Quickly, play Spot-the-Irony by finding as many of the manifestations of journalistic ideology that Jay Rosen identifies in his own piece describing them! I'll go first: 1. Jay's entire it's-not-the-simple-narrative-of-either-the-right-or-the-left-but-this-complex-narrative frame for the post is an example of "Church of the Savvy" and arguably "View From Nowhere."

Fair points. Is he right?

Where did they say "why the government shouldn’t try to save journalism"? All I heard was some incoherent mumbling about the FTC something and what they didn't like about it.

He's right, but perhaps only trivially so. That Rosen's own article displays the same tropes that he is criticizing in some sense only serves to bolster his claims. It shows how powerful these tropes are and why they can easily form an unconscious ideology that biases the work produced. But it shows that Rosen's product itself manifests the same ideological bias. And as seems generally to be the result of that bias, there is a type of shallowness to the resulting analysis. All of the simple analyses that Rosen rejects are, in fact, more complicated than he portrays. E.g., forum-dwellers know I've advanced the argument that structural forces create a subtle net bias to the left. It's not a novel argument, and it isn't particularly different in kind than the argument Rosen is making, but he doesn't engage with it, because he can dismiss it by "[o]ccupy[ing] the reasonable middle between two markers for 'vocal critic.'" No doubt he gives short-shrift to other arguments that I am less capable of reproducing. More can be said on this, but satire is easier than substantive analysis, and I had hoped to get away with just the former until Zeke busted me.

Oh! I get it. You guys have read Jay's article. How clever. I found this and thought about the hapless Joe Barton. He certainly has entered the third circle of deviance. I bet Rand Paul is glad he showed up.

6. The sphere of deviance. The power to place certain people, causes and ideas within the deviant sphere is one of the most ideological things journalists ever do.

In the sphere of deviance we find “political actors and views which journalists and the political mainstream of society reject as unworthy of being heard.” As in the sphere of consensus, neutrality isn’t the watchword here; journalists maintain order by either keeping the deviant out of the news entirely or identifying it within the news frame as unacceptable, radical, or just plain impossible…

Quoting jimM47: He's right, but perhaps only trivially so. That Rosen's own article displays the same tropes that he is criticizing in some sense only serves to bolster his claims. It shows how powerful these tropes are and why they can easily form an unconscious ideology that biases the work produced.

But it shows that Rosen's product itself manifests the same ideological bias. And as seems generally to be the result of that bias, there is a type of shallowness to the resulting analysis. All of the simple analyses that Rosen rejects are, in fact, more complicated than he portrays. E.g., forum-dwellers know I've advanced the argument that structural forces create a subtle net bias to the left. It's not a novel argument, and it isn't particularly different in kind than the argument Rosen is making, but he doesn't engage with it, because he can dismiss it by "[o]ccupy[ing] the reasonable middle between two markers for 'vocal critic.'" No doubt he gives short-shrift to other arguments that I am less capable of reproducing.

So I am having to assume some things here. First, that you are familiar with Rosen's work (which I am not). Second, that

Quoting jimM47: ...

More can be said on this, but satire is easier than substantive analysis, and I had hoped to get away with just the former until Zeke busted me.

I know the feeling. Kudos for having good humor about it.

In fairness to Jay (at least in the diavlog, I haven't read the piece yet) he admitted that there are elements of truth to both the Left and Right narratives with respect to bias, but that he felt the more dominant factor was something else which he went on to explain. The irony exists merely because he chose to pass this information on to the public through the mechanism (journalism) whose constraints he was analyzing. I don't see how there would have been any way around this aside from keeping silent. I think his point makes a whole lot of sense, and I thought the hesitance of journalists to use articles that had been already available online was a very rich example of it, showing that for most journalists, motivations of self-interest (getting a scoop, lots of web hits, finding a story that is easy to throw together etc.) probably trump any personal, political leanings. Thanks for having Jay back on. Great diavlog. --Uncle Eb (proud member of the annoying 1%!!)

I addressed the issue of whether I am doing myself what I am analyzing in that post here. In my opinion this is not a very careful criticism, but on the other hand more than a dozen people have made the same point so it certainly needs to be addressed. Cheers, everyone.

In the body or in the comments? Because that link appears to be the very article to which I was responding. I wouldn't have bothered cracking wise had you addressed the issue in the article itself.

I think this is what he was referring to:

Evan Harper: "You've rapped the press for casting themselves as savvy, nuanced pragmatists, immune to the mad excesses of the partisan ideologues flanking them on both left and right. But didn't you open the article by... casting your view as savvy, nuanced, and immune to the partisan ideologues attacking the media from both left and right?"

Well, I thought about this as I was composing my piece. Here are four reasons that I don't think I am doing what I'm critiquing.

1. I opened my article by distancing myself from three views, not two: the left, the right and the press. There's no both sides here, with the truthteller in the middle. That isn't a structural feature of the post, but it is a structure I analyze in the post.

2. Nor do I present myself as position-less. In fact, what I say is: these three views are over there, and I am over here, disagreeing with them, and here's why. Is that what Dana Milbank did in his column? No, it isn't.

3. I do not present myself as someone who has no politics himself, no perspective on journalism that I am standing up for. You can read my FAQ and disclosure statement to see what I mean. I specifically disavow

The link goes to a comment at the post in question. As I said, it's something that came up repeatedly, so I addressed it in the comments. A reader wouldn't necessarily know that without scrolling through a rather long thread. What I meant by "not very careful" is.... it's a kind of first-take or "aha!" reaction, but the parallels between what I'm doing as a critic and the patterns in the press I'm describing are actually not that strong, whereas the differences are large. That's my view; however, I recognize that some readers disagree. By the way, the two most common reactions to my post on the Actual Ideology of the Press are, "is is really so complicated? I don't think so..." and "what an irony! Rosen does what he criticizes the press for doing."

When I was growing up (in the US) "savvy" was a noun, not an adjective: business savvy, technical savvy, etc. It was a bit slangy even then, but at least it seemed to designate something concrete, something like practical knowledge or what the ancient Greeks called phronesis. When did "savvy" become an adjective meaning "knowledgeable? And when did journalists begin to think that they possess knowledge? About anything?

Couple points to make here. I read Jay's piece he linked to, and was struck by this section: "For example: If we were able to survey their opinions on the issues that divide left and right, we would undoubtedly find that the people in the political press—the Gang of 500, as Mark Halperin calls them—are much more liberal than the population as a whole. We would also find that they are typical of the population in the cities where they work, which formed the basis for this famous column by Daniel Okrent: Is the New York Times a Liberal Newspaper? But if we were able to engage our political journalists in a deeper discussion we would also find that most of them are skeptical about changing society in any fundamental way" Er, are we sure about that second paragraph? There's been pretty solid empirical research done on the ideology of journalists, so I definitely agree with the first paragraph. But the second paragraph seems based in random unsubstantiated claims. How do you know journalists feel that way about big change? Is there data on this beyond the circumstancial? I think this

When I was growing up (in the US) "savvy" was a noun, not an adjective... When did "savvy" become an adjective...

1905.

1785, as a noun, "practical sense, intelligence;" also a verb, "to know, to understand;" W. Indies pidgin borrowing of Fr. savez(-vous)? "do you know?" or Sp. sabe (usted) "you know," both from V.L. *sapere, from L. sapere "be wise, be knowing" (see sapient). The adj. is first recorded 1905, from the noun.

I had no idea you were that old

Quoting Wonderment: 1905.

I had no idea you were that old

I was old before I was born. I stand corrected, but I still think that most journalists neither have nor are savvy. Savoir, c'est pouvoir.

Quoting Florian: When I was growing up (in the US) "savvy" was a noun, not an adjective: business savvy, technical savvy, etc. It was a bit slangy even then, but at least it seemed to designate something concrete, something like practical knowledge or what the ancient Greeks called phronesis. When did "savvy" become an adjective meaning "knowledgeable? And when did journalists begin to think that they possess knowledge? About anything?

Interestingly enough, savvy was also familiar to me, as a kid, when used as a verb; e.g., You savvy? meant Do you get it? Wiktionary says (links and italics there not copied here -- may fix later):

Etymology

Alteration of sabi (“‘know’”) (in English-based creoles and pidgins), from Portuguese or Spanish sabe (“‘[he] knows’”), from saber (“‘to know’”), from Latin sapere (“‘to be wise’”).

1785, as a noun, "practical sense, intelligence;" also a verb, "to know, to understand;" West Indies pidgin borrowing of French savez(-vous) (“‘do you know’”)" or Spanish sabe (usted) (“‘you know’”), both from Vulgar Latin *sapere, from Latin sapere (“‘be wise, be knowing’”) (see sapient). The adjective is first recorded 1905, from the noun.

Note the last sentence. Sadly, it is not sourced. It may be something "everyone knows" [added: cf.], it may be something that the Wiktionarian just grabbed from an assertion made in an interview by Ingrid Law, or ... something else by

Quoting bjkeefe:
I will have to look into this more later, because I have to do something else now. Thanks for the thought-provoking question. Not sure why you couldn't just leave it at that, instead of reminding us for about the 410th time that you are unable to resist making idiotically sweeping statements no matter what else you start talking about. I know we all let our pet unrelated peeves creep in from time to time, but you're kinda only making yourself look bad, you savvy?

i'm a (sometimes) working "journalist," and i have to say that i chuckled at florian's remark. (some might say i'm a case in point for his barb, however?) i'm always baffled as to what the basis of a career in journalism is for someone who majored as in undergraduate in... journalism. the "craft" part is easy going on non-existent -- it's the expertise and experience that are hard. i tend to only look to journalists who have actually studied something of consequence. (AP style doesn't count.) besides, the excessive self regard that so many journalists have (e.g. john meacham, "read Newsweek or democracy will die!!!1!") makes a florian-like remark kind of deserved. but, yes, there are of

Quoting bjkeefe: I will have to look into this more later, because I have to do something else now. Thanks for the thought-provoking question. Not sure why you couldn't just leave it at that, instead of reminding us for about the 410th time that you are unable to resist making idiotically sweeping statements no matter what else you start talking about. I know we all let our pet unrelated peeves creep in from time to time, but you're kinda only making yourself look bad, you savvy?

Have I really said 410 times that journalists are ignorant fools? Or have I just touched a sensitive nerve in a would-be journalist like bjkeefe? In any case, since you spend much of your time here pointing out that journalists are ignorant fools, I must be at least somewhat right.

I would add that Carl Zimmer, John Horgan, George Johnson, Mathew Lee, Ezra Klein, Rosa Brooks, Eli Lake, Spencer Ackerman, Rob Farley, Julian Sanchez etc., etc. (just to pick a few of the more journalistic B-heads) all seem to have quite a wealth of knowledge, whether or not it is practical by the standards of Florian and Ancient Greece.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: I would add that Carl Zimmer, John Horgan, George Johnson, Mathew Lee, Ezra Klein, Rosa Brooks, Eli Lake, Spencer Ackerman, Rob Farley, Julian Sanchez etc., etc. (just to pick a few of the more journalistic B-heads) all seem to have quite a wealth of knowledge, whether or not it is practical by the standards of Florian and Ancient Greece.

Political journalism aims to persuade people to believe and/or do certain things. So it is eminently practical, in precisely the sense I meant. Scientific journalism is an entirely different matter.

Quoting Florian: Have I really said 410 times that journalists are ignorant fools?

No. If you'll review my previous post, you'll see that I said you had made about this many "idiotically sweeping statements." (Usually they refer to America or Americans, not journalists.) The number, of course, came from the number of posts you had at that point put up in your current incarnation, and it was merely a bit of false quantification (and hyperbole, of course) for comic effect.

Or have I just touched a sensitive nerve in a would-be journalist like bjkeefe?

I do not consider myself a journalist, or even a would-be one, but I do believe I have sufficient reason to call myself an interested and informed observer. You did touch a nerve, though, yes. Two, actually. One is my more general dislike for statements that lump everyone of some large class together, and the second is a belief that there are some -- quite a few, in fact -- journalists who do bang-up work. Others have already pointed out specific examples, and if you like, I'll list a bunch more. That some journalists are bad (and maybe even most when considering those who have risen to prominence) does not at all mean all of

Quoting bjkeefe: No. If you'll review my previous post, you'll see that I said you had made about this many "idiotically sweeping statements." (Usually they refer to America or Americans, not journalists.) The number, of course, came from the number of posts you had at that point put up in your current incarnation, and it was merely a bit of false quantification (and hyperbole, of course) for comic effect..

You will have to refresh my memory. I usually make fairly precise comments. I do not recall having said that most Americans are idiots. Sometimes I think, though, that you are an idiot. Now for example.

Quoting Florian: You will have to refresh my memory.

Request declined. If you're actually going to deny that you have a frequent habit of making sweeping statements about Americans and America, I am not going to waste the time to gather up links, because you are either too far gone for it to be worth the effort, or looking to bicker about picayune aspects of the examples I could offer. Nobody, but nobody, on this board who is familiar with you would disagree with my statement. Accept it or don't, but that's the way it is. [Added: big points to nikkibong for succinctness.]

I usually make fairly precise comments.

You do, about many things. And I salute you for this. My original point, however, was that you all too often pollute what would otherwise be interesting commentary by giving in to your tendency to add dismissive assertions about large classes of people, or other statements involving "all," "always," "none," "never," etc., that are inaccurate in their sweeping nature and frequently come off as little better than breadcrust-level trollery. You then compound the problem by arguing a lost cause with half-assed lawyerliness when you get called on this habit of yours, and then you slide down further

Quoting Florian: I do not recall having said that most Americans are idiots.

Well, you obviously think we are idiots, if you expect us to believe that!

Yeah, but you're a journalist...

when did journalists begin to think that they possess knowledge? About anything?

...so what do you know?

[quote=bjkeefe;166349]Request declined. If you're actually going to deny that you have a frequent habit of making sweeping statements about Americans and America, I am not going to waste the time to gather up links, because you are either too far gone for it to be worth the effort, or looking to bicker about picayune aspects of the examples I could offer. Nobody, but nobody, on this board who is familiar with you would disagree with my statement. Accept it or don't, but that's the way it is. [Added: big points to nikkibong for succinctness.] You do, about many things. And I salute you for this. My original point, however, was that you all too often pollute what would otherwise be interesting commentary by giving in to your tendency to add dismissive assertions about large classes of people, or other statements involving "all," "always," "none," "never," etc., that are inaccurate in their sweeping nature and frequently come off as little better than breadcrust-level trollery. You then compound the problem by arguing a lost cause with half-assed lawyerliness when you get called on this habit of yours, and then you slide down further into hurling insults that are about as well-founded as something

Quoting Florian: When I was growing up (in the US) "savvy" was a noun, not an adjective: business savvy, technical savvy, etc. It was a bit slangy even then, but at least it seemed to designate something concrete, something like practical knowledge or what the ancient Greeks called phronesis. When did "savvy" become an adjective meaning "knowledgeable? And when did journalists begin to think that they possess knowledge? About anything?

When I was growing up in the US 'impact' was a noun. Now it is a verb. I just hate it. It reminds me of dentistry. "how has the oil spill impacted the lives of the residents in the gulf?"

Quoting nikkibong: Well, you obviously think we are idiots, if you expect us to believe that!

Yes, I think that you must be an idiot if you think that I ever said that all Americans are idiots. It is true that I think that American civilisation is inferior in many respects to French civilisation, but that is not the same as saying that all Americans are idiots.

The argument over whether the mainstream media leans liberal, conservative or neither way is long over. MSNBC identified 143 reporters who gave political contributions in 2004-2008, of those, 125 gave to democratic candidates/liberal causes and 16 to republican/conservative. In 1996 the Society Of Newspaper Editors surveyed 1,037 reporters for newspapers of all sizes across the united states. Reporters who identified themselves as liberal/democrat outnumbered those who said they were republican/conservative 61% to 15%. And it continues, look at CNN and the amount of people who are still insisting that it's some sort of middle ground when their reporting is only slightly less left than MSNBC. The new media has certainly made inroads based on more outlets of unbiased and/or right-leaning slant on stories and commentary but these are not mainstream. Look at the amount of cheerleading done by the msm for Obama's outright lies on the costs and effects of his healthcare bill and also the incredible amount of condemnation for Arizona's illegal immigration bill in the face of a vast majority of Americans who agree with it. And no wonder old media is pushing every bailout scheme BO can

Quoting chiwhisoxx:
Er, are we sure about that second paragraph? There's been pretty solid empirical research done on the ideology of journalists, so I definitely agree with the first paragraph. But the second paragraph seems based in random unsubstantiated claims. How do you know journalists feel that way about big change? Is there data on this beyond the circumstantial? I think this matters simply because it devalues the intended counterbalance to the liberal media narrative.

I think the Dana Millbank anecdote from your article is a perfect example. Millbank is a guy who points to people calling him a crazy conservative and a rabid liberal as proof that he's simply besieged on all sides in his castle floating above ideological politics. But this isn't proof that Dana Millbank isn't ideological.....

Your comment got a little lost in the fray, but since I was bypassing the others (way too much heat!)I thought I'd look at yours. I agree that there isn't any real evidence that most/many journalists aren't interested in big change. In fact, it would seem that one of the motivations for going into the field could be to change things.
And good for

Quoting harkin: The argument over whether the mainstream media leans liberal, conservative or neither way is long over.

MSNBC identified 143 reporters who gave political contributions in 2004-2008, of those, 125 gave to democratic candidates/liberal causes and 16 to republican/conservative.

In 1996 the Society Of Newspaper Editors surveyed 1,037 reporters for newspapers of all sizes across the united states. Reporters who identified themselves as liberal/democrat outnumbered those who said they were republican/conservative 61% to 15%.

And it continues, look at CNN and the amount of people who are still insisting that it's some sort of middle ground when their reporting is only slightly less left than MSNBC. The new media has certainly made inroads based on more outlets of unbiased and/or right-leaning slant on stories and commentary but these are not mainstream. Look at the amount of cheerleading done by the msm for Obama's outright lies on the costs and effects of his healthcare bill and also the incredible amount of condemnation for Arizona's illegal immigration bill in the face of a vast majority of Americans who agree with it.

And no wonder old media is pushing every bailout scheme BO can

Because obviously the correct way to identify bias is to look at the political self-identification of journalists, not what they produce. This is an argument designed to make it easy to discount viewpoints and facts that you find disagreeable, not an honest attempt to describe the faults of the MSM.

Quoting AemJeff: Shorter harkin:

"Liberal" means anything to the left of me, so the media is self-evidently liberal. Case closed. And, by the way, Fox News and AM talk aren't "mainstream."

The Real AemJeff: I tire of being a hypocrite and accusing others of having no argument so instead I will invent your premise for you, put words in your mouth, and then make fun of it. Jeff, Harkin listed numerous examples of studies with which to make his point while going out of his way to exclude Fox. You responded with with what again? You are your own best example.

Quoting harkin:And it continues, look at CNN and the amount of people who are still insisting that it's some sort of middle ground when their reporting is only slightly less left than MSNBC.

I have to disagree. I do think CNN is much more in the middle than you describe.

Look at any Sunday morning news show (other than FOX) where the 3 or 4 liberals sitting with 1 or 2 conservatives is considered a fair standard and the rare extra conservative (which actually only makes the discussion closer to even) is condemned at Kos and Huffington as some sort of sellout to the corporate masters.

I listen to all of the Sunday shows on CSPAN. And again I need to disagree with you. I think they all make a concerted effort to bring all sides to the table.
Does MSNBC have a Sunday show? I don't think so, but if they did it wouldn't be balanced. They don't know how to do balanced there. But here's a little mystery for you. I listened to the radio all day today about the McChrystal brouhaha. I listened to the right. I listened to the left. I listened to outrage about what he did, what he said, the war

Quoting Don Zeko: Because obviously the correct way to identify bias is to look at the political self-identification of journalists, not what they produce. This is an argument designed to make it easy to discount viewpoints and facts that you find disagreeable, not an honest attempt to describe the faults of the MSM.

So you think what they produce will tend in some other political direction than that which they identify? Are conservatives then suppose to ignore the background of journalists and just assume that we are always going to get the straight scoop? Can you not come up with an example for me when this might have been a bad idea? If 80% of MSM leaned right would you not consider that a fault? Would you be willing to get 80% of your news from FOX? In any case, this stuff you are selling... I'm not buying.

Quoting Whatfur: So you think what they produce will tend in some other political direction than that which they identify?

Are conservatives then suppose to ignore the background of journalists and just assume that we are always going to get the straight scoop? Can you not come up with an example for me when this might have been a bad idea?

If 80% of MSM leaned right would you not consider that a fault? Would you be willing to get 80% of your news from FOX?

In any case, this stuff you are selling... I'm not buying.

Here's the thing though...bias is so absolutely clear most of the time! So this actually gives the consumer a lot to go on. In fact when you see bias it becomes very easy to dismiss the information you are being told or at least do more research about it on your own. Of course there are lots of people who just parrot what they media tells them, but there's really no help for them.

Quoting badhatharry: Here's the thing though...bias is so absolutely clear most of the time! So this actually gives the consumer a lot to go on. In fact when you see bias it becomes very easy to dismiss the information you are being told or at least do more research about it on your own.

Of course there are lots of people who just parrot what they media tells them, but there's really no help for them.

In many cases it may be clear (to the informed), but when the LA times photoshops a picture of a soldier to look more menacing...without the discovery of the fraud...is that clear? When the NYT employs a highly partisan reporter who fabricates stories for years complete with supposed eye-witness accounts how does that become clear? When these percentages and the volume they represent jump on a story that they choose to portray negatively or positively, but incorrectly does that not skew the public perception? Sorry, I have my own built in control group, my M.I.L. who lives with us, gets all her news from the big 3. You would not believe the things she believes.

Quoting badhatharry: When I was growing up in the US 'impact' was a noun. Now it is a verb. I just hate it. It reminds me of dentistry. "how has the oil spill impacted the lives of the residents in the gulf?"

Agreed on impact as an active verb, especially when there are so many good alternatives. However, I think we've about lost this battle.

Quoting Whatfur: In many cases it may be clear (to the informed), but when the LA times photoshops a picture of a soldier to look more menacing...without the discovery of the fraud...is that clear?

Or when Fox News uses crowd shots from a different rally to suggest the one they're currently talking about was not sparsely attended, is that clear? Would it ever have been, had not a comedy show called them out on it?

When the NYT employs a highly partisan reporter who fabricates stories for years complete with supposed eye-witness accounts how does that become clear?

When such a reporter is a big part of selling a possibly illegal and definitely unnecessary invasion of a country, what good does it do the hundreds of thousands of killed, maimed, and displaced that this is only tamely acknowledged, well after the fact? And since this reporter was working for the NYT while helping Bush and Cheney in no better way than they could have asked for, what does this say about the NYT as the supposed worst example of the LieBrul Media?

Sorry, I have my own built in control group, my M.I.L. who

Quoting bjkeefe: Agreed on impact as an active verb, especially when there are so many good alternatives. However, I think we've about lost this battle.

Language is plastic - as it mutates, the rules change, and therefore proper usage as well. It's easy to see this process as something to fight against, and to see specific changes as examples of degeneracy; but, I think that vital languages seem to generally trend toward greater utility and sophistication.

Quoting Whatfur: So you think what they produce will tend in some other political direction than that which they identify?

I think there are far more biases and predilections at work in your average journalist than whether or not he voted for John Kerry. For one, journalists have beliefs about the proper role of the press, the way a reporter should behave, and the purpose of their jobs that I suspect are usually more important to them than whatever political alignments they might have. Why is this so hard to understand? I don't know where you work; maybe it is an explicitly political job. But assuming that it's not, do you go in to work every day with the intent of advancing the interests of the Conservative Movement, even at the expense of doing your job well? If not, why do you assume that journalists are the same way? Just because the mindset of a partisan hack comes naturally to you does not mean that it is shared by the rest of the world.

Quoting Whatfur: Are conservatives then suppose to ignore the background of journalists and just assume that we are

Quoting harkin: MSNBC identified 143 reporters who gave political contributions in 2004-2008, of those, 125 gave to democratic candidates/liberal causes and 16 to republican/conservative.

In 1996 the Society Of Newspaper Editors surveyed 1,037 reporters for newspapers of all sizes across the united states. Reporters who identified themselves as liberal/democrat outnumbered those who said they were republican/conservative 61% to 15%.

Let's suppose that I accept these isolated results as more completely indicative than I do. In that case ... I wonder if you have ever stopped to think about an equally good explanation for these numbers, to wit: People who are educated more so than the median American, and who spend a lot of time thinking about politics and in contact with political players, show a strong distaste for (1) the Republican way of doing business as it has been displayed for the past two or three decades and (2) the principles, not to mention attitude, that the loudest conservatives tend to go on about, especially over the same stretch of time. Of course you will not accept this, but I think someone who had no real idea about this country might find it at least an equally plausible explanation of your

Quoting AemJeff: Language is plastic - as it mutates, the rules change, and therefore proper usage as well. It's easy to see this process as something to fight against, and to see specific changes as examples of degeneracy; but, I think that vital languages seem to generally trend toward greater utility and sophistication.

I agree completely. I have surrendered on many fronts, and even embraced quite a few of the changes. But though I accept the long-term realities (and indeed applaud them) there is a different perspective for the here and now. What might become accepted, eventually, because enough people make the same "mistake" is, at the current moment, still a mistake. So I fight against some of them as they annoy my ears, and when I, and other fussbudgets like me, manage to hold the line for a while, I count it as a victory. To the extent that I seriously care, I mean. I hope that it is clear that my ranting about the picayune aspects of usage is mostly an act -- I care, but I do not actually care to the point of the fury I try to convey. I enjoy playing the part of Miss Thistlebottom. Except when I am around other, worse Miss Thistlebottoms, you'll probably be unsurprised to hear -- in those

Quoting badhatharry: But it wasn't until I listened to Mark Levin that I learned that none of the things which were written in the NYTimes article about the Rolling Stones article (weird! news about news!) were directly attributed to McChrystal. It was all hearsay by his staff. I looked up the article and sure enough....

FWIW, Slate's coverage also mentioned that. That was either in the piece by Fred Kaplan (who I think is a center-right type character whose main interest is the military) or John Dickerson (who's center-left but makes a somewhat harder effort than most reporters to actually report one or more right-wing perspectives) edit: It was Dickerson, ""the fact that McChrystal himself does not seem to have said anything insubordinate may be the deciding factor in how the president treats him now". I guess that's not technically a right-wing position, though it is my impression that the right tends to be more sympathetic to military men.

Quoting badhatharry: But here's a little mystery for you. I listened to the radio all day today about the McChrystal brouhaha. I listened to the right. I listened to the left. I listened to outrage about what he did, what he said, the war and George Bush, the son of a bitch!!

But it wasn't until I listened to Mark Levin that I learned that none of the things which were written in the NYTimes article about the Rolling Stones article (weird! news about news!) were directly attributed to McChrystal. It was all hearsay by his staff. I looked up the article and sure enough....

I sometimes wonder about you, badhat, I truly do. If you really cared that much about this story, then why did you not just go to the original articles in the NYT and RS (links here, found with one Google with a misspelled name, to boot) and read for yourself, instead of trying to evaluate the claims of a bunch of secondary sources? I mean, you're always making pious noises about learning for yourself and being self-reliant and on and on, and the information is right out there for you, for free. Anyway, what's done is done, but for future reference, the articles were quite clear in the

Quoting Don Zeko: I think there are far more biases and predilections at work in your average journalist than whether or not he voted for John Kerry.

Isn't that kind of MY point?

Quoting Don Zeko: For one, journalists have beliefs about the proper role of the press, the way a reporter should behave, and the purpose of their jobs that I suspect are usually more important to them than whatever political alignments they might have. Why is this so hard to understand?

OMG. I think you might want to join Ocean in her new political party based on "Delusionalism". Oh yes, they all run around with WWWD bumper stickers(what would Walter do?) Oh wait, that might not be a good example.

Quoting Don Zeko: I don't know where you work; maybe it is an explicitly political job. But assuming that it's not, do you go in to work every day with the intent of advancing the interests of the Conservative Movement, even at the expense of doing your job well? If not, why do you assume that journalists are the same way? Just because the mindset of a partisan hack comes naturally to you does not mean that it is shared by the rest

Quoting Whatfur: Isn't that kind of MY point?

No, it's not. You're saying that the MSM's coverage is biased in favor of the Democratic Party and Liberalism because journalists are all Liberals, and I'm saying that this is kind of partially true, but that there are so many different biases influencing journalists, mainstream and otherwise, that this is a dumb and misleading way to characterize the press.

Quoting Whatfur: "Partisan Hack" eh? So what % of your posts here would you say that you have taken the conservative viewpoint?

I had a long argument with some bjkeefe about abortion a while ago, if you're interested in digging it up. But even if I hadn't, hackery is not simply having a consistently liberal conservative point of view. It's a matter of intellectual honesty.

Quoting Whatfur: Let's just say... no, I think they go to work every day advancing the viewpoint they hold.

Why do you think that? Do you have any actual reasons to believe that reporters don't value professionalism the way normal people do?
I picked this article at random from the NYT homepage. In what way is the reporter trying to advance a political agenda in his presentation of the story? If he's not, isn't that

Quoting bjkeefe: I mean, you're always making pious noises about learning for yourself and being self-reliant and on and on, and the information is right out there for you, for free.
If you were in your car all day, or otherwise away from your computer, okay.

Yes, I actually have to work for a living and I don't make a living on the computer or driving in my car. But I do listen to the radio. My point was and still is, no matter how you want to frame or misrepresent it, that none of the horrific things McChrystal was alleged to have said were direct quotes. I had no idea from what was being said on the radio all day long on several stations (right leaning and left) that these were not direct quotes. But now I do! and largely because the evil troll Mark Levin let me in on the news. I just think it's interesting how information comes to us. In fact, every so often even you say something worthwhile.

Quoting badhatharry: Yes, I actually have to work for a living and I don't make a living on the computer or driving in my car.

But I do listen to the radio.

Yes, sorry I wasn't clear. By being "in your car all day," I meant that the radio would have been all you would have had at hand. I meant also to add in the possibility that you were in your shop all day, with only radio and maybe TV there, too, but I forget to type it after I thought it.

My point was and still is, no matter how you want to frame or misrepresent it, that none of the horrific things McChrystal was alleged to have said were direct quotes. I had no idea from what was being said on the radio all day long on several stations (right leaning and left) that these were not direct quotes.

Okay. But really, this is not so much of an excuse. You're an adult, and to all appearances, someone who has spent years consuming news and news-related media. So it should not be something that you're just figuring out now that commentary on the news, especially these days, is something to be looked at

Quoting Don Zeko: No, it's not. ...

Yes, it was.

Quoting Don Zeko: I had a long argument with some bjkeefe about abortion a while ago, if you're interested in digging it up. But even if I hadn't, hackery is not simply having a consistently liberal conservative point of view. It's a matter of intellectual honesty.

I don't see abortion as a political issue but a moral one. I am glad you chose correctly, however. Or were you just arguing about which trimester?

Quoting Don Zeko: Why do you think that? Do you have any actual reasons to believe that reporters don't value professionalism the way normal people do?
I picked this article at random from the NYT homepage. In what way is the reporter trying to advance a political agenda in his presentation of the story? If he's not, isn't that evidence against your worldview?

Why do you choose to pretend to know what I think? Sorry, I choose my own charities. Your attempts at creating examples are pretty funny.

Quoting Don Zeko: Well then why don't you admit that there's a difference in the level of accuracy, neutrality, and professionalism between an outlet that is primarily intended to be a news provider and an outlet that is primarily intended to be a Republican-friendly news

Quoting Whatfur: Yes, it was.

Ok, if that's the way you want to play it, here goes. I'm rubber, you're glue. What bounces off me...I think you know the rest.

Quoting Whatfur: I don't see abortion as a political issue but a moral one.

What's the difference? Also, how is a question about the legality of a given behavior not a political question?

Quoting Whatfur: Why do you choose to pretend to know what I think? Sorry, I choose my own charities. Your attempts at creating examples are pretty funny....Maybe because this has nothing fucking whatsoever to do with what was originally being discussed????

Wait, what? I presume to know what you think because you said so like 10 minutes ago. It's right here!

Quoting Whatfur: I think they go to work every day advancing the viewpoint they hold.

This is getting pretty bizarre. I think I'm going to go clear my head with some Red Bull, LSD, and Zardoz.

Quoting bjkeefe:
Okay. But really, this is not so much of an excuse.

You're hilarious. And the evil troll comment was sarcastic and aimed at you. I am not afraid of speech as you apparently are.

Quoting Don Zeko: Ok, if that's the way you want to play it, here goes. I'm rubber, you're glue. What bounces off me...I think you know the rest.

Zeke, if you write a sentence and I tell you that it describes how I feel about a subject because it certainly could be read that way. Why would you choose to argue about that? How can you? Thats "bizarre".

Quoting Don Zeko: What's the difference? Also, how is a question about the legality of a given behavior not a political question?

We are done after this one Zeke. When one considers something a moral issue its legality is not important now is it...in other words, there is no question.

Quoting Don Zeko: Wait, what? I presume to know what you think because you said so like 10 minutes ago. It's right here!

Is this a bit of that intellectual honesty you were talking about?

Quoting Don Zeko: This is getting pretty bizarre. I think I'm going to go clear my head with some Red Bull, LSD, and Zardoz.

I'd suggest a book.

What a visual.
Chamblee54

Quoting badhatharry: You're hilarious. And the evil troll comment was sarcastic and aimed at you. I am not afraid of speech as you apparently are.

The only way I can explain the above response to myself is to recall how often in the past you have fled from solid arguments presented to you. Good to see you're running off while flinging a departing insult, I suppose, weak though it is, instead of indulging in a snit and writing letters of complaint to management. You know, about how other people use speech and stuff.

Quoting badhatharry: But it wasn't until I listened to Mark Levin that I learned that none of the things which were written in the NYTimes article about the Rolling Stones ... were directly attributed to McChrystal.

Strange, I couldn't find any NYTimes articles about the Rolling Stones that mentioned McChrystal...

Quoting listener: Strange, I couldn't find any NYTimes articles about the Rolling Stones that mentioned McChrystal...

!

And no wonder old media is pushing every bailout scheme BO can come up with, they themselves are seeking to get billions from the feds.

This statement is a fantasy. A ridiculously over-generalized turd. Completely typical of the sewer that media bias criticism has become. It is true that the argument for subsidy has been made; it is completely controversial within the journalistic community and there is no organized group of journalists pushing to get billions from the feds. You just made that up. Nor is there any chance at all that such a measure would be enacted. You are, in short, on this particular point... an hysteric and fabulist.

Quoting Florian: Yes, I think that you must be an idiot if you think that I ever said that all Americans are idiots.

OK, I'll take your word for it. It must have been FrancoAmerican who said all that

Quoting jayrosen: This statement is a fantasy. A ridiculously over-generalized turd. Completely typical of the sewer that media bias criticism has become. It is true that the argument for subsidy has been made; it is completely controversial within the journalistic community and there is no organized group of journalists pushing to get billions from the feds. You just made that up. Nor is there any chance at all that such a measure would be enacted. You are, in short, on this particular point... an hysteric and fabulist.

Funny, you would pick that one sentence out of the harkin post to yourself dissect. Actually you seem to want to examine the "turd" and give it wings (a flying turd?) so you have something to castigate. I have a bunch of dogs and their houses are filled with straw bedding. When the straw is fresh some will actually make a meal out of it ultimately creating, yep you guessed it, a straw turd. Bottom line your additions here make you far more the "fabulist" than harkin ever was. In any case, how about the paragraph before it? I have a thread here somewhere documenting a number of articles that came out

Quoting harkin: MSNBC identified 143 reporters who gave political contributions in 2004-2008, of those, 125 gave to democratic candidates/liberal causes and 16 to republican/conservative.

In 1996 the Society Of Newspaper Editors surveyed 1,037 reporters for newspapers of all sizes across the united states. Reporters who identified themselves as liberal/democrat outnumbered those who said they were republican/conservative 61% to 15%.

Taking the preceding with lots of salt, as whatfur would say, why do people think there are so few conservatives in journalism ? In the interest of full disclosure The link you produce is from Media Research Center (sourcewatch reference), a conservative outlet run by Brent Bozell. The article is based on a survey from 15 years ago from the American Society of Newspaper Editors.

Quoting thouartgob: Taking the preceding with lots of salt, as whatfur would say, why do people think there are so few conservatives in journalism ?

In the interest of full disclosure The link you produce is from Media Research Center (sourcewatch reference), a conservative outlet run by Brent Bozell. The article is based on a survey from 15 years ago from the American Society of Newspaper Editors.

Brent has been pushing this meme relentlessly for decades. He has been completely obsessed with "media bias," not to mention the eradication of any hint that people come equipped with bodies for my entire adult life. harkin and Bozell share the same problem - their definition of bias is simple - anything they don't fully endorse is biased.

Quoting badhatharry: But it wasn't until I listened to Mark Levin that I learned that none of the things which were written in the NYTimes article about the Rolling Stones article (weird! news about news!) were directly attributed to McChrystal. It was all hearsay by his staff.

that was just about the first thing they mentioned about the article on....NPR

Quoting Whatfur: Funny, you would pick that one sentence out of the harkin post to yourself dissect. Actually you seem to want to examine the "turd" and give it wings (a flying turd?) so you have something to castigate. I have a bunch of dogs and their houses are filled with straw bedding. When the straw is fresh some will actually make a meal out of it ultimately creating, yep you guessed it, a straw turd. Bottom line your additions here make you far more the "fabulist" than harkin ever was.

Forget it, Jay. This is Whatfur.

Echoing an above post, interesting that Jay decides to take on that not very interesting and easy to dismiss assertion instead of responding to the wealth of what I think look like substantive critiques in the thread.

Quoting chiwhisoxx: Echoing an above post, interesting that Jay decides to take on that not very interesting and easy to dismiss assertion instead of responding to the wealth of what I think look like substantive critiques in the thread.

Be careful there AJ, you don't want to rile the mighty Queef. Have noticed your squad made it back over .500 and into the running BTW, WTG.

Quoting chiwhisoxx: Echoing an above post, interesting that Jay decides to take on that not very interesting and easy to dismiss assertion instead of responding to the wealth of what I think look like substantive critiques in the thread.

Name a "substantive critique."

Quoting Whatfur: Be careful there AJ, you don't want to rile the mighty Queef.

Noted for the record.

Quoting chiwhisoxx: Echoing an above post, interesting that Jay decides to take on that not very interesting and easy to dismiss assertion instead of responding to the wealth of what I think look like substantive critiques in the thread.

At some point (which I mostly reached years ago), trying to convince wingnuts that THE ENTIRE MEDIA is not "liberally biased" is like arguing with a determined Moon-hoaxer. No amount of reason will penetrate their calcified shells. Therefore, I expect Jay, like me, is at this point mostly out of gas for dealing with those with foam-flecked lips, and prefers to save energy by pointing out only the most comically crazed assertions.

Quoting AemJeff: Name a "substantive critique."

The real AemJeff:
"Substantive Critique" "means anything" that I deem as such, "so the" post "is self-evidently" non-substantive. "Case closed. And, by the way, Fox News and AM talk aren't "mainstream." Again...his own best example.

Shorter (more mature) 'fur:

Yeah, you're right. I got nothin'.

I do love how 'fur is backpedaling on Fox and hate radio, though. The reverse gear on his tricycle is smoking.

This will now become the response to everything you refer to me in. So feel free to chime in anytime.

Quoting Whatfur: This will now become the response to everything you refer to me in.

So feel free to chime in anytime.

Already did. Congratulations on finally figuring out how to copy the use of the highlight parameter, though. You'r 'puter skillz is teh awesome!!!1!

(Emph. added):

Quoting harkin: And it continues, look at CNN and the amount of people who are still insisting that it's some sort of middle ground when their reporting is only slightly less left than MSNBC. The new media has certainly made inroads based on more outlets of unbiased and/or right-leaning slant on stories and commentary but these are not mainstream. Look at the amount of cheerleading done by the msm for Obama's outright lies on the costs and effects of his healthcare bill and also the incredible amount of condemnation for Arizona's illegal immigration bill in the face of a vast majority of Americans who agree with it.

Poor ol' harkin. NOW where is he going to get his teevee news? (h/t: Riley Waggaman) P.S. Reminder from harkin or similar that MURDOCH IS NOT AN AMERICAN!!!1! in 5..., 4..., 3...

Quoting badhatharry: I have to disagree. I do think CNN is much more in the middle than you describe.

Sorry, I disagree I listen to CNN and its very liberal.

I listen to all of the Sunday shows on CSPAN. And again I need to disagree with you. I think they all make a concerted effort to bring all sides to the table. .

Sorry, I disagree. I listen to all the Sunday shows and all of them are very liberal and unbalanced except FOX - which leans slightly right.

Quoting bjkeefe: (Emph. added):

[...]

Poor ol' harkin. NOW where is he going to get his teevee news?

(h/t: Riley Waggaman)

P.S. Reminder from harkin or similar that MURDOCH IS NOT AN AMERICAN!!!1! in 5..., 4..., 3...

Follow-up from Roy Edroso, looking at some of the early reaction. And do not fail to click the link in the update.

Quoting rcocean: Sorry, I disagree I listen to CNN and its very liberal.

Sorry, I disagree. I listen to all the Sunday shows and all of them are very liberal and unbalanced except FOX - which leans slightly right.

Quoting bjkeefe: Follow-up from Roy Edroso, looking at some of the early reaction. And do not fail to click the link in the update.

Yes, it was remarkable how the host's "illegal... [very long pause, as though not used to following that word with anything else] immigrants" in conversation with Murdoch & Bloomberg reverts to the hammering home of the term "illegals" once they are gone. Yikes.

Quoting listener: Yes, it was remarkable how the host's "illegal... [very long pause, as though not used to following that word with anything else] immigrants" in conversation with Murdoch & Bloomberg reverts to the hammering home of the term "illegals" once they are gone. Yikes.

No, no! Say what you will about the idiocy of Steve Doocy, and I could go on all night and half of tomorrow about it, but in that clip, with Da Boss in Da House, he did get one thing right. He said undocumented (!), not illegal. The real hilarity for me was that then couldn't come up with the next word. It was as though his pea-sized brain could only hold "USE UNDOCUMENTED" and wasn't sure whether immigrants was a no-no.

Quoting bjkeefe: No, no! Say what you will about the idiocy of Steve Doocy, and I could go on all night and half of tomorrow about it, but in that clip, with Da Boss in Da House, he did get one thing right. He said undocumented (!), not illegal. The real hilarity for me was that then couldn't come up with the next word. It was as though his pea-sized brain could only hold "USE UNDOCUMENTED" and wasn't sure whether immigrants was a no-no.

Thanks for the correction. I wrote my comment after viewing the clip only once, and didn't go back to check Doocy's words. But yes, it was that loooong pause that was most remarkable. As you say, one could almost hear his mind searching for an "acceptable" word to follow "undocumented."

If Journalist in the MSM are not biased then Obama might not be President. Mikka B. from Morning Joe was asked is she knew anyone from NBC or CBS that she worked with who voted for Bush, she said no. Mikka said everyone she knows in journalism and TV is a liberal. Not that there is anything wrong with that but it is the overwhelming collection of liberal Group Think in this field that blinds them to seeing their own bias. Liberals are still asking -- " Who is Obama?" Perhaps if the NYT sent 60+ reports and lawyers to Chicago instead of Wassila Alaska , we'd know.