The Ontario GOP has
posted his take on the D&C's shortcomings. His view is that the D&C shares what he sees as a well-documented liberal bias. His post is worth a careful read, because it cites a number of studies and polls on media bias.
I agree that the D&C's editorial page generally supports Democrats. As for the news pages, I'm not as convinced. What I see there is a fear of offending the party in power, and that party is the Democrats in the city of Rochester. A good example of this desire was the D&C's uncritical support of the Fast Ferry project. The Ferry was a pet project of the Democratic mayor, and it was only after it failed that the D&C began to investigate some of the questionable decisions behind the project.
Comments
Why did you link to that steaming pile of bs? A Zogby poll from 1996?
I'm afraid you're becoming what's wrong with our media: so anxious to seem "centrist" that you happily pimp the most idiotic of right-wing talking points.
The Zogby poll and Harvard study he cites are from 2007. He points out that one poll he cites is from 1996. None of these are right-wing talking points. They're independent studies that are open to interpretation.
The Zogby poll shows that people are buying the talking point that the media has a liberal bias. Whether they should be buying it is another matter, but Democrats ignore it at their peril. The Democrats need to come up with an interpretation ("frame") that is a little better than "no it isn't". That interpretation has to revolve around standards of journalism. We need to ask the media to be better professionals. If they are, the bias charge will be put on the back burner. Right now, too many people are buying it.
The Harvard study says that Democratic presidential contenders are getting more attention than Republicans. I think that's probably true this cycle. Is that liberal bias? I don't think so. I think it's more that the media senses that the Republican candidate probably won't be elected in 2008, so they want to "cover a winner". The real issue is that the media covers presidential politics like a combination sporting event and beauty contest.
So, as I said in the post, maybe too gently for your taste, I don't agree with the conclusion he drew from those studies. I think his post is worth a careful read because it shows how shoddy journalism leaves a paper open to accusations of bias. The example of the union boilerplate that was re-printed (without the D&C editors mentioning or recognizing that it was boilerplate) is a good example. If the D&C reprinted some document from the Right-to-Life movement that appeared in 20 other papers, the left would be screaming bias, too.
But the issue isn't bias. It's better journalism.
I should have added another example to the post, which is the way that the County Exec endorsement was handled. The D&C endorsed Maggie Brooks even though they opposed her FAIR plan. One alternative would have been no endorsement, but they didn't do that, because they were scared. Again, not bias, just fear and inability to do the job of an editorial board, which is to endorse only those candidates whose behavior and positions are consistent with those of the editorial board.
I will grant the point about the SCHIP editorial and about the Fast Ferry. (The latter is an especially interesting point.)
But his post verges too far into craziness. If a liberal blog wrote something like this, you wouldn't link to it. What irks me especially here is the soft bigotry of lowered expectations for conservative bloggers. It's not helpful.
It could be "soft bigotry" or it could just be giving a guy who has been blogging for less than two months a bit of a break.
If he continues posting on this topic, I'd like to address the difference between editorial content and news content. I think the "liberal bias" brush gets applied all to broadly against news.
Having worked for newspapers since I left the Navy in 1976 I have always noticed a liberal slant at most newspapers.
Gannett has long been a champion of liberal values at their newspapers and editorial staffers must adhere to the company line if they ever intend to get promoted. These values include but are not limited to affirmative action, sexual preference, environmentalism and expansion of protected classes of people. They are also generally supportive of union activity unless it is at one of their own papers.
I agree that Gannett's editorial pages are liberal.
As for the news pages, I don't see it.
They are also generally supportive of union activity unless it is at one of their own papers.
How true.