There are lots of reasons, but you haven't come up with any of them other than the reported fact that women journalists tend to be liberal. Some quick thoughts, as I have things to do:
It's been argued that liberals have a need to influence and control others and effect change (e.g. bigger government, more regulation), and the media is seen as a power medium (and glamorous, too) through which they can do that. And, they don't even have to be elected!!
One important factor is that the pay often sucks, except for the relatively few who make it to the top. People who are motivated more by the power and less motivated by financial success are drawn into the applicant pool to begin with. It's a similar story for teachers and professors, who are also overwhelmingly liberal.
In school, would-be journalists tend to study liberal arts almost exclusively -- in my college days, things like English, sociology, philosophy, etc., including the relatively new field of journalism itself. Unlike scientific inquiry, few of these studies do a very good job of teaching students critical analysis of facts or logic, or give a substantive discipline. They learn to influence and communicate, but not to think. Things tend to be seen as subject to interpretation or argument, instead of a scientific inquiry.
When I was in college, I thought about becoming a journalist like my father had been decades earlier, and the main advice he gave me was to study something substantive and apply it to journalism later. After I did that, I wasn't so interested in becoming a journalist.
Btw, to refute your assertions about name calling and eloquence, I direct your attention to the Bush hate threads -- take your pick -- and review what the most "eloquent" lefties say about Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al. That one's a slam dunk. |
