'Liberal' Papers More Likely to Criticize Clinton

Editor & Publisher ^ | Aug. 11, 2003 | Greg Mitchell

[laurav]

AUGUST 11, 2003

'Liberal' Papers More Likely to Criticize Clinton Study: While 'Conservative' Ones Leave Bush Alone

By Greg Mitchell

NEW YORK -- So-called "liberal" newspapers tend to be more open-minded and willing to criticize a like-minded U.S. president than their "conservative" counterparts, according to a report released last week.

In a study for The Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University, Michael Tomasky looked at 510 editorials over the past decade. He found that on their editorial pages The New York Times and The Washington Post criticized the Clinton administration 30% of the time. By contrast, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Times opposed the Bush White House 7% of the time.

Tomasky also found a "striking difference in tone between the two sides as well," with the conservative papers using far "harsher" language in responding to Clinton and engaging in ad hominem attacks. The two sides, therefore, "represent two different models of journalism. The conservative editorial pages are more likely to think of themselves as being 'on the team,' as it were..."

In sum, Tomasky writes, "the two sides define partisanship quite differently and envision the roles they play as political actors very differently as well." The 57-page report can be found at www.shorensteincenter.org.

Source: Editor & Publisher Online

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Greg Mitchell (gmitchell@editorandpublisher.com) is editor of E&P.

[laurav]

I found this interesting (for starters, that "disproving" media bias is becoming a sport in media circles these days). One possibility is that Clinton, in his triangulation, did things that ticked off liberals 30% of the time. Editor & Publisher isn't saying whether the 30% of attacks on Clinton were from the left or right. If they were from the left, that doesn't change the fact that the NY Times and Washington Post are liberal, it just says they are consistently so. The article also doesn't say if the Washington Times/WSJ critiques of Bush were from the left or right. My take on this is that the Washington Times/WSJ editorial boards are at the same place on the spectrum as Bush, but the Washington Post and NY Times were to the left of Clinton.

I do hope that the Washington Times/WSJ will take Bush to task, though, if he violates conservative principles.

[kesg]

I fully agree, and you have put your finger on the right question: when these liberal editorials "criticized" Clinton, did the criticism come from the right or the left? I certainly remember the answer.

[Only1choice____Freedom]

'Liberal' Papers More Likely to Criticize Clinton

For what? not being Liberal enough?

Notice the word Liberal is in quotes. Sounds like denial to me!

[mewzilla]

Click here for more info on the Shorenstein Center. Check out it's advisory board, too. Very informative.

[steveegg]

I noticed that this group is itself slanted to the lieberal cause, and appears to have made this charge simply to try to indict conservative media. While I don't get the Washington Times, I have seen plenty of criticism from the Wall Street Journal's and Investor's Business Daily's editorial boards.

[ko_kyi]

Liberal papers "criticized" Clinton with idiotic statements like "Clinton unable to fend off devious attacks by conservatives" or "Clinton too caring, intelligent to be President, expert says" and other shinola like that.

Really evenhanded.

[Mr. Bird]

You make a good point, but the article completely ignores the obvious: Bill Clinton engaged in conduct that, by their own admission, his closest friends could not defend. The Lewinsky scandal took up approximately 25% of Clinton's term. Even in editorials opposing impeachment, they were careful to slap Clinton for getting himself into the mess in the first place.

So the Shorenstein folks would have us believe that the papers of the left are more "open minded" or fair in their criticism? They had no choice. A simpler method of gauging a paper's ideological "open mindedness" would be to count up the number of lefties that supported impeachment vs. righties who opposed. It was the defining characteristic of that administration. Anything else is fluff.

Absent that, I would be much more interested in seeing the numbers pre-Monica. That whole sordid mess skews everything.

[KellyAdmirer]

Maybe there was just more to criticize Clinton about in general. I'm sure that never would have occurred to the folks at Harvard.

[swany]

"In a study for The Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University, Michael Tomasky looked at 510 editorials over the past decade."

1. Was there only total of 510 editorials in these newspapers over the past decade?

2. It seems they used 8 years worth of editorials regarding Clinton and 2.5 years worth of editorials about Bush.

Factor in whether the editorialists were liberal or conservative and the fact most writers could not blatantly be in favor of Clinton's poor behavior in the Oval Office, I'd say this study is without much merit.

[freekitty]

Tell me another fairy tale.

[laurav]

1. Was there only total of 510 editorials in these newspapers over the past decade?

I haven't seen the exact methodology, but I would guess in a study like this they would look at all the editorials on the first, say, Monday of a month for 10 years, so that they would spread them out, and big issues would definitely be covered, but not flash-in-the-pan ones.

[Uncle Hal]

Clinton is a worse President than Bush so he should be criticized more. Simple as that.

[laurav]

And here's some info on the author of that particular study:

"The paper, “Whispers and Screams: The Partisan Natures of Editorial Pages,” was written by Michael Tomasky while he was a Fellow at the Shorenstein Center in the Spring of 2003. Tomasky has been a political columnist for the New York Observer, the Village Voice, and, most recently, New York magazine. He will assume the post of executive editor at The American Prospect on September 1, 2003."

I think there's some merit to this (liberal) man's claims that liberals are more willing to criticize Democrats than conservatives are to criticize Republicans. My take on it, though, is that many liberals do not perceive that Democrats are liberal enough -- witness the Howard Dean primary political tantrum on the left. Most conservatives, on the other hand, have made their peace with the GOP.

[Maria S]

See if there's anyone on this board you recognize; Mr. Shorenstein must be a real crowd-pleaser among the democrats!

THE SHORENSTEIN CENTER
ADVISORY BOARD

Hushang Ansary
Julian Bond
David S. Broder
Frank Carlucci
Richard E. Cavanagh
E.J. Dionne, Jr.
Elizabeth Drew
Doris Graber
Carole Shorenstein Hays
Stephen Hess
Matina Horner
Ellen Hume
Albert R. Hunt
Walter Isaacson
Tom Johnson
Marion Just
Bernard Kalb
Marvin Kalb
Ted Koppel
James M. Lombard
Jonathan Moore
Joseph S. Nye, Jr.
Gary Orren
Thomas E. Patterson
Nelson W. Polsby
Robert Putnam
Dan Rather
A.M. Rosenthal
William Ruder
Frederick Schauer
Daniel Schorr
Michael Schudson
Bernard Shaw
Douglas W. Shorenstein
Walter H. Shorenstein
Senator Alan K. Simpson
Dr. Frank Stanton
Benjamin B. Taylor
Linda Wertheimer

The Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy was established with a generous gift from Walter H. and Phyllis J. Shorenstein, in memory of their daughter, Joan. Mr. Shorenstein is…owner and chairman of the board of The Shorenstein Company, one of the nation's largest and oldest privately owned real estate firms…actively involved in both state and national politics for many years...served as Senior Advisor to Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and Jimmy Carter. In 1983…received the Democratic National Committee's highest honor, "The Distinguished Service Award." In 1985…named "Democrat of the Year" in California… appointed by President Clinton to the Board of Directors of the Corporation for National Service…served as Chairman of the San Francisco UN50 National Committee to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the signing of the United Nations Charter in San Francisco.

Some of this fall’s courses at Shorenstein Center:
Foreign Policy, the News, and American Public Opinion; The Arts of Communication (taught by David Gergen); Persuasion: The Science and Art of Effective Influence; Communication in a Time of Crisis; Good Governance and Democratization; Political Action Skills; and Religion, Politics, and Public Policy.

So THAT’S where the liberal media learns their trade!

[laurav]

Even not weighing whether Clinton was "worse" than Bush (which of course those who aren't on our side of the spectrum would disagree with), Clinton's impeachment scandal involved activity that both sides of the political spectrum freely criticized. Bush hasn't had any such disgusting political scandal -- quibbles on the rationale for the Iraq war have centered more on wording, faulty intelligence, whether Bush knew what was going on, etc., not his character as a human being.

[mewzilla]

LOL. Can't think what Simpson's doing on there.

[MightyMouseToSaveThe Day]

I see the liberal media is still trying to give this story 'legs'. It didn't sway any opinions several weeks ago when this alleged 'study' was first published, and it aint' gonna convert any more believers today. no way is it going to convince conservatives that the liberal media is hard on liberal politicians. methinks they're trying too hard to get us to disregard reality.

[laurav]

Like William Safire on the op-ed page of the NY Times, he "balances" the 10 other liberal columnists. Conservatives are very weighty in media people's eyes!

[aynrandfreak]

It depends on what the meaning of "criticize" is.

[laurav]

Mr. Shorenstein …received the Democratic National Committee's highest honor, "The Distinguished Service Award." In 1985…named "Democrat of the Year" in California

Sheesh! I wonder what you have to do to be named "Democrat of the Year" in California. I shudder to think of it.