Patterico’s implied criticism of this situation is similar to his criticism of press coverage of the war: The public is failing to support Bush’s prosecution of the war because of biased press coverage, not because the facts on the ground are pretty crummy.

Likewise, if someone is in the business of covering government day in and day out, with attention and diligence, the “facts on the ground” might well convince them that liberals are more reasonable than conservatives. Just a hypothesis, of course, but no less inherently plausible than Patterico’s insinuations.

In any event, the self-identification as “moderates” does not impress me, for the reasons stated in the postscript.

Funny, too, how Fox News is at the top of these journalists’ “tilted” news outlets! No wonder! If you’re a liberal, who’s “biased” then? LOL!

When asked, “What’s more important for American society - that everyone be free to pursue their life’s goals without interference from the government OR that the government plays an active role in society so as to guarantee that nobody is in need” journalists came out about even with the public. Interestingly, the execs were more out of sync with the public on this issue than the journalists - on the “conservative” side.

As regards homosexuality and religion: why does Patterico assume that being libertarian on social issues is the same thing as being “liberal”? After all, it’s reasonable to assume that a number of folks who strongly believe that “people should be free to pursue life’s goals without interference from the government” will also resist the notion that society should discourage homosexuality.

(I’ll also note that my personal beliefs line up with those of the majority of journalists, regarding the specific questions re homosexuality and religion.)

However, it is a mistake to see this as proof that journalists are “libertarian” rather than “liberal” or “leftist.” The overwhelming libertarianism displayed by national journalists on social issues evaporates entirely when economic issues are discussed. Here, national journalists prove to be more socialistic than the general public.

I agree that this study could go much deeper. Although the self-diagnosis is interesting, the individual questions prove little more than the inaccuracy of the self-diagnosis. I would like to have seen something much more comprehensive.

At the same time, there is much more evidence out there besides this study supporting the thesis of a liberal media.

It’s overwhelmingly clear that reporters are leftist — to anyone without an axe to grind.

That is a fact among the general public and is certainly true among journalists. Democrats running for office hate being called liberal. So do journalists.