My “Outside the Tent” Piece in the L.A. Times
My “Outside the Tent” piece in the L.A. Times is up, and can be accessed here.
When I say I could fill the Sunday Opinion section with examples of ideological bias by this newspaper, I’m not kidding. I have done scores of posts about this newspaper. The highlights are collected in three posts: my year-end review of the paper’s performance in 2003, and a year-end review for 2004 in two parts (Part One, dealing with the paper’s coverage of the presidential election; and Part Two, dealing with coverage of other issues).
I think it’s fair to say that the criticism I provide in those posts is more biting than anything you will read in today’s Sunday Opinion piece. Keep in mind: the Times piece runs under 700 words, whereas I have relatively unlimited space on this blog to back up what I say — as well as the ability to provide links for further support of my assertions.
I’d like once again to thank Xrlq, Armed Liberal, and alert reader Hank K. for their detailed and helpful comments, and patient willingness to look at multiple drafts.
Thanks also to Bob Sipchen, Sunday Opinion editor at the L.A. Times, both for inviting me to do this, and for his many excellent suggestions and edits. I’m not sure whether the “Outside the Tent” feature is his brainchild, but I can tell you that his edits were fair. Although I have been very critical of this newspaper, I respect the editors’ decision to open themselves up to criticism like this. I hope the “experiment” continues indefinitely. Newspapers can benefit from feedback like this.
By the way, I’m hoping to interview Sipchen soon about the origins of the “Outside the Tent” feature, the guidelines that participants are given, and what he envisions for it in the future. I hope anyone reading this blog for the first time today will bookmark the main page and check back for that interview.
[…] won her a pet weasel, but Saint Patty has just scored himself a Sunday op-ed (more on that here) in the largest newspaper west of the Mississippi. I’ […]
damnum absque injuria » The Last Laugh (38c04c) — 2/13/2005 @ 6:38 pm[…] us Post | home |
2/13/2005
Zoomin’ the MSM
Leopold Stotch notes a column by Patterico in the L.A. Times, and then goes a bit farthe […]
Arguing with signposts... » Zoomin’ the MSM (8bf1d5) — 2/13/2005 @ 11:37 pm[…] 2005
« Previous Post | Main |
Good
|By SayUncle|
Patterico has a guest column in the LA Times. Unsurprisingly, it […]
SayUncle : Good (c5d5ae) — 2/14/2005 @ 1:24 pm[…] won her a pet weasel, but Saint Patty has just scored himself a Sunday op-ed (more on that here) in the largest newspaper west of the Mississippi. I’ll le […]
damnum absque injuria » The Last Laugh (38c04c) — 2/17/2005 @ 5:53 am[…] e tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in. (Thanks to reader See-Dubya for the tip.) Sipchen said that the purpose of the feature […]
Patterico's Pontifications » Interview with L.A. Times Editor Bob Sipchen – Part One: The “Outside the Tent” Feature (0c6a63) — 2/21/2005 @ 6:22 pmGreat to see the work you’ve done pay off.
It’s fascinating to watch this all develop. Every time the MSM “gives in” –even if this simply means graciously accepting criticism, or putting trackbacks and comments on articles– they will increasingly find that it benefits all concerned in countless ways. We are on the cusp of a new world of journalism, and the sooner concessions are made by establishments like the LAT, the better journalim will be.
Still, an editorial they did just last week that mentioned Prop 71 (stem cells) last week may warrant another correction. We’ll cover that tomorrow.
Can’t wait to see the interview.
Matt Peterson (07c0ee) — 2/13/2005 @ 6:28 amPatterico,
AMac (f8c220) — 2/13/2005 @ 7:55 amYou chose wisely in picking “corrections” as the focus of your “Tent” piece. The essay is succint and focused, yet will leave many open-minded readers with follow-on questions.
Bob Sipchen’s approach to this feature is wholly admirable. His courage may improve the LAT in the long run more than any other single thing.
Great piece.
K. Whitfield (a795c5) — 2/13/2005 @ 8:24 amFor the first time in a long time, I had a reason to read the LA Times Opinion section. Using corrections as a means to show the unfairness and ideolgical bias of the Times was an inspired idea. Excellent!
Stu707 (6ea365) — 2/13/2005 @ 9:00 amLA Times – the Correct Way to Fix Mistakes?
FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog (59ce3a) — 2/13/2005 @ 9:14 amAn intersting opinion about balancing staff ideologies but the MSM won’t do it and do you hire someone like you appoint a judge? Do you ask a job applicant their opinion on partial birth abortion before they become a sports writer? This is impractica…
My hometown paper, the Ventura county Star is using comments and trackback features at the end of editorials and some news articles. It seems approriate that the MSM on-line press could easily adopt those features so common and prevalent in the blogosphere.
Nice article!
Flap (ef71f8) — 2/13/2005 @ 9:18 amPATTERICO IN THE L.A. TIMES
Michelle Malkin (3ca10e) — 2/13/2005 @ 9:36 amCheck it out….
Nice job, P. I think you made quite an impact by choosing your subject carefully. The scope was about right for a 700 word piece, and certainly something well within your purview. I hope that the LAT continues with more of these outside pieces. Seems like the attitude may be shifting over there, what with these outside the tent columns and recent retractions, slow, to be sure, but moving in the right direction.
caltechgirl (4a9bac) — 2/13/2005 @ 9:39 amGreat job…. I do love it so.
FranklySpeaking
Frank L. (be6e70) — 2/13/2005 @ 9:56 amOutside the Tent (Caltechgirl)
baldilocks (af7df9) — 2/13/2005 @ 10:00 amFellow Bear-Flagger and LA Times watchdog Patterico subscribes to the ancient theory,
Patterico Goes To The Kennel
Captain's Quarters (9bd2a3) — 2/13/2005 @ 10:01 amPatterico, noted blogosphere critic of the Los Angeles Times, goes into enemy territory to deliver a measured and sensible criticism of the trade’s method of handling corrections: Has anyone ever said something about you that wasn’t true? Something t…
I also criticize the LA Times quite often. I will be reading your stuff in greater detail since I now know of it through Michelle Malkin. Check out my stuff!
Craig Clemens (c833b1) — 2/13/2005 @ 10:58 amRegards
What is a “celebrity real estate transa?”
Xrlq (c51d0d) — 2/13/2005 @ 11:36 amThe Correct Way To Fix Mistakes
Wizbang (d13dcd) — 2/13/2005 @ 11:38 amPatrick Frey (Patterico’s Pontifications) gets a chance to serve up a well thought out and deceptively blistering criticism of the Los Angeles Times in, of all places, The Los Angeles Times.Has anyone ever said something about you that wasn’t true?…
Excellent article! You convey so much, in a tactful way with great examples. I was curious how you would approach it. Your examples lead very well to your final point that diversity of opinion would lead to less errors.
I cancelled my LAT subscription years ago out of disgust of the bias. There are only a couple columnists I will read online and they to are fairly biased (but bright). Hopefully the LAT will read your column and reflect on how your points might lead directly to their bottom line and dwindling circulation.
Kudos to the Times and to Michael Kinsley especially. I use to read Slate, while I disagreed with it under his tenure, I found it compelling. Now that he is at the LAT I find myself coming back to at least explore its editorial pages (which I never imagined before).
Great job!
Bill Rice (4b7d7f) — 2/13/2005 @ 11:53 amOn the next page there’s a commentary by Michael Kinsley. If you hold the paper up to the sunlight, his article shows through patterico’s. Kinsley notes that an Entertainment Expert friend of his uses math like 2+2=4, but Bush uses 2+2=5.
This is the LA Times, which several times as reported in a humunguous point size on the front page how education spending is being cut when it is being increased by $2.9 billion. It looks like LA Times/Entertainment Expert math is: 47.1 + 2.9 = 45.1
“The administration prefers to not define the reduction in education spending as a “cut” because schools would get at least as much as they got this year.” — LA Times page A15
http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/insider/archives/2005_01.html
Ladainian (91b3b2) — 2/13/2005 @ 11:54 amhttp://www.patterico.com/2004/01/06/the-power-of-the-jump
Can Patterico goad the MSM elephants into a new corrections policy?
BeldarBlog (af7df9) — 2/13/2005 @ 12:00 pmIs there any principled argument against this proposal by my blogospheric friend Patterico in his very fine op-ed in today’s Los Angeles Times? If there is, I surely can’t think of it:A substantive correction should be at least as conspicuous as the …
Super job, my friend. My trackback ping doesn’t seem to have gotten through, but my here’s my reaction to your op-ed on my own modest blog.
Beldar (bca681) — 2/13/2005 @ 12:09 pmThe LA Times Tries Something Novel and Promising
http://teachersramblings.blogspot.com/ (59ce3a) — 2/13/2005 @ 12:17 pmA column to bring mistakes to light, about 700 words according to Patrick Frey, aka Patterico. If the LA Times continues in this vein, they might just put bloggers out of a job. NOT! But it could change the focus of late.
great job! it’s a very well written argument and a pleasure to see it in the times. as a long time reader of your sites, i certainly chuckled when you said you could fill the page. you could fill the paper. nice work.
jason (a62d92) — 2/13/2005 @ 12:23 pmPatterico,
Kathianne (69f759) — 2/13/2005 @ 12:24 pmThat was a great piece and the LA Times should get credit for just trying such a novel idea. I thought you brought your criticisms across crisply and succinctly. Bravo!
It’s one small step in the right direction and there are few thousand miles left to finish. The consequence of the LAT’s ideological bias in the name “fake but accurate reporting” is montentous lost of credibility and the decline of subscribers’ subcription. And those change didn’t take place in ONE day.
Lan Nguyen (9d7b74) — 2/13/2005 @ 12:53 pmWhat you suggest in your piece is exactly what the LAT needs to do to rebuild their credibility, and it takes a lot of house cleaning, starting from the top. For now, until I see the change, I don’t even bother to read the LAT’s headline when I go there for Frys’ ads every Tues & Friday.
Reason Blogs are Superior to MSM #37,501
In the wake of Rathergate, Easongate, and Gannongate, many people are claiming blogs are superior to the MSM. However, others are sounding the drumbeat against blogs, claiming blogs provide an outlet for modern day “McCarthyism.”
Reason #37,501 …
The Baron (9f9139) — 2/13/2005 @ 12:56 pmGreat article. Every little bit helps! But they are sadly mistaken if they think that’s all it will take to get this cookie to renew! See p. 3 story about “some” say pessimism setting in after Iraqi elections. *Sigh*
Patricia (133563) — 2/13/2005 @ 12:56 pmFIXING MEDIA MISTAKES
Pejmanesque (2ae9b5) — 2/13/2005 @ 12:59 pmPatrick Frey–better known in the Blogosphere as Patterico– has this column in the Los Angeles Times that takes the newspaper (and others similarly situated in Big Media) to task: Has anyone ever said something about you that wasn’t true? Something…
Patterico on the Inside
Outside the Beltway (228d83) — 2/13/2005 @ 1:01 pmI’ve always said, the main problem isn’t one of bias, it’s one of stupidity.
Despite my objections in the Spongebob thread, I actually think you argued your case quite well, and I can see no good reason why newspapers shouldn’t place corrections in such a way as to make them just as prominent as the original mistakes.
That said, I see one weakness in your conclusion:
By balancing the editorial staff’s ideological makeup, The Times could minimize its factual errors.
No, following your (what I believe to be sensible) logic (“All humans have opinions and beliefs, and with them come ideological blind spots.”), “balancing” the ideological makeup of the editorial staff would not lead to fewer errors, but rather to a “balancing out” of the number of “ideological” errors made. This is the same argument that liberals (of which I am one) who favor quota-based affirmative action (of which I am not one) use.
Of course, your case against the LA Times is also all based on a few assumptions:
1) That the editorial staff is, in fact, ideologically biased (and “I’m willing to bet” does not exactly count as definitive proof)
2) That said bias, if it exists, could somehow be “brought into balance” rather than simply “reversed”.
3) That even if such a balance could be established initially, it could somehow be maintained without severely diluting the quality of the editorial staff’s output.
As for the first assumption, I don’t read the LA Times, but I’m willing to accept your assessment of ideological bias for the sake of discussion, because you seem like a very reasonable guy, and I think you’ve made a pretty effective case. The second, however, strikes me as a near-impossibility. I too would much rather get my information from a neutral source rather than a biased one, because a biased source, even if ostensibly biased “in my favor”, will tend to end up failing to provide a comprehensive picture, because the other side’s arguments are deemed either unworthy of consideration or framed in such a way as to generate automatic rejection or dismissal in the minds of the audience.
That said, as I think Patrick’s argument points out, there is no such thing as a “neutral source”, because there is no such thing as a “neutral person”. So besides the general notion of creating balance by bringing in more conservative/right-wing columnists, exactly how do you propose to administer and maintain such a system? Who would determine when balance had been achieved? How would failure to achieve balance be punished? How would that punishment be enforced? And most importantly of all, how would any of this be implemented without infringing, both in letter and spirit, on freedom of the press?
My view is that the only way for any individual to obtain a comprehensive, “balanced” news/opinion picture is to read multiple news sources across a broad ideological spectrum. As a corollary, I believe the best way to make such a range of opinions and reporting available is to prevent consolidation of ownership within the news business. And don’t say that’s just some inane liberal ranting about “big bad eeeeevil corporations”; much the same argument has been made by icons of right-wing blogging like Glenn Reynolds, in favor of the growing role to be played by The New Medium™.
Mike C (dca672) — 2/13/2005 @ 1:03 pmBloggers again
L.A. Observed (ccf68e) — 2/13/2005 @ 1:24 pmThe Sunday Opiinion feature “Outside the Tent” seems in love with bloggers as the only critics of the Times that count. Today it’s Patterico’s turn. Writing as Patrick Frey, he argues that corrections should be as prominent as the story containing …
Sorry, my instincts tell me loud, that the editorial – and it was a good one – was a mistake. On the order of errors, only the front page will do. That’s where they rejoiced so fully and knowingly in their own erroneous words, that’s where they should write in their own scripted tears.
Clever, to invite their antagonist “inside,” to make him beholden to a pedestrian’s notion of proportion, to his parochial sense “fairness,” and to daze him by his words in black and white.
Oh, but the pen became lesser than the sword.
Aunt Rant (266225) — 2/13/2005 @ 2:13 pmPatterico and Xrlq
JohnHays.net (6ce825) — 2/13/2005 @ 2:49 pmPatterico and the Mexican underground radio station that plays Captain and Tennille songs twenty four hours a day in order to overthrow the government of Mongolia are up to their usual antics. They are trying to dissuade the liberal press from foster…
After watching more than a few of these many striking misstatements, I have become convinced that corrections to any given story should run in the same space on the page as the original story, even if it means chopping up the news page to get the job done.
Neo (554a58) — 2/13/2005 @ 3:26 pmAfter a few of this sort of corrections, I believe that the editors will be a bit more hesitant to jump at a story.
Patterico Points Up Bias at the LA Times
DOUBLE TOOTHPICKS (6ed3f8) — 2/13/2005 @ 3:45 pm…filled with pride. Whatever our political persuasion, we are convinced we are right and the other side is dead wrong. Patterico’s solution shows that pride can act as a kind of epistemological fulcrum, so that less-than-noble impulses can aid in t…
Great column! It seems that the media is more and more being forced to look at itself and to consider criticisms they have long ignored. You’ve made an important contribution to the process.
Tom Carter (a67db1) — 2/13/2005 @ 3:49 pmPATTERICO has some pointed advice for the LA Times —
PRESTOPUNDIT (84db7a) — 2/13/2005 @ 5:22 pmin the LA Times: Most people are better at catching errors when the errors conflict with their own point of view. Journalists are no different. This is why newspapers…
Patterico in the Times
ProfessorBainbridge.com (af7df9) — 2/13/2005 @ 5:25 pmIn a move that can only be explained by a sudden outbreak of masochism, the LA Times invited blogger – and famed Times critic – Patrick Frey to write a column for the Times on how the Times ought to
I love that your comments box says “URI,” which is Urinary Tract Infection in my book! lol
Your editorial/comment in LATimes is right on. HOWEVER, it is really not anything new to the MSM … they just keep shoving these comments to the back burner. I was in the UMC J-school 25 years ago (and you know *that* reputation!) and we talked about where to place corrections back then.
Nothing.. and I mean NOTHING has changed since then. Corrections don’t sell ads, and corrections don’t build reputations. IMHO, they will always be consigned to p. 39c as long as the above two conditions do not change. But bravo to you for bringing that perspective … which every single one of those grubs in the newsroom knows, but refuses to do anything about … to a more public airing. Maybe the blogosphere can actually effect a change here. But it won’t happen in J-world. Too incestuous and inbred.
k
kdinolfo (18478e) — 2/13/2005 @ 6:17 pmCongratulations on your column in the LA Times! While I am not a frequent poster, I am a frequent reader.
Squatch (da36a6) — 2/13/2005 @ 6:20 pmIs the name of the “Outside the Tent” feature a reference to LBJ’s (I think) dictum that “It’s better to have ’em inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in”? There’s a question for your interview…
See-Dubya (85b967) — 2/13/2005 @ 8:24 pmGood for you, Patterico, your “Outside the Tent” piece is devastating to the Dog Trainer. It’s very, very persuasive.
dchamil (d0c939) — 2/13/2005 @ 8:29 pmGreat article. Please keep the pressure on!
Doug Potts (ddeadd) — 2/13/2005 @ 9:44 pmWhat I would like to see in the LA Times is a regular weekly column called “Top Ten Misleading or Wrong Things We Reported This Week”. That might be somewhat more interesting than corrections on the front page.
Ladainian (91b3b2) — 2/13/2005 @ 10:54 pmMike C. writes:
That alone would be an improvement IMO, as the net effect of ideolologically diffuse errors on the political process would be negligible. What difference would it make in the grand scheme of things if one randomly occuring article made Justice Scalia look less ethical than he really was, if the next did the same to Justice Ginsburg, and the one after that made some other error in both Justices’ favor? Errors that consistently and systematically favor one ideology over the other distort the political process in a way that overall, random sloppiness does not.
That said, as one who worked extensively behind the scenes with Patterico on this article, I can assure you that “sharing the wealth” among journalistic boners is not what he has in mind. Rather, the idea behind ideological diversity is to increase the odds that any given error – whether it favors a liberal agenda, a conservative one, or any other – will be outside of somebody’s ideological blind spot and squarely inside that person’s field of vision, and will therefore be caught by somebody before the story goes to press.
Xrlq (c51d0d) — 2/13/2005 @ 11:05 pmBloggers again *
L.A. Observed (ccf68e) — 2/14/2005 @ 10:27 amThe Sunday Opinion feature “Outside the Tent” seems in love with bloggers as the critics of the Times that count. Today it’s Patterico’s turn. Writing as Patrick Frey, he argues that corrections should be as prominent as the story containing the er…
What difference would it make in the grand scheme of things if one randomly occuring article made Justice Scalia look less ethical than he really was, if the next did the same to Justice Ginsburg, and the one after that made some other error in both Justices’ favor?
That’s a value judgment which is, I think, beside the point. I was talking about Patrick’s assertion that “balancing” the ideologies of the editorial staff would lead to fewer errors. I believe that assertion is incorrect, because the factors influencing any individual’s propensity to make “ideological errors” would not be affected by the inclusion of writers who are ideologically inclined in the opposite direction. Now, if you’re talking about setting up a system of ideological peer review prior to publication, then I might be able to get behind that. Even that kind of system would be fraught with danger, though, since it would be a simple matter for “reviewers” to simply stonewall out of spite or for specific ideological purposes.
I can assure you that “sharing the wealth” among journalistic boners is not what he has in mind.
I’m sure it’s not. But that doesn’t mean what Patrick is proposing wouldn’t have that effect. To go back to my earlier example, I think affirmative action is a well-intentioned and morally worthy concept, but unfortunately, in implementation it ends up creating almost as many problems as it solves, maybe more.
All I’m really saying is, I don’t think a quota-based system is the way to solve problems of ideological bias. Not even at Fox. I just don’t think anything would be achieved by having an equal number of “left-wing” and “right-wing” commentators; I mean, just look at Hannity & Colmes: Hannity is a blustery, overbearing, self-righteous prick with a king-sized stick up his ass, and Colmes is a talking mouse with glasses. Is that “balanced”?
Mike C (e51fdb) — 2/14/2005 @ 11:09 amMike C,
Let’s make this concrete.
Take a recent correction by the New York Times:
The basic idea is this: if two guys who voted for Clinton, Gore, and Kerry review that article, there is a good chance neither will catch the error. If one editor who voted for Clinton/Gore/Kerry and one who voted for Bush both review it, there is no way in hell it will get past the guy who voted for Bush.
Patterico (08c813) — 2/14/2005 @ 11:45 amOK, I understand that, and that’s why I said I could go with a peer review system over numerical balance. But what about the potential problems I pointed out with that kind of system? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to disparage your idea… I actually think it’s a good one, especially since we already know from the scientific community that it can work quite well. I’m just thinking that in journalism, if a peer review system were set up on ideological grounds, there would be far more incentive for interference than among scientists, especially since journalism tends to be far more subjective.
Mike C (e51fdb) — 2/14/2005 @ 11:57 amBlogs v. LAT
Local Liberty (a8d754) — 2/14/2005 @ 1:39 pmPatterico was rewarded for his well-reasoned rants yesterday—he was given his turn at bashing the LAT in the Times itself. Patterico follows bloggers Mickey Kaus and Hugh Hewitt, both of whom have written columns in previous weeks. The heart of th…
Mike C,
For one thing, I’m not talking about a quota system.
Second, if you are concerned that “it would be a simple matter for ‘reviewers’ to simply stonewall out of spite or for specific ideological purposes” — do you think that possibility doesn’t exist now??? And do you think that the incentive to do that will increase or decrease if important editorial positions are filled by people with diverse viewpoints, as opposed to a cabal of like-thinking editors???
Patterico (756436) — 2/14/2005 @ 5:28 pmFor one thing, I’m not talking about a quota system.
OK, I’ll bite. How would you set it up, then?
To be honest with you, the biggest problem I have with the idea is how to enforce the balance even supposing it can be put in place by whatever means you have in mind. Unless you can somehow create an ongoing incentive for ownership to establish and maintain meaningful balance, then it seems like all you’ll end up with is a bunch of Hannity & Colmes situations (in both ideological directions). Doesn’t that strike you as a likely outcome?
Mike C (dca672) — 2/14/2005 @ 6:18 pmI cannot appreciate your thought that the L.A. Times will only print a bias article because of their “ideological blind spots.” You portray them as being naive of their shortcomings, ignorant as to the harm they cause, and innocent of malice when they alter facts and create misleading by lines. I strongly recommend you review an article and a front page headline that was presented on March 14, 2002. A disproportionate poll of the diverse communities of Los Angeles City was conducted to create a headline; an example of the tail wagging the dog. All to denounce our current Mayor, and in a case of desperation attempt to improve upon the lack of approval of the then Chief of Police. An effort as deliberate as that should not be thought of as just an ideological blind spot. They did this with their eyes wide open. I believe that their agenda is less than admirable and deliberatly bias. Give it a look and let me know what you think.
Gerry S. (cd5d3f) — 2/15/2005 @ 9:27 pmGood job! Of course LAT will never do this because their “news” is presented to sway readers – not to inform them!
Rod Stanton (31a5a8) — 2/18/2005 @ 3:18 pm[…] I can now reveal the nature of the project that has kept blogging light this week. My second “Outside the Tent” piece will run in the Sunday L.A. Times tomorrow. (My first “Outside the Tent” was an argument that the paper should correct substantial errors in front-page articles on Page 1. It ran on February 13, and can still be accessed at this link.) […]
Patterico’s Pontifications » Patterico Outside the Tent, Part 2 (421107) — 8/20/2005 @ 11:38 am