This blog is mainly about the spectacular train wreck at The Sacramento Bee and its parent company, the McClatchy Company. But I also post about current events, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, politics, anything else that grabs my attention. Take a look around this blog, hope you enjoy it.
Why Most Journalists Are Democrats: A View from the Soviet Socialist Trenches psychologytoday.com
(SNIP) As it turns out, the preponderance of journalists are Democrats. And socialism, with its idyllic, “progressive” programs, has formed an increasingly important role in Democratic policies. Who wants to investigate a possible dark side of your own party’s plank?
(SNIP)
Unsurprisingly, self-selection plays an important role in choosing a job. People choosing to do work related to prisons, for example, commonly show quite different characteristics than those who volunteer for work in helping disadvantaged youths. Academicians have very different characteristics than CEOs—or politicians, for that matter.
Harry Stein, former ethics editor of Esquire, once said: "Journalism, like social work, tends to attract individuals with a keen interest in bettering the world.” In other words, journalists self-select based on a desire to help others. Socialism, with its “spread the wealth” mentality intended to help society’s underdogs, sounds ideal. (SNIP)
(Excerpt) Read more at psychologytoday.com ...
(So their Socialism is such that they just can’t help themselves, and merely want to help other fellow travelers? Although semi-noble, when more liberal newspapers go bankrupt, may these lost Marxists souls look for meaningful work, and continue with their calling in liberal housing projects, welfare lines, skid row, and in Cuba.)
I agree. Many journalists go into the field to “make the world better” and then get sucked into environmentalism and socialism nonsense because *the sources* they interview are also sucked into it.
In the old days, editors often told the writers what angle to write and would sent it back if it didn’t reach their level of satisfaction. These editors would reject stories that put conservatives in a good light or put liberals in a bad light so the writer learned to slant their stories in a way that the editor wouldn’t reject it.
Another aspect to this is that, without sources, journalists don’t have a story. To get in to interview leading Democrat liberals, they have to adapt the same talking points or the Democrat will leave them sitting in the waiting room all day. So journalists learn that they have to write in liberal terms to be approved by other liberals in order to have access to liberal sources.
In many cases, the reporters don’t need to be talked into putting a liberal slant on things but, if they don’t, they soon find themselves excluded and made outcasts.
Ask Cal Thomas how that works. He was once a straight-up reporter who found out the hard way that you have to adapt the liberal viewpoint if you expect to get any acceptance or advancement in the newsroom.
"[The press] has defended official criminals, on party pretexts, until it has created a United States Senate whose members are incapable of determining what crime against law and the dignity of their own body is, they are so morally blind, and [the press] has made light of dishonesty till we have as a result a Congress which contracts to work for a certain sum and then deliberately steals additional wages out of the public pocket and is pained and surprised that anybody would worry about a little thing like that. . . That awful power, the public opinion of a nation, is created in America by a horde of ignorant, self-complacent simpletons who failed at ditchdigging and shoemaking and fetched up in journalism on their way to the poorhouse."
"Mark Twain, License of the Press, A Talk Before the Monday Evening Club, Hartford"
The "profession" certainly hasn't changed much since Twain's day, and for that matter, neither has Congress.
I think the biggest difference between guys like Cronkite and today's crop of propagandists is that, with varying degrees of success, Walt and his contemporaries made an honest effort to set aside their biases. Today, it's only about disguising them.
Libs rather enjoyed "progressive." Socialist sounds so "regressive" which is what it is, people. They better get used to the dissin' because we're going to be shouting it even louder - you SOCIALIST PIGS!
8 comments:
Why Most Journalists Are Democrats: A View from the Soviet Socialist Trenches
psychologytoday.com
(SNIP) As it turns out, the preponderance of journalists are Democrats. And socialism, with its idyllic, “progressive” programs, has formed an increasingly important role in Democratic policies. Who wants to investigate a possible dark side of your own party’s plank?
(SNIP)
Unsurprisingly, self-selection plays an important role in choosing a job. People choosing to do work related to prisons, for example, commonly show quite different characteristics than those who volunteer for work in helping disadvantaged youths. Academicians have very different characteristics than CEOs—or politicians, for that matter.
Harry Stein, former ethics editor of Esquire, once said: "Journalism, like social work, tends to attract individuals with a keen interest in bettering the world.” In other words, journalists self-select based on a desire to help others. Socialism, with its “spread the wealth” mentality intended to help society’s underdogs, sounds ideal. (SNIP)
(Excerpt) Read more at psychologytoday.com ...
(So their Socialism is such that they just can’t help themselves, and merely want to help other fellow travelers? Although semi-noble, when more liberal newspapers go bankrupt, may these lost Marxists souls look for meaningful work, and continue with their calling in liberal housing projects, welfare lines, skid row, and in Cuba.)
I agree. Many journalists go into the field to “make the world better” and then get sucked into environmentalism and socialism nonsense because *the sources* they interview are also sucked into it.
In the old days, editors often told the writers what angle to write and would sent it back if it didn’t reach their level of satisfaction. These editors would reject stories that put conservatives in a good light or put liberals in a bad light so the writer learned to slant their stories in a way that the editor wouldn’t reject it.
Another aspect to this is that, without sources, journalists don’t have a story. To get in to interview leading Democrat liberals, they have to adapt the same talking points or the Democrat will leave them sitting in the waiting room all day. So journalists learn that they have to write in liberal terms to be approved by other liberals in order to have access to liberal sources.
In many cases, the reporters don’t need to be talked into putting a liberal slant on things but, if they don’t, they soon find themselves excluded and made outcasts.
Ask Cal Thomas how that works. He was once a straight-up reporter who found out the hard way that you have to adapt the liberal viewpoint if you expect to get any acceptance or advancement in the newsroom.
I wonder why liberals howl like stuck pigs when they are called socialists?
Why is so hard for them to look at themselves realistically?
"[The press] has defended official criminals, on party pretexts, until it has created a United States Senate whose members are incapable of determining what crime against law and the dignity of their own body is, they are so morally blind, and [the press] has made light of dishonesty till we have as a result a Congress which contracts to work for a certain sum and then deliberately steals additional wages out of the public pocket and is pained and surprised that anybody would worry about a little thing like that. . . That awful power, the public opinion of a nation, is created in America by a horde of ignorant, self-complacent simpletons who failed at ditchdigging and shoemaking and fetched up in journalism on their way to the poorhouse."
"Mark Twain, License of the Press, A Talk Before the Monday Evening Club, Hartford"
The "profession" certainly hasn't changed much since Twain's day, and for that matter, neither has Congress.
I think the biggest difference between guys like Cronkite and today's crop of propagandists is that, with varying degrees of success, Walt and his contemporaries made an honest effort to set aside their biases. Today, it's only about disguising them.
Socialism is an attractive heresy that assumes that smart brainy people like you and me should rule those other guys.
Socialism is an attractive heresy that assumes that smart brainy people like you and me should rule those other guys.
Libs rather enjoyed "progressive." Socialist sounds so "regressive" which is what it is, people. They better get used to the dissin' because we're going to be shouting it even louder - you SOCIALIST PIGS!
Post a Comment