Liberal media bias in one eye-popping chart

December 4, 2014

The nonpartisan data analysis company Crowdpac decided to research the political leanings of various professions to see which were more liberal and which were more conservative. The results overall are interesting, and I recommend the article at Business Insider, but one chart showing the leanings of the newspaper and print MSM is just amazing:

Notice a trend?

Notice a trend?

(Larger version)

The X-axis shows how liberal or conservative a respondent is, while the Y-axis gives the number at each level. Not only does print journalism skew Left, but the vast majority of the industry’s liberal members fall into the three most-liberal grades.

And yet liberals scoff when we complain of “media bias.”

This is not a healthy situation, just as it wouldn’t be if the vast majority of journalists leaned Right. When news media is so skewed in one direction, it loses any sense of other perspectives or opinions on important issues, or even what qualifies as an “important issue.” And this limited perspective is transmitted to its audience, which winds up being under- or misinformed. Or they dismiss the MSM altogether, having realized thanks to alternative media that there is so much they aren’t being told, if not outright mislead about. And that isn’t healthy for the print media, as their crashing circulation numbers attest.

Mollie Hemingway* at The Federalist gives several examples of why people hate the media (including TV), beginning with the recent resignation under fire of Elizabeth Lauten, an obscure Republican congressional staffer who said some unkind things about the Obama daughters on Facebook. But she doesn’t stop there (there are oh so many examples to work with) and includes a rant from Florida’s Rick Wilson that’s worth quoting:

Republican media operative Rick Wilson went on a beautiful rant last night about this embarrassing Lauten debacle. You can read the whole thing here. This is edited down but he wrote, “Reporters and media folks wondering, ‘Why don’t people trust us?’… The last couple weeks should be clarifying for you… But the endless, agenda-driven games are repellent to readers/viewers. Your sins are of omission and commission both… You used to be able to claim news judgement and ignore stories you hated. You still do, but now people see it, and you loathe it… So you’ll do one piece on Gruber, then pretend you dug in hard. But god forbid a staffer dings the Obama kids. Then you flood the zone… You pick and choose when to provide context… I love pros in the business. Love them. And most of you ARE pros. Most of you DO work stories, look for interesting angles… But you tolerate (and your editors tolerate) a lot of outrageous, absurdly bad practices. Gruber? Unforgivable… the frustration Americans feel about media isn’t getting any less acute, and some introspection might go a long way…”

This speaks to a media driven by an agenda, one formed by a self-reinforcing ideological monoculture — the fabled “echo chamber.” But the health of the Republic depends on an honest news media that contains a wide range of viewpoints, one that makes intellectual diversity a higher priority than that of skin color or gender.

Maybe it’s time for an “affirmative action of the mind?”

*hat-tip for the chart and BI article, by the way.


We’re winning – National Public Radio guts its climate reporting team

October 25, 2014

Phineas Fahrquar:

Well, my,my,my. One of the oracles of progressive “right-thought” is quietly axing its coverage of “climate change.” Can there be any clearer sign that the skeptic argument is carrying the day? I wonder how long it will be before Paul Krugman denounces NPR as “traitors to the Earth?”

Originally posted on Watts Up With That?:

NPR_officesFrom InsideClimate News: (hat tip to Michael E. Mann)

NPR has cut back on the number of staffers focused solely on the environment and climate change.

Earlier this year, the news outlet had three full-time reporters and one editor dedicated to covering the issue within NPR’s science desk. One remains—and he is covering it only part-time. A few reporters on other desks occasionally cover the topic as well.

The move to shift reporters off the environment beat was driven by an interest to cover other fields more in depth, said Anne Gudenkauf, senior supervising editor of NPR’s science desk.

“We’ll think of a project we want to do and the kind of staff that we need to do it, and then organize ourselves that way,” she said. “One of the things we always do is change in response to the changing world.”

Gudenkauf also said…

View original 107 more words


British Medical Journal: “Climate change is worse than Ebola!!”

October 2, 2014

panic button red

I never knew Chicken Little was the editor of one of the oldest and most prestigious medical journals in the world:

Deaths from Ebola infection, tragic and frightening though they are, will pale into insignificance when compared with the mayhem we can expect for our children and grandchildren if the world does nothing to check its carbon emissions. And action is needed now.

So stand aside, you wretched deniers! This is for the children!!

Sigh. This is so typical of academic elites, yet still so distressing. Ebola is a real disease, currently ravaging Africa in a massive epidemic, and it has now appeared in the United States. People are suffering hideously and dying from it every day. It could easily get worse before it ever gets better.

Yet here we have Fiona Godlee, editor in chief of the BMJ, asserting that, nope, you’re all wrong: global warming climate change is the far greater threat — an existential one. She declares this to be true, in spite of the fact that there has been no warming for 18 years; that the dread hot spot in the in the atmosphere, which was supposed to be a sure sign of catastrophic warming, has never appeared; that the atmosphere seems far less sensitive to CO2 than previously thought; and that new glaciers are forming in Scotland. In spite of all the empirical evidence (1) that provides no support for the theory of catastrophic man-caused climate change and plenty of support for the idea of natural cycles of warming and cooling, the head of a respected journal of medical science has decided her publication must take an anti-scientific stand.

I hope this isn’t indicative of the intellectual rigor of the medical articles she runs.

via James Delingpole


Ministry of Truth: “illegal aliens” are now “informal workers”

September 2, 2014
"Even the monkey is embarrassed"

“Even the monkey is embarrassed”

Not that anyone in recent years has accused the Los Angeles Times of objectivity, but this descent into politically correct Newspeak is particularly risible:

Informal workers are growing part of California’s economy — a shift keenly felt in the construction industry, where 1 in 6 workers is either off the books or misreported, new research has found.

Do “formal workers” show up at the construction site in black tie and tails?

“Illegal aliens” is a perfectly good and accurate phrase, considering that a) these people are from other countries, making them alien to the United States, and b) they have entered the United States in violation of its laws. That is, “illegally.”

But, in the world of our progressive media elites, the phrase “illegal alien” is “insensitive” –a high crime in their book– and so we must find something soft and gauzy that obscures reality. Not only is “informal worker” more sensitive toward the feelings of those who broke the law to get here, but it also serves to lull the senses of readers who might otherwise react badly to illegality and demand something be done about it. Can’t have that.

Orwell’s Minitrue lives on at 202 West 1st street.

via Twitchy


Well, we tried to warn them…

August 24, 2014

NY Daily News Obama golf cover

We really did. In 2008 and 2012, we on the Right tried to tell America that Obama was an empty suit, a man unqualified for the presidency. Lulled by a largely fawning media, not enough of the nation listened at either time, but now the scales are finally starting to fall from the eyes of the MSM itself. To set the stage, here’s Michael Goodwin in the New York Post:

Sometimes a round of golf is just a round of golf. And sometimes it reveals the ­essence of a man.

President Obama’s decision to hit the links and yuk it up with pals immediately after speaking about the beheading of James ­Foley was no ordinary mistake. Nor was it a simple gaffe.

The decision continues to cause an uproar because, like an X-ray, there is no escaping the image. It shows there is no there there.

With even his media praetorian guard appalled, the golf outing is sparking a wider understanding that Obama is hollow, empty of the routine qualities Americans expect from their president.

Simple decency and respect for Foley’s horrified parents should have been enough to sober him. If that didn’t do it, the realization that the Islamic State had declared war on America in the most gruesome fashion imaginable should have sounded a call of duty in his head.

Instead, Obama continued with his vacation and was photographed looking as if he didn’t have a care in the world. Suddenly, that megawatt smile that often charmed voters wasn’t so charming. It was vacuous.

He looked like an empty-headed frat boy, numb to the world.

Maybe that’s not just an appearance. Maybe it’s the truth. Maybe that’s all there is.

While Goodwin was never an Obama “true believer,” as I recall, what he wrote seems to be representative of a revelation taking place for journalists on the left (which is most), if the reactions of the liberal New York Daily News  (via) and MSNBC’s tingly Chris Matthews are any indication. It’s a shame it took nearly five years for the truth to finally start sinking in, however shallowly.

We tried to tell them.

h/t Power Line

PS: Yeah, I know. Give it a few days and they’ll be back to playing “praetorian guard” for Obama. And soon they’ll  transfer their ardor to another devotional object, in all likelihood Senator Elizabeth Warren. They never learn.


The ‘Gore effect’ turns ugly – CNN climate bias revealed

July 31, 2014

Phineas Fahrquar:

My goodness, but these climate cultists are sensitive types. I guess that’s what happens when all the empirical evidence turns against your preferred truth. Click through to see what I mean. (With the standard bad language warning.)

Originally posted on Watts Up With That?:

You know of the “Gore effect“, Wikiepedia describes it as  “…an informal and satirical term which alleges a causal relationship between unseasonable cold weather phenomena and global warming activism”, so it was appropriate to apply to the situation where the Gore’s Climate Reality Project group tried a political ploys that looked stupid: “I’m Too Hot” trucks and offers of free ice cream to this week’s Environmental Protection Agency hearings on power-plant emissions…when it was 58 degrees and raining. Obviously, CNN’s Bill Weir doesn’t understand satire, much less how to be a professional journalist.

From Mediaite:

It’s safe to say CNN anchor Bill Weir is not a fan of climate change deniers.

On Thursday, the Twitter account for Fox Nation, a blog run by Fox News, tweeted a link to a post headlined, “Climate Doesn’t Cooperate With Al Gore’s Group’s Visit to Denver EPA Hearings.”

View original 208 more words


What about *your* gaffes, Hillary?

July 3, 2014

Yes, my friends, it’s time once again for one of our favorite games, “If it had been a Republican…”

Remember, how, back in the 2012 campaign, the press and the Democrat support groups (redundant, I know) hounded Republican nominee Mitt Romney over supposed misstatements and gaffes while on a foreign tour? I can recall one incident in particular, when Romney was in Poland and his campaign wanted to deal US foreign policy issues, a reporter chased after him shouting “What about your gaffes??” The purpose, of course, was to plant the idea with the public that Mitt’s minor faux pas showed he wasn’t qualified to be president.

In which case, I eagerly await Hillary being pestered about her foot-in-mouth moments:

The former Secretary of State, who’s been heavily promoting her new book “Hard Choices” in a likely precursor to running for president in 2016, appeared to state the Conservative and Tory Parties in Britain were rival political parties during a BBC interview.

“Tory” is in fact another name for the Conservative Party in Britain.

Asked by the host what she thought of the “Special Relationship” between the U.S. and Great Britain, Clinton declared it was “very special between our countries.”

“There’s not just a common language, but a common set of values that we can fall back on,” she said. “It doesn’t matter in our country whether it’s a Republican or a Democrat or frankly, in your country, whether it’s a Conservative or a Tory. There is a level of trust and understanding. That doesn’t mean we always agree because, of course, we don’t.”

As the article points out, Hillary was our Secretary of State, who had to deal with our close allies in the UK on a nearly daily basis, and yet she didn’t know “Tory” and “Conservative” were synonyms? It reminds me of the recent Obama ambassadorial appointee who didn’t know his soon-to-be host country, Norway, has a king and not a president.

For supposedly being so much smarter than everyone else and for all their claiming to know what’s best for us, progressives sure are ignorant of the wider world, no?

Of course, it could easily have been a simple slip of the tongue on Hillary’s part, saying “Conservative and Tory” when she meant “Conservative and Labor,” the kind of mental backfire we’re all subject to from time to time.

But not all of us are (probably) running for president, an office that has almost sole control over US foreign affairs, including relations with one of our closest allies.

And so I expect the MSM to grill Hillary mercilessly over this gaffe, hounding her incessantly with questions about her competence and knowledge

Just as soon as she becomes a Republican.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 13,951 other followers