* Liberals have The New York Times; conservatives have The Washington Times.
* Liberals have The Washington Post; conservatives have The New York Post.
* Liberals have ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and NPR; conservatives have FOX News.
* Liberals have Harvard, Yale and the rest of the Ivy League (not to mention 95 percent of America’s colleges and universities; conservatives have Hillsdale College and Bob Jones University.
* Liberals have the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations; conservatives have the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute.
* Liberals have Random House and Simon and Schuster; conservatives have Regnery.
* Liberals have Time and Newsweek; conservatives have Human Events and National Review.
* Liberals have Hollywood (cranking out PC message movies like The Day After Tomorrow and Saved); conservatives have "The 700 Club."
In terms of media firepower, liberals have ICBMs, nuclear warheads, and Apache attack helicopters. That conservatives are heard at all is a testament to the potency of their views.
Mr. Feder is strong on both facts and theory-- note that the last sentence is an
interesting theoretical implication of the facts that precede it. He also brings up a
point I'd never considered before about surveys of liberalism vs. conservatism:
Of 547 media professionals (reporters and editors) surveyed, 34 percent called
themselves liberals, compared to a measly 7 percent who said they were conservatives.
Among the general public, 33 percent embrace conservatism, while 20 percent espouse
liberalism.
The Pew Study understates the case. After working in a newsroom for almost 20 years,
I
can tell you for a fact that most media liberals think they’re moderates.
That is, any survey of a group far from the average of the population must take into
account context: a person may truly be a moderate in the newsroom, even while being on
the far left in the same city generally. A moderate Naderite is as far-left
Republican.
Mr. Feder then proceeds to demolish, with facts, the liberal counterargument:
Liberals like Brock counter that liberals in the media are scrupulously fair and
unbiased, so their personal beliefs are irrelevant.
Which is why The New York Times et al. invariably described Jesse Helms as an ultra-
conservative, but Ted Kennedy is never labeled an ultra-liberal. Which is why pro-
abortion demonstrations are always covered to the hilt, while pro-life marches usually
rate the proverbial dog’s obituary. Which is why Haiti’s former military regime was a
"junta," but Fidel Castro is Cuba’s "president." Which is why partial-birth-abortion is
designated a "late-term abortion procedure," murders committed with a handgun are
"handgun homicides’? (Stop that gun, before it kills again!) Pornography is "adult
entertainment." Oh, and Bill Clinton’s sex life was no one’s business but his own, but
Anita Hill’s charges against Clarence Thomas deserved full-time network airing.
In coverage of Ronald Reagan’s passing, a network anchorman noted that the ex-president
"gave conservatism a human face." As opposed to what -- the Frankenstein mask it usually
wears? Now, try to imagine a newscaster speaking of someone who "gave liberalism a human
face."
It is possible to have strong political views but be fair. That is not the way of the
modern liberal, though (it may or may not have been of the liberal circa 1960; that is a
question of history I don't know enough about). The modern liberal is a self-proclaimed
relativist, who does not believe in unbiased truth. Naturally, such a person does not
believe in fairness or honesty either, both being relative. I do not say this is true
of 100% of liberals, but it is true of most of them, and for the rest this principle and
the approval of their proudly relativist fellows is a strong aid to the natural human
tendency to cheat. So what do we expect, but
lies?
[This page is
http://www.rasmusen.org/w/04.06.13a.htm]
To return to Eric Rasmusen's weblog, click http://www.rasmusen.org/w/0.htm.