I've been making the case for years to friends at the Poynter Institute in St. Pete (at which I was fortunate enough to be invited to be an journalism Ethics Fellow in 2001) that newsrooms needed to get more ideologically diverse or face extinction.
Studies have shown that journalists are overwhelmingly liberal (although many of them call themselves moderate, the percentage of journalists who voted for Bill Clinton over Dole was more than 80 percent, according to one survey).
Anyway, columnist John Leo has written a column right on point.
Question: What logic applies to say, racial diversity in newsrooms that does not apply to ideological diversity?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Well, NYCpal, you are arguing discrimination. Of course, there should be none.
But proponents of diversity in newsrooms are mainly saying: "To cover minority communities well, you need to have minority journalists in your newsrooms." In other words, if you've got a bunch a white people in your newsroom, how can you cover the black or Hispanic communitie well. I agree with that logic.
But, what I'm asking is: If you substitute "ideological conservatives" for "minorites" why is the statement suddenly not true. Since it is simply a fact that more journalists are liberal than conservative, how can newsrooms expect to properly cover the conservative community?
I'm willing to agree that journalists are more likely to be liberal. Newsrooms should be as diverse as possible, and that should include a proper mix of conservatives, liberals and alternate viewpoints.
However, I don't believe those viewpoints are the ones that dominate how a newsroom covers news. Personally, I believe it depends more on what will sell papers or draw ratings.
People were more willing to read about Clinton because he was more interesting than Dole. It was easier and more likely to draw readers to bash Bush in 2004. Lord knows he offered enough opportunities. But for every time I heard something about Bush's National Guard service, I also heard negative remarks about Kerry's use of his Vietnam service for political gain.
Why? Because both got people's attention.
Journalists are more likely to push stories because they sell. Do they underestimate their audience? Unfortunately, no. The public rushes forward to buy the screaming headlines, to watch the shows that promise unveiled conspiracies.
If the media in general spent more time focusing on educating the public than simply getting their attention long enough to watch a commercial or buy a paper, maybe there would be more quality. There would also be less media, because many people would stop consuming news.
The real problem isn't political bias. It's sales and an ever-shrinking attention span.
Post a Comment