Replies

Um, that's why a book's thesis can't be captured in a 25-word post.

Then by all means, bust out. This is what JR's bandwith is for; exposing the left and their means and methods of corrupting our culture. The how and why of the socialist bent of the media could be critical to our understanding. We can learn from the its history so we won't be destined to relive it?

Sorry I bothered you. Don't read it, by all means.

Few have even taken a stab at trying to answer the question of how and why the limp wristed media came to prevail so, believe it or not, your efforts are appreciated. You'll forgive my frustration?

FGS

Sure. It's not like I don't provide evidence, but up til now, I was not happy with what I had. So last year, Jim Kuypers, a Dartmouth journalism prof, who has written on media bias, and John Lott, who wrote one of the most impressive studies of concealed carry laws ever, and is now at American Enterprise Institute, agreed to a "sub-study" within my chapter.

We are in the process of looking at five papers: NY Times, LA Times, At. Constitution, Cleveland Plain Dealer, WaPo, for 12 years---two editorials per month, randomly chosen, but one each on foreign and domestic affairs. That will give us something like 700 observations. Kuypers, who specializes in "word slanting" and "loaded language," will provide a model for analyzing the editorials; and Lott will help with the econometric regressions. We expect to see a change in the editorial coverage, not only by what subjects they supported and opposed, but in the overall lanugage and tone of the papers, and I expect (don't know, cause I haven't gotten this far) to find the major change coming before 1968, not after. Probably 1965.