Partisan views are killing newspapers

Though the article is spirted, it contains no evidence to link bias--whether liberal or conservative to a decline in newspaper revenue. Also, it fails to define "liberal." If the dictionary definition was applied, liberal means to be free or not bound by tradition. Revenue is declining because fewer young people are reading newspapers as the society becomes more digital. Also, more people are going online for information because it's more convenient and contains a wealth of free content--unlike newspapers. Not surprisingly, older people are more likely to read a newspaper than younger people. Also, to say that newspapers lack even a "semblance of objectivity," is baseless in its assertion and shows an ignorance of the history of newspapers. Yes, complete objectivity does not exist, but compared to how newspapers began-- as only mouth pieces for political parties or politicians, we have come a long way.

Jessica Yellin on Anderson Cooper's show 5/28/08:

COOPER: Jessica, McClellan took press to task for not upholding their reputation. He writes: "The National Press Corps was probably too deferential to the White House and to the administration in regard to the most important decision facing the nation during my years in Washington, the choice over whether to go to war in Iraq. The 'liberal media' -- in quotes -- didn't live up to its reputation. If it had, the country would have been better served." Dan Bartlett, former Bush adviser, called the allegation "total crap." What is your take? Did the press corps drop the ball?

JESSICA YELLIN, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I wouldn't go that far. I think the press corps dropped the ball at the beginning. When the lead-up to the war began, the press corps was under enormous pressure from corporate executives, frankly, to make sure that this was a war that was presented in a way that was consistent with the patriotic fever in the nation and the president's high approval ratings.

And my own experience at the White House was that, the higher the president's approval ratings, the more pressure I had from news executives -- and I was not at this network at the time -- but the more pressure I had from news executives to put on positive stories about the president. I think, over time...

COOPER: You had pressure from news executives to put on positive stories about the president?

YELLIN: Not in that exact -- they wouldn't say it in that way, but they would edit my pieces. They would push me in different directions. They would turn down stories that were more critical and try to put on pieces that were more positive, yes. That was my experience.

********************

Phil Donahue with Bill Moyers on the run up to war:
PHIL DONOHUE: And I just felt, you know, what would be wrong with having one show a night, you know, say, "Hold it. Wait a minute. Can we afford this? Do we have enough troops? And what about General Shinseki? And where are all-- you know, what is Guantanamo?" I mean, "What's wrong with this?"

I thought people who didn't like my message would watch me. Because no one else was doing it. That's why, I couldn't get over the unanimity of opinion on cable. The drum was beating. Everybody wanted to bomb somebody. And I'm thinking, "Wait a minute." So here I go, I mean fool that I am, I rushed in.

BILL MOYERS: You had Scott Ritter, former weapons inspector. Who was saying that if we invade, it will be a historic blunder.

PHIL DONOHUE: You didn't have him alone. He had to be there with someone else who supported the war. In other words, you couldn't have Scott Ritter alone. You could have Richard Perle alone.

BILL MOYERS: You could have the conservative.

PHIL DONOHUE: You could have the supporters of the President alone. And they would say why this war is important. You couldn't have a dissenter alone. Our producers were instructed to feature two conservatives for every liberal.

BILL MOYERS: You're kidding.

PHIL DONOHUE: No this is absolutely true.

BILL MOYERS: Instructed from above?

PHIL DONOHUE: Yes. I was counted as two liberals.

BILL MOYERS: They're under-selling you. (laughter)

PHIL DONOHUE: I had to have two… there's just a terrible fear. And I think that's the right word.
******************
This was MSNBC--who are now fulling and dishonestly pushing Obama for POTUS. Its not liberal media--its corporate media.

Don't really care as long as you state it up front. That's the problem with this whole idea of "liberal" media. Yes, it is a right wing talking point, and it obviously worked in the programming of the masses.

Commentary journalism is opinion but that opinion should be based on facts and a fairness to the issue being written about. Too many of these individuals have stopped being 'fair' to a topic, the readers and journalism lose when this happens. Can someone please tell me the why Maureen Dowd has a job and one at the NY Times, no less? Why do reporters at the Washington Post show up on MSNBC and provide commentary? The lines have blurred a lot IMO.

Look at the editorial page of the Star and that juvenile Buzz thing on A2. Blog excerpts are given without telling the reader the slant of the writer--if anything blogs are partisan. So tell the audience if the guy whining about the Dems is a conservative writer. It just dishonest not to.

Denise Tiller, Midwest Voices 2008

Ross, do you really read any of these papers?

I lived in LA for 10 years and took the LA Times during that time and I still read it from time to time online or when I travel out there. I've taken the NY Times since 1996. I've also been a subscriber to the Chicago Tribune, Dallas Morning News, and the Detroit Free Press. You don't know what you are talking about. Liberal bias is nonsense, if anything, studies have shown any bias is conservative. If there were truly a liberal bias, we'd be out of Iraq.

I've been privileged to live in cities with fine newspapers who report the news in an unbiased manner, the problem with the industry is the change in reading habits. Young people today don't read newspapers like they used to. There are too many other distractions.

Surely, you are intelligent enough to see the problem, or maybe you just don't know young people, or maybe you just like to complain about liberals. If you paid attention to what is happening in the world, you would know that even book readership is down as people spend more and more time on the Internet or plugged into iPods or computer games. Plus we now have 24/7 news on cable. There is so much competition for entertainment and it's difficult for newspapers to compete. My kids range from 16-33 and they are bright and well-educated and they never pickup a newspaper, nor do their friends. They get news from the Internet and television. Newspapers are for us old folks.

The LA Times has had some problems because they were bought the by corporation that bought the Tribune. It's been a change of culture. Acquisitions are tough to survive in any industry. The New York Times did physical changes to the size of the paper that has resulted in a significant cost savings.

Denise Tiller, Midwest Voices 2008

for good local news. Local TV news is at best a joke and at its worst (Channel 5) an insult to the community. Yes, you got lots of pictures of fires and accidents, but their very structure can only produce mediocrity.

Only newspapers have the resources to give people the kind of coverage of local government, sports and entertainment that people really need. Unfortunately, they squander some of those resources duplicating services where they are horribly outclassed, or, in the case of The Star's editorial board sullies its reputation and calls into question the honesty of its reporting.

Mainstream newspapers aren't losing circulation because they're partisan (a suspect claim, to say the least, but the myth of the "liberal media" has long been a staple of extremist right-wingers, and I doubt that'll change anytime soon) -- they're losing circulation because of competition from so many other media.

The very reason most newspapers are declining in readership is because of apparent bias in reporting. Here in Phoenix, even the local news has the pro-illegal immigration slant that people are tired of. The paper refuses to acknowledge that illegal aliens are such (undocumented workers and that nonsense), for example. It's true I can get national and international news anywhere, but I can't get local news just anyplace. When the local paper parrots the same crap I can get on See-BS, I simply won't buy anymore. FOX news does better than CNN, MSNBC, and all the others combined because it doesn't give all the same hate-Bush hate-America reporting you get on the other stations. It actually tries to meet what the customer wants instead of trying to indoctrinate the public. The same principles apply whether to newspapers or TV - advertisers won't spend money to advertise on a loser station or paper. According to a Harris poll, only 18% of adults get their news from online sources. Network and cable news still accounts for 39%, while newspapers account for 23%.

Balano's comments reflect the age-old "kill the messenger" mentality. If the news one reads doesn't fit into a mental comfort zone, some manipulative swine is reporting with a bias. If the messenger gets beat on long and hard enough, maybe his tune will change. Unfortunately, this mentality prevailed in the Unites States between Sep. 11, 2001 well into the year 2004. Ross won there for a while.

Hello from the newsroom. Ross, the flip side to complaints that we're too partisan is that we're too namby pamby on our positions. We hear both.

There was a day when newspapers were expected to be partisan. Most cities had two or more newspapers, often with completely different political slants. It led to vigorous debate and readers loved it.

Now, as Jennifer points out, you can go to the Internet and read views on every issue from every angle almost instantly. All for free. That's the dynamic we're trying to figure out how to cope with.

Barb Shelly, editorial page columnist

The one thing that the local newspaper can do that no one else can is provide good local news.

Bloggers can provide all of the opinions anyone could want and the 24 hour news channels can provide quicker access to national and international news.

So why is the one thing locals can do that's unique getting short shrift?

I don't think the Star's leadership cares about the paper. Liberals put their ideology above the well being of their employer, their community and their country. They debase everything they touch. It's just a matter of time before another 120 jobs are demanded.

Unfortunately,the wrong people are being fired.

newdealer

Ross - You really need to do some research before going on a rant about the "liberal press." If you get a copy of the Editor & Publisher Yearbook, you'll find the thousands of U.S. newspapers and newspaper groups, both daily and weekly, tend to be primarily moderate to moderate-Republican, not liberal, or even Democratic, if you actually know the difference.

The reason that newspapers are in decline is not their politics but because they are, essentially, obsolete technology. Reading newspapers on line provides far more timely news than waiting for a print version to arrive at your door. We are in a technology transition.

If you don't like the KC Star, start your own rightwing newspaper and quit whinning about liberal bias in the media.

I pretty much disagree with what you wrote, but will say that newspapers are too far behind other media outlets to really make a difference.

I can read a story in the NY Times online today, read commentary on various blogs about that article over the next 24 hours, yet The Star will wait three days to reprint the story in their dead tree version. And I wonder why I still subscribe.

Look at this attempt at a blog, run by the Star. Most blog owners will engage and discuss their posts with their readers--here, post and run. Ross, you spend more time with readers here in an unpaid capacity than those getting paid to post by the Star. Very telling and very sad.

And yes, the Star will be endorsing Obama--bank on it. Funny how they endorsed Clinton and then spend the last couple of months of the primary season trashing her.

My god, can Balano view the world through anything other than his right-wing extremist perspective?

Newspapers are downsizing and losing jobs not through some fanciful "partisan slant," but simply because folks are getting their information through other media. We've got scads of cable news shows, news is freely available on the internet -- not just through corporate media websites, but also through blog sites where the ultimate in democratization occurs, as anyone can report on what's going on.

I do wish that, rather than attempt to balance so-called "liberal" views on this Midwest Voices column site with so-called "conservative" views, the Star had instead awarded columns to folks on the basis of ability. Balano's naked partisanship is far from an adequate substitute for basic competence in articulating a thoughtful and thought-provoking position.

It is amusing, however, to note that the entire thrust of Balano's evidence for the alleged partisan slant of newspapers is simply that they do not parrot his own right-wing leanings.