« Don't You Know There's A War On? | Main | Alien Versus Predator »
Hack Gap II
This editorial from The New York Times is exactly what I'm talking about. It's brutal and, I think, rather fairly so about John Kerry. And yet we all know that The New York Times editorial board would very much like to see Kerry win the election. But the NY Times editorial board puts giving their honest opinion about things ahead of their desire to elect Kerry. One cannot imagine, say, The Washington Times treating George W. Bush to this level of scrutiny. I believe my boss Mike Tomasky wrote a study about this last spring, but the point bears repeating. Liberal journalists tend to be liberal while conservative ones tend to be Republican -- it's an important distinction, and one that does not serve the Democrats well.
August 15, 2004 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d83421215053ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Hack Gap II:
» Hackery from Kalblog
Matthew Yglesias claims: Liberal journalists tend to be liberal while conservative ones tend to be Republican -- it's an important distinction, and one that does not serve the Democrats well. Someone evidently read the conservative press' reaction to t... [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 15, 2004 5:42:25 PM
» Word Choice from Kalblog
It's funny that Joan Vennochi, claiming that Bush has no credibility, claims that Bush told us that Iraq posed an imminent threat, when he explicitly told us on national TV that the threat was not yet imminent. But that is... [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 17, 2004 2:49:22 PM
Comments
Your self-righteousness is breathtaking. Ah yes, liberal columnists are noble and upright, while conservatives are just outright slimy! Be careful about that high horse you're riding--you'll probably get hurt when you fall off it.
Funny, but it seems to me that Al Hunt, Ellen Goodman and Eleanor Clift are reliable all-Democrats-go-to-heaven cheerleaders for the Donkey Party. And, I think the Wall Street Journal is a better comparison to the NYT than the Washington Times is.
Keep dreamin, dude.
Posted by: smagar | Aug 15, 2004 1:29:45 AM
Are you trying to get hired by Eric Alterman?
If so, it would probably help to cite his work.
Posted by: praktike | Aug 15, 2004 1:38:22 AM
Ah yes, liberal columnists are noble and upright, while conservatives are just outright slimy!
And the award for Worst Use of a Strawman Ever goes to...
And incidentally, the WSJ editorialists are the worst hacks around. If anything, they might be even worse than the Wash Times.
Posted by: JP | Aug 15, 2004 2:35:58 AM
One might also point out that oft-accused "liberal" news organizations like the NYT and PBS at least have the balls to put credible conservatives on their editorial pages.
Posted by: abba | Aug 15, 2004 2:53:53 AM
What evidence is there that the NYT editorial board wants Kerry to win? It's a pro-Likud paper and Bush is more pro-Likud than Kerry.
Posted by: Seth | Aug 15, 2004 3:29:42 AM
"Liberal journalists tend to be liberal while conservative ones tend to be Republican -- it's an important distinction, and one that does not serve the Democrats well"
Well...not always. Bush the First caught absolute hell from the conservative press over raising taxes, and you can imagine what the reaction in numerous quarters if Bush the New Generation had backed down on Iraq and/or pursued a sweeping accomodation with Iran. The current lockstep "Republican" orientation of the conservative press has more to do with Bush Jr's support of the things they care most about: aggresive action abroad and tax cuts at home, even if he's deviated from their hopes on spending.
Nevertheless the "hack deficit" captures a real dynamic. The current mainstream sees itself as mainstream and feels an obligation to seek objectivity, even though its overwhelmingly liberal and some of this inevitably seeps into the coverage. Reacting to real and perceived liberal bias, the conservative press perceives itself as a means of compensating for this, and so feels free, as small outsiders, to let it rip. However, this attitude is really suitable for a circumstance like that pervailing 25 years, where everybody gets their national news from the mainstream press, and conservatives read their little periodicals as correctives. With the rise of Fox News, a real counterestablishment has risen. People can actually get all their news from conservative sources, but the outsider mindset persists. Hopefully over time success will lead to a new, less hackish set of norms among the conservative press.
Posted by: rd | Aug 15, 2004 5:43:53 AM
"What evidence is there that the NYT editorial board wants Kerry to win?"
How about an editorial board endorsement?
Posted by: praktike | Aug 15, 2004 7:04:04 AM
iIt's a pro-Likud paper and Bush is more pro-Likud than Kerry.
Safire excepted, it's not a pro-Likud paper, and as literally every single NYT editorial about Israel in the last few years demonstrates, it's not a pro-Likud editorial page.
Posted by: Haggai | Aug 15, 2004 10:46:17 AM
Well said. You put a lot on the head of a pin.
Posted by: Fred Vincy | Aug 15, 2004 11:21:12 AM
Haggai already broached the subject, but I just wanted to add a bit.
Seth writes: What evidence is there that the NYT editorial board wants Kerry to win? It's a pro-Likud paper and Bush is more pro-Likud than Kerry.
Is it really possible that some people are so blinkered?
I guess it is, which is kind of scary.
New York Times, February 5, 2004
Tom Friedman: A Rude Awakening
Israel's prime minister, Ariel Sharon, dropped a bombshell this week when he said he was laying plans to withdraw most Israeli settlements in Gaza and to move others in the West Bank. It's not surprising that this potential breakthrough move came from Mr. Sharon, since he has the two other main players in the Arab-Israeli drama under house arrest.
That is, Mr. Sharon has the Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat under house arrest in his office in Ramallah, and he's had George Bush under house arrest in the Oval Office. Mr. Sharon has Mr. Arafat surrounded by tanks, and Mr. Bush surrounded by Jewish and Christian pro-Israel lobbyists, by a vice president, Dick Cheney, who's ready to do whatever Mr. Sharon dictates, and by political handlers telling the president not to put any pressure on Israel in an election year — all conspiring to make sure the president does nothing.
Why, it's almost as if Richard Perle, and not Bill Keller, replaced Howell Raines. I mean, those are clearly Likud talking points, no?
Jeebus.
Posted by: SoCalJustice | Aug 15, 2004 11:39:41 AM
Liberal journalists tend to be liberal while conservative ones tend to be Republican -- it's an important distinction, and one that does not serve the Democrats well.
This is a gross overstatement. George Will has been tough on John McCain, for example, and various liberal journalists and pundits have all but canonized the Arizona senator. In general people like Liberman, John Breaux and Zell Miller have tended to be viewed positively by the rightward press, and left-leaning Republicans (Powell, Guiliani, Bush's father) have always gotten criticism. Certainly even W himself has caught flack from the right-leaning press for being a big-spending cenrist, and for his tepid support of trade.
Liberal pundits tend to support liberal politicians, who usually are found in the Democratic party. The opposite is true for conservative pundits. A single, mildy critical editorial from the Times does nothing to alter this pattern, especially with regard to the country's foremost newspaper of record. For that to happen you'd actually have to see objective or right-leaning reportage and headline writing from the Times, and we all know that's not going to happen in our life times.
Posted by: P.B. Almeida | Aug 15, 2004 11:58:22 AM
Matt's right: it comes down to process vs. ideology.
Posted by: abf | Aug 15, 2004 12:02:42 PM
Do notice that the NYT editorial writer has fallen into the maddening "$87 billion" error that Bob Somerby (www.dailyhowler.com) has been screaming about for months:
"At the height of the Dean insurgency, both Mr. Kerry and his running mate, John Edwards, decided to oppose spending $87 billion to underwrite the occupation of Iraq that they both voted to authorize."
Short response: No, they didn't. Or if they did, so did President Bush. Please see the Howler.
Posted by: A. Parker | Aug 15, 2004 12:24:47 PM
I think the prevailing bias in the media for the last 15 years or so has been liberal on social issues and conservative on economics (I am considering "free trade" conservative economics) and mostly on foreign policy (especially recently). The latter reflects the interests of who owns the media, and the former reflects the demographics of who constitutes it (mostly college-educated, urban, New Yorkers or Angelos, liberal arts types). Trying to reduce the net bias to "liberal" or "conservative" leads to endless squabbling because this domain distinction is not recognized.
Posted by: Martin Bento | Aug 15, 2004 12:38:36 PM
I don't dispute Mr. Yglesias's main point here. Rather, I wanted to talk about that editorial a bit. I'm not yet a firm supporter of Mr. Kerry, so I'm surprised to find myself defending him against the New York Times editorial board, but I found this editorial excessively harsh. Was Mr. Kerry's 2002 vote really "opportunistic"?
If the New York Times wants to criticize Mr. Kerry for his lack of clarity on the Iraq war issue, why can't the New York Times show a little clarity itself? What is their editorial position on that issue?
Posted by: Arjun | Aug 15, 2004 12:42:37 PM
I found the editorial extremely harsh, and if MY thinks it is fair, realize that the Bush campaign can now in their TV spots say "The New York Times calls Kerry 'an opportunistic senator'" 10 times a day in swing media markets.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Aug 15, 2004 12:49:05 PM
SoCalJustice,
Thomas Friedman is NYT columnist (like William Safire, but slightly more left-of-center). He is not a member of the editorial board. That's an important distinction.
The Times' editorial position is hardly pro-Likud. If anything it is closer to the Clinton peace process approach -- including the now-current view that Arafat missed a major opportunity by walking away from Ehud Barak's peace offer in 2000. Arafat's inability/unwillingness to reign in the ensuing intifada is another manifestation of this missed opportunity. However, that position hardly makes The Times "pro-Likud."
Posted by: RobA | Aug 15, 2004 12:52:15 PM
Almeida: This is a gross overstatement. George Will has been tough on John McCain
Yglesias argues that the right-wing press puts party before ideology. You offer, by way of counter-example, right-wing press criticism of a ideological conservative who makes trouble for the leader of the party.
How does this do anything but amplify Yglesias' point?
Posted by: Laertes | Aug 15, 2004 12:54:19 PM
RobA:
Please re-read what I wrote.
I was being sarcastic. I do not believe the NY Times is "pro-Likud." In fact, I was chiding Seth for even floating that asinine proposition.
Posted by: SoCalJustice | Aug 15, 2004 1:20:51 PM
Matt you're crazy if you think that editorial is fair.
It's astounding what a free ride the president gets in the press. The president did the exact same thing on the $87B that Kerry did. They both supported versions of the bill and oppossed other versions of the bill. It's nauseating that people pretend Kerry was doing something wrong.
The accepted spin on this issue is that Kerry was being a whore and the president was providing steady leadership. Ratshit.
Posted by: Eric | Aug 15, 2004 1:30:54 PM
This is a gross overstatement. George Will has been tough on John McCain, for example, and various liberal journalists and pundits have all but canonized the Arizona senator.
Actually, this was the precise example of how "conservative" pundits are actually merely Republican pundits. McCain was a rather conservative Senator. He was a model conservative. However, he had the temerity to challenge George W Bush, the Anointed One of the Republican Party, for the presidential nomination. To "conservative" pundits, this made him The Enemy, regardless of the common ideological ground that they shared.
The instant McCain became a contender for the presidential nomination, conservative pundits because pro-Bush Republican pundits.
Posted by: Constantine | Aug 15, 2004 1:43:50 PM
Constantine:
I don't think conservatives or Republicans (or conservative Republicans) view McCain as a "model" conservative.
He's pretty reviled by many in his party for being its chief proponent of campaign finance reform, just to name one example.
Posted by: SoCalJustice | Aug 15, 2004 1:52:17 PM
SCJ: McCain is a model conservative. He's just not a "team player", probably because he hates Bush's guts. You may not be able to see the difference between an arch-conservative and a loyal bushista (and indeed, I suspect that in your mind, the latter is the entire definition of the former) but pundits like Will can, and that's why the right-wing press is often critical of McCain.
Posted by: Laertes | Aug 15, 2004 1:57:15 PM
Laertes, you think being pro-campaign finance reform is an "arch conservative" position?
Posted by: SoCalJustice | Aug 15, 2004 2:00:58 PM
And Laertes, you write: and indeed, I suspect that in your mind, the latter is the entire definition of the former
Why do you suspect that?
Posted by: SoCalJustice | Aug 15, 2004 2:06:14 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
