roachboy

what the poll in the op speaks to is in part the political orientation of the social group from which journalists are drawn. that's it.

so unless there is--as there appears to be at points in sticky's post above---some assumption or (stronger) a secret requirement at some level that the social composition of journalism as a profession should or must mirror that of the population of a whole, i'd say there's not a hell of a lot to talk about.

but if there is no such requirement (why would there be and if there was, where would it come from?) there there still isnt much to talk about.

the only thing i would say about the results themselves is that it seems to me that if you have to generate descriptions of the world you are less likely to be able to operate within the illusion of immediacy that populist conservatism seemed (when it was of interest) to champion than it would be for folk whose line of work does not require that one write descriptions of the world. seems to me that simply having to describe what's going on around you pushes you into a bit of a distanced relation to what you see. so maybe that reinforces a tendency to think critically about what you see. which i would think a good thing. makes for better writers.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite