Actually Duck we will disagree. Maybe the title of the thread should have been crafted better and for that I take responsiblity.
I think the question that I proposed was and remains - is it OK to have so many people leave the media and go into politics? My position would be that it isn't and that it blurs the line. Of course that is my opinion.
I never offered proof either way and was not attempting to do so.
We will also differ on the idea of calling an ELMO. For me the whole thing of bashing FOX news or anyone or any posit on that does not conform is tiring - don't you think? I get it . . . this board is divided in two very polar opposite sides and if you express an opinion that does not conform with the vocal sides you get the treatment - I get that.
I believe you misunderstood my intent and wonder if you took the time to read my first post - I did not wish to quell anything in terms of a discuss of should journalist go from the media to the administration (this or anyother). Anyhow - color it however you want.
Maybe I do not understand your position in your OP.
If you are saying Fox should not be considered because it is obviously biased, maybe you have a point. However, when the question becomes “is ABC biased” it becomes too murky. What qualifies as left or right. Just as I mentioned. Is a human interest story “liberal” or just news. Is talking about deficits news or “conservative”. Too much subjectivity to be anything but personal opinion.
A separate thing is “should media people be in an administration?” To be honest, I don’t see where it matters. I mean people come from somewhere. I think it CAN make a difference in some cases. With the predominance of big bank or Wall Street being in charge of economic sectors of the administration is likely very bad. Oil people in charge of energy? Maybe, maybe not. Educators in the dept. of Education? Shouldn't the Surgeon General be a doctor? I think in most cases all have to be judged as individuals, not profession, with the exception of econ. There seems to be a systemic problem with that particular revolving door. Aside from that, it could be easy enough to go back to Bush and pick "biased" choices that he appointed. It is all just talk to try and make the other sound like evil bad guys.
So, to answer what I am guessing is your question. No, I do not think that there is an inherent problem hiring anyone from any sector, any more than another. If the question you asked whether they will appear biased AFTER they leave... well, that is something they had better have thought of.
Tony Snow went from being a part of a partisan network to being a partisan Press Secretary. That is a part of that job, maybe should not be, but it is. I think at the time it raised eyes because it was such an obvious thing. Kind of like it was always a partisan position but given a wink and a nod.
Why should it be “wrong” for someone in media to work for any admin? It seems the only way is to jump to a conclusion that the one taking the job HAS to be biased and therefore retroactively makes anything that they wrote biased. I guess that is my problem with your topic. With titling it “media bias”, but talking about some individuals in a completely different situation makes one come to the conclusion that you believe that the media STARTS with a left wing bias, and that this just proves your case. Maybe that is not your intent, but it is what I perceive from it.
Sorry if I am flailing around trying to figure out the question because it seems structured to create a one-sided discussion.