The Syndicate

Media Matters has a report into ideological balance among syndicated columnists which shows that "whether examining only the top columnists or the entire group, large papers or small, the data presented in this report make clear that conservative syndicated columnists enjoy a clear advantage over their progressive counterparts."

I would be fascinated to see a newspaper editor explain why he thinks this is. One possible answer, of course, is that readers love rightwingers. Maybe you gain a ton of subscribers, at the margin, by carrying Charles Krauthammer or John Podhoretz in your newspaper. Maybe that's what the editors of newspapers think. Maybe they even have some market research to back that conclusion up. Alternatively -- and in my view more plausibly -- maybe opinion columns have little measurable economic value (does anyone really believe Washington Post circulation would change in either direction if they sacked Krauthammer and hired Rosa Brooks away from the LA Times?) and basically exist to put forward ideas that newspaper owners find congenial.

Comments

Mort Kondrake = conservative. Hahahaha.

They didn't even attempt to do a serious study, right?

Posted by Al | September 11, 2007 8:28 PM

Worked 30 years in newspapers. Editorial pages and the op-ed section, also the political columnists are ONLY for the publisher's pleasure, whatever that might be. Sometimes it's ego. Mostly, it's to defend their personal wealth at all costs.
They needed a study to prove something that obvious?

Posted by JMG | September 11, 2007 8:47 PM

I find it amusing that Al doesn't consider Mort Kondracke to be conservative. I guess hosting a Fox News show and penning dolchstoss diatribes against liberals doesn't erase the stain of his youthful stint on Nixon's enemies' list, eh?

What's a guy got to do these days to become a card-carrying conservative? Does he need to steal food stamps from a single mother and beat a puppy to death on live TV, or what?

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | September 11, 2007 8:54 PM

I always thought it was because most editorial boards thought of themselves as liberal, and wanted conservatives to counterbalance that.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | September 11, 2007 9:04 PM

"Alternatively -- and in my view more plausibly -- maybe opinion columns have little measurable economic value ..."

I think this is incorrect. Papers make their money from advertisers; advertisers at large papers don't like advocacy for economically liberal politics (e.g., income redistribution, labor rights issues, challenges to the status quo, etc.), hence, opinion columns make the paper money.

Posted by scudbucket | September 11, 2007 9:20 PM

Al:
How is Kondracke a liberal?

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | September 11, 2007 9:23 PM

The main reason is this (I speak from a lifetime in the news business): There has been and ongoing and seemingly unstoppable decline in magazine and newspaper circulation. That, and the availability of so much free information on the web, has made circulation a much more problematic revenue source for publishers, and severely limited their ability to raise price. They are therefore much more desperately dependent than they have been in the past on advertising - at a time when competition for the advertising dollar has also increased. And advertisers are quite risk-averse - not wanting to turn off readers - and politically conservative, given the economic assumptions and imperatives under which corporations operate. Unfortunately, a liberal columnist is far more likely to arouse the right-wing noise machine and be seen as "controversial" than a William Kristol. And advertisers are just much more comfortable with the kind of views that conservative columnists offer, particularly on the economic front.

Posted by Winston | September 11, 2007 9:23 PM

Morton Kondracke is also executive editor of The Weekly Standard. But, when it is convenient for people like Al, he can pretend to be a liberal, I guess.

Posted by etaoin shrdlu | September 11, 2007 9:30 PM

A recent economic study looked at campaign contributions in a newspaper's area and the slant of that newspapers articles. The finding was that in areas where Republicans receive large donations newspapers write articles that appeal to Republicans. In areas where Democrats receive large donations newspapers write articles that appeal to Democrats. Maybe newspaper owners and editors are just appealing to their economic base.

Posted by Bill | September 11, 2007 9:36 PM

When I dropped the Indianapolis Star I sent them a nice letter telling them that the latest Gary Varvel cartoon had finally pushed me over the edge into dropping my lifelong subscription to their paper. I let them know that I could no longer in good conscience subsidize their paper which was filled with right-wing lies and affronts to my beliefs. I told them that their editorial decisions, headlines, and slanted reporting acted against my own interests and often went so far as to deride me personally as a traitor and anti-American because of my stance against the Iraq War.

They printed my letter but cut out all references to dropping my subscription. They also cut my sentences in such a way as to emphasize "pushed me over the edge". LOL. Regardless of the rude send-off I feel better knowing that right-wing rag isn't getting my money anymore.
.

Posted by Curt Matlock | September 11, 2007 9:43 PM

Far worse then Krauthammer or even Kristol is the fascist cocksucking Opus Dei member Robert Novak. The only place his byline belongs on is a roll of toiler paper.

Posted by SLC | September 11, 2007 9:44 PM

I don't know about how columnists are chosen, but publishers absolutely set the editorial voice for the paper.

My favorite example is the Seattle Times's 2000 endorsement of Bush. This endorsement - which was entirely against the record of the paper and against the political leanings of the city - was solely driven by the estate tax: publisher Frank Blethen wanted an end to it, at all costs.

The resulting parody image was pretty funny, though.

Posted by Warren Terra | September 11, 2007 9:49 PM

The outcomes are shaped by the definitions of conservative, centrist, and progressive. By the way, what ever happened to liberal?

The one that stuck out the most: Bill O'Reilly is a conservative?

He is his own category: loud-mouthed blowhard. Nobody wants to claim him.

Posted by TJM | September 11, 2007 9:56 PM

Conservatives complain loudly.

Editors and owners take their majority-liberal readership for granted.

Posted by Linus | September 11, 2007 10:03 PM

Odd. Another Clinton-linked "liberal" group came out with a similar study about radio. That study seemed to have "mistakenly" misidentified some people, and one of the authors turned out to be linked to EdSchultz.

Now, I'm not saying that MMFA would do something similar. I just very strongly suspect that over the next day or two we're going to find out some of the things they "forgot" to mention.

Posted by TLB | September 11, 2007 10:14 PM

Yes, TLB, the Center for American Progress found that conservative talk show hosts far outnumber liberals even in the usual liberal outposts. Did you actually read the study or did you simply assume that if somebody who worked on the study was connected to Ed Schultz that it couldn't possibly be true?

It's been shown that radio stations stick to conservative hosts even when they lose audience. Ed Shultz has beaten Sean Hannity in several urban markets and still can't get picked up more widely or by stations with stronger signals. Al Franken beat Rush Limbaugh in several cities and nothing came of that, though that was probably because of Air America's defective business plan.

Posted by SalHepatica | September 11, 2007 10:22 PM

Think you'd really need a break out by readership, not newspaper. Big towns tend to be more liberal, and have higher readership per paper. Thus the numbers may be skewed by counting papers and not readers.

Just a thought.

Posted by John G. | September 11, 2007 10:23 PM

Since it is, apparently, my lot in life to be stating the obvious, here it is.

And why I don't see these two things linked together very often, I think, is quite telling.

Look at the decades long decline of newspaper circulation. Now, factor in the rise of the conservative voice in print.

I leave the very simple answer as an exercise, for you, the reader.

Just like "everyone loves the iraq war", obvious, common sense stuff like this is missed. The newspapers are published not for the unwashed masses but for the pleasure of the publishers and advertisers, hence the decline of print newspaper sales. The very people in the position to change this trend are the ones who think only a more stridently conservative voice will bring people back to newspapers.

They're fools. Rich fools but fools nonetheless.

Posted by ice weasel | September 11, 2007 10:28 PM

Gee, perhaps wealthy people buy news media in order to get their message out. Examples might include Jack Welch of GE buying NBC (and Tim Russert) or Rupert Murdoch buying the Wall Steet Journal. Then the editors and reporters, who are hired by those wealthy people, deliver the message their bosses want delivered and avoid "if you can't, we will find someone who can". "Speaking truth to power" has no economic value? Who would have thought? Matt, I think you might be on to something.

Posted by Deggjr | September 11, 2007 10:39 PM

Same goes for Cleveland Plain Dealer. Couldn't issue an endorsement b/c of deadlock b/t publisher and everyone else.

Anti-American, estate tax lovin' little lordies.

Posted by bob | September 11, 2007 10:55 PM

Over the last 40 years, liberals have dominated the salaried jobs within big media institutions: e.g., reporters, editors, editorial board members, etc. So, conservatives went the entrepreneurial route into the opinion business.

Rush Limbaugh is a good example of conservative entrepreneurialism -- he went into a medium, AM radio, that everybody thought was dead, and made a fortune. Liberal attempts to match conservatives in the wide open business of talk radio have been dismal.

Now, liberals are not completely lacking in entrepreneurs in the opinion business: Michael Moore has done a bang-up job making a fortune in a medium, documentaries, that everybody once thought was as dead as talk radio.

Posted by Steve Sailer | September 11, 2007 11:02 PM

I think maybe its a situation like from Howard Stern's Private Parts where those who hate howard listen longer than those who love him. Readers hate reading Bobo or they are sure they are smarter than him.

Posted by hunter | September 11, 2007 11:18 PM

Steve Sailer, are you kidding me? Opinion journalism has zero objective measures of efficacy at the high end of the bell curve! What does a (supposed) excess of supply have to do with how newspapers demand op-ed pieces? And of all conservatives to top the list, George freaking Will? Talk about your inefficient markets...

Posted by Mike | September 11, 2007 11:27 PM

Though owned by the Tribune Co., the L.A.Times was a damn good newspaper for awhile.

But writing in reference to DolchstossLegende -- mentioned by LaFollette Progressive. This is dangerous thinking that, of course, starts in the U.S. with the end of Viet Nam -- nobody notes that the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was that "conflicts" WMD. To look at a unique view of DolchstossLegende read The Black Obelisk, written by Remarque - author of All Quiet on the Western Front. Seriously worth a look to understand the power of Dolchstoss malaise.

Posted by dunnage | September 11, 2007 11:30 PM

A consensus appears to have been reached on this issue: follow the money.

But it's not a trivial answer. Pundits of every stripe - liberal, progressive, libertarian, traditional conservative, - seem generally incapable of viewing media with the same critical skepticism in which they (at least some) view other economically based enterprises. Everyone who sits on a perch from which to preach seems to think they got there due unique individual talents. THat they voice views which please string-pullers is merely incidental. Or perhaps coincidental.

Posted by scudbucket | September 11, 2007 11:34 PM

I always thought it was because most editorial boards thought of themselves as liberal, and wanted conservatives to counterbalance that.

I dunno, my theory about the presence of Debra Saunders of the SF Chronicle and Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe was that the editorial boards thought of themselves as liberal and wanted conservatives to look bad.

Posted by Tyro | September 11, 2007 11:42 PM

As Robert Scheer pointed out when the San Diego Union dumped him, liberals are the people who read. I didn't dump the Union until I opened the paper one morning and found a single story on the front of the Style section -- a review of Bill Clinton's autobiography titled "Bill Clinton; My Life and Crimes" in 2" high type. I closed up the paper, put it in the recycling bin, and called them to cancel. I haven't read it since.

Posted by J Bean | September 12, 2007 12:12 AM

I'm going to incline with the 'readers love wingers' theory, as I mentioned at Ezra's.

Why? If you're reading Kraphammer syndicated on the Buttfuck Times-Advertiser, you're likely old, have a circumscribed take on news, and don't read Kraphammer on the internets.

Look at the demographic split between The O'Reilly Factor and Countdown: running close in the 25-54 demo, but BillO gets three times as many old codgers.

They're also good for print trolling: you'll get a few outraged liberals responding on the letters page, and then dozens of conservatives waving their Bibles and telling said liberals to go to Cuba/Mexico/Canada/France. Oh, and telling their wingnut friends to buy the paper to read the letter. That the letters page of most local papers is the domain of cranks and moral scolds is a dirty truth of the business.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | September 12, 2007 12:39 AM

Conservatives succeed at talk radio and punditry because conservatives have principles. Liberals have outrage and good intentions, but no principles. And without principles, the opinions are not interesting. Limbaugh and Krauthammer, whatever you may think of them, are men of ideas.

Posted by bjk | September 12, 2007 2:06 AM

"Conservatives succeed at talk radio and punditry because conservatives have principles. Liberals have outrage and good intentions, but no principles. And without principles, the opinions are not interesting. Limbaugh and Krauthammer, whatever you may think of them, are men of ideas.

Posted by bjk | September 12, 2007 2:06 AM"

Killing everybody and letting god sort them out is not an idea based on principle. By this logic, the Zodiac Killer had ideas based on principle. Limbaugh is a quasi-fascist blowhard and Krauthammer is a revolutionary Trotskyite wine poured into a conservative-libertarian bottle.

Posted by Reality Man | September 12, 2007 5:07 AM

"though that was probably because of Air America's defective business plan."

Defective? I thought Air America's business plan was to get rich off "investors" by offering them a way to circumvent campaign spending regs by calling their advertising expenditures a "bad investment". (I'm cool with that, campaign "reform" is a 1st amendment abomination.) Did Franken come out of it poorer? I don't think so. So his business plan wasn't defective.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | September 12, 2007 7:16 AM

I'm not sure what to say to people who think Kondracke is a conservative. I mean, a response of "no, he isn't" doesn't seem helpful.

Morton Kondracke is also executive editor of The Weekly Standard.

No, he isn't. He has nothing to do with the Weekly Standard, other than appearing on the same Fox show as Fred Barnes.

Another question, beside the coding errors involved with the data - why is this only a study of syndicated columnists? That seems to get to only part of the question. What about non-syndicated columnists? If we want to know what types of opinions dominate the op-ed columns, then we'd need to know those also, but curiously they are just completely left out of the stud.

Posted by Al | September 12, 2007 7:41 AM

Re bjk's comment "Limbaugh and Krauthammer, whatever you may think of them, are men of ideas"
-----------
Thanks ,bjk. I hadn't heard a good joke lately and it's always good to start the day with a good belly laugh.

Actually, I think Limbaugh and Krauthammer should be stripped naked, have "infidel" spraypainted on their ass, and airdropped into upper Pakistan.

Posted by Don Williams | September 12, 2007 7:58 AM

Mort Kondracke is the Executive Editor of Roll Call andanyone who has followed him for more than a minute and a half knows that he has moved over the decades from a reliable liberal to a conservative shill.

His marriages even point to his conversion. His late first wife was a liberal activist; his current one, a GOP political staffer.

Posted by howie | September 12, 2007 12:53 PM

SLC, could you be more sickeningly disgusting? You are already degenerate, but go on trying to be more so.

Posted by Jennifer | September 12, 2007 1:02 PM

AI - Because the study limited itself to syndicated columnists only, they were unable to include writers from the Wall Street Journal, since most of their columnists write exclusively for them. Needless to say, this would have pushed the numbers even further right.

Posted by Doug | September 12, 2007 1:10 PM

This is the most flawed study I have read in a while, and I understand how to read social science studies.

I have provided for you the most thorough analysis on the Internet of Media Matters' study. You can read it below.

Media Matters Spouts its Own Flawed Study as Fact: How They Did It, In Great Detail

Posted by Devil's Advocate | September 12, 2007 1:51 PM

In addition to the last link, see this.

I think MattY should at least ask one of the interns to read these things before posting about them.

Posted by TLB | September 12, 2007 3:22 PM

Why should we take this study seriously at all? In my book, "research" by highly partisan/ideological groups like Media Matters should just be tossed in the trash. They wouldn't have published their results if they had found a slant in favor of progressives, so the study isn't actually new information: just by knowing it's a Media Matters publication, you know what the results going to be. For all we know they did ten studies like this and this was the only one that found something that looks like conservative bias.

I'm a progressive, but I don't look favorably on progressive attempts to emulate the political success of the conservative "research" enterprise. Starting your study by deciding what the result is going to be is fundamentally enterprise and we shouldn't trust people who do it.

Posted by Elliot Reed | September 13, 2007 8:36 PM

Starting your study by deciding what the result is going to be is a fundamentally dishonest enterprise, I mean.

Posted by Elliot Reed | September 13, 2007 8:38 PM