A whopping 97 percent of the media elite are pro-choice, according to a 1995 survey conducted by Stanley Rothman and Amy E. Black, which attempted to partly replicate a 1981 study of journalists working at top media outlets. Reporting their findings in a Spring 2001 article for the journal Public Interest, Rothman and Blacks found that the media elite held strikingly liberal views on abortion and a range of other issues. Among the findings:
- Nearly all of the media elite (97 percent) agreed that “it is a woman’s right to decide whether or not to have an abortion,” and five out of six (84 percent) agreed strongly.
- Three out of four journalists (73 percent) agreed that “homosexuality is as acceptable a lifestyle as
heterosexuality,” and 40 percent agreed strongly.
- Three-fourths (75 percent) agreed that “government should work to reduce the income gap between the rich and the poor,” and more than a third (34 percent) strongly agreed.
- Relatively few journalists (39 percent) agreed that “less government regulation of business would
be good for the economy,” and just five percent strongly agreed with this sentiment.
The earlier 1981 study, which was conducted by S. Robert Lichter and Stanley Rothman, covered 240 journalists at top media outlets — including the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS — and found that “Ninety percent agree that a woman has the right to decide for herself whether to have an abortion; 79 percent agree strongly with this pro-choice position.” As if that were not bad enough, 54 percent did not view adultery as morally wrong, compared to just 15 percent who did. The journalists themselves acknowledged that they were a biased bunch: “Fifty-six percent said the people they worked with were mostly on the left, and only 8 percent on the right — a margin of seven-to-one.”
And that’s not all. In 1992, Professors David H. Weaver and G. Cleveland Wilhoit, from Indiana University, performed a broad survey of 1,410 journalists who “work for a wide variety of daily and weekly newspapers, radio and television stations, news services and magazines throughout the United States.” The authors presented their research in the Fall 1992 Media Studies Journal. Among the findings:
- More than half of journalists (51%) said abortion should be “legal under any circumstances,” compared to just 4% who thought abortion should be “illegal in all circumstances.” (The corresponding figures for the general public are 33% and 14%, respectively.)
- “The percentage of journalists rating religion or religious beliefs as ‘very important’ is substantially lower (38 percent) than the percentage in the overall U.S. population (61 percent).”
- Nearly half of the journalists surveyed (47 percent) called themselves “liberal,” compared to 22 percent who described themselves as “conservative.”
A 2014 report in the Atlantic corroborates these findings: it finds that “among journalists who align with one of the two major parties, four in five said they’re Democrats,” adding that the median age for journalists is 47 (compared to 37 for the general population), and that “92 percent of journalists were white in 2012” (the same proportion as in 1992) and that 62 percent are still male (down from 80 percent in 1971). They’re also well-educated: 92 percent have college degrees (compared to 30 percent for the population as a whole). However, their median salary ($53,600)is about 35 percent lower today, in real terms, than what it was in 1970. Given their college background and falling income prospects, it is hardly surprising that these mostly white, mostly male, mostly middle-aged journalists tend to gravitate towards the liberal end of the political spectrum.
Bear that in mind, the next time you read news reports of the Colorado Springs shootings, accusing pro-lifers of creating a climate of hatred against Planned Parenthood, and of demonizing the organization, based on what they refer to as “fake” or “edited” videos (oh no, they’re not) by the Center for Medical progress (CMP). The CMP videos, far from having been debunked, are in fact truthful and accurate – see here, here, here and here. What’s more, Planned Parenthood has broken the law on at least four counts: illegal profiting from the sale of fetal tissue; performing illegal partial-birth abortions; illegally manipulating abortion procedures; and illegally performing abortions with the knowledge that the fetal body parts will be “donated” to research. If that doesn’t warrant condemnation, then I can only ask: what does?
Finally, let us recall the apostle of non-violence, Dr. Martin Luther King, who, in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, responded to critics by saying, “it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence.” Or as Catholic apologist and speaker Trent Horn aptly puts it: “Abolitionists and critics of segregation should not have censored their descriptions of the barbarisms of slavery or racism anymore than abortion abolitionists should censor their descriptions of the barbarism of abortion.”
In other news, a New York Times article (November 29, 2015) has brought to light more details about the suspect in the Colorado Springs shootings. P.Z. Myers, writing on his blog, considers the suspect to have been religiously motivated on account of his having read the Bible cover to cover as a young man, and written a short 2005 post saying that “we are in the end times” and urging people to accept the Lord Jesus while they can. However, no-one who knew him recalls him talking much about religion, and the suspect’s apparent interest in bondage and sadomasochistic sex (which Myers does not mention) suggests that he was anything but religious. I wonder how many media reports about the suspect will highlight this fact, over the next few days. To thoughtful people who reject the mindless liberal mantra that any sexual practice is OK, so long as it’s between “consenting adults,” it should be blindingly obvious that cruelty begets cruelty. Torture is torture.
The article also reveals that the suspect was also a regular marijuana.user, who sought out other people with whom he could smoke the drug. While marijuana can make many users feel mellow and relaxed, it can also make some people feel paranoid, scared and panicky, leading to a “bad turn” and an outburst of violent behavior. (I’ve known of such cases.) Additionally, cannabis can make some people feel dissociated: if they perform violent acts, they may not realize that their actions are real. It is reasonable to suggest that marijuana use may have been a factor in the shootings that took place in Colorado Springs. But somehow, I don’t expect America’s media reporters, who, being liberal, are much more likely to support marijuana legalization, to follow up that avenue of research.
For those who are interested, here’s my 2011 post, Media conspiracy: now it’s official, and my recent post, Slain officer in Colorado Springs was a pro-life pastor.
What do readers think?