News-Record.com

'Sorry if I ticked you off. I knew my argument had holes from the outset.

You didn't tick me off. I heard you.

good post, JR.

(1) You should read this again and think about your Counterpoint columns, which, so far as I can tell, have no standards whatsoever. The last one, for example, claimed that Gaza was held by fascist Israelis, when of course they withdrew a while back. Question: what are your standards for these columns? Is any evidence required for assertions made there? (Obviously there are none for the letters to the editor, which frequently make factual errors.)

(2) Your repeated talking point about "blanket condemnations of the liberal media" fails to take into consideration numerous serious books and studies of precisely that topic. Start with Bernard Goldberg. I've personally written at least two detailed critiques of what I claimed to be liberal bias in N&R stories, with no response. Obviously, you're not obligated to respond, but I suggest that you're the one with the blanket critique problem when it comes to media bias. Your blanket statement is that it's a right-wing conspiracy theory, and that overwhelmingly liberal journalists do not bring bias to bear on the news.

(3) As a follow-up to the Rhino/Klan thing, some capitalist stooge wrapped my paper in propaganda for Quaker Oats this morning.

Brian:

(1) I have nothing to do with the selection or editing of the Counterpoint columns. Perhaps Allen will address that.

(2) I've either forgotten about or not seen your detailed critiques of our liberal bias. Feel free to send me to them. I don't believe I have ever before written "blanket condemnation of the liberal news media" before this post, and I don't I have ever referenced a vast right-wing conspiracy.

(3) I guess you could sue.

Shouldn't that have been

"Scarcely a day goes by without one of us writing something ill-considered about blogging"

or

"Scarcely a day goes by when one of us does not write something ill-considered about blogging"?

Should I sue you guys or Quaker Oats?

If you look at your past statements on accusations of liberal bias--and there are several in your archives--you'll find you almost always blow such accusations off in a generic fashion and often in an uncharacteristically slippery fashion, as when Samuel Spagnola manuevers into a corner and you say, what corner?

Here are a few posts of mine quickly culled from your archives on (1) the T&R headline (you say: what bias? it could mean anything. I say not. (2) your offer of a "truce" where you may be conceding liberal bias (3) a few specific stories regarding the Duke rape case, a Mexican mother, and a Mexican martyr.

Seriously, I've always understood it. (I think you can make the case that the word finally is, in fact, accurate, given the council's reluctance to tackle the report.)
All that said, I'm just not sure what editorial position the word "finally" represents. It can be taken several ways.
Posted by: John Robinson at July 26, 2006 12:23 PM

Cathy Frail: "(In fact, the story credits Signe Waller, widow of a slain protester and former CWP leader, for "finally talking about the report.") It's hard to read the story without thinking exactly what the headline writer did."
Waller doesn't say "finally" at all. She credits the Council for talking about the report, no correct time frame stated or implied. I read the story and don't think at all what the headline writer did, and it wasn't hard at all.

John, are you really, really, truly unsure what editorial position "finally" takes? (Your mock-puzzlement doesn't convince me.) Maybe it can be "taken several ways." But so can aspirin. One way is that you can grind it up, mix it with castor oil, and spread it in a fine paste on your eyelids. But almost everyone takes it orally with a sip of water.

Similarly, almost everyone would take this headline to mean, "What took you so long, bozos?" It flows naturally from the breathless quality of the prose--This (this!!) from the same group that declined to endorse the commission fifteen years ago!!--when arguably the council's time frame emerged from a responsible decision to wait until the report was published before endorsing the project or not. Apparently your headline writer wishes they had done something else.
Perhaps you will recognize the editorializing in this (hypothetical) headline:
NEWS AND RECORD STILL PEPPERING THE FRONT PAGE WITH INCREASINGLY UNNEWSWORTHY T&R FILLER
OK, that's too easy, so let's drop the last part: "N&R STILL COVERING T&R." The "still" editorializes that this story is a dead horse beating beaten, apparently in perpetuity. It implies a "proper" time frame that apparently you disagree with. It suggests that your time would be better spent elsewhere. It's also literally and factually true. You are still (STILL!) covering every occasion on which two or more are gathered in the name of truth and reconciliation.
Posted by john robinson at July 25, 2006 05:55 PM
Comments

Seriously, I've always understood it. (I think you can make the case that the word finally is, in fact, accurate, given the council's reluctance to tackle the report.)
All that said, I'm just not sure what editorial position the word "finally" represents. It can be taken several ways.
Posted by: John Robinson at July 26, 2006 12:23 PM

Your mock headline could also mean that the newspaper continues to write about an issue of importance and significance. And that's my point. It can be interpreted different ways based on your perspective.
What I meant by the council headline is that yes, the council finally took up the report -- the bozos is your editorial addendum, not ours -- but what's the "editorial position?" That it's a great thing the council is considering it or a bad thing? Did the council discuss the right thing or the wrong thing? The word "finally" conveys an attitude -- I watched the meeting in which they talked about talking about the report; they were clearly reluctant -- but if there is an "editorial" position in it, it's insignificant. So the council dragged its feet in talking about the report? OK, the mayor thinks that's a big deal. I don't.
That's why Cathy says that we could have made the point without the word, and she's right. I just don't think the headline itself is wrong.
Posted by: John Robinson at July 26, 2006 08:43 PM

The editorial position is pretty clearly that the council is doing a good thing by finally "joining the dialogue," which they should have done sooner. Like the mayor, I can't see any other way to read it.
JR: "The word "finally" conveys an attitude -- I watched the meeting in which they talked about talking about the report; they were clearly reluctant -- but if there is an "editorial" position in it, it's insignificant. So the council dragged its feet in talking about the report? OK, the mayor thinks that's a big deal. I don't."
Which attitude is "finally" conveying? The council's (that they didn't really want to talk about it) or yours (that the "council dragged its feet")? I'd say the latter, but I can see your point. In any event, your sense of the council's reluctance at this meeting is pretty firmly suppressed in the story, which turns on a "breath of fresh air," once-was-blind-now-can-see, "can ya believe it?" structure to suggest a departure from past practices. Sure, the council is saying the same things (buried late in the story), but the main story is NOW THEY'RE TALKING, FINALLY.
The headline, the article, and your comments all suggest that the council SHOULD have talked about it sooner, and that not doing so constitutes foot-dragging. That you so effortlessly generate the foot-dragging analogy in declaring it not a big deal simply reproduces the bias already operative in "finally"--namely, that the delay is unjustified. That's a value judgment best left to the editorial page, IMO.
If you wanted a neutral version of my headline, it would be "N&R Continues to Cover T&R." That eliminates the clear implication of "Still." The pro-coverage version would be "N&R Perseveres in Covering N&R." They're all "accurate," but your implication is that language isn't really that important, since interpretation is purely subjective. Probably you are a literary deconstructionist, no?
Next, you'll be saying that "foot-dragging" could also be interpreted to mean a thoughtful delay. :)
Brian444

2001 study of medical residents found that 84 percent thought that their colleagues were influenced by gifts from pharmaceutical companies, but only 16 percent thought that they were similarly influenced. Dozens of studies have shown that when people try to overcome their judgmental biases -- for example, when they are given information and told not to let it influence their judgment -- they simply can't comply, even when money is at stake.
And yet, if decision-makers are more biased than they realize, they are less biased than the rest of us suspect. Research shows that while people underestimate the influence of self-interest on their own judgments and decisions, they overestimate its influence on others.
Can we make a deal? I'll accept the possibility that what we're accused of could be true sometimes, if you accept the possibility that we're not as bad as you think?
Posted by john robinson at April 16, 2006 03:35 PM
Comments
Your editorial department may have nothing to do with your news department, but that doesn't mean your news department doesn't editorialize. Your logic is designed to get someone to chase the wrong rabbit.
I'll take your deal because it is likely the only admission I'll ever get that liberal bias occasionally invades your news division. Still, your deal is probably not a wise decision to offer as the news editor- "So maybe do have a liberal bias sometimes, but it's not changing anyone's opinion so what difference does it make?"
What if I reject your offer because of the second premise that it's not that bad. Does that mean your admission is no longer valid? If it is conditional, then you aren't really interested in the truth, because truth is not conditional.
Posted by: Samuel Spagnola at April 17, 2006 03:34 PM

If you reject the second premise, are you proof of the results of the Princeton study? Because you think we have a terrible bias doesn't necessarily mean that we do.
Posted by: John Robinson at April 17, 2006 03:59 PM

The quotes were a paraphrase of what I understood your comments to read, should have been "i.e." I;m not saying I reject the second premise. I am suggesting that by even offering the deal, you are making an admission of sorts, and that admission should not be conditioned on the second premise. Either bias leaks into your stories or it does not.
I will concede that in some cases, a biased story may not have much impact on anyones opinion about that particular subject, however, as a whole I do believe it does influence people. For example, i believe your papers obsession with race does leave the impression over time that this area is a racist hotbed. That may not even be a left/right issue, but there is no doubt that your paper has a point of view that is invasive in your news coverage.
Posted by: Samuel Spagnola at April 17, 2006 08:19 PM

Sure, I'll take the deal, since it responds precisely to the actual state of affairs: a slight liberal bias influencing the selection
and writing of news. It's not oppressive, but it's there. No matter the level of professionalism, bias finds its way into language. It's inevitable, and since the vast majority of journalists are liberal, the bias is liberal.

If I killed myself and my wife blamed it on Mexican immigration, there would be no article about my "martyrdom" in the paper because that story doesn't resonate with a liberal worldview. When Margaret Moffit Banks writes a story about a welfare mom (oops, there's my conservative bias influencing language) who can't find the housing she prefers, there's a subtle liberal bias at work: she doesn't ask, for example, whether federal resources _are_ actually being reduced, as someone tells her. I would research the question because I see discretionary spending exploding under Bush; as a liberal passively committed to the Republicans-cut-social-spending meme, Banks simply repeats the claim and moves on. Every article she writes shows a slight and subtle liberal bias--I'd bet my house she voted for Kerry. But overall, she's a solid reporter. With a Stan Swofford, say, one approaches a more rigorously neutral journalism--I'd pick him for an old-style yellowdog Democrat, but I wouldn't bet anything on it, and I couldn't document bias except in the vaguest, most impressionist way.
What drives conservatives nuts is the media's insistence that it is strictly neutral. It's no more true of the NY Times than it is of Fox news.
Posted by: brian444 at April 18, 2006 03:00 AM
Samuel, can you tell me what it was that I wrote in that post that made you conclude that what I actually meant was, "So maybe do have a liberal bias sometimes, but it's not changing anyone's opinion so what difference does it make?"
I agree with you that one part of the deal isn't predicated on the other. I was trying to make the point that we may not being the only party bringing biases to the table.
Posted by: John Robinson at April 18, 2006 08:20 AM
You said "I'll accept the possibility that what we're accused of could be true sometimes". Your first paragraph explained that you have been accused of bias. Therefore, if you accept the possibility that it could be true, you are saying "maybe we do have a liberal bias sometimes"
On part two, your story was essentially that the influence of bias on people was not as great as people who point out bias believe. Hence, the second part of my manufactured quote. If I'm missing some connection, or misread the point of your article, please clarify it.
Also note that Brian444 stated exactly what I have been saying forever- that is that it is not the actual bias that is so annoying, but the refusal to admit it exists. I also find it interesting that you concede most of your critics accuse you of a liberal bias instead of a conservative one- shouldn't that tell you something?
Posted by: Samuel S. Spagnola at April 18, 2006 06:07 PM

I got the first part, but I'm confused by the second part. I don't read that article -- and I'm not saying -- that it translates into it not making any difference. The lesson, though, might be not to put words into another's mouth.
I appreciate that you and Brian are saying that you want me to cede a liberal bias. Rather than making broad-brush statements, it is more helpful to provide specific examples of where that bias exists in the newspaper, outside the editorial pages. Those would help us improve.
Posted by: john robinson at April 18, 2006 06:15 PM
Hey, I've posted specifically on three different "straight" news stories in the past week that I've claimed show liberal bias.
(1) The article on the Mexican-American "martyr"
(2) Banks's article on the "welfare mom" and housing
(3) The "white men sexually objectify black women" article
Who's "broad brushing"? Pick one and I'll be happy to argue the point further.
Posted by: brian444 at April 19, 2006 12:48 AM
Here’s a fourth: the article on the immigrant mother in yesterday’s
A 2001 study of medical residents found that 84 percent thought that their colleagues were influenced by gifts from pharmaceutical companies, but only 16 percent thought that they were similarly influenced. Dozens of studies have shown that when people try to overcome their judgmental biases -- for example, when they are given information and told not to let it influence their judgment -- they simply can't comply, even when money is at stake.
And yet, if decision-makers are more biased than they realize, they are less biased than the rest of us suspect. Research shows that while people underestimate the influence of self-interest on their own judgments and decisions, they overestimate its influence on others.
Can we make a deal? I'll accept the possibility that what we're accused of could be true sometimes, if you accept the possibility that we're not as bad as you think?
Posted by john robinson at April 16, 2006 03:35 PM
Comments
Your editorial department may have nothing to do with your news department, but that doesn't mean your news department doesn't editorialize. Your logic is designed to get someone to chase the wrong rabbit.
I'll take your deal because it is likely the only admission I'll ever get that liberal bias occasionally invades your news division. Still, your deal is probably not a wise decision to offer as the news editor- "So maybe do have a liberal bias sometimes, but it's not changing anyone's opinion so what difference does it make?"
What if I reject your offer because of the second premise that it's not that bad. Does that mean your admission is no longer valid? If it is conditional, then you aren't really interested in the truth, because truth is not conditional.
Posted by: Samuel Spagnola at April 17, 2006 03:34 PM
I'm not sure who made the quote in your comment, Sam, but I want to make sure everyone knows that it wasn't me.
If you reject the second premise, are you proof of the results of the Princeton study? Because you think we have a terrible bias doesn't necessarily mean that we do.
Posted by: John Robinson at April 17, 2006 03:59 PM
stories or it does not.
I will concede that in some cases, a biased story may not have much impact on anyones opinion about that particular subject, however, as a whole I do believe it does influence people. For example, i believe your papers obsession with race does leave the impression over time that this area is a racist hotbed. That may not even be a left/right issue, but there is no doubt that your paper has a point of view that is invasive in your news coverage.
Posted by: Samuel Spagnola at April 17, 2006 08:19 PM
That should be "pervasive", not "invasive" although invasive is also an accurate description.
Posted by: Samuel Spagnola at April 17, 2006 08:22 PM

Sure, I'll take the deal, since it responds precisely to the actual state of affairs: a slight liberal bias influencing the selection
and writing of news. It's not oppressive, but it's there. No matter the level of professionalism, bias finds its way into language. It's inevitable, and since the vast majority of journalists are liberal, the bias is liberal.
If I killed myself and my wife blamed it on Mexican immigration, there would be no article about my "martyrdom" in the paper because that story doesn't resonate with a liberal worldview. When Margaret Moffit Banks writes a story about a welfare mom (oops, there's my conservative bias influencing language) who can't find the housing she prefers, there's a subtle liberal bias at work: she doesn't ask, for example, whether federal resources _are_ actually being reduced, as someone tells her. I would research the question because I see discretionary spending exploding under Bush; as a liberal passively committed to the Republicans-cut-social-spending meme, Banks simply repeats the claim and moves on. Every article she writes shows a slight and subtle liberal bias--I'd bet my house she voted for Kerry. But overall, she's a solid reporter. With a Stan Swofford, say, one approaches a more rigorously neutral journalism--I'd pick him for an old-style yellowdog Democrat, but I wouldn't bet anything on it, and I couldn't document bias except in the vaguest, most impressionist way.
What drives conservatives nuts is the media's insistence that it is strictly neutral. It's no more true of the NY Times than it is of Fox news.
Posted by: brian444 at April 18, 2006 03:00 AM

Hey, I've posted specifically on three different "straight" news stories in the past week that I've claimed show liberal bias.
(1) The article on the Mexican-American "martyr"
(2) Banks's article on the "welfare mom" and housing
(3) The "white men sexually objectify black women" article
Who's "broad brushing"? Pick one and I'll be happy to argue the point further.
Posted by: brian444 at April 19, 2006 12:48 AM

Here’s a fourth: the article on the immigrant mother in yesterday’s paper.
I contend that the story does not report objectively on a case in which an illegal immigrant (a term scrupulously avoided in the story) claims the right to remain in America based on the fact that her son and husband are American citizens. In numerous ways, the article skews toward the mother’s perspective and against the govt’s. More pointedly, it is biased toward the mother’s perspective, and in a way that can be fairly characterized as liberal—i.e. liberals are more likely to support the mother’s argument than are conservatives, who are more likely to support the deportation of illegal immigrants.
This article exemplifies a ubiquitous genre of liberal journalism: the victim story. The victim is almost always a victim of conservative political policy: welfare reform (“how will I feed my kids?”), free trade (“I lost my job to China and don’t know what to do”), medicare reform (“the govt’s paying $500 billion for my medicine and I can’t figure the darned form out”). The victim is almost never of liberal political policy: you will google in vain for “the Mexicans took my job” or “I went out of business because of the Americans with Disabilities act.” There are, similarly, few such stories about beneficiaries of conservative policy (“We’re selling tons of widgets to Mexico. Thanks, NAFTA!,” “I got kicked off welfare and did great. Thanks, Bill Clinton!”, “Cool, all my arthritis medicine is free now!”). My claim: as semi-soft news, these stories skew liberal.
One way that, generically speaking, they do is in the victims they select. That is true of this particular story. As it engages the question of the rights of illegal immigrants, it selects a tremendously sympathetic subject. We are reading about Myrna Dick, not Jose Lopez, the (purely hypothetical) illegal immigrant who killed two kids while driving drunk. Of the millions of illegal immigrants, Myrna Dick is, in today’s paper, their representative, a function Doris Meissner affirms explicitly in the story: MD and her family “illustrate” millions of people in the country today. If 65% of Americans believe that illegal immigrants should be deported (as some survey data suggests—based on wording, etc.), then this story will tend to persuade some of them otherwise. The story has, in other words, an agenda.
More specifically, this story is biased toward the mother’s perspective in these ways:
(1) The story emotionally attaches the reader to the victim—er, subject—
of the story to make an implicit argument against the govt’s policy. We begin as Myrna “cajoles” her son with “Spanish phrases.” And they’re not just Spanish, they’re “soft.” The mother loves her child. That’s where we begin, and we being there because the story wants to persuade us that the govt wants to “deny” mother and child this kind of connection, just as it once tried to deny Zachary the snugness of his cornflowered-colored jumpsuit and the suburban Eden invoked thereby. Bad govt!!! The story begins and ends with this mode of emotional appeal.
(2) Doris Meissner is “former INS Commissioner.” That’s pretty impressive, that a former govt official would argue against the govt’s position. But what does she do for a living now? Perchance is her paycheck coming from a group with vested interests in changing immigration laws to favor immigrants? Surely she’s not a lobbyist!! In fact she is. She works for Migration Policy Institute, a “non-partisan” think tank begun by Carnegie (liberal) that, judging from a brief scan of its web site, skews slightly center-left and advocates for migrants in a responsible way. That should be noted.
(3) “Everyone agrees that Myrna crossed the desert in 1998 to go to her grandmother’s funeral in Chihuahua, Mexico. She said smugglers led her and another woman through the sand for hours, where border agents found them on a deserted hill.” Although totally incoherent (where did she cross the desert from? Where was this agreed-upon deserted hill? In Mexico? What, precisely, are the facts that “everyone agrees” on? ), the incoherence serves an agenda: she’s a good granddaughter, and she didn’t—insofar as the grammar is concerned—illegally cross the border. She was “led” by smugglers—they, not her, are the agents of the sentence. She didn’t “pay smugglers to lead her across the border,” which sends a different message. Moreover, “she” gets to provide the account, not the govt. Language matters.
(4) When she is arrested, the account comes first from her attorney, who is allowed to say what she says she didn’t do. When the govt’s account is provided, she is parenthetically allowed to deny the accusation “(something she denies)”. Again, the writing subtly privileges her account, not the govt’s.
(5) The quotations are unbalanced. Carl Rusnock must wait until the 15th paragraph to provide the govt’s argument. On the other side, Meissner, Sumners, and Brady are allowed to speak (implicitly or explicitly) against it, and Meissner gets first crack.
(6) A “judge gave immigration officials the right to bar her from the US for life, separating her from her son, Zachary, and her American husband.” Not necessarily: the whole family could potentially move to Mexico. But the separation of mother and child is more dramatic and emotionally persuasive, reiterating the persistent theme of the govt’s callousness.
(7) She was “nauseous with morning sickness” as she was bused from a detention facility. More sympathy, although morning sickness has nothing to do with the policy at issue.
(8) She is an “evangelical Christian woman.” Take note, evangelical Christians and other right-wingers! True, there’s a rationale for this piece of info, but not much of one.
Conclusion: subtle liberal bias.
Posted by: brian444 at April 19, 2006 10:33 AM

"These reporters suffered from an unquenchable desire to know what the hell happened, what really fucking happened here -- why did it happen, when did it happen; who said what to whom and what was said in return . . ."

Ah, yes, for such reporters from the halcyon days of yore! Unlike those who penned the two articles in today's paper whose logic was "to hell with the facts, let's get to the symbolism."
Let's not worry that the facts are unclear in the Duke rape, nor that the woman in question is definitely a stripper and quite likely lying; instead, let's begin with black female graduate students who are sexually molested "every time they go out" by white men. Every single time? All of them? Do black men ever molest them? Any evidence for any of this? Fact checking? But let's not get bogged down by the facts, let's get to the symbolism of white men and their sexualized stereotypes of black women. Perhaps toss in a few complicating factors along the way. . . that BET offers the worst examples on TV, that there are "complexities" that muddle the gist of the story, that the incident driving the story has no hard facts associated with it . . . but not enough to seriously compromise the story, which doesn't need facts at all (and, in fact, has none).
And then there is the Mexican-American "martyr" who may have been just skipping school. If, in fact, he was, then the story isn't news: it's just another sad teen suicide. But no need to investigate: all the story requires is the symbolism of an idealistic young man beaten down by The Gringo. Feed the mythology. We're short on actual news today on the immigration debate front, so let's find a symbol. Let's not split hairs on his actual actions or the difference between a martyr and a suicide.
The decline of American journalism can be witnessed in the fact that these two articles pass as "news" nowadays.
Posted by: brian444 at April 16, 2006 01:33 AM

Here we are again, talking about liberal bias. I read through this and don't see myself blowing off comments or being particularly slippery. I see a lot of assumptions and putting words in my mouth.

You state in one of these comments that bias creeps into all stories, through word choice and story selection. I agree. Then you say that it's inherently a liberal bias because the majority of journalists are liberal. National surveys show that, it's true. I don't know of any such survey done in my shop.

You can find almost any interpretation of a story you like if you parse it the right way.

There comes a point of diminishing returns for me in debating this issue time and time again. I have no expectation or even desire of persuading you one way or the other. I hear your point. If that reads as a cop-out or blowing you off, then so be it.

Whew, Brian!!
I'll catch a ride on your train; Mr. Robinson and I've had exchanges about this subject before. Like you, I see the wording of headlines and subject material expressing liberal bias, though thinly veiled at times. I once joked to him that each of us could attend an event and write an article about it, and a reader could read both without realizing they were describing the same event.
One of the most flagrant offenders, Lex Alexander, adopts the defensive, wide-eyed "Who, me?" position when confronted with this. At least Mr. Robinson meets us halfway and acknowledges a general liberal bias in newsrooms.
But in Mr. Robinson's defense, I don't think we'll see changes in the liberal coverage of "news" by the N&R, so he's probably just better off not discussing it.

Brian444 you are my hero.

At last someone has culled all the pretzel logic and slick-talking to document the truth that goes on in these blogs.

Point of diminishing returns? Yes

Obligation to respond to detailed critiques? No

John's meeting conservatives, as Jaycee suggests, "halfway by acknowledging a general liberal bias in the newsroom"?

Maybe.
That's where I see the slipperyness. Look, I think Greensboro's lucky to have John as the editor of our paper. But on the question of media bias, I just don't know what his position is. Consider these words:

JR: "You [that is, me] state in one of these comments that bias creeps into all stories, through word choice and story selection. I agree. Then you say that it's inherently a liberal bias because the majority of journalists are liberal. National surveys show that, it's true. I don't know of any such survey done in my shop.

You can find almost any interpretation of a story you like if you parse it the right way."

Me again: Comment A seems to concede the possibility of liberal bias, although not its actuality (at least in this newsroom). But comment B seems to suppress the possibility of such bias by suggesting that bias is the eye of the interpreter. Moreover, on its own terms, comment B is evasive. True, interpretation is inflected by bias, which has nothing at all to do with the question at hand: whether writing is inflected by bias. If, as a conservative, I bring my biases to bear on how I read the news (I do), that does not mean that my claims of liberal bias in news reporting are merely the result of my interpretive bias. That's why I offer evidence supporting my assertions: in the hopes of persuading people with different biases that my interpretation has objective validity. If we can't have such conversations--that is, if language is infinitely interpretable--then the whole question of writerly bias is a moot point. Everyone will just interpret what they want regardless of how it's written. That, I suggest, is the slippery strategy John uses here: mooting the point of writerly bias by replacing it with the question of readerly bias.

In the above exchange with Samuel Spagnola, I see the same slipperyness: the tentative offer, and then the withdrawal, of a concession of "occasional" liberal bias.