Just scanning the blogs and news (note that it’s interesting that in the last year, I’ve reversed the order), and noticed an interesting thing that no one else seems to have picked up on yet.
In the well-blogged NY Times interview with econometrician Ray Fair, reporter Deborah Soloman makes the following statement:
But in the process you are shaping opinion. Predictions can be self-confirming, because wishy-washy voters might go with the candidate who is perceived to be more successful.
Which pretty much sums up my problem with the less-than open journalism that we’re seeing these days.
To be sure, to partisans on each side, it feels like their ox is the one gored. But to me, as someone with a basically Democratic bent but who hasn’t yet drunk the Kool-Aid and signed on, it sure looks like they’re shaping opinion right and left, and doing it in the interest of the Kerry/Edwards campaign.
Doing this, not only are they doing no favors for the polity we’re all a part of, but they’re doing Kerry and the Democrats no favors either.
Slate’s search engine sucks, and so I can’t find the stories in Kaus’ archives about the overconfident Gray Davis and the way that the partisan, opinion-shaping coverage (led by the L.A. Times) of the recall election hung him out like a Chinatown duck.
If I’m correct, the media aren’t doing Kerry any favors either.
People keep consistently getting bent out of shape by the Solomon slot in the Magazine without noticing that she is not acting as a “NY Times reporter” in the normal sense in writing that slot; it’s deliberately intended to be a subjective, provocative, in-your-face piece of opinionation-as-question. To take umbrage at it without taking note of that is ridiculous.
That said, I think it’s an idiotic feature, and quite obnoxious and pointless, and should be dropped. But it’s still ludicrous to point to it as representative of “the NY Times” or “the media” or anything other than what it is. (As well, the Magazine is a separate publication from the newspaper, something a great many people seem to be completely blind to (so is the Book Review.)
You weren’t doing this, Marc, but I thought I’d take the opportunity to note this here, since I’m pretty tired of seeing Solomon’s slot in the Magazine denounced as representative of the newspaper’s SOP.
Took Ray Fair’s macro class in college. That man has all the charm of a wall and a can of paint. And his model is a fantastic predictor of past electoral results. Last year he predicted that Reagan won in 1980, so he’s pretty much on the money.
Quantum theory of journalism. You cant observe something without affecting it.
it sure looks like they’re shaping opinion right and left, and doing it in the interest of the Kerry/Edwards campaign.
I really disagree with that A.L. I think they stopped “shaping opinion” quite some time ago. They provide a nice warm security blanket for those disposed to the Democrat party but your cite of the unlamented Davis is fair evidence of just how little impact they have. One might examine pre-election coverage in ’02 also. The post-election “surprise” articles were risible in their explanations of why the MSM CW didn’t function terribly well.
After this election the MSM business managers may want to reflect on the advisability of retaining editors who are proving quite effective in reducing readership/viewership. Or not. After all, the dinosaurs didn’t become extinct overnight.
After this election the MSM business managers may want to reflect on the advisability of retaining editors who are proving quite effective in reducing readership/viewership.
In relation to the NYT you’d have to explain why their circulation has increased and their website is #1 for news, among bloggers as well as the general public.
Praktike – on the first: they obviously Enroned the numbers. 🙂
On the second, how did you conclude it was #1? Is there a site that tracks news sites?
Praktike,
You are of course, correct in your assertion that circulation has increased. I’m having a hard time figuring out what ‘other’ from this “table”:http://www.nytco.com/investors-nyt-circulation.html might mean. Because if you note the extraordinary jump in the ‘other’ category and combine it with the series of 50% off offers that the Times has been making and then note the drop in actual subscriptions and single copy sales, well, I just don’t see a rosy glow of health on the old ladies cheeks.
So, do you recommend the Times as a definite buy today? It seems to be hitting a new yearly low every day so it’s hard to know.
Hmmm. That is odd. I guess it hinges on what “other” means, eh.
But the case against the Washington Post is far stronger.
Oscar-
Here you go.
btw, Rick-
It looks from this like they’re squeezing every last drop out of their offline empire while figuring out new ways to make a buck online.
praktike,
They sure need to, at current income growth rates it looks like they won’t get back to 2000 level earnings until 2020.
btw, what does Ray Fair’s charm have to do with his predictions? He’s laid them out for all to see and time will prove him right or wrong. What purpose does denigrating his personality serve?
None, just a personal observation. He’s a nice guy. But his class was super-boring.
the media always over blows this junk. i remember in the cali recall they had bustamante beating arnold. then it was a landslide. i’m predicting the same thing, the media couldn’t stand to report that their candidate get generate any enthusiasm.
The Gray Davis cocooning was real, I suppose, but this doesn’t feel that way. Instead, it’s a very close race, much like 2000. (Note that Fox News doesn’t have polls putting Bush well in the lead, and by your formula they should be skewing them that way.)
If, indeed, the reporting of a slight Kerry lead _does_ help slightly, then it could push him over the line. And really does do the party a favor.
“This was a good series of articles about the media’s role in the Presidential Elections.”:http://www.brookings.edu/GS/Projects/HessReport/week1.htm
After measuring the amount of time devoted to campaign news, we will measure the length of the stories. This column’s bias: More is better, and longer is best. Short pieces are just headlines; more time allows context as well as information. The bad news in 1996 was that the decline was most severe in long stories. While the number of stories under 2 minutes dropped 25% from 1992, the number of stories longer than that dropped 67%.
Turn next to content and divide all stories into two categories, horse race and substance. Horse race stories focus on who’s ahead, who’s behind, strategies, polling and advertising. Substance stories are about issues and candidates’ qualifications for office. Horse race stories are more fun. Substance stories are more important.
It’s the balance between horse race and substance that determines whether we as voters are getting what we need to know.
When Bill Clinton ran against President Bush in 1992, 55% of the commercial networks’ stories were about the horse race. Four years later, when President Clinton ran against Bob Dole, horse race stories dropped to 48%. The tighter the contest, the more the reporting is on the horse race.
Regarding:
_Slate’s search engine sucks, and so I can’t find the stories in Kaus’ archives about the overconfident Gray Davis and the way that the partisan, opinion-shaping coverage (led by the L.A. Times) of the recall election hung him out like a Chinatown duck._
I made a simple search tool using Google’s site search feature that works pretty well for me. You are more that welcome to use it.
“SBD SiteSearch”:http://69.44.60.22/sitesearch.html
Let me know if it works for you and if you want, I will send you the code.
SBD
This was covered on LGF yesterday. – just an FYI as you stated it was missed by the blogs.
praktike – thanks for the link.
i wonder if anyone noticed the stonewalling by new times and white house on the valerie plame case could be due to the fact that it was an act of treason and when they exposed her they also exposed every other front and agent she worked with? this was a very serious incident and but a monkey wrench in the war on terror in the middle east.
mary,
The Plame story would move faster if the reporters at the NYT stopped stonewalling and started answering questions.
My guess is that they aren’t answering because it might hurt the Dems. i.e. a Dem. leaked the information.
Rumor has it that in the news business every one knows who the leaker is and so does the government. But rumor is not evidence.
If I’m not mistaken the prosecutor in the case has gone after corrupt Republicans independent of the local party. So I think a government cover-up unlikely.
================================================================
What is the difference between Walter Mitty and John Kerry? Walter Mitty was totally fictional.
What is the War Hero Afraid of?
Form 180. Release ALL the records.
My guess is that they aren’t answering because it might hurt the Dems. i.e. a Dem. leaked the information.
Unlikely. If there were even a whiff of that to be found, the White House would be all over it like white on rice, there’d be enormous pressure on anyone within GOP influence to spill, and you’d be hearing semi-daily remarks from Scott McClellan about the Democrats obstructing the investigation–which they would undoubtedly be doing their best to do.
The facts would tend to support this being someone either in the White House or familiar to Bush or Cheney.