Cons In Reality

3:06 pm EST June 20th, 2006 | Politics | 18 Comments

Why is it more writers go from liberal publications to mainstream journalism? This is why.

Taking Goldberg’s unsupported contention at face value, there’s a simple answer. Journalists who pay their dues at staunchly liberal mags practice exactly that: journalism. Their politics, like the editorial policy, may be liberal, but they nonetheless aim for the basic ideals of accuracy, intellectual honesty, skepticism, and fairness to which journalists aspire. When they move on from those magazines, newspaper editors feel confident that they’re hiring intelligent, fair-minded reporters as opposed to shrill, knee-jerk dogmatists.

Related Posts

  • No Related Post
«
»

18 Responses to “Cons In Reality”

  1. drpedro says:
    June 20, 2006 at 3:06 pm

    here is an alternative theory:

    The MSM won’t hire qualified conservative reporters. It is sort of like a form of institutionalized racism. The conservatives don’t “think like us”.

  2. Rheinhard says:
    June 20, 2006 at 3:06 pm

    Oooh! I get to beat dugger, Frank, et al to the punch!

    DAN RATHER! DAN RATHER! Bwahahahahahahahaha!

    With that out of the way, it’s also worth noting that the other reason wingnut columnists have a harder time getting stints alongside actual journalists is because so many of them get their jobs only because of wingnut welfare: e.g, Jonah Goldberg’s sinecure at National Review because his folks are Lucianne and Bernard Goldberg, and similary John Podhoretz courtesy of dad Norm.

  3. Jay C says:
    June 20, 2006 at 4:06 pm

    That guy’s entry is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read.

    I would swear it was satire.

  4. Oliver Willis says:
    June 20, 2006 at 4:06 pm

    Qualified conservative reporters. That is like “military intelligence”, no?

  5. Oliver Willis says:
    June 20, 2006 at 5:06 pm

    Jay C: content free “analysis” as usual.
    scratch: I don’t think the mainstream media has a conservative bias, more than a bias towards stupidity (some could argue they’re the same thing), but the MSM allows itself to be pushed around and in our current environment that leads to pro-GOP storylines dominating – not a product of the presidency because the same happened during the Clinton years.

  6. drpedro says:
    June 20, 2006 at 5:06 pm

    damn good point scratch.

    Not a damn good answer though Oliver. Doesn’t pass the common sense test.

  7. scratch says:
    June 20, 2006 at 5:06 pm

    So it’s these journalists from the liberal publications who go on to give the mainstream media its right-wing bias? Why do these upstanding, intellectually honest, liberal reporters carry water for this dishonest administration? Why won’t these straight shooters ask the hard questions of this President?

  8. Big Gay Al says:
    June 20, 2006 at 7:06 pm

    Scratch, your analysis assumes the MSM is full of TNR or The Nation Alum; it’s not, those are very small publications. For every Michael Kinsley, there are a hundred journalists at the Times or WaPo who put got knocked around in Spokane or Tulsa or wherever the fuck. Goldberg, as is his wont, has simply made an intellectually lazy argument. Quelle surprise.

  9. Frank_D says:
    June 20, 2006 at 8:06 pm

    Rheinhard: Who’s Dan Rather?

  10. Sundown says:
    June 20, 2006 at 9:06 pm

    If a conservative reporter is an excellent reporter, as opposed to a glorified opinionist, then I don’t see why any mainstream paper wouldn’t hire them.

  11. maestroanonymo says:
    June 20, 2006 at 9:06 pm

    The reason writers for conservative publications don’t go on to be “mainstream” reporters is pretty simple: most conservative publications don’t do reporting. TNR does a lot of reporting and field pieces — and while it’s not exactly a “liberal” publication (there’s a reason why the Reagan administration used to order dozens of copies of TNR) — it is a good breeding ground for reporters, as are some other, more liberal publications that do the same.

    The conservative journals don’t do much reporting. The American Spectator did a few of those anti-Clinton pieces, but they had, to put it mildly, an accuracy problem. National Review does an occasional piece of reportage, but it’s mostly opinion journalism, and most of the other big conservative magazines are all opinion journalism. The only conservative magazine that really makes TNR-style reporting a big part of its publications is The Weekly Standard.

    So why doesn’t somebody go from writing for National Review to reporting for the New York Times? Because writing for National Review is mostly about expressing opinions; it’s a legitimate form of journalism but has nothing to do with reporting.

  12. Frank_D says:
    June 20, 2006 at 9:06 pm

    The reason writers for conservative publications don t go on to be  mainstream reporters is pretty simple, allright: What left wing MSM paper would hire them?
    How many “conservative” reporters work for the
    LAT
    NYT
    WaPo
    ??

  13. Frank_D says:
    June 21, 2006 at 6:06 am

    I don t see why any mainstream paper wouldn t hire them.
    Me, neither. So why don’t they?

  14. maestroanonymo says:
    June 21, 2006 at 9:06 am

    Frank_D, how do you know they don’t? And even assuming that most reporters are Democrats, some are not — and some of the ones who are Republicans may be writing some of the evil anti-Bush stories that bedevil the MSM, since any objective reporter would sometimes have to acknowledge that the facts themselves are anti-Bush. (Just like reporters who voted for Carter or Clinton nonetheless wrote vicious stories about them: getting the story was more important than supporting their man.)

  15. Frank_D says:
    June 21, 2006 at 9:06 am

    Because we know, as Dr. P said, that 70% of journalists (I thought it was more) declared themselves to be Democrats.
    I seem to recall that something like 90% have voted Democratic for some time now.
    So some of that 30% must be independents or liars.

  16. duros62 says:
    June 21, 2006 at 5:06 pm

    Wait, isn’t a good reporter supposed to be objective? Conservative/Liberal should not be an issue.

    Well, it shouldn’t….

  17. dvsihnjpk mvebk says:
    September 20, 2007 at 6:23 pm

    nhriuezk wgcep bgxjmzn gdwnxtab lygac inrlqkv hsae

  18. xklaznbt ebxqwhfpy says:
    September 20, 2007 at 6:24 pm

    dtasnkig laxtyw besikat joagc aocrhxqju moruyv tvlykabuq http://www.cboqkx.urjagftmz.com