Report: 60 Percent Of Daily Newspapers Have More Weekly Conservative Columnists Than Progressives

Media Matters For America:

This project did something that has never been done before: It amassed data on the syndicated columnists published by nearly every daily newspaper in the country. While a few publications, most notably Editor & Publisher, cover the syndicated newspaper industry, no one has attempted to comprehensively assemble this information prior to now. Because the syndicates refuse to reveal to the public exactly where their columnists are published, when Media Matters for America set out to make a systematic assessment of the syndicated columnist landscape, we had no choice but to contact each paper individually and ask which syndicated columnists are published on their op-ed pages.

The results show that in paper after paper, state after state, and region after region, conservative syndicated columnists get more space than their progressive counterparts. As Editor & Publisher paraphrased one syndicate executive noting, "U.S. dailies run more conservative than liberal columns, but some are willing to consider liberal voices."1

Read the whole story: Media Matters For America

Comments

[Advocate123]

This is the most flawed study I have read in a while, and I understand how to read social science studies.

I have provided for you the most thorough analysis on the Internet of Media Matters' study. You can read it below.

Media Matters Spouts its Own Flawed Study as Fact: How They Did It, In Great Detail

http://copiousdissent.blogspot.com/2007/09/media-matters-spouts-its-own-flawed.html

[mrcontinental]

Are they sure it's only 60%? I believe it's closer to 70% myself when you count the so called "independents" who just HAPPEN to have neocon beliefs.

[shockmagog]

It's that Liberal Media again. It's how we invaded Iraq for no reason, and how we "elected" the worst president in United States history--TWICE.

The article, among many other things, states:

'For instance, among the smallest daily newspapers -- those with circulations under 10,000 -- 64 percent run more regular conservative syndicated columnists than progressives, while only 16 percent run more progressives. Among papers with circulations between 10,000 and 25,000, the difference is similar: 62 percent run more conservatives, while only 18 percent run more progressives. Only among the largest papers were the two groups even somewhat close, with 50 percent running more conservatives and 35 percent running more progressiv­es.'

Obviously, unless we need a newspaper to house-train our pets, the Internet is all we've got left. Let's all make sure we don't lose that as well:

http://www.savetheinternet.com/
http://www.openinternetcoalition.com/index.cfm

[Ginzaman]

Maybe that's because the neocon megamedia corporations are buying all of them up? Also, online is the way to go. The San Francisco Chronicle recently fired 25% of its newsroom. Who's next?

[Nova16]

The MSM broke its trust with the American people over six(6)years ago by abrogating its responsiblities as "watchdogs" of governmental and presidential programs and policies and their effects on the public interest. The MSM have been propaganists and enablers of the Bush/Cheney corrupton willingly supportive of the move by this administration from "compassionate conservatism" to fascism. Journalism in our colleges and universities--the training ground for future must be offering courses in Joseph Goebbel propaganda techniques to keep republican lies and deceit dominant in American political thinking, just like Pat Robertson's law school's front door to the Justice Department.

[GoreObama08]

Typo: Dowd.

[GoreObama08]

And they're probably counting many columnists as "progressives" who really don't support progressive candidates. Maureen Down for one. She beat Gore up 1000% more than she did Bush during the actual election. I don't know what her deal is. Self-hating liberal? Liberal who wants Republicans to win and constantly works for that cause?

[OrvilleHLarson]

This, of course, is just one more reason why newspapers are failing. They don't present both sides of the issue.

[NewRiver]

C'mon, get real. If you're concerned that both sides of an issue are covered, then tell the readers to read not only the "conservative" columnists, but look at the next (or preceding page depending on the layout) and read the "liberal" editorial. And if you ever want to see that in action, go to azcentral.com. They are the biggest apologists for illegal immigrants in the US. If you took the syndicated columnists out of that paper, then all you'd have is bleeding heart liberals, column after column after column.

Newspapers are going out because their content is moving online, and there is competition for their readers, such as www.huffingtonpost.com.

Why buy a subscription to something I can view free, anytime I want, anywhere I have internet connectivity, which is practically everywhere now, and I don't get that damn ink all over my hands when I read it?