The Guardian Covers Reluctance of Professors to Remain in the South

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Guardian is very reputable and fairly down the middle politically.

Professors move all the time. Including tenured ones. Professors have families. So they are annoyed by politicians messing with their schools, plus they don't want to raise their families in these places.

10-15 years ago a northern professor might have considered working at an SEC school - they might be political outliers in town but there was a critical mass of like-minded people so they could survive. Not sure if you would want to be a Harvard-educated Democrat in Tuscaloosa or Knoxville anymore.

The guardian is informative, but really far left.

No one with honesty would call the guardian "down the middle" politically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My sibling recently retired as an assistant dean from one of the top southern flagships. They said they knew several faculty at the top levels who had quietly moved to other universities because of the impact the politicization of the boards was having on teaching and research. These are people who had been at the university for decades and are too of their field. They are moving quietly because they love their institutions and don’t want to publicly harm them any more than the state politicians already have.
It’s true not everyone has mobility — but the top of the top do. And the newbies also do. That’s two groups that universities probably don’t want to lose. They are getting left with all the tenured folks who aren’t fancy enough to be able to get other offers.

Don’t enlighten those that don’t believe anything. Wasting your precious time here….

You mean, we're supposed to be enlightened by the "sibling" of a random internet poster? Good grief.

Clearly now. Now back to your regularly scheduled enlightenment through Fox News…

And you back to MSNBC and... The Guardian.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Guardian is very reputable and fairly down the middle politically.

…

I mean, come on - at least be honest here!

LEFT-CENTER BIAS

These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by appeals to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information but may require further investigation. See all Left-Center sources.

Overall, we rate The Guardian as Left-Center biased based on story selection that moderately favors the left and Mixed for factual reporting due to numerous failed fact checks over the last five years.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/

In this day and age where most things are either very far to one side or the other, left-center biased is pretty good. And note that I qualified my description with "fairly". Especially since your passionate obsession with proving me wrong leads me to believe that you worship at the throne of Murdoch. Ummm. Kool Aid tastes so good.

DP. Oh, please. If we had used a source that was "right-center," you'd be mocking it as "MAGA". Also, there are several different posters here, so there is no one person who is passionately obsessed with proving you wrong. You're just... wrong. Sorry. And btw, it's clear you "worship at the throne" of any left-leaning source. So your projection is duly noted.

I would call the WSJ right-center and nearly everyone would agree it’s a reputable publication and not MAGA at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Incredibly, the survey findings suggest that half of the professors in Texas would like to leave the state:

"About 25% of the professors in Texas who responded said they have applied for teaching roles in other states in the last two years, with another 25% saying they intend to start a search."

Half of the professors in Texas?

Or half the professors in Texas who replied to The Guardian survey?

[Anonymous]

I love how the MAGA posters are completely unable to engage in any form of intelligent discourse. If someone posts anything that contradicts what they have been told to think, they deny it, make childish snarky posts, and get rude and nasty.

I wonder who they are emulating?

It is truly sad what this nation has descended to. I used to have difficult but respectful disagreements with friends who were at the far end of the spectrum politically. Now it is truly impossible. I don't know what happened to these people. Their only joy in life is making the other side miserable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Guardian is very reputable and fairly down the middle politically.

Professors move all the time. Including tenured ones. Professors have families. So they are annoyed by politicians messing with their schools, plus they don't want to raise their families in these places.

10-15 years ago a northern professor might have considered working at an SEC school - they might be political outliers in town but there was a critical mass of like-minded people so they could survive. Not sure if you would want to be a Harvard-educated Democrat in Tuscaloosa or Knoxville anymore.

Nope. It's lefty and not reputable. and I am british

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Guardian is very reputable and fairly down the middle politically.

Professors move all the time. Including tenured ones. Professors have families. So they are annoyed by politicians messing with their schools, plus they don't want to raise their families in these places.

10-15 years ago a northern professor might have considered working at an SEC school - they might be political outliers in town but there was a critical mass of like-minded people so they could survive. Not sure if you would want to be a Harvard-educated Democrat in Tuscaloosa or Knoxville anymore.

The guardian is informative, but really far left.

No one with honesty would call the guardian "down the middle" politically.

It's also failed multiple fact checks, as cited in the other post.

[Anonymous]

One poster makes a comment referencing the politics of a publication and all the MAGA posters do the old Trump redirect to focus on that because they don't want to talk about the actual topic.

And these are people who get their info from Fox. The Guardian is much closer to the center than Fox. Maybe not the center as perceived in their highly biased MAGA bubbles, but the center as perceived by intelligent people.

Epstein. TACO. Epstein. TACO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Guardian is very reputable and fairly down the middle politically.

…

I mean, come on - at least be honest here!

LEFT-CENTER BIAS

These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by appeals to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information but may require further investigation. See all Left-Center sources.

Overall, we rate The Guardian as Left-Center biased based on story selection that moderately favors the left and Mixed for factual reporting due to numerous failed fact checks over the last five years.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/

In this day and age where most things are either very far to one side or the other, left-center biased is pretty good. And note that I qualified my description with "fairly". Especially since your passionate obsession with proving me wrong leads me to believe that you worship at the throne of Murdoch. Ummm. Kool Aid tastes so good.

DP. Oh, please. If we had used a source that was "right-center," you'd be mocking it as "MAGA". Also, there are several different posters here, so there is no one person who is passionately obsessed with proving you wrong. You're just... wrong. Sorry. And btw, it's clear you "worship at the throne" of any left-leaning source. So your projection is duly noted.

I would call the WSJ right-center and nearly everyone would agree it’s a reputable publication and not MAGA at all.

Yes, the WSJ is absolutely a reputable, Pulitzer-winning news source - but whenever I cite it here on DCUM, the usual suspects inevitably pounce, claiming it's right-wing. Really tiresome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Guardian is very reputable and fairly down the middle politically.

Professors move all the time. Including tenured ones. Professors have families. So they are annoyed by politicians messing with their schools, plus they don't want to raise their families in these places.

10-15 years ago a northern professor might have considered working at an SEC school - they might be political outliers in town but there was a critical mass of like-minded people so they could survive. Not sure if you would want to be a Harvard-educated Democrat in Tuscaloosa or Knoxville anymore.

The guardian is informative, but really far left.

No one with honesty would call the guardian "down the middle" politically.

It's also failed multiple fact checks, as cited in the other post.

OMG!!! It failed a fact check. Because all publications are perfect. And again, you are writing this as someone who likely gets their news from sources which were found in courts of law to make stuff up routinely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Incredibly, the survey findings suggest that half of the professors in Texas would like to leave the state:

"About 25% of the professors in Texas who responded said they have applied for teaching roles in other states in the last two years, with another 25% saying they intend to start a search."

Half of the professors in Texas?

Or half the professors in Texas who replied to The Guardian survey?

Yikes. The Guardian simply has reported on a survey by the American Association of Professors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Guardian is very reputable and fairly down the middle politically.

…

I mean, come on - at least be honest here!

LEFT-CENTER BIAS

These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by appeals to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information but may require further investigation. See all Left-Center sources.

Overall, we rate The Guardian as Left-Center biased based on story selection that moderately favors the left and Mixed for factual reporting due to numerous failed fact checks over the last five years.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/

In this day and age where most things are either very far to one side or the other, left-center biased is pretty good. And note that I qualified my description with "fairly". Especially since your passionate obsession with proving me wrong leads me to believe that you worship at the throne of Murdoch. Ummm. Kool Aid tastes so good.

DP. Oh, please. If we had used a source that was "right-center," you'd be mocking it as "MAGA". Also, there are several different posters here, so there is no one person who is passionately obsessed with proving you wrong. You're just... wrong. Sorry. And btw, it's clear you "worship at the throne" of any left-leaning source. So your projection is duly noted.

I would call the WSJ right-center and nearly everyone would agree it’s a reputable publication and not MAGA at all.

Yes, the WSJ is absolutely a reputable, Pulitzer-winning news source - but whenever I cite it here on DCUM, the usual suspects inevitably pounce, claiming it's right-wing. Really tiresome.

They must not read it. Nearly every day it has an article or editorial either supporting or criticizing a Trump policy…in particular scathing editorials on the tariffs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Makes sense, doctors leaving too.

May he leaving small towns of Mississippi or Alabama, Arkansas etc, certainly not Houston, Austin, Dallas, Raleigh, Nashville, Orlando, Atlanta etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love how the MAGA posters are completely unable to engage in any form of intelligent discourse. If someone posts anything that contradicts what they have been told to think, they deny it, make childish snarky posts, and get rude and nasty.

I wonder who they are emulating?

It is truly sad what this nation has descended to. I used to have difficult but respectful disagreements with friends who were at the far end of the spectrum politically. Now it is truly impossible. I don't know what happened to these people. Their only joy in life is making the other side miserable.

Funny, how you have no issue with a liberal poster calling someone "low class trash". I guess that's "respectful disagreement" in your book.

And, once again: calling people "MAGA" because they disagree with you really takes your entire post and renders it meaningless. Do better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Guardian is very reputable and fairly down the middle politically.

…

I mean, come on - at least be honest here!

LEFT-CENTER BIAS

These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by appeals to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information but may require further investigation. See all Left-Center sources.

Overall, we rate The Guardian as Left-Center biased based on story selection that moderately favors the left and Mixed for factual reporting due to numerous failed fact checks over the last five years.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/

In this day and age where most things are either very far to one side or the other, left-center biased is pretty good. And note that I qualified my description with "fairly". Especially since your passionate obsession with proving me wrong leads me to believe that you worship at the throne of Murdoch. Ummm. Kool Aid tastes so good.

DP. Oh, please. If we had used a source that was "right-center," you'd be mocking it as "MAGA". Also, there are several different posters here, so there is no one person who is passionately obsessed with proving you wrong. You're just... wrong. Sorry. And btw, it's clear you "worship at the throne" of any left-leaning source. So your projection is duly noted.

I would call the WSJ right-center and nearly everyone would agree it’s a reputable publication and not MAGA at all.

Yes, the WSJ is absolutely a reputable, Pulitzer-winning news source - but whenever I cite it here on DCUM, the usual suspects inevitably pounce, claiming it's right-wing. Really tiresome.

WSJ is two publications. Their news reporting is pretty down the middle. Maybe a bit to the right, but generally pretty good. Their edit page is very far to the right. Occasionally it finds religion and is more reasonable, but it is very right wing. They generally do a pretty good job of keeping the news and editorial separate, though occasionally drop the ball. But if you publish enough articles, there will always be mistakes. Which ignorant people on both sides will jump all over and make seem like common occurrences when they are not. WSJ's news is within the acceptable margin of error.

I am writing this as a left-of-center, anti-MAGA Democrat. Unlike so many of the MAGA posters here, I can step back and try to judge things somewhat objectively.