The "liberal" media and other professions

Remove all ads!

Having heard the right complain again and again about the "liberal" "(pro-Kerry)" media, I'd like to make a small point.

I gladly admit that most journalists, and most professors to journalism, tend to lean to the left. Actually, most professions lean to the left as well, as do most scientists or even teachers. Why is that?

Lets look at both self-selection and motivation, shall we? Why would someone choose journalism school? Journalism demands an amount of intelligence and articulateness that is at least as great, if not greater, than many other professional graduate programs, such as business, law accounting, etc., that generally end up paying *alot* more after graduating. So why do these people act against their own economic self-interest? Could it be that conservatives are less willing to make this personal sacrifice for idealism than are liberals, and so are more likely to "follow the money" into a MBA program?

Lets look at another group: social scientists, architects, etc. Again, these groups could make more cash in other parts of industry, but yet they generally prefer more motivated by professional rather than monetary accomplishment. It is in the interest of the architect to vote democratic, as the republicans have continuously stripped away their professional role in the construction industry at the behest of developers. The architects see their motivation as designing better spaces for people to live and work in, with making a living coming in second, while the developers want to see the cash come in. Social scientists want to use their expertese to mitigate negative effects of the free market, etc. And hard scientists tend to be more motivated by professional respect than by cash, working long years as underpaid grad students, post-docs, and professors, when they could go into industry and make *alot* more money for much less work and stress. Or any of these could make obscene amounts of money by switching into business consulting, finance, or the like.

So why don't they switch? Is it, as the right would hold, that they get perverse enjoyment from trying to manipulate other people's lives?
Is this how "the left is out of touch with America" (even though at least 48% of us would say it's the right that's out of touch). Is it less manipulative, or more pure, to reap a greater financial reward by being motivated more by greed than idealism? Does it show the limits of economic motivations, when most of the high points of human cultural and scientific production are motivated more by professional esteem and idealism than by the market? Does it say anything about why so many evangelical christian churches preach that Jesus wants you to succeed in business?

 

Journalist may be to the left, but the people who own the media corporations (and therefore dictate the style of journalism) tend to lean to the right as being rich media moguls who only care about making money. (Yes, OK not all of them but you know where I'm coming from)
Don't know much about the American media, but in Britain I would say the BBC (Public Corporation)tends to the left, although as Labour are our party of the left (Honest guv) they're not doing the best job of it.
Newpapers wise, the Guardian, and Mirror are traditionally seen as left, stacked up against the Telegraph, Sun, Star, Express, Mail, Times which are to the right. Rather more Right wing than left wing, especially concerning distibution numbers.

 

I agree, always follow the money. Lord Black, anyone?

 

I'm at school right now, and can't get it word for word, but I cite Al Franken when I say that journalists lean left on social issues due to exposure of many different issues and peoples, while they lean to right on economic issues.

 

Ah, so basically they follow what people want to hear. Make it a nice world to live in, but at no cost to their wallet.
Cynical, moi?

 

An interesting topic. However, it is very, very, difficult to overlook economic factors in people. I serve as a perfect example, being a "hard scientist" as you say. No matter what definition of "hard scientist" you use, it is generally accepted that biology, chemistry and physics are the core sciences, and therefore anyone in any of those disciplines is a "hard scientist". I am a chemist, and therefore qualify.

I entered college and graduate school with high aspirations of a life of science, fully aware that I would be hurting my long-term future earnings by making this choice. End result? I became a chemist, and now, at the age of 30, I'm going back to school to pursue a law degree.

Of the professions you listed, some of these people do make economic sacrifices to pursue their profession, but others do not. I know of a few architects all of them make very good money. Sure, it is possible that if they had decided to become a stock broker they could potentially be worth millions, but on the whole, you can't say someone making a six-figure salary is really "working against their economic self-interest".

Lesson I've learned: Youth is certainly wasted on the young. The older you get, the more pragmatic you become. I had delusions of grandure about my career and found out they simply weren't true. Money almost always wins in the end.

 

Well, architects really don't make 6 figures until they are running their own firm or at least are senior associates or the like at a corporate firm. Yes, they make enough to be comfortable, but not as much as lawyers and the like. The point had more to do with legal control over the construction process: among other things, the Reagan and Thatcher years saw a rollback in the power of architects and engineers over construction projects, expanding the number of things one could do without the stamp (and so the assumption of liability) of a registered architect or engineer. If democrats are more likely to trust qualified "experts" in such matters, republicans are more likely to throw open control to "market forces," i.e., developers, corporate interests, financiers, and the like. And so, "experts" tend to vote democratic.

A similar thing in medicine: doctors, especially specialists, are making much less money in relative terms than they were 20 years ago. Much of this has to to with the rise of HMOs, where businessmen (MBAs) have essentially taken control of pricing power away from MDs. It's no coincidence that W went to HBS.

 

I agree with you generally in principle Bion but have to to dispute a few of your facts. Maggie resigned in 1990 - before the 1980's construction boom was over. The company I work for (Construction Design Engineers) expanded big time in the Thatcherite peiod, it was 1992-1994 when the construction industry fell on it's collective arse.

I would say the change in the Architects role in the construction industry is less down to developers and more down to the tightening/increasing of Design guidelines, Part L of the Building Regulations (Energy Efficiency of Buildings) is going to have a major impact on materials (especially glass). As guidelines get tighter you need new levels of specialists which is where the design engineer evolved from. There is just too many requirements and materials for a single discipline (such as Architects) to be able to deal with to construct a building.

In Britain, there really is not a lot of money in Architecure/Engineering design. I think I'm on more as a Chartered Electrical Engineer than an Architect of similar age would be. Compare that to some of my friends (management consultants in the main) on much bigger bucks, but also much longer hours. They also tend to be a lot more stressed than I am.
I get job satisfaction which counts for a lot. Having tried my hand at Comms - which was a god-awful job but meant a fair bit more money - I know which I prefer.