Are mainstream media members naturally so liberal it creates bias?

Well, of course there are, yes.

I think the larger point is there is a predisposition - fueled, IMO, by Twitter, where most journalists live too many hours of the day - toward liberal/progressive slanted stories going viral faster than, say, the conservative-slanted story about late-term abortions.

And asking the question isn't quite the same as making the assertion. At least for me it isn't. It's asking the question. Now, if the answer's "no, absolutely not, and here's why," well, great. Let's hear the argument.

My sense is, in the last 10-15 years, it's moved more leftward and, with the rise specifically of Twitter, there's a growing pressure to let readers/Twitterites know where you *really* stand on issues - even ones you don't cover. And I think it's equally fair to say more journalists are college-educated and come from money (the kind of money needed to float them as they build their careers) so there could be a kind of ivory tower conversation at work.

 

Except for connoisseurs of bitchy whiny c***thurt from the self-proclaimed party of rough tough self-reliance.

 

This seems like sort of reaching.

One of these stories is built on a pretty powerful image. It was kind of perfect in terms of how it appeared to fit together.

The other story is someone saying something gross about abortion. And that seems bad, but it’s just one more shout in a great cacophony of noise about the subject. I’ve seen plenty of highway signs with fetuses. The standard there is pretty high.

In short, one is ground we’ve been over again and again. The other is both fresher and has a more arresting image to boot. One was a more viral story becuase it’s a more viral story. Maybe it’s the liberal bias that makes me think it’s fresher, but when you have spent a long time calling someone a baby killer, this might not rise to the standard of notable.

 

I think that's a good point. I think we've been over the ground of racism quite a bit, too, of course. It's a not a new discussion. I think the left it trying to change the discussion to something so broad that it encompasses just about any action (or inaction) imaginable, if it offends certain perspectives.

 

I think there one element that we felt like there’s been progress made on racism. We argue how much, but when it seems like a backslide, it sticks more. Abortion is such a mighty stalemate.

Also, Ross is part of the mainstream media. Part of the dang New York Times, so he is certainly getting it out there on that front.

At the moment, his first tweet about it, he with 153k twitter followers, has fewer than 1,000 likes and 450 retweets. Maybe he was late to it, but it seems like it just didn’t have the bite the other story did.

 

If you define liberal as the opposite of trumpublicanism, the answer is empathetically no. If you define liberal as an educated, literate upper middle class for which science is truth, facts are objective and politics are safety nets of government programs can be appropriate in certain circumstances they answer is yes, they are liberal.

The journalist and pundit class of the media do not collectively believe in socialism, mandatory redistribution of wealth, and government supervision of life.

We are now at the point that state run media and trumpublicans will state and then double down that they are centrist and popular and to disagree is a sign they are extreme left wing liberals.

If the media was liberal trump would have been covered with the same microscope as Hillary

 

You must be kidding. The entire Russia collusion story is based on a democrat generated lie, a fact that the media somehow ignores. Hillary under a microscope? Ridiculous. Where has the expose been on the Clinton Foundation? Never written.

Trump was given coverage because he wasn't taken seriously at first, and then he gave the electronic media the thing they find most important (waaaay over and above facts) - ratings. Hillary was old news, no flattering story was going to move the needle anything close to what a Trump story would, and they never wrote unflattering stories about her which would have. And to suggest that liberals are so much more enlightened, sophisticated and intelligent than everyone else is just the arrogance and absurdity that has turned so many people away from the mainstream media.

 

Is this parody, or are you are a real moron?

 

Douthat is an affirmative action hire. The Times op-ed section needed a conservative who could form coherent and complete sentences, to be fair, sometimes even paragraphs, so they plucked Douthat out of the wingnut welfare machine. At least he's sincere in his beliefs. A lot of his brethren are just in it for the grift.

 

I've always figured it helps to be open-minded - not conditioned to preconceptions or trusting establishment types - to be a good journalist. If that makes them more likely to be liberal - so be it.

 

And what, pray tell, is this lie on which the Trump collusion story is built?
Is it the fact that the Trump campaign successfully lobbied the RNC to change the klan’s official position on Russia?
Or that Trump has extensive business ties to Russia?
Where?

 

Have American politics wandered so far right that words like "liberal" or "progressive" have no real meaning when used by "conservatives?"