Patterico's Pontifications

2/11/2009

Paging James Rainey

Filed under: Dog Trainer,General — Patterico @ 11:43 pm

Yet another memo to the L.A. Times media columnist, who told us nobody is pushing the Fairness Doctrine: meet Tom Harkin.

By the way, the Bill Press Washington Post op-ed (discussed at the first link) is worth reading if you need a good laugh. It’s a little fantasy piece about how the public would just love to listen to liberal talk radio — and would tune in to such programs in droves — if it weren’t for those nasty stations that just don’t want to make any money.

Dream on, Billy boy.

269 Responses to “Paging James Rainey”

  1. BILL PRESS: …And, thanks for your leadership, thanks for your good work, it’s great to have you there Senator. And, great to have you on the show. Appreciate it.

    SENATOR TOM HARKIN (D-IA): Well, anytime – just let me know Bill. I love being with you, and thanks again for all you do to get the truth and the facts out there. By the way, I read your Op-Ed in the Washington Post the other day. I ripped it out, I took it into my office and said ‘there you go, we gotta get the Fairness Doctrine back in law again.’

    BILL PRESS: Alright, well good for you. You know, we gotta work on that, because they are just shutting down progressive talk from one city after another. All we want is, you know, some balance on the airwaves, that’s all. You know, we’re not going to take any of the conservative voices off the airwaves, but just make sure that there are a few progressives and liberals out there, right?

    SENATOR TOM HARKIN (D-IA): Exactly, and that’s why we need the fair—that’s why we need the Fairness Doctrine back.

    BILL PRESS: We’ll work on that together. Hey, thanks, Senator! Always good to talk to you.

    SENATOR TOM HARKIN (D-IA): Thanks Bill, see you, bye.

    BILL PRESS: There it is – you heard it here on the Bill Press Show. Senator Tom Harkin: bring back the Fairness Doctrine!

    Let me reitterate two statements Bill Press makes that you MUST drill into your brains…

    Alright, well good for you. You know, we gotta work on that, because they are just shutting down progressive talk from one city after another.

    Yes, how very dare they drop shows that don’t get listeners… It’s not THEIR fault though!!

    You know, we’re not going to take any of the conservative voices off the airwaves, but just make sure that there are a few progressives and liberals out there, right?

    Unless, of course, those darn conservatives are on during the time slot we want… Then we will MAKE them move, because it’s only FAIR! And if they STILL keep getting higher ratings, we’ll just take THAT one too…

    Scott Jacobs (90ff96)

  2. I don’t know where Press got his information, but its accuracy leaves something to be desired. Press says,

    “And KPOJ in Portland, Ore., soared with progressive talk from No. 23 in market ratings to No. 1.”

    According to http://www.stationratings.com/ratings.asp?market=51 it ranks fourth with a 4.3 share.

    Even more ironic is that he rails against such radio conglomerates as Clear Channel, but KPOJ is owned by Clear Channel. Me thinks he should get his facts straight and then apply a little logic to what he says because so far, based upon his column, he has not shown any propensity to do so.

    Fritz J. (369b72)

  3. “If progressive talkers could draw audiences, they would get syndication deals. Radio stations exist to make profits, and they will air whatever sells ad time, especially these days.”

    Amen! There just isn’t enough of an audience to support liberal talk radio. Just as there isn’t enough of a readership to support a major metropolitan daily newspaper.

    Harkin’s whining is sad and probably a little disingenous, but its about one-fiftieth of the constant pissing and moaning you hear from conservatives about how badly their treated in the “MSM,” Hollywood and academia.

    Simple fact is, IF (big if) conservatives are actually under-represented in academia, Hollywood and the media, it’s because they have failed in a totally free market. Their ideas just don’t sell.

    Hax Vobiscum (edacf7)

  4. Even more ironic is that he rails against such radio conglomerates as Clear Channel, but KPOJ is owned by Clear Channel.

    Lefties hate Clear Channel; it’s one of the stars in their constellation of demons.

    Hax — grow up.

    Rob Crawford (b5d1c2)

  5. Hax Vobiscum: “…academia, Hollywood and the media…” “…a totally free market.” Excellent! Hilarious! You really had me going up until that point! The best sort of sarcasm!

    RNB (6a1e7d)

  6. Way back in the 90s, Press came to KFI on Saturday. He was a lying hack then as he is now. I was a regular caller to Hugh Hewitt’s Saturday show. Hugh used me for a cross to Press’ show. I said I didn’t want to talk to the Manure Spreader, and that’s how I referred to him ever since.

    PCD (7fe637)

  7. Harkin’s whining is sad and probably a little disingenous, but its about one-fiftieth of the constant pissing and moaning you hear from conservatives about how badly their treated in the “MSM,” Hollywood and academia.

    Thing is, Harkin isn’t just whining, he’s looking to legislate a solution to his complaint.

    Simple fact is, IF (big if) conservatives are actually under-represented in academia, Hollywood and the media, it’s because they have failed in a totally free market. Their ideas just don’t sell.

    Academia is not a free market. As for Hollywood, I’d suggest you take a look at the box office for films like Redacted, Stop Loss, Rendition, Lions for Lambs, In The Valley of Elah, etc, vs. Gran Torino, 300, Passion of the Christ, Narnia, etc… And the MSM? Compare Fox’s ratings to those of the other cable newsers.

    Conservative ideas fare pretty well when they make it to market. That can be a problem, but you don’t see any conservatives trying to legislate guaranteed access to the market for their ideas.

    Pablo (99243e)

  8. Forget arguments about free speech or economics. Talk radio is the only significant mass outlet for conservative ideas and the only remaining focus to hold together a conservative coalition. The Democrats know this and will do what is necessary to shut it down, either through the fairness doctrine or something by another name smelling as sweet.

    And they need to stifle it well in time for the 2010 congression elections.

    Good night and good luck, conservatives.

    Person of Choler (46cd1b)

  9. Hacks – So you admit that liberal views dominate the MSM?

    JD (80c89a)

  10. Simple fact is, IF (big if) conservatives are actually under-represented in academia, Hollywood and the media, it’s because they have failed in a totally free market. Their ideas just don’t sell.

    Comment by Hax Vobiscum

    Pablo already answered most of this but I would add Forrest Gump to the list. Roger Simon, in his book, writes that he was offered a writing spot on the movie and didn’t take it to his regret. If you read any of the Hollywood memoirs by conservatives, you learn how much of a “free market” it is. They make movies to suit their friends and then make enough money for the next one by selling the anti-American stuff overseas where the image of America is created by movies.

    Academia is a hilarious example. I was an English major for a while and would not allow a child of mine to do that now. I want them to appreciate English Literature and that requires avoiding the academic world these days.

    Hugh Hewitt had Press on his show yesterday and Press is still blubbering the same nonsense.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  11. Somehow the layers of fact-checkers at the Washington Post missed that Press misspelled Lars Larson. Oh, and that the entire column was a conspiracy / fantasy…

    carlitos (599c37)

  12. Hugh Hewitt had Press on his show yesterday

    Thanks for the tip – I’m going to find that podcast. Center-right hosts like Hewitt, Prager and even Medved once in a while are at their best when hosting liberals, which they seem to do as often as they can. I’m sure that Bill Press does the same with Coulter, Krauthammer, etc. :)

    carlitos (599c37)

  13. If only we could apply the fairness doctrine to the mainstream media.

    Most of us went to the radio and internet because of the bias of network news, NY Times, LA Times, etc.

    The fairness doctrine would only push us more to the internet, but it would certainly piss a lot of us off. We would move from the “chattering classes” to the pitchfork, tar and feather classes.

    Alta Bob (44f27c)

  14. Bill Press has a long history of flat out lying. He knows that he is doing so in this piece.

    SPQR (72771e)

  15. On the other hand, the Fairness Doctrine could singlehandedly save Sirius XM.

    Pablo (99243e)

  16. Mr. Rainey should do a follow up, though his take away point (the Speaker has no plans to introduce such a bill) is the most important point.

    Conservatives on the radio are hilariously wrong about almost everything, but there should still not be a fairness doctrine. I understand these radio waves are ours (collective to us all) property and that we license stations to play content and have an interest that the content is for the betterment of society.

    Still, the fairness doctrine thinking is disgusting. In this case, there’s a marketplace of ideas and that marketplace is slightly tilted to the right (the sheer corporate power of a Clear Channel, for instance, means their shows cost individual stations less money), but so what. If a show cannot attract listeners, then it’s not the government’s job to treat us like elementary school babies and remind us “there’s another side too.”

    Senator Harkin should shut up and go back to fixing farm policy to limit CAFO’s and other important things, rather than help Bill Press buy a better car.

    timb (a83d56)

  17. we license stations to play content and have an interest that the content is for the betterment of society.

    If that were the case, Britney Spears, boy bands, and rap music would never get air time.

    Steverino (69d941)

  18. “Conservatives on the radio are hilariously wrong about almost everything”

    List of examples to follow:

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  19. The earth is spinning in the wrong direction. timmah said something that actually made sense. He had a rough start, but in the end, well done. Brava.

    FWIW – Rainey stated that nobody was pushing the Fairness Doctrine, ignoring the Dems that were, and are, in fact, pushing the Fairness Doctrine.

    JD (3d2fbd)

  20. Yet Air America is on the air and always on the brink. They need to add conservative shows if this fairness thing gets any legs.

    BILL PRESS: You know, we gotta work on that, because they are just shutting down progressive talk from one city after another.

    Radio has been cost-cutting for several years now; it’s really ramped up in the past few months. If liberal talk is doing well, it will stay on the air. Rush is/was the alternative to CBS NBC MSNBC Newsweek. He did so well that it led to Ailes launching FNC.

    No one is stopping Air America. Rachel Maddow came up out of nowhere; her ratings opened the door for TV work. If it sells, it stays. If it sinks, it’s gone. Liberal radio serves a niche audience, which is okay.

    Vermont Neighbor (ab0837)

  21. I wonder if Mr. Press realizes how ironic his statement is: it’s time to bring back the Fairness Doctrine and bring back competition. How does forcing anyone to put liberal talk hosts on promote competition? Myself, I’d rather listen to someone running their fingernails over a chalk board than the liberal radio available today.

    rochf (ae9c58)

  22. A couple liberal posters here who don’t think this doctrine push is a good idea. That’s good..

    we license stations to play content and have an interest that the content is for the betterment of society.

    Actually stations aren’t licensed to play contnet. The license thrives based on whether they meet the requirements to serve the community. No one listening or selling or even legislating cares if the content benefits society. What qualifies as better is subjective anyway.

    Vermont Neighbor (ab0837)

  23. Simple fact is, IF (big if) conservatives are actually under-represented in academia, Hollywood and the media, it’s because they have failed in a totally free market. Their ideas just don’t sell.

    And yet to the general public, conservative programs do amazingly well… Are you saying that radio is NOT free-market?

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  24. I’d like to amend my comments by noting “In my opinion, conservatives on the radio are wrong about almost everything.”

    I have neither the time nor inclination to lead daley to water today. I will just say this, daley, I do not write books here or briefs (certainly, I am anything but brief).

    If you are curious as to the myriad errors of talk show hosts commit, then google their name and errors. You can then judge for yourself. On this day, I would start out by googling “Hannity” and “Frisbee gold course.” The links provided should show an nice report on how one of Hannity’s most repeated claims about the stimulus bill is factually incorrect.

    Other than that, thanks, JD. As a civil libertarian, I need neither right wing preachers not left wing mommy types to tell me what to read, watch, or think.

    PS Rainey’s actual article mentioned two Dems who have publicly supported it (neither of them Harkin), so it’s incorrect to state he said no dems were interested. It is also incorrect to state he mentioned Pelosi’s office, which I said. A separate article on the Fairness Doctrine was published in the New Republic and I got the two confused. Sorry for the mistake.

    timb (a83d56)

  25. “Conservatives on the radio are hilariously wrong about almost everything” == “I just make stuff up about conservatives because I still live in my mom’s basement.”

    steve miller (3381bc)

  26. I hope Nancy, harry and Baracky mandate equal time for Zydeco. I loves me some washboard and radio is falling down on its job of providing me with what I want to hear.

    Pablo (99243e)

  27. In my opinion, Timmah! is wrong about almost everything. Imagine that.

    Pablo (99243e)

  28. “…As a civil libertarian,…”

    Maybe he means “libertine”? “Librarian”?

    Some kind of “L” word, anyway.

    Eric Blair (ec334b)

  29. Speaking of the great film, Gran Torino –

    Hollywood loves Clint. I wondered how they would handle this film since it’s, well… perfect. The plot and the presentation show why the Obama doctrine is a farce. Yes we can. Go see it.

    Hollywood and the Oscars have ignored this film in every category. It’s just not the liberal message they embrace.

    Vermont Neighbor (ab0837)

  30. “I found an error in something a conservative said” == “All conservatives are wrong about everything. Besides, mom says breakfast is ready, so I gotta go.”

    steve miller (3381bc)

  31. Would the Fairness Doctrine apply to languages, as well? Here in San Diego the Spanish language channels have replaced a good handful of long established slots on the dial. A sports station and several music or talk ones.

    That’s not a complaint since I frequently tune in to the Spanish stations to help me learn Spanish. I just wish I had some sort of a device to slow them down a tad. Especially the traffic ladies. Why is it in English I can hear the spaces between words and sentences, but not in Spanish? It is quite impressive when they can speak for seemingly minutes without breathing. But I’m still waiting for someone to say ‘mozo, traigame una cuchara, por favor’ or ¿donde está mi libro? Doesn’t anyone in radio speak as they do in my Spanish for Dummies text?

    I intend to take the Fairness Doctrine to task if they don’t assure at least one Spanish station that caters to gringos. One which features plodding conversation and impeccable diction. And a pause button so that we language challenged listeners can leaf through the dictionary quickly.

    allan (600c22)

  32. Debbie Stabenow, Progressive nutcase from Michigan to the Senate, is pushing Fairness, sometimes under another name. Her hubby is an exec with Air America who is apparently not ashamed that he can’t make it work without mommy’s help.

    Richard Aubrey (a9ba34)

  33. Maybe Bill Press can help. Clear Channel has more cuts scheduled next week.

    Vermont Neighbor (ab0837)

  34. Timmah sure does make an idiot assertion and then have to retract it a lot. It’s almost as if he’s always wrong or something.

    Rob Crawford (04f50f)

  35. Good correction timb, since most of what they spout is opinion.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  36. I intend to take the Fairness Doctrine to task if they don’t assure at least one Spanish station that caters to gringos. One which features plodding conversation and impeccable diction. And a pause button so that we language challenged listeners can leaf through the dictionary quickly.

    LOL!

    The funny thing is – I used to love some of the liberals on talk radio, but now they all seem to suck. I wouldn’t want to listen to only hosts with whom I agree; that would be boring. But I listened to ‘green radio’ last weekend, and it was brutal. Ring of Fire radio was unlistenable, even while they reminded me of how Blackwater in Iraq = union-busting Pinkertons circa 1930. I like listening to lefty conspiracy theories; if they presented it with some humor and energy, I’d listen, but they were just awful. Whatever happened to Ed Tyll or Jay Marvin?

    carlitos (599c37)

  37. I have neither the time nor inclination to lead daley to water today. I will just say this, daley, I do not write books here or briefs (certainly, I am anything but brief).

    Then you are a pathetic baffoon, unable to back up a claim your have made.

    If you make a claim, you should be prepared to support it.

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  38. To me, the reason why liberal talk radio like Air America is struggling for ratings is simple: it’s competing against other liberal talk radio, like NPR. Not every show on NPR is hard-left, but those predisposed to wanting liberal radio already have a station to listen to. Why would (or should) anyone change over from NPR to Air America, if they’re comfortable with NPR?

    Nathan (2ebe45)

  39. Plus, so-called conservative talk radio is entertaining. Librul talk radio is drearily earnest.

    steve miller (3381bc)

  40. earnest.

    We must use different definitions of that word…

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  41. It’s like listening to the sophomore class student council passing resolutions about the high price of bookcovers.

    steve miller (3381bc)

  42. Besides, who’s gonna listen to librul radio? They’d have to be defending tax cheats. They’d have to be defending endless pork to protect Nancy Pelosi’s re-election campaign. They’d have to defend out-Bushing Bush on spending, on FISA, on Gitmo. They’d have to defend an expanding war in Afghanistan, a proposed war with Pakistan. They’d have to defend a man who is tired of office after two weeks.

    Conservatives wouldn’t listen to it. And Libruls don’t want to be reminded of the 44th Presidency’s failure to act.

    All hat, no cattle.

    steve miller (3381bc)

  43. I think there are a couple of points to be made here. Liberal talk radio is dull. I used to listen to Michael Jackson on KABC. He was a lefty but used to do good interviews.

    I’ve already recounted the story of his show on concealed weapons where every caller was a woman who packed heat in LA. He was almost hysterical trying to tell them they were running a risk of being caught. Their reply was always, “so what ?” “I won’t be a victim.” I wouldn’t be surprised if the mugging rate dropped for a few weeks after that show.

    One day, I called in when he had the guy who wrote the Prop 103 to roll back car insurance rates on. That established the Insurance Commissioner. The point of the rollback promise was to get LA votes. I called and told him the promise was a sham because the rates would never be reduced. Jackson hung up on me and told his guest that I must be an insurance company employee.

    Have the rates ever declined ? Of course not.

    That was around the time Clinton was president and Jackson got farther and farther left. Six months later, he was shifted to Saturday and then he was gone.

    The times had changed and he didn’t change with them. That was before the internet was much of a factor but Limbaugh started around then.

    The second point is that the MSM (including NPR) is all tilted left and that drove a lot of people to talk radio. It’s no conspiracy.

    Mike K (8df289)

  44. Think about this folks – the only “stable” left-leaning radio remaining on the airwaves is NPR. It doesn’t have to compete – it gets government money to operate. If it were ever obliged to compete, it would follow the Air America route – directly off the air, due to the fact that advertisers (the source of funding) don’t wish to expend their energies or money on a liberal experiment.

    If Bill Press only wants competition, how can he explain away the failure of Air America, notwithstanding the fact that at least some of the money that was used to bankroll that network was in fact stolen from a charity. The advertisers were never sufficient to keep paying the “talent” the outrageous sums they insisted on getting (e.g., Al Franken), so the network was compelled to seek “alternative sources of funds”, like stealing them.

    drew (6416f7)

  45. Comment 36 is proof Scott’s a tool. Happy, Scott? I made an assertion and I backed it up.

    It’s cool there’s an affirmative action thing here, where the echo chorus can make assertions, spout numbers and statistics, and claim conventional wisdom among righties without a footnote or a cite or a link.

    Yet, when one of member of the non-chorus makes an assertion, he/she needs to point to volumes of factual data attained after spending time with one of NASA supercomputers.

    You boys spend so much time agreeing with each other that even when someone else agrees with you, you quibble and insult him.

    “Making enemies of allies is a skill found in all sorts of true believers.”

    But, rather than spend another moment reading gnome fetishists and commercial directors lamely attempt to insult me, perhaps any of you can translate Eric Blair’s disdain for the phrase Civil Libertarian into human. I was thinking that lovers of small government would want to limit the government’s (or any institution’s) intrusion or restriction of his/her private life. Did the eight years of Bush blind the general conservative movement or just Eric to the fact that Bill Clinton initiated the Enigma program and righties hated it? Did you forget the reason college speech codes are vile is because they silence dissent? Or did you forget the amicus brief filed by the ACLU in favor of Rush Liumbaugh III?

    Powerful forces in our society work to control the actions and thoughts and freedoms of Americans. Why doesn’t Eric care?

    Whither the libertarian or even Classical Liberals? Or, do the remains only care about th eliberty to make mad bank and buy a private jet?

    timb (a83d56)

  46. Hey, drew, over 80% of NPR’s cash comes from donors and companies or so says the ad for buying my wife a Pajamagram I heard on Morning Edition today. NPR just does just fine in urban areas. Where it needs support is in rural areas where there aren’t enough people to support the station.

    Ask WGBH.

    timb (a83d56)

  47. So, let NPR go off the government teat.

    steve miller (3381bc)

  48. timb, just so I can fully grasp the distinction between market-based and subsidized radio – how many times have any of the non-NPR backed radio stations in your market ever asked for monetary donations? If a broadcaster feels that interrupting their message with advertisements is beneath their station, they should get used to begging for money, or getting a pittance from the government. The fact that you heard that over 80% of NPR’s funding comes from donors or companies makes such a statement neither accurate nor dispositive.

    The companies that “partner” with such stations (like the pajamagram folks) are merely trying to get their advertising on the cheap. They charge bust-out retail for the items they sell, but don’t incur the full extent of the advertising costs that would otherwise be needed to sell their stuff. And who buys pajamagrams, anyway?

    drew (6416f7)

  49. Why, in an age where audio can stream over the internet, do we have to pay for librul NPR to broadcast over the air to rural areas anyway?

    PBS and NPR are merely symbols of the way libruls can’t keep their ideas alive without government subsidy.

    steve miller (3381bc)

  50. Bill Clinton initiated the Enigma program and righties hated it?

    I don’t want to Godwin this thread timb, but I’m pretty sure that the Enigma program was started by Chiffriermaschinen Aktien-Gesellschaft and used by the Nazis in WWII.

    That was a nice rant though.

    carlitos (599c37)

  51. Facts? We don’t need no stinkin’ facts.

    steve miller (3381bc)

  52. Debbie Stabenow – the Michigan Senator whose comments first sparked this round of Fairness Doctrine outrage – tried to climb down from her limb this morning. Interviewed by Paul W. Smith on WJR in Detroit, she tried to say that this really “wasn’t her issue” because she was really “all about jobs.” And this whole silly thing has just been blown out of proportion. ha ha

    She sounded like someone who just stuck her finger through the bars of the wrong cage and got them bitten, and then tried to pretend that it didn’t hurt.

    Unfortunately, Paul W. Smith, who generally seems conservative and sometimes sits in for Rush Limbaugh, let her off easy with very softball questions.

    Gesundheit (47b0b8)

  53. A typical NPR radio outlet gets about 1/3 each of their funding from pledge drives, corporate donations and the government (state and federal). The national HQ also has a huge grant from Joan Kroc, the McDonald’s heiress.

    carlitos (599c37)

  54. I stopped considering giving money to my local NPR station when I found out they were donating that money to other leftist non-profits.

    So rather than pay them for Car Talk, I just listen for free. When their fund-raising pleas get too odious, I turn the channel for a while. I can only stand so much self-righteous, self-pitying sanctimony. After all, I also have to listen to the President once in a while.

    steve miller (3381bc)

  55. I wish I knew were timb was. I’d laugh in his face. I know Bill Press. I made a promo for him that Bill Handel played.

    “Why can’t Bill Press eat pickles? … Because Bill can’t get his head in the jar!”

    I hope the manure spreader is reading these. He’s such a narcissistic fool.

    PCD (7fe637)

  56. “…over 80% of NPR’s cash comes from donors and companies…”
    Comment by timb — 2/12/2009 @ 11:45 am

    And, all of those contributions are tax deductible; therefore, it is tax-money in another form.

    Which reminds me of a comment by an old time “Mad-Man” that the worst commercial he ever had to listen to/watch, was a pledge-break on PBS.

    AD (d5182a)

  57. Count me as another liberal who wants nothing to do with the fairness doctrine.

    Very few liberals support it. When the idea was floated last year, it went down with a ton of bricks. I think David Horowitz campaign for a conservative fairness doctrine in academia has a lot more support among conservatives than support among liberals for a media fairness doctrine.

    That didn’t stop the wingnutosphere from publishing thousands of blog pieces claiming that “liberals” want the fairness doctrine back and are on the way to silencing talkradio and blogs.

    Yet another example of the paranoia that motivates so much wingnut thinking.

    I love talk radio.

    Rush helps liberals get elected. As the brand name conservative, he displaces much smarter, more relevant, more authentic conservative voices within the media ecosphere. He also helps conservatives stay mired in paranoia.

    He deepens conservative frustration by promoting the paranoid idea that liberals are some kind of super-powerful minority overclass. As a result, conservatives come to believe that the majority of “real Americans” already agree with them. The takeaway is that they don’t need to do the hard work of persuading people because anyone with any sense or education or decency is conservative.

    It’s a worldview deeply based in paranoia and it “works” as a cheerleading vector to help a clearly winning team expand its lead. But when you’re coming from behind, politically, it’s totally ineffective for winning new hearts and minds. And Republicans, though many remain in denial, are falling far behind politically.

    Tellingly, several conservatives here compare Rush to NPR and other news media. But, of course, we all know he is “an entertainer.” NPR news is journalism. You may think it’s boring or biased, but it reports events in a straight news style, not in the narrow monotone of emotional commentary, like Rush.

    Think about what that means. The most popular conservative news media is an “entertainer.”

    Talkradio is why conservatives are certain the media is “biased” in favor of liberals.

    Relative to Rush, EVERYTHING is more liberal, save for other talk radio programs that imitate him. Fox News Channel is simply Rush writ large.

    And to repeat my earlier point: it’s funny how conservatives point to the failure of liberal talkradio as an example of the free media marketplace at work. But when we start talking about the failure of conservative daily newspapers or academia or Hollywood (by conservatives own estimates, not mine) they start grabbing at absurd conspiracy theories as if there isn’t a free market in those media as well.

    So to answer JD’s question: No, I don’t think the mainstream media has a liberal bias in any meaningful sense of the term. I think it is more liberal than Rush Limbaugh, because Rush is monomaniacally “conservative” and considers liberalism a kind of evil. Any news that reflects the broad ideological proclivities of Americans will naturally be to the left of Rush.

    At the political level, I do hope conservatives expand and develop their meme that they are victims of some kind of inchoate media, entertainment and academic conspiracy. That kind of thinking prevents them for investing what intellectual resources they do have in actually promoting their ideas.

    At a philosophical level, however, I do wish conservatives would lose the paranoia.

    Conservatism offers a very important, powerful critique of government, while it does not offer an effective governing philosophy. We need the critique, but we don’t need the paranoia.

    Hax Vobiscum (edacf7)

  58. Oh, isn’t it cayute! Timmah just can’t tolerate me commenting on him without launching into an irrelevant ad hominem attack!

    There’s a reason you keep getting booted from sites, timmah, and it’s not the rest of us.

    Rob Crawford (04f50f)

  59. Repeating an untruth does not make it true.

    So far, Stabenow and Harkin have come out in support for it.

    Stabenow has the grace to briefly repudiate her point. She’ll be back.

    steve miller (3381bc)

  60. Also, long dreary posts really belong on NPR, where the hoi polloi won’t listen.

    steve miller (3381bc)

  61. Relative to Rush, EVERYTHING is more liberal, save for other talk radio programs that imitate him. Fox News Channel is simply Rush writ large.

    You can’t really be that ignorant, can you?

    Rob Crawford (04f50f)

  62. Is timb refering in #44 to ECHELON or CLIPPER with his Enigma reference?

    SPQR (72771e)

  63. Who can tell, SPQR, who can tell.

    Rob Crawford (04f50f)

  64. Rob, Hack is not that ignorant, he is that dishonest. The whacky conspiracy nut attitudes toward Fox News really got old a long time ago.

    SPQR (72771e)

  65. That FoxNews is so successful in the market-place just reinforces the bigotry of the “intellectual” class that the vast-unwashed are unlearned, and stupid – Isn’t that right, timmah? Hack?

    AD (d5182a)

  66. I love the assertion that Limbaugh’s so far to the right that everything is to his left. Rush is right of center, but not that far right.

    There’s also the continuing assertion that conservatives believe there’s a “conspiracy” behind media bias. Hack is clearly unaware of the actual conservative critique of media, and instead seems content to retreat into the left’s caricature of it. I’m not sure if that comes from dishonesty or ignorance, but it’s certainly not from actually being informed on the subject.

    Rob Crawford (04f50f)

  67. The “Fairness Doctrine” should be called the “Government Control of Media Doctrine”. It deserves all the scorn, and more, delivered here.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., who implores DRJ to remain at Patterico! (6b0eee)

  68. Yet, when one of member of the non-chorus makes an assertion, he/she needs to point to volumes of factual data attained after spending time with one of NASA supercomputers.

    No tim…

    We just ask for ANY factual data…

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  69. Just like it depends on what the definition of is, is, so too the same for fairness. Keep the subjectivity alive and one can make this be anything they want.

    It’s amazing that there is an enormous segment of the population, currently in control of our future, that were never taught that life isn’t fair so deal. Such stunted development renders a pitiful squishiness.

    Dana (be9504)

  70. I see Hacks dropped by with a wall o’idiocy.

    NPR news is journalism. You may think it’s boring or biased, but it reports events in a straight news style, not in the narrow monotone of emotional commentary, like Rush.

    What a steaming pile of hoo-ha. Just because they are boring and monotone, you will excuse them for being biased? You are actually claiming that their style makes them news?

    There is a free market of ideas in academia? Who knew?

    This fixation on Rush and Fox is laughable. Truly. I laugh, so I do not cry. You could not live without a conservative boogeyman, could you? Your entire existence would shatter.

    JD (c6800b)

  71. In what kind of blinkered insulated isolated world does one have to live to be as consistently dishonest, not wrong but dishonest, as Hacks is?

    JD (c6800b)

  72. Where are you getting conservative “bogeyman” JD.

    My view, already stated, is that conservatism offers an essential critique of governining. It offers a poor model for governing, though, which is exactly why it has fallen out of favor.

    Moreover, I noted that I love talkradio and, indeed, the blogosphere. The latter, especially, beause it draws out wingnuts and leads them to commit to writing crazy ideas that have great potential to prevent them from ever winning public office.

    And if conservatives don’t blame an undefined, inchoate conspiracy for what they claim is liberal dominance of news media, academia and entertainment, what exactly do they blame?

    We know they’ll never blame themselves, which, admittedly, is a source of endless amusement to me. They don’t realize that their paranoid claim that liberals dominate these sectors is actually a projection of their own deep sense of intellectual failure.

    Hax Vobiscum (8cb4c3)

  73. Hax – When you have survey after survey of the media with 85%+ self-identifying as liberal, universities where virtual all political contributions are made by faculty to Democrat candidates, where the tenure process discriminates against hiring those with opposing views, it is easy to see how you come to your conclusions that the media and academia are not biased, if you are wearing blinders.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  74. Rush has re-emerged as your conservative bogeyman, Hacks. Just look at how many times you alone have brought him up on unrelated topics. There is a concerted effort by the Leftist to somehow paint Rush as this evil creature, and paint anyone that disagrees with Teh One as a follower of Rush.

    There is no conspiracy as to why the Leftist dominate the media and academics. It is simply a fact. No conspiracies are required to state an objective truth. How is it paranoid to state the truth, and more importantly, why is it so important to you to deny the truth?

    JD (c6800b)

  75. I don’t understand the reluctance to admit the MSM is liberal. It’s not like it’s a shaming thing, is it?

    steve miller (3381bc)

  76. You’re a little confused, JD.

    The issue isn’t what you believe or don’t believe. The question is HOW liberals dominate the media, academia and entertainment.

    Are they magic wizard mind-benders?

    Do they cheat and steal?

    Are they smarter than conservatives? Richer? Harder working?

    If you’re going to contend liberals dominate the media, you surely have to have something in mind in terms of why and how that happened.

    Steve: Indeed, there would be no shame in agreeing that the media are liberal. Given that we live in a free, wealthy country with a very open media, dominance by liberals would mean that liberals are simply better at producing media — just like conservative dominance of “ideotainment” like talkradio and unopposed TV talking heads like Bill O’Reilly and Lou Dobbs, is a function of the fact that the conservative audience for unopposed commentary is bigger than the liberal audience.

    The data are in: conservative newspapers fail. Every major city has a clearly conservative newspaper, yet, in every case, they underperform.
    That’s just a fact. Why doesn’t LA have a newspaper that makes conservatives happy?
    The answer is dead simple: Not enough readers. The audience is just too small. As it is, there is a surplus of conservative commentary in the media, so you just can’t sell it at a profit.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  77. So why then the push to the Fairness Doctrine by Stabenow and Harkin?

    If the conservative voice will fail, why the Fairness Doctrine? Shouldn’t the market simply correct this?

    steve miller (3381bc)

  78. Judd Gregg won’t accept the downgraded Commerce post after all. Good for him. Another awful example of Obama ineptness.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., who implores DRJ to remain at Patterico! (6b0eee)

  79. Hack, guess you didn’t notice that liberal newspapers are failing too?

    Hack, is there anything you can relate to your argument that is really sort of true ?

    SPQR (72771e)

  80. The conservative radio is expanding. The liberal radio is either dying or propped up by government funds (NPR et al.).

    I’m not sure I see the truthfulness in the statement that the conservative media is failing.

    steve miller (3381bc)

  81. By the way, Hack, Lou Dobbs is not a Conservative … you really don’t have the slightest idea what you are talking about, do you?

    SPQR (72771e)

  82. Steve: please ignore my posts if you find them boring. But if you’re going to comment on them, you should read them.

    I said clearly, repeatedly that I oppose the fairness doctrine. Most liberals do. Only a fringe of misguided old-schoolers who don’t really understand the media support the doctrine…

    And I agree as well. The conservative media ARE NOT FAILING. They hold their own quite well with the liberal media.

    It’s conservatives who are constantly whining that they are failing in the media, not me…

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  83. “Steve: Indeed, there would be no shame in agreeing that the media are liberal.”

    Hax – So start there and stop ignoring the available empirical data, unless you work in media or academia and have too much invested in denying the bias.

    First examine the data then explore the potential reasons.
    “The issue isn’t what you believe or don’t believe. The question is HOW liberals dominate the media, academia and entertainment.”
    The immediately preceding sentence has not been your approach, instead it has been to flat out deny a bias exists, which is in direct conflict with substantial empirical evidence. Goal post shifting is one of your tools.

    Have we established bias and now decided to move on to possible explanations?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  84. Lou Dobbs isn’t a conservative by some measures, but is by others. He’s a bit of an odd mix. I threw him in because he’s an “ideotainer,” even though he’s not strictly a conservative. He’s certainly not a liberal, that’s for sure…

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  85. Hack, you are the one that is bothered by the lack of truthfulness in the post that there is any threat of the Fairness Doctrine being reimposed.

    We point out to you many times that yes, at least 2 Democrat senators are for its re-imposition.

    Do you repudiate your assertion that no one wants to re-impose the Fairness Doctrine?

    steve miller (3381bc)

  86. Daley: feel free to “move on” to explanations any time. No need to wait for permission.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  87. Hack, you find him an odd mix only because you are ignorant of actual political ideologies and do not know what you are talking about when you use labels you don’t understand. Like “conservative”.

    SPQR (72771e)

  88. The data are in: conservative newspapers fail.

    Just this once in your hilariously ignorant life here, please post one objective and factual source to back up your increasing inanity. And no, David Brooks doesn’t count in your wall of mirrors – he’s an opinion columnist.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  89. Every major city has a clearly conservative newspaper, yet, in every case, they underperform.

    The Chicago Tribune is without question more conservative, and has nearly double the circulation of the Sun Times, more than triple on Sunday. source

    The Trib has somewhat famously endorsed the Republican candidate for president for about 120 years until they endorsed Obama this time. And “not enough readers” is a problem for all newspapers these days, but don’t let that fact get in the way of your narrative.

    Hacks is doing the same thing that Bill Press is doing. Redefine media to whatever point you are trying to make. I listened to that Hewitt interview. Press wants the Fairness Doctrine only applied to news/talk radio, for the express purpose of getting himself on in more markets.

    carlitos (599c37)

  90. Again, Steve. You’ve got to read what I write.

    Here’s the key sentence, repeated for you:

    “Only a fringe of misguided old-schoolers who don’t really understand the media support the doctrine…”

    How do you get from that that I’m asserting “no one.” ?

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  91. In an earlier time, Lou Dobbs would be described as a “Prairie Populist”.
    It takes a very small cocktail napkin to cover the political space occupied by Dobbs and Buchanan.

    AD (5f7f57)

  92. The MSM is liberal. I’m glad we agree on that.

    Why it’s liberal isn’t really important to me. Feel free to speculate. Many businesses do stupid things that affect their survival.

    The beauty of it is, the ones that do stupid things eventually die because of their stupidity.

    I am watching the NYT even as we chat here. Poor NYT. Sorry to see the Gray Lady capsize like she is.

    steve miller (3381bc)

  93. Steve: please ignore my posts if you find them boring.

    Better idea – go post over at Kos, where your own private circle jerk will be enjoined repeatedly.

    The data are in: conservative newspapers fail.

    The conservative media ARE NOT FAILING.

    Do you even read or remember what you posted just a few minutes ago, or are you suffering from some kind of bi – polar issue at present?

    Dmac (49b16c)

  94. BIll Clinton wants the Fairness Doctrine back
    “Well, you either ought to have the Fairness Doctrine or we ought to have more balance on the other side,” Clinton said, “because essentially there’s always been a lot of big money to support the right wing talk shows and let face it, you know, Rush Limbaugh is fairly entertaining even when he is saying things that I think are ridiculous….”

    steve miller (3381bc)

  95. Carlitos: indeed, you are correct. Conservatives are capable of producing a newspaper in Chicago. That only backs up my overall point that the only thing stopping conservatives from doing the same thing in New York and L.A. is lack of reader interest. However, I don’t agree that the Trib has a “conservative” bias that is significant. It reports straight news and, on the whole, is very, very centrist, as are LAT and NYT.
    It’s only when you compare these papers against highly ideological media like Fox or Rush or, from the left, The Nation or Pacifica, that they start to look “biased.”

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  96. No wonder Clinton still feels that way – Rush made his bones on his administration’s foibles and follies.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  97. “It’s conservatives who are constantly whining that they are failing in the media”

    Hax – I would need to see some specific examples to understand what the hell you are talking about here. Then again, you aren’t big on providing examples. Conservatives complain about viewpoint discrimination and bias all the time, but I’m not sure how much talk of failure I’ve heard.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  98. Well, to be fair, Bill Clinton is a misguided old-schooler…

    carlitos (599c37)

  99. I know Bill Clinton is just a former president, so he probably doesn’t count, but it sounds like there are at least a few people on the left who find the MSM an insufficient means to get their point across & are looking for ways to suppress the conservative voice.

    steve miller (3381bc)

  100. And, Carlitos, to be honest, I don’t know about the Sun Times. I have a sneaking suspicion, though, that it’s substantially to the right of the Tribune.
    I have a wingnut friend who’s been sending me a steady stream of poorly substantiated anti-Obama articles from the Sun Times, but I have to admit, I haven’t read the whole paper, so I can’t yet judge. will give it a look and report back…

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  101. “… conservatives from doing the same thing in New York…”

    I guess the Post doesn’t count as being more conservative than the Times?
    And, when did the Wall Street Journal go dark?

    AD (5f7f57)

  102. By the way, Hack: PWNED.

    There ARE people on the left who want the Fairness Doctrine back. Nice group of people you hang around with there.

    I wouldn’t want to see Pacifica off the air – I find them amusing. The Nation used to be good once. I don’t support it but I simply don’t purchase it. I don’t feel the need to stamp it out or even its viewpoints out.

    steve miller (3381bc)

  103. The issue isn’t what you believe or don’t believe. The question is HOW liberals dominate the media, academia and entertainment.

    Are they magic wizard mind-benders?

    Do they cheat and steal?

    Are they smarter than conservatives? Richer? Harder working?

    So by this measure, I must ask how it has come to be that conservatives dominate radio…

    Scott Jacobs (90ff96)

  104. the only thing stopping conservatives from doing the same thing in New York and L.A. is lack of reader interest.

    So the only thing stopping Bill Press from being on the air in Boston and Philly is lack of listener interest, right?

    carlitos (599c37)

  105. That only backs up my overall point that the only thing stopping conservatives from doing the same thing in New York and L.A. is lack of reader interest

    Hacks, you ignoramus – the reason why no sane conservative businessman is launching a newspaper in these markets are that it’s a terrible business idea, and no investor in their right mind will fund it. Do you even know that the Tribune is in bankruptcy right now, and that the NYT’s financial condition is now rated at just above junk – level debt?

    Dmac (49b16c)

  106. I will be for the Fairness Doctrine when it applies to the NYT and the LAT, by the way.

    steve miller (3381bc)

  107. . I have a sneaking suspicion, though, that it’s substantially to the right of the Tribune.
    I have a wingnut friend who’s been sending me a steady stream of poorly substantiated anti-Obama articles from the Sun Times,

    OMFG – the stoopid, the rampant idiocy, it’s becoming a flood…

    The Sun Times has been rabidly pro – Obama since he was a state senator.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  108. Wow – the Sun times could be conservative. That is the stupidest thing you have written here today, and believe me that’s a tough act. If we set the bar low enough, I suppose that the Defender and the Windy City Times could be “conservative” too.

    Newspapers tend to report “news” which in Chicago means the shady dealings of Democratic politicians, Obama among them.

    carlitos (599c37)

  109. Hacks – We do not whine that we are failing in the media. We state, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the MSM fails at delivering news without a Leftist slant. There is a substantial gap between what we say and what you imagine we say.

    It reports straight news and, on the whole, is very, very centrist, as are LAT and NYT.

    Good Allah.
    If the NY Times and LA Times are “centrist” then Mao was center-left, and Fidel is left-leaning.

    JD (c6800b)

  110. This topic made me want to look into the conservative ‘failures’ in hollywood. Of the top 10 box office receipts in 2008, there were 4 family-friendly, animated films. Then, at #2 was Iron Man, and #1 The Dark Knight. Hmm.

    carlitos (599c37)

  111. “That only backs up my overall point that the only thing stopping conservatives from doing the same thing in New York and L.A. is lack of reader interest.”

    Hax – Exactly, because you are leaping to the conclusion that since liberals read newspapers then conservatives must choose to communicate news through the medium of “conservative” newspapers as well and thus the inability of a metropolitan area to support a conservative newspaper represents a failure of conservatism. I think that’s a ridiculously flawed conclusion on your part. Before cable TV, I watched network news in spite of its bias, I didn’t turn it off. I didn’t decide to start my own cable news station. You basic premise is flawed.

    Most conservatives can recognize the bias in what they read or see and take it with a grain of salt. Unlike progressives, we don’t have to be told what to think about issues because there are general core principles supporting peoples’ beliefs. I have yet to identify core beliefs underlying progressivism apart from opportunism and a thirst for power. Perhaps you could enlighten us here. When I lived in New York, I read the New York Times even though I think it’s a leftist rag. I didn’t give up reading a newspaper. Again, your basic premise is fundamentally flawed.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  112. btw, Hack, I don’t think I’ve said I found your posts boring. You apparently have me confused with others on the board.

    steve miller (3381bc)

  113. “So the only thing stopping Bill Press from being on the air in Boston and Philly is lack of listener interest, right?”

    Absolutely. How many times do I have to repeat that I think liberals fail at unopposed commentary — relative to conservatives — because there just isn’t a big enough audience for it.

    “We do not whine that we are failing in the media.”

    Of course you don’t. But that’s only because a key part of your mentality is to never accept responsibility. You just blame, blame, blame the “liberal” media, and it doesn’t even occur to you to blame yourself for not making the grade.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  114. Hax, when you right “Every major city has a clearly conservative newspaper, yet, in every case, they underperform” and then minutes later wonder whether both major papers in Chicago are indeed conservative, doesn’t it make your head hurt?

    carlitos (599c37)

  115. It is amazing how the only way hacks like Hax can say the media does not have a leftward bias and pass the pink face test, especially after a dismal performance such as last year’s, is to be so far ideologically to the left that Maxine Waters looks like a John Bircher. If you manufacture your own definitions you can justify or make up anything, which is what Hax has been doing all along. Ignore empirical evidence, because I’ve got my own definitions.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  116. “We do not whine that we are failing in the media.”

    Of course you don’t. But that’s only because a key part of your mentality is to never accept responsibility. You just blame, blame, blame the “liberal” media, and it doesn’t even occur to you to blame yourself for not making the grade.

    Uh. These are the same things.

    The key to the conservative success on radio (the success that Democrats are trying to suppress by resurrecting the Fairness Doctrine) is that they simply speak what’s on their mind, unfettered, and the populace loves it.

    Liberals on the radio fail because they are dreary and boring. They survive either from stealing from charitable organizations (Hey, Al Franken!) or by taking a teat from the federal government.

    steve miller (3381bc)

  117. ugh. when you “write”

    carlitos (599c37)

  118. “We do not whine that we are failing in the media.”

    Hax – We really need some examples of this whining you are talking about if you are going to keep bringing it up.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  119. In Seattle, the so-called Conservative paper (The Seattle Times) is still a success. The liberal rag (The Seattle Post-Intelligencer) is folding in another 50 days or so.

    Now, do you want to take your words back?

    steve miller (3381bc)

  120. Paraphrasing “El Rushbo”…
    Liberals have to lie about what they believe for, if they told the truth, nobody would support them.

    AD (5f7f57)

  121. How many times do I have to repeat that I think liberals fail at unopposed commentary — relative to conservatives — because there just isn’t a big enough audience for it.

    Liberals deliver “unopposed commentary” from the podium at the Grammys, in Oscar acceptance speeches, in the screenplay of Law and Order, on the Howard Stern show, on Oprah, from on stage at rock concerts, on prime time MSNBC ‘special comment’ segments, in interviews with E! or People Magazine…

    Heck – on their t-shirts, on their car bumpers, in the workplace, in line at Starbucks, on their baby’s heads (saw an “obama” baby headband at church recently), in eulogies, in the naming of sewage treatment plants….

    carlitos (599c37)

  122. Comment by carlitos — 2/12/2009 @ 4:22 pm

    Drive Liberals crazy (I know, it’s only a short hop)…
    Buy, and Wear, NRA gear.

    AD (5f7f57)

  123. How about you try this sometime, Hack. Actually argue the points made, not the point you wish somebody had made, or the points that you have in your head. Also, when asserting “facts” you prolly ought to make sure they bear some semblence of a relationship to reality.

    JD (c6800b)

  124. Hax – Of these metropolitan areas you keep mentioning, which ones are renowned GOP strongholds?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  125. Hax – So start there and stop ignoring the available empirical data, unless you work in media or academia and have too much invested in denying the bias.

    Hax started by whinging that Patterico shouldn’t criticize the LAT unless he walked a mile in their shoes or something. He almost certainly works in the press.

    Rob Crawford (b5d1c2)

  126. Rob C – Patterico said that Hacks does not. According to Hacks, it works outside the US though. What I am curious to know is if it if just misinformed, or if it is that dishonest. Because it is so egregiously wrong on so many topics, I am beginning to wonder.

    JD (c6800b)

  127. I don’t think Hack works at the press. He actually isn’t into that much group think.

    But he does frequent leftwing blogs, because his thinking reflects cut-and-paste argumentation. Or he’s several people using the same account.

    steve miller (3381bc)

  128. Rob – Maybe he’s an intern. He doesn’t write well enough to be a reporter. He also hasn’t thought out his thesis well enough to present a coherent argument. I’m not even sure what his argument is if there is one.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  129. He’s not nearly self-pitying enough to work in the newspapers. But he’s close enough to feel shamed by their lack of standards, and he feels like he has to defend them.

    steve miller (3381bc)

  130. He actually isn’t into that much group think.

    But he does frequent leftwing blogs, because his thinking reflects cut-and-paste argumentation.

    steve – I would say those two statements contradict each other. Some of his comments on threads are pure community based reality progressive mythology about conservatives and their thinking. I didn’t think there was anybody remaining who denied liberal bias in the media. Those battles were fought two or three years ago. Yesterday, though, he took a more realistic and reasoned approach for a time discussing mortgages and was fine to have around. The pure unsupported ideological BS, over and over and over, doesn’t sit very well.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  131. Liberals deliver “unopposed commentary” from the podium at the Grammys…

    As do conservatives.

    It’s a free country guys. Wake up and smell the freedom!

    If you don’t like hearing liberals give their views, don’t listen!!! No one’s forcing you to watch the Grammys…

    Conservatives get exactly the media they support by reading, viewing and listening: no more, no less. There will always be temporary anomalies in specific markets, but over time, the free market of information will reward success and punish any ideological bias that doesn’t suit reader preferences.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  132. I didn’t say Hax doesn’t work in the media, just that he doesn’t work at the LAT. Beyond that, I’m not saying anything — but I want to be clear about what I did and didn’t say.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  133. We do not mind it at the Grammy’s. We expect it at the Grammy’s. We mind it when it comes on the nightly news on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNBC, CNN and in the “newspapers like the LA Time, NY Times, et al. But, you have proven that you much prefer to argue against positions not held by people, again proving that despite being quite verbose, you are quite un-serious.

    So your contention is that the public demands liberal bias in the “news”?

    JD (c6800b)

  134. Patterico – My sincere apologies. I read into your prior comment more than what was actually said. Mea culpa. See how easy that is, Leftists?

    JD (c6800b)

  135. “We mind it when it comes on the nightly news on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNBC, CNN and in the “newspapers like the LA Time, NY Times, et al. ”

    Steve: here’s the whining I was talking about.

    My contention is that outlets JD cites provide centrist news, which is what is preferred by liberals. On the whole, there is a slight conservative bias on economic and foreign policy issues and a slight liberal bias on social issues.

    More important, for me, the bias issue is irrelevant. Even if it were true, it wouldn’t matter. As I said before, I believe in the free market of information. It works. The truth will and does out. There are specific cases of government cover-ups and so on, but those are always temporary.

    In the long run, people figure out what’s going on and newspapers that aren’t accurate, in the main, don’t survive.

    The problem is, we would not agree on what is or is not centrist.

    I think the press has rather large biases, but the biggest have nothing to do with conventional right-left politics. Rather, they have to do with the nature of the business: the need to produce narrative on a budget.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  136. How many times do I have to repeat that I think liberals fail at unopposed commentary — relative to conservatives — because there just isn’t a big enough audience for it.

    If libs fail at unopposed commentary, why the leftward, pro-Democrat slant at all the three broadcast networks’ news organizations?

    I know Hax doesn’t care for facts, and has to keep up the “you do, you really, really do believe it’s a conspiracy!” line, but the reality is conservatives view the media’s liberal bias as the result of the people working in the media being, themselves, liberal. What they find newsworthy, what they don’t find newsworthy — it’s biased because of their own, personal biases.

    Certainly, you ask someone in the press if they’re biased, and they’ll deny it. At their most honest, they’ll claim to be “comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable” — itself an admission of bias in how stories are approached and reported.

    But when you peek behind the curtain, you find the folks in the newsrooms all share a common mindset — liberal, upper class, and pseudo-intellectual. Professional journalists are nearly 100% registered Democrats.

    Add in that professional journalists are some of the most ignorant, poorly-educated, and innumerate people who can claim college degrees and you get a recipe for disaster. How many news reports — supposedly unbiased and factually complete — about the proposal to give DC a seat in Congress will report that the Constitution does not allow it?

    That the members of the press are mostly liberals is not an indictment of conservatism — it could be that a temperament that leads to liberal politics also leads people into journalism. It could be a historic accident as a result of the Woodward and Bernstein myth. For all we know, in thirty years we could have a majority conservative press.

    Rob Crawford (b5d1c2)

  137. some data points to think about:

    Though papers may be “willing to consider” progressive syndicated columnists, this unprecedented study reveals the true extent of the dominance of conservatives:

    Sixty percent of the nation’s daily newspapers print more conservative syndicated columnists every week than progressive syndicated columnists.

    http://mediamatters.org/reports/oped/ Only 20 percent run more progressives than conservatives, while the remaining 20 percent are evenly balanced.
    In a given week, nationally syndicated progressive columnists are published in newspapers with a combined total circulation of 125 million. Conservative columnists, on the other hand, are published in newspapers with a combined total circulation of more than 152 million.2
    The top 10 columnists as ranked by the number of papers in which they are carried include five conservatives, two centrists, and only three progressives.
    The top 10 columnists as ranked by the total circulation of the papers in which they are published also include five conservatives, two centrists, and only three progressives.
    In 38 states, the conservative voice is greater than the progressive voice — in other words, conservative columns reach more readers in total than progressive columns. In only 12 states is the progressive voice greater than the conservative voice.
    In three out of the four broad regions of the country — the West, the South, and the Midwest — conservative syndicated columnists reach more readers than progressive syndicated columnists. Only in the Northeast do progressives reach more readers, and only by a margin of 2 percent.
    In eight of the nine divisions into which the U.S. Census Bureau divides the country, conservative syndicated columnists reach more readers than progressive syndicated columnists in any given week.progressive columnists reach

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  138. “but the reality is conservatives view the media’s liberal bias as the result of the people working in the media being, themselves, liberal. What they find newsworthy, what they don’t find newsworthy — it’s biased because of their own, personal biases.”

    Rob – Which segues nicely into Hax’ newly expressed concern about the media’s bias caused by its need to produce content on a budget and presumably within certain time constraints. As you describe, what content and slant is most likely to get chosen – that which most interests the liberal. You see that from the NY Times frequently in response to why they chose not to cover certain important stories which might have been perceived favorably by conservatives – space limitations. My ass.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  139. Hax, no one says people shouldn’t be free to express their opinions. What ticks us off is the myth that the press is unbiased. They say they are, but the evidence demonstrates they’re not. If they’d admit their biases, there’d be nothing to say about it.

    My contention is that outlets JD cites provide centrist news, which is what is preferred by liberals.

    *snort*

    Do you think CBS — home of the clumsily faked Rather memos — is “centrist”? That NBC, which faked footage to make an auto company look bad, is “slightly right of center” on business issues? That ABC, the network that had an anchor describe the 1994 Congressional election results as a “temper tantrum” is “centrist”? That CNN — the network that refused to report about the abuses of the Saddam Hussein regime in exchange for access — is “right of center” on foreign policy?

    Do you consider the NYT to be “centrist”? Do you really think they have a “slight” liberal bias on social issues? If so, explain the quality of their reporting around the Duke rape case.

    Rob Crawford (b5d1c2)

  140. “Steve: here’s the whining I was talking about.”

    Hax – That is not a constant complaining that conservatives are failing in the media. That is an explanation of the world as it is. There is no current expectation on the part of conservative of which I am aware to penetrate the hallowed halls of CBS, NBC, ABC, PMSNBC due to their institutionalized bias. To characterize that as whining about conservative failure is deeply dishonest.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  141. Mao was center-left, Fidel and Raoul left-leaning, and Stalin was on the Left.

    First off, citing Media Matters is laughable. Second, they do not need as many Leftist opinion columnists as they have those people reporting the “news”. Why do liberals fail so miserably in the marketplace for syndicated columns?

    JD (c6800b)

  142. Daley: as I explained. The failure isn’t acknowledged. That’s why it’s whining and why it’s so funny.

    You say conservatives are barred, but it’s a free country with a very free media. If conservatives can’t cut it in the mainstream, they have no one but themselves to blame.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  143. is deeply dishonest.

    Yes, Hacks is.

    What part of the media do you work for, Hacks?

    JD (c6800b)

  144. “Why do liberals fail so miserably in the marketplace for syndicated columns?”

    As I’ve explained, there is a smaller market for liberal commentary because more liberals prefer to read news, rather than commentary.

    I’m pleased, though, that you acknowledge liberals don’t do that well in the press.

    Conservatives prefer commentary because they like to emotionalize their politics a bit more than liberals do. Liberals much prefer analytical balance: on one hand, but on the other, kind of thinking. Conservatives like the “I’m absolutely right and anyone who disagrees is evil” approach.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  145. Conservatives get exactly the media they support by reading, viewing and listening: no more, no less. There will always be temporary anomalies in specific markets, but over time, the free market of information will reward success and punish any ideological bias that doesn’t suit reader preferences.

    Which is why government interference in media, a.k.a. the “Fairness” doctrine, is wrong.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., who implores DRJ to remain at Patterico! (6b0eee)

  146. “Why do liberals fail so miserably in the marketplace for syndicated columns?”

    JD – Because people don’t want to read them, obviously. It’s also the reason why books by people like Coulter, Limbaugh and Hannity routinely outsell books by people such as Franken, Isikoff, and Colmes. The idea that conservative ideas can’t compete is just a bunch of manure. The ideas are usually not given a chance to air by the liberal media.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  147. Amen, Mr. Fikes. I concur wholeheartedly…

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  148. Hax, MediaMatters is neither an unbiased nor reliable source. To begin with, their definitions of “progressive” and “conservative” are suspect. If you want a more reliable study, look here.

    In any case, the opinion pages aren’t the goddamned problem!

    Rob Crawford (b5d1c2)

  149. Remember how nutty people went when Katie Couric was going to put Rush Limbaugh on the air to say whatever he wanted in a free speech segment shortly after her debut on CBS Evening News? Libs went apeshit. They eventually had to reach an agreement with him not to speak about media bias I believe.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  150. Conservatives prefer commentary because they like to emotionalize their politics a bit more than liberals do. Liberals much prefer analytical balance: on one hand, but on the other, kind of thinking. Conservatives like the “I’m absolutely right and anyone who disagrees is evil” approach.

    Bigoted much?

    Rob Crawford (b5d1c2)

  151. Liberals much prefer analytical balance

    Conservatives prefer commentary because they like to emotionalize their politics a bit more

    Hax – Wow. I know liberal love to tout their alleged intellectual superiority, but I have not witnessed the above phenomenon. Do you get out much?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  152. Conservatives prefer commentary because they like to emotionalize their politics a bit more than liberals do

    If you are going to write such snort-inducing drivel, I demand to be warned, in advance.

    JD (c6800b)

  153. Daley: as I explained. The failure isn’t acknowledged. That’s why it’s whining and why it’s so funny.

    Hax – You don’t get it. What journalist wants to go to work for an organization and be forced to toe a party line and report dishonestly? That is the way conservatives view those organizations. Sorry, that’s not failure, it’s morals, something most liberals lack.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  154. Liberals much prefer analytical balance.

    Conservatives prefer commentary because they like to emotionalize their politics a bit more

    Prove it, Hax Vobiscum, prove it. You continue to make these outrageous claims and I want to know what your proof of this is. Please be specific. (unfortunately, as a conservative, it’s quite possible I wouldn’t be able to grasp such nuance or depth, right?)

    Meh.

    Dana (137151)

  155. Liberals prefer analytical balance — which is why they’re trying to institute “accountability” to shut other voices out of the media. And why they refer to critics of AGW as “deniers”. And why they refer to anyone who questions their conventional wisdom on social spending as “heartless”. And why they react to any suggestion to cut taxes with class warfare rhetoric. And why they refer to the US defense budget with terms like “behemoth” while treating the three-times-larger social spending budget as if it’s a new-born infant. And why they refer to anyone who wants a truly color-blind government “racist”.

    The famous liberal analytical balance that calls increases in government spending “cuts” if the increases aren’t large enough. That resorts to pseudo-psychological diagnoses like “homophobia” to describe the motives of political opponents. That assumes any conservative who supports Israel does so in order to usher in the apocalypse.

    You’re a bigot, Hax, and one of the worst kind — the kind that thinks his bigotry is undeniable TRVTH.

    Rob Crawford (b5d1c2)

  156. Dana: What would it take?

    You ask me to “prove” tht conservatives prefer a more emotional interpretation of events than liberals do, but you don’t make clear what sort of evidence would persuade you.

    The evidence I already present is that, BY YOUR OWN MEASURES, conservatives outperform on news media commentary, but underperform on news.

    More concretely: there is a huge audience for conservative commentary, relative to the liberal audience, even though we know the country is divided somewhat evenly on many, if not most, of the key issues. At the same time, there is a big liberal audience for straight news reporting as found on NPR, etc. You may argue that the news from NPR leans this way or that, but it isn’t commentary and emotionalizes the news far less than commentators do, by definition.

    Plenty of evidence right here on this blog.

    Do you see me waging endless personal attacks on commenters here? Do I get into calling them names and speculating about their job or education?

    No, it’s the conservatives here who are obviously very emotionally attached to their views.

    Again Dana: what, specifically, would it take to persuade you?

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  157. This idea of performance is another strawman that you have set up for yourself, Hack.

    for straight news reporting as found on NPR, etc. You may argue that the news from NPR leans this way or that, but it isn’t commentary and emotionalizes the news far less than commentators do, by definition.

    Because they are stuffy and earnest it somehow makes them less biased?

    You do not engage in direct personal attacks. You just proclaim your moral and intellectual superiority, your higher state of enlightenment.

    We are emotionally attached to not allowing people to lie, Hack.

    JD (c6800b)

  158. That’s a circular argument, Hax. “Conservatives prefer emotional arguments because they do better in commentary because they prefer emotional arguments.”

    You’re a bigot, appealing to fallacies to “prove” your own bigotries.

    Rob Crawford (b5d1c2)

  159. http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

    That bastion of conservatism, UCLA, thinks that you are an ignoranus.

    JD (c6800b)

  160. Don’t forget, JD, that he’s drawing a false dichotomy between “analysis” and “commentary”. Commentary is not necessarily emotional, nor is it necessarily non-analytical. Similarly, not all analysis is unbiased or even factual. In fact, writing is labeled “analysis” or “opinion” largely based on who wrote it or where it’s printed, not on its content or merit.

    We’ve all seen opinion columns that cite more evidence than a news or analysis piece on the same subject, and news and analysis pieces that are loaded with emotionally charged terms and clearly slanted.

    Rob Crawford (b5d1c2)

  161. Having taken 3 communications courses and 1 “critical thinking” course from UoP in the past couple years, I can say for certainty that liberal schools of higher learning acknowledge everyone puts his or her bias in what he or she writes. The University of Phoenix has a course with a text that has side-bars full of out-of-context quotes of Rush and diatribes attacking those out-of-context quotes as proof that Rush uses all sorts of fallacies such as the “anger” fallacy so Rush can’t be believed in anything because the “anger fallacy” discounts everything Rush says. All the UoP communications courses and the UoP crit course depend heavily on NYT and CNN for their “current events” evaluations. There is no getting around the liberal nature of UoP. And yet UoP courses say EVERYONE is biased. You do the math.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  162. Hax, while I thank you for your response and have read it three times through, I’m still dizzy from going in circles. It’s difficult to follow your thinking.

    From what I can grasp, it seems to go something like this: Because you believe NPR to be news delivered in a straightforward manner, it is therefore less emotional and liberals will listen to it more than conservatives. That is the litmus test. I don’t get it.

    NPR is filled with the soft-spoken, well modulated hushed tones, but that has nothing to do with perspective or having a passionate view. Your whole premise is loaded with subjectivity.

    Do you see me waging endless personal attacks on commenters here? Do I get into calling them names and speculating about their job or education? No, it’s the conservatives here who are obviously very emotionally attached to their views.

    I am a conservative and have strong opinions and views on issues. I don’t know what you mean “emotionally attached” to said views but I think whether on the left or on the right, all of us hold dear our freedom to express opinions and obviously some issues strike a chord more deeply than others thus eliciting more forcefulness of expression. FYI, Hax, as a conservative with strong views, I have never once called anyone names, speculated about their views or education. It’s none of my business. And that has nothing to do with being emotional about anything.

    I can’t quite put my finger on it but it appears you tend to paint with the broad brush, in circular motion.

    Dana (137151)

  163. p.s. it’s been a 100 years since I’ve taken a logic class but am going to pull out the old Cohen & Copi Intro to Logic textbook we’ve still got in the bookcase. Some of your comments are ringing an old bell… :)

    Dana (137151)

  164. The UCLA studies analytical framework is a little beyond bizarre: If a member of Congress cites a think tank approvingly, and if that think tank is also cited by a news organization, then the news organization has a “bias” making it an ideological mirror of the member of Congress who cited the think tank. This, according to the study’s author’s Groseclose and Milyo, is what constitutes “media bias” in their study.

    The fact that the study’s formula “shows” that Fox News comes up with a greater liberal bias than some of the mainstream networks should be a giveaway, even to wingnuts, or especially to wingnuts, depending on how you want to slice this nutloaf of a “study.”

    Even nuttier, here’s some examples of how the author’s formula categorized some think tanks and advocacy organizations:
    • National Rifle Association of America (NRA) scored a 45.9, making it “conservative” — but just barely.
    • RAND Corporation, a nonprofit research organization (motto: “OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS. EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS.”) with strong ties to the Defense Department, scored a 60.4, making it a “liberal” group.
    • Council on Foreign Relations, whose tagline is “A Nonpartisan Resource for Information and Analysis” (its current president is a former Bush administration official; its board includes prominent Democrats and Republicans from the foreign policy establishment) scored a 60.2, making it a “liberal” group.
    • American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), bête noire of the right, scored a 49.8, putting it just on the “conservative” side of the ledger.
    • Center for Responsive Politics, a group whose primary purpose is the maintenance of databases on political contributions, scored a 66.9, making it highly “liberal.”
    • Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a defense policy think tank whose board of directors is currently chaired by former Representative Dave McCurdy (D-OK), scored a 33.9, making it more “conservative” than AEI and than the National Taxpayers Union.

    Then there’s this just in:
    Last week, ThinkProgress released a report showing that, in the debate over the House economic recovery bill on the five cable news networks, Republican members of Congress outnumbered their Democratic counterparts by a ratio of 2 to 1. The analysis tallied interview segments about the stimulus on CNBC, Fox Business, Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC during a three-day period, finding that the networks had hosted Republican lawmakers 51 times and Democratic lawmakers only 26 times.
    The economic recovery package passed the House last week with zero Republican votes, shifting the focus to the Senate. Though the venue has changed, the debate on cable has not improved much.
    In a new analysis, ThinkProgress has found that Republican lawmakers outnumbered Democratic lawmakers 75 to 41 on cable news interviews by members of Congress (from 6am on Monday 2/2 through 11pm on Thursday 2/5):
    http://thinkprogress.org/2009/02/06/senate-cable-stimulus-debate/

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  165. #159:
    If you’re going to use quote marks, Rob, quote me accurately. You rewrote what I said to change the meaning completely. That’s pathetic.

    I expect you to correct yourself.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  166. You rewrote what I said to change the meaning completely. That’s pathetic.

    It really is. He treated you like you were Arthur Brooks and he was you. Reprehensible, really.

    Pablo (99243e)

  167. As I said before, I believe in the free market of information.

    The news outlets we speak of primarily get their opportunity to stay in business through the government, which hands out broadcast licenses to operate over the public airwaves. It’s not a free market, simply put.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  168. Last week, ThinkProgress released a report showing that, in the debate over the House economic recovery bill on the five cable news networks, Republican members of Congress outnumbered their Democratic counterparts by a ratio of 2 to 1.

    You don’t suppose that could be because Democrats aren’t terribly interested in trying to defend this shite sandwich on the record, do you?

    Pablo (99243e)

  169. I expect you to correct yourself.

    The moment you succeed in honest debate without citing your opinion as fact, I shall join you in expecting a correction…

    Scott Jacobs (90ff96)

  170. Media matters and Think Progress. Thanks.

    JD (c6800b)

  171. I expect you to correct yourself.

    We expect dissenting voices here to actually substantiate their claims via objective and legitimate sources. You’ve offered David Brooks and Media Matters (funded by that notorious conservative, George Soros) – you’re pathetic.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  172. At the same time, there is a big liberal audience for straight news reporting as found on NPR, Comedy Central, etc.

    There. Fixed that for you.

    Pablo (99243e)

  173. “The liberal think tanks I quote prove that the media is conservative.”

    Well, that’s all the proof I need. Think Progress and Media Matters – unbiased paragons of truth and virtue.

    I guess we need to agree to disagree on what whining is. Apparently when you (Hax) personally point out a flawed argument, it’s objective reality, but when the conservatives point out flawed arguments, it’s whining.

    Nice way to have your cake and eat it, too. The adults in the room, not so convinced.

    steve miller (3381bc)

  174. The evidence I already present is that, BY YOUR OWN MEASURES, conservatives outperform on news media commentary, but underperform on news.

    I was unaware that news had a political bias. Perhaps we have a different idea of what news is.

    Pablo (99243e)

  175. btw, Hack, I don’t think I’ve said I found your posts boring.

    I might have said that. If I didn’t, I was thinking it.

    Pablo (99243e)

  176. “I was unaware that news had a political bias.”

    Well, that would explain a lot.

    There is always a political bias in every story on every subject. Objectivity would be raw data.

    As soon was a journalist determines context and starts selecting facts, there is a bias.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  177. JD,
    I know there is a liberal media bias – yes, the ocean is wet – but the Groseclose and Milyo study is poor evidence. Most seriously, the study doesn’t address the truthfulness of the stories rated.

    There is no substitute for painstakingly going through stories and checking their accuracy. If one finds the errors and misleading statements consistently favor one point of view, it is fair to say that news source is biased. That is what this whole blog is about. Based on the mountains of evidence published here, I think it is safe to say the LA Times has a severe leftist bias, and an often tenuous grip on reality.

    The study also errs in assuming that summing up think-tank quotations and referencing lawmaker’s ADA scores are an indication of whether a story is fair. This screwy metric could only have been invented by political scientists with scant familiarity with reporting.

    The study also (falsely) assumes think tanks can be rated on a conservative/liberal scale. That’s not the case with the Cato Institute, which for some bizarre reason was lumped in with conservatives. I guess acknowledging the existence of Libertarians is too complicated for some political scientists.

    Bradley J. Fikes, C. O.R., who wants DRJ back! (0ea407)

  178. The fact that the study’s formula “shows” that Fox News comes up with a greater liberal bias than some of the mainstream networks…

    It says no such thing. You either didn’t actually read the study or are intentionally mis-stating the conclusions in the hope no one will notice.

    If you’re going to use quote marks, Rob, quote me accurately. You rewrote what I said to change the meaning completely. That’s pathetic.

    I was clearly not quoting you. I was restating your “argument”. If you’ll notice, I use blockquotes when I quote someone.

    I expect you to correct yourself.

    I expect you to continue to be dishonest and bigoted. I summarized your position as you’ve expressed it. If you think I got it wrong, explain how. Demonstrate that you are not, in fact, making a circular argument.

    Rob Crawford (b5d1c2)

  179. There is always a political bias in every story on every subject. Objectivity would be raw data.

    As soon was a journalist determines context and starts selecting facts, there is a bias.

    Comment by Hax Vobiscum — 2/12/2009 @ 7:07 pm

    That is a marked change from your earlier positions that various news outlets were unbiased and conservatives were limited to opinion pieces.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  180. There is always a political bias in every story on every subject. Objectivity would be raw data.

    As soon was a journalist determines context and starts selecting facts, there is a bias.

    Oh for fuck’s sake. That’s our argument. Thanks for admitting we’re correct.

    Rob Crawford (b5d1c2)

  181. stopped clocks are right twice a day, John.

    steve miller (3381bc)

  182. Objectivity would be raw data.

    Yeah, just the facts, Ma’am. This is what happened today:

    Is that so hard?

    Pablo (99243e)

  183. The study also errs in assuming that summing up think-tank quotations and referencing lawmaker’s ADA scores are an indication of whether a story is fair. This screwy metric could only have been invented by political scientists with scant familiarity with reporting.

    They weren’t attempting to rate news outlets for “fairness”. They were looking for a way to measure bias. It seems to me that who reporters cite is a decent proxy for bias.

    It’s not perfect, but it’s better than the other attempts I’ve seen.

    Rob Crawford (b5d1c2)

  184. There is always a political bias in every story on every subject..

    OK, what’s the political bias in this story of mine?

    Bradley J. Fikes, C. O.R., who wants DRJ back! (0ea407)

  185. Hax, you’re gonna need to provide citations for your assertion that the Groseclose study measured Fox as more liberal than the big three. It’s gonna be hard, because the study gives the following results (Table 3)

    Fox: 39.7
    ABC (GMA): 56.1
    ABC (WNT): 61.0
    CBS (ES): 66.6
    CBS (EN): 73.7
    NYT: 73.7
    WSJ: 85.1

    Note that “All data for the news outlets came from news stories only. That is, we omitted op-eds, letters to the editor, and book reviews.”

    By doing this, they exposed the least-well-kept secret in the world, that while the WSJ’s opinion pages tend conservative, their reporters tend liberal. That was known to conservatives years before this study was done.

    Rob Crawford (b5d1c2)

  186. There is always a political bias in every story on every subject.

    Why would that be? What’s the political bias in this story?

    Pablo (99243e)

  187. OK, what’s the political bias in this story of mine?

    It sounds kinda racist to me, Bradley. ;)

    Pablo (99243e)

  188. Excellent job, Bradley. I can’t remember a story that did that well at not just quoting the different sides, but also providing hard data and even sources for the reader to continue research.

    Rob Crawford (b5d1c2)

  189. and on Lincoln’s birthday, no less.

    steve miller (3381bc)

  190. I loves me some Haas avocados, though. And I don’t much care who grew ‘em.

    Pablo (99243e)

  191. Senor Fikes – Thank you. I had not considered that before.

    JD (c6800b)

  192. Rob,
    It seems to me that who reporters cite is a decent proxy for bias.

    Examining errors is much better, because it is not a proxy, it goes to the heart of bias.

    If a reporter does not let bias creep into stories, the errors should fall randomly. So if stories routinely make mistakes favoring one political philosophy, that not only demonstrates bias, but the harm that bias causes.

    Also, reporters hate it when proven inaccurate. There is no better way to get under the skin of a biased reporter than by showing the errors.

    Bradley J. Fikes, C. O.R., who wants DRJ back! (0ea407)

  193. Bradley would never claim this for himself, but he’s among the least – biased journos out there, if not one of the few.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  194. Bradley,

    Your overt and racist bias against Peruvians, as well as the glassy-winged sharpshooter, curculionid beetles, the South American fruit fly , and mirids, which belong to the genus Dagbertus, could not be more evident.

    JD (c6800b)

  195. I agree, errors would be a more direct measure of bias. However, errors can be contested, blamed on the sources, “time pressure”, “competitive pressure”, etc. I seem to recall the initial excuses for the Rather memos falling into the the time and competitive pressure lines. In that case the final blame was placed on the sources (who likely created the fakes), while the journalists involved faced little criticism for not applying the least bit of skepticism.

    Also, in my experience, many stories that cite “think tanks” and other activist organizations actually originate with those organizations. The tendency to run with those stories shows a like mind in the news organization as well.

    Oh — another weakness of counting citations is that the game of quoting two opposing sources without examining the evidence independent of their claims nets out to zero.

    So I’d say the Groseclose study is likely weak, but not necessarily invalid.

    Rob Crawford (b5d1c2)

  196. Also, reporters hate it when proven inaccurate.

    Bradley, are you saying that there is no love for our host over at the LATs??? Surely no one has exposed more consistently the biases, inaccuracies and hypocrisies than Patterico. While it’s an interesting observation, it speaks even volumes more about those reporters who do not immediately seek to correct those errors and valiantly strive to become accurate, honest, and non-biased.

    If a reporter does not let bias creep into stories, the errors should fall randomly. So if stories routinely make mistakes favoring one political philosophy, that not only demonstrates bias, but the harm that bias causes.

    Too bad this as gotten so much out of order to where putting the cart before the horse has instead become the expected. Agenda, bias first. Then attempt objectivity and accuracy (if it fits…).

    Dana (137151)

  197. Hey, anybody seen Hacks? Or is this another thread abandoned?

    Pablo (99243e)

  198. He ran out of discredited memes and sources – punched himself out, ala Foreman vs. Ali.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  199. The fact that the study’s formula “shows” that Fox News comes up with a greater liberal bias than some of the mainstream networks

    Could you please define the word “fact” for us? Because from where I sit, facts, in your world, appear to be steaming piles of dung pulled from your chocolate starfish.

    JD (c6800b)

  200. By the way, the Bill Press Washington Post op-ed

    When I read that commentary the other day I couldn’t help noticing the writer constantly and continuously referring to “progressive” this, “progressive” that. I don’t believe he used the word “liberal” once throughout his entire op-ed piece.

    That alone speaks volumes about the whole matter.

    Mark (411533)

  201. By Bradley Fikes
    Peruvian Hass avocados could be imported under a proposal by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, worrying California’s avocado growers, who are already hard-pressed by drought, rising water costs and competition from imported avocados.

    The bias here is blatant: You’re framing the interests of California farmers as more important than consumers, who would benefit from cheaper avocados. And don’t’ forget those hard-working Peruvian sod-busters. Why aren’t their interests given equal treatment? You mention consumers lower down, reflecting the bias in favor of growers.

    If I were your editor, I would approve of that bias as appropriate, given that your readership includes many farmers and not many Peruvians. Bias is exactly what journalists are paid to provide, and you’ve done your job here by biasing the story from the outset to give primacy to the interests of local farmers at the expense of Peruvians, shippers and consumers.

    “The biggest concern is that pests could hitchhike along with the avocados, seriously harming the industry, growers say. Avocado imports would benefit consumers by lowering prices, but growers would lose revenue.”

    Again, what do the Peruvians and the shippers have to say about that? You anonymously quote “growers” as if this story is primarily about their interests. That’s biased.

    “California’s avocado growers didn’t have to worry for decades about imports, which were banned by rules ostensibly designed to keep out pests.”

    Ostensibly is potentially biased two ways and bad journalism all the way around. If bad pests was just an excuse, why are you repeating it here? If it isn’t just an excuse, why are you using the word ostensible?

    I could go on line by line, but you get the idea.

    You can’t shape context without injecting bias. A journalist’s job is to gather the facts and present them in context. Bias comes with the territory.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  202. From the UCLA Study:

    “With scores in the mid-70s, CBS’ “Evening News” and The New York Times looked similar to Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., who has an ADA score of 74.”

    rotfl…

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  203. Bullshit, Hacks. But that is what we have come to expect from you. Let’s use the LA Times as an example. Patterico has outlined hundreds of factual and bias issues with the LA Times. In nearly every one, the bias leans heavily one way, well outside a standard distribution. Yet you maintain that they are centrist.

    Still waiting to hear you defend your mistake/lie noted above.

    JD (c6800b)

  204. Do explain what is so funny about that, Hacks.

    JD (c6800b)

  205. The bias here is blatant: You’re framing the interests of California farmers as more important than consumers, who would benefit from cheaper avocados.

    So, stating the fact that Cali farmers are worried = their concerns are more important? Bullshit. But while we’re here, what party does this bias represent?

    Pablo (99243e)

  206. Hax, you have no right to criticize this; why don’t you try reporting on avodados. But no, you prefer to criticize rather than take a chance and create something.

    Were you to ever write a story about avocados, rather than sniping, as you do, I seriously doubt you could improve on Mr. Fikes’ product.

    You’re not reporting, you’re critiquing. Maybe you should try reporting, just to see how good you’d be at it. Nothing to fear, right?

    How are you even posting here, since Patterico no doubt banned you ‘forthwith’?

    carlitos (599c37)

  207. The New York Times is less liberal than Joe Lieberman, according to the study.

    and on that specific point, they’re dead right.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  208. I decided to give Hax a chance.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  209. If they are dead right, why is that funny?

    Joe Lieberman, with the exception of his principled position in the war on terror, has been a consistent liberal Democrat.

    But we know that the modern Left defines themselves by their hatred of all things Republican. So, in that regard, he has become an apostate.

    JD (c6800b)

  210. I’d have picked Peace, Pat. Like in Iraq!

    Pablo (99243e)

  211. give Hax a chance – that’s funny.

    carlitos (599c37)

  212. Also, in my experience, many stories that cite “think tanks” and other activist organizations actually originate with those organizations.

    All too sadly true. Moreover, these think tank-provided pieces are often not subject to enough critical examination. This is not necessarily just bias; laziness can also be at fault.

    One of my pet peeves is a misleading study released every May by the American Lung Association on air pollution. It inevitably gives San Diego County an “F”. The study measures air pollution from Alpine, which has the worst air quality in the county. Since rural Alpine is not representative of where most San Diegans live, the grade is highly misleading.

    Bradley J. Fikes, C. O.R., who wants DRJ back! (0ea407)

  213. Carlitos: read my comments again.

    I said, as an editor, I’d approve of Bradley’s bias.

    more to the point, i make no systematic critique of Brad’s work. he asked me to point to the bias, and I did.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  214. “stating the fact that Cali farmers are worried = their concerns are more important? Bullshit.”

    correct. that is BS. but it’s not what I said, either.

    I said he ledes with the worries, and doesn’t list other concerns, clearly betraying a priority.

    I also explained that the bias was in favor of local growers, not any political party.

    try responding to what I actually wrote.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  215. “Patterico has outlined hundreds of factual and bias issues with the LA Times. In nearly every one, the bias leans heavily one way”

    Yes, and as I suspect Pat would acknowledge that he focuses on finding bias that leans that way.

    I suspect he would also concur that he reports only a fraction of the total errors in the paper.

    He isn’t making an objective study of the newspapers factual record, rather, he is cataloging examples of what he perceives to be a liberal bias.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  216. …straight news reporting on NPR

    378 NPR listeners e-mailed the network’s ombudsman to complain about things Juan Williams said on Fox News. Ombud Alicia Shepard writes: “The listener themes are similar: Williams ‘dishonors NPR.’ He’s an ‘embarrassment to NPR.’” She reports that NPR news veep Ellen Weiss has asked Williams to tell Fox News to remove his NPR identification whenever he’s on “The O’Reilly Factor.”

    Heh.

    Dana (137151)

  217. Hax, are you that dishonest with yourself? Or are you only that dishonest when you open your yap or are faced with a kb?

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  218. John, it is a truism that there is an irritating class of troll out in the Internet. These trolls don’t actually produce anything themselves. Instead, they critique the work of others…in a smug style that suggests that they are above it all. They often take “the other side of the argument” roles, but usually without any kind of deep research or thoughtfulness; kind of a reactive thing.

    Not that I am pointing any fingers here.

    I have known (electronically) Bradley Fikes for several years. I don’t always agree with him, but he feels quite passionately about being fair minded and journalistically ethical. He also is open to criticism, like all genuine journalists (as opposed to much of the current MSM).

    I would only suggest this: yes, it is easier to criticize the work of others than to produce that work. Far easier. It would be an interesting exercise to see if Bradley’s critic could get his work published—and be paid for doing so—in any media outlet.

    Eric Blair (ec334b)

  219. Hax,

    Over the years, Patterico has documented innumerable LAT errors that favor the left, chapter and verse, with copious references and links.

    Do you know of anyone who has made a similar survey of LAT errors that favor conservatives? If so, please supply the link.

    Bradley J. Fikes, C. O.R., who wants DRJ back! (0ea407)

  220. “It would be an interesting exercise to see if Bradley’s critic could get his work published—and be paid for doing so—in any media outlet.”

    And what would it mean to you, Eric, if I have?

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  221. Nope, Bradley, this guy is just reactively disagreeing, and will say that YOU haven’t proven HIS point. Or that you cannot prove that he isn’t right. Somehow.

    That’s how it works.

    Cost to the TdJ: low.

    Cost to serious discussants: high.

    Value to TdJ: priceless.

    I find that people who actually write for a market, and get paid for doing so, generally don’t play word games of this type.

    Eric Blair (ec334b)

  222. Dear Hax: absolutely. Post your writing sample, for which you received a check.

    That’ll show us.

    Eric Blair (ec334b)

  223. EB, the more I examine the tasks required of a journalist, the more I know it’s not for me. There is too much “behind the scenes” work necessary to get a 1k-word piece of news printed. I suppose if I gave up my principled position, I could produce pieces that are strewn throughout lots of MSM, but I’m not ready to give up my principles or do the heavy lifting honest journalists do. I have a lot of respect for honest journalists who try to get their stories right but no respect for liberal hacks who have their agenda uppermost in their writing.

    Like that most ancient of journalists, who happens to be a columnist instead of reporter, who said she was a liberal and questioned how any journalist could be anything other than a liberal. I cannot respect her or any who think like her. “Supposed terrorists” my left two lugnuts.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  224. Meanwhile back near where Hax came into the thread:

    “Talkradio is why conservatives are certain the media is “biased” in favor of liberals.”
    A completely unsupported personal opinion stated to resemble fact.

    “Fox News Channel is simply Rush writ large.”
    Since Rush is an entertainer, then Fox News is entertainment, while CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, and MSNBC must fall into the straight news category or something else you so authoritatively place NPR because of the serious voices of their announcers.

    “And to repeat my earlier point: it’s funny how conservatives point to the failure of liberal talkradio as an example of the free media marketplace at work. But when we start talking about the failure of conservative daily newspapers or academia or Hollywood (by conservatives own estimates, not mine) they start grabbing at absurd conspiracy theories as if there isn’t a free market in those media as well.”
    Except that the failure of conservative newspapers is a concept you’ve made up in your head because you don’t see them (or evaluate them as others) and believe you should based on some political/media/behavior model you imagine, don’t see the tenure system in academia as a fundamental barrier to the function of a free market there, and complete got pawned on your Hollywood explanation.

    “So to answer JD’s question: No, I don’t think the mainstream media has a liberal bias in any meaningful sense of the term.”
    Except that you now admit that the mainstream media does have a fundamental bias, it’s just that your scale is so off center from reality that you cannot accept that the bias is liberal. We see that a lot here. Public opinion and other studies confirm the bias so luckily we don’t have
    to rely on your opinion.

    I’m still not sure why you are here.

    Also your point on emotionalism was probably not intented to be funny, but it got a belly laugh from me. Contrast this blog to any decent sized lefty blog and you will see twice the venom, profanity, anger, etc. over there that you have here, and that’s without the presence of dishonest provacateurs who are not typically allowed to comment freely on those sites. There studies supporting this contrast as well.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  225. John, one person’s whiskey is another person’s poison. My writer friends can’t help but write. They call it “ink under the fingernails.” Journalism is like that, too, for many.

    What I don’t like are “argument room” types. Writing is hard work. Journalism is hard work. Contradicting someone’s work on a blog is easy, but at the contradictor doesn’t get paid for it.

    Wait a minute. Except for Andrew Sullivan. Oh well.

    Eric Blair (ec334b)

  226. Hax’s critique of my story was misleading. He said every story has political. His examples of bias were true to the extent that I didn’t interview Peruvian avocado growers, for example. But I’m writing for a mainly San Diego audience, not for one in Peru. That’s a geographical bias, not political.

    Bradley J. Fikes, C. O.R., who wants DRJ back! (0ea407)

  227. “John, it is a truism that there is an irritating class of troll out in the Internet. These trolls don’t actually produce anything themselves. Instead, they critique the work of others…in a smug style that suggests that they are above it all.”

    Eric – TBagg, who Patterico knows well, seems to exist solely to snark about who is blogging about what, plus his dogs.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  228. Daley, regarding Our Hero, you write:

    “…I’m still not sure why you are here….”

    Sure you are.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDjCqjzbvJY

    Troof to powder, as usual. Tearing things down, instead of building his own arguments. Cheap and easy.

    Eric Blair (ec334b)

  229. Bradley: the political bias is related to trade agreements.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  230. Daley, is Tbogg another name for HV? He had some other name before, too.

    Eric Blair (ec334b)

  231. But really, I meant to write, every political story has a political bias.

    So, on the point, I stand corrected. It wasn’t my intention to suggest that non-political stories make political points.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  232. Back to Monty Python, I’m afraid.

    Eric Blair (ec334b)

  233. EB, my bro has 2 bachelors degrees: art and english. Last I knew he was going for his masters in english. He should be done with his masters by now. And per my dictionary, art and english are both four-letter words. Lit is another four-letter word. I prefer numbers to fancy-pants mumbo-jumbo that considers “catcher” to be hoi polloi art.

    But I still respect those who can create good works like C S Lewis created.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  234. EB,
    My writer friends can’t help but write. They call it “ink under the fingernails.” Journalism is like that, too, for many.

    That describes me precisely. I have a very hard time imagining being anything but a reporter. When I was a cub reporter, I spent years working very long hours for not very much pay, but it’s what I enjoyed doing. Probably like your teaching. And attitudes and sloppiness that turn off readers can’t be healthy for journalism, so I have a vested interested in seeing those bad habit corrected.

    Cathy Seipp wrote something that has stuck with me: Journalists are supposed to be curious about people and their differences. But too many journalists just stay in their own clique of people who think like themselves. Then when they have to interview someone who thinks differently, they’re flummoxed and just don’t get it.

    Bradley J. Fikes, C. O.R., who wants DRJ back! (0ea407)

  235. Eric – I think TBagg would be a lot more confrontational.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  236. Hax,
    I personally strongly support free trade. However, the local avo growers have a valid concern about invasive pests, and in fairness to them it has to be pointed out. Invasive species are a constant threat to California agriculture.

    Of course, it’s possible the growers could be exaggerating the threat, but I don’t have the evidence to draw that conclusion.

    Bradley J. Fikes, C. O.R., who wants DRJ back! (0ea407)

  237. “Flummoxed” now that’s a word I haven’t heard in like 15 years. I get a picture in my mind of “the thinker” sitting on a toilet and straining to reach the exlax.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  238. John H.,
    I first encountered “flummoxed” while reading The Hobbit. Also, “bebothered,” and “confusticate.”

    Yes, I am a bit of a Tolkien geek.

    Bradley J. Fikes, C. O.R., who wants DRJ back! (0ea407)

  239. Hax does get paid for writing; this I know.

    Yes, and as I suspect Pat would acknowledge that he focuses on finding bias that leans that way.

    I suspect he would also concur that he reports only a fraction of the total errors in the paper.

    He isn’t making an objective study of the newspapers factual record, rather, he is cataloging examples of what he perceives to be a liberal bias.

    Mmmm . . . I certainly report only a fraction of the paper’s errors; true.

    I wouldn’t say I focus on bias leaning only one way; I rarely if ever see blatant bias leaning against the liberal position in this newspaper.

    Now, you, Hax, might respond that I simply have blinders on. That I don’t see that bias.

    Fine. Then I’ll issue the standard challenge I issue to people who make such claims: catalogue it. We’ll stack up your collection against mine.

    Ain’t nobody’s taken me up on that offer yet.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  240. Hax gets paid for writing? He must be a fiction novelist then. Else, he’s overpaid.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  241. And no, Hax is not TBogg. In fact, I’ll pay Hax a back-handed compliment and say he is nowhere near the asshole TBogg is.

    daleyrocks has TBogg pretty well pegged; he’s sort of this middle-aged-to-older loser who contributes nothing of value, but just sits around and insults people. He’s a slightly more clever version of Stephen Fowler, that asshole from the wife-swap show I mentioned in another link. Personality-wise they’re peas in a pod: both horrid, nasty people whose main purpose in life is to convince themselves they’re superior to others.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  242. That makes it worse, Patterico, not better. This fellow’s style is reflexively argumentative and essentially intellectually lazy (“…you haven’t looked the for bias in the other direction…“).

    As I wrote before, generally speaking, people who are paid to write are more respectful of the time and effort that goes into the writing of others.

    Eric Blair (ec334b)

  243. Laziness, by a mile, is the problem that afflicts journalism far more than any political bias.

    I would put overwork, ironically, in second place.

    Third, would be the bias toward being entertaining, rather than informative. Few people read for pure information: they expect to be entertained along the way, and that compels journalists to cut corners, factwise…

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  244. EB,
    Lazy thinking indeed. I don’t envy the intern at Media Matters who will doubtless be tasked at finding errors that support conservative bias at the LA Times.

    Did any of you see the lame LAT editorial pooh-poohing the fears of officers’ names in sensitive investigations being released?

    The names in one investigation were inadvertently released Friday, and guess what? Three whole days later, nothing had happened!

    That the hard-pressed LA Times is still publishing this thoughtless, disinformational dreck is a scandal. And get the pompous “this page” reference in the lede!

    Know-nothing opiners like those who wrote this are still on the LA Times’ payroll while real reporters (who probably do much more work) are losing their jobs. The rotten elite will protect its own until the end.

    Bradley J. Fikes, C. O.R., who wants DRJ back! (0ea407)

  245. So, Hacks fails on the facts and the entertainment portions of journalism. Better be nice to your boss.

    JD (c6800b)

  246. “stating the fact that Cali farmers are worried = their concerns are more important? Bullshit.”

    correct. that is BS. but it’s not what I said, either.

    Alrighty, then.

    The bias here is blatant: You’re framing the interests of California farmers as more important than consumers, who would benefit from cheaper avocados.

    We have always been at war with Eurasia.

    Pablo (99243e)

  247. Hey, Hax — you ever gonna own up to lying about what the Groseclose study said?

    Rob Crawford (04f50f)

  248. I decided to give Hax a chance.

    I’d say he’s made a fair bollocks of the opportunity, then.

    Hax does get paid for writing; this I know.

    OK, how about 20 questions for Hacks? I’ll start off:

    - are you an effete British citizen who masquerades as an intellectual at Vanity Fair?

    - do you, or have you ever, had a pet ocelot named “Whiskers?”

    - do you often harbor disturbing and conflicting sado – masochistic fantasies regarding Jeff Goldstein?

    Discuss.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  249. Dmac, I’d more suspect Hax of having power glutes.

    Scott Jacobs (90ff96)

  250. Peruvian avo’s would benefit the consumer in the short-term, but would be devastating to the average consumer’s budget in the long-term if they allowed the introduction of invasive species of pests into the fields of CA agriculture.
    The fruit-fly and other destructive pests would decimate CA agricultural production, limiting supply, and would force an increase in prices in the general marketplace of any and all types of produce because of the general law of supply and demand.
    This is precisely why CA has fought so hard for decades to keep invasive pests out of the ag areas of CA, and why it mounts massive efforts to eradicate those pests wherever they are found.

    AD (f89ba6)

  251. AD, don’t worry about invasive pests. Worry about that drought thingy and the new regulations that say various ag producers are restricted to zero gallons of water. Methinks a few pests do less harm than zero water.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  252. AD, it’s interesting that the California border check point we go through coming back from Tucson every other weekend no longer asks about fruit and plants. All they are interested in now is where we are coming from and do we speak English.

    Mike K (f89cb3)

  253. Comment by Mike K — 2/13/2009 @ 1:46 pm

    Not my experience transiting the check-point at Blythe this past Monday.

    Since it is raining at this moment in L.A.Co., that drought thingey seems, if no moot, at least a diminished concern. I wholeheartedly support ag’s access to water, as they seem to use it more productively, and sensibly, than homeowner’s.
    But, this is the West, where Whiskey is for drinkin’, and Water is for fightin’ over.

    AD (509427)

  254. Ah, the water issue. Another kettle of fish.

    Well, if you want to prepare a “kettle of fish”, you do need water.
    But, seriously, this latest dust-up makes one wonder how much better-off Californians would be if only Great-Whites would develop a taste for wet-suits.

    AD (509427)

  255. Reclamation would be in the conservation mix, except for the irrational public prejudice against “toilet to tap”. I drank the stuff from a pilot plant years ago and didn’t have any nega

    {CONNECTION LOST}

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., who implores DRJ to remain at Patterico! (e24bda)

  256. Reclamation….
    Well, the consumers in NoCounty seem to have decided that they would rather pay the additional cost for desalinization over reclamation, and not deal with the “yuk” factor, or the costs of parallel systems to deliver “potable” water vs reclaimed water for irrigation. If not, why would the various water-districts even sign-up for deliveries?
    Surfrider and Coastwatch are just being the obstructionists that they are.

    AD (509427)

  257. AD,
    Trying to be fair and balanced, I have to say Surfrider and Coastwatch have a legitimate point. Why not go with the cheapest and least disruptive source of water?

    All water is reclaimed. Do you know where those molecules of H20 have been? Alas, the “yuk factor” triumphs over evidence with many people, as witness the hysteria over “frankenfoods”.

    Of course, it’s not an either-or choice. Desalination helps further diversify San Diego’s water supply from its near-total dependence on imported water, which is increasingly unreliable.

    Now I’m getting thirsty.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., who implores DRJ to remain at Patterico! (e24bda)

  258. as they seem to use it more productively, and sensibly, than homeowner’s.

    I was under the impression that ag producers in CA have been receiving heavily subsidized water for decades at this point. Are they finally paying the legitimate price for it now? They’ve already siphoned off the remaining trickles from the Colorado, and Lake Mead seems to be about half it’s level from a few years ago. Muir was right, I think – the area was never meant to support the amount of population that’s settled there at present.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  259. Dmac,
    Ah, now you’ve hit the sore spot in California water — at least one of them. There is a property right in water, and it can’t just be taken from farmers with water rights.

    As for Muir, his observation could apply to most of the United States. It was never “meant” to have the population it supports today. But I’m not keen for a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, and I doubt you are too.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., who implores DRJ to remain at Patterico! (e24bda)

  260. I understand your point, but it’s ridiculous the amount of settlement that’s occured far from any local water supplies, be it from lakes, rivers or aquifers. The southwest is just one more example of sprawl and bad land planning that’s created almost a permanent drought condition for the foreseeable future.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  261. Dmac,
    There’s nothing inherently ridiculous about living far from water, no more than living far away from your food. That’s what technology is for. Right now, our use of water technology needs to be improved.

    Millions of people have carved out productive portions of the Southwest from desert, greatly contributing to the nation’s economy — including my parents, who moved to San Diego after WWII to start their family.

    Much of our current water shortage can be attributed to bad planning, as you point out, and I’ll throw in environmental obstructionism. A peripheral canal would have solved the Bay-Delta bottleneck for bringing water south, but the enviros blocked it.

    Bottom line is that these problems are fixable: we just have to have the will to fix them. A few more years of water scarcity should be sufficient motivation.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., who implores DRJ to remain at Patterico! (e24bda)

  262. Good points, all.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  263. Dmac — for a few years I lived in Detroit. I remember an occasion when the local politicians were finger-pointing back and forth over water shortages.

    Detroit is located on a channel between two of the world’s largest bodies of fresh water. It receives large amounts of snow in the winter and rain during the spring, summer, and fall. They didn’t actually lack water, they lacked the political will to build water treatment plants, water towers, reservoirs, etc.

    Rob Crawford (b5d1c2)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 1.1196 secs.