Reinforcing Andy B’s post: Instapundit links to a study using think tank references to measure media. The report showed a more dramatic left swing than the researchers expected. Reynolds also links to a Rocky Mountain Editorial . She points out to get a “fair and balanced” day, one would have to read the NYT once and watch Fox special report twice.
I am curious about another factor that might skew military reporting. Liberal arts schools have tended to downplay both military and diplomatic history for the last generation or two; I suspect all reporters (except those with military training) know less about tactics than is necessary to report well.
Also, right-leaning media seemed, even before 9/11. more likely to understand the unique language (let alone culture) of the career military. (This distinction became clear in covering the Florida absentee vote.) My gut, however, may be wrong– that is the thrust of the “chicken” hawk meme. I would like to see such a study.
You say “..I suspect all reporters (except those with military training)…”
I’d say the number of TV, radio, and print “reporters” with military training would be about 3 percent of the total. It’s no wonder the mass of reporting is so incompetent.
Maybe the concept of embedding within active military units will improve the quality of war reporting in the future.
Three percent would be a very high number.
Let’s see, there was Oliver North on Fox. Andy Rooney served about 60 years ago. And then…
A couple of years ago there was a thread on the list maintained by the National Conference of Editorial Writers asking who had served in the military and what they thought about it now. I don’t remember exactly how many people said yes, but 3 percent wouldn’t be outlandish; of course, many of them were drafted. Among younger editorial writers, and women who hold that job in increasing numbers, it was very small.
Probably larger than the number of former math professors, though.