The cons are in your paper, perverting your discourse.
The results show that in paper after paper, state after state, and region after region, conservative syndicated columnists get more space than their progressive counterparts. As Editor & Publisher paraphrased one syndicate executive noting, “U.S. dailies run more conservative than liberal columns, but some are willing to consider liberal voices.”
Though papers may be “willing to consider” progressive syndicated columnists, this unprecedented study reveals the true extent of the dominance of conservatives
The results show that in paper after paper, state after state, and region after region, conservative editors get more space than their progressive counterparts.
The results show that in paper after paper, state after state, and region after region, liberal editors get more space than their conservative counterparts.
Oliver — why is Paul Krugman labeled a ‘conservative’? LOL!
Ian, as usual either can’t read or made something up.
Do conservatives think we are stupid? Do they think we aren’t going to check up on them? Do they think we will just take their word for it?
Er.. Would you trust, say, Fox News, to reasonably decide who counts as progressive vs centrist vs conservative? Seems like a very obvious flaw in this sort of study is selection bias. One organization’s centrist is anothers progressive, and vice versa.
Given that Media Matters is a partisan organization, a healthy dose of skepticism seems warranted..
Except that the determination of whether someone is con, progressive or centrist is pretty easy and objective.
Easy and objective huh? Heres the methodology used to determine who is what. (Go to the end of the study pdf file for this full description, I am summarizing.)
a. Obvious calls for prominent writers. (Krugman is obviously a liberal, Will is obviously a conservative.)
When that doesn’t suffice, fall back to:
b. The syndicates’ description of their writers.
and/or
c. political and media affiliations, such as things like they work for National Review
and/or
d. writers own descriptions of their political affiliations
e. Failing all of the above, someone at media matters read a sampling of the columns and arrived at a designation.
If you would agree that that is an accurate assessment of the methodology, then I would have the following questions:
Which assessments of which writers were made on which criteria? How many a’s were there? b’s? c’s? d’s? e’s? The study doesn’t say.
A, for example, seems like it’d work for a few very obvious partisans, then would quickly be non obvious. (Except to partisans.)
Who writes B? Are descriptions of B vetted by the writer themselves? Here is an example of one of those blurbs:
‘Gregory Kane’s columns appear in The Baltimore Sun. His columns focus on race, Baltimore politics, and domestic issues.’
Does that mean he is liberal? conservative? Who knows? The study doesn’t say what they decided he is (at least, i can’t find him), though his blurb appears at the end.
C: You can tell from political and/or media affiliations. Well, what are those affiliations for each writer? Does that include political party affiliations? The study doesn’t say.
D: The writers told you what category they are in. Well, what did they say? The study doesn’t tell us.
E: This category is very obviously subjective. How many writers had to be decided by this category? Was this a rare thing to decide this way, or common? The study doesn’t say.
How many writers were assessed overall? The study isn’t clear. It only seems to have top x lists. Not sure this is a big deal.
Overall, I’m unimpressed. Every single decision critera has lots of room for argument, and since the report doesn’t say how they decided each columnist, we are just supposed to trust their judgement using the given criteria. I don’t see anything easy or objective about this.
Put another way, liberal columnists aren’t as popular and/or don’t sell papers as much as conservative columnists do. Therefore, this so-called imbalance is nothing more than the market speaking.
Just as in the case of FOX News and Talk Radio, whenever a media outlet is held to a market standard, conservatives win.
Wooh, wait a minute. If what you say is true what is all the caterwalling about the liberal media? You are admitting that conseratives dominate the media so what do you have to bitch about?
BTW, if the cons win the popularity wars, why is the Senate and House under Liberal Democrat control?
Waiting for your deflection.
1. Conservatives don’t complain (much) about lib pundits. Their main beef is with the so-called “objective” reporters who tilt left almost without fail. It’s of small consolation that righties may be represented on the Editorial page when every other page of the newspaper is filled to the brim with liberal bias.
2. The Republican Majority grew too fat & happy for it’s own good and stopped listening to their constituents on issues like Immigration, Earmarks, and Corruption. So the voters said “screw you guys, let’s see if the Democratics can do any better.”
Right wing writers get more media attention because they tend to be against something most of the time. This gets the public’s juices flowing since most people think with their emotions not their brains.
Also, conservative talking points go down easier because they’re much simpler. You can always find an audience for the classic melodramas that right-wingers are selling…”Good vs. Evil,” “Heroes vs. Villains,” etc. That’s not even the market speaking, that’s just the appeal of lowbrow theater.
whenever a media outlet is held to a market standard, conservatives win.
Farris, the readership of most dailies is plummeting. My local paper is moving rightward, while its reader base continues to shrink.