Gautam again:
> Would you care to guess what proportion of the US media votes Democratic?
> The odds that the Washington Post, New York Times, and so on will endorse
> the Democratic candidate in any given election? Fairly low, let me assure
> you. These are not neutral observers. Most of my _Democratic_ friends
> agree with me on that.
What fraction of the owners vote Democratic? Who is in charge, the workers
or the owners? You can indeed find papers, like the Post, privately owned
by wealthy Democrats. But, on the whole, the interest of the papers are the
interests of its owners, who tend to be Republican. If you would do a
weighed average by circulation, of the ownership of the media, I cannot
imagine that it would be leftist.
Dan M.
Bob Z chimes in: The same is also true for broadcast journalists. The assumption is that the anchors are all rich liberals. But the same would have been said about Britt Hume, who now that he is on Fox seems to show his true colors in a way that he was constrained (appropriately in my opinion) when he was on ABC.
An example of "conservative bias". After the State of the Union Tom Brokaw (classic neutral anchor that everyone assumes is liberal in life) was talking about Enron and he said a) Enron was a business scandal not a political scandal and b) that both parties were the recipients of Enron money. Ari Fleischer could not have summed up the Bush position more perfectly (in fact I think Brokaw had Ari' script).
Now I am not claiming that there is political scandal in the classic bribery mode but it is clear that Enron and Lay had extraordinary ties to Bush and the republicans and that the possibility of hanky panky cannot be ruled out. It always amazes me that those who correctly assumed that Monica and Bill could only be about one thing that cannot accept that Enron's support of Bush is only about one thing. Power and influence. As for b) yes democrats accepted money from Enron but there was entire order of magnitude difference in this support and in this case size does matter.
To assert otherwise is to pretty much define
> yourself as a member of the very far left.
> articles condemned all military spending, reflexively or otherwise.
>
> For "fairly low" obviously read "fairly high" which I somehow managed to
> switch. God, I need to not write posts when I just got back from a bar.
>
