Media

Columbia Journalism Review: "There are very few good conservative reporters"

|

The Columbia Journalism Review has an interesting piece up on how "Journalism Should Own its Liberalism." There's much I agree with–particularly the notion that traditional-media reporters should disclose, rather than smother, their political/ideological leanings–and there's much I disagree with, starting with the impotent idea that "Glenn Beck, FOX, and a couple of conservative video reporters have, in effect, forced the editors and ombudsmen at two of the nation's leading newspapers, the Times and The Washington Post, to assume a full-scale defensive posture regarding charges of liberal bias." There's also a meaty chunk in the middle you might find of interest that documents the liberal leaning of newspapers.

The excerpt I'm interested in highlighting, just to get some counter-nominations (or affirmations) going in the comments, is the final paragraph:

Although it is the subject for another essay, the fact is that there are very few good conservative reporters. There are many intellectually impressive conservative advocates and opinion leaders, but the ideology does not seem to make for good journalists. In contrast, any examination of the nation's top reporters over the past half-century would show that, in the main, liberals do make good journalists in the tradition of objective news coverage. The liberal tilt of the mainstream media is, in this view, a strength, but one that in recent years, amid liberal-bias controversies, has been mismanaged.

Who are your favorite conservative reporters, if any?

Link via the Twitter feed of journalism professor Jay Rosen, who adds "conservatives should admit: they don't make good journalists," and "the reason there isn't more of them in newsrooms is: they're wimps."

Advertisement

NEXT: Health Industry Lobbyist on Reform Bill: "If we're on the floor and it continues to look like this then … we're really going to have a problem."

Media Conservatism

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

104 responses to “Columbia Journalism Review: "There are very few good conservative reporters"

  1. En-dashes! Woohoo!

  2. A good reporter is one who has no detectable political ideology.

  3. Fuck Columbia Journalism Review.

    As a libertarian it’s very easy to see how extremely biased the MSM is. They conveniently lie, leave out facts, distort context, and cherry-pick stories to further their agenda.

    The MSM can no longer be trusted on anything. Even if they come out of the closet now as a bunch Obama jizz-slurping fuckbags, it doesn’t matter. They are better off retiring than after years of lying about their bias, come out and admit it.

  4. Conservatives do not become reporters.

  5. if a conservative reporter shit in the woods, would anybody notice?

  6. For 20 years, I have run a program to teach college journalists about politics–a dozen each semester. I know, as fact, that an overwhelming percentage of college students drawn to political and public affairs journalism self-identify as Democrat and liberal. While Progressive Era news values (dispassion, fairness, and an objective approach) guide journalists in straight news coverage that generally avoids favoritism for a party or a personality, there is clearly a subtle bias of ideas that drives what is covered, what isn’t, who is quoted and who isn’t, and how seriously alternative philosophies and ideologies are treated. Which is why I try to expose my generally politically liberal students to a disproportionate number of libertarian and conservative presenters. There is a need to encourage conservative and libertarian college students to seek careers in news reporting if we are going to seriously address that subtle bias of ideas that exists on the news pages of traditional journalism.

    1. “if we are going to seriously address that subtle bias of ideas that exists on the news pages of traditional journalism. ”

      Subtle? How about, overwhelming?

  7. Warren +1

    It’s like saying there are very few good black presidents, but many good white ones. Not exactly a deep pool of contenders…

  8. John Stossel is one of the few that come to mind. I’m not sure about George Will. As in, I’m not sure he’s really a conservative anymore. Most of the neocon wind bags on Fox aren’t really “reporters”, they are “media personalities”. Come to think of it, that describes those on the left who call themselves “reporters” but really aren’t. Just another example of how the left cannot exist without wholesale lying.

    1. Stossel, and Bob Novak was a damn good reporter, all the unfortunate Valerie Plame stuff.

      I know all the elite leftists would puke at the notion, but Andrew Breitbart is now a reporter, whether they want to admit it or not. If ACORN was a conservative group and he was a liberal, he’d be a serious contender for a Pulitzer.

      1. Or at least a Nobel Peace Prize.

        1. Well, pfff… anybody can get Nobel Peace Prize.

          1. Not really. You have to be connected. After all, there is a maximum of 3 a year, and there are 6 billion people in the world.

            1. By golly you’re right. I’ll bet he miscounted.

    2. Will may or may not be a conservative, but he is certainly not a reporter. He has been writing his op-ed pieces since God was a boy, and I don’t think he has ever broken a story or reported on anything new. Robert Novak was a reporter and a conservative

  9. There’s much I agree with?particularly the notion that traditional-media reporters should disclose, rather than smother, their political/ideological leanings

    I agree with this. It seems there has been a blurring of the line between news and political commentary/political analysis. Each has their own place, but when one is substituted or mistaken for the other is when problems arise. It seems most of the complaints with the mainstream media stem from the fact that they have leaned towards commentary instead of reporting…but I guess you need something to fill a 24 hour news cycle on 4 different subsidiary channels.

    1. blurring of the line between news and political commentary/political analysis

      Blurred, hell. The line has been demolished.

      1. Line? There’s a line?

  10. Awesome. Matt asks a serious question

    Who are your favorite conservative reporters, if any?

    and the answer is two jokes, a profanity laced tirade, a tut-tut but nothing of substance. Perhaps the answer is that conservative consumers do not want news – they want heated opinion and indignant shock. I think I know of at least one man who made a killing off of that realization.

    1. New here? You seem lost.

      1. Nope. Just a strident capitalist who recognizes a market when he sees one. I think the stories I read here are great, otherwise I wouldn’t patronize the site. I’m pointing out the fact that we (meaning the patrons of this site) are dwarfed in number by those that patronize the other ‘conservative’ sources of information and news. That is why there are so few conservative journalists and why the thread here is going to be filled with commentary about the media as opposed to numerous concrete examples. Newsmax is not informative to us, but the owners of that website are shooting cash out of a fire hose.

        1. I don’t know who you’re trying to fool, but I come to this site for strident indignation and heated shock. I mean, why else is there a “daily brickbats” section?

        2. other ‘conservative’ sources of information and news.

          Now I know you are confused. Conservative and libertarian are not synonyms

  11. Nobody can beat the journalists at Reason for doggedly turning up evidence that government is just bad. From SWAT teams to drung laws to failed public school–Reason is on the beat, and we never get tried of hearing how bad government is.

    1. oh-wee-oh-wee-oh!

  12. plenty of conservative reporters on newspapers in other countries. maybe its having more of a national press.

    what about the wall street journal?

  13. Why is it that pundits insist on presenting world events only in terms of liberal vs. conservative? What about the vast majority of humans (some of whom are journalists) who have mixed and contradictory values? To put American journalists (and the American citizenry) in either the conservative camp or the liberal camp is intellectual laziness.

  14. Conservatives don’t make good reporters because they don’t report the Objective Truth as determined by the MSM.

  15. “we never get tried of hearing how bad government is.”

    Good, Morris, you’re coming around.

    “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”
    -George Washington (He was our first President)

  16. John Tierney was very good as a reporter, now he does sort of something different for the New York Times.

    The piece is a bit silly because he compares the mainstream media to the “conservative media,” including in the latter many journals of opinion. He doesn’t mention any of the journals of opinion of the left, nor note that there’s a revolving door from those to mainstream journalism.

    Just like there’s a revolving door between “Democratic Congressional aide or political adviser” and journalist. Tim Russert, Chris Matthews, George Stephanopoulos, etc.

  17. Also, his explanation about “all good journalists are liberals and liberals make better journalists, because all the mainstream reporters you see are liberals” is on the face of it as convincing as the old explanation that whites are just better than blacks at being quarterbacks or coaches in the NFL. He could give a little more to back that up.

  18. I can’t name ANY reporters, liberal or otherwise. OK, Radley Balko seems like an actual reporter, and I can recognize him. Otherwise, the recognizable people are pundits, not reporters. Even the recognizable schmucks on local TV news aren’t reporters IMO – they go out in the street for a live shot but the information coming out of their mouths is generally just a recitation from a police press release; none of them make any attempt to find facts. And since they’re mostly just covering fires and car wrecks, there really much bias that could creep in anyway. When the TV news covers a drug bust, it’s usually just a camera crew with a mic, no questioning takes place whatsoever – that bias isn’t in the reporter it’s in the anonymous assignment editor.

    1. Balko, Woodward, and Bernstein are the only “reporters” I can name at all. I’m suspicious of any non-journalist who knows the names of a bunch of reporters.

      That “AP” fellow seems prolific. Can I pick him?

  19. Isn’t it pretty obvious the reason why? Right wing philosophies are fundamentally concerned with the individual. It views society as fundamentally a collection of independent actors that collectively may be described with broad generalizations, but that are still independent actors nevertheless. As a example, that “African-American culture” is not its own entity, but that it is rather made up of individuals that collectively give it an identity, but that are still individuals apart from this. A person can partake in a particular sub-culture, but they are not defined by that sub-culture. This focus on the individual does not jive well with journalism, which by its very nature is concerned with the actions of the community as a whole, with making collective statements about masses of people as the independent actors with the actual people as simply parts of the machine. It correlates well with left-wing philosophies that teach that an individual cannot be separated from the sub-culture he involves himself in; that a homosexual *must* be part of the “queer” sub-culture and can be described solely by that sub-culture, that he cannot seperate himself from it. It’s the reason why leftists pretend that black and gay right-wingers do not exist, because the fact that a homosexual or an African-American could exist outside the designated sub-culture is anathema to the whole philosophy. It’s kinda like being shocked that there aren’t more mystics in physics departments. And then there’s the issue of ideological segregation.

    1. I think you’ve got it.

    2. Yeah, I’m not buying the right doesn’t group people! I can’t tell you how many times they think I’m a lefty just because I’m against a war or anti-prohibition.

      I’d say it’s more of a way of viewing the world.

      People who see the world as “it is” tend to go into business as a way to make money. But if you tend to see the world in the way you think “it should be”, you tend to go into a more intellectual realm to earn a living. (teachers, lawyers, actors, journalists)

      Conservatives tend to reside in the former, leftists in the latter.

      1. I second the worldview comment.

        Also, I think there tends to be some magic in the postmodernist “narrative” aspect of the reporting. People psychologically like stories and people who just report “the facts ma’am” tend to be boring. I think a lot of the left can be identified with an ironic position of upholding postmodernism as true and portraying people whose rationale for action is based on data as “cold” or “cruel” or “heartless.” The story-telling part of the journalistic craft and the leftist slant of postmodernism are a natural fit for one another.

        For instance, if you compare the WSJ and NYT, their style (not just content) is night and day.

        The WSJ seems to be much more concerned with charts, figures, and in general just raw pulp content (with the exception of the opinions page obviously).

        The NYT is concerned much more with perspectives and cultural viewpoints–they also put a huge degree of effort into this aura of elite “respectability” which prevents them from covering some actual news if they deem it to be too crash or “unbefitting” of an “organization of their character.”

        1. crash = crass

    3. I think you and Mike in PA are both onto it.

      It’s kind of like asking, why don’t we have better people becoming politicians?

      How many rational people do you know, that really want to go to D.C. at this point in history? The percentage is very tiny.

    4. I don’t think thenino85’s conclusion is correct, because most things reported on have nothing to do with collectives per se. Much more often reporting concerns the actions of individuals (crimes, business decisions, politicians seeking election, sports figures in action, celebrity doings) or of non-humans (weather, animals on the loose, natural disasters).

      So then what is it? Is there something about the job, which consists of finding out what happened and telling you, that attracts those types disproportionately? We could look at jobs with similar functions — teachers, accountants, insurance adjusters, research scientists, research interviewers, historians, pathologists — and see if the same types are attracted to those jobs, or whether particulars differentiating news reporting from those jobs make a difference there too.

      Or could it be a mere manifestation of positive feedback — that random fluctuations resulted at one point in an excess of “liberals” as reporters, leading others to want to emulate them, and so magnifying that excess? Or other means of selection that produce positive feedback, such as hiring or journalism school admission decisions favoring one’s own ideologic kind — still originating with a random fluctuation at some time in the past?

      BTW, my 1st lost post with the new server. Used to happen more often.

  20. Edward “Lefiti” Morris, kill yourself.

    1. That is a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out objection.

      1. That chode she’s with, that’s Phantom Limb. When he was in college, he was a scrawny little wuss. In a desperate attempt to be cooler than guys like me, he had his twelve year old roommate create a machine that speeds up the muscle building process. The machine worked so well that every molocule in his extremities was accelerated to the speed of light. There were two side effects. One: He can mess up a guy just by touching him. And Two: He became a humorless dick!

  21. No, Xeones. He’s joined us!

    I think all of his comments from now on should be followed by this one.

  22. Dan Rather must be a Conservative reporter. Only a Conservative would insist on the veracity of his report in spite of the fact that his alleged smoking gun was found to be a fabrication. Only a Conservative would have enough hubris to claim that his reporting expertise trumped silly details like facts.

  23. It’s not just that few people understand the difference between opinion and reporting in journalism, it’s that few people draw a distinction between everyday news reporting, which makes up 99 percent of what journalists do, and the national political reporting of the New York Times and Washington Post.

    How the nation’s biggest papers cover the White House has no bearing on how a reporter at the Quad City Times covers a municipal budget dispute or a parks proposal. Most of the time, that new park is going to be a bigger deal to the good people of Iowa than some story on how Republicans are spinning Obama’s peace prize. But the national debate sucks all the oxygen out of the room.

    Most news, nearly all news really, is not subject to political biases. It’s just what’s happening around us.

    1. mmmm, no, I don’t think so.

      There really is room for bias, definitely at the national level but even (and especially) when reporting about that park in Iowa. The bias is in terms of who and what they do, and do not, bother to cover.

  24. Who are your favorite conservative reporters, if any?

    Since I hate all reporters (except for Radley), this is kind of a weird question. I mean, who are my favorite liberal reporters? None, just like my favorite conservative reporters.

  25. One of the things I like about The Economist is that they don’t hesitate to tell you what their particular leanings are. Agree with them or not, I appreciate that they don’t pretend they’re something they’re not.

    1. huh? the economist claims to be for markets, but, uh, well, that is just not the case. they are for whatever is trendy in the proper social circles.

      1. Ah so. And “trendy in the proper social circles” is very often aligned with liberal democrat views.

        Somehow the right is just not “trendy in the proper social circles” very often.

  26. The liberal tilt of the mainstream media is, in this view, a strength, but one that in recent years, amid liberal-bias controversies, has been mismanaged.

    Speech must be managed.

  27. Hannah Giles and James O’keeffe have done some pretty good work, contra Rosen.

    Conservatives don’t work for newspapers for the same reason Republicans tend not to work for unions – it just won’t work out for obvious reasons.

  28. Naw, Pro Lib. All of his comments are either more overtly sarcastic rephrasings of the same thing or else bitter betrayals of his own willful ignorance of what libertarianism is. In other words, he’s an even more substance-free version of, say, Tony, who at least tries to put up an argument, despite having never been within shouting distance of facts in his life.

    I guess i don’t really wish death on Morris, but if i heard he’d lost his scrotum and several feet of intestine trying to masturbate with a ShopVac, i would laugh really, really hard.

  29. Is it still technically masturbating if you’re with a Shop-Vac? What if you’re in love?

  30. Sex with appliances?!? There’s no time, man!

    1. White: Whoa, Billy! Sweatsock? Oiled garbage bag? Oh my god, ‘Melon heated in a microwave’?!

      Dr. Venture: That’s very creative, Billy! I’m sure your mother is proud. Give me that!

      Billy: I didn’t understand the question! Seriously! I didn’t know what you meant by “guilty pleasure”! Have we had enough fun here?

      Dr. Venture: Oh, no, fun is number five: “Dustbuster with corner attachment”.

      White: That. Sounds dangerous.

      Billy: I DIDN’T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION!

      1. Season 4 premiere is October 18. Woo!

  31. is this like the comment(to paraphrase) “there are just no good conservative academics bc they aren’t smart enough”

    these people assume their premises and then pat themselves on the back for having come to such a brilliant conclusion. aren’t we constantly bemoaning the sorry state of journalism? wouldn’t then a more appropriate question be “can you name any decent reporters?”, full stop.

    1. Uh huh.

      It also doesn’t help when our educational system is overwhelming staffed by liberal democrats, just like the media is. Anyone who is not liberal-leaning simply doesn’t get the same encouragement to become part of the “inner circle of the intelligentsia”. On contrare, they are actively discouraged.

      On average.

      If the MSM and our school systems were shut down tomorrow, and re-staffed with something approaching a more equal intellectual balance, I wonder how long liberal democratic views would enjoy the level of popularity that they do.

      A huge percentage of non-liberal democrat leaning people that I know, get out of school sick to their stomachs with the liberal crap they’ve had to live with. They have very strong motivations to go find somewhere to make a home far, far away from the lefties.

  32. How about Bill Sammon, now with the Washington Examiner?

  33. My favorite up-and-coming conservative journalist is Mike Riggs! He’s funny and perceptive and he wets my panties like a firehose!

    -Not Mike Riggs

  34. Matt Welch, Nick Gillespie

    Ok, where’s my cookie?

      1. We know, that’s why we include you. ‘Cause the left thinks you’re conservative… and you’re our favorite journalist, so…what’s a consumer of Reason to do?

      2. Well, you’re not a Democrat are you? Therefore, you have to be a conservative.

      3. sorry, I just wanted a cookie… 🙁

  35. liberals do make good journalists in the tradition of objective news coverage.

    What? So the liberal reporters are good at reporting news objectively? But conservative reporters let their unfortunate bias get in the way of objective reporting, eh?

    Fuck them with a rusty pipe.

    1. It clicks the preview button before it posts. It does this whenever it’s told.

  36. I’d suggest Bob Ingle at the Newark (NJ) Star Ledger. I’m not sure if he’s really conservative, but he’s definitely been laying into John Corzine.

    And wasn’t Bob Woodward a Republican?

  37. Who are your favorite conservative reporters, if any?

    Matt Welch/Tim Cavanaugh/John Stossle/P.J. O’Rourke*

    *No longer a ‘journalist’.

  38. Oh, I remember some years ago during the Clinton administration NPR had some media big shot in the studio explaining away liberal bias. I’ll paraphrase here, but this is darned close:

    “The reason people think the media has a liberal bias is because journalism’s job is to get to the truth. Conservatives have all the power in this country, and so getting at the truth upsets their world. Therefore, the truth seems liberal. Liberal bias in the media? It’s to laugh!”

    I nearly drove off the road.

  39. John Stossel.

    Jesus, lliberals think conservatives don’t make good reporters. meanwhile, Stossel is the ONLY guy out there debunking the shitload of low-hanging fruit they leave hanging.

    Liberal reporters are frequently duped by pseudoscience and conspiracy theories. They are NOT good reporters. They are NOT cticical thinkers. They let themselves be led around by left-leaning advocaacy groups the exact way they project onto conservatives.

    1. Stossel is libertarian, not conservative.

      1. THANK YOU.

  40. Tucker Carlson.

    Really.

    (when he dropped his schtick is a competent professional; he did some good stuff with the Paul campaign last year, and his show on MSNBC was actually getting pretty good right befored it was cancelled.

    1. Tucker’s magazine journalism is terrific.

  41. Link via the Twitter feed of journalism professor Jay Rosen, who adds “conservatives should admit: they don’t make good journalists,” and “the reason there isn’t more of them in newsrooms is: they’re wimps.”

    The reason there aren’t more conservative journalists is that conservatives tend to find more lucrative careers.

    And that once liberals have taken over any institution, whether it is academia or Hollywood or the MSM, they’re gonna try and keep out any dissenters from joining their ranks.

    1. Journalism can be some-what lucrative. Base salary for a New York Times reporter is $120,000 (although that’s New York dollars).

  42. There are many intellectually impressive conservative advocates and opinion leaders, but the ideology does not seem to make for good journalists.

    It’s not the ideology that does not make for good journalists, it’s the “intellectually impressive” part.

  43. Well as a liberal, I am usually frustrated by what I see as a conservative bias. And I am sure that most journalists went to college and slant toward liberalism, I am also sure all media outlets are owned by conservatives and pro-business interests and only allow items and information they deem appropriate. So we end up with a creepy balance of two opposing groups, not balancing each other, but skewing each other into what I beleive is basically a lack of information(which should not be confused with opinion) and full of toothless speculation aimed at two target markets…angry conservatives and angry liberals.

    1. Name a conservative media owner (besides rupert murdoch)

      The consevervative media owner is just as much a myth as the conservative financial services owner. For god’s sake, Jamie Demon (CEO, goldman sachs) is a democrat.

    2. Shit, this clinches it. I’m definitely changing my screen name.

  44. Michelle Malkin (who recently astonished me by revealing on her blog that she voted for Harry Browne) might qualify.

    R.S. McCain. (An avowed Hayekian, and notorious RAAAAACIST!)

    Andrew Breitbart. (Maybe more of a “media mogul” than a reporter, I guess, but he seems intent on building a stable of conservative reporters, such as . . .)

    Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe, who almost single-handedly have dealt ACORN a possibly fatal blow.

    OK, yeah, there aren’t a whole lot of prominent conservative reporters.

    I think most conservative/libertarian-leaning reporters get pushed out of the newsrooms and take up residence in the blogosphere.

    If a reporter gets a good (non-leftist) story and there are no editors to approve it, did the story ever happen?

  45. Oh, I can’t believe I nearly forgot about Michael Yon, one of the only war reporters in the world today who is truly worthy of the title.

  46. I’d think it would be quite obvious…the liberals major in journalism while all the conservatives are over at the business college.

  47. there’s much I disagree with, starting with the impotent idea . . .

    Why? The ACORN story has had more impact than anything the MSM has come up with, and it was an easy story to tell – hell, anyone with half a brain has known for years that ACORN is essentially a criminal conspiracy. The MSM was humiliated, and they know it.

    In contrast, any examination of the nation’s top reporters over the past half-century would show that, in the main, liberals do make good journalists in the tradition of objective news coverage.

    Man, just put your frickin’ bias out on display, why don’t you. Liberal journalists only make good reporters if you like their selective output. I think the selection bias of most liberal reporters pretty much destroys their value as good sources of information.

    Good conservative journalists? Start with Claudia Rosett at the WSJ. I would count Radley Balko, as well. A lot depends on your definition of “conservative.”

    1. RC — The “impotent” part is where they were somehow “forced” to do anything. I agree with you about the stories.

  48. I should add that the reason the MSM was humiliated over ACORN was because of their liberal selection bias – they didn’t want to go after a lynchpin of the liberal power structure and a big supporter of Obama.

  49. I like Krauthammer, but my favorite journalist is Stossel, but he’s a libertarian.

  50. As a journalism student who leans libertarian, I’m surprised that more journalists aren’t libertarians.

    Journalism is asking questions, especially the “why is that the way it is?” type questions. Libertarians ask more questions like that than any other political ideology. Even if the journalist doesn’t really buy into libertarian ideas it’d at least be a useful tool…

  51. filbert

    Michelle Malkin used to lean a lot more libertarian. She wrote some stuff for Reason years ago, including, if memory serves a pretty good anti drug war piece.

    Then she got off on her “OMG, we’re being overrun by brown people” (odd for a fillipina, no) and “the japs deserved to have their property stolen be shipped to camps in the desert” schtick (not so odd for a fillipina, perhaps).

    1. I think she used to be on samizdata too.

  52. Although it is the subject for another essay, the fact is that there are very few good conservative reporters.

    Although it is the subject for another essay, the fact is that there are very few liberal newspapers that will hire conservative reporters. Or libertarians.

    1. How do they know if you’re a conservative or libertarian reporter?

  53. The reporters I’ve worked with have come back from government meetings either laughing at the politicos or wondering how they’re smart enough to tie their own shoes. Yet these same reporters want to entrust MORE to the government. These reporters lacked any ability to apply what they’d witnessed to real life.

  54. Problem is, there are very few good liberal journalists either, there is just a hell of a lot more of them.

  55. I don’t follow their work close enough, but I’d nominate Mary Katharine Ham, Eli Lake, Major Garret, and Michael Malone. I think they would qualify as conservative reporters.

  56. If there are few good conservative journalists then why has the Wall Street Journal won so many Pulitzer Prizes. Its not by and strech liberal either economically or socially.

    The New York Sun is a good example of what happens with conservative media. The Sun was praised for its reporting by the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal. But the paper folded recently. The reason being is that like many businesses it didn’t not meet the needs of its consumers. Media like every other business reflects the tastes and desires of consumers. Regardless of the the quality of the news the Sun was producing it did conform to its readers tastes and therefore collapsed.

    The media if far more liberal than the nation at large because they are located in large cities, which are more liberal than the nation at large. Also liberals are richer than conservatives and more geographically condensed in cities that make it easier for advertisers to target.

    Conservatives are geographically spread out in rural areas and in suburbs. So their impact in the media is dispersed as well. This disadvantage was over come by mailing magazines such as the National Review Human Events etc.

    The Wall Street Journal is the exception for the liberal media bias because it does not represent a town but an industry and one that has a conservative bias, corporate America.

  57. First, let me say that I hate the term “journalist.” They’re not diarists which is what journalists means. They’re supposed to be reporters. I once heard the late lamented Michael Kelly explain why he called himself a reporter and refused to claim the title of “profession.”

    Second, what is the skill set of a reporter? To observe and ferret out the facts lurking behind what’s happening in the world and report them accurately and intelligibly to his customer, the reader. Why do they think it takes a special degree to do that. Why not require a degree in something that adds value to yourself as a reporter? Maybe history, political science, psychology, philosophy, literature and writing? All that journalism schools have done for us is turn out cookie cutter graduates in the shape of “journalists” as determined by other liberal, usually retired, reporters. They like to clothe themselves with the authority of the First Amendment, as though it grants the press some affirmative power or obligation. If they knew how to read, they’d understand that it does no such thing. It doesn’t appoint them our watchmen, the guardians of truth, the arbiters of truth or any such thing. It says that Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. In other words the Press has the same protection that lobbyists and the people at town hall meetings and Tea Parties have. The rest is a big con job. A reporter who observes accurately, investigates and puts his observations into clear language is a good reporter and deserves our thanks. But the likes of the sneering popinjays who occupy the pages of the big newspapers and broadcast media and teach at Columbia J-school, are a public nuisance. They provide cover for other liberals and purvey propaganda to the masses, and deserve to be out of work until they learn how to be objective.

    Of course, there are exceptions, Matt, but not enough of them.

  58. I forgot to add: People who post on Twitter are cheap shot artists or morons who think they can make worthwhile statements in the space of a text message. If that offends anybody here, it’s still my opinion.

  59. === http://www.icfshop.com=== Our commitment, customer is God.

    Welcome to — http://www.icfshop.com —- We are specialized in offering all kinds of top brand shoes, jeans, t-shirts, jacket, jerseys, watches, purses, handbags, belts, wallets , sunglasses and hats etc.
    Accept paypal ,All the prices list on our website include shipping cost,insurance,tax etc..

    $50 UGG BOOT, $30 nike shoes,air jordan shoes,nike shox shoes,gucci shoes
    $33 true religion jeans, ed hardy jeans,coogi jeans,affliction jeans, Laguna Beach Jeans
    $16 ed hardy T-shirts,Coogi T-shirts,Christian Audigier T-shirts,Gucci T-shirts,Polo T-shirts.
    $30 coach handbag,gucci handbag,prada handbag,chanel handbag,$15sunglasses,$9 caps.

    I wish you a happy shopping and happy every day!

  60. I lied. I don’t know what I’m talking about.

Comments are closed.