Quote:
Originally posted by onetime2
I don't think that's true at all. A bias does not necessarily mean an agenda. Certainly there are forces that push reporters more towards the middle in their reporting (not the least of which is the fact that their audience has little stomach for extreme positions). Anytime you have a group of people who share common beliefs giving their opinions on what's happening some bias is bound to show through. It doesn't mean they all get together to conspire about pushing their agendas and it doesn't meant there was a concerted effort to stack the deck with liberal reporters. It just so happened that a generation of people with more liberal views were inspired to go into media (perhaps by the actions/success of Watergate reporters?). I don't think it was planned, it just turned out that way. There will be a push for conservatives to enter the media with the success of talk radio and some of the shows like Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc.
|
If there's no agenda then what's the problem?
I don't know, but it seems that whenever i hear someone complaining about the "liberal media" they seem to be arguing from the perspective that the media is pursuing a liberal agenda.
Maybe i'm wrong, maybe they're just arguing about the liberal nature of journalists and could really care less whether their liberalness is being reflected in the new that gets reported. Probably not, though, since that sounds just a little silly.
The apparent implication of the initial post of this thread is that there is no disconnect between what journalists believe in and what they report, which is complete bullshit. No one can be objective, but to claim that there is demonstrable liberal bias that outweighs any demonstrable conservative bias seems somewhat tenuous in light of the lack of evidence, or even remotely objective criteria by which to make such observations. That is, journalists may be liberal, but the news is not.