Replies

What's the problem? I may disagree with the newspaper's conclusions, and their practice of not including party affiliations in endorsements, but what's your complaint other than the outcome?

I generally agree with you, but the KC Star is the only paper in town and has a long history of both editorial and news coverage bias.

I can only say that I have worked here for six years or so, and it did not used to be quite this bad.

I'm not saying it was a conservative paper or anything like it. But it was a good deal closer to the center than most major dailies. They endorsed Dole in 1996, after all. They could usually be counted on to steer a conservative line in foreign and fiscal policy, and go left on abortion and gun control.

My impression (and it is not mine alone) is that it has worsened in recent years. The newsroom is more liberal. Gays, for one thing, are much more in evidence than was previously the case. Some more conservative editors like Rich Hood have departed.

The tilt has not gone unnoticed. A few things we've published in recent years have triggered flurries of cancelled subscriptions and pull-outs by advertisers. Unfortunately it has not been enough to make an impact.

I recognize that conservative journalists are thin on the ground. Nonetheless, dailies are shooting themselves in the foot by failing to consider ideology or religious outlook as a category of needed "diversity." Technology is weakening the grip of media monopolies across the country. I can envision the possibility one day soon that the internet and publishing technology may well make possible again the emergence of genuine competing news outlets to daily newspapers. They can no longer take their local news monopolies for granted.

Simply running a conservative columnist every day and a larger letters section doesn't cut the mustard. Even the New York Times does that.