An interesting thread. It raises the larger question: Are institutions of higher education hotbeds of liberalism as is frequently charged?

This gets to the heart of the problem. Inside the academy, the definition of Liberal gets a completely different slant than the popular definition outside of it. In the perfect University (which doesn’t exist), a Liberal education means that the student is exposed to a wide variety of curricula, and is taught tools to examine the curricula. Tools like critical thinking, making cogent argument, ability to defend one’s position using evidence and logic, and so on. The ultimate test of the University is to ask, have the students been given the tools to become lifelong learners?

In one sense, I think this kind of thing IS anathema to many hard core conservatives. The idea that exposing students to different ideas, people, cultures, religions, and what not is seen as an ultimately bad thing. What is ironic is the push by people like Bill Bennett for the return to teaching the “western canon of literature” will inevitably expose the students to some pretty radical thought.

That isn’t to say that there aren’t radical instructors on college campuses that demand adherence to a particular social or political doctrine in the classroom. There are, on both sides of the political aisle. That is, in fact, what Academic Freedom is REALLY about, Ward Churchill notwithstanding.

One thing I have seen in myself regarding “liberal thinking”. As I have purposefully exposed myself to people and situations that are radically different from what I knew as a youth, I have found myself, I suppose, becoming more “Liberal”. Is that a bad thing?

There is a good point made here. Just because most journalists are liberal and vote for Democrats doesn’t mean that they do their job with a slant. As professionals, their job is to be objective and go at a story with full force, and investigate all angles.

Given that virtual every significant story published today does not exhibit that professional rigor, it is a logical conclusion that most journalists today are not being professional. They do put their personal biases ahead of their job, and that has become acceptable in their industry.

You want a perfect example? Compare the coverage of Obama with the coverage of Bush. Compare the Obama birth certificate issue with the Bush National Guard issue. When an entire industry ignores a constitutional crisis because they want their guy elected, you know that they have thrown professionalism out the window.

Good points, hs. Your post reminded me of a certain sociology professor I had in college (my minor is in sociology). The guy was from the Soviet Union and was teaching a class on Soviet vs. U.S. society. Just to note, this man left the Soviet Union before they shut the door to emigration completely. He left knowing he could never go back, and that there was a chance he’d never see his parents again. But back to the original point… I remember asking him about his ideological stance. He said what he thought wasn’t relevant. It was his intent to teach a value-free course, and from what I experienced, he was completely succesful at it.

Rohert: “he was completely succesful at it.” You make this game too easy:
“successful.”
The J-schoolers from the 60’s now call themselves “progressives” even though they are still living in the 60’s. LOL! They admit going into journalism to change the world to their point of view, and it doesn’t matter a wit about who writes the checks. Mr. Mowbray, editor of the PD is a big lefty, so stop acting like the editors are all conservatives (Rohert). That is a completely false assumption that you make, and you can’t give one example to prove your theory.

Harnack, you were probably a youth back in the 30’s after our first Fascist president Woodrow Wilson was in office and the journalists were probably conservative following that period of time and being that the case were probably a lot more ethical than the lefty ones of today who do nothing more than promote their agenda. Look how the P-D alone reports on healthcare and global warming. Everything is a crisis! When was the last time they published the graph of Iraq and Afghanistan war deaths? They refuse to publish it under the Obamanation, even though Mr. O has sent in a surge of troops into Afghanistan. Shame on the P-D!

This might never end, so I make a last post on this subject and leave it. The idea “media are corporately owned and corporate types are conservative, so the media can’t be liberal” is a crap syllogism. Media may be profit-driven - Oooo! How despicably conservative!! - but as I have explained many times, editorial management and journalists are the eyes and ears of its news-gathering function, and at least one of you folks who stick your fingers in your ears and hum “Nnnnahhh, media’s-not-liberal!Nnnnnnah, media’s-not-liberal…!!” has acknowledged journalists lean to the left. The “conservative (LOL!!!)” corporate owners write and cash the checks, staying out of content decisions.
There is one way to lay this question to rest (though it still wouldn’t satisfy the plugged-ear hummers). First, define what constitutes leftist bias, then provide examples of how it’s been going on in the MSM for 20-plus years. I did just that for a liberal journalism professor 15 years ago. (He is a true “liberal” as in Ben Franklin, not Al Franken.) He conceded contrary to his previous belief, there is mucho leftist bias in the electronic and print news media. ThinkI gave one example. Hundreds more are out there, documented. With more time and space, I would love to give this subject the treatment it deserves. But that would be a thesis, not a blog post. Have at it, guys and gals. Catch you on another thread. . .

A Centrist… Thanks for catching the typo. I’m glad you finally learned how to use spellcheck.

A Centrist… Where did I write about editors? I wrote about the owners. Does the difference between an editor and an owner really need to be explained to you?

Rohert: “And when it comes down to it, they ARE the final editor.” I read that to mean that the “editors” are important in making final editing decisions about what selectively gets printed.

Why are you such an ugly, hatefilled human(?) being? I know perfectly well the difference between the editor and the owner and your condescending schtick is beyond arrogant.

Get out of the kitchen, A Centrist.

My last comment on this thread: We are fooling ourselves if we actually believe that there is such a thing as an unbiased person, in any role they might fulfill. Whether it is a Judge, a Doctor, or a Journalist, any profession that requires a person to make decisions where there is no clear exact answer will be biased in their decisions.

I remember, a long time ago, a college professor I had gave us a one hour lecture on the subject of Hermeneutics, which is the scholarly study of translation. I think the concept applies here as well. It is a fundamentally understood principle of language translation that the bias of the translator will appear in the translation. It is so basic an idea that it’s just assumed to be true by those doing translation. However, to most people on the street, this entire concept seems like questioning whether the earth is round.

Journalists are people, and the best ones will acknowledge their tendency to bias, and work to mitigate against it. However, my observation these days, is that there are darned few who actually do both of those things.

My stock statement about the previous slogan of Fox news, “Fair and Balanced” is this: if a media outlet has to advertise themselves as fair and balanced, then it’s obvious that they are not. Kind of like the old style road house that hung up a huge neon sign flashing “Good Food”. That always meant “stay away” to me.