The Guardian Covers Reluctance of Professors to Remain in the South

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You do realize these are state, not city or county wide, laws?
https://www.texastribune.org/2024/10/08/Texas-obstetrics-gynecology-abortion-survey/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

The "topic" is something that has been written about in a left-leaning, unreliable "source". We are indeed talking about it - and the fact that the story is not to be taken seriously. Do you see anything about this in reputable news sources? No? Hmm, wonder why. That's not redirection. That's telling you that the topic you want to discuss isn't worthy of being taken seriously. Get it?

And your constant projection and hurling of "MAGA" just proves how utterly taken you are with yourself and your embarrassingly false sense of superiority. You are pretentious and boring.

[Anonymous]

If so local Unitarian churches will soon be closing,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There are certain editorials that are right and some centrist…agree none really left.

However, the editorials from the overall paper (not attributed to a certain person) are as centrist as they come.

Universally, they deride the tariff and most immigration initiatives as complete debacles…and lately they have pointed out the hypocricy of current free speech limitations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. Can you even read? Also, why do you assume anyone you’re arguing with watched Fox? Has anyone here cited Fox News? Nope. Just take the L here. The Guardian is a rag.

“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.”

[Anonymous]

WSJ is a relic. Chamber of Commerce vein of Republican Party- not a growing demographic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1
The WSJ is a harsh Trump critic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:WSJ is a relic. Chamber of Commerce vein of Republican Party- not a growing demographic.

In other words a right-center publication that people can generally trust.

[Anonymous]

Please actually read the article, the survey was not conducted by the Guardian, it was from the American Association of Professors.
Perhaps it will help if you read the same information in the original Texan?
https://www.texastribune.org/2025/09/05/texas-faculty-university-political-climate-survey/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

The "topic" is something that has been written about in a left-leaning, unreliable "source". We are indeed talking about it - and the fact that the story is not to be taken seriously. Do you see anything about this in reputable news sources? No? Hmm, wonder why. That's not redirection. That's telling you that the topic you want to discuss isn't worthy of being taken seriously. Get it?

And your constant projection and hurling of "MAGA" just proves how utterly taken you are with yourself and your embarrassingly false sense of superiority. You are pretentious and boring.

It is a very reputable source. It is not perfect. But it is very good.

And people are cited examples of the story being true. But it does not fit into your narrative so you are mentally exhausting yourself going through mental gymnastics to shoot them down. Because it is all about winning and losing to you.

Professors are choosing to leave deep red areas for more blue areas. That is a proven fact. The magnitude of this issue is subject to debate - due to practical restrictions it is not like the underground railroad of hundreds of them, but it is not just one or two. Can you not admit that? Or would that be considered "losing."

It is impossible to engage anymore. When I have a debate, I often try to lead by admitting that my side is not perfect to show that I am entering the conversation in good faith. Unfortunately, so many people find that admitting any fault in their own side as a huge sign of weakness and refuse to do so - this is true on both sides but much more prevalent on the right. Because the head of your party is a man who has never admitted he was wrong in his life. I see this as a huge character flaw. This is not how I raise my children. I hope that it is not how others raise their children. My children are raised with honesty, humility and empathy. And they want to bring people together, meet people who are different from them, they like to smile and experience joy. Not to scowl and complain about how the world is a disaster.

But I digress.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You obviously haven't read the WSJ in some time. Their editorial pages are most often critical of Trump. Calling it "very right wing" makes it clear you must be "very left wing" because millions of reasonable, intelligent, articulate people consider the WSJ to be one of the finest news sources out there - for people across the political spectrum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There are certain editorials that are right and some centrist…agree none really left.

However, the editorials from the overall paper (not attributed to a certain person) are as centrist as they come.

Universally, they deride the tariff and most immigration initiatives as complete debacles…and lately they have pointed out the hypocricy of current free speech limitations.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. Can you even read? Also, why do you assume anyone you’re arguing with watched Fox? Has anyone here cited Fox News? Nope. Just take the L here. The Guardian is a rag.

“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.”

NP: You don't realize it but your tone, syntax and the way you weakly attempt to form arguments screams Murdoch worshipper. Or Murdoch-type publications/news sources.

If they are wrong, then where do you get your news from that is so centrist and perfect? I'm waiting...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:WSJ is a relic. Chamber of Commerce vein of Republican Party- not a growing demographic.

See, this is someone who hasn't read the WSJ in many years and has no idea what they're talking about. Maybe you were referring to the sad relic that is the WaPo? I hear people have dropped their subscriptions like flies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. Can you even read? Also, why do you assume anyone you’re arguing with watched Fox? Has anyone here cited Fox News? Nope. Just take the L here. The Guardian is a rag.

“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.”

NP: You don't realize it but your tone, syntax and the way you weakly attempt to form arguments screams Murdoch worshipper. Or Murdoch-type publications/news sources.

If they are wrong, then where do you get your news from that is so centrist and perfect? I'm waiting...

Posting same info again from the Texas Tribune. . . https://www.texastribune.org/2025/09/05/texas-faculty-university-political-climate-survey/