John Yoo's hiring was probably inevitable
May 12, 2009 11:54 am ET by Jamison Foser
In 2007, Media Matters released a study showing that newspapers run far more columns by conservative syndicated columnists than by progressives:
Sixty percent of the nation's daily newspapers print more conservative syndicated columnists every week than progressive syndicated columnists. Only 20 percent run more progressives than conservatives, while the remaining 20 percent are evenly balanced.
In a given week, nationally syndicated progressive columnists are published in newspapers with a combined total circulation of 125 million. Conservative columnists, on the other hand, are published in newspapers with a combined total circulation of more than 152 million.
But, as the news that the Philadelphia Inquirer has hired John Yoo as a columnist reminds us, the numbers only tell half the story. There's a huge qualitative difference between the conservatives given newspaper columns and their progressive counterparts as well. The conservatives tend to be more partisan, more aggressive, and more reliable advocates for their "team."
The Washington Post employs as a columnist Bill Kristol, a hyperpartisan neocon Republican strategist who has been a key player in GOP efforts to block health care and start unnecessary wars. Who is supposed to be Kristol's counterpart? Richard Cohen, who opposes affirmative action, supports torture, and attacked liberals who opposed Kristol's war in Iraq?
On the right, the noxious Karl Rove and the monstrous John Yoo have high-profile columns. Who on the left is even remotely comparable to these two? Nobody with the platform they have, that's for sure.
It should be obvious how this skews the public discourse: the leftmost voices in the media are fairly moderate, while the rightmost voices are bloodthirsty war criminals advocates of unnecessary wars and immoral torture enhanced interrogation*.
Actually, as Cohen reminds us today, many of the supposedly "liberal" columnists favor baseless wars and torture, too. When the people major newspapers try to pass off as their liberal columnists support the policies of Karl Rove and John Yoo, it really shouldn't be much of a surprise that eventually papers would go straight to the source and hire Rove and Yoo themselves.
It seems to me that the number of columnists leaning right simply reflects that demographic.
Seeing that Obama got 58% of the vote, apparently the unspoken assumption arount MMFA that conservative columnists are influencing the country to tilt right is just another leftist canard.
ps. Why did Foser have to go back to 2007 to try and make this argument? You'd think he would update the stats first.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/114016/State-States-Political-Party-Affiliation.aspx
In fact, Gallup has earlier reported that a majority of Americans nationwide said they identified with or leaned to the Democratic Party in 2008.
Thanks for the info.
In any case, the word "liberal" has been an insult for some time now - which is why you can find polls by the same organization indicating that (1) the majority of individuals polled identify themselves as right-leaning and (2) the majority of individuals polled lean to the Democratic Party.
The best way to determine whether people are liberal or conservative is by looking at polls that ask questions about same sex marriage, abortion, health care, taxes, etc.
A survey conducted late last year and released Monday, by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, confirmed the obvious -- that compared to the views of the public, conservatives are under-represented in national journalism while liberals are over-represented. Jennifer Harper of the Washington Times discovered the nugget buried deep in the annual "State of the Media" report from Pew's Project for Excellence in Journalism and FNC's Brit Hume on Tuesday night highlighted the findings from the survey of 222 journalists and news executives at national outlets: "Only six percent said they considered themselves conservatives and only two percent said they were very conservative. This compares with 36 percent of the overall population that describes itself as conservative. Most journalists, 53 percent, said they're moderate. 24 percent said they were liberal and eight percent very liberal."
http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2008/cyb20080319.asp#4
The interesting point to me is whether the statements I cite are correct. I really don't care where it comes from.
However, I can see where you reflexively opine that my sources are slanted. As we both know in this case, the facts comes from a decidedly conservative website. I am also suspicious when I see leftist websites used as references. I think that is natural.
If you could, point out the statement that are in error rather than you simply stating your opinion about where those facts originate, I think we could, at some point, have some interesting discussions.
Just because you don't like the source does not make it any less credible.
Anyone using data like this needs to explain why all these liberals aren't writing liberal things.
By the way, polls about "liberal" and "conservative" are notorious for their unreliability - in large part because the word "liberal" has been used successfully as a curse word for some time.
What I would like to see is a survey of journalists on issues such as: taxation, same sex marriage, stem-cell research, etc. This would tell us where they lean politically.
* Obama’s first 100 days were defined by massive spending, aggressive intervention in the private sector and proposals for a huge expansion of the federal government. Yet none of the networks aired a single story on whether Obama’s policies were pushing the U.S. toward socialism, and no reporter used the term “socialist” to describe Obama.
* Not only that, network reporters never used the word “liberal” to describe either Barack Obama or his agenda during the first 100 days.
* In the days before the President unveiled his unprecedented $3.5 trillion budget — with a record-shattering $1.75 trillion deficit — four out of five statements on the evening newscasts parroted the White House spin that Obama was a deficit fighter.
* Reporters treated Obama’s hugely expensive $787 billion stimulus bill to mainly positive coverage (58 percent positive, 42 percent negative).
* The networks applauded Obama’s decision to use taxpayer money to fund embryo-destroying stem cell research (82% positive coverage).
* Network coverage of Obama’s mortgage bailout was also positive — 59% of statements supported the bailout or wanted even more intervention, compared to 41% who opposed the bailout as unfair to responsible homeowners.
* Reporters heavily skewed their coverage in favor of the President’s actions on global warming (78% positive).
* President Obama’s decision to send thousands of additional troops to Afghanistan was greeted by nearly unanimous (91%) positive coverage — a far cry from the highly negative coverage of President Bush’s successful troop surge in Iraq two years ago.
http://www.mrc.org/SpecialReports/2009/100Days/100DaysExecSum.asp
Lots of people, at the time of the memo, felt at that point that we were going to war. C's opinion is just that. However C made it clear that no one in the Bush Administration said war was inevitable.
The word 'fixed' in the memo did not mean that Bush lied, it only meant that the administration was lining up it's case in support of going to war.
The memo makes it clear that both the United States and Great Britain thought that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.
Your conspiracy theory rests on this one memo, that really is ambiguous and presents opinions. As I read somewhere else, where are the supporting investigations that back up this memo? Apparently they are not in the Butler Report (British), the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, or the 9/11 Commission, which all concluded that there was no improper manipulation of intelligence.
It's time to put the canard to rest that Bush lied. Getting back to this subject I feel the Downing Street Memo does not support your contention that the media is not liberal. It is overwhelmingly liberal. Forgive me but you simply saying it is not, does not convince me. The points made by MRC does indeed show the liberal media bias in support of Obama.
It doesnt matter WHEN the war was the Downing Street memo was damaging and it was IGNORED in the US while it was the biggest story in the world. As to your biased take on what it means the word FIXED means what it means just like in a fixed fight. Everyone knows this so you waste your effort trying to tell us that two plus two doesnt equal four. It isnt that it says he LIED, which he clearly did it is that he was only accepting the FACTS that fit his scenario.
British Intelligence? The same people who plagiarized a students report as THEIR white paper. Dont make me laugh. Aluminum TUBES? MADE up IAEA reports? Atta who was NOT in Prague? Please you are embarassing yourself. This isnt a conspiricy theory it is REALITY and saying it rests on one memo is just leaving reality far FAR behind. I have proven this on THIS SITE at least a dozen times you just slink away then come back and make the same discredited claim its like the way the right it STILL saying Plame wasnt coert you dont CARE about factual reality.
Bush did not personally make the IAEA Report. As you well know, information is often massaged before being handed to Bush and he has speech writers just like Obama. Just because Bush said something about the report that was innacurate does not mean he lied.
I already explained why the Downing St. Memo was not big news. It was old news and does not prove your point. Just because leftist media as you said, worldwide pushed this false story does not mean it was accurate or even newsworthy here in the U.S.
Just because the DSM fits your preconcieved belief system you accept it without question. That doesn't mean anyone else has to accept it.
You also discount every piece of information that does not go into your conspiracy theory about Bush supposedly lying. The fact that every intelligence agency in the West thought Saddam had wmd's makes no difference to you.
I find it funny that in one instance you are unquestionably accepting the British Intelligence DSM, and in the next paragraph disparage them as being completely untrustworthy speaks to your mindset. You simply latch on to anything that fits your preconception.
Therefore you have not proven your contention even though you keep repeating it. Face it, the reason your conspiracy theory never took beyond the radical leftist fringe is that it doesn't exist. Even Pelosi and Reid got their milage out of it and then dropped it. That should tell you that either thay have no backbone or they are political opportunists.
Paragraph one is just sad. Are you REALLY claiming that Presidents are not RESPONSIBLE for what they say? It is IMPOSSIBLE for a President to lie because maybe someone else wrote what he said? Are you kidding? Except when the IAEA denied any such report he tried to KEEP the lie by citing OTHER sources that ALSO didnt say what he claimed like the IISS report that ALSO did not claim Iraq was six months away from a nuclear weapon. Bush lied. Bush is a liar I have absolutly proven it you just wont accept fatual reality.
You explained no such thing. This was a high level meeting of what amounts to the British cabinet and they said Bush was FIXING FACTS AROUND POlICY. He was not interested in what the facts were he was molding them to fit the war he was GOING TO HAVE at the same time he was saying he wasnt set on war. NOTHING you said explains that away NOR why the supposed liberal media wouldnt touch it. I guess if you are going to just say hey the entire world is liberally biased and you can only trust Fox news you will continue to be this delusional
You havent given any information. You have made claims baseless assertions about Bush not lying and the media being liberal no facts in evidence I KNOW what I am talking about.
Ah NO the Downing Street memo wasnt an intelligence memo. It was the head of their intelligence division REPORTING TO THE PRIME MINISTER about his meetings with high level officials in the US. You really HAVE to be kidding.
NO one has to tell me they have no backbone but there is NO question I have PROVEN Bush lied. He LIED about the IAEA report he LIED about the aluminum tubes which he said could ONLY be used for gas centrifuges MONTHS after the report from OUR BEST SCIENTISTS in the field saying it was unlikely they would be used that way at ALl much less could only be used that way and it was much more likely they were for Medusa clone rockets which Iraq was allowed to have. I dont CARE if Britian thought they had WMDs. BUSH TOLD SPECIFIC LIES about them like when he claimed we had found mobile biological weapons truck AFTER our scientists said there was NO trace of bio on the trucks and there WOULD have been that they wouldnt be used that way without steam sterilizers and the British TOLD us they sold them to Iraq to make hydrogen and fuel their intelligence baloons. Bush is a liar I have proven it over and over and you have never ONCE been able to refute me you just REFUSE to accep reality. What is a conspiricy theory is that the ENTIRE WORLDS press was in some conspiricy to make poor Bush look like a liar and a warmonger because they are liberal.
Not a good propaganda source. Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and Olbermann get huge blocks of time to drill their worldview into you.