| I really do normally hate newspaper editor navel gazing about how they aren't bias because they publish an equal number of columns from the Left and the Right. It's a terrible question, and the product of these insights in invariably dull and often painful. It's also created a quota system, normally abhorred by the Right, that is unfortunate because it ratifies their basic complaint that quotas water down quality. MLive publishes Michelle Malkin, for instance, who is to real journalism what Bacardi rum is to bourbon. There is no equivalent being published from the Left, at least not in the so-called respectable press. There is a nugget to this column, however, that is worth repeating. From where I sit, though, a reader’s view of a newspaper’s alleged bias seems more a reflection of his or her own passion and belief system than any actual bias in the material you’re reading in the newspaper.
So, newspaper chains are primarily in the business of making money for their owners. They aren't in the business of promoting the political biases of their individual employees. So, coverage decisions are usually made with the idea of how a story -- and how it's covered -- will play with readers as a whole, not whether it will make liberals happy or fit a political prejudice. This is a pretty consistent complaint from Jack Lessenberry, by the way, that newspapers go after everyone instead of the people who still read them. The problem is that the people who complain the loudest about media bias are also the least likely to admit that they have a consumers' bias. They tend to think of themselves as right in the center dot, even when they're the most likely to be complete nutters. |
