i don't really get why the political leanings of journalists enters into discussion of the stories that are run in the news media. saying the media is liberal because a majority of journalists vote democrat assumes that they're all really terrible at their job.
You know what I think, deep down? People who work in the fields of journalism and education tend to be more socially liberal than the general public because they're better informed than the general public. The bias that persists in those fields is the natural result of being involved in them, because those fields favor knowledge over ignorance. Frequently that divide runs parallel to the political divide, but it's incidental.
That's one of the worst comments I've seen in a while. Your assertion is that liberals know better? That their information makes them liberal? The natural consequence of that is that conservatives don't have the information necessary to make the right choice.
That's an ivory tower comment if I've ever seen one.
I studied economics and I'm a conservative. That must mean that liberal economics is simply just people who don't know enough, and they need to be educated to understand it.
I'm just in awe of the assumptions made in your comment.
i don't really get why the political leanings of journalists enters into discussion of the stories that are run in the news media. saying the media is liberal because a majority of journalists vote democrat assumes that they're all really terrible at their job.
And it completely ignores the fact that journalists do not run newspapers, editors do. What's the 'liberal' to 'conservative' spread on them and the paper's owners, I wonder?
That's one of the worst comments I've seen in a while. Your assertion is that liberals know better? That their information makes them liberal? The natural consequence of that is that conservatives don't have the information necessary to make the right choice.
That's an ivory tower comment if I've ever seen one.
I studied economics and I'm a conservative. That must mean that liberal economics is simply just people who don't know enough, and they need to be educated to understand it.
I'm just in awe of the assumptions made in your comment.
And what do you think econ professors think of women's studies? How liberal do you think business administration faculty are likely to be?
It's not unreasonable to expect that one's chosen field will recursively impact one's politics.
If you look around, you'll almost certainly see "liberal" bias in humanities and "conservative" bias in econ, business, and science (to a lesser degree).
does anyone have the full column walter cronkite wrote in 2003 titled "Siding with the powerless: Ideas from 60 years in journalism"? He pretty much explained why he thought journalists these days by necessity do lean to the left.
i don't really get why the political leanings of journalists enters into discussion of the stories that are run in the news media. saying the media is liberal because a majority of journalists vote democrat assumes that they're all really terrible at their job.
And it completely ignores the fact that journalists do not run newspapers, editors do. What's the 'liberal' to 'conservative' spread on them and the paper's owners, I wonder?
Where do the editors come from, though? I don't know for sure but I'll guess that the vast majority are also journalists.
I'll admit that I don't know much about being known as a "lying idiot". I cited that article as representative of the bias you can see all over the place. It is, by nature, going to come mostly (if not solely) from conservatives.
Let's see. In your defense, you post a link to the National Review, the credibility of which you tried to defend in another thread and failed miserably, and a blog linked to the same individual that we just pointed out isn't worth giving the time of day.
Your learning curve seems to have a negative slope.
I'm just in awe of the assumptions made in your comment.
Yeah, I entirely expected that response, and I understand how threatening and offensive it must sound to the other side. I don't even think I can defend it intellectually; it's just that it feels utterly, intuitively true to me. Call it a confession.
i don't really get why the political leanings of journalists enters into discussion of the stories that are run in the news media. saying the media is liberal because a majority of journalists vote democrat assumes that they're all really terrible at their job.
And it completely ignores the fact that journalists do not run newspapers, editors do. What's the 'liberal' to 'conservative' spread on them and the paper's owners, I wonder?
Where do the editors come from, though? I don't know for sure but I'll guess that the vast majority are also journalists.
it's a higher paying job, though, and generally when people start getting more money they grow more conservative
either way, though, i don't think that enters into it either for the same reason i don't think the personal politics of journalists matter. we can't say for certain what owners at many publications do, but there have been leaked memos from the office of rupert murdoch asking for certain slants on certain stories. that's why fox news is clearly conservatively-biased. that's why writers at the WALL STREET JOURNAL (not exactly known as a liberal stronghold) conducted a walkout protesting his purchase of dow jones.
I'm just in awe of the assumptions made in your comment.
Yeah, I entirely expected that response, and I understand how threatening and offensive it must sound to the other side. I don't even think I can defend it intellectually; it's just that it feels utterly, intuitively true to me. Call it a confession.
I don't think you have anything to defend: any anthropology major will tell you the same thing.
That's one of the worst comments I've seen in a while. Your assertion is that liberals know better? That their information makes them liberal? The natural consequence of that is that conservatives don't have the information necessary to make the right choice.
That's an ivory tower comment if I've ever seen one.
I studied economics and I'm a conservative. That must mean that liberal economics is simply just people who don't know enough, and they need to be educated to understand it.
I'm just in awe of the assumptions made in your comment.
And what do you think econ professors think of women's studies? How liberal do you think business administration faculty are likely to be?
It's not unreasonable to expect that one's chosen field will recursively impact one's politics.
If you look around, you'll almost certainly see "liberal" bias in humanities and "conservative" bias in econ, business, and science (to a lesser degree).
Exactly. If your education is in economics, then yeah, you're probably pretty fiscally conservative. Most economists I know are. The issue comes when said economist starts to think they know something about, say, gender theory or climatology or physics.
Based upon your previous statements, you probably have a lot of strong feelings about climate science and gay marriage. You are, however, completely unqualified to comment about those fields compared to Stephen Schneider on climate change or Judith Butler on gender theory. What cracks me up is that understanding climate change (in this case, global warming) has been deemed a "liberal" position and that being non-heterocentric is a "liberal" position. As far as I can tell, they are the INFORMED positions.
I'm just in awe of the assumptions made in your comment.
Yeah, I entirely expected that response, and I understand how threatening and offensive it must sound to the other side. I don't even think I can defend it intellectually; it's just that it feels utterly, intuitively true to me. Call it a confession.
I don't think you have anything to defend: any anthropology major will tell you the same thing.
It depends field to field but yes, generally people with higher education levels tend to be more socially liberal.
Neat. I didn't listen to them for the stories these studies polled regarding. I tried NPR for a week a few years ago when some friends insisted they were great and hated listening to it. I'm glad other people find them useful. I think CNN is pretty flawed, but I still skim their webpage every day.
Exactly. If your education is in economics, then yeah, you're probably pretty fiscally conservative. Most economists I know are. The issue comes when said economist starts to think they know something about, say, gender theory or climatology or physics.
Based upon your previous statements, you probably have a lot of strong feelings about climate science and gay marriage. You are, however, completely unqualified to comment about those fields compared to Stephen Schneider on climate change or Judith Butler on gender theory. What cracks me up is that understanding climate change (in this case, global warming) has been deemed a "liberal" position and that being non-heterocentric is a "liberal" position. As far as I can tell, they are the INFORMED positions.
Yes. Exactly. In the interest of full disclosure I must admit to having no idea who Stephen Schneider is; on the other hand, I have read some Judith Butler.
---And Dagrabbit, I love NPR and listen to it daily (right now, in fact), but even I can't listen to it sometimes when it gets too boring.
That's one of the worst comments I've seen in a while. Your assertion is that liberals know better? That their information makes them liberal? The natural consequence of that is that conservatives don't have the information necessary to make the right choice.
That's an ivory tower comment if I've ever seen one.
I studied economics and I'm a conservative. That must mean that liberal economics is simply just people who don't know enough, and they need to be educated to understand it.
I'm just in awe of the assumptions made in your comment.
And what do you think econ professors think of women's studies? How liberal do you think business administration faculty are likely to be?
It's not unreasonable to expect that one's chosen field will recursively impact one's politics.
If you look around, you'll almost certainly see "liberal" bias in humanities and "conservative" bias in econ, business, and science (to a lesser degree).
The comment was the journalists, because they are better informed than the average person, are liberal. Stating that to hold an opposing view from a liberal means you are somehow "less knowledgeable" is crap.
I'm just in awe of the assumptions made in your comment.
Yeah, I entirely expected that response, and I understand how threatening and offensive it must sound to the other side. I don't even think I can defend it intellectually; it's just that it feels utterly, intuitively true to me. Call it a confession.
The reason liberal think-tanks are cited more often than conservative ones is that they tend to have better methodology.
For instance, after that report on abstinence-only education came out a few years ago--that showed that people taking virginity pledges were more likely to have unprotected sex--the Heritage Foundation messed with the numbers, and called them liars, because if you didn't count the people who admitted to breaking the pledge it was a bit more successful than non-pledgers. I mean, really, I would hope that shit like that wouldn't get cited by news organizations.
Not to mention the fact that Fox News mostly cites liberal think-tanks in order to mock them, so those get counted as a "citation," which then makes them look more moderate than they are in the study.
either way, though, i don't think that enters into it either for the same reason i don't think the personal politics of journalists matter. we can't say for certain what owners at many publications do, but there have been leaked memos from the office of rupert murdoch asking for certain slants on certain stories. that's why fox news is clearly conservatively-biased. that's why writers at the WALL STREET JOURNAL (not exactly known as a liberal stronghold) conducted a walkout protesting his purchase of dow jones.
Yeah, I feel that the only real bias a newspaper has is a sensationalist/simplification bias. I just really hate how journalists personal opinions get brought up so often as though they make all the decisions in a newspaper.
Exactly. If your education is in economics, then yeah, you're probably pretty fiscally conservative. Most economists I know are. The issue comes when said economist starts to think they know something about, say, gender theory or climatology or physics.
Based upon your previous statements, you probably have a lot of strong feelings about climate science and gay marriage. You are, however, completely unqualified to comment about those fields compared to Stephen Schneider on climate change or Judith Butler on gender theory. What cracks me up is that understanding climate change (in this case, global warming) has been deemed a "liberal" position and that being non-heterocentric is a "liberal" position. As far as I can tell, they are the INFORMED positions.
Yes. Exactly. In the interest of full disclosure I must admit to having no idea who Stephen Schneider is; on the other hand, I have read some Judith Butler.
---And Dagrabbit, I love NPR and listen to it daily (right now, in fact), but even I can't listen to it sometimes when it gets too boring.
Stephen Schneider is a climatologist who has been extremely active in promoting awareness about global warming and seeking action on it for quite some time. He's vilified by anti-science people for changing his tune; he and others published work in the 1970's on global cooling and then later said "oops, we didn't look at enough data" and started publishing work on global warming.
He's also my gf's uncle. You can wikipedia him if you want, hehe.
Also, I love me some Judith Butler. Gender theory is an intellectual interest of mine; if I had to do college over again, I would have majored in women and gender studies instead of anthro, though the two dovetail together quite nicely.
Also, most journalists aren't liberal when it comes to economics; they're pretty conservative. They're only liberal about things like free speech, that directly affects their jobs.
And anyone who thinks the Wall Street Journal rates an 85 out of 100 on a measurement of liberalness should maybe, y'know, read the paper.
either way, though, i don't think that enters into it either for the same reason i don't think the personal politics of journalists matter. we can't say for certain what owners at many publications do, but there have been leaked memos from the office of rupert murdoch asking for certain slants on certain stories. that's why fox news is clearly conservatively-biased. that's why writers at the WALL STREET JOURNAL (not exactly known as a liberal stronghold) conducted a walkout protesting his purchase of dow jones.
Yeah, I feel that the only real bias a newspaper has is a sensationalist/simplification bias. I just really hate how journalists personal opinions get brought up so often as though they make all the decisions in a newspaper.
it's kind of sad that newspapers are getting more into the sensationalist/simplification way of things. people today just don't have the patience for longer articles, and so newspapers are turning to the usa today way of doing things (read: shitty but nice to look at). what was once the realm of broadcast media has now crept its way into many newspapers.
The comment was the journalists, because they are better informed than the average person, are liberal. Stating that to hold an opposing view from a liberal means you are somehow "less knowledgeable" is crap.
Except that that statement is implicit in any political opinion you happen to hold.
That's one of the worst comments I've seen in a while. Your assertion is that liberals know better? That their information makes them liberal? The natural consequence of that is that conservatives don't have the information necessary to make the right choice.
That's an ivory tower comment if I've ever seen one.
I studied economics and I'm a conservative. That must mean that liberal economics is simply just people who don't know enough, and they need to be educated to understand it.
I'm just in awe of the assumptions made in your comment.
And what do you think econ professors think of women's studies? How liberal do you think business administration faculty are likely to be?
It's not unreasonable to expect that one's chosen field will recursively impact one's politics.
If you look around, you'll almost certainly see "liberal" bias in humanities and "conservative" bias in econ, business, and science (to a lesser degree).
Exactly. If your education is in economics, then yeah, you're probably pretty fiscally conservative. Most economists I know are. The issue comes when said economist starts to think they know something about, say, gender theory or climatology or physics.
Based upon your previous statements, you probably have a lot of strong feelings about climate science and gay marriage. You are, however, completely unqualified to comment about those fields compared to Stephen Schneider on climate change or Judith Butler on gender theory. What cracks me up is that understanding climate change (in this case, global warming) has been deemed a "liberal" position and that being non-heterocentric is a "liberal" position. As far as I can tell, they are the INFORMED positions.
I cannot accept the position that one has to be an expert in a field to be qualified to hold an opinion on it. True, you cannot reasonable argue the procedures of brain surgery with a brain surgeon if you yourself are not one, but journalists aren't routinely involved in those areas of minutia.
I can hold a position on Global Warming based on published scientific accounts, because I am educated enough to follow them and dissect them. I don't call it settled science because it is not. I can hold positions on immigration without being a sociologist, on Iraq without being a diplomat, on abortion without being a woman, etc, etc.
The danger is in feeling you know more than someone else, therefore your position is correct. I'm reminded of this constantly. You were right, I am fiscally conservative, and I stake my claim on economic positions accordingly. I cannot state that everyone else is wrong, just because I know more, I have to show it. On top of that, there's a real danger of being so close to the elephant, you can't properly identify it. True fiscal conservatism (or actually, most econ in general) is devoid of human interest. It's a numbers game. You can't lose sight of that. The reverse is true. It's disingenuous to state that knowledge = liberalism = right, because if that was the case, all you need to do is educate people and we would then all agree.
either way, though, i don't think that enters into it either for the same reason i don't think the personal politics of journalists matter. we can't say for certain what owners at many publications do, but there have been leaked memos from the office of rupert murdoch asking for certain slants on certain stories. that's why fox news is clearly conservatively-biased. that's why writers at the WALL STREET JOURNAL (not exactly known as a liberal stronghold) conducted a walkout protesting his purchase of dow jones.
Yeah, I feel that the only real bias a newspaper has is a sensationalist/simplification bias. I just really hate how journalists personal opinions get brought up so often as though they make all the decisions in a newspaper.
it's kind of sad that newspapers are getting more into the sensationalist/simplification way of things. people today just don't have the patience for longer articles, and so newspapers are turning to the usa today way of doing things (read: shitty but nice to look at). what was once the realm of broadcast media has now crept its way into many newspapers.
Well, the Tribune Corp. was bought out by Zell something or other (not Miller, he's a real estate mogul) and was taken private. Hopefully that will give them the freedom to revert back to pullitzer winning rather than cheap crap with a constantly slashed budget which is the way that shareholders were driving them.
Tribune Corp. owns the Chicago Tribune and LA Times.
moniker on
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
edited July 2007
Oh shit, are we really doing the "educated people are more liberal because they know more" thing?
If you encounter some sort of problem in my company, and you ask an artist how to fix it, you know what you'll get? An art-centric solution. If you ask a programmer about the same problem, you know what you'll get? A programming-centric solution. Clearly, since both people are experts in their respective fields, they both must know the right answer, and since those answers differ, the only explanation is a paradox that will no doubt tear a hole in the fabric of reality.
Or, wait, maybe there's another answer. Maybe being an expert in a given field instills in you a bias towards that field, such that you tend to over-inflate its importance and view every problem that comes your way in the context of its effects on that field. Maybe teachers aren't liberal because they have a better grasp of reality. Maybe they're liberal because, politically speaking, liberals tend to place a lot of extra importance on education, and teachers, thinking that education is the most important thing in the world, can appreciate that. Maybe economists tend to be conservative because they think economics is the most important thing in the world, and they like the way conservatives place such emphasis on it. Maybe gay people think that gay issues are the most important thing in the world because they're gay, not because gay issues are objectively the most important thing in the world.
Maybe, in general, people are pretty self-centered, and think the ramifications of what they do for a living are more important than they actually are. Maybe when all you have is a hammer, every problem is a nail.
No, no, that can't be it. Every person is just really correct in that what they, personally, choose to do is the most vital field in the universe. I guess I should be crawling under my desk in preparation for that space-time rift.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Whatever your personal political bias is, it's certainly going to have some effect on your evaluation of media bias. Something that to a conservative listener of XYZ Radio deems as liberal might be deemed as merely factual and vice versa since one person already agrees with the bias. We've already seen a little bit of that in this thread.
My concern with evaluating media bias is when people confuse sensationalism for bias. I hear this with regards to war coverage. "They only show stuff blowing up, none of the good stuff! Liberal bias!" No, the far simpler explanation is explosions and death sells, not the opening of a new pet shelter or how peaceful it is in Bumfuck, Iraq.
I cannot accept the position that one has to be an expert in a field to be qualified to hold an opinion on it. True, you cannot reasonable argue the procedures of brain surgery with a brain surgeon if you yourself are not one, but journalists aren't routinely involved in those areas of minutia.
I can hold a position on Global Warming based on published scientific accounts, because I am educated enough to follow them and dissect them. I don't call it settled science because it is not. I can hold positions on immigration without being a sociologist, on Iraq without being a diplomat, on abortion without being a woman, etc, etc.
The danger is in feeling you know more than someone else, therefore your position is correct. I'm reminded of this constantly. You were right, I am fiscally conservative, and I stake my claim on economic positions accordingly. I cannot state that everyone else is wrong, just because I know more, I have to show it. On top of that, there's a real danger of being so close to the elephant, you can't properly identify it. True fiscal conservatism (or actually, most econ in general) is devoid of human interest. It's a numbers game. You can't lose sight of that. The reverse is true. It's disingenuous to state that knowledge = liberalism = right, because if that was the case, all you need to do is educate people and we would then all agree.
You are allowed to have your opinion, but apologies if I take the word of the IPCC, American Assocation for the Advancement of Science, US National Academy of Science, Joint Science Academy, and American Meteorological Society over yours. When the overwhelming majority of relevant scientists agree on something, it should make your ears perk up because such consensus on important issues is rare. However, there is such consensus on the issue of global warming. What you seem to not realize is that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SETTLED SCIENCE. There is no such thing as absolute certainty in science, nor can there be. However, this is the closest thing you will probably find your lifetime, so take that as you will.
Same holds with gender theory. You're free to spout whatever you want against gay marriage but unless you've studied the relevant scholarship and can follow along when educated people talk about the topic, there's no reason for me to listen to you. Same goes if I tried to talk about econ; I know a little about certain things but when an expert comes along, I listen.
Or in other words; when my mom tried to figure out what sickness I had when I was little, my dad would say "when did you become a doctor?"
Oh shit, are we really doing the "educated people are more liberal because they know more" thing?
No, we're doing the "educated people are more likely to be more liberal than uneducated people because they've been exposed to more perspectives, and being open to change and different ways of doing and looking at things is a hallmark of liberalism" thing.
Zalbinion on
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
Oh shit, are we really doing the "educated people are more liberal because they know more" thing?
No, we're doing the "educated people are more likely to be more liberal than uneducated people because they've been exposed to more perspectives, and being open to change and different ways of doing and looking at things is a hallmark of liberalism" thing.
I can get behind that idea, as long as you realize that what you said has pretty much nothing to do with modern liberalism as a political philosophy. Because what darthmix was saying wasn't, "they're more open-minded", it was "the fact that they're more liberal means that liberalism is objectively a more correct worldview."
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
If you encounter some sort of problem in my company, and you ask an artist how to fix it, you know what you'll get? An art-centric solution. If you ask a programmer about the same problem, you know what you'll get? A programming-centric solution. Clearly, since both people are experts in their respective fields, they both must know the right answer, and since those answers differ, the only explanation is a paradox that will no doubt tear a hole in the fabric of reality.
If the problem you bring to them has exactly one right answer, and their answers are different, then one must be wrong. But most problems have more than one solution, and if I'm an artist, then I assume by asking me you've already decided you're seaking a solution in my field.
But the question isn't why a foreign news correspondent will try to fix your computer using his knowledge of the security situation in Iraq. The question is why - if we accept (as I do) the premise that most journalists profess liberal views - they would approach their own subject from that ideological viewpoint in numbers that exceed the population average.
Maybe teachers aren't liberal because they have a better grasp of reality. Maybe they're liberal because, politically speaking, liberals tend to place a lot of extra importance on education, and teachers, thinking that education is the most important thing in the world, can appreciate that.
Do liberals place more emphasis than conservatives on education? Why would that be?
Maybe economists tend to be conservative because they think economics is the most important thing in the world, and they like the way conservatives place such emphasis on it.
And why, in general, would conservatives place more emphasis on economics? Is there some buried meaning in why folks of a certain political persuasion would find themselves more drawn to education, or economics, than another? Do those subjects naturally contain or reinforce truths which favor one political ideology? Do they contain truth at all?
Oh shit, are we really doing the "educated people are more liberal because they know more" thing?
No, we're doing the "educated people are more likely to be more liberal than uneducated people because they've been exposed to more perspectives, and being open to change and different ways of doing and looking at things is a hallmark of liberalism" thing.
I can get behind that idea, as long as you realize that what you said has pretty much nothing to do with modern liberalism as a political philosophy. Because what darthmix was saying wasn't, "they're more open-minded", it was "the fact that they're more liberal means that liberalism is objectively a more correct worldview."
Ehhh, I don't think it's fair to assume that the characterization "liberal" automatically means "liberal in the political philosophy sense." It gets kinda hairy when you start talking about politics, but environmentalism is generally considered to be a "liberal" idea.
And hey, as long as I'm laying all my political prejudices and biases out on the table, I'll mention that I absolutely do believe fiscal conservatives, on average, have greater competence in modern economics than fiscal liberals (or whatever the proper antonym would be). The reason I remain a committed liberal in spite of this is because I think modern economics - not only the theory but the actual economic structures that drive our society - is more or less a book that fiscal conservatives wrote. It's a system that does not exist naturally but was designed according to a certain set of presumptions. A committed Christian surely has far greater knowledge of the Bible than I do, and if I lived inside the Bible, he's the first person I'd go to for advice.
Oh shit, are we really doing the "educated people are more liberal because they know more" thing?
No, we're doing the "educated people are more likely to be more liberal than uneducated people because they've been exposed to more perspectives, and being open to change and different ways of doing and looking at things is a hallmark of liberalism" thing.
I can get behind that idea, as long as you realize that what you said has pretty much nothing to do with modern liberalism as a political philosophy. Because what darthmix was saying wasn't, "they're more open-minded", it was "the fact that they're more liberal means that liberalism is objectively a more correct worldview."
Ehhh, I don't think it's fair to assume that the characterization "liberal" automatically means "liberal in the political philosophy sense." It gets kinda hairy when you start talking about politics, but environmentalism is generally considered to be a "liberal" idea.
Also, most journalists aren't liberal when it comes to economics; they're pretty conservative. They're only liberal about things like free speech, that directly affects their jobs.
And anyone who thinks the Wall Street Journal rates an 85 out of 100 on a measurement of liberalness should maybe, y'know, read the paper.
The WSJ is old fashioned conservative. They've grown to loathe Bush and the neo-cons above all others. Also lots of neo-cons hate them because the WSJ really doesn't trend into Jesusland social issues.
nexuscrawler on
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
And why, in general, would conservatives place more emphasis on economics? Is there some buried meaning in why folks of a certain political persuasion would find themselves more drawn to education, or economics, than another? Do those subjects naturally contain or reinforce truths which favor one political ideology? Do they contain truth at all?
The short answer is that political ideologies such as liberalism and conservatism draw upon basic personality elements that are a lot more fundamental than one's opinion on charter schools. Conservatives, for example, are all about personal responsibility and freedom to fuck up. Liberals like the idea of broad community support and the idea of a village caring for its own. These, right there, are going to color their opinions of, say, economics in predictable ways. I think these elemental characteristics are far more relevant than whether or not one is a teacher or an economist.
To the extent that any great truth can be gleaned from one's choice of vocation and one's political beliefs, I think it's more that people of a certain mindset are drawn to different fields than that people in certain fields develop more accurate views of the world. That is, a person generally becomes a teacher because he's liberal. He does not become liberal because he's a teacher.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
And hey, as long as I'm laying all my political prejudices and biases out on the table, I'll mention that I absolutely do believe fiscal conservatives, on average, have greater competence in modern economics than fiscal liberals (or whatever the proper antonym would be). The reason I remain a committed liberal in spite of this is because I think modern economics - not only the theory but the actual economic structures that drive our society - is more or less a book that fiscal conservatives wrote. It's a system that does not exist naturally but was designed according to a certain set of presumptions. A committed Christian surely has far greater knowledge of the Bible than I do, and if I lived inside the Bible, he's the first person I'd go to for advice.
I've heard is said that Marx's biggest triumph was that he established capitalism as an -ism at all. It's sort of interesting that people don't see the practice of having something you deem valuable and trading it with someone else for what he deems valuable as "unnatural". It seems to me the most natural thing in the world.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
And why, in general, would conservatives place more emphasis on economics? Is there some buried meaning in why folks of a certain political persuasion would find themselves more drawn to education, or economics, than another? Do those subjects naturally contain or reinforce truths which favor one political ideology? Do they contain truth at all?
The short answer is that political ideologies such as liberalism and conservatism draw upon basic personality elements that are a lot more fundamental than one's opinion on charter schools. Conservatives, for example, are all about personal responsibility and freedom to fuck up. Liberals like the idea of broad community support and the idea of a village caring for its own. These, right there, are going to color their opinions of, say, economics in predictable ways. I think these elemental characteristics are far more relevant than whether or not one is a teacher or an economist.
To the extent that any great truth can be gleaned from one's choice of vocation and one's political beliefs, I think it's more that people of a certain mindset are drawn to different fields than that people in certain fields develop more accurate views of the world. That is, a person generally becomes a teacher because he's liberal. He does not become liberal because he's a teacher.
Yeah, I completely agree with this.
Just like I resent conservatives who bitch about the "liberal bias" in the classroom, when in fact I think a liberal (read: open-minded and questioning, looking for new ideas) approach to learning is a positive, a necessary component of a good classroom, I also resent liberals who try to make progressive changes in things like s like the armed forces when the fact of the matter is that there's nothing progressive about killing people to protect the influence of various nation-states, and as such the army shouldn't really be expected to join us in our forward-thinking fits of humanitarianism.
I also resent liberals who try to make progressive changes in things like s like the armed forces when the fact of the matter is that there's nothing progressive about killing people to protect the influence of various nation-states, and as such the army shouldn't really be expected to join us in our forward-thinking fits of humanitarianism.
So on, so forth.
There are so many things wrong with that statement, I don't know where to start.
Posts
That's one of the worst comments I've seen in a while. Your assertion is that liberals know better? That their information makes them liberal? The natural consequence of that is that conservatives don't have the information necessary to make the right choice.
That's an ivory tower comment if I've ever seen one.
I studied economics and I'm a conservative. That must mean that liberal economics is simply just people who don't know enough, and they need to be educated to understand it.
I'm just in awe of the assumptions made in your comment.
And it completely ignores the fact that journalists do not run newspapers, editors do. What's the 'liberal' to 'conservative' spread on them and the paper's owners, I wonder?
And what do you think econ professors think of women's studies? How liberal do you think business administration faculty are likely to be?
It's not unreasonable to expect that one's chosen field will recursively impact one's politics.
If you look around, you'll almost certainly see "liberal" bias in humanities and "conservative" bias in econ, business, and science (to a lesser degree).
Where do the editors come from, though? I don't know for sure but I'll guess that the vast majority are also journalists.
Your learning curve seems to have a negative slope.
it's a higher paying job, though, and generally when people start getting more money they grow more conservative
either way, though, i don't think that enters into it either for the same reason i don't think the personal politics of journalists matter. we can't say for certain what owners at many publications do, but there have been leaked memos from the office of rupert murdoch asking for certain slants on certain stories. that's why fox news is clearly conservatively-biased. that's why writers at the WALL STREET JOURNAL (not exactly known as a liberal stronghold) conducted a walkout protesting his purchase of dow jones.
I don't think you have anything to defend: any anthropology major will tell you the same thing.
Exactly. If your education is in economics, then yeah, you're probably pretty fiscally conservative. Most economists I know are. The issue comes when said economist starts to think they know something about, say, gender theory or climatology or physics.
Based upon your previous statements, you probably have a lot of strong feelings about climate science and gay marriage. You are, however, completely unqualified to comment about those fields compared to Stephen Schneider on climate change or Judith Butler on gender theory. What cracks me up is that understanding climate change (in this case, global warming) has been deemed a "liberal" position and that being non-heterocentric is a "liberal" position. As far as I can tell, they are the INFORMED positions.
It depends field to field but yes, generally people with higher education levels tend to be more socially liberal.
Neat. I didn't listen to them for the stories these studies polled regarding. I tried NPR for a week a few years ago when some friends insisted they were great and hated listening to it. I'm glad other people find them useful. I think CNN is pretty flawed, but I still skim their webpage every day.
Yes. Exactly. In the interest of full disclosure I must admit to having no idea who Stephen Schneider is; on the other hand, I have read some Judith Butler.
---And Dagrabbit, I love NPR and listen to it daily (right now, in fact), but even I can't listen to it sometimes when it gets too boring.
The comment was the journalists, because they are better informed than the average person, are liberal. Stating that to hold an opposing view from a liberal means you are somehow "less knowledgeable" is crap.
I will applaud your honesty in that.
For instance, after that report on abstinence-only education came out a few years ago--that showed that people taking virginity pledges were more likely to have unprotected sex--the Heritage Foundation messed with the numbers, and called them liars, because if you didn't count the people who admitted to breaking the pledge it was a bit more successful than non-pledgers. I mean, really, I would hope that shit like that wouldn't get cited by news organizations.
Not to mention the fact that Fox News mostly cites liberal think-tanks in order to mock them, so those get counted as a "citation," which then makes them look more moderate than they are in the study.
Yeah, I feel that the only real bias a newspaper has is a sensationalist/simplification bias. I just really hate how journalists personal opinions get brought up so often as though they make all the decisions in a newspaper.
Stephen Schneider is a climatologist who has been extremely active in promoting awareness about global warming and seeking action on it for quite some time. He's vilified by anti-science people for changing his tune; he and others published work in the 1970's on global cooling and then later said "oops, we didn't look at enough data" and started publishing work on global warming.
He's also my gf's uncle. You can wikipedia him if you want, hehe.
Also, I love me some Judith Butler. Gender theory is an intellectual interest of mine; if I had to do college over again, I would have majored in women and gender studies instead of anthro, though the two dovetail together quite nicely.
And anyone who thinks the Wall Street Journal rates an 85 out of 100 on a measurement of liberalness should maybe, y'know, read the paper.
it's kind of sad that newspapers are getting more into the sensationalist/simplification way of things. people today just don't have the patience for longer articles, and so newspapers are turning to the usa today way of doing things (read: shitty but nice to look at). what was once the realm of broadcast media has now crept its way into many newspapers.
I cannot accept the position that one has to be an expert in a field to be qualified to hold an opinion on it. True, you cannot reasonable argue the procedures of brain surgery with a brain surgeon if you yourself are not one, but journalists aren't routinely involved in those areas of minutia.
I can hold a position on Global Warming based on published scientific accounts, because I am educated enough to follow them and dissect them. I don't call it settled science because it is not. I can hold positions on immigration without being a sociologist, on Iraq without being a diplomat, on abortion without being a woman, etc, etc.
The danger is in feeling you know more than someone else, therefore your position is correct. I'm reminded of this constantly. You were right, I am fiscally conservative, and I stake my claim on economic positions accordingly. I cannot state that everyone else is wrong, just because I know more, I have to show it. On top of that, there's a real danger of being so close to the elephant, you can't properly identify it. True fiscal conservatism (or actually, most econ in general) is devoid of human interest. It's a numbers game. You can't lose sight of that. The reverse is true. It's disingenuous to state that knowledge = liberalism = right, because if that was the case, all you need to do is educate people and we would then all agree.
Well, the Tribune Corp. was bought out by Zell something or other (not Miller, he's a real estate mogul) and was taken private. Hopefully that will give them the freedom to revert back to pullitzer winning rather than cheap crap with a constantly slashed budget which is the way that shareholders were driving them.
Tribune Corp. owns the Chicago Tribune and LA Times.
If you encounter some sort of problem in my company, and you ask an artist how to fix it, you know what you'll get? An art-centric solution. If you ask a programmer about the same problem, you know what you'll get? A programming-centric solution. Clearly, since both people are experts in their respective fields, they both must know the right answer, and since those answers differ, the only explanation is a paradox that will no doubt tear a hole in the fabric of reality.
Or, wait, maybe there's another answer. Maybe being an expert in a given field instills in you a bias towards that field, such that you tend to over-inflate its importance and view every problem that comes your way in the context of its effects on that field. Maybe teachers aren't liberal because they have a better grasp of reality. Maybe they're liberal because, politically speaking, liberals tend to place a lot of extra importance on education, and teachers, thinking that education is the most important thing in the world, can appreciate that. Maybe economists tend to be conservative because they think economics is the most important thing in the world, and they like the way conservatives place such emphasis on it. Maybe gay people think that gay issues are the most important thing in the world because they're gay, not because gay issues are objectively the most important thing in the world.
Maybe, in general, people are pretty self-centered, and think the ramifications of what they do for a living are more important than they actually are. Maybe when all you have is a hammer, every problem is a nail.
No, no, that can't be it. Every person is just really correct in that what they, personally, choose to do is the most vital field in the universe. I guess I should be crawling under my desk in preparation for that space-time rift.
My concern with evaluating media bias is when people confuse sensationalism for bias. I hear this with regards to war coverage. "They only show stuff blowing up, none of the good stuff! Liberal bias!" No, the far simpler explanation is explosions and death sells, not the opening of a new pet shelter or how peaceful it is in Bumfuck, Iraq.
You are allowed to have your opinion, but apologies if I take the word of the IPCC, American Assocation for the Advancement of Science, US National Academy of Science, Joint Science Academy, and American Meteorological Society over yours. When the overwhelming majority of relevant scientists agree on something, it should make your ears perk up because such consensus on important issues is rare. However, there is such consensus on the issue of global warming. What you seem to not realize is that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SETTLED SCIENCE. There is no such thing as absolute certainty in science, nor can there be. However, this is the closest thing you will probably find your lifetime, so take that as you will.
Same holds with gender theory. You're free to spout whatever you want against gay marriage but unless you've studied the relevant scholarship and can follow along when educated people talk about the topic, there's no reason for me to listen to you. Same goes if I tried to talk about econ; I know a little about certain things but when an expert comes along, I listen.
Or in other words; when my mom tried to figure out what sickness I had when I was little, my dad would say "when did you become a doctor?"
No, we're doing the "educated people are more likely to be more liberal than uneducated people because they've been exposed to more perspectives, and being open to change and different ways of doing and looking at things is a hallmark of liberalism" thing.
I can get behind that idea, as long as you realize that what you said has pretty much nothing to do with modern liberalism as a political philosophy. Because what darthmix was saying wasn't, "they're more open-minded", it was "the fact that they're more liberal means that liberalism is objectively a more correct worldview."
But the question isn't why a foreign news correspondent will try to fix your computer using his knowledge of the security situation in Iraq. The question is why - if we accept (as I do) the premise that most journalists profess liberal views - they would approach their own subject from that ideological viewpoint in numbers that exceed the population average.
Do liberals place more emphasis than conservatives on education? Why would that be? And why, in general, would conservatives place more emphasis on economics? Is there some buried meaning in why folks of a certain political persuasion would find themselves more drawn to education, or economics, than another? Do those subjects naturally contain or reinforce truths which favor one political ideology? Do they contain truth at all?
Ehhh, I don't think it's fair to assume that the characterization "liberal" automatically means "liberal in the political philosophy sense." It gets kinda hairy when you start talking about politics, but environmentalism is generally considered to be a "liberal" idea.
Counterpoint to liberals being smarter: hippies
The WSJ is old fashioned conservative. They've grown to loathe Bush and the neo-cons above all others. Also lots of neo-cons hate them because the WSJ really doesn't trend into Jesusland social issues.
The short answer is that political ideologies such as liberalism and conservatism draw upon basic personality elements that are a lot more fundamental than one's opinion on charter schools. Conservatives, for example, are all about personal responsibility and freedom to fuck up. Liberals like the idea of broad community support and the idea of a village caring for its own. These, right there, are going to color their opinions of, say, economics in predictable ways. I think these elemental characteristics are far more relevant than whether or not one is a teacher or an economist.
To the extent that any great truth can be gleaned from one's choice of vocation and one's political beliefs, I think it's more that people of a certain mindset are drawn to different fields than that people in certain fields develop more accurate views of the world. That is, a person generally becomes a teacher because he's liberal. He does not become liberal because he's a teacher.
All or most or even a significant proportion of liberals are hippies? News to me...
I've heard is said that Marx's biggest triumph was that he established capitalism as an -ism at all. It's sort of interesting that people don't see the practice of having something you deem valuable and trading it with someone else for what he deems valuable as "unnatural". It seems to me the most natural thing in the world.
No but hippies are a subset of liberals who also happen to be terminally braindead.
Just like I resent conservatives who bitch about the "liberal bias" in the classroom, when in fact I think a liberal (read: open-minded and questioning, looking for new ideas) approach to learning is a positive, a necessary component of a good classroom, I also resent liberals who try to make progressive changes in things like s like the armed forces when the fact of the matter is that there's nothing progressive about killing people to protect the influence of various nation-states, and as such the army shouldn't really be expected to join us in our forward-thinking fits of humanitarianism.
So on, so forth.
There are so many things wrong with that statement, I don't know where to start.