Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (2816)	11/11/2007 9:02:57 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

The link is to a chart that was on a blog, the study that the data comes from was a UCLA study. The study is of course subject to error, and possibly bias. I wouldn't consider its methodology to be very solid, relative frequency of cites of conservative or liberal think tanks isn't exactly a solid measure of how conservative or liberal a publican is. Still it indicates something. If you remove the people who are effectively covered by Medicare and just haven't signed up yet, and also remove the wealthy uninsured, and illegal immigrants, and also count the current uninsured rather than people who where uninsured at any time in the past year - Than you would get a number much smaller than 47 million. But you would still have millions of uninsured. Similarly the ratings in that link aren't very precise or solid. But they do indicate something. Even if the Wall Street Journal's news stories aren't exactly the most liberal of all major news outlets, they aren't exactly strongly biased to the conservative side. The news department of the WSJ is separate from, and much more liberal than the editorial staff. ---- ...But wait a minute. Isn't the Journal's editor, Robert Bartley, a Reagan conservative? Yes, and this is how the myth of the conservative Wall Street Journal survives. Bartley may have "editor" as his title, but he has virtually no say in news coverage nor role in setting the news agenda at the paper. That falls to Steiger. Bartley controls the opinion side of the paper – the editorial pages – and is otherwise a figurehead for the paper. In fact, Bartley and Steiger work in separate parts of the Journal's Manhattan building (temporarily vacated because of damage suffered from the World Trade Center attacks). At most papers, editorial and news editors work together in the same newsroom. Yet Bartley and his crew of conservative, free-market editorial writers are in one department, and Steiger and his crew of supposedly "objective" news reporters are in another. And they despise each other. According to former Journal staffers, Steiger's reporters commonly refer to Bartley's writers as "Nazis" or, more charitably, "kookie right-wingers," and won't have anything to do with them. The two departments are so separate that former Journal Executive Editor Norman Pearlstine, a Clinton Democrat and one-time managing editor, didn't even have security access to the editorial-page offices. Fact is, the Journal's news and editorial departments are as politically polarized as North and South Korea. The result is "schizophrenic" coverage, said University of Texas journalism professor Marvin Olasky... worldnetdaily.com Now this might change with Murdoch's purchase, but I'm talking about its past record not its future.