Bailouts, all around!

[NM: Drive-by, in Russki. You appear to be new here. We welcome substantive comments, on topic; and I recommend English. Deleted. PS: I don't know what "zasela" means. :)]

Caruba argues that print dailies are failing because readers are too savvy to fall for their predictable liberal slant. And also because readers are so ignorant of history and geography that content passes far overhead. Hmmm, both are true to an extent IMO, but the juxtaposition doesn't make for a smooth essay.

Writing, fittingly, at some website, Tim Oren discussed many of Caruba's more telling points, and then some. Back in October, when the Tribune company bankruptcy was a mere likelihood, he wrote The Newspaper Crash of 2009... And How You Can Help.

The U.S. has moved to the European model of ideologically oriented and sponsored media outlets. Go here for Socialist views, there for Christian Democrats, over there for Trotskyists, and so on. Problems are (1) the pretension or self-delusion that The Front Page's "Just The Facts, Ma'am" nonpartisan approach still holds, and (2) 80% - 90% of outlets are singing credulously from the same dumbed-down, groupthink, center-left hymnal.

I don't celebrate the industry's problems, as there's no guarantee that what-comes-next will be better than the bird in hand. On the other hand, this unfolding wreck couldn't have happened to a more deserving bunch.

I don't agree that the consensus hymnal is center-left. One could hardly describe the MSM fascination with Monica Lewinsky and their coverage of the faux scandals of the Clinton Administration or the 2000 Gore campaign as center-left. Nor their credulous approach to the Bush Administration's case for war in Iraq, where the single most prestigious newspaper had a reporter who served as a conduit for disinformation crafted by Ahmad Chalabi, not a center-leftist.

I'm OK with dumbed-down and groupthink, though.

"I don't agree that the consensus hymnal is center-left. One could hardly describe the MSM fascination with Monica Lewinsky and their coverage of the faux scandals of the Clinton Administration or the 2000 Gore campaign as center-left."

God nobody wants another press bias thread, but i'll just throw out a rhetorical question that i think distills down the issue:

How many of the journalists involved in Lewisnki/Iraq/etc voted for Bush either time?

I ask because having been through any number of press bias nuclear flame wars, i've come to the insight that those who think the press either isnt biased or is biased right fall into two catagories:

1.Those that have a different understanding of the mechanics of bias than is being offered. Ie, bias doesn't mean actual advocacy, it means the groupthink of agreeing overwhelmingly (but not exclusively) with democrats on a day to day basis and how that affects their work on an unconscious level.

2.Those that have a different view of the political spectrum than is generally supposed. IE, just because 90%+ of journalists voted for Gore and Kerry doesn't mean they trend left. It just means they arent raving hillybilly lunatics... but may still be ideologically 'right'. Compared to Noam Chomsky.

Just because Dick Cheney supports gay rights doesnt mean he isn't conservative, any more than supporting the Iraq war means you can't be a democrat (ask Hillary).

Citing Caruba on anything rather undermines any argument you hoped to make.

Look, newspapers are in trouble but it isn't because they're liberal. Otherwise, a paper like the Moonie..er, Washington Times would be a huge moneymaker. Of course, the Times has operated in the deep red each and every year of its existence. Print media's problems are two-fold: one, it is prohibitively expensive (as the networks have long known) to run a news operation. Two, the internet; it provides much the same content for free.

Those claiming the internet can replace the news organizations (either print or network TV) are smoking crack. 99% of all news-related content on the internet comes from the wire services or TV news organizations. Believe this: a Glenn Reynolds or a Charles Johnson isn't going to suddely relocate to Beirut and report on Hezbollah.

IE, just because 90%+ of journalists voted for Gore and Kerry doesn't mean they trend left.

Pure myth. It's a good example of the downside of the internet--just as 67% believed Saddam was involved in 9/11 and that 25% of Texans believed Obama is a Muslim.

a Glenn Reynolds or a Charles Johnson isn't going to suddenly relocate to Beirut and report on Hezbollah, though they will link to reports from Michael Totten, which is more than the dying newspapers do.

OD's bias denial aside, I think he's right that the press isn't in trouble because of its politics. If Craig Newmark had been hit by a bus in 1996, the New York Times wouldn't need the bailout money they're probably going to get next year.

I'm OK with dumbed-down and groupthink, though.
I've noticed that about you, Andrew.

Come now, bgates. AJL's meaning was clear. Cheap closing shots are satisfying, but can't we do better?

Thanks for trying to pare things down and avert another media bias thread, Mr Buehner. We'll see what luck we have with that...

though they will link to reports from Michael Totten, which is more than the dying newspapers do.

Apparently, bgates believes the salvation of newspapers lies in linking to the poor reportage of Totten. If that were true, the Washington Times has been remiss in not doing so. Of course, if you're also concerned about, say, Zimbabwe or North Korea--Michael Totten isn't going to help you much other than to wave his big "we're number one!" foam finger.

The media bias argument (one which is denied by most rational rightwingers) fails for the simple reason that rightwing newspapers are dying as well. In fact, most have been on life support even when other papers were in the black.

"Pure myth."

Darn all those studies and polls by prestigious institutes like Pew that found the national media self-described themselves as liberal compared to conservative 5 to 1.

But this isnt a media bias thread. I swear to god it can't be. Just providing a few facts.

"The media bias argument (one which is denied by most rational rightwingers) fails for the simple reason that rightwing newspapers are dying as well."

I think this is a valid point, to a point. Media bias certainly plays some role in this, but not the decisive role. I suspect it is part of a larger distrust of 'old media', which isnt a purely ideological issue.

On the other hand the Wall Street Journal doesn't seem to be doing as badly as the NYT. I don't know that we should take the notion that papers perceived as conservative are doing equally badly as liberal papers on its face. That may not be completely true. Its an interesting opportunity for a study i expect.

Mark B.,

Setting aside the question of whether or not newspapers suffer from bias--or rather, for the sake of argument, assuming that they do, I would argue that such bias plays no role in their downfall for the very simple reason that most people do not -- or did not -- buy newspapers for areas in which bias would have an impact. I get the notoriously biased NYT delivered everyday and have long been urging my wife to cancel it (she refuses to do so). Why? Because almost all of the reasons I used to read the NYTs -- check on the Yankees -- or Giants -- read the book review, get the weather forecast, find out what time a movie is playing, see what the market did, etc., etc, are all available to me on-line and usually before the paper is delivered. I rarely do anything more than glance at the front page headlines as I carry it inside and drop it on the coffee table for my wife. The daily paper used to be the connection, the life-line to the local world. Politically slanted reporting occupies about 1% of the total production. (although I am certain the NYT restaurant reviewer voted for Obama, I don't think that much affected his culinary opinions.) Why does my wife refuse to cancel the NYT subscription? Because, she does the crossword everyday and is addicted to reading the obituaries. It has absolutely nothing to do with her affiliation to the Communist Party.

Newspapers are dying because of their form, not their content.

If that were the whole story they would be parrot-dead already, and magazines have it even worse. Its certainly part of the story, probably the major part. But newspapers and magazine (especially the nationals) survive (as far as they are surviving) because people DO buy into the authority that traditional pillars of media provide. People read the big papers for the same reason they used to tune to Walter Cronchich when they were really serious about the news. That authority is a precious commodity, and its been abused. People alive today are always going to take more seriously the printed page than the cyber page. That will somebody change, but for the moment there is a mental undercurrent that if somebody bothered to print something it should be given more credence than something typed on a website. Particularly if an established brand prints it.

In essence, the NYT et al only have 1 thing they can offer that you can't find online faster and easier and cheaper. Thats the NYT brand (and branding can't always change media easily or completely). My point re bias is that the old media is abusing their brand, and that brand has value. Believe me, i'm a huge critic of the NYT, but if I see something printed there i'm going to take it more seriously than a local paper, much less something on the internet. Heck, the fact that we're talking about them proves they have brand value and authority.

Sure they do, Mark. I agree. But you are conflating two things without much evidence that they are related: your opinion that they are abusing their brand and the decline in readership. Smallish, hometown newspapers, without the brand--and without bias accusations--are falling faster and harder than the big bad well-known liberal papers. Also, if the NYT is liberal, it's been that way for decades, which suggests that cause of the recent downward spiral in circulation is elsewhere, however pleasant it must seem for you to believe that justice is being served.

I agree completely about the lack of trusted brands on the internet....YET. That will come with time. Reputations will be carved out and trust will be established. I think most of us will need to feel there is something reliable out there to lean on and those who provide it will flourish.

Of course, the answer could simply be: both. The Internet provides a perceived and readily available alternative to smearing ink on dead trees. The abuse and erosion of the brands that gave the old form credibility provides a reason to make the switch for many, accelerating the shift. (The locals never had that brand power.)

As I wrote in the post that AMac kindly linked at #3, the third leg of the disastrous triad is financial. The big newspaper owners are over-leveraged, at a time when their financial models are failing and credit is all to seek. Sam Zell thought he bought a cash cow, but he got a money pit.

Since the traditional demographic of the newspaper subscriber is over 45 and white -- matching the demographic base of the Republican party -- I think the question should be framed as to whether that group subjectively feels the newspaper coverage is biased.

PD,

I think the question is whether those feelings ever result in canceled subscriptions.

My uncle, e.g., knows the NYT is a biased liberal rag because Rush Limbaugh tells him so every Monday through Friday from 12 to 3pm. He's never actually read the NYT though because, of course, he hates it.

"But you are conflating two things without much evidence that they are related: your opinion that they are abusing their brand and the decline in readership."

Perhaps, but we know:
1.Readership is dropping
and
2.Better than 80% of Americans think the media is biased in one direction or the other.

Corellation doesnt imply causation but its certainly a plausible hypothesis, in my opinion. I'd further suggest the drop in circulation pretty well matches the drop in trust of the media over the years. Coincidence? somewhat, but not entirely.

All these things tie together. The internet is a really lousy source for what has traditionally been considered news. Didn't somebody once say that history was the version of the past everyone agreed to write down? Well, the net is essentially everyone writing down their own versions. I'm not making a value judgement on that, just a statement.

I think there has traditionally been value placed on a product that theoretically unbiased educated professionals distill and provide to people. My point is that if that luster is lost, the MSM becomes just another set of voices in the cacaughany. Or worse- because they purport to be something they are not (unlike a Sean Hannity for instance who openly espouses his agenda).

Mark B.,

Is your belief that the media became biased at some point, previous to which it was, relatively speaking, not biased? Or do you think that the media was always biased but at some point we all began to figure it out?

At what point did the media elite begin to diverge from the public at large?

If everyone knows the media is biased, what's the problem exactly? Doesn't everyone knowing the media is biased deprive it of its influence? And if it has no influence, doesn't that take the bite out of the bias?

The conventional wisdom is that the media was in the tank for Obama and that helped him defeat McCain. But if everyone is aware of this entankment, how did it help?

Finally, if everyone is turning away from old media to new media because old media is biased, are we to presume that everyone believes new media is not biased?

My first 3 questions are less rhetorical than the rest.

Since the traditional demographic of the newspaper subscriber is over 45 and white -- matching the demographic base of the Republican party --....

Which makes the management and editorial policies of the papers even more brilliant, right? If they are part of the Long March, they are concluding it by going straight over the cliff. If they are not, they are still headed over the cliff. Sam Zell = Wile E. Coyote?

"Is your belief that the media became biased at some point, previous to which it was, relatively speaking, not biased? Or do you think that the media was always biased but at some point we all began to figure it out?"

A combination of the two. And i have data to back it up, from the Pew study:

"The percentage identifying themselves as liberal has increased from 1995: 34% of national journalists describe themselves as liberals, compared with 22% nine years ago."

And clearly the public now HAS more choices than they had 30 years ago... check that they have ANY choices now, so there is something to compare bias against. Before Rush Limbaugh etc came around people just werent talking about this issue, and there was little choice but to accept it any way or not get news.

"If everyone knows the media is biased, what's the problem exactly?"

No problem. We are just discussing WHY the NYT is going out of business (we can talk about how all the network newsrooms lose money for the networks too).

"The conventional wisdom is that the media was in the tank for Obama and that helped him defeat McCain. But if everyone is aware of this entankment, how did it help?"

Because as i said, there is still a viable market in most of America for someone to put the stamp of respectibility/professionalism on their news. To some extant that still matters, and people will accept it even if it is biased.

You cant really have 'the internet' moderating a presidential debate or staffing a presidential press conference, right? There will always be gate keepers. So it does matter.