I know that we disagree strongly in the areas of politics. I did not see the interview (except from a small snippet), rather I have only read the transcript. There was nothing new to me in the link above. The bolded parts are parts that were in the transcript that I read.
Without the benefit of comparing the transcript to the nuances of a video interview (body language, tone of voice, delivery of the words), I have to say that I'm still very disturbed by what she says and cannot conclude that she is articulate and knowledgeable in the areas of foreign relations (as the article above concludes).
I think that no matter what your world-view is, everybody believes that the media is hostile. I've believed my entire life that the media has a strong conservative bias. I'm sure we each have equal evidence to support our argument.
The media has a strong conservative bias? Really? The media of what planet? Because the media here on Earth has done everything short of crown H. B. Obama Czar-For-Life.
When a conservative is caught doing something bad it's proof that conservatives are bad. When a liberal is caught doing something bad then it's just something that everybody does.
I was trying to think of a nicer way to say this, but yeah. What you said. Not to mention that when a Democratic politician is in trouble, half the time his party affiliation isn't mentioned, but when it's a Republican, all hell breaks loose. I could go into the Comm Studies arguments for this (and I have) but I'm too tired. Suffice it to say, the leading scholar in the field of communication studies (Bruce Gronbeck--brilliant man, the hubby studied with him) believes there's a liberal media bias... and he's a card-carrying Democrat.
A lot of it is going to boil down to some basics of communication psychology. We trust and seek out information that we already believe to be true. Any item that reinforces our belief becomes further proof that it exists and any item that opposes our belief creates a discord. Since we, as humans, do not like this kind of discord, we have to create some reasoning to discount the discord. When it comes to media, the easiest (and most popular) reason is a declaration of bias.
I don't want this to turn into a heated argument about who is more maligned and who is more supported in the media. My point is simply that just because "liberal media" is a catchy phrase, doesn't mean that it's true and universally accepted. Our perceptions about media say more about our own personal bias than they do about the media.
Actually, I'm a graduate of the top Communication Studies program in the nation and studied under one of the top minds in political rhetoric. In that time, I did a great deal of work analyzing the media in regards to US politics. To those studying it, there is no question that there is quite a liberal bias. It's fantastically obvious.
If you're wondering about bias by the professor, he's a staunch Democrat and even jokes about how the media is in this country. To this day, out of habit, when I flip through a paper I look for those fun little techniques that are used to position arguments to the left. And it was not only one professor that pointed this out; all of my professors that did extensive teaching on media topics were quick to point this out as well.
Beyond the obvious tip offs in what is presented to us, you have some staggering statistics out there showing a high rate of journalists who are registered Democrats and take an atheistic view on religion. Such strong beliefs will have an effect on how they work.
I am genuinely interested in reading the academic research that says this. Could you point me in the direction of the published journal articles? I am currently in a communications program, so I have access to just about all of the journals electronically. If you could tell me the journal name and one of the authors, I would really be interested in reading them.
Years ago I read quite a bit that had research results indicating the contrary (including that the majority of reporters were conservative). It will take me some time to dig them up at this point, but I don't mind looking it up in the interest of this discussion if you would like to see them.
Naturally, since it's been two years since I've graduated, going back to find this isn't the easiest thing especially since I'm not in school at the moment. You do mention that you are a communication studies student, so you should have the skill set to formally analyze articles. If you've taken a rhetorical analysis course, this should be quite elementary... depending on the program that you're in. What school are you going to?
You may find some work by Bruce Gronbeck on the topic though.
Gronbeck's work is far more complex than what you represent, to the point where your claims could comfortably be called flat-out lying. Good job, I'm sure the Professor would be proud of you.
Here's a starting point: you conveniently ignored all the work on the dichotomy between the "social libertarianism" of the media and the overwhelming party-line GOP supply-side religiosity that all major media hew to (until the crash comes and they all find the populist religion, because it's a matter of selling whatever people want to hear at the moment--no less true for mass media than politicians). The rhetoric of nationalism and economic authoritarianism sits alongside that of "liberal" ideas such as, oh, I dunno, the government shouldn't spy on innocent citizens (guess the founding fathers were liberals).
Nice argument from authority Fail there, though. Well done.
You're an idiot. First off, he's not going to explain the intricacies of a lifetime's work in an LJ entry. But the upshot of it is, the media IS LIBERAL. And I highly doubt he's a disappointment... considering he got a very nice research scholarship his last year in school, with Gronbeck as his sponsor. Thank you for playing. Now get out of my journal.
It's shocking, shocking that when someone is around, say, someone they're studying under they might keep to themselves the intarweb oversimplifications that they try to scare people with in other contexts. You're not much for noting the complexity of human relations, are you... Thank YOU for playing! This has been another episode of Repeating a Naked Assertion When You Can't Address a Counterargument.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-13 07:53 pm (UTC)Without the benefit of comparing the transcript to the nuances of a video interview (body language, tone of voice, delivery of the words), I have to say that I'm still very disturbed by what she says and cannot conclude that she is articulate and knowledgeable in the areas of foreign relations (as the article above concludes).
I think that no matter what your world-view is, everybody believes that the media is hostile. I've believed my entire life that the media has a strong conservative bias. I'm sure we each have equal evidence to support our argument.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-13 08:47 pm (UTC)When a conservative is caught doing something bad it's proof that conservatives are bad. When a liberal is caught doing something bad then it's just something that everybody does.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-13 09:15 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-14 08:48 pm (UTC)I don't want this to turn into a heated argument about who is more maligned and who is more supported in the media. My point is simply that just because "liberal media" is a catchy phrase, doesn't mean that it's true and universally accepted. Our perceptions about media say more about our own personal bias than they do about the media.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-15 01:58 am (UTC)If you're wondering about bias by the professor, he's a staunch Democrat and even jokes about how the media is in this country. To this day, out of habit, when I flip through a paper I look for those fun little techniques that are used to position arguments to the left. And it was not only one professor that pointed this out; all of my professors that did extensive teaching on media topics were quick to point this out as well.
Beyond the obvious tip offs in what is presented to us, you have some staggering statistics out there showing a high rate of journalists who are registered Democrats and take an atheistic view on religion. Such strong beliefs will have an effect on how they work.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-15 02:05 am (UTC)Years ago I read quite a bit that had research results indicating the contrary (including that the majority of reporters were conservative). It will take me some time to dig them up at this point, but I don't mind looking it up in the interest of this discussion if you would like to see them.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-15 02:19 am (UTC)You may find some work by Bruce Gronbeck on the topic though.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-18 01:55 pm (UTC)Here's a starting point: you conveniently ignored all the work on the dichotomy between the "social libertarianism" of the media and the overwhelming party-line GOP supply-side religiosity that all major media hew to (until the crash comes and they all find the populist religion, because it's a matter of selling whatever people want to hear at the moment--no less true for mass media than politicians). The rhetoric of nationalism and economic authoritarianism sits alongside that of "liberal" ideas such as, oh, I dunno, the government shouldn't spy on innocent citizens (guess the founding fathers were liberals).
Nice argument from authority Fail there, though. Well done.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-18 02:33 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-18 02:36 pm (UTC)