I’ve been really anxious to see how traditional media outlets respond to the new Media Matters report, which documents the way nation’s op-ed pages skew heavily to the right. Something is clearly amiss, and I’ve been curious to see how news outlets respond.
The Chicago Tribune’s Frank James offers a response, suggesting this may have “nothing to do with a nefarious conservative cabal,” (note the condescending conspiratorial language) and points to a generational problem.
Demographically, newspaper readers tend to be older than non-newspaper readers. An older audience is likely to be more conservative. Newspapers are generally in business to be profitable. That means, more often than not, providing consumers with products that reflect their tastes. Thus, more conservative syndicated columnists than not.
While all of us in the newspaper industry will readily agree with MM that newspapers remain important sources of news and information, the growth of the Internet, particularly of blogs, especially of the political variety, suggests that the nation isn’t exactly starved for a diversity of political viewpoints. Never have so many been able to say so much to so many others.
So even though newspapers collectively may carry more syndicated conservative than progressive columnists, maybe it doesn’t really matter as much as Media Matters would have us believe.
I appreciate that James took the time to acknowledge the Media Matters study — I suspect most journalists will prefer to ignore it — but his analysis seems flawed.
First, if demographics drew op-ed decisions, Chicago is as Democratic a city as exists in the country. To borrow James’ argument, “A Chicago audience is likely to be more liberal. Newspapers are generally in business to be profitable. That means, more often than not, providing consumers with products that reflect their tastes. Thus, more liberal columnists than not.” Except, that’s not the case at all — the Tribune runs more conservative op-eds than liberal.
Second, I’m not at all sure newspapers are supposed to cater to the ideological “tastes” of readers. Columnists are supposed to provide analysis and commentary that falls outside traditional news reporting. If ideological “tastes” are going to drive editorial decisions on the op-ed page, there will be a whole lot of newspapers preaching to a whole lot of choirs. Shouldn’t op-ed pages challenge readers? Or, at a minimum, offer some kind of balance in competing perspectives?
Third, James suggests the heavy conservative tilt of op-ed pages nationwide is irrelevant because people can access diversity of thought beyond their newspaper’s editorial pages. But doesn’t that undermine the industry’s problems? James’ argument seems to be, “If you want a diversity of viewpoints, don’t bother with newspapers, just go online.” I’m delighted to have news consumers driven to my site by newspapers that are no longer fulfilling their media role, but I’m kind of surprised to see a newspaper employee making the argument.
And finally, I think James is actually selling the significance of op-ed pages short. In the political world, there are two principal sources of information that drive the conventional wisdom — the Sunday morning shows and newspaper op-eds. The evidence is unambiguous — both are unquestionably conservative, stifling progressive perspectives.
If anyone hears related responses from traditional media outlets, let me know. I’m curious.