Left In Lowell

US Papers Carry More Conservative Columnists

by Lynne at 9:25 pm.

Liberal media my backside. Check this out. Media Matters has done a comprehensive study (apparently one that has not been done before) on syndicated columnists run in newspapers across the country. MM surveyed 96% of American newspapers to confirm their use of syndicated columnists. They found:

Sixty percent of the nation’s daily newspapers print more conservative syndicated columnists every week than progressive syndicated columnists. Only 20 percent run more progressives than conservatives, while the remaining 20 percent are evenly balanced.

In a given week, nationally syndicated progressive columnists are published in newspapers with a combined total circulation of 125 million. Conservative columnists, on the other hand, are published in newspapers with a combined total circulation of more than 152 million.

The top 10 columnists as ranked by the number of papers in which they are carried include five conservatives, two centrists, and only three progressives.

The top 10 columnists as ranked by the total circulation of the papers in which they are published also include five conservatives, two centrists, and only three progressives.

You can look these things up by state. Here’s a list of MA papers. Even here, the list of syndicated conservatives in our op-ed pages outweighs progressives by 2 (24 conservatives to 22 progressives).

Drill down, it gets funner…the Lowell Sun has three regular conservatives to one centrist and one progressive. (The Sun runs Michelle Malkin? Honestly? How sad.) Occasional columnists include two conservatives and one progressive.

The Boston Herald is way worse, though. Six regular conservatives to one centrist. No liberals. Gee, surprised? Occasional columnists include one conservative, one centrist.

Only the Globe leans leftward with its syndicated choices, with three progressives, one centrist, and one conservative. More surprising to me, however, was that the Globe doesn’t have that many syndicated columnists total compared to even the smaller MA papers.

Many others in the top tier of circulation appear to be fairly balanced. (Of course, not including the Sun.)

Can we please, please stop pretending the media is liberal? Study after study comes out using indisputable numbers showing a very different story. If I hear “liberal media bias” one more time, I will end up decking someone. (Metaphorically speaking, of course.)

[Filed under Media] [link]

48 Responses to “US Papers Carry More Conservative Columnists”

Tim Little Says:
September 12th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
Cross-posted at BMG:
——————
Don’t forget that the MSM is all about entertainment, not serious policy discussion.

I’d wager that caustic conservativism probably draws more eyeballs — the equivalent of trying to avoid looking at a car wreck along the highway.
Tim Little Says:
September 12th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
Cross-posted at BMG:
——————
Don’t forget that the MSM is all about entertainment, not serious policy discussion.

I’d wager that caustic conservativism probably draws more eyeballs — the equivalent of trying to avoid looking at a car wreck along the highway.
Mimi Says:
September 12th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
Lynne:

I disagree that Nicholas Kristoff is a regular columnist in the Sun. He is definitely an occasional columnist; if that. Therefore, the Sun has 3 conservative and one “middle-of-the-road” syndicated columnists, if you consider Cokie Roberts and her husband, “middle of the road.” .
Shawn Says:
September 13th, 2007 at 5:51 am
First of all, the newspaper’s job is to sell papers first.

If you look at any convenience store, you see a stack of 50-60 Heralds, and 5-6 Globes. The papers have learned what sells.

Before you can get people to read the important news, you gotta get them to pick up the paper.

As to the liberal bent of the MSM..

The NYT’s was noted this week for giving a disgusting ad by Moveon.org a financial break greater than $100,000.00. Don’t see them doing that for conservative ads.

And our own WBZ news this week did an in depth report on the 9-11 ceremony.. taking swipes at Romney and other Republican politicians, but not even mentioning Patrick’s stupid quote where he tells family members of 9-11 victims that they share responsibility for what happened on 9-11.

As far as I’m concerned, syndicated columnists help to add interest to a paper to get it sold. Its the actual news (and selection of stories) that matters the most.
Tim Little Says:
September 13th, 2007 at 9:21 am
Hat-tip to Raj at BMG who points us here:
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/09/death-wish.html
Mr. Lynne Says:
September 13th, 2007 at 9:38 am
I would also add that the study may be overly optimistic. Many of those people in the study that count as “liberal” are:

…kind of “liberal” columnists who feel no sense of loyalty whatever to liberals and liberalism and actually enjoy bashing them whenever possible.

Shawn’s point about markets and the media is well taken though. I think the anti-Pats feeling among large media markets are what is behind the endless hyping of the Pats video tape ’scandal’.
Anonymous Says:
September 13th, 2007 at 10:14 am
this just in:

the world is flat, the sky is not blue and the main stream media is conservative.

it’s got to be true, after all, there was a study… and some guy wrote a book about it.
Tim Little Says:
September 13th, 2007 at 10:17 am
Mr. Lynne:

Similar to the US media treatment of the most recent Bin Laden tape?

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/62416/
waittilnextyr Says:
September 13th, 2007 at 11:35 am
“…but not even mentioning Patrick’s stupid quote where he tells family members of 9-11 victims that they share responsibility for what happened on 9-11″

Talk about “disgusting” mis-representations of what was said, Shawn, you seemed to have outdone the rest!
Tim Little Says:
September 13th, 2007 at 11:53 am
What was said? Somehow I missed this….
Mr. Lynne Says:
September 13th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Tim… see Dan Kennedy
Anonymous Says:
September 13th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Let’s verify something.

A Columnist is different from a Reporter.
(from Dictionary.com: “columnist - noun - a journalist who writes editorials”)
(from Dictionary.com: “reporter - noun - 2. a person employed to gather and report news, as for a newspaper, wire service, or television station.)

The news today (all media) is reported with a left tilt, instead of just providing all facts.

Need the evidence? Read any Boston newspaper (especially the Metro, Boston Region), and ignore the columnists.

Columnists are meant to be opinion generators with their version of accurate interpretations regardless of political beliefs.

To say that the main stream media is conservative is an outrageous comment. The main stream media is consistently reporting on a left tilt.
Tim Little Says:
September 13th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
1. Thanks for the tip, Chris.

Not to hijack this thread, but what on earth is so controversial about what Deval said? It seems a pretty straightforward observation to me.

2. Anon — What exactly qualifies as reporting “with a left tilt.” Can you share some examples? (Hint: Look to see who the sources are that are quoted in newspaper articles, tv/radio interviews, etc. Is there really a predominately leftward tilt? Let’s see the numbers!)
Mr. Lynne Says:
September 13th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
“The news today (all media) is reported with a left tilt,”

I think not.
Shawn Says:
September 13th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Hey wait..

If you want to stand in a corner with your friends and re-parse what he said the way you want to.. thats up to you.

But check out the major talk radio and other blogs out there and you can see how the moderate, unenrolled voters are hearing it.

and, btw, I don’t see myself as a news journalist.. just a blogger. I have an opinion by definition (like columnists).

Mr Lynne:
In the first couple reviews of the book that you refer to, the reviewers say this:

“it is not surprising that almost all the broadcast media is not only not willing to report any story from a liberal perspective”

“In contrast to the right-leaning media outlets, the left-leaning mainstream media is less direct, more subtle, and uses tilted language to spin a story.”

hmmm.. doesn’t exactly support your case (but I do understand that those are reviewers giving their own opinion and probably not that of the author.. but the existence of a book doesn’t exactly validate its hypothesis either).
Mr. Lynne Says:
September 13th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
No.. the case inside the book is the source of any validation. Thats why I read it.
Tim Little Says:
September 13th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Shawn:

The offending : “Because among many other things, 9/11 was a failure of human understanding. It was mean and nasty and bitter attack on the United States. But it was also about the failure of human beings to understand each other, and to learn to love each other.”

It requires considerable rhetorical gymnastics to construe this as an attack on the families of 9/11 victims, regardless of how you and other conservatives care to “re-parse what he said they way you want to.” I’m very curious as to how you reach your interpretation.

And that particular parsing — through predominately conservative mouthpieces that claim that Deval is blaming the victims of 9/11 — may in fact be why moderate and unenrolled voters are hearing it as you do. Repeat something long enough and loud enough, and people will start believing it….
Right in Lowell Says:
September 13th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
When people talk about the media being liberal nowadays, they generally refer to television. There really is no denying the fact, nor has there been throughout history. That’s why Fox News is now the #1 cable news network as far as ratings numbers. Because they are the ONLY conservative leaning network, so folks who lean that way have only one choice. If you lean left, you have a buffet consisting of CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC and Public Television. (It’s also imporatant to note that Fox is the newest network, meaning the liberal ones had the run of the mill over the first 50 years of television news.

Anonymous is correct about story content, too. What’s on the front page of the paper? What leads a television newscast? If you examine that (and people have done studies on it), you’ll understand what is meant by liberal media.

As for why we “righties” may dominate the editorial pages; perhaps it’s because the majority of the country sees things our way. Either that, or we’re just more intelligent and articulate! (wink, wink)
Shawn Says:
September 13th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Tim.. if that quote is supposed to imply that the islamic fundamentalists should have learned to “understand” and “love each other”, Patrick should have been a little more clearer.

In the context given, I and everyone I have asked heard it the same way.. while speaking to families of victims of 9-11, the Governor was indicating that we were somehow at fault, and somehow responsible for a terrorist attack on our homeland.. that innocent parents, brothers, sisters and children died for some reason other than evil (”mean and nasty”.. are you kidding me?).

If the terrorists wanted to be “understood,” we have the most open society in the world with press, local access, books, blogs and soap-boxes that they could have used to plead their case.

No, the misunderstanding here is on the part of people who don’t see that this war on terror is real and will continue for a good amount of time.. both militarily and diplomatically (as it is currently being done).
Brian F. Says:
September 13th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
I hear one more liberal say there is no liberal bias, I will end up decking someone! The evidence is overwhelming - I am sure you have heard about newsbusters.org, a blog dedicated to liberal bias in the media.
Mr. Lynne Says:
September 13th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Just saw the site. Not an analysis of media but a polemic. Not worth the time of day.
Tim Little Says:
September 13th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
How about a “literal” bias in the media — that would be a refreshing change.

Anywho….

Shawn:

Fascinating distortion, but how about this:

Violence in general and the 9/11 terrorist attacks in particular reflect a lack of human understanding and love largely on the part of the perpetrators. People who take the time to understand each other and love each other do not kill each other.

That would seem to follow much more naturally from the context, no?

BTW, that reminds me of this wonderful quote:

“You don’t have to like anyone, but you must love everyone.”
Anonymous Says:
September 13th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
I just saw this book on Amazon.com

“OJ Simpson is Innocent: Almost a Perfect Crime”

I guess I’ll have to re-think my “conventional” views on this topic.
joe Says:
September 13th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
Anything to stop the country from talking about the Iraq War.

The dedicated conservatives pushing this “Patrick attacked 9/11 victims’ families” line don’t actually expect to convince anyone, or win the argument. They just want to change the subject, so they can lose a little less in the battle for public opinion.
joe Says:
September 13th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Whenever I see people making the case that the media lean right, I see lots of statistics and other evidence. This many Republicans on the News Hour vs that many Democrats. This many war supporters on Meet the Press vs. that many war opponents.

Whenever I see people trying to make the case that the media lean left, I don’t see any of that. I see the same sort of “everyone knows” appeal to popularity that makes up the right half of this thread’s comments.

Except one - conservatives love to point out the reporters are largely Democrats. Not the stories, not the content, not anything to support the notion that their stories are biased, just the implication that it is impossible for a professional journalist to report the news straight and leave his opinions out of it.

To me, when someone asserts the impossibility of being honest and objective, it’s a pretty good reason to look closely at his own honesty and objectivity.
Shawn Says:
September 13th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
Joe…

Dan Rather
waittilnextyr Says:
September 13th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
Shawn has usually come across as one who presents cogent arguments, although generally from near the right end of the political spectrum. However, his original statement that I called him on, and his subsequent rationalization of it, has blown his credibility in my mind. Saying anything, interpreting anyways - to justify his position, he is well-suited to join the Machiavellian Mayberry’s of this Administration.
Shawn Says:
September 14th, 2007 at 6:40 am
Hey wait.. check out this morning’s Lowell Sun editorial, other articles around the state..

Seems I’m not in the minority here.

“Machiavellian Mayberry”.. I like that line, may use it myself someday…once I figure out what it means.
Mr. Lynne Says:
September 14th, 2007 at 9:44 am
Machiavellian Mayberry
Shawn Says:
September 14th, 2007 at 10:52 am
Ah.. thanks Mr Lynne..

So from that source, we see:

The pejorative term Machiavellian as it is used today (or anti-Machiavellism as it was used from the sixteenth century) is thus a misnomer, as it describes one who deceives and manipulates others for gain; whether the gain is personal or not is of no relevance, only that any actions taken are only important insofar as they affect the results. It fails to include some of the more moderating themes found in Machiavelli’s works and the name is now associated with the extreme viewpoint.

And the Mayberry adjective was meant to be pejorative as well.. indicating that maybe we conservatives “aint the sharpest knife in the drawah”.

So this was just a high-brow way to throw a name at me.

Well, it was entertaining.

And I do thank you for the reference to Machiavelli. I want to do a little more research there. He seems to have quite a philosophy mixing realism and morality with the needs of society.

We all learn something every day.
Tim Little Says:
September 14th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Shawn:

You’re entitled to your opinion, but that doesn’t mean it’s correct.

Again, a verbatim reading of Patrick’s statement is that the tragedy of 9/11 was an example of the failure “of human beings to understand each other and learn to love each other.” What is your objection to this statement? Do you believe it’s false? If so, on what grounds? Violence can only arise out of ignorance and hatred.

As a wise man once said:

“‘He insulted me,
hit me,
beat me,
robbed me’
— for those who brood on this,
hostility isn’t stilled.

“‘He insulted me,
hit me,
beat me,
robbed me’ —
for those who don’t brood on this,
hostility is stilled.

“Hostilities aren’t stilled
through hostility,
regardless.
Hostilities are stilled
through non-hostility:
this, an unending truth.”
Mr. Lynne Says:
September 14th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
And the Mayberry adjective was meant to be pejorative as well.. indicating that maybe we conservatives “aint the sharpest knife in the drawah”

So this was just a high-brow way to throw a name at me.

Defensive much. Thats an awful lot of reading into what is just a link.

I think the specific term Mayberry isn’t a pejorative, least of all against conservatives (the guy who coined it is a self-described conservative. I think it is a reference to the campaign’s attempt to strategically triangulate middle America for their votes using religion as the wedge.

And yeah… “The Prince” is a must read.
Right in Lowell Says:
September 14th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Maybe I can help Shawn spell it out for you Mr. Little;

When you say a “failure of human beings to understand each other and learn to love each other” without specifying which people are failing to understand and love, the natural assumption is that you’re talking about EVERY PERSON. How do you know that those innocent people on the airplanes or in the Twin Towers didn’t love and understand muslim extremists? And even if they didn’t, does that justify how their lives were taken? How do you know that the terrorists didn’t understand us? (I’m assuming they didn’t love us) In their minds, they understand us quite well. They just don’t agree with our culture and thought it was OK to take out innocent lives to make their point. (I’ll avoid getting too far into a debate about muslim extremism here)

Governor Patrick is eloquent enough and has enough staff at his disposal to realize that comment could be taken the way it was taken by many people. When your job hinges so much on words, you’d better be careful to choose the right ones. And when you do choose the wrong ones, you’d better be quick to serve up a clarification and apology.
Mr. Lynne Says:
September 14th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
sigh… OK I’ll explain it to you.

“human beings” can mean “every human”
“human beings” can also mean “humans in general”

Quite a bit of acrobatics to assume one and not the other when the context is pretty clear.

Seriously… you’re smarter than this. Gimme a break
Right in Lowell Says:
September 14th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Actually, the context isn’t exactly clear Mr. Lynne. Even “human beings” in general leaves open the possibility he’s including Americans in his comments. For the record, here’s the paragraph that particular statement came from:

“It was a mean and nasty and bitter attack on the United States. But it was also about the failure of human beings to understand each other and to learn to love each other. It seems to me that lesson at that morning is something that we must carry with us every day.”

Now, is it really that hard to understand why so many people are offended by that comment? “It was a bad thing, but…..” That’s what it sounds like to me, and I’m obviously not alone. Had he just said: “it was a mean and nasty and bitter attack on the U.S. It was a failure of human beings to understand each other and learn to love each other” there would be no disagreement. Throwing the words “but” and “also” into it opens the statement up to other interpretations.

A seasoned speaker should know better than to leave it at that. Who needs to be more understanding Governonr, we or they? After all, Patrick is a member of a party that counts 9/11 conspiracy theorists among its biggest supporters and contributors.

Obviously it doesn’t take a lot of acrobatics to interpret it that way because many people did. Perhaps they’re all as uninformed as I am, but a sitting Governor needs to be more careful or clear in the future.
Right in Lowell Says:
September 14th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Sorry, I meant to include this to the last post:

I know we’re parsing words here, but the Governor needs to be man enough to admit his words could have easily been misinterpreted, apologize for the choice of words and make clear what he really meant. If he really meant no harm, that would clear it up pretty easily, don’t you think?
Tim Little Says:
September 15th, 2007 at 8:24 am
RiL:

I truly believe you know better, and just enjoying being contrarian.

The point is not whether bin Laden or the 9/11 terrorists had some superficial understanding American culture; it’s whether they — or any of us, really — truly has a deeper understanding of our common humanity. Only through such deep understanding — which is indistinguishable from love — can we do our part to prevent atrocities like 9/11 from happening over and over again.

Further, it is clear that the 9/11 terrorists lacked this deeper love and understanding, otherwise it would have been impossible for them to carry out the attacks. Again, it is simply not possible for people who genuinely understand and love each other to deliberately hurt one another.

The question implicit in Deval’s remarks is whether we ourselves have that capacity for deep love and deep understanding as we try to move forward from the trauma and tragedy that was 9/11.
Jacob Says:
September 15th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
I wa sgoing to read this article until I saw “MEDIA MATTERS”.

The point of media matters does is produce material saying that there is no “liberal media” and lobby for more ah-hem “progressive” coverage.

Media Matters is an industry lobbying group and anything they say should be viewed as lobbying material.
Right in Lowell Says:
September 16th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Tim, how are you so sure that’s what Deval meant? Is he not a member of the party that cowtows to Michael Moore and MoveOn.org? Are there not a number of donkeys out there who believe that U.S. foreign policy led to the attacks. Don’t Richard Gere, Sean Penn and a bunch of other leftist whackos support the donkey party? Isn’t there a professor at UNH teaching conspiracy theories and that the U.S. govt. blew up the towers?

I’m not being contrarian. I think I know what the governor meant. However, there’s a lot of wiggle room there and the fact he’s being so haughty about being called out on it instead of offering a simple explanation and apology for choice of words tells me he’s being far too defensive.
Tim Little Says:
September 16th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Haughty? How exactly?
Right in Lowell Says:
September 16th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
When pressed to explain what he meant, Patrick was almost dismissive of the question and the possibility that it could have been misinterpreted. The fact that it was misinterpreted by so many should be enough to tell him perhaps he used a poor choice of words (which, BTW, is all I think he did). By not expressing regret at the choice of words, he leaves himself open to much more criticism than had he just stepped forward and said “I was talking about the Islamic fundamentalists.”

Would that simple statement not have ended this thing right there and then? Instead, he appears haughty.
waittilnextyr Says:
September 16th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Haughty? It seems like all the furor over the original statement only confirms the point of the original post.

What’s enough in your mind?

He later told another critical caller: “If you or anyone else heard me to say anything other than a total condemnation of terrorist attacks on 9/11 and since on the United States or on Americans, you are hearing something other than what I intend, and I am sorry for that.”
Right in Lowell Says:
September 17th, 2007 at 1:57 am
“If you or anyone else heard me to say anything other than a total condemnation of terrorist attacks on 9/11 and since on the United States or on Americans, you are hearing something other than what I intend, and I am sorry for that.”

Basically he’s saying: I am sorry if you can’t understand me. Sounds so sincere, doesn’t it?

Is it so hard for a liberal to say that the 9/11 attacks were an unprovoked act of terror against the United States? Even in his “apology,” he just can’t bring himself to say the words that would put an end to it once and for all.

I’ll continue to call it “haughty,” because the only other explanation for him refusing to say the words during a supposed apology is that he really meant what a lot of people interpreted.
joe Says:
September 17th, 2007 at 10:21 am
The fact that it was misinterpreted by so many should be enough to tell him perhaps he used a poor choice of words

The fact that several conservatives have levelled the charge of sympathizing with terrorists at a liberal “should be enough” to conclude that there is a legitimate beef behind their accusation? Have you been living in this country for the past six years?

Here let me try: the fact that Joe McCarthy accused General George Marshall of scheming to hand China over to the Communists “should be enough” to conclude that he’s a communist. No, that’s the not the way it works. This is the cheap smear job, and the only thing it tells us about anyone is that the accusers are still trying to party like it’s 2002.
Mr. Lynne Says:
September 17th, 2007 at 10:29 am
“This is the cheap smear job,”

Just because the smear job is organized enough to get multiple people to say the same thing isn’t an indication of its truth, its an indication of the ability to distribute talking points.
Right in Lowell Says:
September 17th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Yeah, that’s what’s going on here. Everyone that disagrees with the popular view points on this blog is either reading from talking points or smells of ink.

Smear job? Comparing this to the McCarthy hearing? Joe, have you been living on this PLANET the last six years?

Anything to avoid the real issue; that the governor used a poor choice of words and isn’t man enough to apologize for it or issue a definitive statement because that would be seen as a sign that he screwed up in the first place, or worse, be seen as a display of weakness.

Still waiting for someone to point out to me what’s so hard about offering a sincere clarification…..
Mr. Lynne Says:
September 17th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
A conservative accuses a liberal of sympathizing with terrorists and other conservatives pile on. That makes this what?… Tuesday?
Right in Lowell Says:
September 17th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
If the liberal shoe fits….

September 12, 2007

US Papers Carry More Conservative Columnists

48 Responses to “US Papers Carry More Conservative Columnists”

Leave a Reply

Find us on Facebook

LeftinLowell Tweets LIVE

Pages:

Recent Posts

Search

Categories:

Archives:

Other:

Email us!

LiL Fundraising for Elizabeth Warren!

Lowell Area Bloggers/Forums

Lowell Politics

Mass Bloggers

Media in Lowell

Media in MA

Other Daily Reads

Politics Online

Progressive Local Orgs

Snark and politics

The Arts in Lowell

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Aug				Oct »
					1	2
3	4	5	6	7	8	9
10	11	12	13	14	15	16
17	18	19	20	21	22	23
24	25	26	27	28	29	30