I have been reading Mark Levin’s Unfreedom of the Press. If you have read this book or read the review I link here, you probably find my interest rather strange. Levin is at heart a talk show personality with a perspective that journalism is dominated by those with a progressive orientation. While my own political orientation could not be more different, what I find interesting about Levin’s book is his identification of reasons and data in support of his general argument. I grapple with understanding how Republicans in recent times can possibly take the positions that they take. The behavior and attitudes I see from my perspective lack any possible logic. At least with Levin, I have something to work with in terms of understanding.
This will not be a review of Levin’s book. This may come later. My post here deals mostly with the claim made in Levin’s first chapter. Levin begins by claiming the press is by nature progressive (Democratic) as most journalists have this orientation. This claim interested me because I have lately been considering the claim that this is also true of college professors with the related suggestion by some that hiring practices should take this into account and attempt to balance things out a bit. There is a similarity here in professional goals that occurs to me. Journalists could be seen as interested in a form of education. Why this imbalance exists is an interesting question and I will attempt to offer a perspective as a summary statement. If the commitment to education has something to do with progressive values, does it really make sense to seek out more individuals with a different orientation?
I started to wonder whether there was a correlation between occupation and political ideology and what this says about the perceived mission by those working in different occupations. I was able to find several sources (here is one from Business Insider). One of the more interesting presentations I found comes from Verdant Labs. This presentation includes some direct comparisons (e.g., Catholic Priests are far more likely Republican than Episcopalian Clergy). The visual comparisons also allow the exploration of subdivisions within occupational categories.
At some level, the data are unremarkable – e.g., business types are generally more Republican and those who provide services to people are more Democratic. The data are just interesting to consider.
These differences in political ideology can already be identified in college majors. I found these data difficult to find online which kind of surprises me as college students are kind of a captive audience for researchers. Among other things, this would point to the pool of talent available in different areas.
Here is what intrigues me about the claim that those in a profession should be different. There is nothing that prevents Republicans from becoming college professors or journalists and nothing that prevents Democrats from becoming actuaries or dentists. People gravitate toward occupations as a function of aptitude, interests, and values. Unless it can be demonstrated that there are biases in hiring practices is this a bad thing? I understand that a case can be made that educators and journalists are somehow different or have different obligations. What exactly would this case be? Let’s say that I resent what I believe is a greater financial orientation among dentists that I would like. I would guess this is the case, but I would also guess many might suggest that my call for dentists with different values would be considered ludicrous or at least impractical. Psychologists and social workers tend to be among the most democratically dominant professions. Would we really want this not to be the case? What about educators and journalists?