Do conservatives hold 'an unmistakable advantage' on the op-ed pages?
This week's column.
On one basic premise, Media Matters and I agree: Leonard Pitts Jr. is a very popular columnist with a broad and faithful audience.
Pitts draws full houses when he comes to Greensboro and his following crosses racial and ideological lines.
His column following the terrorist attacks of 9/11 evoked one of the most positive and sustained responses from readers I've ever seen.
What's more, he's a genuinely nice guy who's conversant on everything from comic books and P-Funk to religion and global politics. He doesn't huff and puff with self-importance, despite that Pulitzer Prize on his mantle.
If I wanted to cause a reader insurrection in Greensboro, all I'd need to do is yank either Pitts or Thomas Friedman from the paper. I'd have to leave town. Fast.
So, I buy it when Media Matters cites Pitts as the second-most popular syndicated columnist in North Carolina (George Will ranked first).
But the liberal media watchdog's broader pronouncement about the conservative leanings of daily op-ed pages is a harder sell — not so much because it's wrong but because it's wrongheaded.
Following a sweeping analysis of who runs what, how often, Media Matters confidently pronounces that "conservatives have a clear and unmistakable advantage" in frequency and sheer numbers.
"In short, just as in so many other areas of the media," the report adds, "the right has the upper hand."
Whoa, hoss.
I won't speak for anyone else, but since the News & Record's op-ed, or Second Opinion, pages are included in the analysis of 1,377 newspapers across the country, I will speak for my own section.
Media Matters ranks the News & Record's op-ed pages as the 10th-most conservative in North Carolina among the 44 daily newspapers surveyed in the state. The News & Record rated higher in percentage of conservative op-ed columnists (50 percent) among all the larger papers in the state, including Charlotte (46 percent), Raleigh (44 percent) and Winston-Salem (42 percent).
According to Media Matters, the News & Record runs only 38 percent "progressive" (another word for liberal) syndicated columnists.
I'm not sure how much this means, except to confirm that the News & Record strives for balance. Our op-ed pages contain lots of conservatives by design, to counter the more moderate (some say liberal) positions in our house editorials.
But the study contains several flaws, including whom it classifies as what. For example, I've always considered John Hood of the John Locke Foundation in Raleigh as conservative (for what that's worth). Media Matters says he's centrist.
For the record, Hood agrees with me. "By their definition," he says, "they should have classified me as conservative."
Then again, Hood wonders why he's in the survey at all since he's not nationally syndicated. "I shouldn't have even been included," he says.
Further, Media Matters totally ignores editorial cartoons. It dismisses the presence of "Doonesbury," with its clear liberal bent, on ours, and others', daily op-ed pages.
It also removes local columnists from the equation, although I doubt any of our readers would mistake Rosemary Roberts as a conservative or Charles Davenport Jr. as a liberal.
Most important, Media Matters fails to view opinion pages as whole entities. How can it evaluate op-ed pages without taking into consideration as well the position of the main editorial pages?
Op-ed pages are supposed to complement the main editorial pages. That's where the "op" comes in ... it not only denotes the physical location of the op-ed pages but their role as a place for other views, especially dissenting opinions.
Beyond all that, simple labels can be shallow and deceiving.
As I see it, most of our readers simply like being challenged by other views. The biggest compliment you can pay an opinion writer is not that she necessarily changed your mind.
But that she made you think.
According to Media Matters, the News & Record runs only 38 percent "progressive" (another word for liberal) syndicated columnists.
I'm not sure how much this means, except to confirm that the News & Record strives for balance. Our op-ed pages contain lots of conservatives by design, to counter the more moderate (some say liberal) positions in our house editorials.
But the study contains several flaws, including whom it classifies as what. For example, I've always considered John Hood of the John Locke Foundation in Raleigh as conservative (for what that's worth). Media Matters says he's centrist.
For the record, Hood agrees with me. "By their definition," he says, "they should have classified me as conservative."
Then again, Hood wonders why he's in the survey at all since he's not nationally syndicated. "I shouldn't have even been included," he says.
Further, Media Matters totally ignores editorial cartoons. It dismisses the presence of "Doonesbury," with its clear liberal bent, on ours, and others', daily op-ed pages.
It also removes local columnists from the equation, although I doubt any of our readers would mistake Rosemary Roberts as a conservative or Charles Davenport Jr. as a liberal.
Most important, Media Matters fails to view opinion pages as whole entities. How can it evaluate op-ed pages without taking into consideration as well the position of the main editorial pages?
Op-ed pages are supposed to complement the main editorial pages. That's where the "op" comes in ... it not only denotes the physical location of the op-ed pages but their role as a place for other views, especially dissenting opinions.
Beyond all that, simple labels can be shallow and deceiving.
As I see it, most of our readers simply like being challenged by other views. The biggest compliment you can pay an opinion writer is not that she necessarily changed your mind.
But that she made you think.
Comments (18)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Allen, you lost me when you said, "'progressive' (another word for liberal)." Perhaps you want to read a little bit about it first. As someone who's not shy about calling herself a liberal (in the real sense of what the word means and not the derision-implied meaning that some folks use), there is an actual meaning of progressive that is developing.
The word "liberal" is fraught with meaning that has been media-hyped by those who want to consider themselves conservatives (but spend too much money and create too big a government to earn the moniker). When you juxtapose liberal with progressive as the same thing, you do the latter a disservice. The definition (which is probably less important than are the actions of those who call themselves progressives) is still developing and it's simply inaccurate to say "liberal" and "progressive" are identical. We're watching the birth of a new political and social philosophy. I'd give it a chance to coalesce.
(Awaiting the anticipated storm of anti-progressive, anti-liberal ranting...hope I'm wrong and conversation can ensue instead.)
Posted on September 30, 2007 5:27 PM
Sue:
I'd be interested to check out the evolving detinition you refer to.
In the meantime, you may be blaming the wrong person for the reference to "progressive" columnists in my column.
Media Matters obviously uses the term as a catch-all surrogate for "liberal."
There is no category for liberal columnists in its study of op-ed pages, Only "conservatives," "progressives" and "centrists."
Posted on September 30, 2007 5:44 PM
One thing you have right on the money your in house folks are flaming liberals.
Things I did not see this week was the F%%% Bush headlines in the CU paper.
And the happy Negro that was stated on CNN (Clinton News Network) if Ann Coulter had said these things Doug Clark glasses would have steamed up. I have read your paper for 40 years and I have never read one bad word about the good ole boys in Raleigh. Even Black got a free ride until the Tibet weekly carried a story on Black. And Jeri Rowe went bottom fishing as low as you can go, with the Jena six, they where only kicking him in the head with sneakers.Wonder if he would like to get kicked in the head with only sneakers? I screwed up, and I am not going back. (Tee Times you know) If Ann Coulter had said F%%% Bush, she would have become a hero to the NR. I pray for your liberal paper and you pray for my #### putting. Both of us need help!
Posted on October 1, 2007 5:44 AM
Doug:
We were among the first newspapers in the state to call for Black's resignation.
All of the other examples you mention are News calls. News and Editorial are separate and independent of one another at the News & Record.
Which editorials do you take issue with? And why?
Posted on October 1, 2007 8:58 AM
"Progressive" is simply damage control for liberals. It's advertising. Since "liberal" naturally attracted negative connotations, liberals naturally wanted a better title. And what better than "progressive," since who would want to be a "regressive"?
In time, however, negative connotations will inevitably attach themselves to "progressive" (because self-styled "progressives" tend to be obnoxious and unpatriotic, like that Michael Moore guy) and they'll be looking for a new, more euphemistic name. "Conservative," however, will continue to be used by even those who aren't conservative--"compassionate" conservatives, nanny-state Republicans--because, after all, all the world loves a conservative.
Posted on October 1, 2007 12:52 PM
These labels tend to be convenient shorthand for name-calling and politicking anyway.
They're lazy and overly simplistic.
Posted on October 1, 2007 1:14 PM
These labels tend to be convenient shorthand for name-calling and politicking anyway.
They're lazy and overly simplistic.
Posted on October 1, 2007 1:14 PM
These labels tend to be convenient shorthand for name-calling and politicking anyway.
They're lazy and overly simplistic.
Posted on October 1, 2007 1:14 PM
These labels tend to be convenient shorthand for name-calling and politicking anyway.
They're lazy and overly simplistic.
Posted on October 1, 2007 1:15 PM
Jeez, Allen, you're no better at this software than I am (that was me above). Laziness and excessive simplicity aside, the labels function in retail politics as any other brand does in the retail market. Smart politicians will want to brand themselves shrewdly ("I'm no liberal, I'm a Progressive!") because labels attract votes. I may not know whether Coke is really better than Pepsi (or what, in fact, differentiates them), but I know I'm a loyal Coke man (because it's the Real Thing) and would never vote for Pepsi, even new and improved Pepsi. Even Pepsi with a killer $400 haircut.
Of course, we could hope for informed voters who will make decisions based on a critical examination of the candidates' positions, blah, blah, blah, but we know how much good that would do.
Posted on October 1, 2007 1:32 PM
Brian:
Agreed. But there ought to be at least some truth in advertising. For instance, how can the president even begin to call himself conservative?
Posted on October 1, 2007 2:33 PM
I don't think most people think of the N&R as liberal or conservative more than think of you as simply "not there". When the only hard-hitting, incisive, critiical writing about local politics is being done by a local real-estate weekly, it almost becomes irrelevant.
Posted on October 1, 2007 3:21 PM
Savage:
So, I assume you'll relegate your comments to that weekly's blogs?
Posted on October 1, 2007 3:35 PM
Gee...Sorry, Allen
The N&R is great. Keep up the good work.
Posted on October 1, 2007 4:33 PM
Hey Allen,
What do you think about Barney's girl moving back to Mayberry?
Posted on October 1, 2007 4:35 PM
Savage:
I couldn't resist. You threw me a hanging curve.
.
Posted on October 1, 2007 7:04 PM
On Thelma Lou coming "home" to Mount Airy, I am thrilled.
It's a good thing she married Barney, finally, before he went off to that great Mayberry courthouse in the sky.
Posted on October 1, 2007 7:07 PM
Yeah, there's no way this president can call himself a conservative. That's why he added the compassionate part. Hopefully, the next Republican candidate will excise the compassion and return to classic conservative principles.
But I would be interested to have the city council candidates attempt to describe themselves using such terms. Their self-descriptions in the paper are so indistinguishable, so bland, so trite that it's refreshing to come across even something like "pro-business" that gives you SOME point of reference. If you went merely by how they described themselves, you'd have no idea whom to vote for, even if you were a pure ideologue.
Posted on October 2, 2007 11:53 AM