once and FOR ALL. The MSM is NOT CONSERVATIVE AT ALL.

If anything it is favored toward us.

Love,
Thunder.

I used to think that Thunder. But I think part of the problem here is the perception of the term "MSM". I used to think that meant (in the context of news) the newsreaders on the networks and CNN. But I think most people view it to include the idiot pundits who have their own shows, and I suspect that more people let those punks influence their opinions than the actual news stories themselves. And I don't think there is any doubt that the punditocracy is dominated by right wingers who can't get real jobs.

Indeed. Just look at Bill Kristol for a good example (or Chris Wallace). All you need is your daddy's name.

In any other intellectual job I know of, if you are wrong nearly as often as a right-wing pundit, you ass is grass. Even weathermen have higher standards for accuracy.

True but, I bet you would find from a majority of journos who have opinions/vote you would find vastly more libs (Dems) than conservatives (GOPs).

Most journos overall would still be neutral however.

hey anyone know why sometimes like when i click on a comment to be read it doesn't show up?

Much love,
Thunder

It doesn't really matter what the individual journos think if the corporate masters are pulling the strings:

From Anderson Cooper's interview with Jessica Yellin: "The press corps was under enormous pressure from corporate executives, frankly, to make sure that this was a war presented in a way that was consistent with the patriotic fever in the nation and the president's high approval ratings," Yellin said.

"And my own experience at the White House was that the higher the president's approval ratings, the more pressure I had from news executives — and I was not at this network at the time — but the more pressure I had from news executives to put on positive stories about the president, I think over time...."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0508/CNNs_Yellin_Network_execs_killed_critical_White_House_stories_.html

IRE,

The problem is that journalists don't decide what to report - editors and producers do (and their bosses above them).

Deciding what to report and for how long probably has as much or more power over the narrative than how a given talking head spins it.

For example, the story of how (at the time even) the majority of the professional intelligence community saw that Saddam posed no threat to the US while a select few got their case heard exclusively. The pros got seriously hosed on that one.

If we heard even a tenth of the doubts that were expressed in those meetings, we may have had a very different run-up to that particular operation.

Odin, trust me, it does matter what a journos thoughts are going into the story. Even if an editor assigns someone a juicy story against an opponent, a journo can nullify it quite easily and it happens. Most importantly if there is a withchunt for political skin, you bet your effing ass there will be work done to balance that out or you would more than likely have a revolt in the newsroom.

I'll give you that - journalists can amplify / deamplify what it is they are actually covering.