Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
6 bytes added ,  04:10, November 27, 2017
no edit summary
Line 1: Line 1: −
The '''Liberal Elite''' is a term used to describe those high-ranking members of [[society]] - [[politicians]], college educators and celebrities - who regularly promote the [[Liberalism|liberal agenda]] to unsuspecting teenagers and young people.
+
The '''Liberal Elite''' is a term used to describe those high-ranking members of [[society]] – [[politicians]], college educators and celebrities – who regularly promote the [[Liberalism|liberal agenda]] to unsuspecting teenagers and young people.
    
The Liberal Elite believe they are superior to others. Not in a physical sense but mentally, they have their high ground and nobody dare challenge. If you challenge the Liberal Elite thinking and beliefs, you risk being ridiculed.  
 
The Liberal Elite believe they are superior to others. Not in a physical sense but mentally, they have their high ground and nobody dare challenge. If you challenge the Liberal Elite thinking and beliefs, you risk being ridiculed.  
Line 18: Line 18:  
Beginning in the middle of the 20th century, the working class, once the core of the coalition, began abandoning the Democratic Party. In 1948, in the immediate wake of Franklin Roosevelt, 66 percent of manual laborers voted for Democrats, along with 60 percent of farmers. In 1964, it was 55 percent of working-class voters. By 1980, it was 35 percent.
 
Beginning in the middle of the 20th century, the working class, once the core of the coalition, began abandoning the Democratic Party. In 1948, in the immediate wake of Franklin Roosevelt, 66 percent of manual laborers voted for Democrats, along with 60 percent of farmers. In 1964, it was 55 percent of working-class voters. By 1980, it was 35 percent.
   −
The white working class in particular saw even sharper declines. Despite historic advantages with both poor and middle-class white voters, by 2012 Democrats possessed only a 2-point advantage among poor white voters. Among white voters making between $30,000 and $75,000 per year, the GOP has taken a 17-point lead.
+
The white working class, in particular, saw even sharper declines. Despite historic advantages with both poor and middle-class white voters, by 2012 Democrats possessed only a 2-point advantage among poor white voters. Among white voters making between $30,000 and $75,000 per year, the GOP has taken a 17-point lead.
    
Finding comfort in the notion that their former allies were disdainful, hapless rubes, smug liberals created a culture animated by that contempt
 
Finding comfort in the notion that their former allies were disdainful, hapless rubes, smug liberals created a culture animated by that contempt
Line 59: Line 59:  
''The Media Elite,'' co-authored in 1986 by political scientists Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman, and Linda Lichter is among the most cited academic study of political bias in news reporting. These researchers surveyed journalists at national media outlets such as the [[New York Times]], [[Washington Post]], and the broadcast networks. They found that most of the responding journalists were Democratic voters whose attitudes were far to the left of the general public on a variety of topics: [[homosexual]] rights, [[abortion]], [[affirmative action]], and so on.  The study argued that the way in which journalists wrote about controversial issues was directly related to their personal political positions.
 
''The Media Elite,'' co-authored in 1986 by political scientists Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman, and Linda Lichter is among the most cited academic study of political bias in news reporting. These researchers surveyed journalists at national media outlets such as the [[New York Times]], [[Washington Post]], and the broadcast networks. They found that most of the responding journalists were Democratic voters whose attitudes were far to the left of the general public on a variety of topics: [[homosexual]] rights, [[abortion]], [[affirmative action]], and so on.  The study argued that the way in which journalists wrote about controversial issues was directly related to their personal political positions.
   −
Independently corroborating the findings above, is the 2002 book length study by political communication researcher Jim A. Kuypers: ''Press Bias and Politics: How the Media Frame Controversial Issues''. In this study of 116 mainstream US papers (including The New York Times, the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle), Kuypers found that the mainstream print press in America operate within a narrow range of liberal beliefs. Those who expressed points of view further to the left were generally ignored, whereas those who expressed moderate or conservative points of view were often actively denigrated or labeled as holding a minority point of view. In short, if a political leader, regardless of party, spoke within the press-supported range of acceptable discourse, he or she would receive positive press coverage. If a politician, again regardless of party, were to speak outside of this range, he or she would receive negative press or be ignored. Kuypers also found that the liberal points of view expressed in editorial and opinion pages were found in hard news coverage of the same issues. Although focusing primarily on the issues of [[race]] and [[homosexuality]], Kuypers found that the press injected opinion into its news coverage of other issues such as [[Welfare|welfare reform]], [[environmental protection]], and [[gun control]]; in all cases favoring a liberal point of view.
+
Independently corroborating the findings above, is the 2002 book-length study by political communication researcher Jim A. Kuypers: ''Press Bias and Politics: How the Media Frame Controversial Issues''. In this study of 116 mainstream US papers (including The New York Times, the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle), Kuypers found that the mainstream print press in America operate within a narrow range of liberal beliefs. Those who expressed points of view further to the left were generally ignored, whereas those who expressed moderate or conservative points of view were often actively denigrated or labeled as holding a minority point of view. In short, if a political leader, regardless of party, spoke within the press-supported range of acceptable discourse, he or she would receive positive press coverage. If a politician, again regardless of party, were to speak outside of this range, he or she would receive negative press or be ignored. Kuypers also found that the liberal points of view expressed in editorial and opinion pages were found in hard news coverage of the same issues. Although focusing primarily on the issues of [[race]] and [[homosexuality]], Kuypers found that the press injected opinion into its news coverage of other issues such as [[Welfare|welfare reform]], [[environmental protection]], and [[gun control]]; in all cases favoring a liberal point of view.
    
=== Liberal media bias===
 
=== Liberal media bias===
Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, Check users, delete, edit, move, oversight, protect, rollback, Administrators
51,035

edits

Navigation menu