We're Just Not That Into You

Eric Black is a former ace reporter for the Star Tribune, a decades long employee. He now writes for the liberal web site MinnPost (imagine that). In a recent post on the uncertain future of news media, he noted in an aside:

I am convinced that the so-called objectivity, nothing-but-the-facts model
really doesn't do the trick, especially when the facts are being chosen, ordered
and told by reporters, 80 to 90 percent of whom are liberals.

A well-stated and refreshingly candid admission from an insider. And non-controversial, in terms of the facts presented. Anyone paying attention over the past couple of decades and willing to give an honest assessment, would tend to agree that an "objective" media was filled with political liberals. Apparently one or both of these conditions do not apply to the commentors to Black's piece, some of them liberal journalists themselves (imagine that).

The evolution of the comments and reponses in this thread is an amusing example of the typical pattern I've witnessed over the years. First, the common sense premise is stated, as Black did above.

Then come the angry, insulting denials:

What internet sites are you frequenting to reinforce your cockamamie notion that 80-90 percent of reporters are liberals?

I keep seeing these claims that 90% of journalists/media are liberals. Why is it I never see any proof of this? How about you post names and what party they belong to instead of making claims that are totally unproven and likely, from what I see, untrue?

It's the conservatives who are on my TV most of the time, not the marginalized liberals who are seldom, IF EVER, invited on TV. This is not because they aren't respectable OR CORRECT, but because conservatives create sheep who believe them when they say someone is not credible.

Then, when confronted with irrefutable arguments, such as Black's own extensive first hand observations and statistical evidence ....

Eighty to ninety percent of reporters as liberals is my estimate after a lifetime in newsrooms. But if you want some data, there are several studies. The most famous was a 1996 Freedom Forum survey in which Washington journalists told how they had voted in the 1992 presidential. 89 percent said they had voted for Bill Clinton, seven percent for George H.W. Bush, two percent for Ross Perot. The conservative Media Research Center cites data frmo other surveys involving other elections.

.... they change the subject, to another line of attack:

So what if reporters are liberal? The owners and controllers are conservative Republicans.

Next usually comes the argument that liberlism happens to be the unasailable truth and conservative thought wrong and hateful, so a liberal bias is required in the news. This thread is only a few comments long, so there's still time for it to reach this point.

Why are most lefty journalists so violently opposed to admitting what they see all around them in the newsroom and outraged at those willing to break the code of silence? MSM renegade Vox Day addresses this, with his thoughts on the latest liberal concern, news consumers pursuing their own confirmation bias rather than the objective news.

The appearance of talk radio, then Fox News, and now online alternatives doesn't mean that everyone is now locked in an echo chamber, it means that conservatives and libertarians are finally able to escape being subjected to constant left-liberal assault.

Left-leaning individuals like Kristoff are still safely ensconced in the same liberal echo chamber they've always inhabited ..... The only thing that has changed is that now everyone, of all political stripes, isn't forced to listen to just one side of the story anymore.

In short, they liked having us around. They miss us. More specifically, they miss the power to force their reality on us, whether we liked it or not. Can't blame them I suppose. A monopoly is a terrible thing to lose. But its gone like yesterday's headlines, and the quicker they come to terms with it, the quicker their healing can begin.