Libertarian Librarian

Actually, I thought John's remarks were meant to be a snarky comment on the supposed 'situational ethics' that all us bad old libruls embody. Our interpretations of his comments differ; which goes to show that the observer does indeed, have an impact on what is observed; even if only by the interpretation.

Which I believe was one of Jack Montag's main points. In your review of the Journal's supposed bias, you view the articles through your own preconceptions. If I performed the same review, my results of left/right/neutral are likely to show the Journal editorial page as far more right leaning than yours. But since neither of is is objectively neutral (and we both have freely admitted it) what purpose will such a review serve, except to reinforce our own preconceived notions?

Although admittedly, in the second installment you do admit that the results are not showing as far left as you expected. It is to your credit that you admit that it is not the result you have expected.

But further, I have two issues with you Jourtinel experiment. I have been reading the Journal since before the great merger/assimilation, and my interpretation has been that the paper has been weakened considerably by its loss of clear viewpoint, in trying to appeal to a wider range of opinion. so again, as a liberal, I have viewed the paper's skewing rightward with dismay. As I'm sure, you view the loss of the more right leaning Sentinel. But is either of these viewpoints valid? we are, after all talking about the editorial page.

The editorial page of a paper whose market is the largest metropolitan area in the State, which is decidedly more lefty based on the voting patterns. So based on market forces, the Journal is only responding to the patterns of its market, if left leaning editorials occur slightly more often than right leaning ones.

Which kind of leads to the second issue. I do not understand why it is to be viewed as aproblem if a newspaper professes to have an editiorial slant. I understand, of course, that if this bleed over into the news reporting side of things, it can be a problem; but analysis of the news reporting is not being presented. (I have seen the Journal allow its reporting to be biased by the Ownership; but the instance I have in mind is evidence of a rightward bias; we'll leave it for another day)

I know one of the next arguments wil be that the area needs to be served by a conservative voice; that there needs to be balance. However, I've noticed that the lack of balance in something like talk radio never seems to bother the people that decry bias in the print media. The question is, why is the rightward slant of talk radio simply evidence of the free market working, but when the result is a leftist orientation, it is bias that needs to be eradicated?

A long comment to some short posts, but hey, you asked for it right?

And by the way, I applaud your attitude towards the snark. In my opinion, Montag was not being intentionally snarky, but as you surmised simply trying to push some buttons. especially in the comment about basketball; I think he actually does feel that way about most sports. For myself, I promise to try to keep comments more constructive, and certainly not personally insulting.

Unless Jack gives me another straight set up line like that one.
 

Actually, I thought John's remarks were meant to be a snarky comment on the supposed 'situational ethics' that all us bad old libruls embody. Our interpretations of his comments differ; which goes to show that the observer does indeed, have an impact on what is observed; even if only by the interpretation.

Head, meet nail! I was trying to be snarky about librul situational ethics.


Which I believe was one of Jack Montag's main points. In your review of the Journal's supposed bias, you view the articles through your own preconceptions. If I performed the same review, my results of left/right/neutral are likely to show the Journal editorial page as far more right leaning than yours. But since neither of is is objectively neutral (and we both have freely admitted it) what purpose will such a review serve, except to reinforce our own preconceived notions?

This standard of "you said, I said" is too rigid. There is an honest middle, a reasonable perspective, where an article count could be made that no one could seriously dispute. You could do it by word count, for example, counting the number of words each POV is given.

You could also do it by adjective count, positive versus negative, from each article. Count for 12 weeks, chart the adjective count, and you'd have indisputable evidence of bias, or of no bias.

If either of these methods, or some other value free methods were employed, I believe that Nick's count would be sustained. I'm of the opinion that most people who go into journalism want to change the world; they want to make a difference. Which, of course, is precisely the wrong reason to go into journalism.


The editorial page of a paper whose market is the largest metropolitan area in the State, which is decidedly more lefty based on the voting patterns. So based on market forces, the Journal is only responding to the patterns of its market, if left leaning editorials occur slightly more often than right leaning ones.

Here in Utah, our major 'newspaper', the Salt Lake Tribune, prides itself on being "an Independent Voice". Utah, no surprise to anyone (the only state in 1992 where Bill Clinton finished third) is mostly conservative. So some papers feel the need to react to market pressures, perhaps, but there is just too much evidence out there that most major papers are liberal by choice.


… The question is, why is the rightward slant of talk radio simply evidence of the free market working, but when the result is a leftist orientation, it is bias that needs to be eradicated?

I'll field that softball. For decades, all the major news outlets were liberally biased. The New York Times, ABC, NBC, CBS, the LA Times, Newsweek, Time, all the major news organs presented slanted news. Any gains republicans made under all this were in spite of news coverage, while democrats were given much more favorable treatment.
In other words, an imbalance existed that talk radio and the internet have done much to correct.

 

Head, meet nail! I was trying to be snarky about librul situational ethics. ahhh, another mythical beast, often sighted amidst the fabled herds of snark!

This standard of "you said, I said" is too rigid. There is an honest middle, a reasonable perspective, where an article count could be made that no one could seriously dispute. You could do it by word count, for example, counting the number of words each POV is given.

counting words wouldn't help, because you still have to first define the slant of the piece, and that's where personal viewpoint comes in. To really dramatize this , Does a column by the proto-fascist Cal Thomas count more than a column by someone more moderate? Who is to define that 'reasonable middle' you describe? If I apply for the job, I don't think you'd care for the results. Although Jack Montag would probably agree.

Personally, I also decry the he said/ but on the other hand nature of modern news presentation, since often the opposing viewpoint is presented as having equal value, even if it's being presented by the Cookie Monster.

If either of these methods, or some other value free methods were employed, I believe that Nick's count would be sustained. I'm of the opinion that most people who go into journalism want to change the world; they want to make a difference. Which, of course, is precisely the wrong reason to go into journalism.

Why is that the wrong reason to go into journalism? The writers I have met do, in fact typically believe that the free dissemination of information can, in fact, help society as a whole. We're talking about information here, which is neutral.

I'll field that softball. For decades, all the major news outlets were liberally biased. The New York Times, ABC, NBC, CBS, the LA Times, Newsweek, Time, all the major news organs presented slanted news. Any gains republicans made under all this were in spite of news coverage, while democrats were given much more favorable treatment.
In other words, an imbalance existed that talk radio and the internet have done much to correct.

First of all, the idea that the media has been liberal for decades is simply a strawman (another mythical creature that roams the Internets). Where is the evidence? Simply pointing out that the majority of journalists are self-identified as liberal isn't enough, that does not necessarily mean that the news reporting itself follows that pattern. For every instance of articles being slanted leftward, you can find rightward examples. I have seen several cases in the Journal where the right leaning ownership has dictated the placement and editing of news articles. Data is not the plural of anecdote.

But the conservative pundits have been successful, in using the tactic of crying 'media bias!' since the early seventies; at this point, most media outlets have been cowed into the 'opposing viewpoints' tactic to avoid a conservative dogpile.

I can see how conservatives have felt that the news may be a conspiracy against them. But the news itself isn't biased; it is defined as what has happened. If it doesn't conform to your worldview, it's not the fault of the reporting party.

And as I attempted to point out previously, reporting of the news is spearate from the editorial page. And I still don't see where TV and radio are exempted from the definition of Mainstream Media. The majority of people get their news from the TV, which seems to be the definition of mainstream.


Dang. I've gotta put this much effort into my own darn blog.