posted                      

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

---

posted                      

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.

--------------------
www.malnurturedsnay.net

posted                      

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.

---