Bulletin: Most Journalists Are Not Liberal Democrats — Just Ask Them

BiasGet this:  Despite what you thought, most American journalists aren’t liberal Democrats.  I know this because that’s what the journalists told two pollsters from the University of Indiana.  Turns out that most journalists are independents.  And journalists wouldn’t lie, right?

First let me state the obvious:  the poll is ridiculous.

It found that in 2013 only 28 percent of journalists said they were Democrats while slightly over 50 percent identified themselves as independents.

Years ago, I predicted this would happen.  Journalists know better than to tell the truth and tell the pollsters who they really are.  They know that if 85 percent or so said they were Democrats, Americans would say, “See, I knew it.  That’s why they’re so biased and so enamored with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.”

So instead they say “We’re not partisans, we’re open minded, fair independents.”  Sure.  If these same reporters were injected with truth serum I’ll bet about 90 percent of them  – maybe more — would acknowledge they voted for Barack Obama – twice.  After all, these are the same people who slobbered over candidate Obama when he first ran for president.  Now we’re supposed to believe that only about one in four votes (or at last self identifies as) Democrat?

It’s worth recalling what Mark Halperin, then of Time magazine said about the media’s coverage of the 2012 presidential race:  “The media is very susceptible to doing what the Obama campaign wants …”  And that’s from a mainstream journalist.

The poll also notes that back in 1971 more reporters than now said they were Democrats – 35.5 percent.  Back then nearly 26 percent identified as Republicans.  In 2013 that number was way down to seven percent.  In 2002, 36 percent identified as Democrats and 18 percent as Republicans.

In the Washington Post, political columnist Chris Cillizza writes that, “What seems to be happening — at least in the last decade – -is that journalists are leaving both parties, finding themselves more comfortable as unaffiliateds.”  He also writes, “The movement toward independent status among reporters is in keeping with a similar move in the broader electorate as they find the two parties increasingly rigid and, therefore, less welcoming.”

I don’t think so.  Most journalists – certainly those at America’s most important news organizations — aren’t independents.  Everybody knows that.  They’re liberal.  They vote Democratic.  They have not engaged in a change of heart, just a change in public relations tactics.

This poll is worthless.  It tells us nothing about how journalists really think.  Unlike Chris Matthews, most had more sense to admit what Matthews admitted on television:  that they also get a thrill running up their leg when Mr. Obama speaks.

This is why Big Journalism needs to embrace my Big Idea:  affirmative action for the smallest minority in the American newsroom – conservative journalists.

Under my plan conservative journalists would be told to check their opinions at the door.  Liberals would be told the same.  But the affirmative action journalists would bring another perspective to the newsroom – and that would affect how all sorts of stories from race and gender to taxes and foreign policy are covered.

I know:  I won’t hold my breath.

 

Bernie's Next Column.

Enter your email and find out first.

  • buckrodgers

    Does it really matter if a journalist refers to Reublican women as boob,idiot or other choice words,do a lot of Americans distinguish between the two, for example is it all right for men to treat women like second class citizens because they vote for Democrats, or are white Democrats any better than Republicans who discriminate against minorities, to a lot of Americans its all the same and I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of Americas social problems are directly related to journalist who are unable to do their jobs in a professional manner,cover up legitimate news stories or out and out lie for the sake of their own political beliefs, you can’t say one thing then try to absolve yourself from any responsibility that your actions might cause innocent people, if you can’t make an a consensus attempt to report the truth, then your not a journalist and you shouldn’t be able to hide behind the first amendment. a press card and worthless Pulitzer doesn’t give you the right to use words that cause harm to innocent Americans, if don’t make an honest attempt to tell the truth,then your not a reputable journalist and you should be held liable for your actions.

  • Kirsten

    You’re equating which way a person casts their vote with outright worship of that candidate. Whom people vote for does not indicate every extent of one’s political views, let alone an all-out endorsement of that candidate. Any American is perfectly capable of being an independent and still voting for one or the other candidate, while remaining critical of that candidate’s shortcomings. Do you instead expect Independents to sit out on every election, because there is no Independent candidate? Of course not. This is never the case, regardless of the voter’s vocation. We each choose the person who best aligns with our hopes for the country, but no intelligent and informed individual believes that a chosen candidate will perfectly represent those hopes, let alone *be* perfect. In my experience, journalists have openly admitted to me their criticism of Obama’s pitfalls and flaws, and are more than capable of being objective analysts, where their occupation’s description required it.

  • Bulldog

    As a former journalist, at a very different time, I can say that the majority of today’s so called journalist, editors and publishers are absolutely proponents of socialism. If you want to find what is one of the main destroyers of America, look no further than you’re favorite newspaper or TV station( with the exception of Fox).

  • Walter Peck

    A better question is who they vote for in Presidential elections.

  • buckrodgers

    It’s a tragedy what liberals have done to harm other Americans, just so they can prosper, playing the race car,gender card and pitting one group against another and in reality their no better then everybody else, in fact their worst, the me me generation is getting older and the reality that they wasted their lives and will only be remembered for the misery they caused millions of Americans, so who are the self-proclaimed protectors of minorities and women, liberals came of age in the sixties, they used the benefits that were giving to them by the greatest generation, who lived through the depression and two world wars, these are people who took full advantage of their white skin and gave nothing more then lip service to African Americans who were fighting rampant discrimination, their draft dodgers who choose the summer of love over the fields of Vietnam, they partied while millions of Americans died, they used their white skin to seize control of Hollywood,the media and academia and justified their own bigotry, by leaving their all white neighborhoods and running down to Mississipi to march with African Americans, only to return home to the white world they created and had no problem taking full advantage of the so called benefits that was the birthright of whites born in America, these are individuals who have truly become legends in their own minds, who live by one principle, do as I say not as I do and they follow in lock step to protect the white power they created, at the expense of others, when Fox News and talk radio started to challenge their Dominance, they acted like a bunch of pack dogs and attacked anybody with a different point of view, when conservative women and African started to preach a different philosophy they hurled insults to silence anybody with a different point of view and they do it in unison, like a broken record that is passed around their liberal community, or they just shout over their opposition, this is not to say that Republicans are any better then liberals, but their certainly not worse, in the movie Mississipi Burning, William DeFoe and Gene Hackman walked into a group of Klansman who wern’t wearing white hoods ans said IF YOU LOOK LIKE KLAN, ACT LIKE KLAN AND SMELL LIKE KLAN, THEN YOU ARE KLAN WITH OR WITHOUT THE HALLOWEEN COSTUMES, That’s who liberals really are, bigots without the hoods.

  • GoodBusiness

    Liberal Progressives stick together – University Professors – 90% plus Democrat, Teachers 80+ Democrat, Journalists 90% + plus Progressives, Actors and Hollywood directors 95% + Progressives, TV people 90% Progressives.

    So, say that a conservative applies for a job in any of the above – would the far extreme left allow discrimination based on opinion or beliefs? Yes, they would that is why there are so few HIRED and let in the club of news and media power.

  • brickman

    Why only 7% conservative ? Fox should reach that just by themselves .Maybe they are not considered journalists?

  • brickman

    The answer, of course, is for conservatives to study and enter the field. Or is that too much work?

  • Wheels55

    Kind of shows how stupid most polls are.
    So, what can we believe anymore? You can believe the obvious.

    • Shane

      The reporters lied, so the poll is invalid. No poll can work if a large percentage of the respondents lie.

  • buckrodgers

    The liberal media came of age during the Vietnam war, they are predominantly white individuals, who used their skin color during a time of racial unrest and rampant discrimination in the United States, to seize control of the media,Hollywood and academia, their hippies and draft dodgers and consensus consensus objectors who preferred Woodstock over the jungles of Vietnam, they hid in college while African Americans and poor whites were dying in Vietnam, they are part of the me me generation, who didn’t care about African Americans when they they left their all white suburban neighborhood and ran down to Mississipi to march with the black folks who were fighting for basic human rights, in fact they ran back to their all white neighborhoods and were more than happy to use their white skin to consolidate their power, while they insulated themselves against charges that they were also a bunch of racist, just take a look at the skin col,or of the majority of Democratic politicians, pundits,high profile journalist,media executives and Hollywood, you might be surprised to notice that the same race baiters who demand equality for all Americans, vigorous;y defend their right to act like a bunch of closet racist when it comes to their own profession, the sad fact is minorities especially African Americans are nothing more then pawns, that are being used to keep the liberal white master race in power, if African Americans stay home on election day white Democrats will lose, everything else is a sideshow used to divide Americans using race,gender, sexual orientation and their own prejudices to maintain their lust for power.

    • Dr. Shrink.com

      Wow. Incredible cry for help.

    • legal eagle

      Screw those longhair hippies…….LOL

      • brickman

        Like Trey Gowdy? Get a haircut, hippie!

  • loupgarous

    Bernie, if I can first-name you, the crucial thing is that the American people are still “buying” left-biased journalism. In large extent, it’s because public education has given us one of the least well-educated generations of Americans yet; partly because conservatism’s fresh out of good communicators.

    I think Ronald Reagan’s greatest virtues were his ability to communicate, and his drive to succeed. The man lost his first presidential run in 1968 and didn’t stop trying to succeed for twelve years. Who’s like that today, with ideas that stand up to scrutiny? I can’t think of one – but Ronald Reagan “sold” conservative ideas better than a whole White House press room full of George F. Wills.

    Americans take slanted journalism for granted. That’s a fact. Until that practice bites most Americans on the ass, they’ll tolerate it. Unfortunately, it’ll take an entire nation having its pockets picked by something like ObamaCare to make them see the very real dangers of slanted journalism, and a documentary showing at every point what lead to the massive damage ObamaCare is doing to our economy and to the health of working Americans (who are in many cases being robbed of ready access to health care they once took for granted).

  • legal eagle

    “Don’t fall for slogans, one liners, screamers, hate peddlers or cable pundit commentary, don’t fall for those who will not compromise. This nation is here because our founding fathers with all of their different beliefs … as strongly as they felt about everything, they knew they had to compromise in order to create a constitution, in order to create the great country we now enjoy.”
    Gen. Colin Powell
    2014

    • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

      In case you didn’t notice, legal, Powell’s describing you.

      • legal eagle

        Stay in your bubble….Your lack of intellectual curiosity is unfortunate…………….

        • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

          Says the copy and paste king. lol.

    • Tim Ned

      “don’t fall for those who will not compromise.”

      Really?????

      • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

        lol. The guy really is completely self-unaware.

        • Kernighan

          I believe in psychology it is called “projection”.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Maybe we should put together a fund to get him shrink. There’s so much he has yet to learn about himself. lol.

    • Hyperbolic Dumbass

      “Don’t fall for… …those who will not compromise.” Why do the names Obama, Reid and Pelosi come immediately to mind?

      “Don’t fall for… hate peddlers…” Why do the names Reid and Pelosi come immediately to mind?

      ” they knew they had to compromise…” Why do the names Obama, Reid and Pelosi never come to mind?

      • legal eagle

        You want hate peddlers? Keep listening to Hannity, Limbaugh and Savage…..They’ll make sure you keep you’re level of fear and paranoia at the proper level…

        • Hyperbolic Dumbass

          They’re not government officials… there’s the difference!

        • Ryan Nichols

          Notice you didn’t list any actual politicians. Just radio voices, personalities if you will. Who’s job is above all else is to entertain. But in the democrat party the hate peddlers are the politicians.

    • KStrett

      “Don’t fall for slogans, one liners, screamers”

      Do you mean slogans like “a woman’s choice” and “marriage equality” or “the war on women”?

      Do you mean screamers who attempt to isolate and label people who disagree with them as racists, bigots, misogynists, xenophobic, jingoistic, or homophobic?

      “.. as strongly as they felt about everything, they knew they had to
      compromise in order to create a constitution, in order to create the
      great country we now enjoy.”

      The issue back then was between the federalists vs the anti federalists. The anti federalists believed the constitution created a government with too much power.

      At the time, we essentially had 13 different countries. Obviously this created some problem with things like currency and states being at odds with each other.

      The federalists wanted a small restricted federal government which was only allowed to function in areas the Constitution explicitly stipulated. In other words, if the constitution doesn’t say anything about X, the Federal government is restricted from X.

      This concept has been flipped on its head. Our current government acts as if the constitution doesn’t say X, the government has carte blanche to do whatever they want.

      The founders would have a huge problem with the way government has over stepped its bounds today. The issue was not compromising but the creation of a limited government.

      • legal eagle

        “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows”
        Bob Dylan
        1965

        • sjangers

          But it didn’t hurt to have a Weatherman around if you wanted to blow something up.

        • KStrett

          In other words, you can’t come up with a rebuttal…..

        • brickman

          If the sixties aren’t over–
          “Anyway the wind blows is alright with me”

          Frank Zappa
          1966

    • Ryan Nichols

      I would have to say those words fell on deaf ears as far as to anyone in this administration.

    • Kernighan

      There are words, and there are actions. I would not hold this man up as being noble in “actions”. Given a chance to stand on principle, or follow a Svengali – like leader, a member of his “affiliation group”, he chose the ethically unsound path. Too bad.

  • loupgarous

    The declared political affiliation of the nation’s journalists is no more important than Donald Sterling’s. They demonstrate their allegiance when they write, and in the facts they report – and the ones they conceal from their readers.

    When the White House correspondent for the Chicago Tribune gushes “You never lose, Mr. President!” and her colleagues don’t deafen her with harrumphs for sucking up to power, but instead signal their lack of distance from and objectivity towards their subject… there are many names for that behavior, almost all bad, but “journalism” isn’t one of them.

  • http://att.net/ patty

    Great comment LHS. I think you’ve got Leagle Eagle’s number for sure!

  • http://att.net/ patty

    OH YES..I BEG TO DIFFER. PROMISES ARE LIES WHEN THE PERSON KNOWS DAMNED WELL THEY CAN’T KEEP OR MAKE THEIR OUTRAGEOUS PROMISES/PREDICTIONS COME TRUE…

  • LHS

    I’ll try to be as PC, diplomatic and seeeeensituve as possible.
    95% or more are Obama-worshipping, thrill up my leg, lying, conniving leftists.
    They couldn’t SPELL journalist with the dictionary app in front of them. Wait, yes they could! It’s spelled p-r-o-p-a-g-a-n-d-i-s-t. Yeah, that’s it!!

    • Kernighan

      You and I agree. The world of journalism has given way to a socially coordinated mass propaganda campaign. Every time I mention this I think of the movie maker in the Third Reich who made one of their greatest propaganda films. He complained about some Nazi decisions and actions during the making of his film, and died in a hanging accident in a Gestapo jail cell.

      Here is what the expert said about Propaganda:

      “The essence of propaganda consists in winning people over to an idea so sincerely, so vitally, that in the end they succumb to it utterly and can never escape from it.” Goebbels

  • Ron F

    Since I do not know which journalists participated in the poll, can someone tell me who lied. In addition, if journalists do not tell us how they vote, how do we know “they vote Democratic”. Finally, I think I can believe Bernie Goldberg. Why should I assume other journalists lie and if they do, I wish someone would identify the specific journalists who lie or lied int eh poll, instead of generalizing about them.

    • LHS

      You’re a tad thick, aren’t you Ron F. I’m sorry. Make that naive.

      • Ron F

        Since you are not naive, please tell me who were the journalists who lied in the poll.

      • Kernighan

        He is working on that “Importance of Being Ernest” role. Many, like myself, simply adore quality data, and test methodology, At times it’s difficult to step back and remember the context of things. It sounds as though he understands the background but got caught in the verbiage about polls and such.

    • Kernighan

      This article really is simply a scoff – piece regarding the pseudo – scientific polls which fly in the face of logic. I normally insist upon solid sourcing of data, but, in a case where someone simply is laughing at something absurd, or is scoffing, I’d be inclined to step away from the strict “data integrity” stance. When you step back, does it seem likely that journalists, as a central tendency, actually trend toward conservatism? No. Do they seem highly impartial, and prone to balanced thought? No. We are running out of options now. . .

  • Just A. Thought

    It generally doesn’t matter what political party a Journalist is registered with, because societal, ideological bias also taints their writing. When I was Public Information Director for the La. Dept. of Transportation, I wrote a news release quoting an independent national study that found water to be one of the main, if not the main cause of roadway deterioration, particularly when coupled with hydric soil, which La. has aplenty. La. news journalists had so convinced themselves for so long, and had written for so long that the cause of bad roads was sloppy construction work by department employees, they absolutely refused to believe and write about this study, blowing it off as spin doctoring. By doing this, they did two major things that screw up news reporting to the max — 1) They summarily dismiss factual information if it doesn’t fit in with their pre-conceived notions and biases, and 2) Even more importantly, all highway construction work in La. is done by private highway construction firms, not transportation dept. employees, who do highway maintenance work. Since these news outlets publish the results each month of bidding sessions where highway construction contracts are awarded to the lowest bidding private highway construction firm, I continue to be amazed at how they continue to overlook this important fact and blame dept. employees for shoddy work instead. Additionally, all interstate highways in the U.S. are built to federal highway standards, not state standards. But reporters don’t blame the feds. By the way, next time you see a highway worker “leaning on a shovel,” it’s far more likely to be a contract worker than a highway dept. employee. Reporters also have a saying, as though it doesn’t apply to them — “My mind is made up, don’t confuse me with the facts.”
    Since retiring, I have done pro bono writing for various causes and have found that the public image about virtually everything is quite a bit different from the reality of the situation, mostly because the public’s views are based primarily on what they know from news reporting. This always reminds me of the insurance ads which say, “everybody knows that,” but then you find out that, no, everybody doesn’t know everything they think they know. I have done pro bono PR work for pro-life causes. Everybody knows that abortion is one of the safest medical procedures there is, right? At least, that’s what we learn from news accounts, whereby reporters just uncritically quote someone from pro-abortion. However, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) regularly publishes abortion statistical stables compiled from reports received from each state. The CDC report covering 2008 and 2009 shows two very important things — 1) The ratio of maternal deaths from legal abortions performed in 2008-2009 in comparison to 1972, the last year abortion was illegal in the U.S., was six times higher than for illegal abortions in 1972. I’m reading this from the CDC document as I key this. But, wait! Wasn’t abortion legalized in the first place because legal abortion would be so much safer than “unclean, back alley, coat hanger, illegal abortions”? Sure. Just ask anyone in the multi-billion dollar legal U.S. abortion industry, and they’ll still tell you that, and reporters will uncritically and unquestioningly polly parrot that claim to the public verbatim. Problem is, this is no more true than the assertion that the only cause of highway deterioration in La. is shoddy highway construction by highway employees, and the killing of Americans in Benghazi was caused by a protest over a video. Ask any fox about the chickens he’s been eating in any hen house, and he’ll always tell you the chickens are doing just fine. A few months ago, our local newspaper printed a letter to the editor from a national abortion organization which used the same talking point they always use — Abortion is one of the safest medical procedures there is. When I responded to that letter with my letter to the editor quoting these same stats from this CDC report, even attaching a copy of the report as validation, they refused to publish it. This same thing happened several times, and with several other newspapers across the country — someone getting a letter published making unfounded claims about legalized abortion, while my letter refuting those claims with documented facts was refused publication. Oh, they’ll print a letter from a respondent that says something dumb (not something with refuting facts, like a CDC report), like “women’s libidos” or legitimate rape,” but that’s just so they can claim that they are balanced, because they do publish letters from the other side of the issue. One of the saddest aspects of this situation is that La. allows abortionists to sign “transfer agreement” contracts with doctors not affiliated with abortion but have admitting privileges to hospitals. So, when an abortionist botches an abortion to the point that his patient has to be hospitalized, he calls the dr. he has contracted with through the transfer agreement to take the patient to the hospital. The patient admitted to the hospital is admitted as the patient of the admitting dr., not the abortion dr., so these complications are NEVER counted as complications from abortions — another practice that allows pro-abortionists to claim that abortion is one of the safest procedures there is. Can you say dirty pool? But, even though the figures are grossly under-reported to the CDC in this manner, that maternal death ratio is still six times higher for legal abortion.
    Among other things, this same CDC report shows that 5,119 girls 15 years old and younger had abortions in 2009, and the number of girls in that same age group who had abortions in 2009 was 4,915. How many were victims of child sex slave traffickers and/or Jerry Sandusky-like pedophiles. Who knows? Even though they’re supposed to investigate, law enforcement just won’t do it. The only thing that is certain is that, since it is impossible for underage, unmarried girls to be impregnated legally, they are definitely victims of sexual abuse. In spite of this fact, when President Obama’s former Health Dept. head Kathleen Sebelius was Gov. of Kansas, she helped run former Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline out of town on a rail for even attempting to look into reports of the cover up of child sex abuse by abortionists (the same kind of cover up two Penn State officials are accused of doing to protect Jerry Sandusky) in Kansas abortion clinics — even though abortionists have a strong financial incentive not to report these child sex criminals, some of their best repeat customers. So, apparently, she and other pro-abortion people must think that Roe v. Wade, in addition to abortion on demand, also legalized child sex slave trafficking, pedophilia (at least, against girls), incest and the ability of abortionists to turn abortion clinics into illegal, Sambisa Forest-like safe havens for ACTUAL American child sex slave traffickers and/or pedophiles.
    Meanwhile, just the THREAT by Boko Haram of selling Nigerian girls as sex slaves has caused outrage on the part of First Lady Michelle Obama and many others around the world. #BringBackOurGirls, their slogan and the First Lady’s placard say. If Americans knew the real nexus between abortion clinics and child sex slave traffickers/pedophiles, who take underage girls they impregnate for abortions in order to do away with the evidence of their guilt, they would be horrified — because the only version of the story they know right now, thanks to a sympathetic, socially biased in favor of abortion media, is the one told by the foxes guarding the abortion clinic hen houses. Since girls everywhere deserve to be protected from child sex slave traffickers and/or pedophiles, maybe another placard Mrs Obama could be photographed with would be one reading, “#Abortionists, stop giving OURGIRLS back to child sex slave traffickers and pedophiles for further sexual abuse.” But why won’t this happen? Because too many members of the public have the same attitude about abortion that too many reporters do –“My mind is already made up, don’t confuse me with conflicting facts.” So, that means that legalized abortion is so important to you that you think it justifies allowing abortionists to illegally cover up for these child sex criminals, just like Penn State officials covered up for Jerry Sandusky, leaving child sex slave traffickers and/or pedophiles on the streets so they can prey on your daughters, granddaughters or somebody else’s, right?

    • LHS

      Dude, this isn’t an essay assignment. Pick a point. One point.

      • Just A. Thought

        But that is the point. If journalists did their jobs properly, there wouldn’t be any liberal or conservative media. There would just be the media. If that were the case, people like me wouldn’t have to write essays, and the news would educate the public with more than merely a regurgetation of slanted political or ideological talking points, mostly provided by those who represent the side of an issue the reporter agrees with, reporters who get paid the same if they do a thorough, inclusive, accurate job or not.

        • LHS

          All right, I agree.

          • Kernighan

            Persistence. It’s useful. I liked the “Hard to win an argument with organizations that buy ink by the barrel”. It’s an old saw, but certainly a good one. I’ll try to remember that. A wonderful bit of prose.

        • loupgarous

          Also having worked in Baton Rouge for the State of Louisiana for a while, I can sympathize with what you’re saying. But seeing reporters get played by lobbyists and by government decision-makers with such regularity, it became impossible for me not to believe that there’s a certain amount of willing cooperation with the spin doctors on the part of the journalists. These guys aren’t just given spin by the people they interview, they actively spin the facts they report themselves.

          Now, whether this is Jayson Blair-grade imaginative lying and phoning in phony stories or simply accepting a line from a decision-maker, a lobbyist, or someone else involved with a story with no special effort to research the story independently, to test it for truth… journalism has slipped quite a distance from the time when the Canons of Journalism were written and influenced how the news was presented.

          I think that for some journalists like Laurence O’Donnell and Eleanor Clift, there’s a sense that they have a “seat at the table of power,” and their slant on the news is part of the business of government. They long ago stopped trying to objectively research or present the news, and instead see their job as molding the thoughts of America in the way which will serve the nation best.

          That means that they are working under false pretenses – going back to Louisiana as an example, when the once highly-esteemed television journalist Garland Robinette succumbed to the pressures of working in the New Orleans news market, he very honorably switched careers and went to work for the local energy and mining company Freeman McMoran, and presented their story as he was hired to do.

          I wish more people in the national press would follow Mr. Robinette’s example, and when they can no longer function as objective journalists, simply go to work directly for the political party or lobbying organization of their choice, and stop deceiving their readers or viewers that they’re not spinning the facts.

          • Just A. Thought

            I totally agree. You might have met Robert Morgan, former capitol news bureau reporter for the Alexandria Town Talk newspaper. He lamented to me that one PR person or another from state government had treated him unfairly and unprofessionally. So the problem is not just with reporters. Robert once confided his dilemma to me when I was president of the public relations assn. of La. So, I went to the president of the Baton Rouge Press Club to suggest that reps from each group get together informally and discuss ways in which we could both work more professionally with one another. That suggestion was flatly turned down. Adding to the confusion for the public here is the old adage of political consultants, “image is reality,” and also, “when things are going bad in your political campaign, the most successful strategy adjustment is to go negative.” Unfortunately, the biggest losers as a result of this deliberate continuation of the status quo in these areas are members of the American public, particularly when it comes to their ability to cast a vote that is as informed as possible. But, as my old friend, Mr. Morgan, used to remind me, “It’s hard to win an argument with organizations that buy ink by the barrel.”

          • Kernighan

            You have the apogee of the concept when you coin the words: “see their job as molding the thoughts of America”. They are highly aware of this, thus Ezra Klein’s “Journo-List”. The lab where the manipulation is made (was made).

      • Kernighan

        Luckily, I can read pretty fast. Most will likely just skip over it. There is actually some pretty good info in there. Long format.

  • http://www.sabbsa.org/ terryread

    I do not believe they are deliberately
    lying. I think that they think they are
    telling the truth. People on the left
    really think that they are in the middle.
    They think people in the middle (like Bill O’Reilly) are on the
    right. They think people on the right
    (such as myself) are on the extreme right and use all kinds of epithets to
    describe us.

    • Kernighan

      That’s certainly the case. I was telling my son, that I always wind up in the exact center of the “up / down” & “left / right” grid given the quizzes one sees for “where do you stand versus the issues”. I’m not happy with these thirty question (or less) tests, but my results always come out the same. But, I’d bet anything that the people of the left (who view themselves as totally reasonable) view someone with my views as “hard right”. They view moderate conservatives like you mention or like several I hear on the radio (e.g. Medved is probably a center right conservative, perhaps also Hewitt) as being the ultra-conservative “looney wing” of the GOP.

      Perhaps this can help explain it:

      In a world where much of media, entertainment, and academia is dominated by left-leaning material, one can easily exist with little or no exposure to conservative thought. BUT, if you happen to be a conservative (of any variety), you cannot avoid being exposed to liberal (I hate using that, since Progressives, modern “libs” are anything but liberal – with root word meaning “free”) material and thought. Therefore, conservatives are familiar with the various ecological positions, the hatred of “corporations”, the reliance upon government as the solution, in fact they are familiar with much of the left. Not so for our leftist. They can easily avoid any serious consideration of conservative concepts. That’s why so much of their responses seem simply outrageous and “odd”.

      • LHS

        Correct. They don’t read or investigate anything that differs with their programmed, illogical, lemming-like beliefs and behavior. Any argument I am in with leftists – including some relatives – always end with, “Well, that’s the right thing to do”. “That’s not fair!”, “You’re just mean!”, “You just hate gays!”, “You’re a racist!” I could add many more inane responses.
        The brainwashing/indoctrination of the populace by the left has been frighteningly successful. They can’t think or reason clearly because they were never taught to. I’m frequently reminded of a sign I saw:
        “When you’re dead, you don’t know you’re dead. It is difficult only for others.
        It’s the same thing when you’re stupid.”

  • Joel

    It has actually gotten worse since the Nixon years.

    • loupgarous

      I used to think that there was a difference in the WAY the press spun stories during the Watergate era and the very obviously sold-out way of reporting today, but I was wrong. Jeffrey Lord, a former Reagan White House staffer, commented on the sheer scale of journalistic spin and how they picked and chose their targets recently in the American Spectator: http://spectator.org/articles/59070/trey-gowdy-and-real-lesson-watergate

      Lyndon Baines Johnson was just as dirty as Nixon; and more so. He abused the FBI to spy not only on his political opposition such as Sen. Barry Goldwater, who ran against him for President in 1964, but on Martin Luther King, Jr., yet the press’s own narrative on that whole era for years after Watergate was that Richard Milhous Nixon somehow invented abuse of power and eavesdropping on his political opposition. Nothing is written about LBJ’s abuses of power, and outside history books, nothing WILL be written about them.

      THAT is the sort of truth we get from the press – a version so very slanted and bowdlerized that it winds up being a very well-crafted lie. And the only thing different between now and the Nixon years is that these days, the press has stopped congratulating itself on reporting on abuses of power – because it has once again become expedient for them to ignore such things.

  • Barancy Peloma

    i’d say the 90% suspicion is probably spot-on. and yes, they will lie and deny in order to present an image they want people to see…. much like my administration!

  • http://att.net/ patty

    @LEGAL EAGLE..OR IS IT WEASEL? HA. My credentials are good enough to consider myself a good judge and you won’t see A hole listed in my credentials.

  • http://att.net/ patty

    @JOHNANDJEFF. Appreciate your support of my comments. @DPARRI..I loved your comment .LEGAL WEASEL..Spot on for sure…

    • LHS

      Ignore legal beagle, patty. He’s a hemorrhoid that refuses to go back up. Thinks he’s cute but is a boor.

  • Daniel

    True but not too important Bernie. We all know liberal academia and the secular progressives have won the battle. We can only hope it’s a temporary victory. If our kids and grandkids can scrape up the rubble left when this American experiment soon implodes, and if they can learn to avoid the mistakes we made, maybe America can rise again. If not, our broken country will crawl into the One World Order the progressives have longed for. Back before Pismo Beach could afford a fire department, they had a volunteer fire dept. that was aptly named the Pismo Beach slab washers. The slab was all that was left when they got there with their hoses. There is a good Jesus cartoon there somewhere.

    • loupgarous

      Daniel, the way to look at it is that public opinion constantly shifts. During Watergate, Nixon actually enjoyed the benefit of the doubt among Americans to a degree that not even Ronald Reagan enjoyed. The beginning of his second term was very nearly rapturous, considering the country was still in Vietnam.

      It took years of very cynical coordination between the Democrats and parts of the national press to build the narrative of “Richard Nixon, the unforgivably crooked man who invented abuse of power,” which is not to say that Nixon was honest; he was as crooked as he needed to be to get where he was, and in the end, his lack of moral courage caused him to cover things up that needed to be in the full light of day. But Nixon’s problem was that he didn’t have the press ignoring the same things they did from LBJ. And he certainly had that collusion between parts of the press and the opposition part, which spread through the entertainment media as condemnation of Richard Nixon’s role in Watergate became a fashionable pose.

      When the Democrats complain about the press helping the Republicans (to the small extent that’s actually happening) with the Benghazi story, they’re actually commenting from experience – this is exactly the way they worked when they were the opposition party and also when their favored candidates were in power. Can you imagine George W. Bush getting away with a Monica Lewinsky episode without being slammed mercilessly?

      Bush really didn’t give the Democrats and their people (like Mark Halperin and Lawrence O’Donnell, who took their roles as “political directors” of their respective television network news divisions as a license to play political hardball against the Republican Party) very much to work with – there really was sarin gas in Iraq, independently confirmed by units of the Czech army, and there are still eight thousand cubic yards of pure botulinum toxin still unaccounted for in that country, a figure that has never been questioned. So much for “Bush’s lies.”

      I lost a son in that war and if I were convinced Bush were guilty of actually misrepresenting the presence of weapons of mass destruction there, no one would be less forgiving about it than me. But Iraq is a country the size of France or California. Saddam Hussein had over a year from the first demands that he turn over his WMD to conceal it, hide it in mines or remote valleys, or get it over the border in Syria – where, as it happens, there’s a lot of nerve gas waiting to be destroyed. The trope that George W. Bush lied about WMD in Iraq is part of the operation put in place by Terry McAuliffe, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee when Gore lost the 2000 Presidential election, who vowed he’d have everyone in America hating Bush in eight years.

      Wall Street decided to throw their money behind the Democrats so they could do business as usual even after that the press has dubbed “The Great Recession,” and despite the abortive Dodd-Frank “reforms,” no one’s seriously limiting how Wall Street does its business. The Federal government is still propping up those “too big to fail” banks with huge loan guarantees, so that an objective reporter would have to say that Barack Obama is repeating every error of Bush’s, and developed newer and worse ones, such as that huge, unfunded “stimulus” and a health-care plan negotiated in precisely the LACK of “unprecedented transparency” – only ONE day of televised hearings in Congress – that he promised America in 2008.

      The only thing worse than Obama’s breach of faith with the American people is the American “mainstream” press’s breach of faith with the American people. They had every opportunity to do their jobs and inform the public about each and every irregularity in how the “Affordable Care Act” was written, and each and every possible unintended consequence, and failed utterly to do so.

      Any industry that proclaimed its intention to do one thing and did exactly the opposite as thoroughly as American journalism has would be condemned as irretrievably crooked. In the world of ideas, the major television news networks are just as deceitful and their practices just as damaging as Enron’s were in the world of securities.

  • Mark W.

    When you and your closest friends and co-workers all agree, then it’s easy for you think that your opinions are mainstream… even objective. Looking from the inside out, it’s hard to see how others with different opinions see you. Historically, journalists are supposed to be objective. So, it is not surprising that reporters believe themselves “independent,” but slant their stories to reflect their true beliefs. It’s not just what gets put in a story, but also what gets left out. Once upon a time there were editors who caught the bias and would require a rewrite to balance the story; but they seem to have gone the same way of proofreaders.

    • Ron F

      Does the same apply to most commentators on these blogs since most agree with each other?

      • Uncle Dave

        Do you mean like The Huffington Post, Daily Kos, Paul Krugman, liberaloasis.com, TalkingPointsMemo.com, Liberaltopia.com, most stories and comments on Yahoo!, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, HNN, NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, etc., etc., etc….??

        • Ron F

          I do not read those blogs but my guess would be yes, just like most commentators on this site agree with each other. The people on those sites probably think conservatives lie. When I used to look at a lot of political commentary, I was surprised how similar the arguments on both sides were in describing the other side. Our side thinks they lie and are uninformed. They think the same of us.

          • Uncle Dave

            The difference being that 90% plus of the news media, blogs, Pivit TV, Current TV (now Al Jazeera) are hard core lefties. On the other hand, there is one TV news station that LEANS to the right (who are closely scrutinized; if they move more than a “lean”…) and a few blogs with a right-wing lean. Again, if any of the “normal right” blogs move too far right they are slammed, screamed at and compared to Nazi-Fascist groups.

            So the left gets away with near murder and the right is closely scrutinized.

            Thankfully, if a commentator on here, Breitbart, et al., get too right-wing and in to the Neo-Nazi, anti-government corn, the majority of us will denounce it and “police” our own. That is a rarity on the Progressive/Liberal sites.

          • LHS

            The left doesn’t concern itself with FACTS*, Ron. That is the huge difference.
            The left demonizes, name-calls and character assassinates in any gotcha situation and refuse to debate true conservatives one-on-one. They rat pack and wolf pack and lie exceedingly well, however.

            * ignores, sidesteps and changes the subject on anything factually related to all the scandals in the Obama Banana Republic. A blind sow gets this.

    • loupgarous

      Editors themselves can have strong ideological biases: the former CEO of United Press International, Arnaud de Borchgrave, co-wrote a novel with Robert Moss, “The Spike,” a spy novel which also dealt with how articles which displease editors wind up on “the spike,” (originally a literal metal spike on an editor’s desk on which articles were placed) and wouldn’t be published.

  • Benmaxcon

    Fascist fantasyland: a place where the government uses the IRS to abuse one political philosophy, ignores the law to allow illegal aliens to live here and get free benefits, ignores the law when it is broKen by certain races, accuses different opinions as racist, does everything it can to suppress and persecute Christians, tries to disarm average citizens so only the rich can defend themselves, takes gazillions of donations from rich elites while preaching against the evils of capitalism. Obama and the democrats, with their media pals, are the true haters, polluters, and shooters (who want criminals and crazies armed so they can shoot the rest of us).
    You call people who disagree with you stupid. But you are the stupid one. No original thought, no comprehension, no logic, only slogans and talking points. So sad, but people like you remind us that the human race has all kinds, some beyond hope or redemption. Arguing with you is useless.

    • Benny

      You need to take something for that hammer-head, tea-bagging jive. What do you eat? How old are you? Your Mama have any kids that lived?
      Conservatives that can read, that are stand-up honest and not blow-hards, are ashamed of you. You make us decent, honest squares look like fruitcakes. Stifle yourself, get a life, shut your childish babbling up.

      • loupgarous

        Benny, you’re absolutely out of line. Go over to Media Matters, where your trolling is appreciated.

    • loupgarous

      You’re right. The current Administration is fascist (despite the common error of linking “fascism” with “right-wing” politics). It has systematically worked AROUND the country’s elected legislature and usurped the power to make and amend laws strictly reserved for Congress. It spies on its own citizens and didn’t hesitate to use a minor technical offense on the part of a film maker to punish him severely for speech of which it did not approve. This administration has made a mockery of the Bill of Rights and abused its powers to extend its stay in office. By the standards applied to Richard Nixon, Obama is long overdue for impeachment, and on identical grounds.

      • LHS

        He and most of his cabinet are long overdue for long prison terms.

  • HaHaClinton-DixEvery1ButHilary

    A meaningless poll? Your supposition that 90% of journalists voted for Obama? Pretty flimsy evidence and very weak journalism on your part. You have made a nice career out of crusading against left wing media bias that you do not document and cannot back up. And now your next career move is affirmative action for journalists with you as the ultimate authority to dump those journalists that you deem liberal and replace them with those acceptable to you? Don’t hold your breath. That will happen only in your Fascist Fantasyland. Here in the Land Of The Free Home Of The Brave if journalists, academics, and anyone with any sense will not support your right wing agenda of freedom for shooters to shoot, polluters to pollute, haters to hate, and the filthy rich to become filthier and richer, then that is on you and your self-described Stupid Party.

    • rs724503

      you obviously know very little about his career. I suggest you read his book Bias where he documents in detail the liberal bias and his 1996 column in the Wall Street Journal, which started, at least publicly, his evolution toward conservatism. Guess what, he’d been in journalism for a long time with plenty of accomplishments before that column.

      • HaHaClinton-DixEvery1ButHilary

        Don’t know about his career and don’t care. I do know that he put forth a proposition that he did not back up. I have to pay him to back it up? That is pretty bogus don’t you think?

        • rs724503

          You said he made his career on this, and I said he long had a career before this. So, you may not care, but that’s only because you don’t realize what you wrote. You can find his Wall Street Journal article somewhere for free I’m sure. He’s been talking about liberal bias for a long time.

        • HaHaClinton-DixEvery1ButHilary

          Whatever his career was or is is irrelevant. Any serious journalist will recognize that notwithstanding their credentials it is incumbent on them to provide specifics to back up the point they are making. Any who rest on their laurels and expect their full faith and credit to suffice are just hacks. Turning to Goldberg’s 1996 editorial, just the fact that a segment of a newscast is labeled (granted that the name ‘Reality Check’ is misleading) plus the fact that it is an interview segment (William Gale of Brookings Institution) and plays clips of the subject (Steve Forbes) should provide enough feedback for a viewer to know that it is an opinion segment and not part of the conventional newscast.

          • rs724503

            I’m confused is he “resting on his laurels” or “making a career of it” because the two are sort of antonyms.

          • HaHaClinton-DixEvery1ButHilary

            No contradiction at all. Like his benefactor O’Reilly he is making a career out of being a hack con-man.

          • Paul Courtney

            OK, CBS “News” can run opinion piece, but Opinion writer Goldberg cannot. You must be one of them independent journalists. By the way, replying to yourself tells us you can type without gathering your thoughts. A network exec?

          • Stimpy

            Would Katie Couric giving Sarah Palin the stink eye during an interview serve as an example of left wing media bias? Loved that Imus labeled her a rodent for that act of journalism.

    • rs724503

      By the way, and I hate to speak for Mr. Goldberg, but prior to that column Dan Rather considered him a friend and vice versa, after the column, Dan Rather has never spoken to him again.

      • legal eagle

        Maybe Dan Rather hates Jews or maybe he just hates Bernie Goldberg….LOL

        • Jeff Webb

          If you’d read Bias, you’d know what happened.

          You might enjoy reading it, even though there aren’t any pictures.

        • D Parri

          Or maybe Legal Weasel hates republicans. Wah! Wah!

        • tim ned

          I think Dan Rather loves himself.

        • loupgarous

          Or maybe he can’t handle the truth.

      • loupgarous

        And I think that Dan Rather knows that his posturing and deceit was exposed for what it was, and this is why he’s not spoken to Mr. Goldberg.

    • legal eagle

      The only “journalism” Bernie Goldberg practices is on HBO sports and there are no politics involved….Other than he left Journalism behind many years ago, or perhaps journalism left him behind….
      His “victimization” rant about the media has been a Republican talking point since Richard Nixon…It’s a nice bumper sticker because it a concept which has no factual basis…sort of like Fox News is’ “Fair and Balanced”..

      • D Parri

        At least you don’t claim to be balanced. Good thing.

        • Drew Page

          That’s because ‘eagle’ is unbalanced.

          • LHS

            Eagle is a childish, boring, paid troll. Ignore him.

      • tim ned

        It would be nice if you just once posted one that didn’t come down from your taking points.

      • Stimpy

        Factual basis? The liberal media likes to ignore the facts. If it weren’t for Fox news, we wouldn’t know about the IRS scandal, or the Benghazi lies. Don’t confuse liberals with facts — they only deal with opinions — that agree with their own talking points and agenda.

    • Stimpy

      Are you lost? Can’t see the liberal forest for the liberal dip sticks?

  • FloridaJim

    Asking professor’s, lawyer’s, union’s, or media their bias all would give the same response but most have been indoctrinated in the schools in the same Progressive doctrine couple that they are now following. Progressives have been working for decades subverting the schools and the legislatures to make Progressivism the law and they are very close to success, I fear. When all of the above spend their days telling lies or half-truths it takes a special people to shttp://www.westernjournalism.com/how-democrats-are-implementing-the-communists-plan-to-destroy-america/ucceed are we up to it? Here is a site explaining what has taken place and why:http://www.westernjournalism.com/how-democrats-are-implementing-the-communists-plan-to-destroy-america/

  • D Parri

    The core purpose of a journalist is to research, document, write, and present the news in an honest, ethical, and unbiased way.

    I’m sure that everyone out there has an idea of what journalism should be all about, but I borrowed this from JournalismDegree.com, and their Journalist Job Description. It pretty well sums up the job function.

    Now, think about the news that you’ve tuned into over the last 5-10 years and see if you could describe what you saw in the same terms listed with that first sentence. I believe that somewhere between 60-80% will fail the non-bias requirement. 20-30% would probably fail the test of honesty. However, the characteristic of remaining ethical should fail at least as much as any lack in presenting a non-biased news product.

    There have been many shortcomings of journalists worldwide regarding their adherence to this core purpose of journalists, but the last 14 years have seen an increase in both reporter and journalist biases approaching the threshold limits for being able to maintain a reasonable degree of trust in those sources.

    And the future does not look promising .

    • legal eagle

      I guess those “journalists” on Fox News are the only unbiased journalists left……If that’s the case then watch Fox News and stop whining..

      • D Parri

        @Troll

        Whining is what you trolls do all day long, Weasel. So, if you don’t like what I to say, then don’t read it.

        BTW, F**** off, please.

      • Tim Ned

        How would you know what journalist are biased or not? You label the lot because your bosses tell you to and you never watch the programs if they happen on a network you are paid to shoot down. When are you going to admit it. You failed at, what ever it is you do, and are a paid internet gun.

        • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

          The rumor is that he gets paid in Hope and Change bumper-stickers.

  • mcveen

    Public discourse now days is so extremely polarized and most “journalists” do not have discipline to “just report the news”. Almost all of them feel obliged to add their personal or boss’ “interpretation”. Honest, strait forward reporting is very hard to get now.

    • loupgarous

      The worst thing is that so many journalists feel compelled to play the political game and try and deceive the American public either by outright misrepresentation of the facts or concealment of facts which would tend to damage their party’s prospects.

      As much as some people criticize Fox News for this, NBC News has openly lied and staged fake news – as when they broadcast phone conversations from George Zimmerman edited to make him appear to say things he never did, or the infamous “exploding pickup” story in which NBC News producers actually had explosive charges placed inside the gas tanks of Chevrolet trucks to make it appear that these vehicles were prone to random explosions.

      And FoxNews hasn’t lost any lawsuits at all that I’m aware, while CBS News has lost many for its slanting and outright lying about General William Westmoreland and other leading figures in the Vietnam war.

      While Fox News may not have achieved its stated ambition to be “fair and balanced,” it’s unlikely that its political director has gone to the lengths that Mark Halperin at ABC or Lawrence O’Donnell at NBC have done to personally and through orders to their subordinates use their news operations to disseminate political propaganda. Compared to these two gentlemen’s work, Fox News is much closer to the “fair and balanced” mark.

      Looked at coldly, it’s amazing that anyone believes the big three television networks’ news operations at all… all three have been implicated in systematic and intentional lying that dwarfs anything Fox News may have done.

  • legal eagle

    Bernie Great way to keep your base of angry old guys, like yourself, motivated to buy your books etc. Perhaps you can go on O’Reilly’s circus tour and kibbitz on stage with him after Dennis Miller makes the old folks laugh..

    This week your readers are being victimized by the media, last week they were being victimized by people calling them racists…Cannot wait to see what’s next on the victimization menu?….

    Isn’t it time for a new book so you can hustle some of your followers into handing over some of their cash so they can join the “brotherhood of victims”?

    • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

      The ‘real’ victims in all this, of course, are the people that read your asinine comments, hoping one day that you’ll express an original thought. Sorry folks, that day isn’t today.

      • legal eagle

        Daly continues to be a douchebag loser who is obsessed with responding to my comments…How sad..

        • sjangers

          Why the ad hominem, Eagle? You know John respects you. He just takes occasional issue with some of the silly thing you say.

          • legal eagle

            If John Daly has the slightest respect for me or anyone he doesn’t agree with he has a strange way of showing it….Nevertheless, you point about invective is well taken.

          • Jeff Webb

            He shows you as much respect as you show others, arguably more.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            And that should be obvious to anyone who reads what’s written here.

          • sjangers

            Think of it as tough love, Eagle. Sometimes your idea of a friendly criticism feels like a smack in the head to some of us. John’s just reminding you that it doesn’t always feel the way you intend it.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            He doesn’t intend to ‘friendly criticize’ people, sjangers.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Actually, I really don’t.

        • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

          Obsession, huh? Remind how many posts you leave here each day. lol.

    • mcveen

      Beagles, your lack of original thought makes you less than the angry old guys, and, without their intellect. Responding to your dumb ass comments makes me feel like I’m kicking the old worn out ball into the net for the 11,000th time.Time for you to send in a sub.

    • USA Rocks

      I agree with mcveen and John Daly. Your comments are recycled from the millions of other liberal rantings from others on the web. For you to be commenting about angry old guys is humorous, considering you’re directing anger at someone you probably consider to be an angry old guy and those who feel victimized by the media. But your comments indicate YOU feel victimized by Bernie and O’Reilly. See how that works?

      • legal eagle

        Happy you find dome comments humorous….they are meant to be..

    • Seven

      I bet your a liberal woman.

      • legal eagle

        I” discuss that with my wife…LOL

    • Seven

      It’s the picture and suit that gives it away.

    • Seven

      Just sayin.

    • Seven

      And the reference to angry old guys.

    • Jeff Webb

      Boy, you must have gorged yourself on a cliche breakfast today, because you are really spewing them now.

      • D Parri

        Did he actually say anything? Sounded pretty stoopid!

    • Tim Ned

      Why don’t you junior email your boss about Boko Haram and ask her, and why her boss and her, and you; decided these guys were just a good old guys club.

      You idiots have a very nutty perception about what’s a circus and whats not. Isn’t time for you and your love nutty Hillary grow up and join the world of reality. Don’t worry about Bernie. He’s on our side!

    • Drew Page

      Victimhood is the province of your pals in the liberal Left. Without “victims” there would be no Democrat party. Where “victims” don’t exist, the Left will create them, will tell them who to blame and how the Democrats will save them from the rich, angry old white guys who are responsible for their plight.

  • http://att.net/ patty

    @WILL SWOBODA. Your comment was great. I am glad I’m not the only that that hasn’t come across idiots that criticize Fox and then in the same breath they tell you they don’t watch Fox (O’reilly). These people are nothing less than ignorant, naïve, illiterates that instead of doing their home work they listen to “heresay.” You know. “he said that she said, that he said that she said.”? Just like they did with believing all the unkept promises by Obama starting during his campaigning for 2008 and continuing. I don’t give a RA that Obama is a Democrat..I have no problem with calling any politician no matter what side of the fence they are on LIARS when they try to feed me their impossible promises. @LARK2..Nah..You got it wrong.

    • legal eagle

      So you have elected yourself the judge of who is a “liar”? Your credentials for the job are what?

      • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

        The mere fact that she understands that there IS such a thing as a lie gives her stronger credentials than you, legal.

        Still my all-time favorite legal eagle quote. lol.

      • Jeff Webb

        >>So you have elected yourself the judge of who is a “liar”? Your credentials for the job are what?<<

        She's read enough of your comments.

    • Ron F

      Promises are not lies if the person believes the promise. And predictions are not lies.

  • I B Conservative

    Well, one question pops into my mind immediately! Since most “journalists” have graduated from high school for sure and most probably from college as well, so why the large percentage of “liberal” journalists? Are people with opinions and the NEED to express them either in writing or verbally largely liberal leaning people? Is it a fact that people who choose other fields such as doctors, lawyers, accountants and scientists to name a few, are all conservative? I don’t think so, but if we assume that of the total population, more than 50% are liberal and the remaining 40+% are conservatives, why then such a lopsided percentage of journalists are liberal? Can someone address that for me?

  • lark2

    Liberal Democrats conceal who they are … they call themselves “Independent”. They start their comments with …”I voted for ROMNEY but, …” It’s all B.S. They just want to grant themselves some credibility. EVERYONE needs to be judged by what they actually do and who they stand with.

    • Ron F

      And how do you know how anyone else votes? And do conservative Republicans conceal who they are?

  • JASVN67

    “Believe none of what you hear, and only half of what you see.” Now who gave us that sound bite? It is sage advice for the times we find ourselves living in!

  • Chuck

    Everything in the article is true, but I’d add one thing: A segment of journalists do consider themselves independents, and will tell you they’re willing to vote for the candidate advancing the best ideas. However, those ideas are always the ones of the liberal candidates. But don’t call them liberals, they say. They’re independents! They must have cut the session of Journalism 101 that covered selective perception.

    • daveinboca

      If advancing best principles were the criterion, conservatives would win hands down.

      • legal eagle

        Principles? Corporations are good and screw workers? Those are some exciting principles Republicans favor…

        • Drew Page

          Oh, those evil corporations. How will we ever survive them? The fact that corporations employ millions of workers who can support themselves, their families, pay taxes and drive the economy is irrelevant, right eagle?

          Those evil corporations must be stopped. While they pretend to provide goods and services to Americans and the rest of the world, their real agenda is to”screw” all their poor employees. No one working for a “corporation” has ever made more than minimum wage, unless it was the rich, angry, old white man who owned it, right eagle?

          Which profession was it that developed the concept of the “corporation” and created that evil entity, could it have been the LEGAL PROFESSION?

          • legal eagle

            Turning a complex argument into a simple black and white charichtacure

          • Drew Page

            I agree eagle, it is a complex issue, as are most of the issues on which we get to we get a chance to comment here. You say that you are not suggesting that corporations are evil. However, I notice that many of your comments to these complex issues are rather terse and most often critical of corporations and people who favor them, whom you refer to as “corporatists”.

            Unions are corporations too. They also make huge donations to political parties, yet I have seen precious little commentary from you about their impact on the political process, nor have I seen you refer to their members and supporters as “unionists”.

            I agree with you that big moneyed interests have too much influence in the political process, but I don’t have any idea on how to keep money out of politics. Several people, far more experienced than I, have attempted to come up with a solution to this problem. Outlawing campaign contributions from any source is problematic and could lead to only the very richest candidates using their own money to finance their campaigns.

            I am also in agreement that this is something the Founding Fathers did not envision, just like they didn’t envision the ever growing, tentacled and ubiquitous bureaucracy our federal government has become.

    • mcveen

      To me, journalists are part of the same crowd that joined the fed gov’t sphere of influence 40 years ago when it realized that gov’t was going to have the most money in the strata of American society.

      This crowd is mostly composed of sleazy gov’t bosses/employees/legislators, educators, lawyers, and media sycophants.

      The primary reason these folks are against pure bred conservatism is because of the easy living they make from compulsory taxation. I would love to see them survive in the economy that they have made for the rest of us.

      God Bless Republicans for opposing higher taxes. Starve the beast!

      • Drew Page

        You left out the “War on Poverty”. It is the only “war” for which the Left has never demanded an exist strategy.

  • Ron F

    “Journalists know better than to tell the truth and tell
    pollsters who they really are.” Doesn’t that mean conservative journalists would lie as well? Why is it acceptable to be a conservative journalist but not a liberal journalist? Why do we assume liberal journalists slant the news but conservative journalists do not? I have a friend who says frequently, if you do not like Fox news turn the channel. If you do not like any of the other network news, turn the channel.

    • lark2

      Ron, the fact is Conservative “Journalists” are generally commentators. They don’t hide who they are as Commentators. Those Journalists who are CONSERVATIVE in their politics clearly try to be balanced in reporting the news. No one expects Journalists to have no opinion. It is impossible for a “news person” to have no personal views. We should expect that truly “professional” people would report the news fairly. Isn’t that the way it was … in the era of Edward R. Morrow, Walter Chronkite, McNeil/ Lehrer … no one knew who they voted for … they covered “The News” … whatever it was. Remember Tim Russert, everyone knew he was a Democrat but, he was fair … he covered the News and everyone respected him. The evil FOX NEWS cover the News … where ever it goes. Watch & listen … the news is the news. Other networks are staffed by LIBERALS …who will to totally ignore a story OR SPIN IT. To suit their narrative. The Benghazi Lie that was cooked up for political reasons is the latest example. The evidence was clear. What the administration did was understandable. Openly lying to the public is NOT. You can do it but if you get caught, it will be costly … it’s NEWS. The biased media was SILENT.

      • legal eagle

        When in doubt repeat BENGHAZI, IRS, BENGHAZI, BENGHAZI……..keep repeating until Hillary becomes POTUS….

        • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

          This was copied directly from an email by the way. Great mouse-work, legal!

          • wally c

            Thanks for staying on him. I only visit this site occasionally and he responds to any article that has Obama in the spotlight. Boring and most of the time wrong.

          • legal eagle

            You sent me an email or this is the extent of your stupidity?

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Your above comment, Einstein. If you’re still confused, have someone else explain it to you.

        • lark2

          Legal, you seem to be a bright guy. I am an old guy … may I ask you … with all due respect … take the time to be more “thoughtful”. Unless you are another “paid operative” assigned to this site.

          • legal eagle

            I am open to being paid……Would you like to send me a check?

          • Integrity

            How about we send a check to the Human Fund on your behalf? LOL

        • Jeff Webb

          It’s obvious you’re scared that Hillary might be exposed for the incompetent tool she is. When it gets really bad, just repeat “PHONY SCANDAL” to yourself a few times in between calling others old racist white men.

          • legal eagle

            I’m sure the Republicans will do a fine job “exposing” her…..they did a great job during Whitewater…

          • Jeff Webb

            I know you’re happy Hillary didn’t suffer any consequences for the harm she caused, but you could at least pretend you care about regular folks like all the other libs do.

        • Integrity

          Obama’s former special adviser for green jobs believes Benghazi is not a scandal. That is all you need to know. Would you have served in Vietnam if Obama was the president then or is your blind support limited to just rhetoric? QED

        • Stimpy

          Deficit, Obamacare, IRS, Liar in Chief, Over-regulation, anemic job recovery, Legal Eagle, kill the pipeline while watching oil tanker trains derail left and right, Global warming killed my dog. Etc. Would she be POTUS and FLOTUS at the same time? Would slick Willy become FMOTUS? I sure hope not. Maybe they could make you first troll in chief.

        • Integrity

          LE, perhaps you have a point. There are so many other failures that we should be focusing on. QED

      • Ron F

        Those journalists who are conservative in their politics try to be balanced in their reporting but those who are liberal do not? I do not think Mr. Goldberg and Fox New reporters are the only fair reporters of the news. Have you watched Fox News in the morning? It seems to me that it is a typical bias. We see the people and coverage we agree with as being balanced and not biased and the coverage we disagree with as not being balance and being biased. I am also confused by the number of people who complain about the MSNBC and other clearly left wing news organiezations when there are so few people who watch it. The only people who watch it must be conservatives who complain about it.

        • lark2

          Ron F., Given todays political atmosphere … it is NEVER possible to have an “honest” conversation. Liberals look at things in their way … Conservatives look at things in their way. My perspective is to try to be honest and try to look at things with logic, with education and without passion. Honestly, I have voted Democrat many times but, both parties change over time and I am currently a Republican voter because, they are currently closest to my thinking on the issues. Some would say that makes me biased in the way I see things. If that is so … there really is no point in having a discussion with anyone … no one listens to a word they hear … they just wait until you are through so they can make their point. I suppose that is the reason political discussions are pointless. It is not even possible to have a conversation based upon “facts” … people deny or discount any fact that is counter to their view. It is all a waste of time but, sometimes some things need saying …

  • Mark W.

    As a young journalist working at a small daily in a predominately conservative community, there was no secret that the editorial staff was predominately liberal. I was recruited by another reporter to make get out the vote telephone calls on behalf of the Democrats and presidential candidate George McGovern. The overall attitude of the editorial staff was one of superiority. That was over 40 years ago and a couple of the same people are still there. I doubt that anything has changed… If that’s the case in a small daily, you can imagine what it’s like at the NYT or Washington Post. The smart ones control the press.

    • legal eagle

      Great to see you’re living in the past…..like your fellow cult members?

      • Mark W.

        My point was that liberal thinking in the newsroom is not new; that I experienced it almost a half century ago at a particular newspaper with a dozen or so mostly young reporters. Journalism has long attracted people who want to “change the world.” Some of those changes are good (in my opinion) and some are not (in my opinion). But I was taught by fine professors in the School of Journalism at my university to be objective. And I had a fine older woman editor who worked hard to maintain our objectivity at that newspaper. She retired and died, and so did a lot of that objectivity. I left that newspaper and a very cynical group of people 40 years ago this spring. Two months later, the publisher accepted a press award for investigative reporting on my behalf… As a reporter, it is good to be skeptical, but not cynical. And to keep your bias to yourself while reporting objectively.

        • legal eagle

          I think you would agree that whether some one is perceived as objective or not has to do with what type story they are reporting on….Objectivity or the perception of bias is, in my opinion, similar to judging a meal in a restaurant…It’s opinion based not fact based…If one chooses , as some right wingers do, that every story in the New York Times has a liberal bias that simply is a matter of opinion.

          • Integrity

            Like him or not, at least Rush Limbaugh readily admits his bias. It would be refreshing if the others did as well. QED

          • Mark W.

            Here’s a simple example from a news story from yesterday’s Yahoo Finance about Keurig-Green Mountain:
            –Objective statement: “The company also announced it was expanding its partnership with J.M. Smucker (SJM), agreeing to make and sell Smucker coffee brands in its new brewing systems.” But then the writer continued:
            “With a name like Smuckers the k-cup coffee will still probably be all but undrinkably bland dishwater, but the margins will be fantastic.”
            .
            Objectivity is like chemical elements, it is the base truth. Is the NYT entirely biased in all of its reporting? No. But as I’ve said before, what gets left out of a story is as important as what gets put in, regardless of who reports it. Like this example: “Two cars crashed today at the intersection of Hollywood and Vine. Six people were killed, including two bystanders on the sidewalk.” If that’s all that was reported, it would sound pretty bad. But the story changes when this is added: “The devastating scene changed quickly when director Stephen Spielberg called ‘cut’ and the actors all came back to life.”
            .
            Truth is truth. And we deserve media that provides it.
            .

  • Blakely1

    Even worse is a trend for liberal candidates to cloak themselves as Independents
    & Conservatives in conservative areas. They know that they can not get
    elected as Democrats so they try to sneak in under cover.

  • Peter V.

    The evaluation of the media by the media is self-serving and therefore invalid. How can they not even investigate what happened in Benghazi? So-called unbiased reporters are currently ridiculing the select committee as I type. Not one Democrat has the courage to at least question what went on? (That is a story itself.) There is no IRS scandal?

    Do not underestimate the power of the media to influence public opinion, and therefore elections, especially “important,” “critical” ones like the one this year. As a pro-life liberal, who has seen the media’s ignoring of the annual March For Life and other similar topics (the Gosnell story for example,) I can attest to that stealth, unfair control.

    • mcveen

      Maybe you laid a bombshell on the media people. I doubt they will notice though. Isn’t it curious that corporate media sleuths aren’t interested in the Benghazi story?

      It’s about the gov’t =>mass media conspiracy. One hand washes the other.

  • http://TrochilusTales.blogspot.com Trochilus

    You really had me going at “Most Journalists Are Not Liberal Democrats.” Then I opened the link and saw the rest of the title. Yep! After spending a few decades working in Trenton that was definitely my take away. Just ask “em. Deny, deny, deny!

  • Will Swoboda

    You hit it out of the park once again. Liberals are different people. My father-in-law got on me once about watching O’Rielly. I said I thought he had good Ideas and presented good arguments. He went on and on about Fox in general and O’Rielly in perticular presenting lies. So, I asked him how does he know? I asked him when did he start watching Fox news to make that kind of judgement? He said, “I wouldn’t watch Fox news or that O’Rielly guy”. I then asked how does he know they lie? His reply, I just know they do. How would you like to have this guy deciding policy.

    • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

      Anytime that I’ve ever pressed someone on that same topic (typically Fox News in general; not just O’Reilly), I get the exact same response.

      They don’t watch it. They just watch the clips shown on Comedy Central. and repeat whatever conclusions those hosts draw.

      • Ron F

        If it is wrong for liberals to think Fox News people lie, isn’t it also wrong for conservatives to think stations with a liberal slant lie. I stopped receiving my news from either. My experience with all of the news networks is that they spend way to much time with analysis by so-called experts who are frequently talk show hosts and not enough time reporting the news.

        • USA Rocks

          These days, with the internet, you don’t have to watch MSNBC or FOX. You read about everything they have to say from either their sites or others.

          With Basic cable, I have neither now, but I used to watch a little of both. But, I basically know what is being said on either channel and I can decide if I believe what they are saying.

          Totally agree with you about the over-analysis but it gives their networks more time for advertising. And there certainly aren’t as many experts on things as the networks would have you believe. But they have to make it look/sound good to draw the viewers, and they do.

        • legal eagle

          So you get all of your news from the Weather Channel? LOL

  • American1969

    An excellent piece, Bernie, and spot on. I like the idea of Affirmative Action for conservative and actual independent journalists. If the left refuses to support it, ask them why.
    The media was always supposed to be a watchdog on the government and others in power. Now it’s become the propaganda wing for an ideology and agenda spoon-feeding leftist BS to the masses who are too dumbed down to realize they’re being lied to.
    And it IS a knee jerk reaction from leftists to shut down and call you racist when ever you bring up anything about Dear Leader. They sound like pre-recorded drones, all parroting the same line. Pathetic. The least they could do is make the attempt at appearing objective. They don’t even try to hide it anymore! Disgusting!
    And I just love how LIVs tell you that you don’t know what you’re talking about when they aren’t even getting half the information they should from MSM outlets.

  • joepotato

    Polls shmolls… I don’t care what they choose to call themselves… I still consider the vast majority of them “presstitutes”….

  • Seattle Sam

    It is a well-documented phenomena in polling that some people substitute the “correct” answer for the true answer. Right now “independent” is a correct answer. Rasmussen and others have tried to quantity this effect, but it’s very difficult.
    This is nothing new. If you ask people what magazines they subscribe, titles like True Detective and Enquirer are under-reported and titles like Time and National Geographic are over-reported. Many years ago a researcher quantified this by by sending kids on “paper drives” to the homes of respondents and comparing what they collected to what the people said they read.

  • gold7406

    By “independent” they mean in the journalistic context, not in the political sense.
    They believe they can report a story totally objectively. They are wrong. Journalists via social media and cable now what to catapult their careers via to other forms of media. There are more career opportunities for “liberal” reporting,than conservative. They are just following the money, just any capitalist would do, that’s the oxymoron of their lives. Writing one thing and doing the other.

  • Brian Stover

    Res ipso loquator. (The facts speak for themselves.)

  • BTaylor

    All I can add, is that when Ronald Reagan won by the biggest majority in US History, 56% of the media VOTE FOR CARTER!

  • soundnfury

    The better question would be which presidential candidate they voted for in the past few elections.

  • Gloria

    You said it all so well in “A Slobbering Love Affair”. The bias is obvious, it is blatant, it is sickening. It starts in the universities & strengthens in the schools of journalism. All media, written & broadcast is slanted leftward and not too much we can do about it, is there? This has been apparent to me as a between the lines reader/viewer since back in 1992.

  • SkyCitizen

    Bernie, what a great idea, affirmative action for conservative reporters!
    Just imagine:

    1. Half of all liberal column space would be given to conservative writers because liberal writers are advantaged by going to “Elite Schools” and should be able to write more efficiently with less space.

    2. Publishers could be subsidized by the taxpayer for printing conservative columns like yours Bernie.

    And you could go on and on…. it;s fun!

    Oh yes, and don’t be so hasty to throw the University Indiana pollsters out with the bathwater, because what the poll mentioned probably means is there are just as many liberal journalists as ever but a higher percentage are ok with lying.

  • Phil

    Bernie: As someone who has worked in the newspaper business for 22 years, I can tell you you’re right – to a point. Yes, about 90 percent of my colleagues are liberals, but I’d say about half of those don’t like the Democrat Party – not because it’s too liberal for them, but because they deem the Democrat Party to be not liberal enough. Maybe that’s why so many don’t claim to be Democrats.

    • Patrick H.

      And that’s why the word “Independent” can be misleading, some may be moderates, but most I bet are more to the right or to the left than the Republicans and Democrats respectively.

      • American1969

        That’s usually the case.

        • Phil

          Bernie Sanders calls himself an Independent. Enough said.

          • American1969

            Excellent point.

          • sjangers

            Sanders admits that he’s a socialist but started using the Independent label when he thought it might give him a better chance to be elected.

  • Wally C

    As believable as Obama telling O’Reilly “not a smidgen of corruption”.

  • Johnny Deadline

    Bernie – We conservatives that live and work in the same city as Indiana University refer to it as “The People’s Republic.” Naturally its no surprise to us that the poll they conducted is worth less than the opinion page of the New York Times. Fortunately graduation is this weekend and there will soon be 50,000 less progressives in Indiana’s liberal capitol city.

    Now if we could only get the IU professors to go on permanent sabbatical…

    • ronald simon

      also include IvyTech community college, there totally filled with progressive teachers that make my stomuck turn

      • Johnny Deadline

        Hopefully Ivy Tech won’t be doing any silly polls anytime soon or the rest of the country might think us doubly stupid.

  • Sam

    Bernie, it’s “Indiana University”. Not a biggie though. I would like to know why they are mostly liberal (Hollywood too)?

    • Paul Borden

      Beat me to it (on IU). As a cover the reporters would used if pressed, I can see them identifying themselves as independents because they registered to vote that way, not with a party affiliation.

    • tomwinfield77

      Answer: Because they are Godless. Meaning they do not believe in and follow God or His son. Journalists mostly buy into evolution. The Big Bang. The Original Slime. They mostly say there is no Ultimate Truth. No One we must be responsible to. That is loudly true of Hollywood, but just as true among Journalists, only a lot quieter. They do not want you to know they color everything they report with their own Liberal spin. I am an authority on this subject. I worked as a reporter, writer and editor in six newsrooms during my career–newspapers and magazines. I say I am an authority because I saw it first hand, up close and personal.

      • legal eagle

        Thank you for sharing your religious zealotry and bigotry with us….You are in the right place…

    • rs724503

      The reason most of Hollywood is liberal has to do with HUAC. It was the liberal/communists who were persecuted and the conservative actors, directors, and producers who did the persecuting at the time.

      In the aftermath, most of Hollywood became liberal in reaction to the behavior of the conservatives both within and outside of Hollywood.

      Back before the HUAC hearings, Hollywood was split about 50/50 and most of the powerbrokers, Jack Warner et al, were conservative.

      • legal eagle

        You’ve arrived at these “facts” how? Who exactly is Hollywood?
        Another B.S. generalization based on no facts…

        • USA Rocks

          Facts? Like the facts you provided to contradict him?

        • rs724503

          What exactly offends you about that? Hollywood is actors, producers, writers, etc. The HUAC hearings started with the Hollywood ten and progressed from there. Sterling Hayden drank himself to death after he ratted out his friends. (the police chief from Godfather 1 among many other roles) Lee J. Cobb said he broke from the constant pressure and ratted his friends out. Nancy Reagan first met Ronald when she couldn’t get work when her name wound up on the Hollywood blacklist. Ronald, as president of the Screen Actors Guild, helped her remove her name from the list.

          Do you remember how much controversy there was because the Oscars wanted to give Elia Kazan a lifetime achievement award? It certainly wasn’t controversial based on his body of work, On the Waterfront, East of Eden, etc. It was because he ratted out his friends.

          That’s just history. I’m not sure what about it offends you, but in the golden age many stars like Fred McMurray, Frank Capra, Barbara Stanwyck, John Wayne, and Jimmy Stewart were all conservatives.

          Others like Humphrey Bogart, Katherine Hepburn, and others were liberal, but there was no one prevailing mindset.

          Now, there are very few conservatives and the starting point of that was the way that so-called communists were treated by HUAC.

          • Patrick H.

            I’m surprised he was offended by your statements. I think many on the left would agree with what you said. Sometimes, I think legal eagle opposes people here just for the sake of opposing.

          • rs724503

            People like that take all the joy out of arguing, and I love to argue.

  • Logan Tierney

    You are the only “Journalist” I trust on the national level, that would be you Bernie!
    Logan Tierney
    SMSgt USAF, Ret
    Warrensburg, MO

    • legal eagle

      As the only “journalism” Bernie practices involves sports on HBO you probably should consider reading a newspaper…

      • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

        This from the guy who thinks that Jay Carney is the only legitimate source of news in this country. lol.

  • Hammockbear

    Bernie, I don’t care what race, religion. political choice any journalist has. I do care that what news is presented is factual and has no Spin. That sums it up.

    • tomwinfield77

      Will you hold your breath until that happens?

      • Hammockbear

        Tom. FOX, WSJ are two media sources I believe report news as fact. I also believe the alphabet stations do the same BUT do also either add spin or squash many news items. I grew up in a CBS affiliate family and can say that is where I learned that news is to be reported as Fact. I do sometimes watch CBS and other outlets. Perhaps if you explore many different media networks, you will see the news in a new light. That would be presented as Fact with No Spin.

  • uncle Ed

    A dozen or more years ago, I was representing a republican official on Election Day in Queens, NY, when our campaign headquarters got a call from Newsday. The reporter, whom I knew, wanted me to confirm a story she wa told that Republicans were preventing Asians from voting. I told her that her story was not only false but ridiculous (we’re talking about Queens!!!!) but we have asked the NYC board of elections to investigate Democrats taking total control of a Flushing polling place.
    “We’re not interested in anything Democrats might be doing wrong, the reporter, an Asian-American women, told me, “only Republicans.”
    All of which shows that reporters are easily led by the Democratic Party regulars but are unalterably biased and stupid.

    • Editor_Reid

      It’s not that “journalists” are stupid. Oh, there’s that too, but the real problem is that they are lying propagandists for the Democrats, or worse.

      “The dishonest, ultra-biased media in this country is the biggest threat to American prosperity and security, and far more dangerous than any external threat.” America is committing suicide, and journalists are the cheerleaders.

  • gerry

    Hello Bernie!
    It really is not who they say they are it is what they really are. The never ending lies of the president is rubbing off on them. They are clueless hypocrites and they are contributing to the destruction of America. They support the most unqualified president in the history of the country. What credentials did he have when he ran for the Oval Office. Without their fawning support Obama would continue to be just a U.S. Senator from Illinois. A recent (useless) story in the Wall Street Journal headlined “Media Slant” is one of the most irrelevant piece of journalist bias I have ever read. The authors used computer algorithms. Use computer algorithms. The bottom line of the study is as they reported “simple”. Yes. Media owners according the stupid study” generally do not try to mold the population of their own brand of politics. (BS). Instead, like other business owners, they maximize profit be giving customers (readers?) what they want. (More BS).” What in hell has happened to objective journalism? I would suggest the authors read newspapers and follow the writings of reporters. For example, let’s take Carol E. Lee and Colleen McCain. Both cover the White House for the Wall Street Journal (a supposedly right of center newspaper). Lee and McCain write fawning pieces daily about the incompetent POTUS. Their pieces must be from Alice in Wonderland. They are good writers but ultra left wing journalists covering for our bungling president. Almost every reporter in the Journal’s Washington Bureau are dedicated and unapologetic progressives. Lee and McCain have a love affair with Mr. Obama. In their heads he can do no wrong. And, tey call themselves reporters. Propogandists would be amore appropriate.

  • Drew Page

    To get a better indication of how journalists see themselves perhaps the question should have been phrased “Do you see yourself as being liberal or conservative?” A good follow up question would have been “Why?” Most pollsters know that questions can be asked in such a way as to almost guarantee the outcome of the answers. For example:

    Answer YES or NO to the question(s)

    1. Do you think that all Americans should have access to health care?
    2. Do you think the government should spend more on education than on the military?
    3. Do you agree that social welfare programs to help the poor, disabled, elderly and young children are necessary?
    4. Do you think that all Americans should have equal rights?
    5. If you answered YES to the above questions, do you agree that the government should have the right to levy taxes to provide these things?

    Questions like these, limiting a respondent’s answers to only YES or NO, will in almost all cases result in YES answers. Rephrasing these questions could easily result in NO answers., e.g.,

    1. Do you think that all Americans should have access to health insurance?
    2. Do you think the government should spend more on the Department of Education than on the Department of Defense?
    3. Do you think that social welfare programs should be provided to helping those other than the poor, disabled, elderly and young children?
    4. Do you think all Americans, regardless of age, mental capacity or incarceration should have equal rights?
    5. If you answered NO to these questions, do you believe the government should be able to force taxpayers to pay for them?

  • cantonst

    The News: “On Monday, Bernard Goldberg wrote an article.” Anything beyond that is opinion…biased opinion.

  • VinBick

    My first job out of college in June, 1966 was in the network newsroom of CBS on West 57th Street in New York City. Cronkite, Wallace, Reasoner, et al openly mocked the GOP and all things Conservative.

  • Tim in California

    Laughable survey/poll… Bernie – you are correct! Call them anything you want… bottom line is the grand majority of the press lean slightly or way to the left…. On the flip side, I get a chuckle every time Bill O’Riley (who I watch and enjoy) claims he’s not a Republican. Fine, so be it, but there’s not doubt he leans from slightly to way right. (And I’m fine with that – just wish he’d admit it…)

  • gonaes

    It all depends on the bias of the owner / editor of the TV / Radio or newspaper. Many years ago I worked news for a Reno, Nevada TV and Radio Station during JFK’s run for the White House. I was told by management that I could mention the name of the Republican candidate but I was not allowed to mention JFK’s name in my reports. I was told just to say, ” The Democratic candidate “..etc,etc etc.

  • realoldsage

    What they do (write) speaks so loud that I cannot hear what they say.

  • savage24

    One thing we know for sure about the media, it has been many years since they have been the watchdogs of the government. They deny being bias by just ignoring newsworthy items that do not fit their political flavor. When they lie about their political affiliation how can we trust that they are telling the truth in what they report on. By becoming lapdogs, they have forfeited their constitutional rights under the 1st Amendment.

  • Jarob54

    Bernie, most journalists are not journalists. Just listen or read what they have to say. As Truman Capote once said. That’s not writing, that’s typing. Pitiful!

    • Editor_Reid

      “That’s not writing, that’s typing.”

      One of my all-time very favorite quotes. Thanks for reminding me.

      • Jarob54

        My pleasure!

  • rbblum

    Matters not how journalists characterize themselves . . . they largely do not adhere to the American journalist standards characterized by Ed Murrow.

  • Jeff Clark

    It has long seemed to me that newsrooms need conservative editors for liberal reporters and vice versa. Rather than get biased reporting on one side or the other, there would maybe be a legitimate filter able to identify and screen out bias before the “news” report goes out.

    • sjangers

      Excellent suggestion.

  • Seattle Sam

    If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

  • Ron

    What I can’t understand is why the entire mainstream media are liberal. Can’t they see what’s happening in this country? Runaway debt, more and more entitlements, loss of respect around the world?? And this is good?

    • legal eagle

      Good to see you’re properly brainwashed….What is the “mainstream media”? What is Fox News and right wing talk radio etc?

      • Patrick H.

        Objectively I think the mainstream media would be the media outlets that existed before the 1990s (the internet and expansion of cable). So in my defintion, ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, and CNN would be the mainstream media because 4 out of 5 predated cable and they all pre-dated the expansion of the internet/cable.

        • JMax

          How can CNN be “mainstream” and Fox not when Fox ratings are consistently 3-5 times higher that CNN’s?

          • Patrick H.

            I wasn’t thinking in terms of ratings as in terms of what’s covered. CNN usually covers things about the same way as PBS, ABC, CBS, and CNN does. I was more using mainstream in the essence of establishment media as they’ve been around the longest. If you combine the networks I’ve listed above in terms of viewers, Fox isn’t ever close.

          • JMax

            I don’t think PBS could be considered “mainstream” in any way other than they’ve been around since before the 90s.

          • Patrick H.

            How do you figure that? I don’t think I understand what makes PBS not mainstream. I guess I was thinking those networks cumulatively instead of each of them as individual outlets.

          • JMax

            I guess I’m having a problem with defining “mainstream” simply as pre-1990s. I think I’d call that “traditional”. I’d say mainstream is anything that is readily available, has a significant audience, and a significant output of news or news-opinion material.

          • Patrick H.

            Okay, now I understand what you’re saying. However, consider this, Fox which has a more conservative leaning bent averages about 2 million viewers. Whether or not, you believe the other outlets are liberal or not, they are certainly not right leaning. If you put the big three plus CNN which leans about the same way the big three do, their audience share together is much bigger than Fox. And 2 million viewers is not a lot considering we live in a country of about 300 million people.

        • legal eagle

          Cable is more than 40 years old….Is there not enough right wing media available?

          • Patrick H.

            Okay, let’s get this thing straight since using the word “media” causes confuses. Commentary? Yes, there is plenty of right wing commentary as there is left wing commentary in different outlets. Those outlets combined still pull in more ratings during their newscasts as opposed to Bret Baier, Shepard Smith, the newscasts e.g. (Notice I’m leaving out O’ Reilly and Hannity, who are commentators so don’t bother using those) and does MSNBC even having an evening newscast.

      • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

        Do yourself a favor and ask someone to read “Bias” to you, legal.

    • JMax

      How do we have “runaway debt” when the deficits are shrinking?

      • Jeff Clark

        Spoken like a true liberal, who thinks that lowering the deficit is a surplus. If the debt is 13 trillion, then 15 trillion, then 17 trillion, then 18 trillion, or whatever the actual numbers are, the “deficit” to get to 18 trillion may have only been 1 trillion, shrunk from the 2 trillion deficit the prior two years, but the debt is nonetheless getting constantly bigger (“runaway”), especially when the deficits is going to get bigger when Obamacare really kicks in.

      • Integrity

        Have you ever heard that the growth of debt is exponential? Not my original quote, but it fits, to wit: “What can’t go on forever, won’t. QED

      • Ron F

        And isn’t the forecast for the deficit to increase back to the $1 trillion range in the near future. In addition, the debt does not include unfunded liabilities.

    • Drew Page

      Freedom of the press is guaranteed — but only to those who own one.

      The owners of the MSM outlets are the ones who do the hiring and firing of CEOs, reporters, anchors, journalists and editors. The golden rule is that those with the gold make the rules – and set the agendas. If the owners of the networks and newspapers wanted their news people to be objective and unbiased, they would be, or they would be out of a job.

    • American1969

      Because they subscribe to the same ideology. They believe in all of this leftist stuff.

  • jesustheonlyway

    I don’t trust polls because you don’t know the base from which it was taken.

    • legal eagle

      Very insightful? Who do you trust other than Fox News or Limbaugh?

      • jesustheonlyway

        You’re a moron.

    • Seattle Sam

      You’re wrong to distrust the methodology of polling. Any legitimate polling organization would never risk destroying their business by “fudging” the data or skewing samples without disclosure. What YOU should be careful about is the way questions are structured. If you ask people whether government should spend more money on schools you will get a very different result than if you ask them if government should raise taxes to spend more money on schools. The data would be accurate in both cases, though.

      • jesustheonlyway

        I’m sure some polling agencies are legit but their poll results never seem to carry over into real results, such as in an election. Uninformed voters vote – do these people ‘actually’ get queried for political polls? I doubt it, they are invisible in the polls but they are very visible on election day. It is then the poll results go out the window – which is why I put no trust in polls.

  • Renee

    I work in publishing and nearly everyone on staff started in newspaper journalism. Of that group, every single one is a liberal Democrat — lifelong, to hear them tell it. Yes, they will insist that they are impartial. But just try to suggest covering some of the negative fall out of, say, Obamacare, and they will immediately shut you down — they don’t even pause to consider, it’s a knee-jerk reaction.

    • Patrick H.

      I bet a lot of them came of age in the 1960s when the Civil Rights movement and the anti-war movement was at its peak. Then the ones who protested against the establishment became the establishment which is why it has taken a huge swing left (in some ways for the better, in others not so much).

    • legal eagle

      Sounds like you’ve taken a scientific survey of newspaper journalists….LOL
      I guess there has not been sufficient coverage of “negative fall out” of Obamacare to satisfy your needs?

      • Renee

        Speaking of knee-jerk reactions! For starters, I didn’t pretend I’d taken a survey of newspaper reporters; I related what I have seen firsthand. Surely even you are aware of stories of the millions who lost their insurance coverage because of the ACA. Surely even you have heard that many who signed up have yet to pay their premiums, Now, when editors actually decline to cover those stories, they are allowing their own bias to to turn them into propagandists. And this hasn’t happened only in my little publication — i’ve seen precious little to no coverage on such MSM programs as ABC World News, BBC, NPR … when journalists decide not to report stories that conflict with their political bias, it’s a problem. I’ve seen enough of your posts to know that you will reply with nothing but snark, but that doesn’t change the facts.

        • JMax

          “Surely even you are aware of stories of the millions who lost their
          insurance coverage because of the ACA. Surely even you have heard that
          many who signed up have yet to pay their premiums”

          “Now, when editors actually decline to cover those stories”

          How could we “surely” be aware of these stories if editors are declining to cover them?

          Seems to me editors can’t keep up with the debunking of many of these stories as evidenced by the insurance company execs who this week testified before Congress that their paid up numbers were in the 80-90% range and not all deadlines have yet occurred.

          • Integrity

            We know because we now have alternate places to obtain our information. Do you ever wonder why our beloved Government wants to regulate sites like the Drudge Report? QED

          • JMax

            No. I never wondered because I don’t believe it’s true. Can you give me a link to one of your alternate places so I can obtain that information?

          • Integrity

            LOL. You unwittingly just proved my point. Had it not been for my “alternate places to obtain information”, I would not have heard of this story about the Government wanting to regulate the media, specifically the highly successful conservative media. Given the propensity of this current administration to act unilaterally, selectively enforce the law, or even use the power of an agency such as the IRS to attack political enemies, excluding sheep and the willfully ignorant, it should not come as a surprise to anyone.

            For one example, go to this link: http://washingtonexaminer.com/fec-chair-warns-conservative-media-drudge-hannity-face-regulation-like-pacs/article/2548163

            There are many sources out there with a myriad of information; some that you would even enjoy reading. Use the power of the Internet to set yourself free.

            Surely your agree with my position that I want all media, both liberal and conservative, to have the same exemption from Government regulation. QED

          • JMax

            The story is vague and largely unsourced. It implies without foundation that such efforts if they existed could somehow target Drudge and Hannity but not liberal media. It doesn’t say who conducted the interview or the context of it. It also refers to the basically non-existent effort to bring back the “fairness doctrine”.

            I’d say that’s why you wouldn’t find this on any media that values its integrity.

            “or even use the power of an agency such as the IRS to attack political enemies”

            I guess your alternate sources haven’t discovered yet that this has been debunked.

          • Integrity

            Use the Internet, JMAX, that was not the only source. The information is out there if you really want to find it.

            “I’d say that’s why you wouldn’t find this on any media that values its integrity.”

            I’d say that you are wrong. They despise the alternate sources. Their integrity was lost a long time ago.

            I have been reading about the IRS SCANDAL for 365 days now. Enjoy the following link:

            http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2014/05/the-irs-scandal-8.html

            Get back to me after you read all the information. QED

          • JMax

            I use the Internet every day. I browsed through your page. A lot about Lois Lerner. No evidence that only conservative groups were targeted. No evidence that the White House had anything to do with any of it. No evidence that conservative groups were denied status.

          • Integrity

            There is no evidence that you actually tried to find anything out since I provided you with links to 365 days of reporting on the subject. I am quite sure, regardless of content, you would find a way to spin it anyhow. In your eyes it seems that Obama can do no wrong. Nothing is ever going to change that. I am just trying to figure out why you are so enamored with him. I just don’t get it. QED

          • JMax

            It may come as a surprise to you that I have alternative sources, too. There is nothing in the links on the page you sent me that I haven’t seen already.

            I criticized Obama very early on in the IRS issue. I criticized him for saying what a terrible thing it was and firing or suspending people before he knew what really happened. There is not one single shred of evidence that Obama had anything to do with the IRS process for screening organizations applying for tax exempt status.

            The most that can be said about the IRS issue is that the process was flawed and Lois Lerner upon learning about it did not correct it.

            I am not “enamored” of Obama. He was my third choice in 2008. He’s making the best of a very difficult environment, and he’s accomplished many good things. I agree with his goal of strengthening the middle class and broadening it. If nothing else, he’s better than the alternative.

          • Integrity

            I find it difficult to believe that you actually looked at all of the links since there were over 365 days of links, each one containing links to several articles and other sources of information. Why don’t you just admit that you simply do not want to know the truth?

            What can be said about any of the scandals is that we can’t expect this administration to investigate itself or be honest. It is a culture of corruption.

            Perhaps I should have used “Slobbering Love Affair” in lieu of “enamored”. If he was your third choice, I can only imagine how far you would go to defend the others. I get it now. QED

    • Hammockbear

      You have described the poorest of reporters with no care to present the truth with no spin.

  • BIGtimSullivan

    Independent of:
    Integrity
    Wisdom
    Courage
    Character
    and the list goes on…

  • Joh

    I think I get as mad about what is NOT reported as is what is reported with a liberal slant

    • legal eagle

      Are you equally as mad about what is not “reported” on Fox News? I doubt it….You’d rather play the victimization card with your fellow whiners..

      • KheSahn67

        Are you a lawyer? Your dribble has that lawyer stench all around it.

      • Drew Page

        What’s your hang up with Fox News? Do you base your disdain for Fox News on the basis of their opinion and entertainment shows like O’Reilly, Hannity and their talk show contributors? Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage and Mark Levin are conservative talk show hosts. They are entertainers, much the same as Ed Schultz, Bill Maher, Rachael Maddow and Chris Matthews, but with opposite points of view.

      • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

        Which legitimate stories is Fox News not reporting on?

        • Integrity

          I hope you are not expecting an answer on this one. QED

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            I’m not. I’m expecting him to accuse me of racism.

        • Patrick H.

          I’d expect Bridgegate, Iraq, Tea Party racism, or any of the standard answers the left gives when asked.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            lol.

  • jazzdrums

    there is no denying the this new PC world has taken a toll on bill o ..he has softened and will push back on an anti left.lib statement at times. In this new century a niche mob of only 6 people can complain and influence a group to back off…current HGTV situation allegedly network was bullied to pull show. who knows. america is becoming a tough town

    • legal eagle

      Bigotry , under the guise of religion, is still bigotry….Do you think America will survive the self promotion by two “house flippers” who cannot become reality TV stars?

      • jazzdrums

        These events Duck Commander, HGTV and others remind me what M. McCluhan said in the 60s. The medium is the message. In a broad sense it is about TV (medium) ads and making money from influencing society to consume. The entertainment in between ads is secondary. America will survive and advertisers will have to make quick decisions every day. Beholding to the stock holders.

      • Drew Page

        The terms ‘bigotry and ‘racism’ have been thrown around so much lately as to have lost all significance. Too many these days aspire to nothing more than perpetual victimhood, in order to claim the moral high ground on their particular issue(s). Far too many are carrying the terrible burden of being “offended” at that which they don’t wish to hear. It is not so bad to be “offended” by something or other, but being “offended” today often results in laws being immediately passed to prevent the majority of saying what’s on their mind. My advice to the perpetually “offended”, get over it.

      • Integrity

        Bigotry, under the guise of compassionate liberalism, is still bigotry. What is next, a Government ban on all religion? That could never happen, or could it? We are on a very slippery slope right now. QED

  • http://blog.cyberquill.com/ Cyberquill

    Bill O’Reilly keeps insisting he’s an “independent,” and a registered one at that. If O’Reilly is a true independent on the right-left continuum, then (a) I’ll eat my hat and (b) so are all those other journalists that describe themselves as such.

    • Paul Rush

      At least he is fair and balanced. Not unlike the other court jester journalists/bloggers who dote on every word President Obama and Hilary Clinton espouse as the holy gospel.

    • http://conservativeyoda.blogspot.com/ Solo4357

      Oreilly will bring people on who disagrees with him. He’ll give everyone a fair forum. MSNBC is an echo chamber. No, Joe Scarborough doesn’t count.

      • Patrick H.

        That’s true and I admire O’ Reilly for that. However, I wish he would quit interrupting his guests and let them speak (He interrupts everybody across the ideological spectrum). If he would stop doing that, I think that would make his show so much better.

        • KheSahn67

          He has a strict broadcast time frame to adhere to. When a guest starts to ramble and make a speech,he must bring the talk back to reality. If he didn’t often times interrupt,nothing of any substance would be discussed.

        • bofus

          A good journalist will interrupt on occasion to keep a guest from expanding on a non-answer to use up interview time and avoid tough questions. Politicians of all stripes do this well.

        • Not a journalist.

          Nightly news is the wrong forum for serious discussions.
          Meet the Press with the late Tim Russert was informative in which the discussions could go on for 10-15 minutes before a commercial interruptions.

          Granted, I’m an independent and have never voted, but Russert displayed the best of a free form of interviewing.

          Just MHO.

          • Patrick H.

            You got that right. Just about everybody on the right and left admired Tim Russert. Too bad there aren’t many more journalists like him, RIP.

        • http://conservativeyoda.blogspot.com/ Solo4357

          I get what you’re saying about the interruptions and I know it rubs some people the wrong way but I have 874 other channels where the interviewer will sit passively letting the subject drone on and filibuster and never ask a follow up question. This is why we have Harry Reid and Joe Biden spouting stupidity endlessly. No one challenged them directly.

      • legal eagle

        I watched O’Reilly last night…Laura Ingraham asked James Carville a long winded question and then when he attempted to respond she interrupted him over and over…This is the norm on Fox News..

        • sjangers

          That may be the norm at Fox Opinion, Eagle. You’re confusing the Fox news operation with their opinion shows. Most of the rest of us don’t have that problem.

          • JMax

            I believe the Bernie’s subject was “journalists”, not reporters.

          • sjangers

            And the previous poster- the one to whom I was responding- offered a generalization about Fox News. I offered a clarification. Get with the program.

            Troll elsewhere.

          • legal eagle

            The only Fox “news” show that I have ever seen is Shep Smith’s show…What else is their news operation?

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            A guy who claims to watch the network has never heard of Special Report or Fox News Sunday? Stunning.

          • sjangers

            Quite a large portion of their daily schedule is news and not opinion. It’s been a while since I watched, but I believe the entire block from 10 am to 4 pm is news. Special Report with Bret Baier is their six o’clock news hour. Much of their weekend programming is news (e.g., Chris Wallace, Harris Faulkner, Arthel Neville). Most people confuse the news and opinion operations at Fox. They tend to watch the evening shows, which are opinion shows, and believe them representative of the entire operation.

          • Patrick H.

            They did add “Outnumbered” in the 11-12 hour, but other than that it’s still news programming.

          • sjangers

            Thanks, Patrick. I guess I had heard recently that they were introducing this show. It just kind of slipped my mind.

          • Patrick H.

            No problem, Fox has done a lot of program changing in the past year, so it’s easy to get confused.

        • KheSahn67

          The real norm is Mr. Carville has a history of not stopping his mouth,even when he runs out of breath.

        • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

          First of all, you don’t watch Fox News and simply read that account online somewhere.

          For everyone else who didn’t see it, Carville wouldn’t answer the question. He kept going off on a tangent about something else and Laura was trying to keep him on topic.

          Sorry for setting the record straight, legal. I know that you hate that.

          • legal eagle

            You know what I watch …How?

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            We’ve been through this a dozen times now, legal. You says things that simply aren’t true about the Fox segments you claim to watch. My favorite example was a few months ago, when you said you watched the O’Reilly Factor that night and that Bill didn’t mention the Chris Christie bridge story. In reality, he dedicated the first 3 segments of his show to it.

            You’ve done this sort of thing a number of times. What other conclusion can one draw other than that you simply don’t watch the network?

    • legal eagle

      Or Hannity is not a Republican…he’s just a conservative who hates everyone who isn’t a Republican?

  • sjangers

    I guess it shouldn’t come as any big surprise that many journalists have trouble with unbiased reporting when they can’t even accurately self-report. I suspect that most of the journalists who responded to this poll did so honestly- or at least they perceived their response as accurate. They may vote for the Democrat candidate ninety percent of the time, but I’m willing to bet that most of them really don’t consider themselves Democrats. How they rationalize the dissonance between their behavior and how they self-identify is anyone’s guess, but I don’t imagine they lose a lot of sleep over it at nights. After all, they know they’re good people. It’s the other guys that they think we should worry about.

    • legal eagle

      Poor victims of media bias…….Playing the victim card has been part of the Republican playbook since the days of Richard Nixon…Is there insufficient right wing/Republican media?
      What’s next? Fox News is “fair and balanced” or the NBC announcers are biased in favor of the Canadians?

      • sjangers

        And good morning to you, Sunshine. Hope your Rangers do better tonight.
        Playing the media bias card has been part of the Republican playbook because it works. It’s an accurate claim. People get it. And it doesn’t hurt to remind people every now and then that most of what they read in mainstream media comes with a healthy dose of spin.
        Why are you complaining? You’re quick enough to complain about other aspects of our culture that you don’t think are fair. Why deny conservatives’ right to object when their complaints are clearly valid?
        I’m not going to suggest that Fox News is fair and balanced. I might have done so three or four years ago, but they definitely started to lean right in their news operation by the Spring of 2012. I don’t like it, but I don’t think they’re as bad as the other big television outlets. I’ll join you in calling Fox on their bias once we get CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and MSNBC under control. Fair enough?

        • ph16

          Good point, the thing I never got about the complaints about Fox is that they average about 2 million viewers a night while the others put together make up tens of millions.

          • sjangers

            The Left was never very good at math, Jeff.

          • Integrity

            QED

        • legal eagle

          As the Rangers have won tonight I am in gracious and giving mood….
          MSNBC I understand….What is biased about NBC, ABC and CNN’s news coverage? I watch all the evening news programs occasionally and I don’t understand what bias the news casts exhibit. Are Brian Williams and Diane Sawyer’s newscasts biased?
          GO Rangers and Bruins…

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Read “Bias,” legal. It’s pretty embarrassing that you’re about a dozen years late to the game.

          • Integrity

            He reminds me of a high school student that turned in a one-page book review on a book that he did not bother to read. He is trying to determine his favorite color while we seek the holy grail. LOL

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            lol.

          • sjangers

            To be honest, I haven’t watched much ABC, NBC, or CBS in a number of years. I became so frustrated by decades of viewing their slanted coverage of events that I finally gave up on them about ten years ago. I do occasionally catch clips of their coverage around the web that have left a strong impression that nothing has changed at those operations. But in fairness, I can’t claim to have thorough and current knowledge of bias in their news operations. I doubt much has changed in their operations in recent years but I haven’t checked closely enough to be certain of that claim.

            The CNN coverage is something that I do check out regularly. Some of their reporters- like John King and Gloria Borger- do seem to be reasonably even-handed in their presentation. Their anchors and their editorial decisions about what to cover don’t impress me very much. News items that might call into question liberal assumptions, or that might embarrass liberal political leaders, rarely see the light of day. If they do get any coverage, the anchors can generally be counted on to downplay significance, or to take a shot at the political opposition, as part of the presentation.

            I’m rarely left in any doubt about the personal leanings of the personalities at CNN. As someone who shares their bias, you might be less inclined than I to notice the subtle and not-so-subtle ways their personalities attempt to influence viewer perspective, much in the same manner that conservative friends often have trouble getting it when I point out ways that Fox has started to show bias in their news operation in recent years, but the evidence is there if you’re attentive to it. You might try watching CNN sometime like a lawyer preparing to cross-examine a witness. See how often they present opportunities for you to undermine their credibility if they were testifying in court. That might help you to understand how someone who doesn’t share their bias can be sensitive to the way they present information.

          • sjangers

            Congratulations on the Rangers’ win. I hope they continue to do well. Although it does occur to me that if the Rangers and Bruins both move on to the next round, you and I will be at each other’s throat for a couple of weeks. That may be worse than any political disagreement. ; )

          • sjangers

            Your Rangers seem to be playing with a lot of intensity this evening. If nothing changes, you should have a very exciting game seven to look forward to on Tuesday.

          • legal eagle

            As will the Bruins….I think it’s about time for one of those 3 overtime period games…..

          • sjangers

            I don’t think I could handle three overtimes. A nice, regulation victory will suit me just fine. Although the Bruins haven’t seen much luck in this series. Maybe it would all balance out if the game does got to extra periods.

          • legal eagle

            Looks like these teams play a full season to get the home ice advantage in the 7th game of the playoffs…..
            Fortunately for me the east coast games start at 4 pm on the West Coast so these teams can pay as long as they want…..LOL

          • sjangers

            It seems the case in this series. I really hoped the Bruins would close it out last night. So much can happen in a single game. But that’s life. I’ll have the video system tuned up, the beer cold, and the pistol loaded. Ready for anything.

          • sjangers

            Congratulations to you and the Rangers. That was an exciting finish. Hopefully after tomorrow night we’ll be hatin’ on each other for a couple of weeks.

          • legal eagle

            Rooting for Bruins so we can have a Finnish v. Swedish goalie series……Hope their visas are in order….LOL

          • sjangers

            Uh, was that a veiled threat about the visas? You don’t do any work for ICE, do you?

            If the Bruins get by tonight they’ll be playing their third “original six” series to get out of the Eastern Conference. That would be cool.

            So sometime around ten o’clock this evening I’ll either be getting in touch with you to start the taunting or I’ll be outside taking pot shots at the satellite dish.

          • legal eagle

            I’ll say a prayer for you to my Bobby Orr bobblehead doll…LOL

          • sjangers

            I think I’ll just accept the moral support and ask no (potentially disturbing) questions.

          • sjangers

            Good luck with the Canadiens. I’ve got to pop in another magazine, get back outside, and see if I can’t finish off that damned dish.

          • legal eagle

            So sorry…I guess the God of sports doesn’t allow more than one winner per city per year so the Bruins loss was the fault of wither the Red Sox or Obama….LOL

          • sjangers

            But the Red Sox won LAST year, dammit! Must be Obama’s fault.

        • legal eagle

          Studies have shown that most members of the media are college graduates and college graduates vote Democratic by a significant margin…Therefore…

          http://www.demos.org/blog/why-most-educated-americans-vote-democrat

          Are you suggesting that media companies higher less educated employees?….LOL

          Go Rangers and Bruins..

          • sjangers

            I’m suggesting that media companies hire people, whatever their bias, who believe they have an ethical responsibility to report news fairly and accurately. You’d think a bunch of bright folks with college degrees could figure that out.

          • sjangers

            Interesting link, Eagle. I’m not sure what to make of it beyond the couple of facts the author used to kick off that little self-congratulatory puff piece. For about three decades, voters with advanced degrees have tended to vote Democrat by a moderate margin. Voters with college degrees also tend to vote Democrat, although be a somewhat narrower margin. The author seems pretty sure it’s because liberals are wonderful. But if the reasoning he offers to support his opinion is any example, it may just be because he was exposed too early to medical marijuana and everything looks pretty wonderful to him right now.

            The author suggests that more education results in stronger liberal bias because of increased exposure to different kinds of people and many different perspectives while in school. If my college experience is any example, or recent reports from academia matter, it may just be because college graduates and people with advanced degrees have received four to seven years more indoctrination in liberal values than their high-school-educated brothers and sisters.

            The author does admit that people with more education might have benefitted personally from government extravagance (okay, he calls it “investment”), but he focuses on things like government-funded medical research, Al Gore’s pet project, and lawyers who wish we had a high-speed rail system like Europe.

            As a lawyer, are you motivated more by TGV envy or the lure of a third of compensatory plus punitive damages? Cynics might suggest that since Republicans are the party of tort reform, and Democrats the party of “let them all eat torte”, that members of the legal profession have a real vested interest behind their admittedly-Democrat political leanings. The doctors, I’m not so sure about since I never perceived that more doctors I know supported Democrats; certainly not today. I really can’t assess the politics of computer engineers since few I know have ever demonstrated much interest in politics.

            But my cynical take on the reason many college graduates support Democrats is because the party of big government is what helps to pay their bills. With civil servants, government contractors, and grant recipients accounting for more than ten percent of the work force; with those fields accounting for a much higher than average number of positions requiring college education; with the party of spend, spend, spend connected directly to the growth of those fields; I think it no wonder that so many college educateds who work in those fields tend to vote Democrat.

            Like most voters, they vote the pocketbook. Unlike most voters, they’re voting for Democrats to take more from my pocketbook in order to fill theirs. The author finds it “particularly striking” that many of these people would vote Democrat since it means higher taxes for them. I’d find it “particularly striking” if they didn’t vote Democrat and ran the risk of becoming unemployed.

            The author closes by noting that more educated Americans live in heavily urban areas that tend to be culturally liberal, and that where you live affects what you believe. That, at least, makes sense. Large concentrations of people require different levels of interaction with others, different attitudes, and different levels of government services. Areas of lower population density make it less likely that people are involved in everyone else’s business and promote attitudes of self-reliance. I don’t have a problem with that. If people in metropolitan areas want to have large and activist governments, let them. My complaint is when they insist that they know best and that I really ought to have a big and intrusive government, too.

          • legal eagle

            The facts in the article speak for themselves…I’m not sure why you infer that the author is biased….Perhaps that’s where we differ…

          • sjangers

            For me, the problem with the column is that I didn’t see many facts. There were perhaps five pieces of accurate information, a number of inferences, and an unhealthy volume of opinion. The conclusions didn’t seem to stand on much of a foundation.

            So you’re just overwhelmed with TGV envy. I don’t know that high speed rail will do much for most of the rest of us. Perhaps in the I-95 corridor and along the Pacific Coast. In areas with low population density it will probably remain easier and cheaper to hop in a car.

            If the Bruins and Rangers do meet I’ll just assume that all the officials are leaning left. You can never go too far wrong with that assumption.

          • legal eagle

            Be assured that I will do my best to avoid slashing or high sticking you….LOL

          • sjangers

            Good. Because with that darned Obamacare messing up the healthcare landscape, who know what kind of care I’d get for an injury.

      • KheSahn67

        Have you had an eye test lately? I would recommend you get one. The writing on the wall is the size of a bill board and you can’t see it. Or worse yet,choose to ignore the facts.

      • JMax

        Fox News: Fair & Balanced. A great point, if it were true.

      • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

        >>Poor victims of media bias

        Conservatives aren’t the victims of media bias. The country is.

    • Ian D Goddard

      For 100 years American socialists have been striving to take control of this country. Originally enamoured with Lenin and early communists they infiltrated higher education and government throughout America. Decades of work has resulted in the Government we now have. Higher education is controlled by Professors and Administrators deeply indoctrinated in Socialism. Most reporters and journalists, the product of these schools, cannot envisage a capitalistic society being anything but destructive and “unfair.” With very few exceptions the media cannot be trusted to produce anything other than socialist propaganda and bias.