Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Fun with Polls Poll: Which US presidential candidate do you like best?

I agree that the New York Times is generally biased against Republicans. Not always and in every article, because I have read Op-Ed Columnists in NYT who have argued that McCain would be a better President than Obama or Clinton. But generally, yes, the NYT is biased against Republicans.

But is the Republican point of view the only one that is worth considering? Aren't there other, legitimate points of view as well?

How many Republican Americans are there in the first place? Right now, my impression is that those who are ready to vote for the Republicans make up less than 50% of the American people. Of course, I may be wrong about that. So for the sake of the argument, let's say that 60% of the American people are ready to vote for the Republicans. Ah, but now you must remember that dozens of millions of Americans don't vote at all, even though they would have the right to. Usually, only about 60% of Americans vote. Disregarding the fact that millions of Americans haven't got the right to vote - because they are too young, for example - let's say that all the 300 million Americans would be allowed to vote, but only 60% choose to do so. That means that only 180 million Americans vote. Of those, let's say that 60% vote for the Republicans. That would mean that only 108 million Americans are really and truly Republicans, and almost 200 million Americans are not (or at least, they choose not to prove that they are). If almost 200 million Americans may be "not Republicans", doesn't that mean it is legitimate to consider all these people's points of view, without necessarily always comparing their views with Republican beliefs and the Republican agenda?

I said that maybe a little more than a hundred million Americans can be considered true Republicans. How many people are there in the world? Six billion? Seven billion? If there are a hundred million Republican Americans and six billion human beings altogether, then Republicans make up about 2% of the world's population. All these other 98% of the people will have their own points of view, their own reasons. Must everything these 98% say and believe in always be compared with what 2% hold to be true?

Roger, you are a conservative Republican. Not only that, but you are a very knowledgeable, articulate person. Of course you know why you believe in the things you believe in. Of course you believe in your own point of view. How can I ask you give up your beliefs? I am no more likely to convert you than you are to convert me. You and I both know why we believe in the things we believe in. Both of us have the right to believe that we are right.

But if you ask me, both of us should acknowledge that there are people out there who are not like us. The world is full of people who are not like us. They have their reasons and their points of view, too. None of us should say that any media that disagrees with you or with me is hopelessly biased and should be dismissed out of hand. In fact, I would say that every media in this world is biased. Because if it wasn't, it would give a fair and balanced view of all the concerns of all of humanity. What media does that? Not a single one does. How could it?

We all have our favorite media. We have found the media which reflect our views. There is nothing wrong about the fact that we want to hear our own ideas spelled out to us more articulate than we could do ourselves. There is absolutely nothing wrong about having a conviction! And there is nothing wrong about wishing to have one's own conviction strengthened. But indeed, yes, I do think it is wrong to conclude that everyone who disagrees with one's own conviction must be wrong by definition.

I'm not trying to push the idea that any political idea is as good as any other. Believe me, I'm not! I think that my own beliefs are by far the best, remember? But I am saying that if we are not prepared to listen to other people at all, and hear what they say, and try to understand why they are saying it, then we make ourselves narrow-minded, even close-minded.

I have nothing more to add. Roger, it has been very instructive to debate with you. It has been interesting and fun, and I have learnt much. So thank you very much for this debate!

Ann

So, let me see if I've got this straight...

Journalism, on the whole, is a career which requires people to be reasonably intelligent, educated, and articulate. And, more than just about any other profession, it's one that requires people to be in touch and well-informed about what's really going on in the world, preferably with some historical perspective. (Some more/better than others, but on the whole...)

It's composed of people from different races, backgrounds, and locations, who get salaries ranging from lowly obit-writing interns to nationally-recognized on-air talent.

And you say an overwhelming majority of these people vote liberal? Huh. Go figure.

He said the National Journal has a survey that 93% of the journalist(media) surveyed swing liberal. They donate to liberal causes, they promote liberal agenda.

And this doesn't surprise me one bit. When there are elitest thinking goobs like olberman and matthews acting like they know better how to run the world than us smallfolk peons, you can bet common sense conservatives don't trust a gorram thing that comes out of their BDS spewing mouths.

I saw on Drudge recently that newspapers suffer the biggest ad revenue drop than they'd ever had in the last 50 years. I say that's just chickens tired of leftist propaganda coming home to roost.

Nothing makes my day more than getting a call from the New York Times asking would I like to get a subscription, and me getting to tell them their paper isn't worth lining a bird cage.

TEEEEEEEJ

Ann, I'd also like to thank you for our debate. It's been very enjoyable.

I never said that there are no legitimate points of view other than the conservative viewpoint. All I ever said was that I don't trust the New York Times, CBS, or MSNBC. That's far from saying that liberals don't have legitimate viewpoints. If I never respected a thing a liberal says, why would I bother to debate them? I try to prove them wrong, but hey, that's what debating's all about.

In America, there are more self-admitted conservatives than liberals by roughly 40-30% but not all conservatives are Republicans and not all liberals are Democrats. Those registered as Democrats actually is slightly higher than those registered as Republicans, though that fluctuates heavily over the years, often depending on who's in charge (it's the "I want to be with the winner" syndrome). Over the last several elections, it's been pretty much evenly split amongst the voters voting for either party, which is why Congress is so evenly divided. Historically the majorities have been very thin. And George W. Bush is the first presidential candidate since 1988 to actually achieve a majority of the popular vote in 2004. That's a long stretch without a mandate. You can even say a 50.1%-48% vote in 2004 does not equate to a mandate either. In 1992, it was 43-38% among the two parties. In 1996 it was 49%-43%. In 2000, it was 49-48%. Third parties accounted for any differences from 100%. What a far cry from 1986 when Reagan won 59-41% carrying 49 states and missing Minnesota (Walter Mondale's home state) by 6,000 votes out of 4 million cast in that state.

American voters are fairly evenly divided. The same can't be said for the press. The media and print press are heavily slanted toward liberals. My own theory on why is usually answered by the question: "Why do you want to be a journalist?" Usually the answer is something along the lines of "I want to change the world," instead of an answer like, "I just want to report the facts." Those type of people tend to be a bit more idealistic and therefore liberal. Academia is similar in that the vast majority of people in those occupations are liberal. The same goes with acting. Hollywood is almost all liberal with very few actors who will admit to being Republican or conservative. Whereas those who are fireman, policeman, and military tend towards conservatism. I have no idea if I'm right or not, but it seems to fit what I can observe. It would be interesting to find out just why it's so heavily slanted.

Paul wrote:

Well, that's what we fans of Lois Lane and Clark Kent, star reporters for the Daily Planet like to believe. But it's perhaps a bit of a retro view - there's a really interesting article in the Mar 31 New Yorker on the decline of that type of journalism/reporting. We live in different times

As well, I think Roger has an interesting point about the connection between job choice and personality type and ideological bias.

The other thought that occurs to me is that what passes for a "liberal" or "conservative" varies from culture to culture and from country to country.

For example, both Clinton and Obama have more in common with our Canadian "Progressive Conservatives" than with our Liberal Party. And I would guess both candidates would be appalled by some of the ideas of our New Democratic Party. In fact, one of our Liberal Prime Ministers was labelled as a "communist by 2 Democratic American presidents. (Kennedy and Johnson)

Also, I think whether you're liberal or conservative varies with 'topic' so to speak. Obama showed he was more conservative than John Kerry when Obama voted against Kerry's resolution in the Senate to withdraw troops from Iraq. Both Clinton and Obama are more conservative when it comes to foreign trade than is McCain. Bush was more liberal on illegal immigrants than were most Democrats in Congress. As a society, I think Americans (and Canadians too) are more conservative on gender issues than Europeans.

Also, the thought occurs to me as I read various US news sites, that perhaps many contemporary US journalists have a touch of the inner fascist, given their focus on the "cult of personality" approach to covering the campaign. Or maybe it's just a touch of inner ET syndrome or inner cheerleader? Who knows?

It may be that each one of us holds both 'liberal' ideas and 'conservative' ideas, tinged with a pinch of old-fashioned guilt But, anyway, I wonder if it's useful any longer to be using these labels, 'liberal' or "conservative"

Adding, too, that I've enjoyed Ann and Roger's discussion, although some economic stuff wooshes over my head. Too many stats can make me dizzy.

Here's that New Yorker link: (I hope) Apt title, n'est-ce pas?

New Yorker: Out of Print