Difference between revisions of "Liberal elite"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Academia and liberal elitism)
(Mainstream media)
Line 28: Line 28:
 
But this attitude has also been challenged by those on the left who argue that the Democratic Party has to offer a more populist vision and break out of its technocratic bubble in order to start winning elections again.<ref>[http://www.salon.com/2017/03/20/the-smug-style-in-american-liberalism-its-not-helping-folks-but-theres-a-better-way/ The smug style in American liberalism: It’s not helping, folks — but there’s a better way] by Conor Lynch, ''Salon'', March 2017</ref>}}
 
But this attitude has also been challenged by those on the left who argue that the Democratic Party has to offer a more populist vision and break out of its technocratic bubble in order to start winning elections again.<ref>[http://www.salon.com/2017/03/20/the-smug-style-in-american-liberalism-its-not-helping-folks-but-theres-a-better-way/ The smug style in American liberalism: It’s not helping, folks — but there’s a better way] by Conor Lynch, ''Salon'', March 2017</ref>}}
  
== Mainstream media ==
+
== Liberal bias of mainstream media ==
  
See also: [[Mainstream media]]
+
''See also:'' [[Media bias]] and [[Mainstream media]]
 +
 
 +
'''Media bias''' is [[advocacy journalism]] gone wild, where one-sided arguments masquerade as objective reporting. It "is rarely expressed through distortion of the facts, but rather through the omission of certain facts that would be inconvenient for the outlook of the person or group reporting."<ref>[http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/272131/measuring-media-bias-nat-brown?pg=2 Nat Brown] - ''[[National Review]]''</ref>
 +
A good example is [[Paul Krugman]]'s claim, in his New York Times opinion piece, that "Everyone knows that the American right has problems with science that yields conclusions it doesn’t like."<ref>[http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/first-they-came-for-the-climate-scientists/?emc=eta1 First They Came For The Climate Scientists]</ref> This statement completely ignores the much worse "problems" the [[American left]] has with science, specifically the climate science which refutes the [[junk science]] used by liberals to prop up their [[global warming theory]] and their "solution" to the "crisis" (see [[Kyoto Protocol]], [[carbon credits]], etc.). 
 +
 
 +
It manifests distortion of news, commentary, non-fiction articles, textbooks, documentaries, speech codes and the like to favor one side's ideas over another's (see [[partisan]]ship). Dictatorships and other authoritarian regimes which suppress [[freedom of the press]] are notorious for their media bias, particularly when all media are controlled directly by a one-party government.
 +
 
 +
Most journalism schools in free countries address the issue of eliminating bias, although efforts are rarely successful. The U.S. media is strongly polarized, with multiple outlets have strong [[liberal]] and [[conservative]] biases, depending on which station (or newspaper) is considered. Overall, however, many, including some academics with scientific backing, maintain that the media has a general [[liberal]] bias.
 +
 
 +
===Sources of bias===
 +
 
 +
[[File:Palin-newsweek.jpg|thumb|300px|Example of deliberate propaganda, with an un-presidential photo and a lead headline in a purported "news magazine":  "She's bad news for the GOP--and everybody else, too." The goal is to give Palin opponents ammunition to fight her popularity. ''Newsweek'' issue dated Nov. 23, 2009]]
 +
 
 +
#Deliberate [[propaganda]]: Presenting bias with the intention of benefiting the media establishment.
 +
#Institutional bias: The reporters and editors of a media organization may hold political views, which influence their reporting. Reporting on the [[Vietnam war]] has been cited as a notable example of such.
 +
#[[Sensationalism]]: Media depends on viewership for financial support from advertisers. Thus stories that have little political value but much entertainment value may receive attention disproportionate to their impact. [[Scare stories]] are also an example of sensationalism.
 +
#Omission: The inverse of sensationalism, media may overlook important but boring stories.
 +
#[[Political correctness]] or sensitivity: Fearful of appearing racist or discriminatory, media may avoid any stories which reflect negatively on an ethnic, social or religious group, especially if the group is a minority.
 +
#Confirmation bias: a type of selective thinking whereby people tend to report what confirms their beliefs, and to ignore, or undervalue what contradicts their beliefs.
 +
#Audience bias: Readers or viewers tend to read news sources with which they agree. Thus, media must reinforce the existing views of their audience, or risk losing them. This source of bias can also reinforce the effect of a [[moral]] [[panic]]. In this case, the public may receive a distorted perspective that is a result of their own preferences, because the news media will deliberately deliver news not only suitable and desirable to the general public, but may also incorporate bias that would similarly suit the viewer.
 +
 
 +
=== Academic Studies and theories of media bias ===
 +
 
 +
''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.
 +
 
 +
==Liberal media bias==
 +
{{main|liberal bias}}
 +
 
 +
* Conservative ownership of some news organizations doesn't prevent a pervasive left-wing leaning [http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-03-18/news/bs-ed-liberal-bias-20130315_1_liberal-bias-mainstream-media-left-wing-bias Baltimore Sun | March 18, 2013 | By Richard E. Vatz]
  
 
== Academia and liberal elitism ==
 
== Academia and liberal elitism ==

Revision as of 05:26, May 10, 2017

The Liberal Elite is a term used to describe those high-ranking members of society - politicians, college educators and celebrities - who regularly promote the 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.

Emmett Rensen wrote at Vox about American liberalism and liberal elitism:

There is a smug style in American liberalism. It has been growing these past decades. It is a way of conducting politics, predicated on the belief that American life is not divided by moral difference or policy divergence — not really — but by the failure of half the country to know what's good for them.

In 2016, the smug style has found expression in media and in policy, in the attitudes of liberals both visible and private, providing a foundational set of assumptions above which a great number of liberals comport their understanding of the world.

It has led an American ideology hitherto responsible for a great share of the good accomplished over the past century of our political life to a posture of reaction and disrespect: a condescending, defensive sneer toward any person or movement outside of its consensus, dressed up as a monopoly on reason.

The smug style is a psychological reaction to a profound shift in American political demography.

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.

Finding comfort in the notion that their former allies were disdainful, hapless rubes, smug liberals created a culture animated by that contempt The consequence was a shift in liberalism's intellectual center of gravity. A movement once fleshed out in union halls and little magazines shifted into universities and major press, from the center of the country to its cities and elite enclaves. Minority voters remained, but bereft of the material and social capital required to dominate elite decision-making, they were largely excluded from an agenda driven by the new Democratic core: the educated, the coastal, and the professional.

It is not that these forces captured the party so much as it fell to them. When the laborer left, they remained.[1]

Commenting on Rensen's article, Conor Lynch wrote at Salon:

“If the smug style can be reduced to a single sentence,” Rensin worte, “it’s, Why are they voting against their own self-interest?”

This question was bound to become even more prevalent with the election of Trump, who essentially won by flipping several Rust Belt states that Barack Obama had handily won in 2008 and 2012. Sure enough, many liberals have seemingly doubled down on this smug style...

But this attitude has also been challenged by those on the left who argue that the Democratic Party has to offer a more populist vision and break out of its technocratic bubble in order to start winning elections again.[2]

Liberal bias of mainstream media

See also: Media bias and Mainstream media

Media bias is advocacy journalism gone wild, where one-sided arguments masquerade as objective reporting. It "is rarely expressed through distortion of the facts, but rather through the omission of certain facts that would be inconvenient for the outlook of the person or group reporting."[3] A good example is Paul Krugman's claim, in his New York Times opinion piece, that "Everyone knows that the American right has problems with science that yields conclusions it doesn’t like."[4] This statement completely ignores the much worse "problems" the American left has with science, specifically the climate science which refutes the junk science used by liberals to prop up their global warming theory and their "solution" to the "crisis" (see Kyoto Protocol, carbon credits, etc.).

It manifests distortion of news, commentary, non-fiction articles, textbooks, documentaries, speech codes and the like to favor one side's ideas over another's (see partisanship). Dictatorships and other authoritarian regimes which suppress freedom of the press are notorious for their media bias, particularly when all media are controlled directly by a one-party government.

Most journalism schools in free countries address the issue of eliminating bias, although efforts are rarely successful. The U.S. media is strongly polarized, with multiple outlets have strong liberal and conservative biases, depending on which station (or newspaper) is considered. Overall, however, many, including some academics with scientific backing, maintain that the media has a general liberal bias.

Sources of bias

Example of deliberate propaganda, with an un-presidential photo and a lead headline in a purported "news magazine": "She's bad news for the GOP--and everybody else, too." The goal is to give Palin opponents ammunition to fight her popularity. Newsweek issue dated Nov. 23, 2009
  1. Deliberate propaganda: Presenting bias with the intention of benefiting the media establishment.
  2. Institutional bias: The reporters and editors of a media organization may hold political views, which influence their reporting. Reporting on the Vietnam war has been cited as a notable example of such.
  3. Sensationalism: Media depends on viewership for financial support from advertisers. Thus stories that have little political value but much entertainment value may receive attention disproportionate to their impact. Scare stories are also an example of sensationalism.
  4. Omission: The inverse of sensationalism, media may overlook important but boring stories.
  5. Political correctness or sensitivity: Fearful of appearing racist or discriminatory, media may avoid any stories which reflect negatively on an ethnic, social or religious group, especially if the group is a minority.
  6. Confirmation bias: a type of selective thinking whereby people tend to report what confirms their beliefs, and to ignore, or undervalue what contradicts their beliefs.
  7. Audience bias: Readers or viewers tend to read news sources with which they agree. Thus, media must reinforce the existing views of their audience, or risk losing them. This source of bias can also reinforce the effect of a moral panic. In this case, the public may receive a distorted perspective that is a result of their own preferences, because the news media will deliberately deliver news not only suitable and desirable to the general public, but may also incorporate bias that would similarly suit the viewer.

Academic Studies and theories of media bias

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 reform, environmental protection, and gun control; in all cases favoring a liberal point of view.

Liberal media bias

For a more detailed treatment, see liberal bias.

Academia and liberal elitism

See also: Academia and liberal elitism

Politicizing hiring

In 2013, a study found that academia was less likely to hire evangelical Christians due to discriminatory attitudes.[5] See also: Atheism and intolerance

See also

  1. The smug style in American liberalism by Emmett Rensin at Vox, April 21, 2016
  2. The smug style in American liberalism: It’s not helping, folks — but there’s a better way by Conor Lynch, Salon, March 2017
  3. Nat Brown - National Review
  4. First They Came For The Climate Scientists
  5. Alexander, Rachel (June 10, 2013). "Suspicions confirmed: Academia shutting out conservative professors". Townhall.com.