Media Matters study fatally flawed
Is Morton Kondracke a conservative op-ed columnist• Are David Broder, Cokie Roberts and Thomas Friedman centrists?
That's what Media Matters for America, the left-wing media watchdog outfit in Washington, would have you believe.
Last week Media Matters released the results of "Black and White and Re(a)d All Over: The Conservative Advantage in Syndicated Op-Ed Columns."
An ambitious paper-by-paper assessment of 1,377 dailies and the 201 syndicated political columnists they carry on a regular basis, the study alleges that conservative opinion-mongers appear in three times as many papers and reach more readers than do progressives (i.e., liberals).
It's touching that someone still cares about the ideological tilt of America's battered newspaper sector, which, despite the Internet, remains an important source of political opinion for the masses.
Media Matters' researchers dug up lots of interesting data: The Top 5 columnists by number of papers that regularly carry them are George Will (328), Cal Thomas (306), Kathleen Parker (282), Ellen Goodman (239) and David Broder (218). And in terms of regular circulation, the Top 5 are Will (21.3 million), Broder (15.1), Parker (15), Goodman (13.9) and Thomas (13.8).
To make its case, Media Matters crunched numbers every which way. The Top 10 conservatives, for example, collectively surpass the Top 10 progressives by 20 million readers. Progressive columnists dominate op-ed pages in only one region of the country -- the obvious one: the liberal Northeast.
Paul Waldman, the author of the study, said Media Matters tried to make as few subjective judgments as possible. He admitted the study wasn't as definitive or nuanced as he would have liked. The major columnists were put in one of three boxes based on the conventional wisdom (Maureen Dowd is a progressive, etc.) or by how they were labeled either by themselves or their syndicates.
Not surprisingly, the "centrist" category brought a few complaints, Waldman said. "We got e-mails today from people who said, 'How can you say that David Broder is a centrist when he's really a conservative?' Then someone else wrote in and said, 'How can you say that he's a centrist when he's really a liberal?'"
Ultimately, Media Matters failed in its quest to prove there is a conservative bias on the nation's op-ed pages. Its relative conservative/progressive rankings are fatally skewed, mainly because from its perch on the far-left end of the political spectrum, the group sees -- and classified -- East Coast liberals like Friedman, Broder and Cokie Roberts as "centrists," not progressives.
Meanwhile, Media Matters lumped all varieties of conservatives together -- as if there's no difference between New York Times house neocon David Brooks, paleo-conservative Pat Buchanan and free-marketeer Thomas Sowell. Plus, Walter Williams, Steve Chapman and John Stossel aren't conservatives at all; they are libertarians.
Media Matters' conclusion is further undermined by its emphasis on the number of papers a columnist appears in, not a paper's quality or clout. How many small-town papers does it take to equal one New York Times column that will be read by the East Coast political and media elites?
And, by the way, eight of the Top 10 columnists by average circulation are progressives like Paul Krugman and E.J. Dionne.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.