May 25, 2004

"IS IT A DONKEY?":

Survey Finds Angst-Strained Wretches in the Fourth Estate (Howard Kurtz, May 24, 2004, Washington Post)

A joint project by the Pew Research Center and the Project for Excellence in Journalism reveals a darkly pessimistic view of the profession among its own members, often echoing the criticisms of the public at large.

The 55 percent of national journalists, and 37 percent of local ones, who see the media as soft on Bush may well be reflecting their own views of the president. At national outlets, 34 percent describe themselves as liberal, 54 percent as moderate and 7 percent as conservative. (The local split was 23-61-12.) Nearly 7 in 10 of the liberal national journalists criticized the Bush coverage.

"You'd expect the minority who say they have a liberal point of view to be more critical of the press when it comes to Bush," says Pew Director Andrew Kohut, whose organization interviewed 547 journalists. But he noted that 44 percent of the self-described moderates also hold that view.

Tom Rosenstiel, the project's director, says the growing proportion of self-identified liberals in the national media -- and the fact that "conservatives are not very well represented" -- is having an impact. "This is something journalists should worry about," he says. "Maybe diversity in the newsroom needs to mean more than ethnic and gender diversity."

The survey confirmed that national journalists are to the left of the public on social issues. Nine in 10 say it is not necessary to believe in God to be moral (40 percent of the public thinks this way). As might have been inferred from the upbeat coverage of gay marriage in Massachusetts, 88 percent of national journalists say society should accept homosexuality; only about half the public agrees.

In a related finding, 31 percent of national journalists now have a great deal of confidence in the public's election choices, compared with 52 percent at the end of the Clinton administration. The clear implication is that many media people feel superior to their customers.


Given how far to the Left of the public even those who think themselves conservative are, it's no surprise that the media is incapable of providing decent coverage of America. They're like the blind men describing the elephant.

Posted by Orrin Judd at May 25, 2004 2:33 PM
Comments

You make a very good point when you say that most conservatives are to the left of the country. Gay marriage is an issue where this is abundantly clear.

Posted by: Paul Cella at May 25, 2004 3:07 PM

Not conservatives, self-described conservative journalists.

Posted by: oj at May 25, 2004 3:10 PM

I've heard journalists describe Jesse Jackson, Daniel Ortega and the like as "liberal" while hard-line bolshey intransigents, post 1990, were labeled "conservative". When it comes to the concept of the left/right political continuum, journalists, in general, are a clueless lot.

Posted by: Tom Corcoran at May 25, 2004 3:23 PM

The headline labels are skewed enough, but in reality are probably worse when you factor in what they mean by "moderate". Thankfully, that becomes evident when you see the answers to some of the questions.

Posted by: MG at May 25, 2004 3:53 PM

Yes, look to the answers.

Taranto did. It was illuminating to see that while more than half of Americans believe that persons who do not believe in God cannot be moral, very few journalists did.

The journalists are obviously correct and most Americans are suffering under a delusion.

So what kind of reporters do you want? Those who believe things against evidence, or those who actually report?

I wouldn't underrate the idiocy of American reporters, but its source is obscure.

Last week, I had to attend a protest meeting where about 100 people complained that an additive in the county water was making them itch.

I watched carefully, and during two and a half hours, not one scratched.

Yet they fervently believe they itch.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at May 25, 2004 5:01 PM

Harry:

You're proof that journalists can't fathom the people or the system they cover.

Posted by: oj at May 25, 2004 5:14 PM

--"Maybe diversity in the newsroom needs to mean more than ethnic and gender diversity."--

Well, duh!

And Harry, they don't "report," that's the problem.

Look at Tim Blair's bias roundup.

Posted by: Sandy P at May 25, 2004 5:17 PM

Harry:

So what kind of reporters do you want? Those who believe things against evidence, or those who actually report?

How about reporters who are capable of simply quoting people accurately, in context. For an egregious example, see Jason Van Steenwyk on Major-General James Mattis. With this type of unethical behavior, it is pointless to speak of morality.

Posted by: jd watson at May 25, 2004 6:00 PM

>With this type of unethical behavior, it is
>pointless to speak of morality.

Even if the Newspeak for it is "Superior Morality (TM)"...

Posted by: Ken at May 25, 2004 6:10 PM

Harry --

Is all about bias and predictability. They show it on religion and religious issues, where it is beyond me to say their bias makes them wrong (especially to a committed atheist or agnostic, like you); to areas where as you have pointed out their conventional wisdom is demonstrably flawed.

Posted by: MG at May 25, 2004 6:54 PM

Harry must have been a great reporter. Not necessarily popular, but great nevertheless. " not one scratched."

Posted by: genecis at May 25, 2004 9:24 PM

Definitely not popular. My rule is, the longer a reporter works in one town, the fewer friends he has. If he's any good.

Just because I'm an atheist (and I'm the only openly atheist reporter I know) doesn't mean I don't take religion seriously. I've argued for 30 years that newspapers ought to take the kid gloves off and treat religion as seriously as, for example, TV.

If we did, some stories would be positive, but some would be so negative that the readers would cancel their subscriptions.

Nevertheless, I take all these surveys about irreligious reporters unseriously.

One guy I worked with won a $5,000 reporting prize. I couldn't have told you, before that, what religion he favored, if any. I only learned he was religious when he donated the $5K to his church.

I never won any cash, but I can promise you that when I do, I won't be donating it to 'Free Inquiry.'

Posted by: Harry Eagar at May 26, 2004 3:32 PM

Notice how scientific method goes out the window in any instance where one of Harry's experiences contradicts it?

Posted by: oj at May 26, 2004 3:35 PM

I don't believe those kinds of polls are scientific.

Your sarcasm was misplaced, genecis. The complainers say they are so badly poisoned that they are in danger of death. If so, they should have been scratching like hounds.

They weren't.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at May 26, 2004 8:15 PM
« HE WATCHES THE WATCHERS: | Main | WOULD YOU TAKE ONE IF OFFERED IT FREE?: »