David Brooks - 90% of "working journalists" voted Kerry?

[BlueManDude]

Anyone catch BoBo Brooks on The Newshour last night? He said that some poll found that 90% of journos voted for Kerry. Has anyone seen this poll?

This 90% figure is often used by RWers as the percentage of liberals in the media. I believe it come from some poll allegedly taken almost 20 years ago.

Methinks Brooks is lying.

[Stephanie]

1. All he EVER does is lie.

God I hate that sniveling prick with his teeny little girly hands. He's a neo-con through and through and I wish someone would explain to me why he is the "conservative" darling of NPR, PBS & NYT. It makes me sick.

[BlueManDude]

4. He didn't even state this as an opinion

he flat out said there was a poll showing the 90% figure. I certainly haven't seen this poll.

[itzamirakul]

19. "Call him on it," BlueManDude. Email the show you saw him on

and ask them to verify that poll or to direct your query to David Brooks personally. If enough of us follow through on this, he might be pressed to give some kind of response.

[BlueManDude]

21. I did. I also emailed Somersby at the Daily Howler. n/t

[itzamirakul]

23. Good! This is an activity

that we MUST continue to use on a daily basis. Emailing papers and tv stations and politicians to let them know how they have lost credibility with us is very important - maybe the best tool that we have.

[liberalnurse]

2. Maybe not.......

What we see are brown-nose, greedy journalist who will follow the marching orders to keep a job. Integrity is not an issue for most.

Privately, they would no doubt relish the change and voted Kerry.

[The Backlash Cometh]

3. He must be using the old traditional definition of "journalist"

That leaves out the hack pundits we have today.

[MichaelHarris]

5. The real statement is,

90% of the smart people voted for Kerry. The other 10% were actually just dumb-asses.

[blm]

6. wow, and yet 95% of the broadcast pundits are BushInc mouthpieces.

So, 90% of working journalists have had to stifle their personal observations for 4 years while the Bushmoonies completely dominate the airwaves and the editorial pages.

Must be tough to have your corporate masters get their way all the time.

[Sparkly]

7. David Brooks appears to be aspiring toward some Ass of the Year Award

His editorial in today's NYTimes telling women to stay home and have kids until age 35 was astonishing. (You see, if we have kids before we can support them, and strive for entry-level positions later, we help solve the problem with Social Security and Medicare. I'm not kidding. That's basically what he said.)

[sallyseven]

10. In order to collect the full amount of your SS

you have to work fully 30 years under the program. There is a percentage loss if you don't do the whole 30 years. There for women who stay home to raise children cannot fulfill this unless they work until they are 70 or more. Also if they work in a state for fed job they lose 1/2 of their SS and some portion of their fed or state pension. They pay into both and then get screwed. Typical men in control of women's ability to earn and receive what they should,.Repukes love it,

[mitchum]

8. He's a Tom Wolfe wannabe without the gimmicky style or wardrobe...

and wannabe is the operative word. Brooks writing has no style (gimmicky or otherwise) Brooks attempt to market himself as a conservative reactionary but hip and cool with his finger on the pulse! is just so damn transparent. Wannabe.

[BlueManDude]

9. he's got the effeminate part down though. n/t

[depakid]

18. He's a wannabe alright

His parents were actually scholars, but all Brooks can do (like George Will) is try to look the part.

He's weak intellectually- and he knows it- which is why he writes spouts off the kind of unsubstantiated pop-neocon crap that he does. He can't handle the real stuff, though his gig depends on him putting on a convincing act (which, for his audience, isn't very difficult).

I'd be curious to know what someone like Dr. Krugman thinks of him... very little, I expect.

[thinkingwoman]

22. I don't know why anyone would want to be

Tom Wolfe. What an *ss he is. Never met a flashy dramatic lie he didn't like and immediately include in those things he calls books.

[FlyByNight]

11. It figures he provided no real proof whatsoever

Hey Dave, I suggest reading "What Liberal Media?" by Eric Alterman.

:eyes:

[UL_Approved]

12. Wouldn't it be funny...

...if the figure was actually true. It would mean that the corporate onslaught is just about intimidation, and is based on a dangerous foundation. I really hope this is true, because it would mean that the system would get out of the shrub's hands at some point, and would take him down hard.

But I can only dream...

[EVDebs]

13. He must be on the Armstrong Williams payola list too ! n/t

[quaoar]

14. My own experience

From about 25 years in newsrooms is that 90 percent is probably close to correct.

Of course, probably 90 percent of newspaper owners voted for Bush.

[Yupster]

15. I was a reporter for a few years out of college

the only Republican reporters I ever met were sports reporters.

My papers were too small to have a business section. We just pulled it off the wire.

[zann725]

16. Since 98% of World Leaders ALSO said they preferred Kerry over Bush

just prior to the Election...does that mean the whole World therefore is Liberal?

NO! Just smart! As are those 90% Journalists. "BoBo" was just framing facts backward to prove his point.

[WCGreen]

17. 98% of publishers and media CEO. CFO's and managers

voted for Bush.....

It's called balance...

And, btw, the journalists are trained to be impartial. That's why so many talking heads are Repubs. They can't be impartial

[rman]

20. The liberal media myth ignores self-censoring, producers, owners...

as though journalists decide what's on the news.

How about, corporations do not deliberately act to hurt themselves.
Ie General Electric will never allow their media outlets to release stories about their conflicts of interest and about what war profiteers they are. And of course producers and journalists know this. Those journalists and producers who don't want to censor themselves, left the MSM a long time ago.

[mattclearing]

24. That doesn't sound far off. Who they vote for doesn't matter though.

It's the editors and the board members that matter. Journalists don't decide what gets printed or where an article gets placed.

They are undoubtedly overwhelmingly left-leaning, but they have no say in how their stories are run.

Think of these liberal reporters like the liberal voter who gets interviewed on the street.

Their words are re-arranged, taken out of context, and thrown back up on the screen for maximum entertainment value.