[Kaiserschmarrn]

The left on the economic scale is collectivism or unionism, the right is neo-liberalism or extreme individualism.

So you believe Rupert Murdoch and his gang at the Wall Street Journal are anywhere near centre with respect to trade unionism?
How do you support your position?

The economic scale conflates capitalism and a market-based economy. For the purpose of this discussion, I would put a capitalist, regulated market-based economy (including an extensive welfare state) at the centre. This reflects reality in the Western (developed) world, I think.

Rupert Murdoch describes himself as a libertarian, so I think he is right of centre on the economic scale. His media outlets are a different issue. Since they are pretty diverse (tabloids, magazines, tv channels, etc.) we probably would have to go through them one by one. As for WSJ, I'd say it's also right of centre but it probably used to be there even before Murdoch took over.

--------------------------------------------------------------

@QuatzelOK
Are you saying that journalists express left-wing views while the hold right-wing views? If so, why would they do that?

[QatzelOk]

Are you saying that journalists express left-wing views while the hold right-wing views?

They have less fear of invented enemies, but are just as selfish and greedy as anyone else.

[lubbockjoe]

I would put a capitalist, regulated market-based economy (including an extensive welfare state) at the centre. This reflects reality in the Western (developed) world, I think.

The "extensive welfare state" is a legacy of a bygone era and is currently under attack by recent austerity measures put in place by the Western world. This reflects reality in the Western (developed) world, I think.

The left on the economic scale is collectivism or unionism, the right is neo-liberalism or extreme individualism.
So you believe Rupert Murdoch and his gang at the Wall Street Journal are anywhere near centre with respect to trade unionism?
How do you support your position?

You did not answer that question.

[Lokakyy]

The "extensive welfare state" is a legacy of a bygone era and is currently under attack by recent austerity measures put in place by the Western world. This reflects reality in the Western (developed) world, I think.

I think what is considered as an "extensive welfare state" is also a question of political point of view. From the classical liberal point of view many of the European countries (Nordic countries & Germany) will be "extensive welfare states" even after austerity measures, considering that those "extensive welfare states" enjoy support from mainstream parties both left and right (and the emerging populist right).

[lubbockjoe]

From the classical liberal point of view many of the European countries (Nordic countries & Germany) will be "extensive welfare states" even after austerity measures, considering that those "extensive welfare states" enjoy support from mainstream parties both left and right (and the emerging populist right).

I’m no political scientist but isn’t the classical liberal view committed to the ideal of limited government, and extreme individualism?

How could the extensive welfare state be the classical liberal point of view?

How can you be sure that austerity measures will not result in complete destruction of the "extensive welfare state?"

[Lokakyy]

I’m no political scientist but isn’t the classical liberal view committed to the ideal of limited government, and extreme individualism?

How could the extensive welfare state be the classical liberal point of view?

Yes, I meant that the classical liberal point of view is likely to regard these countries as extensive welfare states even after welfare cuts.

How can you be sure that austerity measures will not result in complete destruction of the "extensive welfare state?"

I cannot be sure, of course. But considering the political consensus of the right and the left in for example my home country - upholding at least some form of welfare state - I doubt that the system will be stripped to the bare American-styled minimal welfare. As a Finnish social-democrat I probably wouldn't label the cut-down result as extensive welfare state, but it surely would still be that to a full-fledged classical liberal. If you know what I mean.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

The "extensive welfare state" is a legacy of a bygone era and is currently under attack by recent austerity measures put in place by the Western world. This reflects reality in the Western (developed) world, I think.

I don't mind if we drop the 'extensive'.

You did not answer that question.

My answer is the same: right of centre.


I'm not sure where you are going with this, lubbockjoe, but maybe I can shorten our exchange somewhat by explaining why I'm using this definition: First, it's the only definition that lets me use any data from polls or surveys in this threat. Any study will work with definitions that are used by the average person. I believe that my definition of Right and Left in this thread is more or less consistent with that of an average person in the West. Second, it is my interpretation of how the OP used 'leftist' (he might want to correct me on that).

[lubbockjoe]

My answer is the same: right of centre.

I agree.
That is why the media is not leftist.

[septimine]

Its not only the media, there are certain industries where the left completely dominates. The media, the entertainment industry, the academia, the lawyer profession. Why is that?

If you look at those professions, what you find is that most of them are not based on production of anything of value. Other than collating data from other sources and repackaging the findings. So since production isn't needed or valued, it atrracts those who could not hack it in production-based professions. The second thing is that such professions are unable to purge their ranks in ways that remove bias. A bad engineer or doctor is easy to get rid of -- once a bridge falls down, or that apendix surgery gets an infection, it's hard to hide. In journalism, if you bias your story, it's easier to hide. No one is immediately hurt, no one sues for defamation, etc. So if I'm going to be a journalist I have a lot of "fuzzy room" and can get away with distortions that would get you kicked out of most other subjects. If a chemist makes his papers biased, he's toast because there isn't any wiggle room -- either the chemical process works or it doesn't. And if it doesn't, the chemical community will find out in short order.

So it's basicly the lack of standards and the attraction it holds for those who do not wish to produce.

[Drlee]

Its not only the media, there are certain industries where the left completely dominates. The media, the entertainment industry, the academia, the lawyer profession. Why is that?

WTF? Who granted the original premise? I didn't. I assert that "the media" is not leftist. Not by a long shot. I would maintian that the mainstream news is corporatist. Then there is Fox News. It is the largest player in the US news industry. Extremely right wing and corporatist to boot. Are you seriously asserting that it is leftist? The Wall Street Journal is the largest newspaper in the US. Leftist? The Washington Time and New York Post. Leftist?

I am a conservative. I could post a few thousand conservative media sources here.

Now tell me why you think that in the practice of Law "leftists" dominate? That is utterly absurd. Google republican congressmen and see how many are lawyers. Care to guess what percentage of lawyers are even self employed? 26%. Some of these serve the business community with some in criminal law or those areas where one could even be leftist. The rest are corporate, government, law enforcement or prosecutorial, etc. C Are you seriously maintaining that these guys are dominated by leftists? Prosecutors? Corporate lawyers? Nonsense.

The entire premise of this thread is utter bullshit. The anwer to the question "Why is the media leftist" is, who says it is?

Fuck people. What are you thinking?

[QatzelOk]

If you look at those professions, what you find is that most of them are not based on production of anything of value.

And this is why they are loved by rightwing property owners: because, like them, they live parasitically off the productive behavior of other people.

The media - especially Hollywood - provides the propaganda (horror/suffering/wars) that help the low-class worker slave to feel better about his own sorry lot in life. "Sure, you're a socially isolated cog working to empower people who don't care if you live or die, but at least you're not being sawed in half by Freddy, being clobbered by the Road Runner, or being tortured with James Bond by terrorists."

The rightwing love this message because it acts like a painkiller for their economic slaves.

[Drlee]

So I guess religion is not the opiate of the masses. It is Hollywood. OK.

[Arkady2009]

Its not only the media, there are certain industries where the left completely dominates. The media, the entertainment industry, the academia, the lawyer profession. Why is that?

Probably because most people are left leaning these days. Although I find it odd that America, being so conservative, has quite a liberal media. Then again, we do to here in Australia. Its just generally accepted that you wil be left leaning. A conservative here is usually hard to find.

[septimine]

And this is why they are loved by rightwing property owners: because, like them, they live parasitically off the productive behavior of other people.

The media - especially Hollywood - provides the propaganda (horror/suffering/wars) that help the low-class worker slave to feel better about his own sorry lot in life. "Sure, you're a socially isolated cog working to empower people who don't care if you live or die, but at least you're not being sawed in half by Freddy, being clobbered by the Road Runner, or being tortured with James Bond by terrorists."

The rightwing love this message because it acts like a painkiller for their economic slaves.

Or the left wing loves them because they don't have any productive experience and therefore will believe anything they're told about how the economy works. Tell a journalist with no factory experience that you can pay everyone $1000 and sell the shoes for $50 and he'll probably believe you. If you've never done something, you're easy to fool on that subject.

[QatzelOk]

Tell a journalist with no factory experience that you can pay everyone $1000 and sell the shoes for $50 and he'll probably believe you.

Tell a factory owner with no background in social theory that there are better organizational models than top-down hierarchy... and he probably won't want to believe you. (he's learned to use his own beliefs to make money)

This is why Argentina only got cooperative factories AFTER top-down capitalism had destroyed so much. Capitalism has destroyed our intelligence and the quality of our social dialogues.

People hear that the media is left-wing from... media itself.
Media is owned by a handful of giant corporations. Corporations aren't famous for being left wing.

If commercial media is telling you that 'the media' is left-wing, it's because they want you to believe reality is right-wing.

[Rainbow Crow]

Basically, people who have money to buy things tend to be left politically of where the modern Republican party is today, so the media comes across as "leftist" because it caters to people with income.

The "media" wasn't always in the "left-wing," but the right wing follows people like Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin with a religious fervor, even though their constant and undeniable lying makes them repulsive to most people sane enough to have a steady source of income.

For example, when Sarah Palin couldn't answer completely standard questions that were soft balled towards her, the far right blamed media bias. It's not a "problem" that is going to go away any time soon, because catering to people who believe that kind of garbage is to cater to a small niche of the wealth flowing through the economy.

[Rainbow Crow]

Or the left wing loves them because they don't have any productive experience and therefore will believe anything they're told about how the economy works. Tell a journalist with no factory experience that you can pay everyone $1000 and sell the shoes for $50 and he'll probably believe you. If you've never done something, you're easy to fool on that subject.

Sticking with your example, what if the problem is that you can't do math, and instead of paying $1000 to make one pair of $50 shoes, you made 100 pairs of $50 shoes? How much sales profit is that? Is paying $3 for that many shoes a necessity for the company to "survive" or did they just want more money?

Anyway, Chevy has been doing good things lately, going to make my next car in a year or two a Chevy Volt. It'll be nice to be able to buy American made again thanks to Obama's evil socialist policies that get constant mainstream media spin in favor of the left, because it helps advance their plot to destroy America. Or should I say, plot to destroy 1%ica?

[Eran]

In "Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind", Tim Groseclose researched the question using a variety of rigorous tools and metrics. I have not read the book - only listened to a Cato talk about it.

One simple number that sticks to mind is the percentage of people working as journalists and editors in major publications in the US who self-identify as Democrats. The number is 93%. That makes the typical newspaper more liberal than the most liberal voting district in America. By a long shot.

The same finding can be checked against the relative frequency of using equivalent terms in a news story where your typical left- and right-wing person would choose a differently loaded term. Newspapers and TV news clearly and strongly lean to the left.

The trend is similar to what you'd find in social science faculties in institutions of higher education in the US.

Intellectuals (and journalists who mimic them) tend to be lefties. Several books have been dedicated to the phenomenon, including Thomas Sowell's Intellectuals and Society and Ludwig von Mises' "The Anti-Capitalist Mentality".

[Rainbow Crow]

Interesting, I wonder how the economic situations of journalists play into the media. To say that "intellectuals are lefties" though should be embarrassing.

Intellectuals just want to be smart and to be smart is usually to be correct. So if intellectuals really do tend to be "lefties" then the right must really be in trouble.

As for journalists imitating intellectuals, a journalist (much like an intellectual) has a vested interest in being correct most of the time. The exception being demagogues like Rush who don't feel a need to fact check. So he just rushes from one exciting story to the next without stopping to see if it's true. The phenomenon where the economy usually expects a journalist to fact check is one of the good things about modern society. The news geared towards the right that the right reads generally doesn't come from real journalists, in that they often don't do fact checking.

Basically, as long as the right insists on being wrong the media is always going to seem "leftist." If the American far right would stop pretending that Bush was a good president, or stop pushing a hopeless crypto-racist agenda from the 19th century, and get their act together instead, then they wouldn't feel so alienated from almost everything that they see on TV or read that does fact checking.

[Eran]

Intellectuals just want to be smart and to be smart is usually to be correct.

Not at all. Intellectual want to be considered smart by their peers. Those peers are also lefties, and so an intellectual interested in promoting his career would naturally toe the line. Moreover, there is huge self-selection amongst intellectuals, as existing intellectuals (whether in the media or in academia) are the ones picking who will get to join them. Naturally, they will choose others with whom they feel comfortable, others like them.

There is no need for intellectuals to be correct. In fact, intellectuals routinely made huge forecasting mistakes, without seeing their careers suffer in any way.

The nature of government is that it is difficult to prove government actions have been (in retrospect) right or wrong, as one always has to compare actual results with the invisible counterfactuals. This is in sharp difference to the competitive market, in which one is judged both in absolute terms (profit and loss), and in relation to one's competitors.