Taranto conspicuously mum on the status of his media-bias theory
SUMMARY: Wall Street Journal OpinionJournal.com editor James Taranto has yet to acknowledge that his theory of media bias -- that "the mainstream media ... are generally biased in favor of liberals and Democrats, but this ends up helping conservatives and Republicans by breeding complacency on the Democratic side" -- did not pass his own test. In a May 30 column, Taranto challenged readers to find an article from 1994 or 1980 "speculating about the possibility of a Republican landslide." Media Matters answered Taranto's challenge by presenting eight articles from 1994 that met his criteria. Since then, Taranto has twice addressed Media Matters' response but has ignored the fact his theory of media bias failed his test.
In his May 30 "Best of the Web Today" column, Wall Street Journal OpinionJournal.com editor James Taranto criticized a May 29 Associated Press article titled, "Democrats Eye November Landslide," and wrote: "Our theory about the mainstream media is that they are generally biased in favor of liberals and Democrats, but this ends up helping conservatives and Republicans by breeding complacency on the Democratic side." Taranto offered "a way of putting our theory to a test," and challenged readers to find an article from 1994 or 1980 "speculating about the possibility of a Republican landslide" -- presumably under the expectation that no such article would be found. Media Matters for America answered Taranto's challenge by presenting eight articles from 1994 that met his criteria. Since then, Taranto has twice addressed Media Matters' response but has yet to acknowledge that his theory of media bias did not pass his own test.
In his May 31 column, Taranto wrote simply:
The professionally indignant liberals at Media Matters, however, did uncover one Times piece anticipating a GOP takeover. Written by Adam "Major League" Clymer, the piece ran Oct.26, 1994, 13 days before the election. MM found seven other articles speculating about the possibility of big Republican gains, including a takeover of one or both houses of Congress: one each from the Associated Press and USA Today, two from the Washington Post and three from the Christian Science Monitor.
The earliest, from the Post, ran June 26, almost a month later in the cycle than the AP "landslide" article we cited yesterday, and it was considerably more modest in its prediction: "Some [Democratic] party officials believe the Democrats are in danger of losing control of the Senate and that their losses in the House could leave the Republicans holding the largest number of seats since the mid-1950s."
In his June 1 column, Taranto again addressed Media Matters' response, and attacked the "rabid and often illiterate Angry Leftoids" who he claimed had emailed him in response to Media Matters' item. Once again, however, there was no discussion of his theory:
As we noted yesterday, the left-wing outfit Media Mutters responded to our Tuesday item about media predictions of a Democratic landslide by coming up with eight stories from 1994 speculating about big Republican gains. We must confess, we had mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, we're delighted that we were able to trick George Soros into subsidizing our research. On the other, MM, as always, included our email address in its posting, which meant we got spammed by rabid and often illiterate Angry Leftoids.
Given that the point of Taranto's challenge was to test his theory, one would expect that he would inform his readers whether he's going back to the drawing board.
"As we noted yesterday, the left-wing outfit Media Mutters responded to our Tuesday item about media predictions of a Democratic landslide by coming up with eight stories from 1994 speculating about big Republican gains. We must confess, we had mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, we're delighted that we were able to trick George Soros into subsidizing our research." --Taranto
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So Taranto admits that he doesn't research his theories (and worse than that, he relies on the opposition to prove how wrong he is). He just pulls stuff from his favored orifice and throws it at the wall to see what sticks? Taranto proves his utter worthlessness.
Taranto is just running interference with his articles. He should not be taken seriously by anyone.
Who's being complacent? Is it those cursed 'liberals' who find it necessary to disprove false information portrayed as truth? Or, is it the rightie audience who accept everything these guys say as fact -- without fact-checking??
This guy's wrong on so many levels it is painful. Sucks when people actually check up on their 'work'.
I'm going to have to send him a nice email. He makes my argument that there's really no conspiracy fueling bias, but sheer laziness on reporters and editors parts nowadays.
Taranto's challenge was for someone to find an article from 1994 or 1980 "speculating about the possibility of a Republican landslide."
I'm afraid not one of Media Matters' eight article examples mentions a "Republican landslide"!
The bottom line: Taranto's challenge was not met by Media Matters. Taranto is correct on this one.
My 2 cents.
read the articles. they all mention likely gop gains in 94, and they include the "possibility" of a landslide. which is what taranto said, "possibility". and the board goes back.
What a ridiculous argument. It is the sentiment and not an "exact phrase" that matters here. For all we know is that Taranto did an extensive search for that exact phrase ahead of time just to be technically correct, while at least 8 stories exist that speculated on that very idea if not using that specific phrase.
Are you actually suggesting that even though Taranto was technically right (if you are a word parser) that there was absolutely no speculation of a huge Republican victory (do you really have to say landslide?) in 1994? Don't you think that is misleading considering the ample evidence compiled by MMFA to the contrary?
You seem to care more about winning in some technical word parsing sense than actually being right. You know there is a difference. Don't you?
Catch these weasels in a bald-faced lie...and there'll always be someone who says 'it's not quite or exactly or specifically' what was 'meant'. Nonsense. This guy's passing off lies as fact. He deserves to be challenged.
Malmedy and Normandy
I think on this one (to a large degree, but perhaps not completely)MMFA appears to have graduated from the Tim Russert School of Journalism: just put up something in a confrontational manner and assume you have made your point. The September of '94 USA Today article about the Cook Report does predict GOP gains that would amount to a landslide, but most of the other examples seem to fall short of making that prediction (which I think, to many at that time, was simply unthinkable).
I would prefer to disprove Taranto's theory in another way, by challenging his premise that the media is liberal (something this website does successfully on a regular basis). If one assumes Taranto is correct in claiming that a headline warning of a GOP landslide breeds complacency among liberals and Democrats, then you have to ask yourself, why would liberals want to do that?
On the other hand, if you assume the press is only faux liberal, then you might not only explain the May headline (this early in the campaign season) predicting a Democratic landslide in the fall; you might also explain (or partly explain) the fact that there was not an equivalent headline this early in the game in '94: such a headline would have both bred an unwanted GOP complacency and disturbed any existing Democratic complacency.
Or maybe, just maybe, both now and in '94 the political scribes were just calling it like they saw it?
...you have a point with your 'faux-lib' theory. But, then again...I'm a bit of a conspiracy theorist. But, then again... how can you NOT be?
--"I'm afraid not one of Media Matters' eight article examples mentions a "Republican landslide! ... Taranto's challenge was not met by Media Matters."--
To use Shoes89 (or is it InfoGuy or bannedagain today?) particular brand of asinine word-parsing, Taranto DID NOT say that the SPECIFIC words "Republican landslide" had to be mentioned in the article.
If your theory was:
The mainstream media is conservatively biased. They do not talk about big Republican leads to ensure that Republicans get out and vote.
Wouldn't you use the exact same "test" that Taranto proposes? Doesn't that make it a pretty stupid test?
The funny thing about most rhetorical arguments these days, is that you can twist them anyway you want and find an answer that suits your purpose. Or proves some silly theory.
Remember the MRC study that concluded that the word conservative was used to describe panelists on talkshows much more than the word liberal? They never stopped to consider that the reason was conservative panelists outnumbered liberals during that time almost 2 to 1.
They were trying to make the point that conservative ideas are labeled and liberal ones aren't. It turns out that conservative ideas are often labeled, but liberal ideas are not given nearly as much airtime.
If you're reduced to whining about impolite emails, you've run out of things to say.
...let's go double-standard hunting.
Can anyone point to a mainstream media figure complaining about nasty conservative emailers?
No you will not see that in the news media. Rightwingnuts will never enter into a conversation meaningfully, because they know the facts are not on their side , only lies, half truths and ad hominem attacks are on their side. How many times have we heard that the reason the national debt went up 1.2 trillion during the Regan administration was the Democratic congress, when in fact almost 90 % of that debt was directly attributed to Regan's own budget requests, Just like Bush's. They would rather blow up an abortion clinic, kill a doctor, Drag a gay or black behind their pickup truck, or assassinate a President.
Did it ever occur to Taranto that 1980, 1994, and 2006 are actually different points in time with different circumstances? It is quite possible that a Democratic landslide might appear more likely in May 2006 than a Republican landslide appeared to be in May 1980 or May 1994. Is he a professional journalist, or a hack?
One of the guys that wrote an article tha disproved Taranto's theory was the guy Dick Cheney famously called a "Major League A**hole":
--TarantoAccording to Taranto's logic, Clymer was shilling for the Republicans back then I guess.
Don't even acknowledge the fact that you're wrong. This is standard operating mode. After a while it will just go away.
Find a photo of someone uglier than James Taranto.
Taranto puts forth a THEORY, and to demonstrate the validity of his theory, he sets a PREMISE that he claims cannot be met.
The Premise is easily met, which destroys the validity of his THEORY, by his own formula.
When your premises are FALSE, and do not reflect the world of reality, so too are your THEORIES false, and do not reflect the world of reality.
As with nearly ALL Rightwing "theories", Taranto's presentation is factual ONLY in his world of false realities. This quality of "persuasion" explains why the Republicans are disfavored by seven out of every ten Americans, and it's only getting worse.
Tex, your comment was right on the money. Unfortunately the Wing-nuts have already shown that they dislike and/or can't deal with either logic or science without manipulating it to their own ends.
taranto's sole function is to keep fund from looking so crazy. Fund's sole function is to keep taranto from looking so dumb.
That leaves lowry in a world of trouble.
We know our "mainstream" media IS biased....against truth, against reality, against peace, freedom, and social justice. All they exist for is to put on a dog-n-pony show to keep the masses numb to the reality. It's all about entertainment and ratings. The best thing to do is turn them off and look for the real truth elsewhere. Hit them where it hurts....their ratings. Don't participate in their slime-peddling by watching.