty big deal in itself. Unity, the organization, home page. Unity: Journalists of Color 2004 convention workshops. Convention schedule. Darryl Fears, Washington Post, Aug. 4: “Minority Journalists Join Voices at Unity Convention.” Jack Shafer in Slate, Aug. 5: If This Is Unity, Give Me Division. On the Washington Post’s “fawning coverage.” Post reporters Darryl Fears and Roxanne Roberts have filed credulous, pandering copy only one step removed from a press release… Since when is the testimony of convention-goers that they’re happy and comfortable to be among their legion considered news?… Couldn’t Fears find anybody outside Unity’s campfire circle to speak intelligently about diversity or race coverage? Doesn’t anybody have anything sharp or insightful to say about the group’s goals and positions? Not even the Washington Redskins get this sort of free ride from the Post. @unity, the convention’s blog, on Bush’s speech: Bush drew a mixed response from the room full of journalists. At times there was audible murmuring, at times applause, and at other times derisive remarks. When asked what tribal sovereignty means in the 21st century, Bush’s response — “Tribal sovereignty means that it’s sovereign” — drew sneering remarks from the audience. Jeff Jarvis responds to this post: Toward a new definition of diversity. Perhaps it is time to come up with a new definition of “diversity” in American media. Ex-newspaper man Tim Porter at First Draft: Journalism has enough crediblity problems without a group of conventioneering editors and reporters responding to a political speech like a bunch of yahoo-ing insurance salesman at the annual Rotary meeting. Andrew Cline at Rhetorica: Without a doubt, journalists are citizens who enjoy—and should exercise with proper discretion—every right of citizenship. To argue otherwise may suggest something I find quite troubling: That journalists stand above citizenship. And if they stand above that, what else might they think themselves to be standing above? David Carr in the New York Times: “The Unity: Journalists of Color convention, a gathering of minority journalists held in Washington last week, had its share of political controversy, including one man being booted from the convention center after heckling President Bush. But one knotty issue—whether gay and lesbian journalists should be members of Unity—never made the agenda.” Kimberly A.C. Wilson in the Baltimore Sun: Tim Graham, director of analysis for the Media Research Center, a conservative media watchdog group based in Alexandria, Va., agreed. “I think it is embarrassing and disappointing,” Graham said in a telephone interview. “Wasn’t anybody thinking about how it would look from the outside?” For other press reactions see Romenesko. And don’t forget his letters column for Aug. 9th. Al Tompkins at Poynter (Aug. 5): It’s All About the Journalism. Tompkins led a workshop at Unity and explains what happens there.
Posted by Jay Rosen at August 8, 2004 11:22 AM
Comments
Considering that journalism classes are something like 70 to 80% female, jouralism will become a "helping and caring" career and lose its fake status as a "profession". While I worked at E! and its side-kick, Style, I worked with dozens of young women, most of whom had expensive, shiny, top-notch journalism degrees. I asked one why she would work at Style, with a degree from Columbia and $40,000 in student loans. She thought it would be fun and that working in news was "too hard". (Doesn't the talking Barbie say things like that?) Posted by: Kate at August 8, 2004 12:32 PM | Permalink "Considering that journalism classes are something like 70 to 80% female, jouralism will become a 'helping and caring' career and lose its fake status as a 'profession'." Maybe it's me, but I don't see why the connection between the increase in Females, and the throwing of the baby out with the bath water. What I mean, ethics are getting thrown out.. along with the "fake status as a profession". To some (to throw a smear in) "traditionalists", having ethics is incompatible, and canNOT co-exist with even, good writing. These "traditionalists", who are blinded to their own group-think, believe that lack of ethics ENHANCES the prospects for good writing, when even a modicum of common-sense would dictate otherwise. Again, blogging is not helping in any way, since blogging is the epitome of style of substance. And I can detail a critique of the above piece of group-think-against-press-thinking, if the point is not plainly and obviously apparent. Posted by: JamesJayTrouble at August 8, 2004 1:05 PM | Permalink Again, the value of an editor: I meant style OVER substance (and that'd be giving the benefit of the doubt that there IS any substance in some-a this fluff, journalism or otherwise...)
..Well, perish the thought, but they should recognize that a society without "shoulds", or a community of any size that canNOT TOLERATE the thought-bubble of "shoulds".... ....Well, two realities should be apparent: That no such-a community exists that does NOT have these "shoulds" and "should-nots", as it's impossible.. And communities that pretend there are no "shoulds" devolve into the most INtolerant communities (due to snow-blindness I guess...;-). So railing against the "shoulds" plays well to those folks that can't tolerate "shoulds".. of any age. Libertarians attract such who are not capable of tolerance, under the very banner of "tolerance". Funny that... So a more nuanced view, in actual fact, would reflect some cognizance of these facts. Like I "said", I can provide more detailed analysis of the above, if that isn't sufficient to answer the bulk of the questions brought up, or attempting to be answered, in the above blog by Dr. Rosen. Btw, this very piece sort-a blows the theory that the press shows anything near the mono-culture that Blogaria exhibits in it's daily rants and raves and waves and all that razz-m'tazz. Posted by: JamesJayTrouble at August 8, 2004 1:34 PM | Permalink Jay, Posted by: Ben Franklin at August 8, 2004 4:36 PM | Permalink I don't think Steele is as circular as you present it - he gives a reason, says "partisan behavior is antithetical to the principle of independence". The concern is that the journalist's partisan motives will trump their journalistic obligation to report the news fairly. I suspect that the requirement to obscure one's political views & preferences has two effects: 1) The readers can't use the "bias" stick as effectively to beat the reporter with, if evidence of his/her political views isn't visible; 2) It sifts out those journalists whose political passions are too strong, leaving the field enriched with those who are more dispassionate by nature, and hence more able to see and present all sides fairly. Passion has no correlation with truth; logic does. (or so I like to think) BTW, a groupthink quote: "when everyone is thinking the same thing, no one is thinking" Posted by: Anna at August 8, 2004 5:14 PM | Permalink Hmmm. A a viewer/reader and not a journalist, and I should note as a Conservative, I can only add my unprofessional opinions. 1. "And if that's the case, then why should participants in a liberal project have to deny that they're liberals?" I think that you shouldn't deny your personal bias. Announce it. Trumpet it. It'll give people like me an opportunity to discover your bias easier than by having to slog through all that contrived prose. The simple fact is, for me, that having to continually read-between-the-lines when reading an article or viewing a newscast can be aggravating. You read an article and it shows clearly that the writer has a very specific outcome in mind and that anything that could change that is either glossed over or avoided altogether. *shrug* So it really doesn't matter anyways. The bias will come through simply through the selection of what to write about and how it is written. Or spoken for that matter. 2. "Considering that journalism classes are something like 70 to 80% female, jouralism will become a "helping and caring" career and lose its fake status as a "profession"." *shrug* every profession is similar in that regard. Some people are serious and some are not so serious. I figure they all end up in marketing anyways. :) 3. "What I mean, ethics are getting thrown out.. along with the "fake status as a profession"." What on earth does ethics have to do with journalism? The whole point of modern journalism is to subvert, shape, orient and constrict thought. It is the penultimate in manipulation of groups and individuals. Ethics has nothing to do with this whatsoever and it has had nothing to do with journalism for the past 30+ years. Is ethics involved when Sandy Berger admits to stealing Top Secret-Code Word level documents from the National Archives and the New York Times runs it on A17? But instead runs on the page 1 an article on the *timing* of the release of that allegation? Is ethics involved when Cruse Bustamante, Lt. Govenor of California during the whole Gray Davis recall effort, called a room full of African-Americans "Ni**er"? And it didn't even make most local, regional or national news? Journalism? Ethics? Please don't make me laugh. 4. "Again, blogging is not helping in any way, since blogging is the epitome of style of substance." Wrong. Blogs are the return of debate to the general populace and will completely supplant all journalism. They will do so because they are interactive, they are more informative and they allow the customer to invest themselves in the quality of the end-product. Thus all current journalism is doomed die a neglected and unmourned death. 5. Blog evolution. I fully expect that blogs will diverge and evolve into specialties, as they have started to do. Many still rely on articles as source material but that is starting to change. The real question is money and money is starting to enter into the blogging world. The more money that enters, the more professional things will be as independent research will be not only viable but necessary. Indeed I think that independent researchers, i.e. companys that exist solely to provide accurate data to blogs, will become not only necessary but very profitable. In essence the blog world will mirror the existing journalism world but the component parts will be divided by function. 6. "I think you are falling into a Republican trap by repeating the pretense that the Unity convention is somehow representative of journalism per se." Sorry but did you read that "80% of their fellow employees are Democrats. " part? Republican "trap"? Yeah because we Republican's love to set traps for journalists. We also enjoy setting traps for other people too. The local mail carrier is a fave. He get's pretty pissed off when he's dangling from the porch ceiling but I get a laugh. Then there's the ... What nonsense. 7. "I suspect that the requirement to obscure one's political views & preferences has two effects:" I agree with both of your points but I'd suggest that it's more likely that #2 is the reason and not #1. It's fairly simple to determine what the actual bias of the writer is given detailed knowlege of the subject and a sufficient sample of the writer's work. So the only people for whom #1 could apply would be those who write about extremely obscure areas or who don't write much at all. Otherwise, sooner or later, the bias shines on through. My two shekels for what it's worth. Frankly I think most of this is a non-issue as the journalism profession is self-destructing as we speak. The vast levels of unprofessionalism shown throughout this Presidential campaign has been staggering and it is causing permanent damage. Then there's Iraq. Regardless of what your personal opinions are about Iraq the one thing that is inescapable is that the news reported from Iraq is extremely one-sided and incredibly limited. There are many people who are aware of this now mostly those who are motivated enough to find out and soldier's families. The number of people aware of the vast difference in reporting numbers now in the low millions. But there's another 40 years for this knowledge to trickle through the population and the number will increase. Eventually all credibility the news profession has will simple curdle up and die. And it is credibility that journalists trade upon. It is their coin and without it journalists are nothing. Most of modern journalism's credibility was won at very high cost by giants such as Murrow, Pyle and many others. All that has been largely squandered. It's interesting that around 1/3 of Americans trust the news. That's a terrible number for a profession dependent upon credibility. I fully expect that number to drop further. Frankly the only thing keeping the mouldering mass that is journalism afloat is local news. People may not trust you at all on international or national news but they can trust you, to a point, on local news. Mostly because they can second source it. *shrug* Posted by: ed at August 8, 2004 6:30 PM | Permalink Jay ... I self-thought my way into Steele's groupthink by agreeing with him that the standing O for Kerry was inappropriate. Transparency of bias is one thing -- and it is granting a lot to the conventioneers, I believe, to attribute their applause to a desire to display to the public readers their political prejudices -- but overt cheerleading is another. I am a fan of Unity (I said so here.) because I believe the more diversity, racial and otherwise, in our newsrooms, the better the journalism (based on the principle that good ideas improve in an environment where they can be challenged.) That said, Unity, coalition and the convention, is not known for challenging the issue of diversity and the ready and ongoing acceptance of diversity racially defined (gays and lesbian organizations are not part of the Unity coalition). Similarly, the convention accepted Kerry as its candidate and rejected Bush as not one of them with equal lack of challenge to the idea. That's what bothers me -- not that they cheered Kerry but that they didn't challenge him journalistically, which, of course, is their job. I asked, somewhat rhetorically, on First Draft: What is the obsession journalists have with inviting politicians to speak to their conventions? ASNE, for example, regularly extends invitations, as it did this year, to the sitting president or Cabinet members. Given all the challenges facing journalism today, including the very definition of the profession, why invite politicians who had nothing to the conversation and typically stray beyond their stump speeches or talking points. One reader left this answer in my comments: "Because it's wise for the politician to accept the invite(fear); "Because the journalists will enjoy being addressed directly by the powerful (validation); "Because those organizing the convention chose to ask - either because this choice is, well, conventional, or because they believe that politicians-as-speakers will boost attendance (commercial success) - in which case they presumably believe that the journalists would rather (or more easily?) be validated than informed." I'll add this: Because it's easier for the convention to be conventional than take a risk. And that's what the Kerry thing was: conventional. Cheers, Tim Posted by: Tim Porter at August 8, 2004 6:39 PM | Permalink Hmmm. "because I believe the more diversity, racial and otherwise, in our newsrooms, the better the journalism " Personally I'd agree with you except that I personally believe that racial diversity is complete nonsense. And that's speaking as a South Korean immigrant and naturalized citizen. Any time anyone starts talking about racial diversity all I see are the words "LOSER" tattooed to that person's forehead. Indeed the applicable terms of today such as "African-American", "Korean-American", "Asian-American" are complete bunk. A person's ethnicity or skin color means nothing. The only thing that matters is that person's ability and willingness to work to achieve success. All else is dross. Frankly the only real "diversity" worth having is not racial, religious or cultural. The only diversity worth having, in the newsroom, is Liberal, Moderate and Conservative. This is because these are the most common denominators. Rich or poor, black or white, North or South, East or West. All fit within these three primary groupings. LOL. It's like diversity in education. Racial or cultural diversity is nonsense. The only diversity that could intelligently apply in education is *financial*. Poor people, regardless of skin or background, have far more in common with each other. Really now. What does a raised in Princeton and educated at Columbia upperscale African-American have in common with some kid from Newark? Posted by: ed at August 8, 2004 6:49 PM | Permalink I find the concept of "Unity" to be abhorrent. Journalism leads in political correctness, so I have trouble believing that those in the sacred minority groups are facing discrimination. As far as the applause - not problem. These people were not at work - and there's nothing wrong with them reacting as human beings. I agree with ed that the real diversity worth having is political, although I'd add another axis: libertarian through Religious. As I have written before, a diversity in educational backgrounds would be good also. Take someone with a journalism major and a physics minor... or a biology minor... or a business minor, a membership in ROTC. Let's get some reporters who actually know something other than the procedures they have been taught. On characteristic of a profession is a reliance on and usage of deep knowledge - medicine, law, engineering specialty. What deep knowledge does a journalism graduate have? Anything significantly different from an education major? Other than the persistent bias in mainstream journalism, it is the utter lack of knowledge that I find most annoying. I hear people describing military events in uninformed terms. Science issues are even worse. It doesn't have to be that way. Posted by: John Moore (Useful Fools Blog) at August 8, 2004 8:00 PM | Permalink My two cents here. Perhaps it is time to come up with a new definition of "diversity" in American media. Perhaps we should be looking for diversity of viewpoint -- though that means one has to admit having a viewpoint -- rather than merely diversity of ethnicity. This is an era of fusion people: I've watched Tiger Woods, Soledad O'Brien, and Vin Diesel refuse to be categorized by one of their ethnicities or another. This is also an era of fusion opinions: You can't tell a conservative or a liberal by his or her cover... and so we want them to tear off the covers and reveal themselves. ... and it goes on.... Posted by: Jeff Jarvis at August 8, 2004 9:45 PM | Permalink Just who were the reporters delivering a standing ovation and what news outlets do they work for? Isn't that what a journalist would ask? Posted by: Timothy Lang at August 8, 2004 9:51 PM | Permalink Writings attract audience, and audience attracts advertiser dollars, and advertiser dollars support the writers. You can either make this work, or your publication disappears. It happens to work for left-wing story lines, among them the hard times of minorities, minorities being the name for a role in this, not a numerical size. There's a smaller audience for the debunking of the story line as a story line, and Michelle Malkin is paid by that audience. Is there more to account for? An interest in truth or justice would be possible, but you'd have to make it interesting. At the moment they're stylized truth and justice, things the audience can ``relate to'' in predictable ways. The disgruntled aren't a reliable audience, so don't have a press voice. This is an instance of a publication that disappears under market pressures, news Darwinism. So you get blogs. Everybody eventually finds their voice there. In summary, you can't reform the profession. What you see is what is commercially viable; the others are earning a living some other way. Say teaching journalism. John & Ken on journalism http://rhhardin3.home.mindspring.com/johnkencut.news.ra (147kb) there's no market for hard news, and journalism professors eke out a living another way. The only thing wrong is that all this trades on a fake reputation of hard news coverage, which in fact is just pandering to the audience (``you are serious people''); some debunking of that reputation would be welcome, but is unlikely, since it's part of the marketing. There's no connection with professional ethics at all. Posted by: Ron Hardin at August 8, 2004 10:08 PM | Permalink Group think among conservatives says that it's right to slam journalists for being liberal when they deny it; and it's right to slam them when they show it. Too easy? Not to the American right. Oh, please. You might as well claim it's "too easy" to slam the KKK both when spokesmen are claiming it's merely a "white heritage" organization and when it openly displays bigotry. How dare one point out both the lies and the behavior? When journalists (as a profession; there are already honest individuals) stop lying about their bias, it will still be perfectly fair to point out that they are biased. One doesn't even have to believe that jornalists should be unbiased to justify the action of pointing out that they are, any more than one has to believe that the RNC should be non-partisan when pointing out that its claims about John Kerry are unfair. Posted by: Warmongering Lunatic at August 8, 2004 10:14 PM | Permalink "Group think among conservatives says that it's right to slam journalists for being liberal when they deny it; and it's right to slam them when they show it. Too easy? Not to the American right. " You are indulging in a logical fallacy. Too easy? Not to you, apparently. Who cares whether they show their biases in 'private' or not? I certainly don't. What I care about is when they pretend to be 'objective' in their professional work, while incorporating their biases into every facet. Conservatives will of course complain about the sham 'objectivity' of the press - whether they hide their bias in their personal lives or not. Events like this are just more for the mountain of evidence which proves that the press IS biased. Usually, the press huffs and puffs incredulously that anyone could question THEM(!), and THEIR objectivity. That gambit is, obviously, unavailable in this case. Hence it's usefulness to Malkin and Graham. Oh, and the "ethics" propounded by Steele and company amounts to keeping the truth from the public. You wouldn't want to actually inform the peons, they might start to question the program. Posted by: J Thomason at August 8, 2004 10:29 PM | Permalink Diversity of opinions is a rather clear concept to an intelligent open minded person. Clearly our society has been "opinion-polled" to death, so it is no mystery as to how various points of view are distributed across society. Newsrooms should more readily address and reflect the diversity of ideas that are known to exist in society at large, by people whose minds are still alive. Posted by: Rene at August 8, 2004 10:38 PM | Permalink Anybody know whether "Bernard" is a bot? If yes, which one? The intentional misspellings are masterful. Posted by: Harry at August 9, 2004 12:08 AM | Permalink I think Bernard used to post here with the name Mark. The idea that conservatives will complain about coverage whether or not the reporter reports a liberal bias is a red herring. The important issue is whether journalists are going to continue with their pretense of non-bias, while actually engaging in remarkably coonsistent group-think. Whether conservatives complain about that is rather immaterial, although I suspect an openly biased individual, which some op-ed writers are, will draw complaints about their message, not their bias if they come clean. An interesting exercise is to read the journalism Code of Ethics. In this country which provides the first Amendment guarantees, there is not a word in the Code of Ethics about not doing harm to one's country. It's as if journalists are stateless people. The rest of the code is equally PC - some reasonable ideas and some silly PC ideas. Posted by: John Moore (Useful Fools Blog) at August 9, 2004 12:32 AM | Permalink When I first went to work as a reporter some years back on a medium-sized daily, I had to occasionally write up some of the 50 and 75-year-ago columns. You'd go through the old newspapers and pick out something of interest. One of the things it taught me was that objectivity was an ideal developed sometime in the early part of the 20th Century with very little relativity to newspapers earlier than that. The ideal developed only because the media began to collapse in on itself so the sources became limited. It is obvious even yet in multi-press towns, which are few, that objectivity is not a requirement in journalism. I would suggest that with the proliferation of cable news and now with the blogging that we may be moving back into that world. We also have to educate our readers. They approach us with the idea that we will reflect their biases back on them. If we don't, we are victimizing them. We also have to educate them to the power of propaganda, or to put it another way, to teach them to have crap detectors. I used to read a movie reviewer who could not say anything nice about U.S.-made movies and nothing bad about those that came in from overseas. But he did write adequate enough reviews that I could use him to determine what movies I wanted to see. I had my crap filter in place. I still have it and I may use it too often, but I doubt it. We also, I think, are living in a very ambiguous society. In one way, people are extremely distrustful. They disbelieve a great many things that are true—the number who doubt evolution, for instance or go for New Age religion—and yet at the same time want the ideal that they can always trust others and feel victimized when that doesn't happen. That was more than I had attended to say. As someone who worked both as a reporter and as a deskman on a small daily some years ago, I would have to say that the only time I would deliberately expose my biases was when I was on the editorial page. And I have to say that while you can say we don't need minorities in the newsrooms, if you are in a section of the country with a large Indian or Latino population, you will find it difficult to do a proper job of reporting on them for themselves and for the broader community if you don't have someone with access to those communities. In the 1960s, an assistant city editor on the Detroit Free Press told me that one of the biggest problems they had covering the riots there was that the Black section of town was unknown to them. They had not taken an interest in that community at all and the city was taken by surprise. P.S. From what little I have seen of Michelle Malkin, I wouldn't hire her for writing jokes on toilet paper. She's mean-spirited and totally unfunny except to those who live in a vicious world. Posted by: Chuck Rightmire at August 9, 2004 12:38 AM | Permalink Vaughn Ververs thinks maybe they were just assuaging their guilt? When Republicans complain about media bias in the next few months, don't be so quick to brush it off as the same old song. They just might have a case, but not for the reasons they will suggest. Rather than some ideologically-driven agenda to put a Democrat in the White House, press bias appears rooted more in a sense of guilt.Yep, that's it. Those Unity journos are just a bunch of guilty Newsroom Joes pissed off that it took a stained blue dress for them to believe the answering machine tapes were real. Considering the press was toting the water for the Clinton administration for years before Bush and continuously afterwards - Iraq and bin Laden making nasty at the Sudan factory, and Iraq getting named in the bin Laden indictment for playing footsies, and Clinton playing games of missile catch with ole binny and Iraq when WMD hide-and-seek got boring - it seems crass to act all pissy about it now, eh Luvy? The result has been an avalanche of negative coverage for the administration and, in many cases, an easy ride for the Democratic ticket. The Times saw fit to run 20-some straight front-page stories on the Iraqi prison scandal, even on days when there was little or no actual news. Doom and gloom coverage throughout the press raised many a doubt about the handover of power to an interim Iraqi government.But, this has been the like costliest war ever! Since, like Hoover!! Thousands of our boys are dying every day!!! Nothing good is happening there. Nothing bad is happening anywhere else. WE'VE PAINTED THE SAME SCHOOL A MILLION TIMES!!!! (and they have no books...) Instead of answers to how Kerry expects to lure international troops into Iraq, how he'll pay for his many promises and cut the deficit in half in one term or even whether he believes the war to be a mistake, about all we learned through the media was that he is a Vietnam vet. Rather than examine Kerry's proposals, the press seems more than happy to buy into the campaign's "message of the day." Haven't we seen this movie before, and wasn't it called "the buildup to war"?Kerry's a Vietnam vet? Really! Wow, was he the one that screwed that up? Posted by: Shrek at August 9, 2004 12:38 AM | Permalink Kerry's a Vietnam vet? Really! Wow, was he the one that screwed that up? Really, really. Posted by: Fiona at August 9, 2004 12:44 AM | Permalink Hmmm. "Really, really." LOL. Yeah that was a bit over the top. It'll be interesting to see how this latest flap between Kerry and the SwiftVets.com works out. They've got some seriously powerful arguments with quite a bit of it from Kerry's own mouth. It's looking more and more like Kerry's made a career out of exaggerating his accomplishments in Vietnam and in just fabricating things when it's convenient. It would be really useful to have an independent press that's actually capable of asking serious questions of the Kerry/Edwards campaign. But I've watched the recent interviews by liberal talking-heads and frankly I'm not going to hold my breath. Posted by: ed at August 9, 2004 12:57 AM | Permalink It's looking more and more like Kerry's made a career out of exaggerating his accomplishments in Vietnam and in just fabricating things when it's convenient. Dude, the guy got drunk going to a Christmas party in 1968 and ended up shooting a bunch of civilians in Cambodia!! I mean, the President - Nixon or Johnson, kinda unclear on that - had to lie and say it never happened. I mean, WTF? No wonder they kicked the guy outta the country after a couple of months -- geeeeezzzz. And his best friend is Chappaquiddick Ted? I mean, com'on, it's like Punk'd!!! Posted by: Shrek at August 9, 2004 1:09 AM | Permalink ed - in response to this comment: "Frankly the only thing keeping the mouldering mass that is journalism afloat is local news. People may not trust you at all on international or national news but they can trust you, to a point, on local news. Mostly because they can second source it." I would say that there is another reason to trust the local TV news - they rarely report actual news that is relevant to day to day life, thus, no reason not to trust them. For instance, what kind of bias would be evident in reporting on the latest fire or car chase? In truth, these are reported on because they provide visual imagery that the public can connect to, though their news value is usually marginal at best. Posted by: NewEnglandDevil at August 9, 2004 1:37 AM | Permalink I would add that it's pretty sad when you can trust the weatherman more than you can trust the NYT, Boston Globe, LAT, AJC, etc. Posted by: NewEnglandDevil at August 9, 2004 1:39 AM | Permalink The weatherman is the key to local TV ratings. He/she doesn't have to be right (heck, they just echo what the NWS puts out in the Forecast Discussion), just handsome, equipped and quick with the magic graphics on the blue screen, and good at reading a teleprompter while pointing at things. I trust my local paper more on local news. There's a limit to how much they can screw it up. One time, the local alternative paper (New Times) did an excellent report on a storm chasing research group I was part of, and this guy didn't understand weather. But he joined the group, went through the training, and went along on our chases as a member. The result: an extremely well written, accurate feature story that also picked up the atmosphere of the team very well. Posted by: John Moore ( Useful Fools blog) at August 9, 2004 3:44 AM | Permalink "Bloggers are malcontents who can't get a job." Uh -- yeah, all people who blog are unemployed. We bought our computers with food stamps. Great use of logic, guy. Why, I might as well say: all trolls are unemployed and live in their mothers' basements because they are four hundred pounds overweight. But of course, that would be true. Posted by: Andrea Harris at August 9, 2004 5:37 AM | Permalink As a non-journalist, I find esp. the national news as reported increasingly less relevant to reality. The biases of esp. the "mainstream" media are obvious - despite protestations by Bernard. You may not like him, but it was Drudge who broke the Monica Lewinski story, not the "mainstream" media who had voted for Clinton and were in essence defending him. If you are looking for bias in such, just look at the treatment of Clarke, Joe Wilson, and Sandy Berger in for example the NYT or LAT. The original claims are typically made on page 1 above the fold, while any ultimate correction or retraction is buried, or more likely, nonexistent. But these news organizations, because their hidden, but well known, biases are becoming ever more apparent, are rapidly losing their relevance (and market share). I think much better for the NYT that the they quit claiming to be the news paper of record, and start admitting that they are liberal and are shills of the DNC. Just watch where the lead attacks are going to come from against the Viet Nam veteran groups against Kerry - odds are from the NY and the Boston Globe (someone claimed owned by the NYT). If they were as seriously into objective journalism as they claim, they would be spending more of their resources investigating Kerry's Viet Nam record, and fewer on his critics. After all, the critics aren't running for President - Kerry is, and presumably, if one of his primary claims for qualification to be President are the lessons learned from Viet Nam and the courage he showed there, then it behoves objective journalists to investigate much more closely exactly what he did there and how he did it. How about something easy - Kerry's claim that he spent Christmas of 1968 in Cambodia listening to the President say we didn't have troops there? (see http://instapundit.com/archives/017068.php - which tells you one of my sources). As for diversity, I too find it absurd. We clump almost 1/2 of the world's population into a catagory defined as "Asian". We then exclude Mr. Kerry's wife from "African-American", but include Sec. of State Powell in that category, totally on the basis of race, and having nothing to do with national origin. But of course, "Asian" Indians are much closer racially to Europeans than to the Chinese. As for Hispanic or Latino, "Bill Richardson" sure sounds European, probably Great Britain. But apparently, he qualifies as Hispanic. But I have also known a couple of blue eyed blonde women who look very northern European who qualified based on their last name. A friend of mine had a daughter just enter an Ivy League school. She is of a mixed race marriage and looks more white than black. She grew up in a million dollar house, as did her mother. She went to an exclusive prep school. She was raised white until it became evident that she couldn't get in her college of choice as White, so she became Black and got in. My daughter, a middle schooler at a private school, has class mates who will face the opposite problem. In her class, she has several classmates of mixed Asian and European ancestry. Those with Asian surnames will be discriminated against in admission to engineering schools in comparison to those with European surnames - even if they have the same proportion of European and Asian blood. I agree with Ed, and disagree with Bernard. My daughter's friends are children of privilege, whether they are of European, Asian, or African descent. They listen to the same music, wear the same clothes, go to the same parties, and fight over the same boys. My daughter's sleepover birthday party this year had two Asian-American, one African-American, and two European-American (including herself) girls present. Yet, in five years, they face entirely different prospects in applying to college. And apparently, four or so years later, entirely different prospects in journalism, should they elect to pursue that career. These kids, regardless of race or national origin, have far, far, more in common with each other, and with other kids who attend top private schools, than they do with kids of any race, etc. who grow up in poverty and attend disfunctional inner-city schools. Posted by: Bruce Hayden at August 9, 2004 7:35 AM | Permalink For the record, Jay, you might want to add that there were some non-reporters in attendance at both speeches, although I'm not sure what the percentage breakdown of journo/non-journo was. Over at Jim Romenesko's Letters page, Isaiah Poole of Congressional Quarterly gives this account: "Won't somebody -- anybody -- report that there were other people in the room for the Kerry and Bush appearances at the Unity convention in Washington than working hard-news journalists? Included in the mix of people at both events were public relations people (for example, the woman next to me at the Kerry speech worked for a union that endorsed Kerry), columnists, professors, students and people who work for avowedly opinionated journals. Even if they were altogether a quarter of the crowd, their reactions would make a difference on the appearance of the entire audience to an undiscerning person." Ben: I nowhere claimed that the Unity convention "is somehow representative of journalism per se." A few critics saw it that way, and I quoted them. Is that "allowing the convention to be framed as...?" No, it's quoting different views, part of what I try to do here. I do think, however, that some of the group think surrounding this event is representative of the mainstream journalistic mind. Example: diversity equals racial integration. Anna: Okay, I suppose there is a glimmer of non-circular reasoning when Bob Steele says: "partisan behavior is antithetical to the principle of independence." But I would question that argument. Do you think Kerry would have been applauded by the Unity crowd if, recognizing the warm reception, he said to them: "... and we need your help in getting out message out?" My guess is that he would have been booed for that. Why? Because minority journalists treasure their independence too. John Moore: I agree with your point about the ethics discourse in the American press: "It's as if journalists are stateless people." That's another case of group think. Chuck: I think it's true what you say: "if you are in a section of the country with a large Indian or Latino population, you will find it difficult to do a proper job of reporting on them for themselves and for the broader community if you don't have someone with access to those communities." This is why organizations like Unity are necessary. The same observation would hold for a region with a large population of military families-- San Diego or Hampton Roads, for example. Recruting more reporters with military backgrounds would seem to be essential in these times. Weakened by group think, the diversity project in journalism has little or nothing to say about this. I think that's a problem. Weakened by group think, the diversity project in journalism has little or nothing to say about [non-racial diversity]. I think that's a problem. Anti-capitalist tokenism as long as your ideology, accent and appearance don't offend. Truth to Power, brother! Didn't you hear the dog pound barking during Kerry's speech, "Free Estrada, Free Brown!!" Posted by: Shrek at August 9, 2004 11:28 AM | Permalink Simple but interesting bit to add to this discussion. Not all of the 2,000 were reporters. I know this because I ran into one of them who was staying at a hotel next to my apartment. This guy was an engineer. He basically wants to be a camera man or a lighting guy or some sort of background "tech" person for TV news. I thought it was interesting because when he said he was in town for the convention I just *assumed* he was a journalist. He said there's good networking for a job at these conventions. Let's say people like this guy are only a small portion of the "half" who stood up. Maybe 15% of the entire convention isn't just reporters but non-reporting "tech" or background (graphic designers)employees. Are these people supposed to follow the non-political rules that bind journalists (according to the critic of the behavior of this event.)If you light the local news broadcast are you forbidden from clapping at a Kerry speech? Posted by: catrina at August 9, 2004 11:30 AM | Permalink catrina, So, if I'm doing the mikes and lighting at the National Press Club thingy, I can whoop, boo and holler? Posted by: Shrek at August 9, 2004 11:37 AM | Permalink What's the difference if Kerry and Bush had spoken at a National Press Club luncheon and the same reactions had occurred? Posted by: Shrek at August 9, 2004 11:40 AM | Permalink Hello, Jay Rosen, were you even there? Bush and Kerry BOTH got a standing ovation for coming to speak. Admittedly, Kerry's speech got a warmer reception than Bush's comments. But the only reason Bush didn't get a standing ovation at the end was because he was quickly escorted out the back by Secret Service for security reasons -- whereas Kerry stayed after his speech, willingly answered a few more questions from the front press row and shook hands with the attendees. There was one heckler for Bush but he was told by A LOT of journalists he was out of line and he should sit down and shut up (before he was escorted out). I'd say Bush was treated just as respectfully as Sec. Colin Powell was treated. The REAL story of Bush's speech was that Nat'l Assn. of Black Journalist member & Chicago Defender columnist Roland Martin PROVED why more minority journalists should be covering Washington and the president: because we'll ASK the tough questions. Bush several times tried to evade Martin's question about whether he was for or against affirmative action when it came to college admissions. But Martin kept hammering back at him -- and eventually, after three times being asked the question, Bush admitted that he was against "legacy" admissions (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/07/politics/campaign/07bush.html ) -- Bush also gave a memorable quote on how he is for colleges "affirmatively taking action" to increase diversity. Posted by: P.J. Joshi at August 9, 2004 12:01 PM | Permalink I wasn't there. Should I shut up now? I wrote about reactions to the event and quoted from those were there, including Unity's weblog. I also said what you said: Bush got a (mostly) polite reception from the crowd. Yours is the first report I have seen that he got a standing ovation. "Group think among conservatives says that it's right to slam journalists for being liberal when they deny it; and it's right to slam them when they show it. Too easy? Not to the American right." Jay - let me join those jumping on this anti-conservative point; I think your bias is showing. This is an incomplete sentence. Let me correct it for you: "Group think among conservatives says that it's right to slam journalists for being liberal when they deny it; and it's right to slam them when they show it, while still denying it." I think that's more accurate. The group at Unity isn't being slammed just for showing that they support the Democrat/liberal candidate; it's hardly a secret. They're being slammed because they both openly show their support and deny that it matters or that they're biased. Posted by: Rusty at August 9, 2004 12:20 PM | Permalink I wasn't at UNITY, but I am involved in the National Association of Black Journalists. I would echo the point that the membership of the constituent organizations in UNITY (as with SPJ) includes many people who don't work in mainstream news organizations, and who may not share the same beliefs about how to comport one's self at this type of event. On my blog, I've got a response from Roland S. Martin, one of the panelists who questioned Pres. Bush, that folks may want to check out. It's a little long to post here, but here's a link Posted by: Kim Pearson at August 9, 2004 2:19 PM | Permalink Group think among conservatives says that it's right to slam journalists for being liberal when they deny it; and it's right to slam them when they show it. Too easy? Not to the American right. These two reactions are not mutually exclusive or contradictory because they deal with two separate problems, or rather, one underlying problem and a related phenomenon. The underlying problem is the fact that the vast majority of professional journalists are "liberal". (I put that in scare quotes because they are not really liberal in any meaningful historical sense of the term. It would be better to say simply that they are Democrats, with all the ideological/political confusion that that implies.) There are two possible reactions to this underlying reality. One is to deny it. The other is to admit it. Let me firmly say as semi-kinda-sorta-quasi-conservative, that I, and I would guess most conservatives, infinitely prefer the latter to the former. Bias is better blatant than latent as they say. However, when journalists admit that they are virtually all Democrats, we're still faced with the underlying problem that, well, they're all Democrats. I applaud these journalists for their candor, but at the same time I think it's perfectly valid to use this as another example (another "slam") to show the overwhelming Democratic character of professional journalists. Also, as someone said above, there is a good chance that even after this display these same journalists will claim that they are not overwhelmingly Democrats, or that they "don't allow their bias to affect their reporting" or some such risible nonsense. Posted by: Eric Deamer at August 9, 2004 2:43 PM | Permalink What both journalism and politics in this country needs is less labeling and more nuance. This whole idea of branding any group of people as liberal or conservative -- as if there's any coherent, uniform definition of either -- and then predicting viewpoints, behavior or love of country based on the label, has done more to erode public discourse than probably any actual issue we've confronted in the past two decades. If a journalist supports abortion and belongs to the NRA, is he a liberal or a conservative? If a journalist can't stand George Bush and loves Trent Lott, is she a liberal or a conservative? When we say that journalists need to reveal their bias, what does that mean -- that for every cops brief there's a 500-word disclaimer: "This reporter opposes murder, supports capital punishment, opposes racial profiling, leans in favor of the 'good-cop, bad-cop' investigative technique, thinks more money should be spent on education than prison, and believes the police chief is personally corrupt but professionally effective." (By the way, you'd need another disclaimer for the headline writer, one for the assigning editor, and on up the chain of command to the publisher and corporate CEO.) Good journalists -- and there are plenty -- recognize the difference between citizenship and partisanship. They're also quite capable of setting aside their myriad personal biases to produce fair and accurate copy, because fairness is their overriding bias. It's certainly true that after hours, days or weeks of reporting, journalists as human beings come to a story with a certain point of view that might not reflect every reader's point of view. But it's a viewpoint of authority based on research, a questioning of assumptions, and fair play for all points of view. The reason the best journalists don't go out of their way to identify themselves as liberals or conservatives is that they're neither. That doesn't mean they're above preferring one candidate or policy position over another; it means they arrive at their positions as individuals and not adherents to an ideological movement. And it means they're capable of understanding and accurately portraying the other side. Betraying this professional capacity for political independence by publicly supporting a political candidate is, in fact, inappropriate conduct for a journalist. Posted by: Perry Parks at August 9, 2004 2:50 PM | Permalink I recently blogged on this topic at VodkaPundit. I'll post the links below, but the thesis is simply this: Journalists are not higher beings. You have opinions like anybody else. Just admit it. Disclose your views and who you voted for in the last election (quitcher bitchin--if it's good enough for financial reporters, it's good enough for you, too). Those of us out here CAN be trusted with the truth, whether we went to Columbia or not. Links: "A public demonstration of support for a particular candidate" (July 21) Full Disclosure (July 19) Posted by: Will Collier at August 9, 2004 2:59 PM | Permalink Good journalists -- and there are plenty -- recognize the difference between citizenship and partisanship. They're also quite capable of setting aside their myriad personal biases to produce fair and accurate copy, because fairness is their overriding bias. It's certainly true that after hours, days or weeks of reporting, journalists as human beings come to a story with a certain point of view that might not reflect every reader's point of view. But it's a viewpoint of authority based on research, a questioning of assumptions, and fair play for all points of view. The reason the best journalists don't go out of their way to identify themselves as liberals or conservatives is that they're neither. That doesn't mean they're above preferring one candidate or policy position over another; it means they arrive at their positions as individuals and not adherents to an ideological movement. And it means they're capable of understanding and accurately portraying the other side. Could you please give one single example of a journalist who meets this laughably self-aggrandizing description? (I say self-aggrandizing because I imagine that this is the career that you either practice, teach, or are studying for because of the University of Missouri e-mail) If you do so, I would bet you a large sum of money that there are scads of people, possibly myself among them, who thinks that this person is transparently "liberal", whatever that means. If these really are the standards of the trade then one would think those who best followed them would be lofted into high positions such as editor of New York Times say. Well, Howell Raines was editor of the New York Times and he's blatantly admitted since then in the Guardian that his goal was more or less to turn his paper into a propaganda organ to defeat George Bush. Doesn't exactly fit with your description of journalism above now does it? Posted by: Eric Deamer at August 9, 2004 3:01 PM | Permalink Well, the third bullet on Rosen's partial list has gotten plenty of attention so I'd like to ask a question on the first: Group think among traditional journalists says the display of political feeling is unprofessional because professionals traditionally don't display political feeling. No argument less circular than that is required. Read Steele and see if you can find one; I couldn't.What other profession(s) discourage perceptions of partisanship based on ethics or law? The military, for example. Are there analogous arguments that are less circular? If Bush and Kerry had given speeches at a military convention (i.e., AUSA), what would the journalistic reaction have been? Does the difference in mission, public reliance or potential threat make a difference in allowable demonstrations of partisanship? Posted by: Tim at August 9, 2004 3:26 PM | Permalink Could you please give one single example of a journalist who meets this laughably self-aggrandizing description? (I say self-aggrandizing because I imagine that this is the career that you either practice, teach, or are studying for because of the University of Missouri e-mail) For the record, the e-mail is from Michigan State University. Your University of Missouri assumption is one that most practicing journalists would not make. Otherwise, you're correct that I graduated from journalism school, practiced professional journalism and now teach it and advise the student newspaper, a link from which is below. Are the reporters, photographers and editors who handled this story likely to vote for or against President Bush, do you think? (By the way, as adviser, I have no authority in the newspaper's content decisions.) As far as your capacity to detect a "liberal" bias in this story, or any other I could post, I have little doubt in many media critics' ability to find liberal bias on the back of a cereal box. I try to qualify my assertions so as not to imply that all journalists are always capable of acting as journalists should. Cases where journalists are too aggressive in slanting a story toward their own sympathies -- or not aggressive enough in questioning authorities (most of whom are presently Republicans) for fear of being labeled a "liberal" -- are voluminous, and they're not what journalism is or should be. I'd recommend the book "The Elements of Journalism: What Newspeople Should Know and the Public Should Expect," which Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel based on a distillation of discussions with hundreds of journalists, for a good primer on what journalism, practiced well, is and can be.
Posted by: Perry Parks at August 9, 2004 3:47 PM | Permalink Eric: May we have the quotes where Howell Raines "blatantly admitted since then in the Guardian that his goal was more or less to turn his paper into a propaganda organ to defeat George Bush." I'd like to see them. Maybe even write about them if they're legit. Give us a few of the more blatant ones, will ya? I'm referring to this column There is no explicit admission here that the far-left, anti-capitalist politics of this column informed his editorship of the most important newspaper in the world. But, don't you find it a bit untoward, that someone who was so recently in such a position would be going around telling the Kerry campaign to engage in active and willful "disinformation" in the pages of a widely-read publication? That's actually a good start. Using that promise as disinformation, he must now figure out a creative way to become a redistributionist Democrat. The cat's out of the bag. He's admitted his bias (and boy-howdy has he), the only possible thing to argue now is that the person who wrote this column somehow didn't allow these views to inform his editorship of the New York Times. I overstated when I said he blatantly admitted that he ran the times as a propaganda organ, but surely no moreso than this august personnage over-stated when we wrote: As Al From of the Democratic Leadership Council noted, Americans aren't antagonistic toward the rules that protect the rich because they think that in the great crap-shoot of economic life in America, they might wind up rich themselves. It's a mass delusion, of course, but one that has worked ever since Ronald Reagan got Republicans to start flaunting their wealth instead of apologising for it. Kerry has to understand that when a cure is impossible, the doctor must enter the world of the deluded.
Posted by: Eric Deamer at August 9, 2004 4:41 PM | Permalink Uh huh. That's pretty much what I thought, Eric. Some passages that might be taken one way, or the other, and that are not about the New York Times coverage at all (except as one reads that into his piece) are described in a tone of utter certainty as a "blatant admission" that the Times is a propaganda machine. For the record, the e-mail is from Michigan State University. Your University of Missouri assumption is one that most practicing journalists would not make. Of course not. Only those of us who are mostly poor, uneducated and easy to command would print glistening generalities without basis in fact. No one blessed by the gods of Journalism would ever stoop to such antics, certainly not on the front page of the Washingon Post. Why, there are editors who'd prevent such things from happening. No one would dare risk the institutional arrogance of the Journalism priesthood by making such an error. Posted by: Will Collier at August 9, 2004 5:01 PM | Permalink Jay: And any over-statement on the part of a critic of a vaunted liberal media organ is taken as an excuse to avoid the substance of a critique. i.e. the fact that Raines wasn't stupid enough to forthrightly admit that the strong opinions evidenced in this column affected his approach to journalism is apparently enough evidence to dismiss out of hand the idea that they might have. It must take a lot of effort to suspend disbelief and think that someone who blatantly comes out and says that Americans vote for Republicans only because they're greedy and want to fix the game to screw over other people and who blatantly, literally counsels the Kerry campaign to engage in "disinformation" is not in a somewhat compromised position as a reliable witness to national politics. I read this and see that Howell Raines is a human being and that this admission retroactively has consequences regarding his entire career as a journalist. You apparently see something else. Let me ask you a question: How can you completely divorce the statements in this column from your evaluation of Raines's previous career? (Or is this substantive question automatically somehow invalidated by my sloppy, Howell Raines-like prose earlier?) Posted by: Eric Deamer at August 9, 2004 5:14 PM | Permalink Eric: I don't completely divorce the statements in his Guardian column from my evaluation of Raines. After I read it, I thought he was a bigger fool than I did before. Nor do I think this is anything wrong with your interpreting his words the way you do. (Even though I don't read it that way at all.) If you see his statement about Americans wanting to be rich as proof positive that Raines edited the New York Times into a left wing propaganda sheet, do go ahead-- and argue for that. But don't describe his column as a "blatant admission" when it's actually a between-the-lines thing. It doesn't help your case. And it insults my intelligence. Fair enough? As for my own view of what those passages say about Raines, they are intended to show he's a superior pundit to all journalists, and a superior strategist to all handlers. He is answering--in the "guilty" parts you cite--the classic pundit and sportscaster game-day question: Howell, what does Kerry have to do to win against this very tough Bush team? So that's how I read it.
It's certainly true that after hours, days or weeks of reporting, journalists as human beings come to a story with a certain point of view that might not reflect every reader's point of view. But it's a viewpoint of authority based on research, a questioning of assumptions, and fair play for all points of view. Interesting, a viewpoint of authority. We said? Like Judith Miller? Or, does she no longer qualify as a good journalist? So, when was Kerry discharged from the Navy? How many discharged servicemembers have been recalled for service this year? Journalists are not authorities on other professions. Journalists get more wrong about a story then they get right, more often than not. They develop Master Narratives to more efficiently communicate using automatic thinking. Research? Journalists are at best symbiotic and at worst parasitic. They are not researchers. Posted by: Tim at August 9, 2004 5:57 PM | Permalink On the Raines issue, weren't the Judith Miller weapons of mass destruction pieces, which are credited with helping galvanize public opinion in favor of the present war in Iraq and which have since been disavowed by The Times as sloppily reported, published on his watch? If The Times under Raines was on a relentless quest to discredit and defeat Bush, wouldn't it have put a stop to that reporting? One thing about journalists' bias I didn't mention earlier is that their greatest bias is in favor of good stories, whomever they help or harm. That's not always in journalism or the public's best interest, either, because it can lead to haste and carelessness. But it's more true than any political charges you can toss at a good reporter or editor. On the other hand, it's worth pointing out that Raines is out of a job. Jayson Blair was the catalyst for his exit, but remember that the Times staff didn't leap to his defense during this period. There were occasions when Raines did foist his personal views onto the newspaper (like when he quashed, or threatened to quash -- I don't recall -- a sports column that took what he viewed to be the wrong side in the women at Augusta National debate). When he was caught in this behavior, he was called out, and when times got tough for him, he had minimal support. Journalism has a tendency toward self-correction. Oh, and Will: I hope you weren't just saving up that correction for 11 years in case I ever suggested that most journalists strive to be accurate. Posted by: Perry Parks at August 9, 2004 6:02 PM | Permalink Here's the letter I wrote today on this case. Romenesko ran it. Instapundit so far has passed. To: Instapundit; and Romensko Letters. From: Jay Rosen The receptions for Kerry and Bush are generating above average buzz in the press and blog domains. These streams contribute to one another. People are raising questions, and the complaints of journalists (unprofessional!) and conservatives (liberal!) are merging. Many Unity members are quoted with reservations. Others, I'm sure, feel the organization has nothing to apologize for. I'm one of them. I agree that the vigorous response to Kerry--by some, not all--is a question of journalism ethics, and of professionalism, and to me the ethics of it all begins with protecting freedom of expression for minority members in that profession, who are also employees of a powerful industry. If you begin there, then "express yourself in the privacy of the voting booth" does nothing to address the ethics problem. Is it ethical to limit public expression by off duty journalists in a heated election campaign that arouses passions everywhere? As for credibility: is a mask always credible? The whole logic of diversity hiring assumes that minority journalists will exert and express themselves within the councils of the profession, and--for example--at daily meetings in newsrooms. Freedom of speech in public settings is not a trivial issue for people who band together to make their voices heard in journalism. "It's just unprofessional to show a response, for or against" is the conclusion I sense building out there. But I don't sense much room for dissent--for diversity--among those who have groaned over the crowd's display for Kerry. Professionalism isn't a static thing; and there are various views of responsibility alive out there. Here's one to toss in the mix: "I have a responsibility to remember that I am a citizen, with a political life like other citizens, and I ought to participate in American democracy when I can. And as long as it does not interfere with my professional duties, I shall." Such a view is not automatically unprofessional. It wants to refine what being a good professional means. It's a minority sentiment. That's why I say Unity has nothing to apologize for. But there is plenty to debate. Unity has a lively convention home page and an experiment in real time blogging going. Why don't they say something-- preferably real, interesting and responsive? You know, step into the debate. Bring some voices from the organization--diverse ones--into the mix. Instead of running from the reaction to Kerry, interpret it. Oh, and Will: I hope you weren't just saving up that correction for 11 years in case I ever suggested that most journalists strive to be accurate. Actually, it was just one example out of multitudes illustrating how the Olympian Journalist detachment you seem so anxious to convince us of is a false pretense. Michael Weisskopf has opinions. Dana Milbank has opinions. God knows Howell Raines has opinions. I have opinions, and so do you. Our personal beliefs affect our writing--how could it be otherwise? We're not robots, we're human beings (yes, even people who teach college, to borrow an old line from P.J. O'Rourke). Isn't it more honest (for yourself and your readers) to accept that fact of life, and admit where you're coming from up front, instead of pretending to be as objective as the lens of a microscope? I repeat Linda Picone, above, "You're telling me journalistic "credibility" rests on keeping things secret from the public?" Posted by: Will Collier at August 9, 2004 6:14 PM | Permalink Finally, a truly objective journalism account of Bush's and Kerry's speeches at the Unity convention! Not Robert Cox, the CSPAN video. Posted by: Tim at August 9, 2004 7:46 PM | Permalink Announcing The Command Post Wiki: "It’s the newest extension in our “journalism by the people” experiment, and it’s yours to use and populate … anyone, and I mean anyone is free to create and edit pages." Posted by: Tim at August 9, 2004 7:59 PM | Permalink "Isn't it more honest ...to admit where you're coming from up front...?" What I'd rather know about a journalist: a) To what degree s/he values (and practices) fairness above partisanship - there's less to be learned from a line-toeing partisan political 'bedfellow' than from a fair-minded writer regardless of perspective; b) Track record, aka good and perceptive judgement, in terms of being able to "call" trends and truths sooner and more accurately than the competition. (To give an example, at this point the "I'm sure Salam Pax is fake" and "Iraq's going fine, the problem lies with the press's negative reports" bloggers don't engender confidence.) Some questions for those advocating political disclosure - Posted by: Anna at August 9, 2004 9:54 PM | Permalink "'they arrive at their positions as individuals and not adherents to an ideological movement. And it means they're capable of understanding and accurately portraying the other side.' That's the issue, isn't it. The ideal journalist _is_ liberal, in the sense of being open to new ideas and evaluating them fairly and nonjudgementally. (I suspect this is why there aren't many conservative scientists.) Posted by: Anna at August 9, 2004 10:20 PM | Permalink I went to Unity as a member of the Native American Journalists Association. I was frankly annoyed that Kerry and Bush were there. Workshops had to be canceled or pushed back on Thursday and Friday mornings. If I want to see the candidates, I can go out in my community and see them. They pass through Ohio practically twice a week now. Some members of the organizations did have serious questions for Kerry and Bush, but most people at their speeches, I would guess, were there just to see a VIP, and it had nothing to do with their job back home as a movie reviewer or cameraman or whatever. I was at my hotel ironing my clothes when Bush and Kerry were speaking, because back home I am a nighttime editor on what was once modestly known as the rewrite desk, and I am not getting up early just to hear the same old speeches I can catch any day on C-Span. Posted by: Mary Kay Quinn at August 9, 2004 11:31 PM | Permalink Jay, double pats on the back for a good initial post AND a fine continuance in the comments. I like your "I have a responsibility to remember that I am a citizen, with a political life like other citizens, and I ought to participate in American democracy when I can. And as long as it does not interfere with my professional duties, I shall.", but even more important is the ability to express dissent IN PUBLIC. I fear that pro-God reporters do NOT feel free to do so; nor, today, do many pro-Bush folk. The policy support question of the partisan army is less relevant. They are understandably more supportive of the politicans who they think are more supportive of them -- and there is usually acceptance of political opposition. A bigger question on diversity is in liberal arts colleges granting tenure. PC thought police seems to run rampat (oh, no ... we Leftists are just more intellectual!) Peggy Noonan just took leave from WSJ in order to be a more partisan pro-Bush supporter. That's an ethical position -- and she was doing opinion, not reporting. Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at August 10, 2004 5:06 AM | Permalink That's the issue, isn't it. The ideal journalist _is_ liberal, in the sense of being open to new ideas and evaluating them fairly and nonjudgementally. (I suspect this is why there aren't many conservative scientists.) This attitude is precisely the one that is dominant in the press. Hell, according to Walter Cronkite, to be a good journalist one must be a liberal (i.e. a leftist.) Mr. Parks, I honestly find your position to be more than a little bit self-aggrandizing. You're ignoring the fact that if you go into the newsroom and survey reporters (not opinion columnists) you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who is pro-life, pro-school choice, anti-gay marriage, anti-gun control, anti-racial preferences, pro-tax cuts, etc. But you would no doubt find many who hold the opposite of all these positions quite passionately. And you expect us to believe that they can very easily push them aside? Posted by: Martin A. Knight at August 10, 2004 7:34 AM | Permalink Just to put in my two cents as a reporter who attended both speeches. By way of disclaimer, the role of the media is often to report and criticize. Please consider this as both. Report: Kerry received standing ovations entering and leaving the speech. Bush received a standing ovation on his welcome, but his departure was marked with a decent amount of applause (but no standing). The audience was much smaller for Kerry than for Bush. The heckler who yelled out during the Bush speech was apparently not a member of the media, and had managed to sneak in past security. (Source: The Unity News) Analysis: If I were to judge, Kerry was the better speaker at the convention. Kerry's speech was decent enough combining his recent talking points from the DNC with points geared toward a diversity gathering. However, he doesn't seem to be a polished speaker -- there were definitely places where he dragged on his point. I think part of the lackluster reaction to Bush is due to the off-key tone of his speech. Bush's almost-slouching style of draping his arm across the podium lacked energy. Overall, the speech didn't have the fire of the stump speech I had heard earlier in the month in Michigan. Also, the president handled the question-and-answer period poorly. During the Q-and-A, Bush said what I approximate to be about four "chuckle lines" where he fumbled the answer (i.e., the sovereign Indian nations are sovereign because that's what they are -- sovereign). By contrast, Kerry's question-and-answer period went relatively well, although some audience members later said his answers were light. So, I think in terms of presentation, Kerry definitely left on a higher note than the president. To address the issue of media bias: In terms of personal bias, it's ridiculous to deny that we all have some. However, I think some see bias as a blinder -- obscuring everything that a reporter puts to paper. I disagree. I write each news story with the intention of telling the story, covering as many sides to the story as possible and getting the information to the people. Political bias -- either my own, the editor's, the publisher's or corporate parent's -- is immaterial and should never be in the story. Does this always happen with a news story? No, but it is something I constantly strive for. Editorials, opinions, critics and analyses are obviously different beasts and I do stress the difference to readers. BTW, I strive to adhere to the SPJ Code of Ethics in my writing at all times. I don't feel that there are any "politically correct" tendencies in the document (whatever PC means these days). In terms of expressing opinions outside of the newsroom, I admit it's a sketchy issue. However, I don't think journalists should ultimately be bound to an oath of silence. Case in point, I've got my own discrete personal 'blog, but it's removed from my "professional" site. I think the best way to look at diversity is, in order to present the best coverage possible, a news outlet has to find stories in all walks of life. It's ultimately not necessary to have a reporting staff that reflects the racial makeup of a community. The ties between a news outlet and the community will help get the story. Mr. Parks, I honestly find your position to be more than a little bit self-aggrandizing. You're ignoring the fact that if you go into the newsroom and survey reporters (not opinion columnists) you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who is pro-life, pro-school choice, anti-gay marriage, anti-gun control, anti-racial preferences, pro-tax cuts, etc. But you would no doubt find many who hold the opposite of all these positions quite passionately. And you expect us to believe that they can very easily push them aside? You're the second person in this discussion to call me self-aggrandizing, so I guess that must be true. As far as surveying a newsroom, from what I've read there are likely to be fewer journalists who subscribe to the positions you mention than exist in the general population. But to suggest that any newsroom marches in lockstep, or that someone who takes one side on half of those issues isn't capable of taking the other side on the other half, is to speak from ignorance. And to suggest that a person can't put aside personal beliefs to perform professional duties is to undermine a number of professions. Do we expect Republican doctors to treat Democratic patients with less care? Do most criminal defense lawyers generally agree with the lifestyles of their clients? When a CIA agent reports back on the anti-American views of a group she monitors, do we think her pro-American bias will distort her characterization of the group's activities? When a journalist's job is to seek out and fairly represent a point of view he may disagree with, it's not so unreasonable to expect him to succeed. The kind of journalism I advocate, and have seen regularly in practice, is born of a curiosity about what makes people tick, why things work or don't work, and when someone's working in the public interest or working for themselves. It is not born of a desire to push a political agenda. A good reporter is eminently capable of approaching both sides of an issue with fairness and compassion, because unlike talking heads or people who look only for news that best supports their point of view, the reporter seeks out people with diverse experiences and tries like hell to draw out how they think and feel. Once you've talked both to a desperate, physically abused teenager who felt she had no choice but to have an abortion without her parents' permission, and to a devastated parent who would have done anything to help his daughter keep her baby, it's hard to demonize either side -- even if you still have your own point of view. Most journalists I know don't have a tough time with people who disagree with them. They have a tough time with people who are so rigid in their point of view that they're not capable of understanding anyone else's. That fact that this category of individual seems to be dominating public discourse is the reason we spend more time talking about who's biased than about how to solve our common problems. When you seek out the other side for a living, it's not as hard to set aside your own views as you might think. Posted by: Perry Parks at August 10, 2004 11:22 AM | Permalink The belief that if you find out something about a journalist's political leanings, then--presto!-- you know without a doubt, and without any further inquiry, which way their reporting skews, is held so deeply, expressed so automatically, and defended so zealously that it amounts to religion-- for some. What's weird is that when you point out that things may not be so simple, so automatic, you get simplicity back: so, professor, are you saying it's of no relevance at all? How preposterous! Thus: if you're not in the "all" camp, you must be in the "nothing" camp. What other camp is there? Posted by: Jay Rosen at August 10, 2004 11:53 AM | Permalink Are credibility and independence are journalism's commodities, or is it an ability to attract advertising revenue and subscriptions, or a craft - art - where selling an article or earning a salary is the measure of a journalist's credentials. Or is it a J-school degree? Based on your underlying sense of credentialism, how does personal bias transparency - a journalist's acts and (non)denials - increase the value of journalism for the reader, advertiser, ...? Snob Journalism: Elitism Versus Ethics for a Profession in Crisis Is Journalism a Bona Fide Profession? Getting It Right: Newsmaker Perceptions of Accuracy and Credibility Posted by: Tim at August 10, 2004 1:19 PM | Permalink But the monoculture in newsrooms works against that. It seems hopeless to deny that diversity in mainstream journalism is a liberal project. Bush voters are a small minority in the political press, but Unity is not going to be expanding any time soon to include them. And if that's the case, then why should participants in a liberal project have to deny that they're liberals? - They shouldn't, and it only exacerbates the credibility crisis when/if they do. What's wrong with greeting President Bush politely, and John Kerry enthusiastically? - Nothing. Unity, Urban League, NAACP - special pleaders with special interests and agenda. No one should have been surprised that the questions asked of the speakers reflected a politically liberal agenda, or that the audience reactions reflected a politically liberal attendance. And how is it possible that newsrooms need the perspectives that minority journalists bring to the table, but not the politics they add to the mix? - Well, the newsrooms already have a skewed population toward liberal politics - so perhaps newsrooms are in a greater need of the perspectives of conservative minority jouranlists. Are conservative Hispanics, Asians and blacks being represented in the newsrooms: It seems hopeless to deny that diversity in mainstream journalism is a liberal project. Is that circular? Or does that just open up the newsroom for accusations of hostility, disconnectedness, Uncle Tom-ism, .... Posted by: Tim at August 10, 2004 2:09 PM | Permalink That's the issue, isn't it. The ideal journalist _is_ liberal, in the sense of being open to new ideas and evaluating them fairly and nonjudgementally. (I suspect this is why there aren't many conservative scientists.) The equation of being open to new ideas... and being liberal is somewhere between terribly offensive and indicative of a person who accepts ideas without question. Likewise, the idea that there aren't many conservative scientists (I can name 3 in my immediate family, although only 2 are members of the National Academies). Perhaps Anna (if I am properly attributing this idea) should try opening her mind to a new idea, that conservatives can evaluate new ideas just as well as she can. I have seen that view before. It is striking. Who is it that teaches people that conservatives are closed minded? Could it be the overwhelmingly liberal humanities departments? Could it be the overwhelmingly leftist main stream media? Is it someone who knows nothing about conservatives? What is a neocon - a liberal who shut his mind to new ideas? In my personal experience, I've experienced plenty of closed minds. I find no correspondence between that attitude and political views. Sorry for the diversion from the topic, but I couldn't let that one slip by with no comment. Posted by: John Moore ( Useful Fools blog) at August 10, 2004 3:29 PM | Permalink >> That's the issue, isn't it. The ideal journalist _is_ liberal, in the sense of being open to new ideas and evaluating them fairly and nonjudgementally. (I suspect this is why there aren't many conservative scientists.) > The equation of being open to new ideas... and being liberal is somewhere between terribly offensive and indicative of a person who accepts ideas without question. I realize it's not P.C. to express group-based generalizations, but this one fits with my experience (not my preconceptions), it's consistent with research, and I'm eager to hear of studies debunking it. I did draw the observation too sharply - in [my perceived] reality it's a skew, it's not all-or-nothing (a distinction that can be difficult to grasp), exceptions will abound - as we've seen here in comments in the past, it's possible for an avowed liberal to be just as dogmatic as the most rigid conservative. Please to keep in mind, also, that how you'll classify depends on where you're measuring -"liberal" in thought doesn't always mean liberal at heart, etc. Alterman on the subject here - JFK's "if by 'liberal' you mean X, I'm not a liberal; if by 'liberal' you mean Y, I am" quote here - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/35_kennedy/psources/ps_nyliberal.html
Sorry for introducing the off-topic digression.
Posted by: Anna at August 10, 2004 4:22 PM | Permalink Perhaps we might say that liberal-minded is a quality found among people of all political persuasions, but may be found in some places on the dial more than others. Interestingly, in the discussions on Roger's blog, I find a view, by former liberals, that the left has closed minds. As I say, my experience is that political stripes and open-mindedness are not well tied to anything. I would also point out that scientists, in spite of the ideology of science, are not necessarily open minded, although I have met some who are. It's human nature to be curious. It's human nature to be safe, which leads to a confirmatory filter that may counter the curious. I suspect, with no proof, that you cannot teach open-mindedness except in exception. I suspect you can teach the behavior of suspicion/skepticism. Anna, if you would like debunking, check with John Ray, an Australian psychologist of politics. He has a zillion blogs - I'd go to Dissecting Leftism and send him a note. When the silly Berkeley study of conservatives vs. liberals came our recently, he shredded it. Posted by: John Moore ( Useful Fools blog) at August 10, 2004 5:11 PM | Permalink Thanks for the recommendation John - Posted by: Anna at August 10, 2004 9:13 PM | Permalink Dr. Ray has his opinions, that's for sure. Which is irrelevant. Posted by: John Moore ( Useful Fools blog) at August 10, 2004 9:33 PM | Permalink Perhaps we might say that liberal-minded is a quality found among people of all political persuasions, but may be found in some places on the dial more than others. Perhaps, but the dogmas of Marxism, political correctness, utopian eschatology, etc., make good competition today on the Left with the traditionalism, cognitive humility and fundamentalism of the Right. So there seems to be a very narrow Q for those places on the dial. "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." -- Aristotle This is really a failing of label literacy. It is picking up arms in the rhetorical battle over defining terms and involves the automatic thinking that might claim conservatives are anti-intellectual or anti-science, when historically the Left has practiced Lysenkoism and cargo cult science to a greater degree than the Right (politicians, especially authoritarians, like the science that likes them back). Does a "liberal" desire truth over tolerance, or is that the traditionalist dogma of a conservative? Do we equate liberal-minded with dissidence, a certain form of democratic opposition, perhaps as described by Jeffrey C. Goldfarb or another? "Instead of meeting these serious accusations head on, the Left declares the entire argument malformed, haram, taboo, inappropriate and therefore inadmissible." -- Wretchard "It is unlikely that a meaningful national dialogue on the future of world can occur until the Left frees itself from the taboos which have stultified its intellect. The dead hand of Vietnam and its attachment to the cultic nonsense of the 1960s lies heavy on Democratic Party. That spectral limb will grip them by the throat until they shake free. Until then, forward to wherever. We'll know where we're going when we get there." -- Wretchard "The death of public discourse over the War on Terror was at least partly the result of the self-lobotomization of the Leftist mind. That operation was necessary to prevent an admission of the obvious: the basic Leftist tenets were bankrupt and sustained only by ever more tedious extensions to the original discredited theory; a latter day replay of the downfall of geocentrism which held back the Copernican revolution only by introducing artificial and complicated epicycles. Thus was the Marx's theory of the impoverishment of the proletariat transformed into Lenin's theory of imperialism." -- Wretchard Posted by: Tim at August 11, 2004 5:53 PM | Permalink Tim, Posted by: Ben Franklin at August 12, 2004 10:51 AM | Permalink As far as surveying a newsroom, from what I've read there are likely to be fewer journalists who subscribe to the positions you mention than exist in the general population. If you are talking numerically, of course. After all, there are only so many journalists in the population. If you are talking proportionally, then I don't think you have been paying attention. Reporters are far more likely to be pro-abortion on demand, anti-school choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-European style taxation, pro-gun control, etc. than any other group of people except (maybe!) Hollywood and Frisco citizens in the nation. Hell, in the last thirty-two years, journalists as a group have voted for the Democratic candidates for President by more lopsided margins than registered Democrats. A recent survey of journalists by The New York Times of journalists based outside Washington at the recent Democratic convention showed they favor John Kerry for president over President Bush by 3 to 1, while reporters based in Washington, D.C., support John Kerry by a margin of 12 to 1. Furthermore, remember that there was a much touted Pew Research Center survey of journalist ideological leanings. Most called themselves "moderates/centrists" but on closer inspection of their (the so-called "moderates/centrists") views on various issues, there was virtually no difference between them and those who were honest (or self-aware) enough to identify themselves as Leftists. But to suggest that any newsroom marches in lockstep, or that someone who takes one side on half of those issues isn't capable of taking the other side on the other half, is to speak from ignorance. If you ever find yourself in the New York Times newsroom I'd bet you anything that you would find only one pro-life reporter for every thirty abortion supporters among the reporting staff ... if you find one at all. There would probably be one pro-life reporter for every twenty five. This does not mean that a newsroom marches in total lockstep ... there are bound to be some disagreements on some issues here and there. I mean, the guys at the sport section may be less pro-gun control than the guys on the politics beat, and chances are there are arguments everyday as to whether Bush hates black children or really really hates black children, which Ivy league schools are the best, etc. Whatever way, you cannot deny that there is a serious deficit in ideological diversity (relative to the rest of the nation) in the vast majority of newsrooms across the country, especially the ones with some regional or national reach i.e. NYT, WP, CBS, CNN, etc. And on balance they lean far to the left of the nation as a whole. But I'll concede that there are usually a few dissenters (columnists more often than not), so you can make an argument about not marching in lockstep. And to suggest that a person can't put aside personal beliefs to perform professional duties is to undermine a number of professions. Do we expect Republican doctors to treat Democratic patients with less care? Do most criminal defense lawyers generally agree with the lifestyles of their clients? When a CIA agent reports back on the anti-American views of a group she monitors, do we think her pro-American bias will distort her characterization of the group's activities? Note that all these professions actually require some sort of oath and that there are REALLY tough consequences for violating that oath, some involving jail-time. We can't say the same about journalism now, can we? By the way, isn't it still one of the mottoes of journalism that a journalist should "... afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted?" And ironically, note that editorial boards (presumably composed of journalists) all over the country, especially the NYT, have been pounding on many of the President's judicial nominees on the grounds that they cannot be trusted to put aside their personal beliefs and impartially enforce the law as they would swear to do. Yet the same editorial boards would blow a gasket if anybody ever questioned the impartiality of their newspages as if their reporters do not hold their beliefs as strongly. But either way, no one is claiming that reporters actually go out of their way to distort and negatively twist the views of people they disagree with, except people like Dana Millbank, In fact, I believe most journalist actually do their best to ensure that they fairly and accurately present both views they agree or disagree with. The problem is that the overwhelmingly left-leaning nature of the newsroom where up to 90% of their colleagues (often including themselves) honestly believe that conservative Republicans transparently hate the poor, women, gays and minorities, and are generally white male chauvinist ignorant "unsophisticated" slack-jawed yokels, means that an 'objective' review of a conservative policy proposal, political campaign or politician tend to be a little bit skewed. That's how a reporter could write a so-called "factual" description of evangelicals as being by and large "poor, ill-educated and easily led" could sail past editors' desks multiple times un-noticed till it got to print. That's why any mention of Strom Thurmond in a newspaper since the 1980s that fails to mention that he was a segregationist would never get past an editor but somehow Robert Byrd's own segregationist past (not to mention KKK membership) is conveniently forgotten. So the issue is not whether or not a reporter is capable of putting aside his personal views to report on a view he finds disagreeable, it is his level of self-awareness (even if everyone he works with share his point of view, it may not be shared by most of the outside world), his ability to seek out the best proponents of that point of view and to write about it without prejudice. There are quite a few reporters who do this everyday. Unfortunately, too many don't because they think their views are "normal" or the default, even when they're not. Last year, an AP reporter breathlessly stated as fact that Hillary Clinton had so far proven to be a "moderate" in the Senate, despite the fact that her voting record was just about four points shy of matching Ted Kennedy's for liberalism according to the ADA. The reporter could not have possibly thought that unless her definition of the "center", like that of most reporters, is far to the left of the average American. Mr. Parks, bias is not just what words you use to write the story. It is also about: There are examples galore, but suffice it to say, I find your assertion that reporters by and large don't let their mostly Leftist personal beliefs influence their reporting incredible. I can believe they try, I just don't believe they're very successful at it. Posted by: Martin A. Knight at August 12, 2004 10:55 AM | Permalink Blogging Brothers (and Sisters): Yet not only is Tooley, a University of Maryland grad student, a real person, he's also sharing his conservatism with the world daily via a blog titled "Stereo Describes My Scenario." Taking its title from a lyric by hip-hop legends Public Enemy, it's a wide-ranging discussion of music and politics underlaid by a no-nonsense philosophy: "(T)he right's focus on the individual is the only practical way" to solve the problems of black America. --------------------------- Dear Ben, liberal = Democrats = Left = Marxism = ... More label literacy fallacy. I agree with you that Kerry is not a Marxist, and Marxists agree as well here and here. I would say that the power locus among the Party has shifted left from the second term DLC Clinton policies dealing with Congressional Republicans. I would agree with you that the Marxists have not yet taken charge of the Party. Having said that, I don't see how that discounts the fact the Marxism is a dogma of the Left, is at home within the Democrat's tent, or that it is among the dogmatism Wretchard describes that has hobbled liberal-minded thinking on the Left, and among Party Democrats. On Korea/Iraq, would you say that the insurgency in South Korea between 1948-1953 is similar to the insurgency in Iraq today? And if it was a good idea to support the ("puppet") South Korean government/military against that insurgency then, isn't it correct to support the Iraqi government today against these insurgents? Or is that indicative of someone "who imagines colonization as freedom." Posted by: Tim at August 12, 2004 12:54 PM | Permalink Tim, Posted by: Ben Franklin at August 16, 2004 4:07 AM | Permalink Your second paragraph completely contradicts your first paragraph. Ben, not at all. For example, replace Marxist with Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgendered (GLBT) and re-read. I agree with you that Kerry is not GLBT, and GLBT'ers agree as well. I would say that the power locus among the Party has shifted left from the second term DLC Clinton policies dealing with Congressional Republicans. I would agree with you that the GLBT'ers have not yet taken charge of the Party. Having said that, I don't see how that discounts the fact that moral relativism is a dogma of the Left, is at home within the Democrat's tent, or that it is among the dogmatism Wretchard describes that has hobbled liberal-minded thinking on the Left, and among Party Democrats. Thanks for the doubt benefit, ration away ... Posted by: Tim at August 16, 2004 1:18 PM | Permalink praca Posted by: praca oferty pracy szukam pracy dam prace at October 5, 2004 1:24 AM | Permalink 5284 http://www.texas-hold-em-i.com play texas hold em online here. Posted by: texas hold em at October 11, 2004 3:18 PM | Permalink 2688 http://www.e-texas-holdem.info Posted by: play texas holdem at October 13, 2004 9:42 PM | Permalink 6382 http://www.e-texas-hold-em.com Posted by: texas hold em at October 14, 2004 1:13 PM | Permalink 7836 http://video-poker.uni.cccheck it out! Video Poker yabba dabba doo Posted by: Online Video Poker at October 16, 2004 1:10 PM | Permalink 6353 http://www.rapid-debt-consolidation.com Posted by: debt consolidation at October 16, 2004 7:32 PM | Permalink 5244 You only get one set of teeth. Take care of them with a good
Posted by: dental insurance at October 20, 2004 6:24 AM | Permalink 2736 You know anti wrinkle cream Posted by: wrinkle cream at October 21, 2004 7:03 PM | Permalink |
|
Print
