Patterico's Pontifications

8/27/2005

Rutten’s Talk Radio Column Is Up

Filed under: Dog Trainer — Patterico @ 11:51 am



Here is Tim Rutten’s column about talk radio, including his interview with Hugh Hewitt. Hewitt says he was quoted accurately — but when we hear the interview itself on Monday, we’ll be surprised at what Rutten left out. Looking forward to it.

UPDATE: I have now read Rutten’s column and have time to comment on it. Rutten is apparently incapable of taking on conservatives’ complaints about bias in news media, so he constructs a blatant strawman instead:

You know this particular argument like a mantra: All humans have personal beliefs, including political ones, which inevitably bias anything they write or broadcast. Therefore, everyone who reports or analyzes the news must publicly declare everything they believe and all their personal associations so that their readers or audience can — to borrow Hewitt’s phrase — “correct” for the journalist’s bias. The notion that the former — all people have biases — might be true, but not the latter — they always determine absolutely everything you say or do — never is considered. Nor is the possibility that personal discipline and the conventions of the craft already accomplish that “correction” among journalists who observe them. It’s simply not an admissible idea here. (Let’s not even touch the common-sense proposition that it’s the normality of the mainstream media’s workaday, unbiased journalism that makes the biased stuff stand out so clearly — and offensively — when it occurs.)

(My emphasis.)

Few people are harsher critics of the Los Angeles Times than I am — so if Rutten is right, his cartoonish description of the conservative case against Big Media ought to fit my views to a T. But it doesn’t.

I do not argue that journalists’ biases “always determine absolutely everything” journalists say or do. Much of the mainstream media’s workaday journalism escapes the influence of their bias. It’s only when the subject matter touches on a pet issue of the liberal elite that the biases come into sharp relief.

The mainstream media reveals its bias most clearly in its coverage of issues like taxes, social welfare benefits, environmental regulation, racial preferences, universal healthcare, criminal justice, immigration, war, Israel, gun control, abortion rights, sexual conduct, assisted suicide, religion, and campaign finance reform. Stories that don’t relate to these or related pet issues are often covered, if not entirely competently, at least without screaming bias.

Also, the idea that “personal discipline and the conventions of the craft” already filter out most of the bias is certainly an “admissible idea” — just one we reject. Do we have any evidence to back up that viewpoint? I’ll let readers of this blog be the judge. Have you ever read this blog, Mr. Rutten?

Rutten’s column concludes, hilariously, with his assertion that talk radio’s audience is shrinking because its practitioners are narcissistic blowhards:

Political talk-show hosts see everything through the prism of their partisan politics and insist, as an article of faith, that everyone else is always doing the same. In this sense, their approach to current affairs is less a conservative one and more a creature of that most powerful of American vices: narcissism.

The controlling assumption is: I look at the world in this fashion and, therefore, everyone else does too.

Anyone who’s ever been trapped sitting next to that greatest of dinner party bores, an unrestrained narcissist in full cry, knows that the only coherent thing that comes to mind is escape.

Maybe that’s what’s happening to political talk radio’s audience. As the physicists say, the simplest explanation is always the most elegant.

Yet not once in the column does Rutten mention the lemming-like escape that subscribers have accomplished from the Los Angeles Times itself. Might the financial woes of The Times have anything to do with the liberal bias of its writers, as evidenced by the unserious arguments Rutten advances in this piece?

Mr. Rutten? What would the physicists say about that?

26 Responses to “Rutten’s Talk Radio Column Is Up”

  1. Rutten’s latest reminds me of why I cancelled my daily sub to the LA Times.

    GEAH (061e62)

  2. Talk Show Radio Watch: Weaker?

    Tim Rutten, of the Los Angeles Times has Talk radio shows’ reception seems to be getting weaker
    Talk is cheap — unless it’s political talk on the radio, and then it’s influential.
    At least it has been.
    Now some people think th…

    FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog (baa0b4)

  3. Well, they wish for the demise of radio so they can obtain more advertising dollars.

    Bias as usuall.

    The Times still does NOT get it.

    Flap (cc77c4)

  4. Rutten’s column was pretty silly. I especially rolled my eyes over his protestations that the MSM is inherently *un*biased. It’s worth a read for insight into how members of the MSM think.

    Looking forward to hearing the tape on Hewitt’s show.

    Thanks for your great work here on this site.

    Laura (0f4734)

  5. Have you ever read this blog, Mr. Rutten?

    No.

    [Patterico sez: pay attention to the e-mail address left by the commenter . . .]

    Tim Rutten (ca1ad5)

  6. I think a good way of putting it would be:

    If a reporter has a bias on a subject it will be revealed in his or her writing. Only those subjects they don’t care about will be bias-free. And since reporters tend not to write on subjects they don’t care about, most everything written will have some element of bias written into them.

    steve sturm (d3e296)

  7. Here’s another gem of a quote from that article:

    We’re also in the middle of a war of which fewer and fewer people approve. Moreover, as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican Party, most of talk radio has to explain a president whose poll numbers are in freefall and, in California, a governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, whose popularity is tanking as badly as some of his films. It’s a political axiom that, when you grab a guy’s coattails, his direction becomes yours.

    Gee, there’s no bias in this column, is there?

    Nick @ HBR (731b94)

  8. You know, I think the problem is that he may actually believe what he says. That is the frightening part.

    rls (0516f0)

  9. And since reporters tend not to write on subjects they don’t care about, most everything written will have some element of bias written into them.

    My guess is they often write about subjects they don’t care about.

    Patterico (756436)

  10. I’m sure you’re right. I’m not sure that makes them any less biased, though. If anything, it probably makes them more error-prone.

    Xrlq (ca1ad5)

  11. I agree with rls. If the person believes what he writes, I’m not sure what to say. If he doesn’t, and would prefer to be intellectually dishonest, then again, I’m not sure what to say.

    Political talk-show hosts see everything through the prism of their partisan politics and insist, … , that everyone else is always doing the same. In this sense, their approach to current affairs is less a conservative one and more a creature of that most powerful of American vices: narcissism.

    The controlling assumption is: I look at the world in this fashion and, therefore, everyone else does too.

    Hmmm, when Hewitt has liberal guests on (such as the Duke Law professor who is one of the “Wise Guys”), it would appear that Hewitt not only realizes there are people who think differently, but invites them on the show to discuss matters. (But, I bet my blood pressure rises every time I hear that fellow).

    So, when a radio talk show host voices an opinion different from the MSW opinion, the radio show host is guilty of narcissism because HE thinks every one thinks like him??

    Conservative talk show host
    view=narcissistic mutterings lacking cognition

    Anyone else
    view= objective statement of merit

    No bias?????

    MD in Philly (b3202e)

  12. Tim Rutton: “Moreover, as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican Party, most of talk radio has to explain a president…”

    Some of the talk radio audience – particularly that of the Hugh Hewitt sorts who don’t need to shout down their debate opponents – have for about three decades been pretty well convinced that the NYT, WaPo, NPR, LAT, Reuters, AP & Co. have every one of them been ‘acquired’ as corporate subsidiaries by the left wing of the Democratic Party. This is glaringly apparent in the events that they excise from the full news stories – for instance, the first half of the Rodney King tape – to shape public opinion by acting as gatekeepers.

    I think Mr. Rutten is doing some serious projecting. Further, I think it’s the party line, and not just some unconscious manifestation of some innocent bias.

    Insufficiently Sensitive (b21a25)

  13. What I want is for the Los Angeles Times to report facts. Schwarzenegger has increased education spending every year, including $3 billion for next year. LA Times reports this increase as a “cut”, because someone somewhere sometime dreamed of more money. Is calling an increase a “cut” bias or just being stupid? Who even cares what psychobabble is used to justify or correct this problem?! Just report that spending is increasing from $47.1 to $50 billion. End of problem.

    Shredstar (532850)

  14. Patterico:

    Me disagrees with your disagreement. Reporters tend not to stick around and cover beats they don’t like. Cub reporters have no choice but to accept whatever assignments they are given as they don’t have the resumes to score their their dream assignments. Older reporters with mediocre credentials will also have to take what they are given, as they make too much money to get the same pay elsewhere. Experienced reporters, in my experience, will leave if they don’t get a beat they want to cover.

    Which is something they care about… and that’s where the bias comes in.

    steve sturm (d3e296)

  15. I have a slightly though not tremendously different take in that my sense is that the MSM are just generally pretty much cut from the same cloth. They attend the same, generally liberal, journalism schools and there they develop a generaly liberal world view where they worship at the alter of Woodward and Bernstein.

    It isn’t that they are engaged in some conspiracy towards bias it is just who they ARE. Their biases are so ingrained in their psyche as to be undetectable to them. You certainly wouldn’t expect that their generally secular, anti-military, pro-UN, global warming, pro abortion (OK, pro-choice), northeastern or left coast world view would produce anything different than you would hear from your favority liberal dinner guest or university professor, would you?

    Rush calls this the template. I call it a world view. Journalists just call it normal. This is one of the reasons they have such trouble connecting with Southerners who live in the Bible belt, with people who might think that this wonderful universe was created by an intelligence, or with the average guy or gall who might work in a factory or an office for a living, or a soldier.

    This is why they all deny so vigerously that bias exists. It’s totally invisible to them – all “normal” people just think this way about the subjects you delineated above …The mainstream media reveals its bias most clearly in its coverage of issues like …

    Bernie Goldberg has written at least two excellent books on the subjects of Bias and Arrogance, both of which he has observed first-hand throughout his career and both of which arguably derive from the world view of most journalists.

    Conservative talk radio and political talk shows are losing listeners? I’m sure that would be news to Hannity, Rush, O’Reilly, et al.

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)

  16. Love it or leave it:

    Don’t waste time, effort and energy. Majority is the rule in our representative system. Stop talking and vote. It really is that simple, and let the devil take the hindmost.

    Black Jack (ee3eb6)

  17. Physicists approve of elegance in a theory because such a theory is more likely to be true. This idea is tantamount to the Occam’s Razor principle that the simplest explanation is the one most likely to be the truth. Rutten’s remark that the simplest explanation is always the most elegant is true enough, but has little content.

    dchamil (900cdf)

  18. Shredstar, on cuts, I don’t believe there have ever been more than a true handfull of actual cuts to any government programs either at the state or national level in the history of the republic. The MSM ALWAYS reports a decrease in the rate of increase a cut. Not in your budget, nor in mine, but when it comes to the ever voracious government, yes, an increase is often a cut.

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)

  19. I just saw at Powerline that the LAT’s circulation is at 900,000 down 50,000 in the last year and it struck me that that news is doubly ominous. After all the LAT is indeed printed and distributed in the heart of Liberalland.

    If the Kool-Aid Krowd ain’t buying it, it’s gotta be reaaaaaaaal baaaaaaad.

    rls (0516f0)

  20. The idea that narcissism is what drives “right-wing” talk radio hosts, and because it is the simplest expanation is most likely to be true, is in reality a clear indication of cluelessness.
    Such a diagnosis is obviously off the top of Rutten’s head and is therefore worthless. What first pops into one’s head does not constitute wisdom or truth.
    I feel silly even mentioning such a truth. Why couldn’t Rutten see how silly he sounds.

    Boman (5f9cec)

  21. 100 Miles north of Los Angeles, is the city of Bakersfield, Californian. The local paper, the Californian, a lone liberal voice in a strongly conservative oil and agricultural area, has also had a recent problem with declining subscription. They have decided to rectify the situation by giving the paper FREE, (in Spanish), to Hispanic grocery stores in the area. Then they report that their subscription numbers are not falling. They are falling, despite over nearly a hundred thousand new residents in the area. Then they can tell their advertisers that there is no problem with falling subscription numbers.

    bureaucrat (825e78)

  22. Two words = Air America.

    Insider (8feb2b)

  23. Two more words = Dan Rather.

    Insider (8feb2b)

  24. As a long time L.A. Times reader and ex flaming liberal I agree that the Times are so isolated in their left wing fish bowl that they have no idea how biased they are. During the “Passion of the Christ” blowup the Times magazine decided to do a story on a pre-vatican style church. The overall story was trying to be positive but their ignorance came out even though the piece was generally positive. The writer wrote about her fears about attending the mass without a vail, as if the church members were going to take her out in the street and stone her. The are so removed from orthodox or more traditional religions that they have simple, and ignorant stereotypes built into their world view. They have so little day to day contact with “those” people that they have no clue what they are really like. And it comes out in their writting.

    kevinpeters (0f4734)

  25. It’s not polite to say, but this still deserves more attention — a vast number of these newspaper people are simply mediocrities. It’s like the “Education” majors at university. A lot of these people are the people with the low test scores, the low “IQs” — they may have some limited talent for putting words on paper, but they remain the dim bulbs of information economy.

    In other words, the “don’t get it” when it comes to their inability to provide objective news reporting (and editing), not because it’s some kind of moral failing, they “don’t get it” because they just aren’t that bright, they just aren’t that quick.

    PrestoPundit (c8886f)

  26. Rutten on bias

    All he gives us is a dismissive assurance that he knows what he is talking about and we should just be open-minded enough to take his word for it. Who are we going to believe, him or our own lying eyes? He has nothing to say to the volumes of hard ev…

    Doc Rampage (59ce3a)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0798 secs.