Quote:
Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
You've mistaken me for a poster who believes that line reporters are neutral. They're not. They're leftist because they make $15K to perhaps $75K a year, and they're overeducated and feel underappreciated --- a classic recipe for liberal thought. This is the reason college professors are liberal: they do not personally experience that the market (as constituted) places an appropriate price on their contributions. "Reporters are leftist" has the same argumentative weight as "College students are leftist" or "Union workers are leftist."
|
All true. But, you seem to want to contradict this below.
Quote:
|
There are such things as right-wing metro dailies (though living where you live you might not know that) and right wing newsmagazines (as you well know).
|
Few dailies, from what I've seen. I speak of the daily, leader-of-the-city newspapers that people generally read every day. Froim these, I think they get a very left-centric view. I agree that there are rightist sources out there, but not of this same genre (in terms of what kind of media we think of when we hear "honey, where's the paper!?" ) And, if your response is, put out a rightist one of the same character, I think that begs the question. My demand for ethics should not be met with "well, then, drop your own ethics, and it'll be fair."
Quote:
|
The right raises the hue and cry against media liberalism, all while maintaining its own outlets in that marketplace.
|
Are you speaking of the Rushes, the Coulters, the NROs - all of which are specifically,
and explicitly, setting out one defined viewpoint as a goal, not as news deliverers? When you hear or read those people, they tell you right up front what they believe and cherish. The NYT gives us "news" - they decide what to tell us, and their selection process is defined by what they want us to know that fosters their ideology, but they frame it so that an unsuspecting reader might think they've heard a neutral source.
Threaded Mode