« Health Care Mandates | Main | Not All Columns Are Equal »
September 12, 2007
Conservative Columnists
Another contributing factor in the puzzling overrepresentation of conservative columnists is that how "interesting" an opinion is largely depends on how much it diverges from yours. So a liberal op-ed editor may be quite hard on other liberals, who don't sound, to him, like they're saying anything new. Conversely, he could be quite easy on conservatives, because even their basic arguments are, to him, analytically fresh and innovative. This is also why you get a lot of "liberal" columnists who spend their time attacking liberal orthodoxes, because attacks on things you believe in, like Social Security, are also "interesting" insofar as they challenge your biases. It's worth remembering that Paul Krugman, peace be upon him, actually began his public intellectual life as a neoliberal economics commentator who spent a lot of time berating the left for clinging to outdated nostrums. He later became a hard-edged liberal commentator, but it's doubtful the New York Times would have hired him had he begun that way.
September 12, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
'Know your market' is another element. The readership of most local papers, I'd imagine, tends conservative (and older). Judging from the letters page and comment board of my local rag -- and that's another interesting study in sociology -- the most devoted readers get their daily wisdom from whichever of the many wingnuts is syndicated in the day's paper.
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Sep 12, 2007 12:31:39 AM
Oh God, it's true! The NYT never would have hired PK if they knew what they were getting! What an indictment.
(I majored in econ back in the early 1990s and loved PK back then. I always wanted my classes to be as interesting as his articles)
Posted by: chris | Sep 12, 2007 2:01:14 AM
It's a theory... but it sounds mostly anecdotal in the way you describe it - I'd have more confidence in it if someone went through the papers in major markets and tallied up who fell where on the spectrum (and then showed the calculations, because I suspect what one person calls a "conservative" commentator - or a "liberal" one - may differ somewhat). My sense from living in at least 5 different markets and reading fairly widely when traveling, is that a broad spectrum of views get presented... it's the uneveness of the writing that makes it hard to say who's better represented. As for Krugman, I can't say as I recall him being some sort of speaking truth to liberal power critic at some earlier point versus now; more than most papers, though, the Times seems to have a very specific set of "chairs" in the op-ed department, and a fairly narrow approach to recasting them (trying, for instance, to pass off Maureen Dowd as the heir to the "Anna Quindlen" slot when Dowd's feminism is far less established, or replacing Safire's "house conservative" slot with Brooks). I forget who Krugman replaced, but the way I remember it, the transition from one to the other wasn't especially jolting. As I said, though, I'd actually be curious to see someone make a full study of this, just to see what turns up.
Posted by: weboy | Sep 12, 2007 5:00:16 AM
Jonah Goldberg is, in someone's eyes, "analytically fresh and innovative" -- why is that someone employed as a newspaper editor.
And, why does it never occur to anyone at CNN that they should fire Glenn Beck, who is stupid, grossly offensive and watched by no one? And, MSNBC does not seem to be concerned to match Keith Olbermann's ratings, at least not concerned enough to replace Tucker Carlson.
I suspect that, if we had "ratings" for major newspaper columnists, more than a few on the Right would be revealed to have, limited audiences, as well as limited minds.
Posted by: Bruce Wilder | Sep 12, 2007 6:31:15 AM
"This is also why you get a lot of "liberal" columnists who spend their time attacking liberal orthodoxes, because attacks on things you believe in, like Social Security, are also "interesting" insofar as they challenge your biases."
No. You get a lot of "liberal" columnists who attack liberal orthodoxes [sic: you mean orthodoxies] because THEY'RE NOT REALLY LIBERALS.
The premise of your argument is that op-ed editors are liberals. Who are these liberal editors? What are their names? What papers do they work for? What are the politics of their publishers?
A more reasonable premise is that op-ed editors are not liberals, but they have a certain percentage of liberal readers, upon whom they fob off a few phony liberal columnists so the readership won't complain. An added plus is that if you're trying to persuade readers to abandon liberalism, phony liberal columnists who attack liberal principles is the way to go.
Look, I know you're only a blogger and you have no obligation to know what you're talking about, and here I am complaining about the free ice cream. But please, not every idea you have is worth setting down. Make an effort.
Posted by: Bloix | Sep 12, 2007 8:04:35 AM
"You get a lot of "liberal" columnists who attack liberal orthodoxes [sic: you mean orthodoxies] because THEY'RE NOT REALLY LIBERALS."
No, no, no, they're really liberals who are pretending to not be liberals in order to trick stupid newspaper editors to hire them so that they can reveal their true beliefs after they've become established and have a forum to spread the truth! Bwahahaha!
Posted by: George Tenet Fangirl | Sep 12, 2007 8:26:37 AM
No offense, but we're all a little sick of these overly complicated explanations. We all know what's going on, and it's a whole lot simpler than you make it out to be. I know your a journalist, and you don't like admitting how completely and utterly corrupt the media is in this country, but it's time to be honest.
Rich people own newspapers, usually as part of a large corporation. Rich people, and to a greater extent corporations, like conservatives ideas because conservative ideas are all about making rich people richer, while treating normal Americans as second class citizens.
Therefore, is it shocking that they would hire more conservative columnists? Gee, could that also be why fake liberal columnists only attack liberal ideas as well? Why yes. It could be.
Posted by: soullite | Sep 12, 2007 8:47:42 AM
George, they aren't 'tricking' anyone. Editors are overwhelmingly conservative people because Editors are there primarily to control the newsroom for the people who hire them. I know you all like pretending that that isn't the primary purpose, but any idiot can proofread.
Nobody is being 'tricked' but the consumer. there has clearly been a concerted movement to by the 5 big companies that own almost every media outlet to tilt that coverage in favor of conservative ideas. There's a reason why trust in the media goes down every year, and why Reporters are almost as hated as lawyers.
Posted by: soullite | Sep 12, 2007 8:50:44 AM
"He later became a hard-edged liberal commentator, but it's doubtful the New York Times would have hired him had he begun that way."
That's rather because as one of the very finest economists of his generation he had something very interesting to say about economics. As a hard-edged liberal commentator, how interesting (uniquely so) is he?
Posted by: Tim Worstall | Sep 12, 2007 9:04:34 AM
So a liberal op-ed editor may be quite hard on other liberals, who don't sound, to him, like they're saying anything new. Conversely, he could be quite easy on conservatives, because even their basic arguments are, to him, analytically fresh and innovative.
I'm a liberal, and I certainly do not find the basic arguments of conservatives to be fresh and innovative. I don't think I am alone.
Posted by: Jason G. | Sep 12, 2007 9:30:47 AM
The "puzzling overrepresentation" of conservative pundits?
Say, stranger, you're not from around here, are you?
Posted by: serial catowner | Sep 12, 2007 9:31:34 AM
See Glenn Greenwald today on Time's favorite phony liberal, Joe Klein:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
Greenwald will get a column in a major paper just as soon as hell freezes over.
Posted by: Bloix | Sep 12, 2007 12:39:47 PM
As a hard-edged liberal commentator, how interesting (uniquely so) is he?
More interesting than a glibertarian peanut-thrower.
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Sep 12, 2007 1:54:12 PM
Jeepers, does no one know geography anymore?
There are far more local papers in red state america. Red State america is a much bigger geographic mass and tends to have many more local papers that the more concentrated urban areas that can be served by a single large metropolitan paper (see the area for the Post/NY Times etc). Conversely, there are many, many local dailies in Mississippi, Kansas etc.
Shockingly, red state papers have more conservative columnists (which is what this study found). I'm just stunned that the most regions have more conservatives except for the mid-atlantic!
Posted by: Hederman | Sep 12, 2007 2:23:01 PM
Shockingly, red state papers have more conservative columnists (which is what this study found). I'm just stunned that the most regions have more conservatives except for the mid-atlantic!
Well, no, not really. The study looked the number of papers columnists appeared in, but also the circulation of papers; that is, the size of the readership. Right-wingers lead by that measure too. I can't find it right now, but I know that on one of the many pages talking about this, I've read that the Chicago Tribune, for example, runs more right-wing columnists than left-wing.
Posted by: Cyrus | Sep 12, 2007 5:24:58 PM
Ezra is trying to put on his best Kinsley imitation. It don't work. (It doesn't, for Kinsley, either.) I don't think that a liberal editor "could be quite easy on conservatives, because even their basic arguments are, to him, analytically fresh and innovative"
I'm a flaming liberal, and I don't think an atypical one. I happen to think that most movement conservatives are--stupid. Most of the few smart ones are--whores. Yes, I will make the usual exceptions. There are a fair number of smart and honest libertarians out there. (Libertarians are not movement conservatives.) Bill Buckley writes like a dream, although I'm not sure he is capable of coherent thought. Some of the neocons have a few neurons to rub together, but they are crazy.
I don't think that most liberal editors (or academics or bureaucrats or whatever) differ from me. We'd all love to give some recognition to a qualified conservative. But--libertarians aside--they are too lame/whorish/crazy to bother with.
When I want to read a fresh and innovative conservative, I curl up with Burke or Hobbes or Dostoevsky. When I feel the urge to read a contemporary one, I lie down until it passes.
Posted by: Joe S. | Sep 12, 2007 6:03:06 PM
I haven't read the study, so maybe it gets into this, but it seems worth noting that older conservative columnists were much more willing to attack conservative orthodoxy. Take William Safire, for example. Even George Will (who was skeptical of the Iraq war). It's the younger ones -- the Rich Lowrys, Jonah Goldberg, etc -- who are much more willing to regurgitate the RNC talking points.
Posted by: think twice | Sep 12, 2007 7:41:17 PM
The media, especially newspapers, represent the establishment and repeat conventional wisdom (currently share delusions) rather than an ideological viewpoint.
Most columnists (e.g., Broder) tend to become part of the establishment (and adopt conventional wisdom) as they grow older and wealthier. Also, with age, they (just like everyone else -- for example, my lawyer colleagues) will rely on their anecdotal experience and mis-remembered knowledge (i.e., their "gut") rather than researching or looking things up. That reliance makes them more susceptible to parroting conventional wisdom.
Posted by: H-Bob | Sep 14, 2007 4:27:43 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
