quote:

---

Persuaders or Partisans

It should be utterly predictable, right? The New York Times and Washington Post editorial pages beat up on George W., while the Wall Street Journal and Washington Times editorial pages doggedly defend the president.

Well, not quite.

A new Harvard study says the conservative editorial pages are more intensely partisan, and far less willing to criticize a Republican administration than the liberal pages are to take on a Democratic administration.

New York magazine columnist Michael Tomasky, who did the study for the Joan Shorenstein press center, is a certified liberal, so some may be inclined to discount his findings. But the nature of his research makes it harder to dismiss.

Tomasky examined the editorial commentary on 10 Bush and Clinton episodes that were roughly comparable. He did not include extraordinary events, such as the Lewinsky scandal or 9/11. Everyone knows that virtually all papers, of every political stripe, whacked Clinton over his Monica dissembling. No surprise there, and there's no similar Bush scandal. More interesting is how the papers handled run-of-the-mill political controversies.

The liberal papers criticized the Clinton administration 30 percent of the time, while the conservative papers slapped around the Bush administration just 7 percent of the time.

The liberal papers praised the Clintonites 36 percent of the time, while the conservative papers praised the Bushies 77 percent of the time.

One more set of numbers: The liberal papers criticized Bush 67 percent of the time; the conservative papers criticized Clinton 89 percent of the time.

As for intensity, Tomasky cites a Journal editorial soon after the Clintonites arrived in Washington, describing administration figures as "pod people from a 'Star Trek' episode . . . genetically bred to inhabit the public sector."

Let's go to the numbers:

When Hillary's health care task force was sued in 1993 to open its records, the NYT wrote four editorials, all negative toward the Clintons. The WP had one mixed. The WSJ wrote eight, all negative. The WT had seven, all negative.

The New York Times, for example, called the Clinton secrecy "unseemly, possibly illegal and wrong." The Washington Times said that "if ever there was a situation that demanded that all ethics regulations be followed down to the last dot on the last 'i' and the last cross on the last 't' it is the doings of the health care task force."

Cut to Dick Cheney's energy task force keeping its records secret. The NYT, as it had with Hillary, wrote five editorials, all negative. The WP wrote one, mixed. The WSJ wrote one positive, and the WT wrote one positive, one mixed and one negative.

Said the Journal: "This purely political lawsuit was [John Dingell and Henry Waxman's] attempted end-run around the Constitution's tedious separation of powers."

The Washington Times compared the Hillary and Cheney situations, saying: "Perhaps the most important difference between the two task forces is that no one on the Bush team is channeling policy from Eleanor Roosevelt."

During Janet Reno's first year as attorney general, the NYT wrote five positive editorials, 11 mixed and 17 negative. The WP wrote seven positive, three mixed and four negative. By contrast, the WSJ wrote one positive, four mixed and 11 negative. The WT carried two mixed and 16 negative.

As for John Ashcroft's first year, the NYT had four positive, seven mixed and 13 negative. The WP had four positive, six mixed and 13 negative. The WSJ: nine positive and one mixed. The WT: 10 positive, two mixed and three negative.


Howard Kurtz, Washington Post

---

There is a link to the Harvard study in the article.
 

---

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 

"A new Harvard study says the conservative editorial pages are more intensely partisan, and far less willing to criticize a Republican administration than the liberal pages are to take on a Democratic administration."

Well, I would say that it has something to do w/ the fact that the Democratic Party isn't actually liberal, but I don't think that's what they meant.
 

---

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
I'd expect a Harvard University critical study involving Democrats to produce results similar to a Bob Jones University critical study of the Republicans.
 

---

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
 
Right, it's the old "attack the study" argument.

Not even attack the study or the facts of the study, attack the institution.

I had expected better.
 

---

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
You want criticism? Okay.

What exactly is he supposed to be trying to prove? That the Media isn't biased? In that case, he botched it.

4 sample papers, even the big ones, doth not a statistically valid sample make. One would think that a Harvard Man would know that. Plus, this doesn't include television, radio, and the various internet media sources.

The papers samples are "big" enough that their editorial pages can and often do contain editorials by folks from both sides of the political spectrum. (Actually, the NYT is probably better at this than the others.) Even my own hometown paper frequenly features editorials clearly from divergent viewpoints.

That single citation of intensity is hardly statisticly useful. Was he looking all that hard?

Of course, someone with a different perspective (that would be someone who, unlike the study's author, was a 'conservative,' but who, LIKE the study's author, was looking for a way to justify his colleague's positions) could look at this study and come to the conclusion that the Clinton Administration was so bad that even the 'Liberal' papers couldn't say much good about it, while the Bush Administration is so good that even the 'Liberal' papers can't say much bad about it.
 

---

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
I still haven't decided whether hearing Rob whine about Clinton is more or less fun now we know he actually voted for the man first time out. 8)
 

---

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
Show where I'm 'whining about Clinton' in this post, troll.
 

---

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
Ooh, gosh! Did Robbie-wobbie actually call me a name?! You always whine about Clinton, to the point of obsession.
 

---

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
You always make sweeping generalized statements that have absolutely no basis in reality.
 

---

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 

quote:

---

You always make sweeping generalized statements that have absolutely no basis in reality.

---

Much like you, Rob ... er, the "no basis in reality" bit, Mr. Armchair Lawyer.

Lee, Rob actually fessed up about his role in Clinton's election a few years ago. Apparently he then shaved all the hair from his body and doused himself in jalapeano juice to clense his soul.
 

---

Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
 
Actually, the Conservatives always mention valid facts. The Liberals are always the ones whining about irrelevant things. Remember that.

The four papers mentioned were but an example of editorial reporting. It doesn't mention the total number of papers analyzed, or at least I don't see it in the article.

But how about a Canadian Viewpoint? Four papers in the Toronto area: National Post (neo-con), Toronto Sun (con), Globe and Mail (centre-right) and Toronto Star (centre-left).

I have never seen the National Post praise the Federal Liberal Party on any issue. Where there are issues in which the other three papers would write something the least positive about, the National Post will always be negative, considering that it is pandering to the business elite. As for the Provincial Conservative party, I can only recall a mixed review editorial from the National Post during a water-poisoning scandal, in which all other parties blasted the Tories. As for Conservative politicians being embroiled in ethics scandals, the National Post was unbelievably silent (I was looking for an editorial for what the Post would say, alas I could not find it).

More often than not, I have seen both the Globe and the Star write scathing material on the Federal Liberal Party. Even the Star mentioned at one point that our lame-duck Prime Minister should step down early. Also more often than not, I also see the Globe and the Star praise the Provincial Conservative party on certain issues (i.e. Teacher Testing). Unfortunately, I see many letters to the editor accusing the Star and Globe of submitting to the "Communist Conspiracy", if there is one.
 

---

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
 
Please remember, there is a difference between editorials and commentary. Editorials being the official position of the paper. Commentary can come from any and all perspectives, and often does.

The study looks at editorials at four newspapers. Two considered "liberal" and two considered "conservative," all pretty much considered an example of the ideal.

The point of the article, Rob, is not bias. I surprised you missed something so blatant. The point is perceived partianship vs. reality.
 

---

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 

quote:

---

Apparently he then shaved all the hair from his body and doused himself in jalapeano juice to clense his soul.

---

quote:

---

the premier training ground for tomorrow's conservative leaders.

---

quote:

---

Conservative leaders, organizations and activists rely on the Institute for the preparation they require for success.

---

quote:

---

The Leadership Institute is a 501 (c)(3) non-profit, non-partisan educational foundation.

It does not support, endorse or oppose candidates or proposed legislation. The Leadership Institute does not discriminate with respect to race, color,religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, or partisan affiliation. The Leadership Institute has an open admission policy, all programs are open to the public.

---