OK, I’ll jump in first.
I think EJ says it all. He “was liberal before he attended…J-school.” It’s not a chicken-or-egg proposition. Most people who go into the field are liberal. But J-school does not - as I believe it should - encourage students to strive for balance. EJ and I are unlikely ever to agree, but his idea about “progressive change” puzzles me. Do we qualify “progressive” change versus “retrograde” change, and classify the former as “news” and the latter as “?whatever?” I think EJ is saying that “liberal thinkers” - who (JUST AS AN EXAMPLE) would think a story about an injustice toward a minority is front-page stuff while yawning at the story of a Christian teacher who is blackballed by a state university - should be the gatekeepers of the journalism world. (I DON’T THINK J-SCHOOLS TURN STUDENTS WHO ARE NOT DISPOSED TO LIBERALISM INTO LIBERALS, THOUGH.)

No, in that gradeschools, middle-schools, high schools, AND colleges are incubators for liberals.

But at least this is a topic with some meat on the bone. Congratulations,
even a blind squirrel can occasionally find a nut.

This question flabbergasts me.

Philosophical outlook:(liberal/conservative/anarchist/libertarian/green)is being confused with political affiliation (Democrat/Republican/Socialist/Libertarian/Green). The two sometimes are in synch, but not always, because there is the attitude toward and the substance it is being applied to. (One can be a liberal Catholic or a conservative Democrat, for examples.)

Both are being confused with the traits which would lead someone into journalism: because one is curious about the world; a bit extroverted or brash (you cannot be a reporter and be shy about contacting or asking questions of strangers);open-minded (or at least willing to listen, if not to accept a different point of view); willing to try new things, or go where you’ve never been, sometimes at a risk to one’s self(and able to send others to do so as well); able to adapt to a variety of situations, and having the discipline to learn the communication tools of one’s craft. Another trait is having a certain bravado and chutzpah that what you will say is worth hearing and others paying for; a self-effacing person unsure of him or herself only becomes a journalist if forced into it, or as self-therapy.

It is largely true in my experience that an incurious, shy, close-minded person unwilling to experience life to the fullest or travel, with no aptitude for communication nor any self-confidence goes into journalism.
People willing to do and say and promote as they are told make very good publicists, public relations types, and propagandists. But when you start to pander (or when you push a message you really sincerely believe in)you have to fight to keep the journalistic integrity of listening to and telling both sides of the story. Some people lose and become advocates for one side or other, and make a good living doing so.

Look at the journalism traits above. They apply equally to the public personas of Ariana Huffington, Rush Limbaugh, Barbara Walters, Ann Coulter, Walter Cronkite, William Randolph Hearst, Dan Rather, Ted Koppel, Alistair Cooke, and Joe Pulitzer. People of strong interests (and opinions) of all political and philosophical bents but with journalism traits go to J-schools these days. Yes academe encourages journalism traits in an atmosphere of freedom, not constrained by earning a living, kowtowing to the boss, coddling the advertisers and readers, keeping one’s mouth shut to earn a paycheck, or other traits one has to develop to earn a living in journalism (or anywhere)

So, no, I don’t think liberals per se choose J-school (except insofar as 18-year-olds know what they think yet) but the curious, math-averse (that eliminates a career in science)person willing to work long hours perfecting an intellectual craft while chasing what they see as a romantic way to make their mark widely do. And that person can come from any political or philosophical background.

I think it is safe to say that all college educated people are there to broaden their horizons,which involves a little bit at least temporary open mindededness. Even someone going to an evangelistic Christian school, bent on becoming a minister,gets a broader education than his or her contemporary who becomes a housewife or takes his dad’s place in the factory (good luck!) That’s what education is all about.

Correction to paragraph three:
It is largely true in my experience that an incurious, shy, close-minded person unwilling to experience life to the fullest or travel, with no aptitude for communication nor any self-confidence RARELY goes into journalism.

That word was there when I made the post. Really.

I am always amused by the argument that reporters write the way they vote.

The real allegation is that reporters can’t keep their personal lives separate from their work responsibilities. And of course this is nonsense. People keep these priorities in balance all the time. They’re called professionals.

Agreed, Susan. I appreciate your statement: “But when you pander (or push a message you believe in)you have to fight to keep the journalistic integrity of listening to and telling both sides.” It would work that way in a perfect world, but doesn’t. The question flabbergasts you, so you must not agree “J-schools are incubators for liberals.” (I don’t either, though they don’t do a good enough job teaching the discipline of objectivity to students who more often than not lean leftward.)But I have horror stories from a semester working under a student-editor who treated like dirt reporters who didn’t share her far-left ideology. Journalists are a left-of-center breed who face the challenge of staying true to their calling, even when the truth that begs chronicling sometimes hurts. And the quip about “math aversion” is spot on.

The “Journalists are Liberals” canard is generally false. In my youth most “Journalists” were quite conservative and status quo conscious. A few were “liberal” in that they challenged their own and other’s assumption about the necessity and rightness of the status quo.

I’ve been part of both the professional and academic sides of journalism for years. Some recent research has suggested that while there may be a slight tilt to the left among the news producers, the company owners and management tend to favor a conservative leaning. That’s worth a few moments of consideration. I also teach that when it comes to producing journalism, it’s a question of professionalism, not personal ideology. I may think a certain way as an individual, but we journalists should be aware of that and adjust accordingly.

Butler… Thank you. I’ve argued a similar point on these blogs about the media owners: that generally, they are conservative. And when it comes down to it, they ARE the final editor. They write the paychecks, so ultimately they say what goes. Therefore, if people want to complain about news with a liberal bent, blame the conservative owners, who at the very least give their tacit approval to what runs. The right just doesn’t get it: they’re being eaten by their own.

“Agreed, Susan. I appreciate your statement: “But when you pander (or push a message you believe in)you have to fight to keep the journalistic integrity of listening to and telling both sides.” It would work that way in a perfect world, but doesn’t.” Joe L.

In the world of print, it’s pretty easy to be even handed, if you understand the tools you are using. Also, it’s not a good idea to take on a divisive story where you personally are involved. Judges call it recusing themselves to avoid any impropriety. You wouldn’t (and shouldn’t)knowingly send a reporter to a car wreck involving his or her mother, and expect objective journalism.

Broadcast journalism is more difficult, since the reporter, as a human being, is sometimes going to tip his or her hand, even involuntarily in tone of voice, expression, intensity or so forth. It didn’t take more than a 10 year old to know that Walter Cronkite enjoyed reporting on space, and that he was “pro-space” in a way that an Amish reporter may not have been.

The problem as I see it is that while there is a time and place for informative features, there is also a time and place for objective reporting. As long as people are doing the reporting, it will never be 100% objective. But so much “news” these days is slanted so hard in the name of being made into human interest, that its reliability is in question. And that’s why people don’t trust journalism, or journalists anymore.