SHOCK: Liberals dominate the media

The most compelling proof that people are delusional and will believe whatever they want to believe no matter how far removed it is from reality is the fact that liberals (including many here) constantly whine that the media is dominated by conservatives - when the reality, as any honest and sane person knows, is that the exact opposite is true:

_____________________________________________________________

Newsroom conservatives are a rare breed

In national news outlets, only 7 percent of journalists call themselves conservative. Does that deepen a trust gap?

By Randy Dotinga | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor

If you'd like to check out an endangered species, don't bother with a trip to the zoo. Just drop by the newsroom of your favorite newspaper or TV station and ask to see the conservatives.

According to a new survey, only 12 percent of local reporters, editors, and media executives are self-described conservatives, while twice as many call themselves liberal. At national news organizations, the gap is even wider - 7 percent conservative vs. 34 percent liberal.

That gap, which has grown wider in the past decade, does not necessarily prove that America's mainstream journalism is biased, as conservatives have long complained. But the survey does confirm that US newsrooms do not mirror the political leanings of the nation at large.

But in an election year, and an era of growing partisanship on the airwaves, the question of alleged media bias has currency. Some editors contend that at the very least, media outlets should acknowledge that ideologically unbalanced newsrooms are bad for journalism and, in a time of declining circulation and viewership, bad for business, too.

"We should acknowledge that maybe the biggest problem is that most of us think too much alike and come from the same backgrounds," says David Yarnold, editor of the opinion pages at The (San Jose) Mercury News. "Find the pro-lifers in a newsroom. That's harder than finding Waldo."

Many editors and news executives argue that the goal of balanced reporting can be reached, and generally is, through professional ethics. Even those who are alarmed by the survey don't necessarily advocate a political litmus test in hiring.

Still, the survey shows a sharp disconnect in viewpoint between the press and the public. The nonpartisan Pew Research Center found the gap between journalists and other Americans particularly wide on social issues. The sample of 547 journalists and executives in a wide range of print and broadcast organizations, found that 88 percent of those surveyed at national media outlets think society should accept homosexuality; about half the general public agrees. And while about 60 percent of Americans say morality and a belief in God are inexorably linked, only 6 percent of national journalists and executives surveyed believe that.

But if editors and recruiters are thinking more about ideological balance, newsrooms remain distracted by budget cutbacks and continued embarrassment over the another gap: a severe shortage of minorities relative to the general population. To make things more complicated, no one wants to put a "Bush or Kerry?" question on an application form, and some journalists assume conservatives simply aren't interested in joining their ranks.

Then there's the matter of changing attitudes in a profession that prides itself on the ability of reporters to set their personal views aside."Most journalists try to do a fair job and are quite careful to make sure that their personal point of view doesn't overwhelm the story," says Jeffrey Dvorkin, ombudsman at National Public Radio. "In talk radio and cable television, the goal is to be opinionated. But the majority of journalists feel opinion gets in the way of doing good journalism."

Indeed, the Pew study doesn't prove that news stories themselves are biased - although it found that most national journalists think the media are giving President Bush a free ride.

Some analysts also note that publishers and station owners are anything but icons of the left. "Journalism in general in the United States tends to be fairly conventional and traditional. Even if [reporters] individually see themselves as liberal, the framework in which they work isn't necessarily a liberal structure," says Aly Colón, head of the diversity program at the Poynter Institute, a journalism think tank.

Still, many Americans say a liberal bias does exist. In a Gallup poll last fall, 45 percent of Americans said the news media are too liberal, while 14 percent said too conservative. (Some 20 percent of Americans now call themselves liberal, versus 33 percent who say they're conservative.)

Gallup also found TV news and daily papers near the bottom - on par with Congress and labor unions - in its ranking of public confidence in US institutions.

Mainstream US media outlets nowadays scrupulously try to avoid taking political stands outside editorial pages, unlike their newspaper ancestors in the 18th and 19th centuries or their contemporary European cousins.

Even so, reporters exert plenty of influence over their coverage, and some critics say they can't help missing parts of the big picture if they look at things the same way. And the trend toward a liberal viewpoint appears, if anything, to be rising. In 1995, 22 percent of journalists told Pew they were liberal, and 5 percent conservative. Now it's 34 and 7 percent, respectively.

Journalists are often blind to their bias, says Bill Cotterell, political editor at the Tallahassee [Fla.] Democrat. "It starts when we decide to cover one story and not another, and decide some people are kooks and not worth calling," says Mr. Cotterell, a registered Democrat. "I get the feeling that [journalists] don't think they're biased unless they sit down, hold a meeting and take a vote to support this side and oppose the other."

What to do? Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, suggests that news organizations reach out to Christian colleges and woo people from other walks of life, like the military. "Just look around," he says.

Editors can also try to recruit reporters from different parts of the country and from a variety of backgrounds, says Peter Bhatia, executive editor of The [Portland] Oregonian. Mr. Yarnold, the San Jose opinion editor, adds that job interview questions can draw out whether applicants are ideologues or critical thinkers.

It may help that the news industry isn't a stranger to diversity campaigns. Through internships and other outreach programs, media outlets routinely make special efforts to hire minorities. The diversity efforts have had mixed success, however. According to a new survey by the American Society of Newspaper Editors, minorities hold only 13 percent of newsroom jobs at American newspapers surveyed, up from just 4 percent in 1978.

RE: SHOCK: Dougie has bought this crock!

Evidently Dougie is oblivious of how the media works:

it doesn't really make much difference what the political leanings of newsroom reporters are. What makes a difference are leanings of their assignments editors and of the editors who review and rewrite their subsequent stories (assuming the story makes it into print or on the air, at all).

Also, regardless of one's political leanings, facts are facts, so general reporting comes out largely the same regardless of who writes the story. The political spin again comes from the editors, who decide how much of the story to print, and what kind of stories will dominate their newspages or airtime. For example, if the owners of a paper/TV station want people to think they're in the middle of a crime wave, all they have to do is plaster the paper or news broadcasts with crime stories!

The ownership and editorial boards of most of the major media are either moderate or conservative. One would be hard put to identify any major news outlet these days (including the New York Times and the Washington Post) that you could truly call "liberal." Furthermore, the talk show hosts from whom most Americans seems to get their news of the world are almost all unabashedly right-wing, and they do dominate the airwaves.

Yawn. . . :o

RE: Conservatives dominate the media

>The most compelling proof that people are delusional and will

>believe whatever they want to believe no matter how far

>removed it is from reality is the fact that . . .

the fact that Doug keeps ignoring the distinction between social liberalism and economic liberalism. It may be hard to find a pro-life activist in the average newsroom, but it's pretty damn easy to find people who believe in a capitalist system and the economic rights that go with it. Dan Rather and Peter Jenkins may be liberal on social issues, but you will notice that they live in multi-million- dollar apartments in the swankiest parts of Manhattan, not in a commune where no one is allowed to own anything. Look at the business-oriented programs produced by CNN and CNBC. How many are presented from the point of view of labor rather than capital? The correct answer is: None. CNBC's afternoon show is supposedly "balanced" because it has two hosts, one a Republican and the other a Democrat -- but both men happen to have spent their lives selling securities to investors. Even the supposedly ultra-liberal PBS doesn't have a show on business and the economy presented from labor's point of view -- their business show is produced by people from 'Fortune' magazine. Liberals control the media? Bullshit. The media is TOTALLY dominated by economic conservatives and always has been.

RE: Conservatives dominate the media

< labor's point of view >

Woody, Woody. I'm disappointed in your lack of insight here.

In Doogie's world, "labor's point of view" is properly the purview of the Tijuana Times and the Bangalore Bulletin. }(

RE: SHOCK: Dougie has bought this crock!

>The ownership and editorial boards of most of the major media

>are either moderate or conservative. One would be hard put to

>identify any major news outlet these days (including the New

>York Times and the Washington Post) that you could truly call

>"liberal." Furthermore, the talk show hosts from whom most

>Americans seems to get their news of the world are almost all

>unabashedly right-wing, and they do dominate the airwaves.

[h1]Yeah![/h1]

RE: SHOCK: Dougie has bought this crock!

>Evidently Dougie is oblivious of how the media works:

>

>it doesn't really make much difference what the political

>leanings of newsroom reporters are. What makes a difference

>are leanings of their assignments editors and of the editors

>who review and rewrite their subsequent stories (assuming the

>story makes it into print or on the air, at all).

You know as much about how newspapers work as you know about the law. I love how you hold yourself out as a pompous expert in every field even though - other than Rio bathhouses - you know nothing about them and have no experience in any of them.

Editors dole out assignments and make minor changes to what reporters write, but no self-respecting reporter - let alone the ones who write for the largest newspapers or television networks - would allow an editor to fundamentally alter the substance of what they report under their by-line. To assert that this occurs regularly - and that liberal reporters write stories which are then published with conservative slants inserted against their will by their editors - is just pure fantasy. You're just making up this fiction because you don't know what else to say about the fact that the vast majority of people who comprise the major media in this country are liberals.

And you are assuming, falsely, that editors are conservatives and don't share the same liberal views as reporters. That shows how you just make up facts when you can't think of anything to say about actual facts. Where do you think editors come from? From the ranks of reporters. Where do you get off asserting that newsroom editors are conservative? You have no basis at all for saying that. You just make it up.

As for your claim that the media is owned by major corporations and is therefore conservative, the fact is that the vast majority of newspaper editorial boards, especially in the nation's largest cities, almost automatically endorse Democrats in every single election.

Does anyone have any real doubt as to whether virtually every major newspaper in every large city in this country is going to endorse Kerry over Bush, just as they endorsed Gore over Bush, Clinton over Dole, etc. etc.? The views expressed by those editorial pages on a daily basis, as well as their formal endorsements for Democrats in almost every election, make it literally pathetic to hear someone try to argue that the editorial boards of the organs of the mass media are "conservative."

Objective surveys and polls show that the vast majority of reporters are liberals. The formal editorial position of most major media outlets expressly endorses the Democratic Party. And yet some people are still willing to shut their eyes to these facts and claim that the media is biased against them. What further proof is needed to demonstrate that true partisans care first about their ideology, and not at all about facts which contradict it?

As for not knowing how newsrooms work, I guess you shut your eyes when it came to this part of the article:

<<Even so, reporters exert plenty of influence over their coverage, and some critics say they can't help missing parts of the big picture if they look at things the same way. And the trend toward a liberal viewpoint appears, if anything, to be rising. In 1995, 22 percent of journalists told Pew they were liberal, and 5 percent conservative. Now it's 34 and 7 percent, respectively.>>

This article was written by a reporter. It was vetted by an editor. It was published in a major newspaper. It quotes experts in journalism. I think I'll rely on what they say about how newsrooms work over the ignorant rantings of some low-level retired Federal Government worker. Wouldn't you?

RE: SHOCK: Dougie has bought this crock!

>>The ownership and editorial boards of most of the major

>media

>>are either moderate or conservative. One would be hard put

>to

>>identify any major news outlet these days (including the New

>>York Times and the Washington Post) that you could truly

>call

>>"liberal." Furthermore, the talk show hosts from whom most

>>Americans seems to get their news of the world are almost

>all

>>unabashedly right-wing, and they do dominate the airwaves.

>

>Yeah!

Hey Rick - When you think about this issue, and you try to cling to the fantasy that the media is biased towards the conservative view because they are owned by corporations, how do you explain away in your mind the fact that the vast, vast majority of newspaper editorial boards, particularly the ones in the largest cities with the largest circulation, almost automatically endorse Democratic candidates in every election, and particularly in Presidential elections?

You and your political heroes all prattle on about how the Bush Administration is a servant to corporations, etc. etc. How do you explain away to yourself the fact that the editorial boards of most newspapers, owned by corporations, endorsed Gore over Bush? I'm genuinely curious to understand how people cling to viewpoints even in the face of indisputable facts which negate those viewpoints, so I'd be quite appreciative if you could let me know how you reconcile your view about media bias with this fact.

RE: SHOCK: Dougie has bought this crock!

>You and your political heroes all prattle on

Who are my political heroes? I didn't know I had any. But "prattle" is a neat word!

RE: Conservatives dominate the media

>the fact that Doug keeps ignoring the distinction between

>social liberalism and economic liberalism.

Whether or not your statement is true is entirely depending on whether you mean mainstream economic liberalism (which is pervasive in the media) or Marxist-Leninist economic liberalism (which is not typically advocated in the mass media).

If, by "economic liberalism," you mean mainstream economic liberalism - higher taxation rates for the wealthy, greater federal spending, more social programs for the poor, increased governmental regulation of industry - that view is pervasive in the media. Most newspaper editorial boards advocate the whole gamut of those views, and routinely criticize the Bush Administration for abandoning the central tenets of econimic liberalism.

But it seems that, in complaining about the absence from the mass media of advocates of "economic libearlism," what you mean is that nobody is advocating the abolition of capitalism and the imposition of a state-run, collectivist economy. If that's what you're saying, you're undoubtedly correct.

But that's like saying that there are no true "social conservatives" in the mass media because there is nobody on MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, etc., who advocates the deportation of blacks back to Africa, the extermination of homosexuals, and the rescission of the right to vote for women. There are people who hold those views in this country, but they are not permitted to express them in the mainstream media.

The mainstream media is called that because, by and large, they exist as a venue for the debate of mainstream ideas. You can easily hear advocates of the entire gamut of mainstream economic policies all over the media. But just as you don't hear people expressing the view that only white male property owners should be allowed to vote, you also don't hear people expressing the view that Communism is a preferable economic system to Capitalism.

So the fact that the two people on that cable show you always prattle on about both believe in capitalism proves nothing. Neither do they believe in the disenfranchisement of all citizens other than white male property owners, which is also a view that you can't hear on cable news shows. So what?

It may be hard to

>find a pro-life activist in the average newsroom, but it's

>pretty damn easy to find people who believe in a capitalist

>system and the economic rights that go with it.

How come it doesn't bother you that the media is dominated by what you call "liberals on social issues"?

>Liberals

>control the media? Bullshit. The media is TOTALLY dominated

>by economic conservatives and always has been.

Why do these "economic conservatives" who dominate the media: (a) overwhelmingly identify themselves as liberal and not conservative; and (b) almost automatically endorse candidates (such as Gore over Bush, Clinton over Dole, etc.) who advocate higher taxation, more regulation on industry, greater social spending, etc. -- all the things which economic conservatives should be against? What a weird thing for economic conservatives who dominate the media to do - repeatedly urge the election of economic liberals.

RE: SHOCK: Dougie has bought this crock!

>>You and your political heroes all prattle on

>

>Who are my political heroes? I didn't know I had any. But

>"prattle" is a neat word!

Howard Dean, Jeneane Garafolo, Arianna Huffington. Why do you bother to express views if, in response to questions about those views, you can offer nothing up other than juvenile jokes and cutesy evasions?

RE: SHOCK: Dougie has bought this crock!

>Howard Dean, Jeneane Garafolo, Arianna Huffington.

Howard Dean inspired me to become more aware and involved in the political process, Janeane Garafolo is one of my favorite stand-up comics and I enjoy Arianna's writing, but I wouldn't call them my "political heroes."

>Why do you

>bother to express views if, in response to questions about

>those views, you can offer nothing up other than juvenile

>jokes and cutesy evasions?

Because (a) that's my style, (b) the only view I expressed in this thread was "Yeah!" and © I'm not interested in this topic enough to want to be dragged into it. OK?

RE: Conservatives dominate the media

The liberal media...that great Repiglican buzz phrase. They keep using it, yet the #1 news network is that Repiglican shill, Faux News. The #1 and #2 rated radio programs are Rx[/font size]ush and Shemp Hannity. Dang liberal media.

RE: Conservatives dominate the media

>Whether or not your statement is true is entirely depending on

>whether you mean mainstream economic liberalism (which is

>pervasive in the media) or Marxist-Leninist economic

>liberalism (which is not typically advocated in the mass

>media).

No, Doug, it depends on whether I am willing to let YOU define what constitutes "mainstream economic liberalism." And I'm not. Because you define it as the shreds of economic liberalism remaining in the Democratic Party after Reagan got through beating up on liberals for eight years. Your definition ignores the fact that the other 6 members of the Group of 7 Industrialized Nations have a definition of economic liberalism quite different from ours. Mine is much closer to theirs.

>If, by "economic liberalism," you mean mainstream economic

>liberalism - higher taxation rates for the wealthy, greater

>federal spending, more social programs for the poor, increased

>governmental regulation of industry - that view is pervasive

>in the media.

Crap. I cannot recall the last time I heard anyone in the corporate media advocate higher rates of taxation or the rest.

>But it seems that, in complaining about the absence from the

>mass media of advocates of "economic libearlism," what you

>mean is that nobody is advocating the abolition of capitalism

>and the imposition of a state-run, collectivist economy.

Crap. As usual, your America-centric view ignores the whole spectrum of opinions between what the corporate media regards as "liberalism" and socialism.

>But that's like saying that there are no true "social

>conservatives" in the mass media because there is nobody on

>MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, etc., who advocates the deportation of

>blacks back to Africa, the extermination of homosexuals, and

>the rescission of the right to vote for women. There are

>people who hold those views in this country, but they are not

>permitted to express them in the mainstream media.

Nonsense. Are you forgetting Pat Buchanan, who used to have his own show on MSNBC (with Bill Press) and who now serves as frequent guest host on "Scarborough County"? Are you forgetting Michael Savage, who had his own show on MSNBC until he told a caller that he should "get AIDS and die"? I haven't forgotten them. Savage still has a nationally syndicated radio program, on which he recently called for newspaper editors who critize the Iraq war to be arrested for treason.

>The mainstream media is called that because, by and large,

>they exist as a venue for the debate of mainstream ideas.

Once again, you are much mistaken if you think I will permit you to decide what are mainstream ideas. Poll after poll taken in this country shows that the "mainstream media" consistently fail to focus on the issues of highest concern to Americans.

>You

>can easily hear advocates of the entire gamut of mainstream

>economic policies all over the media. But just as you don't

>hear people expressing the view that only white male property

>owners should be allowed to vote,

Really? Just last week I heard Limbaugh say that we shouldn't have legal remedies for racial discrimination, that people who are disadvantaged by racism should just "tough it out." Would you call that a "mainstream" idea?

>Neither do they believe in the disenfranchisement of all

>citizens other than white male property owners, which is also

>a view that you can't hear on cable news shows. So what?

Not having a television, you don't even know who I'm talking about, Doug, so how the fuck do you know what they believe? As a matter of fact one of them, Larry Kudlow, is constantly saying that insider trading should be legal. Is that also "mainstream"?

>How come it doesn't bother you that the media is dominated by

>what you call "liberals on social issues"?

Why would it bother me? Social conservatives are a minority in this country. Why should the media be dominated by the ideas of a minority?

>Why do these "economic conservatives" who dominate the media:

>(a) overwhelmingly identify themselves as liberal and not

>conservative; and (b) almost automatically endorse candidates

>(such as Gore over Bush, Clinton over Dole, etc.) who advocate

>higher taxation, more regulation on industry, greater social

>spending, etc. -- all the things which economic conservatives

>should be against?

Because they use the same skewed definitions that you do, Doug. Neither Republicans nor Democrats in this country advocate changes in our economic system other than at the margins. There is no presidential candidate other than Nader who advocates a system of national health insurance, for example, although every poll shows that most Americans favor it. True economic liberalism has been excluded from the national political debate for years because both politicians and the media won't talk about it.

RE: Conservatives dominate the media

>No, Doug, it depends on whether I am willing to let YOU define

>what constitutes "mainstream economic liberalism." And I'm

>not. Because you define it as the shreds of economic

>liberalism remaining in the Democratic Party after Reagan got

>through beating up on liberals for eight years.

You keep saying the same thing over and over in this post - that what I mean by "mainstream economic liberalism" isn't what you mean by it -- but the one thing you don't say is really the only thing that matters to your point: what economic views which constitute "mainstream economic liberalism" are not aired in the mainstream media?

The only example you identified was increased taxation, which you absurdly and falsely claimed is not advocated by anyone in the mainstream press. Do you really need me to post examples of newspaper editorials and cable talk shows where numerous people have argued for the elimination of some or all of the Bush tax cuts, i.e., the imposition of higher rates of taxation, in order for you to admit that your statement is untrue?

The fact that I don't have or watch television hardly precludes my knowing what views are aired in the mainstream media. One of the two individuals on the show which you can't stop talking about, for instance, writes a regular financial column for National Review Online. Most of the individuals who advocate in the mainstream media are readily accessible through other sources, including the Internet. The views of "labor" -- as represented by politicians like Richard Gephardt, Pat Buchanan, and Ralph Nader -- are frequently aired. That's why you can't identify any "pro-labor" views which are not. Labor union leaders themselves are not uncommonly guests on cable talk shows.

This is just more of the same garbage: everyone wants to be a victim. Conservatives can't shut up about the unfairness of liberal domiantion of networks and newspapers even though they have plenty of outlets for exprsesion of their views. Identically, liberals like you can't stop whining that your views are suppressed even though every view that constitutes "mainstream economic liberalism" is frequently aired in the mainstream media.

Everyone thinks they're a victim. Everyone thinks they are treated unfairly. Everyone thinks that the other side always has unfair advantages and cheats but they don't. Everyone thinks that any news broadcast or story which doesn't track their world-view is "unfairly biased." How is it possible to hear yourself mouthing these platitudes and not realize how tiresome and bereft of truth and merit they are?

RE: Conservatives dominate the media

>You keep saying the same thing over and over in this post -

>that what I mean by "mainstream economic liberalism" isn't

>what you mean by it -- but the one thing you don't say is

>really the only thing that matters to your point: what

>economic views which constitute "mainstream economic

>liberalism" are not aired in the mainstream media?

>

>The only example you identified was increased taxation,

That's not true, Doug. I mentioned several issues, including national health insurance as well as taxation. I could mention other issues, such as pension reform, that are almost never discussed in the mainsteam media even though they're of major concern to a vast segment of the population.

> Do you really need me to post examples

>of newspaper editorials and cable talk shows where numerous

>people have argued for the elimination of some or all of the

>Bush tax cuts, i.e., the imposition of higher rates of

>taxation, in order for you to admit that your statement is

>untrue?

No, Doug, what I really need is for you to stop talking that silly shit about postponing or reducing a tax cut being the same as a tax increase. I also need you to remember that Bush agreed, when the previous rounds of his tax cuts were passed, that the cuts would be temporary. He agreed to that because if he had not the projected deficits we face would be even bigger than they now are, and he didn't want that splashed all over the media.

So if the tax cuts are temporary -- and that is the way the law on the books now reads -- and if Bush abandons any attempt to make them permanent, does that mean he will be guilty of increasing taxes at the time they expire? By the logic you use, I suppose it would mean that. Which just goes to show how ridiculous your position is.

>The fact that I don't have or watch television hardly

>precludes my knowing what views are aired in the mainstream

>media. One of the two individuals on the show which you can't

>stop talking about, for instance, writes a regular financial

>column for National Review Online.

And does his column regularly reprise everything he says on the air during his daily hour-long show? You don't really know because you never see the show.

> The views of

>"labor" -- as represented by politicians like Richard

>Gephardt, Pat Buchanan, and Ralph Nader -- are frequently

>aired. That's why you can't identify any "pro-labor" views

>which are not. Labor union leaders themselves are not

>uncommonly guests on cable talk shows.

What I said, Doug, and I guess this is why Devon is constantly accusing you of "distorting" his views, is that these shows are not presented from the point of view of labor. Every host of every one of these shows speaks from the point of view of the owners of capital and he spends most if not all of his time talking about the concerns of the owners of capital. Even when labor leaders are allowed to speak -- and the three men you mention are by no stretch of the imagination "labor leaders" -- the questions they are asked to address are almost always about the effects of various issues on the owners of capital, i.e., the effects on corporate earnings and share prices. The problem is, the group comprising the owners of capital in this country does NOT include the majority of Americans. That's what makes these shows so very, very UNbalanced.

The only exception I can think of is the series of reports on outsourcing recently done by Lou Dobbs on CNN. His insistence on talking about this issue on almost every one of his programs has gotten a lot of attention. And the reason it's gotten a lot of attention is that it is so very unusual for one of these business shows to consistenly devote time to an issue that is NOT all about the concerns of the owners of capital as opposed to the rest of America.

> liberals like you can't stop whining that your

>views are suppressed even though every view that constitutes

>"mainstream economic liberalism" is frequently aired in the

>mainstream media.

That's bullshit, Doug. When was the last time you saw a front-page article in any newspaper on national health insurance or pension reform? Well?

>Everyone thinks they're a victim. Everyone thinks they are

>treated unfairly.

I didn't say I was being victimized or treated unfairly. I did say that it's ridiculous for conservatives like you to bitch about domination of the media by liberals when the truth is that the media is dominated by people whose economic views are quite conservative.