Last Updated: May 26, 1999
Printer-friendly version
The liberal press?
Why editors are dumber than mules
By Stan Tiner
When you think about it, mules are smarter than a lot of editors. They
actually learn from the painful experiences in their lives.
For example, if a mule is disposed toward visits to the cornfield, a
well-placed blow of a two-by-four to his head will usually suffice to deter
the offending behavior. In some instances, more than one lick is required
to truly inform the mule of the intended lesson, but application of the
"teaching stick" will eventually instruct the mule to act in his own best
interests.
Editors are not such quick learners, it seems. Over many years of surveys,
we have failed to learn the simple lesson that should be evident: The avowed
critics of our profession wield the results of these surveys as two-by-fours,
beating us over the head to gloating excess.
Yet we repeat the exercise over, again and again. During the past 35
years, at least 10 notable surveys have been conducted by various organizations,
from the Columbia Journalism Review in 1962 to the Roper/Freedom Forum
survey in 1996, all purporting to show that newspaper editors and reporters,
or "media persons" in various descriptions, are "liberal."
In all of these surveys there is little proof that any of the sample
groups is a valid representation of the universe that the polling authority
sought to survey.
The consistent message in all of the surveys is the finding that a majority
of journalists chose "liberal" when given the choice of "liberal" or "conservative"
in self-identification.
Does that consistency mean the findings are valid? It could. Or it could
merely mean those with "liberal" feelings are more inclined to answer anyone
and everyone’s survey, without asking a few serious and meaningful questions
about the purpose of the survey, and its likely use.
Another method of validation would be to compare the "national" findings
with individual local newspapers around the nation. Of course no paper
would make such an inquiry of its employees. This would be intrusive, and
in all probability, illegal, as it could be interpreted as a condition
of employment.
Yet we breeze along answering these surveys every two, or three years
in a robotic manner, absent the good sense of the aforementioned mule.
Our critics — some would say our enemies — routinely throw away the
potential academic meat of these inquiries and go right to the sex appeal
of the survey — the "L" word question, which they then pick up and dutifully
report as clear evidence of our bias against Republicans and conservatives.
I will ask you this: Have you ever seen the findings of these surveys
used in a way that uplifted the profession or truly added to your professional
insight?
My own answer is no, I have not.
And like the mule who has suddenly understood a large lesson in truth
via one too many two-by-fours, I am swearing off the answering of surveys,
the results of which are to subject my colleagues and me to the pain of
public pillory.
Say with me — Never again. Never again.
Note: Any similarity between any living mule in this article is purely
coincidental, and for metaphorical purposes only. No mule was struck by
a two-by-four to test the author’s thesis. The reference to editors, on
the other hand, is historically accurate and factual.
Tiner is editor of the Mobile (Ala.) Register.
