New York Times sneers at "wingnuts"

I'm skeptical of simplistic theories of liberal media bias. It's true that coverage of social conservatives is often unfair or condescending. However, it's also true that elite news reporters skew conservative on economic issues. Similarly, I think journalists' devotion to the cult of objectivity and focus on coverage of personalities and politics instead of substance are more damaging to our democracy than any ideological biases.

That said, there's no denying that the New York Times has a problem with its coverage of conservatives, which has been limited in scope and often sneering or uncomprehending in tone. The problem is bad enough that the paper created a conservative beat in January 2004.

Still, there's obviously more work to be done in changing the culture of the paper. Today's edition features a long and generally favorable profile of Patricia Heaton, the Christian conservative who starred on "Everybody Loves Raymond" and recently became enmeshed in the controversy over a Missouri ballot initiative to promote stem cell research. In praising Heaton, however, the Times writer Jesse Green derides other conservatives by referring to "her un-wingnutlike desire for conciliation":

It isn’t so much her views that cause her trouble as her unwillingness to finesse them for public consumption. She is compulsively honest, though she feels that’s not so much a virtue as “an illness, like Tourette’s.” Even her more extreme positions are stated without hedging: If it were up to her, she said, there would be no abortion for any reason. But she offers such thoughts with a sense of helplessness, as if she were trapped by the implications of her core principles.

And then there is her un-wingnutlike desire for conciliation. As soon as she realized what had happened, she sent Mr. [Michael J.] Fox a message saying that she was sorry and that she prayed for his recovery. He responded graciously (the amendment passed with 51 percent of the vote) and later said, “If we can have a healthy dialogue about issues that people see differently, that’s marvelous.”

Would the Times use a term like that in reference to liberals? I doubt it.

Comments

[Bill]

"...it's also true that elite news reporters skew conservative on economic issues."

This is a fantasy. On what possible basis would you make such a statement? Elite news reporters tend to be liberal Democrats.

[Brian]

For shame, that some reporter would refer by inference that there exist some right-wing nuts in the political universe. I think that Brendan, Mr. Reasonable Himself, should glance at Media Matters.org on occassion, for multifarious examples of such.

[Karen]

Yes...Media Matters...they never skew the facts based on political ideology or anything...

And the Elitist term is the most bloated of all political words.
The word is now only used by bloviating political pundits (Bill O'Rielly), and people with huge book deals (Bernard Goldberg).

[Lettuce]

That said, there's no denying that the New York Times has a problem with its coverage of conservatives, which has been limited in scope and often sneering or uncomprehending in tone. The problem is bad enough that the paper created a conservative beat in January 2004.

Factless, this claim means nothing.

That the Times created a conservative beat doesn't prove anything except that the Times created a conservative beat, it certainly doesn't prove things at the Times we're "bad" as regards conservatives.

It was the Times, after all, that created the Love Canal lie about Al Gore.

[Brian]

Karen, I honestly don't believe Media Matters skews the truth. Typically, the lies and distortions highlighted by media matters stand alone in juxtaposition to related known (or as Rumsfeld would say, knowable) facts.

It's one thing to start with a fact, and argue relative to political ideology what relevance that fact has to this or that. It's quite another, to claim a different set of facts. If you find a good example of Media Matters skewing facts, then let me know. I'll be as interested as you, in setting the record straight.

[DougJ]

This is sadly typical of the America-hating pinko MSM, who are the reason we are losing the war in Iraq. Kudos to you, Mr. Nyhan, for taking it on head-on. We need more conservatives like you in the media to help set the bias straight.

May God bless these United States in the New Year.

[Brendan Nyhan]

Apparently DougJ didn't read the post very closely. And it's absurd to say we're losing in Iraq because of the media.

[lily]

Dougj is an example of why the use of the word "wingnut" is acceptable. What is not acceptable is to pretend that extremists aren't.

[Karen]

...Perhaps I was being too harsh with Media Matters...

I am always skeptical of organizations that favor one part of the political spectrum over the other, a trait which I believe that Media Matters has.
But i am aware that my previous post falls victim to a hasty fallacy and apologize.

[John Foley]

Media Matters Link

Media Matters describes itself as "a web-based, not-for-profit, progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.(my emphasis)

That is a specific agenda, one that would certainly appear to be liberally-biased I'm not condemning them for this, I'm just saying that you can't deny that this is what they do.

Hey, my girlfriend is mentioned in that Patricia Heaton article! I couldn't be prouder.