GOD TALKS, SEAHAWKS WALK

[Bird Droppings]

Adam Muema, a running back from San Diego State, who packed up and left the NFL Combine Buffet after GOD told him that the Seahawks were his destiny, has "quit football".

The reason: the Hawks didn't draft him.

What's next?

He's joining the MMA.

I hope he doesn't wrestle with his decision and get boxed in.

zoom

[RiverDog]

Maybe he ought to join Tim Tebow and form a partnership of NFL wannabee bible beaters.

[Eaglehawk]

Why would he quit anything and say that the Seahawks were his destiny? Certainly does not show character but craziness.
Who knows, maybe he might in the years ahead get a FO job helping out the scouts.

God's words may yet come true.

[HumanCockroach]

Actually feel kind of bad for the guy. He NEEDS help. His "god" is really information coming to him through a cult, and that isn't something I would wish on anyone. His friends and family need to find a way to pry him out of there. I remember saying "he sounded crazy" and debating it with Monkey, at the time the assumption was it was actually a religious thing, turns out it really isn't and I hope the kid finds his way free from that stuff, and fast. He also said "god" told him there would be no football season ( or maybe it was the draft, I'm really not sure) because the world would end before it happened, seems to be the MO for cults like this, and sometimes, they take things to the extreme.

[monkey]

Why would he quit anything and say that the Seahawks were his destiny? Certainly does not show character but craziness.
Who knows, maybe he might in the years ahead get a FO job helping out the scouts.

God's words may yet come true.

GOD's words always come true.
Trouble is, people with mental problems aren't hearing GOD's words...they are hearing something quite different.
That internet guy he was following was essentially a cult.
The whole thing is sad, but the media loves it, because they think it validates their position that everyone who says they "hear" the voice of GOD and obey it, is crazy. So these kinds of stories get all kinds of pub.

[RiverDog]

Why would he quit anything and say that the Seahawks were his destiny? Certainly does not show character but craziness.
Who knows, maybe he might in the years ahead get a FO job helping out the scouts.

God's words may yet come true.

GOD's words always come true.
Trouble is, people with mental problems aren't hearing GOD's words...they are hearing something quite different.
That internet guy he was following was essentially a cult.
The whole thing is sad, but the media loves it, because they think it validates their position that everyone who says they "hear" the voice of GOD and obey it, is crazy. So these kinds of stories get all kinds of pub.

The media loves it because it attracts readers. I don't see it as evidence that they harbor some sort of anti God agenda and are using stories like these to manipulate the minds of their readers. Their job is to sell advertising, and attracting readership/viewership is the key component in their job descriptions.

[burrrton]

I hope he doesn't wrestle with his decision and get boxed in.

Booooooooooo...

[Eaglehawk]

Why would he quit anything and say that the Seahawks were his destiny? Certainly does not show character but craziness.
Who knows, maybe he might in the years ahead get a FO job helping out the scouts.

God's words may yet come true.

GOD's words always come true.
Trouble is, people with mental problems aren't hearing GOD's words...they are hearing something quite different.
That internet guy he was following was essentially a cult.
The whole thing is sad, but the media loves it, because they think it validates their position that everyone who says they "hear" the voice of GOD and obey it, is crazy. So these kinds of stories get all kinds of pub.

He sounded as if he either had head problems or was in a cult. Didn't know it was an internet guy. Horrible and sad. I know of other people in a cult. They suck the life blood out of you. Then leave you on the floor to figure out what just happened. Hopefully he will wake up and train up and come back hard for his missed opportunity. For his sake at least.

[Eaglehawk]

Why would he quit anything and say that the Seahawks were his destiny? Certainly does not show character but craziness.
Who knows, maybe he might in the years ahead get a FO job helping out the scouts.

God's words may yet come true.

GOD's words always come true.
Trouble is, people with mental problems aren't hearing GOD's words...they are hearing something quite different.
That internet guy he was following was essentially a cult.
The whole thing is sad, but the media loves it, because they think it validates their position that everyone who says they "hear" the voice of GOD and obey it, is crazy. So these kinds of stories get all kinds of pub.

The media loves it because it attracts readers. I don't see it as evidence that they harbor some sort of anti God agenda and are using stories like these to manipulate the minds of their readers. Their job is to sell advertising, and attracting readership/viewership is the key component in their job descriptions.

The media and god? I have no idea how they are getting along these days. I can't think of any reason as to why they would be anti god. But I can't think of anything that would tell me that they would be pro god either. At least not at the moment. I would think there would be evidence for both points of view.

[RiverDog]

[The media and god? I have no idea how they are getting along these days. I can't think of any reason as to why they would be anti god. But I can't think of anything that would tell me that they would be pro god either. At least not at the moment. I would think there would be evidence for both points of view.

I'm not speaking for monkey, but there is a sentiment out there that the media as a whole is more liberal than they are conservative, and since one of the liberal agendas includes such things like being against school prayer, there's a possibility that they could be using weird news of this sort to paint their conservative opponents are a bunch of crazed lunatics. As I said, I do not believe this to be the case and feel that their motivation has more to do with economics than it does philosophy.

[HumanCockroach]

[The media and god? I have no idea how they are getting along these days. I can't think of any reason as to why they would be anti god. But I can't think of anything that would tell me that they would be pro god either. At least not at the moment. I would think there would be evidence for both points of view.

I'm not speaking for monkey, but there is a sentiment out there that the media as a whole is more liberal than they are conservative, and since one of the liberal agendas includes such things like being against school prayer, there's a possibility that they could be using weird news of this sort to paint their conservative opponents are a bunch of crazed lunatics. As I said, I do not believe this to be the case and feel that their motivation has more to do with economics than it does philosophy.

Which is kind of funny when you think about it, because that's really something most conservatives respect and encourage.... ( the money gaining part, not the rreligious stuff). The more I watch this world, the more I find the inability to see things as people just being people funny and ironic. Everyone wants money, liberal or conservative, everyone wants what' s best for them and in their own interest, and yet, when someone else does the exact same thing, they are "evil" or misguided or some other random judgement passed from one group to the other. It cracks me up every time.

Just sayin'.... and no, let's not go off on a political tangent here, just find it funny is all....

[savvyman]

The Liberal media is a complete myth.

The media today is bought and paid for by advertising from corporations and are regulated by the government who they do not want to piss off.

What this means is that you will only find in the media the viewpoints that the ruling class wishes for you to hold.

The media has never been this concentrated in such a few peoples hands. Your media is owned by the ruling class. And contrary to what Burton will tell you - You are not a member of that club . - See link below.

http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6


60 minutes is a great example - Years ago, it used to be a hard hitting show that exposed all kinds of wrongdoing by the government and by large corporations - Today? Nothing but puff pieces - I stopped watching years ago.

The only decent independent media show left is this one - and why is it that "Frontline" - which is a PBS show that most americans could not even identify - the only media outlet that is taking on the most grievous assault on the citizens of the USA privacy & freedom in the history of the country?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/united-states-of-secrets/

[burrrton]

Your media is owned by the ruling class. And contrary to what Burton will tell you - You are not a member of that club . - See link below.

I'm just reading along innocently, then see I'm an @sshole somehow.

Man, I've really mind-fcked you somewhere along the way. LOL.

[burrrton]

And to add some content:

I didn't think the "media leans left" thing was disputed anymore. I'll find links, but I think even reporters admit they're 90% left-leaning.

The contention now is only over whether it slants their reporting, or, when that fails, whether it's unreasonable for it do so.

And no, savvy, you stalker, this doesn't mean I dispute that X% of media is controlled by X corporations. I have no idea but wouldn't be surprised.

[Eaglehawk]

[The media and god? I have no idea how they are getting along these days. I can't think of any reason as to why they would be anti god. But I can't think of anything that would tell me that they would be pro god either. At least not at the moment. I would think there would be evidence for both points of view.

I'm not speaking for monkey, but there is a sentiment out there that the media as a whole is more liberal than they are conservative, and since one of the liberal agendas includes such things like being against school prayer, there's a possibility that they could be using weird news of this sort to paint their conservative opponents are a bunch of crazed lunatics. As I said, I do not believe this to be the case and feel that their motivation has more to do with economics than it does philosophy.

Which is kind of funny when you think about it, because that's really something most conservatives respect and encourage.... ( the money gaining part, not the rreligious stuff). The more I watch this world, the more I find the inability to see things as people just being people funny and ironic. Everyone wants money, liberal or conservative, everyone wants what' s best for them and in their own interest, and yet, when someone else does the exact same thing, they are "evil" or misguided or some other random judgement passed from one group to the other. It cracks me up every time.

Just sayin'.... and no, let's not go off on a political tangent here, just find it funny is all....

So much for that notion brother...

[RiverDog]

The Liberal media is a complete myth.

The media today is bought and paid for by advertising from corporations and are regulated by the government who they do not want to piss off.

What this means is that you will only find in the media the viewpoints that the ruling class wishes for you to hold.

The media has never been this concentrated in such a few peoples hands. Your media is owned by the ruling class. And contrary to what Burton will tell you - You are not a member of that club . - See link below.

http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6


60 minutes is a great example - Years ago, it used to be a hard hitting show that exposed all kinds of wrongdoing by the government and by large corporations - Today? Nothing but puff pieces - I stopped watching years ago.

The only decent independent media show left is this one - and why is it that "Frontline" - which is a PBS show that most americans could not even identify - the only media outlet that is taking on the most grievous assault on the citizens of the USA privacy & freedom in the history of the country?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/united-states-of-secrets/

Not true. There is a liberal media. But there is also a conservative media. For every Dan Rather, there's a Rush Limbaugh. It's cafeteria style news. Whatever news it is you like to read, someone out there will be willing to feed it to you.

I apologize for going off topic.

[NorthHawk]

Unfortunately, true investigative journalists are fading away to be replaced by bloggers at a time when we need them most.

[RiverDog]

Unfortunately, true investigative journalists are fading away to be replaced by bloggers at a time when we need them most.

I never had a lot of respect for investigative journalists, either. They were motivated by sensational news, things that people could easily understand, like sex or drugs. Put a story out there about a city council that awards a big contract to the son-in-law of a council member and that won't raise an eyebrow. But if a council member was having an extramarital affair with the secretary, it would make the front page.

[HumanCockroach]

Ah, the days of the news and media just reporting the news, and allowing a person to decide for themselves how they should feel or what they should think about it..... alas, those days are long, long, long gone. There was a time, but those times have been murdered, quartered and disembowelled.

[Eaglehawk]

Unfortunately, true investigative journalists are fading away to be replaced by bloggers at a time when we need them most.

I never had a lot of respect for investigative journalists, either. They were motivated by sensational news, things that people could easily understand, like sex or drugs. Put a story out there about a city council that awards a big contract to the son-in-law of a council member and that won't raise an eyebrow. But if a council member was having an extramarital affair with the secretary, it would make the front page.

What Geraldo Rivera did with the mental hospitals was huge in New York and arguably for the country.
I was young but I remember. His work was brilliant.
But today? Nah, they all sing the same song, regardless of the TV channel.

[FolkCrusader]

The Liberal media is a complete myth.

The media today is bought and paid for by advertising from corporations and are regulated by the government who they do not want to piss off.

What this means is that you will only find in the media the viewpoints that the ruling class wishes for you to hold.

The media has never been this concentrated in such a few peoples hands. Your media is owned by the ruling class. And contrary to what Burton will tell you - You are not a member of that club . - See link below.

http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6


60 minutes is a great example - Years ago, it used to be a hard hitting show that exposed all kinds of wrongdoing by the government and by large corporations - Today? Nothing but puff pieces - I stopped watching years ago.

The only decent independent media show left is this one - and why is it that "Frontline" - which is a PBS show that most americans could not even identify - the only media outlet that is taking on the most grievous assault on the citizens of the USA privacy & freedom in the history of the country?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/united-states-of-secrets/

Not true. There is a liberal media. But there is also a conservative media. For every Dan Rather, there's a Rush Limbaugh. It's cafeteria style news. Whatever news it is you like to read, someone out there will be willing to feed it to you.

I apologize for going off topic.

Thank you RD, hammer hit nail squarely here.

[RiverDog]

Unfortunately, true investigative journalists are fading away to be replaced by bloggers at a time when we need them most.

I never had a lot of respect for investigative journalists, either. They were motivated by sensational news, things that people could easily understand, like sex or drugs. Put a story out there about a city council that awards a big contract to the son-in-law of a council member and that won't raise an eyebrow. But if a council member was having an extramarital affair with the secretary, it would make the front page.

What Geraldo Rivera did with the mental hospitals was huge in New York and arguably for the country.
I was young but I remember. His work was brilliant.
But today? Nah, they all sing the same song, regardless of the TV channel.

Yea, and I also remember Geraldo hosting a live broadcast of the opening of Al Capone's secret vault. Great investigative journalism in that piece. And I remember him bringing a bunch of skin heads onto his show then getting into a Jerry Springer-style fight with them on live TV. He's as much into sensationalism as anyone else, perhaps more so.

[monkey]

[The media and god? I have no idea how they are getting along these days. I can't think of any reason as to why they would be anti god. But I can't think of anything that would tell me that they would be pro god either. At least not at the moment. I would think there would be evidence for both points of view.

I'm not speaking for monkey, but there is a sentiment out there that the media as a whole is more liberal than they are conservative, and since one of the liberal agendas includes such things like being against school prayer, there's a possibility that they could be using weird news of this sort to paint their conservative opponents are a bunch of crazed lunatics. As I said, I do not believe this to be the case and feel that their motivation has more to do with economics than it does philosophy.

Fully 81% of news media professionals favor affirmative action in employment and academia.
Some 71% agree that the “government should work to ensure that everyone has a job.”
75% agree that the “government should work to reduce the income gap between rich and poor.”
56% say that the United States has exploited the nations of the Third World.
57% say that America’s disproportionate consumption of the world’s natural resources is “immoral.”
Nearly half agree that “the very structure of our society causes people to feel alienated.”
Only 30% agree that “private enterprise is fair to workers.”
It is equally illuminating to examine the degree to which members of the news media have supported Democrat or liberal/left candidates and causes, both at the ballot box and with their checkbooks:


In 1964, 94% of media professionals voted for Democrat Lyndon Johnson over Republican Barry Goldwater.
In 1968, 86% voted for Democrat Hubert Humphrey over Republican Richard Nixon.
In 1972, 81% voted for Democrat George McGovern over the incumbent Nixon.
In 1976, 81% voted for Democrat Jimmy Carter over Republican Gerald Ford.
In 1980, twice as many cast their ballots for Carter rather than for Republican Ronald Reagan.
In 1984, 58% supported Democrat Walter Mondale, whom Reagan defeated in the biggest landslide in presidential election history.
In 1988, White House correspondents from various major newspapers, television networks, magazines, and news services supported Democrat Michael Dukakis over Republican George H.W. Bush by a ratio of 12-to-1.
In 1992, those same correspondents supported Democrat Bill Clinton over the incumbent Bush by a ratio of 9 to 2.
Among Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, the disparity was 89% vs. 7%, in Clinton’s favor.
In a 2004 poll of campaign journalists, those based outside of Washington, DC supported Democrat John Kerry over Republican George W. Bush by a ratio of 3-to-1. Those based inside the Beltway favored Kerry by a 12-to-1 ratio.
In a 2008 survey of 144 journalists nationwide, journalists were 8 times likelier to make campaign contributions to Democrats than to Republicans.
A 2008 Investors Business Daily study put the campaign donation ratio at 11.5-to-1, in favor of Democrats. In terms of total dollars given, the ratio was 15-to-1.
It is exceedingly rare to find, even in the most heavily partisan voting districts in the United States, such pronounced imbalances in terms of votes cast or dollars earmarked for one party or the other. 


The figures cited above are entirely consistent with how news-media professionals identify themselves in terms of their political party affiliations and ideological leanings:


In a 1988 survey of business reporters, 54% of respondents identified themselves as Democrats, 9% as Republicans.
In a 1992 poll of journalists working for newspapers, magazines, radio, and television, 44% called themselves Democrats, 16% Republicans.
In a 1996 poll of 1,037 reporters at 61 newspapers, 61% identified themselves as Democrats, 15% as Republicans.
In a 2001 Kaiser Family Foundation poll, media professionals were nearly 7 times likelier to call themselves Democrats rather than Republicans.
A 2014 study by Indiana University's School of Journalism found that just 7.1% of all journalists identified themselves as Republicans, vs, 28.1% who self-identified as Democrats and 50.2% who said they were Independents.
We see similar ratios in studies where news people are asked to rate themselves on the left-to-right political spectrum:


In a 1981 study of 240 journalists nationwide, 65% identified themselves as liberals, 17% as conservatives.
In a 1983 study of news reporters, executives, and staffers, 32% identified themselves as liberals, 11% as conservatives.
In a 1992 study of more than 1,400 journalists, 44% identified themselves as liberals, 22% as conservatives.
In a 1996 study of Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, 61% identified themselves as liberals, 9% as conservatives.
In a 1996 study of 1,037 journalists, the respondents identified themselves as liberals 4 times more frequently than as conservatives. Among journalists working for newspapers with circulations exceeding 50,000, the ratio of liberals to conservatives was 5.4 to 1.
In a 2004 Pew Research Center study of journalists and media executives, the ratio of self-identified liberals to conservatives was 4.9 to 1.
In a 2007 Pew Research Center study of journalists and news executives, the ratio was 4 liberals for each conservative.




Yeah, the media is HUGELY liberal, and biased.

[Eaglehawk]

Agreed Riv and Monkey. Facts don't lie.

[FolkCrusader]

Fully 81% of news media professionals favor affirmative action in employment and academia.
Some 71% agree that the “government should work to ensure that everyone has a job.”
75% agree that the “government should work to reduce the income gap between rich and poor.”
56% say that the United States has exploited the nations of the Third World.
57% say that America’s disproportionate consumption of the world’s natural resources is “immoral.”
Nearly half agree that “the very structure of our society causes people to feel alienated.”
Only 30% agree that “private enterprise is fair to workers.”
It is equally illuminating to examine the degree to which members of the news media have supported Democrat or liberal/left candidates and causes, both at the ballot box and with their checkbooks:


In 1964, 94% of media professionals voted for Democrat Lyndon Johnson over Republican Barry Goldwater.
In 1968, 86% voted for Democrat Hubert Humphrey over Republican Richard Nixon.
In 1972, 81% voted for Democrat George McGovern over the incumbent Nixon.
In 1976, 81% voted for Democrat Jimmy Carter over Republican Gerald Ford.
In 1980, twice as many cast their ballots for Carter rather than for Republican Ronald Reagan.
In 1984, 58% supported Democrat Walter Mondale, whom Reagan defeated in the biggest landslide in presidential election history.
In 1988, White House correspondents from various major newspapers, television networks, magazines, and news services supported Democrat Michael Dukakis over Republican George H.W. Bush by a ratio of 12-to-1.
In 1992, those same correspondents supported Democrat Bill Clinton over the incumbent Bush by a ratio of 9 to 2.
Among Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, the disparity was 89% vs. 7%, in Clinton’s favor.
In a 2004 poll of campaign journalists, those based outside of Washington, DC supported Democrat John Kerry over Republican George W. Bush by a ratio of 3-to-1. Those based inside the Beltway favored Kerry by a 12-to-1 ratio.
In a 2008 survey of 144 journalists nationwide, journalists were 8 times likelier to make campaign contributions to Democrats than to Republicans.
A 2008 Investors Business Daily study put the campaign donation ratio at 11.5-to-1, in favor of Democrats. In terms of total dollars given, the ratio was 15-to-1.
It is exceedingly rare to find, even in the most heavily partisan voting districts in the United States, such pronounced imbalances in terms of votes cast or dollars earmarked for one party or the other. 


The figures cited above are entirely consistent with how news-media professionals identify themselves in terms of their political party affiliations and ideological leanings:


In a 1988 survey of business reporters, 54% of respondents identified themselves as Democrats, 9% as Republicans.
In a 1992 poll of journalists working for newspapers, magazines, radio, and television, 44% called themselves Democrats, 16% Republicans.
In a 1996 poll of 1,037 reporters at 61 newspapers, 61% identified themselves as Democrats, 15% as Republicans.
In a 2001 Kaiser Family Foundation poll, media professionals were nearly 7 times likelier to call themselves Democrats rather than Republicans.
A 2014 study by Indiana University's School of Journalism found that just 7.1% of all journalists identified themselves as Republicans, vs, 28.1% who self-identified as Democrats and 50.2% who said they were Independents.
We see similar ratios in studies where news people are asked to rate themselves on the left-to-right political spectrum:


In a 1981 study of 240 journalists nationwide, 65% identified themselves as liberals, 17% as conservatives.
In a 1983 study of news reporters, executives, and staffers, 32% identified themselves as liberals, 11% as conservatives.
In a 1992 study of more than 1,400 journalists, 44% identified themselves as liberals, 22% as conservatives.
In a 1996 study of Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, 61% identified themselves as liberals, 9% as conservatives.
In a 1996 study of 1,037 journalists, the respondents identified themselves as liberals 4 times more frequently than as conservatives. Among journalists working for newspapers with circulations exceeding 50,000, the ratio of liberals to conservatives was 5.4 to 1.
In a 2004 Pew Research Center study of journalists and media executives, the ratio of self-identified liberals to conservatives was 4.9 to 1.
In a 2007 Pew Research Center study of journalists and news executives, the ratio was 4 liberals for each conservative.

Google and I could not confirm a singe one of your "facts" Eagle, although I found many reprinted on the literally thousands of right wing media web sites on the web. Of course no source link. Not that I doubt them, but seriously how many people get news from a newspaper anymore? Most get a feed on their iphone. Most are prepackaged by large media companies

It is true that most people with an achieved grade level over 11 tend to identify themselves as liberal thinkers. Just like the majority of people that think Noah built the largest wooden boat in history with no trees or woodworking skills, loaded the food water and bedding for literally thousands of animals inside it, and survived for months in a flood that there is literally not enough water on earth for, identify themselves as conservatives. I know tons of socially liberal and economically conservative people. I know states rights liberals. I know central government conservatives. Trying to lump people in to two groups is crazy talk, just like trying to lump the media in to two groups is impossible. Everyone knows the Washington Post will print the conservative Republican agenda. Everyone knows the New York Times will tend to print the more liberal Democratic agenda. Same with FOX and MSNBC, while CNN will run stories about aliens abducting an airliner. News is a product packaged for each consumer. Want perspective, you will not get that easily. I read the BBC UK page (which is much harder to get to than you would think). I read the Christian Science Monitor. I do love the Sunday NY Times. Use a lot of Global security.org C-span is still awesome. My BS detector is well tuned and won't wast time with the likes of Fox or MSNBC.

[Futureite]

[The media and god? I have no idea how they are getting along these days. I can't think of any reason as to why they would be anti god. But I can't think of anything that would tell me that they would be pro god either. At least not at the moment. I would think there would be evidence for both points of view.

I'm not speaking for monkey, but there is a sentiment out there that the media as a whole is more liberal than they are conservative, and since one of the liberal agendas includes such things like being against school prayer, there's a possibility that they could be using weird news of this sort to paint their conservative opponents are a bunch of crazed lunatics. As I said, I do not believe this to be the case and feel that their motivation has more to do with economics than it does philosophy.

Fully 81% of news media professionals favor affirmative action in employment and academia.
Some 71% agree that the “government should work to ensure that everyone has a job.”
75% agree that the “government should work to reduce the income gap between rich and poor.”
56% say that the United States has exploited the nations of the Third World.
57% say that America’s disproportionate consumption of the world’s natural resources is “immoral.”
Nearly half agree that “the very structure of our society causes people to feel alienated.”
Only 30% agree that “private enterprise is fair to workers.”
It is equally illuminating to examine the degree to which members of the news media have supported Democrat or liberal/left candidates and causes, both at the ballot box and with their checkbooks:


In 1964, 94% of media professionals voted for Democrat Lyndon Johnson over Republican Barry Goldwater.
In 1968, 86% voted for Democrat Hubert Humphrey over Republican Richard Nixon.
In 1972, 81% voted for Democrat George McGovern over the incumbent Nixon.
In 1976, 81% voted for Democrat Jimmy Carter over Republican Gerald Ford.
In 1980, twice as many cast their ballots for Carter rather than for Republican Ronald Reagan.
In 1984, 58% supported Democrat Walter Mondale, whom Reagan defeated in the biggest landslide in presidential election history.
In 1988, White House correspondents from various major newspapers, television networks, magazines, and news services supported Democrat Michael Dukakis over Republican George H.W. Bush by a ratio of 12-to-1.
In 1992, those same correspondents supported Democrat Bill Clinton over the incumbent Bush by a ratio of 9 to 2.
Among Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, the disparity was 89% vs. 7%, in Clinton’s favor.
In a 2004 poll of campaign journalists, those based outside of Washington, DC supported Democrat John Kerry over Republican George W. Bush by a ratio of 3-to-1. Those based inside the Beltway favored Kerry by a 12-to-1 ratio.
In a 2008 survey of 144 journalists nationwide, journalists were 8 times likelier to make campaign contributions to Democrats than to Republicans.
A 2008 Investors Business Daily study put the campaign donation ratio at 11.5-to-1, in favor of Democrats. In terms of total dollars given, the ratio was 15-to-1.
It is exceedingly rare to find, even in the most heavily partisan voting districts in the United States, such pronounced imbalances in terms of votes cast or dollars earmarked for one party or the other. 


The figures cited above are entirely consistent with how news-media professionals identify themselves in terms of their political party affiliations and ideological leanings:


In a 1988 survey of business reporters, 54% of respondents identified themselves as Democrats, 9% as Republicans.
In a 1992 poll of journalists working for newspapers, magazines, radio, and television, 44% called themselves Democrats, 16% Republicans.
In a 1996 poll of 1,037 reporters at 61 newspapers, 61% identified themselves as Democrats, 15% as Republicans.
In a 2001 Kaiser Family Foundation poll, media professionals were nearly 7 times likelier to call themselves Democrats rather than Republicans.
A 2014 study by Indiana University's School of Journalism found that just 7.1% of all journalists identified themselves as Republicans, vs, 28.1% who self-identified as Democrats and 50.2% who said they were Independents.
We see similar ratios in studies where news people are asked to rate themselves on the left-to-right political spectrum:


In a 1981 study of 240 journalists nationwide, 65% identified themselves as liberals, 17% as conservatives.
In a 1983 study of news reporters, executives, and staffers, 32% identified themselves as liberals, 11% as conservatives.
In a 1992 study of more than 1,400 journalists, 44% identified themselves as liberals, 22% as conservatives.
In a 1996 study of Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, 61% identified themselves as liberals, 9% as conservatives.
In a 1996 study of 1,037 journalists, the respondents identified themselves as liberals 4 times more frequently than as conservatives. Among journalists working for newspapers with circulations exceeding 50,000, the ratio of liberals to conservatives was 5.4 to 1.
In a 2004 Pew Research Center study of journalists and media executives, the ratio of self-identified liberals to conservatives was 4.9 to 1.
In a 2007 Pew Research Center study of journalists and news executives, the ratio was 4 liberals for each conservative.




Yeah, the media is HUGELY liberal, and biased.

Weren't the current definitions of "democrat" and "republican" flipflopped in the 60? The statistical comparisons have to be viewed in that context.

[burrrton]

Weren't the current definitions of "democrat" and "republican" flipflopped in the 60?

No.

Some left one party for the other, but not many, and certainly not enough to warrant some "redefinition" of what each stood for at the time.

[RiverDog]

Monkey;

I understand the voting preferences of media professionals, and how they are skewed towards the left, and you can go all the way back to Roosevelt with that trend. But that doesn't matter as much as it used to when there was just 3 network news stations and broadcasts lasted all of 30 minutes. Conservatives have no problem finding a 'home' nowadays, with Fox and talk radio, both dominated by conservative opinion. People will listen to who ever tells them what they want to hear. Besides, a reporter's politics isn't what makes his or her paycheck, it's the stories they can sell, and that usually means sensational, entertaining, or stories that make good pictures.

[HumanCockroach]

LOL this stuff always cracks me up. People left, people right, people are all people, and no one, conservative, Liberal or religious, non religious, are being "persecuted" more than any other group. No one Gert's everything they want, no one ( well minus that 1% of the 1% that can force whatever they want on pretty much anyone, including the government), why people continue to handle this stuff as"I 'm suffering more" cracks me up. Conservatives and Liberals alike simply don't grasp that in society, no one has everything they want. There is SUPPOSED to be compromise, to do what is "best" for the whole, but unfortunately there is NO compromise, just a bunch of children stomping their feet and pouting, it's unfortunate, that people feel not that they have to draw a "hard line" on one thing or another, but a "hard line" regardless of the subject, because either a conservative or a liberal is the one that brought it up. It's no longer a meshing of ideas and actions, which IS what this government is SUPPOSED to be, but an all out war to discredit the "other side", which is most assuredly NOT what it was intended to do. And so you have a whole lot of inaction, submarined actions, or laws and policies that help no one completely.

Nothing wrong with wanting to forward the parties ideals, but there IS a problem with becoming so rigid as to create inaction and incompetence.

[RiverDog]

Nothing wrong with wanting to forward the parties ideals, but there IS a problem with becoming so rigid as to create inaction and incompetence.

Incompetence no, but I'd much prefer inaction over bad legislation. Why is it that politicians always think they have to "do" something? If you pass enough laws, you're going to make lawbreakers out of all of us.

IMO they ought to pass a Constitutional amendment limiting Congress to meeting for a week every couple of months. Perhaps then they would make better use of their scarce time to concentrate on the really important stuff instead of all 435 of them having to give a 5 or 10 minute speech that not even members of their own party listen to. It also might encourage more people to run for office if they knew they weren't going to have to live back there.

[HumanCockroach]

Don't misunderstand , I agree inaction is better than bad legislation, or change for the sake of change, but I would think most would see there are plenty of issues they could be pulling together to resolve and improve, and that really isn't happening, because they are both so focussed on "winning" or discrediting one another, that they refuse to work together to do what needs to be done, to do so. My point wasn't that they should just make stuff up, but maybe fix what's broken would be a nice starting point....