TCS Daily


Newspapers in Trouble?

By Glenn Harlan Reynolds - March 22, 2006 12:00 AM

Moody's is looking at downgrading the New York Times' credit rating. The Times' stock is doing badly. And other newspapers are in trouble, too -- the staff of the San Jose Mercury News has resorted to launching a "save our paper" website.

These certainly look like dark days for the newspaper industry generally. ABC's Michael Malone writes:

It was just a year ago that I predicted -- to considerable consternation and censure from the press -- that most major newspapers would be dead or dying by the end of this decade. Apparently, I was being conservative.

As I look around California, for example, I see the San Francisco Chronicle turning into the Daily Worker for baby boomers, the Los Angeles Times selecting stories based on political considerations, and now, the only real newspaper of any size left, the Mercury News, apparently orphaned. Meanwhile, McClatchy's strategy appears to be that of snatching up small-town papers, the last redoubt of daily print journalism. But that is just buying time before Yahoo and Google start putting local Little League box scores online.

Of course, Malone warns new media darlings, like MySpace, that they're likely to be next, victims of changing technology and fickle tastes on the part of a public that -- as it didn't in the halcyon days of the newspaper business -- has lots of choices.

Unlike, I suppose, a few bloggers I'm not cheering the demise of newspapers. I do think that the newspaper industry has dug its own grave through bias, disrespect for its audience, and simpleminded costcutting efforts that have seriously damaged its core competency (and killer app) -- actual gathering and reporting of truthful, accurate, hard news. But I don't think it's too late for imaginative newspapers to save themselves.

What would a new-era newspaper look like?

First, I think I'd skip the "paper" part. I've visited a lot of newspaper offices, and many of them proudly display the printing presses that produce their product, just as older newsmen often glory in the title of "ink-stained wretch." But their product isn't paper (in fact, for those of us who recycle, the paper is a drawback, not a plus, at least until it's time to pack things for a move). Their product is information. Paper is just an increasingly obsolete delivery platform. It's expensive, and on the way out. Get rid of it, or start a new "paper" without it.

Second, I'd put some of the money I saved by abandoning delivery trucks, printing presses, and the like into hiring reporters and writers, who have been the object of a lot of cost-cutting over the past couple of decades. And I'd expect a broader range of competency: My reporters would also all be photographers, equipped with digital cameras, and videographers, shooting clips of video that could be placed on the website along with their stories. This isn't asking too much, really. The world is full of people who can write and take pictures. I've heard editors at existing newspapers who doubt that their reporters could do this sort of thing, but if so, they need better reporters. I'd tell them to learn, or seek employment elsewhere. It's not that hard. This sort of approach might create union problems, which often forbid reporters from doing the job of photographers or vice versa; I'd tell the unions to go visit the Buggy Whip Museum and ponder the fate of work rules in that industry. (See examples of what I'm talking about in the video department here and -- from my local newspaper, complete with commercials -- here).

Third, I'd stop insulting readers. As Malone notes, many newspapers lean left; they're out of touch, as numerous surveys demonstrate, with the attitudes of most Americans. Often, like George Clooney (spokesman for another declining industry), they celebrate this disconnect. They shouldn't. People don't like being preached to, or manipulated, and they are increasingly unwilling to pay for that now that they have alternatives. So stop; give them the news, with as little bias as possible.

Fourth, I'd get readers involved. I'd incorporate readers and bloggers into the reporting, fact-checking, and revision of news stories. I'd be generous about handing out credit, too -- people will do a lot for a little bit of ego gratification. With digital cameras, cameraphones, etc., all over, there's usually somebody on the scene when something happens. I'd take advantage of that. I'd also take advantage of readers with special expertise in particular areas -- in fact, I'd build a roster of those people and use them as color commentators on stories in their areas. If union rules interfered, well, see above.

The bottom line is that there's plenty of market space for the news business, so long as it sticks to its core competencies of actually, you know, reporting news accurately and well. But the Daily Planet model of newspapers -- or, worse yet, the model shown in today's New York Times or San Francisco Chronicle, places where behavior that Perry White would never have tolerated is, sadly, routine -- is on its last legs. There's no reason that newspapers can't remain competitive -- no reason, at least, outside their own management.

Glenn Reynolds is TCS Contributing Editor and author of An Army of Davids.

Categories:

127 Comments

it would online.
pretty simple question.

RE: Newspapers in Trouble?
In my opinion, newspapers are in trouble because they are no longer a source of news, but of propaganda, which most of America has by now figured out. Add to that the fact that high school graduates can't read and you have a formula for financial ruin if you happen to own a newspaper.

Most newspapers subscribe to AP (Associated Phables), UPI, and Al-Reuters, whose stories are so biased and slanted that they should be classified as pure fantasy. If the news-worthy event doesn't fit their political agenda, then they either ignore it, or fabricate something which does fit. I refuse to spend money, or waste my time on them, and I quit doing so several years ago. It would seem that I am not alone.

Slimmed down newspapers
In New York City sometime last year or the year before a slimmed down newspaper was produced by the Daily News called "AMNewyork." It is no bigger than maybe 10-15 pages. Another newspaper such as this came into play maybe a half year later called "Metro."

The newspapers are free and you can see everyone on masstransit reading.

Slimmed down newspapers
In New York City sometime last year or the year before a slimmed down newspaper was produced by the Daily News called "AMNewyork." It is no bigger than maybe 10-15 pages. Another newspaper such as this came into play maybe a half year later called "Metro."

The newspapers are free and you can see everyone on masstransit reading.

Newspaper? What's that?
Despite the fact that my degree is in journalism and that I worked for a daily newspaper for eight years as well as a wire service for four years, I no longer routinely read a newspaper. Nor do I watch the local televised news. I left the industry and stopped consuming its product once I realized that as a conservative American, I would always be odd-man out, despite my attempts to report news in as unbiased a manner as I was capable of doing. It all crystalized for me when I wrote up a facinating interview I held with then candidate Ronald Reagan. I had gone into that inteview expecting to confront an amiable dolt mouthing a set script written by someone else, and instead, found myself engaged with one of the 20th Century's most brilliant political minds. By the end of that two hour interview, Reagan had me considering the world in ways I had never before envisioned. I worked hard to capture the essence of what he was saying and for my pains, I was roundly criticized by my fellow reporters for being "duped" by the Neanderthal right-wing "great manipulator." I realized then and there that the news business wasn't about news, but was about propaganda.

Newspapers & the Media
DSmith mentions that the news business is not about news, but about propaganda. Based on some of what I have heard, seen, & read, it is difficult to refute that.
My questions are, "since many in the media appear to be leaning left or have jumped in the pool of bias, what is their goal? What do they expect to accomplish? If they expect to 'win' this information struggle, what is it they expect to win & what will they do with it once they win?
How do they define 'win'?"
I have read through and listened to and watched untold hours of news reports in my lifetime. Sometime in the 60's, I noticed changes taking place that were not all that obvious. The changes began to come faster and more obvious as time went by. Eventually I noticed that much of what I read, saw, or heard, was sympathetic to liberal viewpoints.
But what I also noticed was that the information was presented as factual news, when in fact it contained elements of policy position favoritism. As the years have passed, that policy position of favoritism has become significantly more obvious to outright blatant.
Still, the whole thing begs the question, "why?" Perhaps someone out there can explain it all to us. Perhaps someone out there has a handle on what the end objective is, and perhaps they can even explain what these folks hope to do with their victory, "if" they win it.
One thing is sure, there will be all sorts of obvious and covert efforts on the part of the media industry, industry employees, industry friends, & other dupes, who will do everything in their power to bring the alternative media under tow. Elements of some political partisans & parties were apoplectic after the election losses of '00 & '04. From polls that did not match actual voting, to news stories about opinions that did not reflect the "man on the street," the media industry & partisan politicians did everything they could imagine to sway votes. Their efforts were for naught.
The public has better keep its ear to the ground and be prepared to thwart any effort & especially efforts mounted by old establishment mainstream media & their politician allies, to regulate (read control) the Internet & the Blogsphere. Elections were lost & they want someone to pay a price for that. Beforehand though, they want to create the proper environment that it never happens again.
Turning the Internet & Blogsphere over to politicians or worse, the United Nations, will mean an end to free speech. Those efforts are currently underway. From legislation that has been proposed in Congress to UN idea's to control the Internet & generate tax income from it, those who would silence opposition viewpoints &/or any free speech from any side of any aisle, are underway. We must be vigilant and adamant that these venues belong to the people and no amount of control, regulation, or taxing is acceptable.

Newspapers and the Media
In my experience, reporters, editors and publishers don't have "an agenda." They don't meet in smoke-filled rooms and hatch plots to slant stories in order to "liberalize" America.

Rather, what's at work here is much less organized and much more subtle. First, there's a process of self-selection that goes on when a young person chooses a career. Those who opt to go into the news business are what I call "Crusader Rabbits", i.e., they want to change the world, make it better. They want to make a difference. Such people tend to be liberal. Then they attend J-School where the professors are cut from the same cloth. Upon graduation, they find a job with a news organization filled with, you guessed it, other Crusader Rabbits. They socialize where they discuss the day, the world, their lives -- all from a liberal perspective. Eventually, they come to believe that their perspective is the norm, that "most Americans" believe the way they do.

In the dozen years I was in the business, I rarely heard anyone voice a non-liberal opinion. Abortion? Well, everyone is for that, aren't they? It's not even an issue. Fundamentalist Christianity? Well, only the fringe isinto that, you know, those "rednecks" who dance with snakes! Vote Republican? What, are you a Neatherthal? A muscular foreign policy? Are you a war-lover? The U.N.? Best hope for mankind! One-World government? Inevitable.

On and on it goes. So no one meets behind closed doors to map out a policy to present only one side of the news. They don't need to. One side is presented because that's all there is, one side. The side we ALL believe in.

And because newspeople (like all people) are fundamentally lazy, they rarely go out into the real world and see that their's is the minority view. That average Americans have a much more rounded view of the world. And should a newsie finally make this connection, he/she will likely then blame the folks out there for not being as enlightened as they should be. It then becomes the reporter's self-imposed task to "enlighten" the masses, whether they want it or not.

Thus you get a leftist news media.

RE: Newspapers and the Media
The problem with the existing media is that they don't offer the product that I'm willing to purchase - Namely, accurate reporting of major news events, regardless of which political party it embarasses or hurts.

I have many friends, some very liberal, some very conservative, and they agree with me. They don't want to read left-wing biased news any more than they, or I, want to read right-wing biased news, because you can't make intelligent decisions based upon that kind of reporting. You really need to know all of the relevant facts, and the only way to even come close to getting that today is to scour the web for the news. The TSM (Terrorist Supporting Media - the old MSM) appears to be incapable of that kind of journalism, so I, and many like me, have gone elsewhere to get our news. The result is that I don't spend money on newspapers, or news magazines, and I don't watch network news (or network TV for that matter), especially CBS News (Fake but Accurate), CNN, and hence any advertising that might be supporting them. Advertisers are starting to figure this out as well with the resultant drop in TV ad spending. The NYT and WaPo have started to down-size as a result, and will continue to do so as long as they fail to heed their ever diminishing audience.

The only question I have is how long has this propaganda and mis-information been going on? How many past elections have been thrown because of bad data and information intentionally put forth by the TSM? Where would we be today without the Internet to debunk most of the biased news stories the TSM serves up? Our "watch dog" media has turned into the "Lap Dog" of the DNC, and quite frankly, our Fourth Estate has morphed into a Fifth Column, and I can hardly wait for them all to end up in bankruptcy court.

Yes, and that is part of the problem in small markets
Newspapers rely on 1. Ad dollars and 2. subscriptions/sales to stay in business. The internet is slowly providing opportunities to deliver both on-line, but it doesn't deliver on either in a way that can easily be sold to local reader and advertisers.
But the big dailies should be able to afford, it is the small dailies and weeklies who will suffer during the transition.

They've always been in trouble
Freedom of the press was supposed to be a major check on government lies and excesses. But even Jefferson eventually got fed up with the lying in the press. One of his suggestions for reforming the newspapers was expressed in a letter he wrote in 1807:

Perhaps an editor might begin a reformation in some such way as this. Divide his paper into four chapters, heading the 1st, Truths. 2nd, Probabilities. 3rd, Possibilities. 4th, Lies. The first chapter would be very short, as it would contain little more than authentic papers and information from such sources as the editor would be willing to risk his own reputation for their truth. The second would contain what, from a mature consideration of all circumstances, his judgment should conclude to be probably true. This, however, should rather contain too little than too much. The third and fourth should be professedly for those readers who would rather have lies for their money than the blank paper they would occupy.

Pretty funny for a Dead White Male.
.

Always...
I agree! And the media historically was often a source of contempt and outright disloyalty. Remember Robert E. Lee's famous comment, "I don't need spies, I only have to read Philadelphia newspapers." He was talking about monitoring Union troop movements.

The fix
Our local newspaper just built a fancy new glass building and they have $500 windows shot out about every two weeks. The idea was to build in a lagging, crime ridden downtown district as to be PC and get big tax breaks from the same pols the paper loves so much.
It is ironic to say the least.

Newspapers and the Media
I think your experience is probably right, although you need to remember that someone screens those articles for publication. If your article goes against the grain of what the newspaper normally supports in editorials, it will either be changed to support the newspaper's position, or simply not published. Normally the more important articles will be those which are published to form a society which they support. The remaining articles can be freely written as they are harmless to their philosophy.

Newspapers Are Not Going Away
I've worked at a daily paper and I'm now an editor for biweekly business magazine and I run its web site. I live in both worlds and I think I have a hanlde on the benefits derived from each.

I will say that the same biases that DSmith said inhabit the average newsroom also live in online news organizations and the blogoshpere. Here the thought is everyone wants to obtain their news online, because that is how the techy's learn about the world every day.

That is not true. While the the majority of Americans do have a PC they don't use it for news. A computer is for email and fun stuff. They go on at night after they return from work, most likely a job not spent in front of a computer.

Online subscriptions have not generated expected sales. I understand the NY Times recent flirtations with charging for some content is about to come to an end. So if the liberal elit, who do use a computer for news, are not willing to pay for it then it cannot be made into a viable business. In addition, ad sales have skyrocketed, but they are still far from what is generated in print and will remain so for quite some time.

why biases?
From the people I have talked to, there seem to be two reason's for the creeping bias:

1) The newspaper industry is becoming more and more insular. Like the magazine editor of days gone by, who reportedly told acquintances that she couldn't imagine how Nixon could have won, since nobody she knew voted for him. When 90% of DC reporters admit to voting Democratic, you rapidly reach the point where you actually you can't imagine why anyone would disagree with your positions. You start to actually believe that you are being centrist, when in fact you are just centering yourself inside a left wing clique.

2) Many reporters view their job not as informing, but rather educating. Their goal is to teach their readers how to think and believe the way they, and all their friends do.

hmm
In your opinion, only the liberal elite use their computers to read news?

I guess that's why conservative sites such as WorldNetDaily are doing so poorly.

From a newspaper guy
Newspapers in trouble? Going to the internet? Always been in trouble?
First, the author may be right as it concerns big medial outlets; but getting rid of the photojournalist is a bad idea. The thought that anyone can take a picture is true, but it is absurd to think anyone can be a good photographer. It take more than just picking up a camera. Everyone thinks they can be a writer, everyone thinks they are a good photographer, etc. Bull!! If many of the blogs out there are any indication, a whole lot of people who have a high opinion of their abilities, have little. I good photographer is worth two editors in my book

All of these responses are interesting, especially since they relate to an industry that, until the last 10 years, has been growing.
Is the NYTimes in trouble? Absolutely, and has been for 15-20 years along with every liberal big media rag in the country. The same for network news and CNN. All seem to be losing ground, but not entirely to the internet. LatinoPundit hit the nail squarely; alternative, or niche, newspapers are taking up the slack. They are a doing a better job of "reading" their audience and providing news they want to read.

Then there is the small market papers; weeklies and small dailies. Many of them don't used the AP, UPI or any of the others and rely on "in-house" writing and local press releases. They tend to be truely in the middle and unbiased in their news reporting, and often in the center, or a bit right of center, in their editorial comments and columns. Their circuation is usually holding or, if the area is growing, increasing.

Lumping all newspapers and media together with the big boys is just wrong, and it can hurt the good ones. It is like saying all bloggers are left wing (or right wing) nuts. Untrue, but there is that perception out there.

Finally, I think all news media do a decent job on local news, (even the NYTimes) it is the national and international where the biggest problem exists. Why? The wire services are a big part. Even the NYTimes uses them quite a bit, rather than having their own reporters on the scene as they once did.

As for liberal bias, there is no doubt that it has gotten out of hand over the past 30-40 years. Why? look at who is running the medial outlets and the J-schools? i personally know of two people who started in J-school but changed majors because of the incredible bias shown in the classroom.

There has always been something of a progressive movement coming from the media and, a few hundred years ago, the newspaper became one of the biggest vehicle for positive change in history.

Not all progression was led by liberals, however. And the media usually had a point-counterpoint with various side of an issue covered by multiple papers in the same circulation area. This made it so no paper could really be too one-sided in its coverage, then came the great depression and many papers went out of business, also, about this time, political parties were setting up newspapers and big companies owned media outlets; they lied constantly about the companies safety records, treatment of employees and the evil unions. Many of these went out of business later or they were subject to mergers. Sometime in the 60s newspapers started sliding decidedly left. Network news followed suit by the early 70s and the slide began to turn into an avalanche by the 80s.

But there has seldom, if ever, been anything like the past five or six years. Big media outlets have become openly left and democratic party supporters; defiantly so. A situation that does indeed anger readers, cost the paper circulation and turns off advertisers.

It will be interesting to see what happens over the next decade or so, but i wouldn't right off the "obsolete" newspaper just yet. (P.S. Newspapers were among the first to begin utilitzing the internet as a way to reach beyond their normal markets.)

Why not do more namecalling
You're just spraying insults about imaginary problems. Instead of namecalling, can you please look at the stories in today's (say) New York Times and say specficcally which ones are biased, and how? Quotes and examples, please. If you see an inaccuracy, flag it.
http://www.nytimes.com

Go to CNN, the Washington Post, or elsewhere if you prefer, But "TSM" is just nasty: who is "suppoorting terrorists?"

and you know this how?
what evidence do you have this takes place at (say) the New York Times. We know it happens at Fox News, because we have memos telling staff what stories to cover and what to avoid for political reasons. But the MSM?
Sure, big mistakes are made, as they are in all businesses. But "bias?" Yes, you think so. that doesn't make it so.

Who? How?
>Big media outlets have become openly left and democratic party supporters; defiantly so. A situation that does indeed anger readers, cost the paper circulation and turns off advertisers.

backup?

Several polls
Polls of news medial people show that, at the big MSMs, over 80% are registered democrats; a media research group found that just under 50% of all MSM stories were liberally biased, compared with less than 20% conservative; another research group found that liberal positions were mentioned at a 5-1 rate compared to conservative positions.

From the UCLA Study - "While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.
These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly.
"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."

By the way, to show how far left you are. 1 study showed Fox News was "only slightly liberal" in it's overall reporting. Oh, these are independent, some might even say liberal, groups, if you were wondering.

labels
Another way to demonstrate bias is to look at the labels used to describe people and positions.
Anyone, even slightly right of center, is always labeled a conservative. Fair enough.
However, even out and out communists almost never get the liberal label. Why not?

Why Not Do More Name Calling?
Fortunato: What I call slanted news is not necessarily made-up news. There are many ways to slant the news without telling lies or violating the truth.

First, you can selectively cover the news. For example, the pro-life movement received next to no attention from the major news media for years. No editor decided that he would "spike" the story because he didn't agree with those Americans who see abortion as legalized murder. Rather, the editor simply concluded that since none of his friends or acquaintances cared about this issue, it didn't constitue news. It wasn't until pro-life rallys and demonstrations began to attract hundreds of thousands of participants that the major news media began to pay attention.

You can also slant news by the way the news story is structured. In one of my many incarnations, I was the media manager for a major gas and electric company that co-owns a nuclear power plant. In the 1980s, as the anti-nuke movement grew, the major media, influenced by such Hollywood block-busters as the "China Syndrome" clearly began siding with anti-nuke forces while all the while proclaiming that they were presenting a balance in their coverage of this subject. I remember numerous times when I would make our chief of nuclear operations available to the media to counter the latest distortion by the anti-nuclear forces. Here was a scientist who had spent more than 50 years in the business, who had been actually present when the first atom was split, who had had a hand in the birth and maturation of the technology. Arrayed against him were some leftist anti-technology kooks who had read a few anti-nuclear tracts and then proclaimed themselves to be "experts."

Invariably -- and I mean invariably -- the formula followed in the so-called unbiased news articles, was to quote the anti-nuclear advocate first, leveling whatever was the allegation-du-jour, followed by extensive back-up quotes from other anti-nuclear sources, that supported the allegation. Usually it wasn't until way down in the story, often after the "jump" (the story carried to a subsequent page), that we would first spy any quote from our expert. The media could rightly say they quoted both sides. All the statements were actually made by the participants. Nothing was made up. No lies were told. But the story was clearly biased against the utility and the one technology that has a chance of reducing our dependence on OPEC oil.

These are but two ways news organizations and and do slant news in a way that gives them the cover of a balanced presentation while actually delivering just the opposite. If I had more time and space, I could give you a dozen other examples.

any poll or study done on the subject in the last 30 years.
.

Sure -- bit where's the slant today?
Pick a paper & point it out.

All the slantology is taught in journalism 101. Today's a news day. Where's the slant?

That UCLA study...
is notoriously, ridiculously unscientific and bogus.

"In other words, the study rests on a presumption that can only be described as bizarre: If a member of Congress cites a think tank approvingly, and if that think tank is also cited by a news organization, then the news organization has a "bias" making it an ideological mirror of the member of Congress who cited the think tank. This, as Groseclose and Milyo define it, is what constitutes "media bias."

see:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200512220003

"Always?"
>Anyone, even slightly right of center, is always labeled a conservative.
What's your source for this in, for example, today's New York Times?

>However, even out and out communists almost never get the liberal Why not?

Because communists aren't liberals woulld be one reason.

then you should be able to give an example from today's paper
instead of claiming something you can't prove.

Him saying it...
doesn't make it true, even if he also says he's an "old newspaper guy." In a court of law (which this isn't) it would be quite appropropriate to ask for sources.

Comments after Dan Rather episode should be enough
But it is so small an issue in the whole it doesn't matter. Who says so, media observer groups, polls, any number of sources. And, no, I will not source; find it yourself if you are interested. I will say this, the perception is such a problem that even small newspaper organizations are trying to find ways to reverse the negative assualt on their bottom lines.

True
and that is part of the media study that was done. This is just one tactic used to try and skey perceptions that anything not skewed to the left is conservative. i'm a political moderate, but I am always labeled a conservative by liberals (and sometimes a liberal by conservatives which tells me I'm truely in the middle).

Good examples
Another is the use of labels; or the lack of it. One side is a "noted silvaculturalist" while the other is a "Conservative" or, worse, a "Spokesman for the Timber industry". In fact the so-called "silvaculturists" is actually a guy who studies some plant biology and works for the Sierra Club and the other is a USFS Silvaculturalist. it would be funny if it wasn't for the fact that only a handful of readers would know the facts.

Still another is to "editorialize" the story. "Everyone could hear the gunshots" when, in fact, the reporter heard a noise he thought was a gunshot. He is not lying (if he could hear the noise anyone could have and probably many did) but there is no evidence it was a gunshot.

Didn't know Dan Rather worked for newspapers
and the outside investigation found screwups in journalistic practice, but no evidence of political bias.

The New York Times' Judy Miller was notoriously caught reprinting propaganda fabricated by Iraqi exiles and phonied reports of Iraqi nuclear arms programs. Obviously liberal bias.

>he perception is such a problem that even small newspaper organizations are trying to find ways to reverse the negative assualt on their bottom lines.

The perception has been deliberately marketed as a propaganda campaign by organizations like the Scaife foundation and Republican strategists Roger Ailes and Karl Rove.

Fictitous example
>. One side is a "noted silvaculturalist" while the other is a "Conservative" or, worse, a "Spokesman for the Timber industry".

If the labels are inaccurate, that's one issue. But if someone is a spokesman for the timber industry, why isn't that relevent.

>In fact the so-called "silvaculturists" is actually a guy who studies some plant biology and works for the Sierra Club and the other is a USFS Silvaculturalist.

In fact?? this example is made up. What if "in fact" we're talking about a longserving USFS silvaculturist, or a noted academic expert on forest ecology?

Maybe, but…
try:
http://secure.mediaresearch.org/news/MediaBiasBasics.html

Of course, it will be a complete BS report to you as well.
try:
http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp

what about this:
Evidence of Media Bias

Through a series of nine polls, most of which were conducted by outside sources, the editors of a new book, And That's the Way it Is(n't) by Bozell and Baker, have examined the political beliefs of those working for the major media.

What do Reporters Believe?

The 1981 Lichter-Rothman study surveyed political attitudes and voting patterns of 240 journalists working for such major media as The New York Times, the Washington Post, US News and World Report, the Wall Street Journal and all the networks. Key findings included:

* 90 percent favored abortion.
* 80 percent supported affirmative action.
* 81 percent voted Democratic in every election from 1964-72.
* Most blamed the U.S. for Third World poverty.

An excerpt from that study says journalists emerge "as strong supporters of environmental protection, affirmative action, women's rights, homosexual rights, and sexual freedom in general.

Liberal Sources

Not surprisingly, these journalists turn to liberal individuals and organizations as supposedly independent sources for news reports. Leftwing congressmen, Ralph Nader, various anti-nuclear groups, Jane Fonda ... these are just a few of the sources considered credible by the media elite.

Bozell and Baker present a 1985 poll by the Los Angeles Times which produced results supporting the Lichter-Rothman findings. The bottom line is that America's newsrooms are liberal hotbeds far out of step with the American public.

And, in The Future?

Things may get worse. An excerpt from a Lichter-Rothman study published in the Washington Journalism Review states, "If today's media elite is one of the most liberal, anti-establishment groups in American society - politically alienated from traditional values and institutions - tomorrow's media elite is likely to be more so. That is what our survey of Columbia University School of Journalism students revealed."

The survey of media elite and future reporters found:

* More than 80 percent of each group seldom or never attend religious services.
* Less than eight percent attend church regularly and nearly half claim no religious affiliation.

Fortunato - here's an example
Everyone has read or heard this example of bias - so often, in fact, that we don't even notice: Ever wonder why the presence of a Sport Utility Vehicle warrants print, even when the characteristics of the SUV have nothing whatsoever to do with creating, causing, exacerbating or - gasp - preventing, mitigating or minimizing the whatever?

And, ever wonder why the teen from the affluent area involved in an accident was driving a Mercedes? If said teen was driving a Ford Escort, think we'd know? Heck no, because it wouldn't support the un-spoken bias.

Actually you are wrong
Caught out again, fortunato. I was at the meeting for a weekly newspaper and was very surprised when the regional daily reported the story like this. It wasn't the way it was at all. Everything in the story was "True" the USFS Silvaculturalist was speaking on behalf of a planned timber harvest, so I suppose he was a "Timber Industry spokesman". The event was the unveiling of a 5 year comprehensive plan to restore a watershed that had been devestated due to undergroth after a fire had burned the area 15 years ago. Their were 12 real scientist involved covering everything to how to restore the creek flow, fisheries, maintain habitat for wildlife, etc.

Sorry, you are a very left liberal and you know not what you are saying.

Part of the campaign
These studies come from nakedly partisan sources and the methodology, when it's looked into, has consistently been shown to be shady. And, really -- a 1981 study? Why not a 1931 study.

But let's go back to now. the papers are biased. is the contention. Today is March 22. The NY Times is on line. Biased how? Which stories, how?

It doesn't matter
He is a far left liberal and won't listen to anything, no matter how much evidence I provide he will not acknowledge it.

You know nothing on this
She knows me a bit, you don't. Might be she is right??

Example, please
You say it goes on all the time. Ok. here are all the fatal accident reports in the last week from (random example) the LA Times:


A Downey man was arrested Saturday in the hit-and-run death of a woman on the San Gabriel Freeway after a witness led authorities to his home, the California Highway Patrol said Saturday.
Downey police and CHP officers arrested Martin L. Gonzales, 24, about 2:30 a.m.. He was charged with one count of felony hit-and-run

A man running away from a routine traffic stop sank waist-deep in mud and apparently died from exhaustion and cold.
Deputies stopped Shawn E. Leflore, 33, for having an outdated registration sticker, Dallas County sheriff's spokesman Sgt. Don Peritz said. "He thought he was wanted. That is why he ran," Peritz said.
deputies searched about an hour before finding Leflore. They called for aid and tried for another hour to pull him out, but he died, Peritz said.

A Metrolink train on its way from San Bernardino to Oceanside hit an unoccupied car on the tracks in Riverside early Tuesday morning, causing a two-hour train delay, authorities said. No injuries were reported.

Three people were killed when a pickup truck flew off the Gardena Freeway in Compton early Monday, falling about 100 feet down the embankment and landing upside-down near the Blue Line light-rail tracks, authorities said.

Four people died in three unrelated car accidents on area roads, authorities said Saturday.
In Anaheim, Claudia Medel-Diaz, 21, and Jose Garcia, 17, died when their Nissan Sentra and a Chevrolet Malibu collided at Ball Road and Euclid Avenue about 10 p.m. Friday, police said.
Four hours later and a block west, a 36-year-old man died when the Toyota Corolla he was riding in collided with a Ford Mustang.
Another man died Saturday in a pileup on the Garden Grove Freeway in Santa Ana.

A teacher was killed and eight students were injured Wednesday when an out-of-control car jumped a curb in Culver City and slammed into them as they returned to their school from a nearby park.
Both the driver of the car and her male passenger fled the scene but were later arrested. They were identified as,,,

Athorities were searching Tuesday for two people who fled the scene of an accident on the 5 Freeway in Sylmar that left three people dead.
Sunny S. Nguyen, 49, of Canoga Park, a woman believed to be his wife and their daughter, Rachel, 26, of Los Angeles, were killed in the crash that occurred about 10:55 p.m. Monday north of the 210 Freeway, according to the California Highway Patrol.
The family was traveling south in a 2000 Honda Civic from Lancaster when Nguyen started to exit onto the eastbound 210 Freeway, authorities said.
The Honda slowed to about 20 miles per hour before veering back onto the 5 Freeway where it was rear-ended by a Ford Thunderbird, authorities said.


fortunato
Well, well, well, here comes the expert in everything. I have noted you are all over the place on TCS almost every day. You remind me of a pharasee who loves to scold everyone and correct everyone. You are simply, excuse the word, a parasite. You can quit commenting to me, as in the future I will simply ignore you. Most people on this site are polite and usually have something worthwhile to say. You do not.

That's funny
Never said there were a few die-hard conservatives. Note 5-1 liberal bias. Means there is some conservative as well.

You're not making sense
What, precisely did this story say?

Do you have a copy of it? Can you provide a UrL?

Finally, why not try focusing on the content instead of the labels?

O.K.
Here's one:
No Breach Seen in Work in Iraq on Propaganda
An inquiry has found that an American public relations firm did not violate military policy by paying Iraqi news outlets to print positive articles, military officials said Tuesday. The finding leaves to the Defense Department the decision on whether new rules are needed to govern such activities.

Because Iraq newspapers were paid to print positive articles does not make it propaganda. The bias against anything going on in Iraq is evident in that headline alone, this in spite of the lead which clearly shows there was no wrong-doing, nor any indication that what was printed was lies.

I don't have time to go through everything on the website, but i'm sure I could find several others.
Please stop not and leave me alone.

editorialize?
> Still another is to "editorialize" the story. "Everyone could hear the gunshots" when, in fact, the reporter heard a noise he thought was a gunshot. He is not lying (if he could hear the noise anyone could have and probably many did) but there is no evidence it was a gunshot.

That doesn't sound liike bias or editorializing, it sounds like bad reporting.

doesn't work that way
the claim is, the New York Times has a liberal bias, imposed by editors. but then you have stories like the ones cited. If the paper has a bias, why didn't it kill those stories?

So, you don't have an argument
...don't have any facts, can't speak on the issue. all you can do is note you disagree.

>You are simply, excuse the word, a parasite

because I disagree? Because I ask you to back up what you say? Gosh.

Enough
I refuse to type a detailed story for you just to help you figure it out.
Fine, you like that paper (the NYTimes) because you agree with it; you are a definate liberal; B-I-A-S anyone!!

Generally imposed up and down the line
Not just by the editors. Also, it is largely because the entire staff is so liberal; not because there is some big plan to slant the news. Why do some get by, ask the Times staff; how the h ell should I know why they let this one or that one through.
You aren't making sense bud.

TCS Daily Archives