I guess this means Fox News is all male and all white, then?

Sorry Goldberg, but that’s got to be the most insensitive and stupidest analysis of the media climate I’ve ever heard in my life. I know conservatism as an ideology opposes multiculturalism – but using it as an attack on the non-conservative media? Clown shoes.

I also find it interesting that O’Reilly is claiming that real news organizations aren’t supposed to be routing for political candidates or causes–just reporting facts. While I agree with him, he’s broadcasting on a channel that ENCOURAGED participation in the Tea Party protests and even had members at the event trying to get people excited. If Bill O’Reilly is a part of the generation of “old” correspondents who are committed to impartiality, then I would suggest he push FNC to manage themselves the way they would like to see other networks managed.

Nicely done, Bernie. Just let that good old hate and racism hang out everywhere. Oh, Bernie – in case you had not noticed, you work at a network that is predominantly staffed by women. So, if you are correct, breasts equals liberals, which makes FNC the headquarters of liberal journalism.

Nothing like two tired old men blaming women and minorities for their own failings.

And, for the record, had any other network run this trash, Bernie and Bill would be calling them out for sexist and racist attitudes.

Oh man… as soon as I heard him say this… I said to myself, “Man, the haters will be out tomorrow!” And damned, if I wasn’t right!

Bernie says something about race… and it MUST be racist! MUST BE! Forget what he actually said… forget that it’s something the left says ALL THE TIME… a smear is a smear, and we all know people on the right (especially white males) are forbidden from talking about race!

The OBVIOUS point of his comment was that in the effort of physical diversity, news rooms ignored IDEOLOGICAL diversity. Because many of these racial and ethnic groups trend to be more liberal than conservative (a fact the Democrats pat themselves on the back for), newsrooms become overwhelmingly left-wing.

But by all means, let the illogical hate fly. You guys need to hate someone, because you can’t stand on the merits of facts alone… so go back to your ranting and railing against Bernie Goldberg… for daring to talk about race, and being a white male at the same time.

Hey Colby… that last paragraph of yours really hurts the imaginary logic you used previously that you’re “unbiased.”

You purposely misrepresented the “thrust” of Goldberg’s comment, and put an ideologically negative spin on it. The two comments aren’t related at all… which is why you try to link them with a bit of nasty sarcasm.

I’ll never understand why folks on the left will rant and rail that FOX doesn’t expressly discuss it’s “bias”… but then make clearly biased and demeaning comments towards those on the right, while acting as though THEY’RE somehow the “fair” ones. Either you can’t recognize your own bias (in which case you may want to consider a profession other than “journalism”), or your a liar… so which is it?

What part of the following is misrepresented? “So to recap: Two weeks ago, Bernie Goldberg made news by claiming that Fox News hosts should stop claiming to be journalists. Then in response to similar criticisms made by the White House, Goldberg claims that the alleged bias is due to the fact that the newsroom now features women, African-Americans, Asians, and Hispanics who have all come in with a liberal bent, which didn’t exist when newsrooms were completely made up of white men. Got it.”

Isn’t that effectively what he said? BTW, I happen to think that diversity in the newsroom has NOTHING to do with the rise in opinion journalism – its an absurd notion. And that has nothing to do with my own personal belief system. And I’ve never claimed that I wasn’t unbiased – I don’t believe there is such a thing. I’m just as happy to mock what I deem to be absurdities on either side of the aisle and have done so repeatedly on this site.

Historically, journalism ITSELF has its roots in opinion journalism. Not until late into the life of media did the journalistic codes of non-partisanship develop. Revolutionary Era Press was probably as biased if not more biased than media today, and back then it was all white males as well. Opinion journalism is not a result of diversification of newsrooms–it appears to be cyclical if you look at media from a historical perspective. I agree with Colby. Nothing to do with diversification.

+1 LVK… Even looking at the New York Times at the turn of the century, it had a weird, snobby social diary feel to it, which is to say nothing of the vicious 18th century press. I think it’s shortsighted to assume that a set of norms established in the mid-20th century have somehow been around forever, & try to tie their decline to your pet trend.

I happen to think that diversity in the newsroom has NOTHING to do with the rise in opinion journalism – its an absurd notion.

Fine… then write a COLUMN about that. Do not off this up as a “report” of the facts of the situation. If you want to give your opinion, or present this as an opinion do so with a big yellow banner, as to prevent confusion.

That said… the point you have gleaned above was NOT Goldberg’s point. Opinion journalism is a beast onto its own. However, the dominance of Democrats and Liberals WITHIN the newsroom, within ALL SECTION of the news outlet is the point. Journalists have for a long time now been admittedly overwhelmingly left-of-center. Whether it’s a study asking which party they most identify with, or research on campaign donations, the result is CONSISTENTLY pro-Democratic. This was Goldberg’s focus… why are journalists and newsrooms so consistently left?

The argument from the left then becomes, “Well, of course we have an opinion, but it doesn’t mean we share it all the time.” or some such garbage. In fact, Colby made that argument (as if on cue) right away. Of course, the “we can get past our opinions,” seems to only be true for left-wing journalists… and is a courtesy or trust that is NEVER afforded to right-wing folks (see Brit Hume as an example).

But the statement is false. Being ideologically biased (which everyone is), inherently allows the individual to see things from “their side” more clearly. So often the things that seem “absurd” or “wrong” to them, come from their bias against… while the things that seem perfectly acceptable or “normal,” are things their bias agrees with. It shapes the coverage of the news, and changes the focus of the stories. An example of this is the protests of George W. Bush versus the protests of Barack Obama. Both protests were pretty similar in their nastiness… however, the media flipped out when they saw a “Nazi” sign or two at the Tea Party rallies… but were fine when they saw the same at the anti-Bush rallies (see Susan Roesgen as an example).

So the ideological conformity of a newsroom DOES effect news coverage, and promotes group think around a media outlet (if nobody is around to say, “Hey, what about this?” everything slants in one direction). Goldberg’s point was that while newsrooms promoted PHYSICAL diversity (race, gender, etc.) they didn’t promote IDEOLOGICAL diversity, so the group became very homogenous.

“So why bring race and gender into it at all,” they say (they being people on the left, and people who feel personally attacked when someone suggests that journalists are biased)? The answer: Because, AS DEMOCRATS PROUDLY TALK ABOUT, the majority of these groups vote Democratic. In other words, the influx of minorities into the newsroom meant that a you had a lot of people with different backgrounds, but who generally came to the same conclusion about politics… versus a newsroom of similar backgrounds, but perhaps a more varied political outlook. As Goldberg said (over and over again), the diversity was/is GOOD… but because on a political line, the far majority of these people think similarly, it did not and has not added to political diversity of a newsroom!

I’m just as happy to mock what I deem to be absurdities on either side of the aisle and have done so repeatedly on this site.

There is a difference between “mocking the absurdities,” and purposely misrepresenting Goldberg’s words to poke fun, or score political points.

What part of the following is misrepresented?
Then in response to similar criticisms made by the White House…

The criticism from the White House, and the criticism of Goldberg last week are not the same… and you know it. That is a misrepresentation of the facts.

Additionally the rest of that quote is designed to imply that Goldberg is a racist… purposely removing the context, imposing your own bias upon the story, and an unwarranted smearing. You purposely “didn’t get it,” for less than genuine reasons.

O’Reilly claimed that there was a time when old news guys like himself, Britt Hume and Goldberg all got their opinions out of clear and clean reportage. He then ask why that discipline has disappeared, or in other words, why is opinion journalism so prevalent these days (ignoring the irony that the prime time slate at Fox is two-thirds opinion journalism, and that they are absolutely dominating the ratings as such).

Goldberg offered the following reason for the change:

“Once upon a time the newsrooms were overwhelmingly populated with white men. Some of them went to Princeton, some of them never went to college. Blue collar, white collar … but white men. As diversification took over we got African-Americans in the news room – a good thing. We got women in the news room — a good thing … Hispanics … But you know what we wound up with, really? We wound up with white liberals in the newsroom and black liberals in the newsroom. We wound up with male liberals, and female liberals. We wound up with Hispanic liberals and Asian liberals. All these groups that never existed in the old newsroom tended to be more liberal than the white males. And as we got diversified in the newsroom, we got more liberal. And that liberal-ness, if you can call it that, created a situation that was an unforeseen consequence.”

Those are his exact words. I wasn’t trying to make him racist — nor do I think he’s racist. I just wrote down what he said. And I think it absurd.

You claim that “Goldberg’s point was that while newsrooms promoted PHYSICAL diversity (race, gender, etc.) they didn’t promote IDEOLOGICAL diversity, so the group became very homogenous(sic).” That would have been a much more focused argument, but that’s not what he said.

Had he wanted to say that there was no ideological diversity, then why even reference the physical diversity? He clearly was claiming cause and effect. At least that’s my analysis.

…asking Goldberg why that’s happened, or in other words, why is opinion journalism so prevalent in today’s day…

I disagree. It’s not “opinion journalism” that they’re talking about, rather opinion IN journalism. In other words, why does someone like Richard Engel inject his own opinion into a story, and then claim he’s not advocating anything? It’s not the opinion folks (O’Reilly, Beck, etc) that they’re talking about, but the average reporter who can’t seem to keep their own biases out of the report.

The answer is because there’s so much group think in the newsroom, they don’t realize anymore that they’re putting forth an opinion. When everyone around you agrees, and you don’t talk to people who object, your idea of “what is real” or “what is accepted fact and what is opinion,” is hard to distinguish.

Had he wanted top say that there was no ideological diversity, then why reference the physical diversity? He clearly is claiming cause and effect.

He is explaining WHY there is no IDEOLOGICAL diversity… a cause, he sees, from PHYSICAL diversity. The physical diversity was great because it brought in different backgrounds and experiences, and that can make for more interesting story telling. However, if all the voices have an element of commonality (politics), and the traditional political differences between the reporters has gone away, the group starts speaking with one voice, while ignoring the other view!

In the old days (as Goldberg talks about), there was more ideological difference between the staff… such that if one person wrote something that was overtly biased, someone else could say, “Hey, hold on,” and they could correct it before it went out. However, in an effort to be more diverse (a good thing), they managed to make the newsroom more political uniform. That means more bias is able to slip through the cracks, because there is no ideological checks and balances. Now, the cracks are floodgates, and a lot of reporters can’t tell the difference between opinion and fact.

The race aspect of this story (or at least of Goldberg’s analysis) is secondary. Take out the race element, substitute in a generic group of people see what we get. News organizations wanted more XYZ people, so they brought them in. However, in doing they, they didn’t realize they’d all agree on politics, and now things are slanted because the group has a foundation rooted in a common political theory. See?

And finally, when it comes to an issue like this, I deffer to someone like Goldberg who has been in the business for such a long time, he’s got the experience to back up his statements!

Glenn Beck is not a “Journalist” but plays one on TV and does so a hell of a lot better than most of the so-called “main stream media” Journalists. I think he is more of a Puzzlemeister and it’s fun to watch him at his famous blackboard busily putting all the pieces together. Surprise! They all fit! Barack Hussein Obama and his gaggle of radical Czar’s, Union thugs and Chicago dingbats are in a state of total chaos. It’s hilarious. Glenn Beck now has a “red phone” set up so the White House can call him when he gets something wrong. Crickets were chirping on the first day. Nada from the Smear Campaign at the White House. They must all be down in the basement, rethinking their Amateur Hour strategy. lol!! They are going to be sooooo sorry they sic’d poor ol’ Anita Dumm on Glenn Beck.

Who am I gonna believe? This website or my own eyes and ears? Bernie Goldberg was not blaming increased ethnic diversity in the newsroom, he was blaming the corresponding lack of political diversity that accompanied the increase in ethnic diversity. Hire more blacks and hispanics? Fine. But why are they all liberal blacks and liberal hispanics? Hire more women. Fine. But why are they all liberal women? Hire more Asians. Fine. But why are they all liberal Asians? Bernie’s point was about less diversity in the areas that matter most – political, intellectual, philosophical, and religious. He was right. This article misses that point entirely.