The Republican Utopia

[Ric Flair]

5 minutes ago, Enhance said:

I don't mean to be condescending, but truly think about you're saying. You're suggesting (without any proof) that journalism is the only professional industry where 90% of the power is liberally biased.

 

That would suggest it's the most unified industry in the world. Forgive my bluntness - it's completely absurd.

 

It doesn't matter if we're speaking outlet to outlet or journalist to journalist - there's physically no possible way that 90% of 'news media' (whether that's 90% of all journalists or 90% of outlets) is liberal leaning. There's no honest or factual basis for that claim at all.

 

List the liberal journalists and opinion writers. Now list the conservative ones. Then run the numbers. 

 

Here’s a decent analysis: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/01/27/dear-mainstream-media-why-so-liberal/?utm_term=.053cf3b4ce24

 

Sadly, journalism isn’t entirely unique in terms of bias. The English Department at UNL is comparable. 

Edited April 9, 2018 by Ric Flair

[Danny Bateman]

30 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

 

You’re conflating whether we’re counting news outlets or journalists. For example, the NYT is one news outlet, but it employes hundreds of reporters, columnists, etc. 

 

Trump is a bit of a special case in terms of coverage, as many traditional conservative sites also loathe him. But I think my 90% figure is about right. I can name a handful of conservative news figures, because they are so clearly the exceptions. The overwhelming majority of news people, opinion columnists, etc. are liberals.

 

Here’s an interesting piece on that phenomenon. https://nypost.com/2017/10/21/the-other-half-of-america-that-the-liberal-media-doesnt-cover/

 

Personally I'm more comfortable reading from sources you'd consider liberal because the current crop of conservative media sources don't feature the journalistic rigor of a Washington Post or New York Times or even a CNN. 

You've got a right and a good point to expect more conservative media coverage. My plea is that it would be good conservative coverage that offers something of worth to people that aren't conservatives. Fox News has some good reporters, but it's editorial decision-making is garbage that essentially reduces it to a state-run TV catering only to the president. The WSJ editorial board has been behind some similarly silly work in my opinion. The NY Post seems OK, I don't really read them or the NY Daily News much. National Review is fine, even if I disagree with a lot of their work. Breitbart is a hateful joke.

 

But there's a gigantic vacuum for legitimate, quality conservative journalism to fill, IMO. I just don't see many outlets cropping up to fill it.

 

I wouldn't mind more outlets of a conservative bent getting out there IF they offer quality journalism. The current crop definitely cater to conservatives but the objective quality of their work is sorely lacking.

[Ric Flair]

4 minutes ago, Clifford Franklin said:

 

Personally I'm more comfortable reading from sources you'd consider liberal because the current crop of conservative media sources don't feature the journalistic rigor of a Washington Post or New York Times or even a CNN. 

You've got a right and a good point to expect more conservative media coverage. My plea is that it would be good conservative coverage that offers something of worth to people that aren't conservatives. Fox News has some good reporters, but it's editorial decision-making is garbage that essentially reduces it to a state-run TV catering only to the president. The WSJ editorial board has been behind some similarly silly work in my opinion. The NY Post seems OK, I don't really read them or the NY Daily News much. National Review is fine, even if I disagree with a lot of their work. Breitbart is a hateful joke.

 

But there's a gigantic vacuum for legitimate, quality conservative journalism to fill, IMO. I just don't see many outlets cropping up to fill it.

 

I wouldn't mind more outlets of a conservative bent getting out there IF they offer quality journalism. The current crop definitely cater to conservatives but the objective quality of their work is sorely lacking.

 

The National Review is my favorite. Check out the Weekly Standard. Townhall.com is good. Drudge is right-leaning and ppomts toward conservative content. The Federalist and RedState have good pieces. But the fact that you can’t even name more than a couple is evidence of the phenomenon I’m pointing out. 

 

The Washington Post, NY Times, and CNN have each had issues with plagiarism, fake news, poorly sourced stories, or just shoddy work. I think you overestimate the quality of their work.

[Danny Bateman]

4 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

 

The National Review is my favorite. Check out the Weekly Standard. Townhall.com is good. Drudge is right-leaning and ppomts toward conservative content. The Federalist and RedState have good pieces. But the fact that you can’t even name more than a couple is evidence of the phenomenon I’m pointing out. 

 

The Washington Post, NY Times, and CNN have each had issues with plagiarism, fake news, poorly sourced stories, or just shoddy work. I think you overestimate the quality of their work.

 

I likewise think you're exaggerating the times they've erred (and how they've owned up to it) compared to some of the sources you just listed. Most of those are decent sources in my mind, though. They at the very least offer a good look into the conservative ecosphere.

 

Or compare it to influential conservative figures like Hannity or Rush. They screw up a story factually and just flat out do nothing. They don't issue a retraction, they just ignore it. Rush tried to tell people there really was no hurricane while he was busy fleeing Florida himself for crying out loud.

 

And then of course, this, from Hannity:

 

 

My point is the way these groups handle a screw-up they do make isn't equal. It's because, unfortunately, some of the most prominent ones don't really care all that much about maintaining a high journalistic standard because they're straight-up propaganda outlets.

[Ric Flair]

Hannity and Rush are talking heads who host opinion shows. They’re not journalists in any sense.

[Enhance]

1 hour ago, Ric Flair said:

 

List the liberal journalists and opinion writers. Now list the conservative ones. Then run the numbers. 

 

Here’s a decent analysis: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/01/27/dear-mainstream-media-why-so-liberal/?utm_term=.053cf3b4ce24

 

Sadly, journalism isn’t entirely unique in terms of bias. The English Department at UNL is comparable. 

You purported the claim about 90% so it is on you to provide the numbers and documentation to support it.

 

The article you posted does not at any point support your assertion that "90%" of the media leans left. In fact, it directly contradicts you.

 

You're purporting and defending a position that has no factual backing.

[knapplc]

5 minutes ago, Enhance said:

You're purporting and defending a position that has no factual backing.

 

Evergreen.

[Danny Bateman]

2 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

Hannity and Rush are talking heads who host opinion shows. They’re not journalists in any sense.

 

I agree. But sadly these are the guys far too many people are turning to for their "news."

 

We understand that they're not journalists. But they are headliners within the conservative media, unfortunately. I felt it was appropriate as a comparison.

[Landlord]

Say that a make believe 'Plus' party says 100 times that we should slaughter all of the jews in the world.

 

Now say that a make believe 'Minus' party says jews are equal to all other types of people and shouldn't be slaughtered the same way that other people groups shouldn't be slaughter. Don't slaughter people period. In addition, they say something unrelated but also a little crazy, such as, "If we took the money away from the rich people and gave it to the poor people it would fix all our problems." But they only say it 5 times.

 

If 90% of the media reports only :30 seconds worth of news about the Minus parties comments about income redistribution, but spends 30 minutes reporting on the jew slaughtering comments by the plussers, that doesn't mean that the media has a Minus party bias. If the media reporting of the jew slaughtering comments is scathing, critiquing, condemning, and negative, and the reporting of the rich people comments isn't as condemning, that also doesn't mean that the media has a Minus party bias.

 

[Ric Flair]

2 hours ago, Enhance said:

You purported the claim about 90% so it is on you to provide the numbers and documentation to support it.

 

The article you posted does not at any point support your assertion that "90%" of the media leans left. In fact, it directly contradicts you.

 

You're purporting and defending a position that has no factual backing.

 

I’m unaware of any study that dives into the numbers. Most journalists are liberals and vote for Democrats. Most journalists claim to be independents and non-partisans. Many are in newsrooms and social circles where everyone agrees with them...so they probably view themselves as centrists. I’m not sure how you would unpack that and conduct a fair study that results in an absolute percentage. But the liberal bias is overwhelming. No one disputes that.

[Ric Flair]

58 minutes ago, Clifford Franklin said:

 

I agree. But sadly these are the guys far too many people are turning to for their "news."

 

We understand that they're not journalists. But they are headliners within the conservative media, unfortunately. I felt it was appropriate as a comparison.

 

Sadly is right. That crap unfortunately happens on both sides, as many rely on e likes of Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews for their news. A disturbing number even report that Facebook is their main source of news. God help us all. 

[NM11046]

7 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

 

I’m unaware of any study that dives into the numbers. Most journalists are liberals and vote for Democrats. Most journalists claim to be independents and non-partisans. Many are in newsrooms and social circles where everyone agrees with them...so they probably view themselves as centrists. I’m not sure how you would unpack that and conduct a fair study that results in an absolute percentage. But the liberal bias is overwhelming. No one disputes that.

[Enhance]

12 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

I’m unaware of any study that dives into the numbers.

Then why make such a boldly inaccurate claim? Isn't that the kind of stuff we as American citizens and voters should be pushing back against - unfounded opinions?

 

There can be a big difference between claiming a majority (or 'most') of something and claiming 90% of something. I agree there is probably a liberal lean in national news media but that's as far as the research shows. Saying anything else is disingenuous and unsubstantiated.

[knapplc]

56 minutes ago, Enhance said:

Then why make such a boldly inaccurate claim?

 

And perhaps a question equally as pertinent - where does one hear such a claim?

[RedDenver]

13 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

 

I’m unaware of any study that dives into the numbers. Most journalists are liberals and vote for Democrats. Most journalists claim to be independents and non-partisans. Many are in newsrooms and social circles where everyone agrees with them...so they probably view themselves as centrists. I’m not sure how you would unpack that and conduct a fair study that results in an absolute percentage. But the liberal bias is overwhelming. No one disputes that.

Wait!

 

First you admit there's no evidence to back up your claim, then you make some unsubstantiated statements and conclude your claim is correct. So you're doubling down on the same claim based on more of your own opinion and in the absence of evidence?

 

And the last sentence is obviously false just based on this thread. And to be clear: liberal bias is not overwhelming and I do dispute your claims.

Edited April 9, 2018 by RedDenver
typo