The Courant = Biased
December 5th, 2006 by Brian
There are really two questions here: 1.) What is the evidence that the Courant is biased; and, if it is, 2.) What is the evidence that that liberal bias is hurting their circulation.
On the first question, the evidence is overwhelming: the Courant is about as biased as it gets. There are so many examples that I don’t know where to start. But let’s take an issue that we have been dealing with: same-sex “marriage”. We know that a majority of Connecticut residents oppose same-sex “marriage.” You can look at our polling done by Harris Interactive. Even Quinnipiac University’s notoriously biased 2005 poll showed a plurality of residents opposing same-sex “marriage.”
Now, if we read the Courant, where do we find this majority? It’s nowhere to be seen. Those that oppose gay marriage, when mentioned, are usually tarred with the brush of bigotry, fanaticism, or hatred. Helen Ubinas is particularly good at this. (Evidently, in order to make up for lost income from all of the conservatives jumping ship, the Courant insists on making people pay to see old articles. I’ve provided the preview link for an old Helen Ubinas article that trots out all the cliches.)
But the bias is beyond even the columnists. The liberal group-think is entrenched in every section of the paper. When even your business and sports writers make it a point to stump for same-sex “marriage”, you’ve pretty much abandoned any attempt to keep your editorial opinions on the editorial page. Given that a strong majority of our state’s residents oppose same-sex “marriage”, don’t you think it odd that the Courant must continue to inject its support for same-sex “marriage” onto every page in the paper and act as if opponents of same-sex “marriage” are extremists who represent a fraction of the population?
To any observer not blinded by liberal ideology, the Courant tilts solidly left. That question is as settled as a round earth.
As for how this hurts their readership, there is plenty of evidence that the decline in newspaper sales coincided directly with the advent of the new media. It is true that many of the people that are now getting their news from alternative sources are not doing so because they are fed-up conservatives, but simply because they preferred to get their news in a different format.
But MANY also cancel subscriptions to the Courant because of bias. We hear from them regularly. How many is hard to quantify, but FIC has received plenty of calls from people who were fed up with the Courant.
There is also the national evidence showing that while readership to liberal papers was declining, readership at more conservative publications increased
For example, the New York Post gained readership at the same time the New York Times was losing readership. Ditto for the Washington Times vs. the Washington Post. Ditto too for the Dallas Morning News vs. the Times-Herald
If you want more evidence, see here, here, and here.
The only conservative editorial page for a major paper in Connecticut is in the Republican-American, so there is a massive black-hole for conservatives seeking to balance out their news. That’s where we come in. That’s why the Family Institute had over 300,000 hits on our blog last month and we continue to grow. The more the Courant continues in its left-lunacy the more people come to our blog.
Anyway, Sherlock has given us the grand idea of running a poll on this question (on the right of the blog). I think its pretty likely that many of our readers are going to say they have either cancelled their subscription to a major paper because of bias or considered doing so.
But hey, I also have a feeling that none of this is going to convince those in our state on the rabid left who think all is swell and dandy on Planet Courant. If you’re this far removed from reality, there is little I can say to convince you. So keep on chanting the “No Bias” mantra. Fox news, conservative blogs, and talk radio will continue to steal major market share from the likes of the Courant.
As a liberal, I think we can safely agree to disagree on the first point. That said, and given that I know you and I would disagree on media bias in general and at the Courant in general, I was mostly referring to the second point.
This: But MANY also cancel subscriptions to the Courant because of bias. We hear from them regularly. How many is hard to quantify, but FIC has received plenty of calls from people who were fed up with the Courant. is an interesting anecdote, but it is not evidence.
Also, the NY Post v. NY Times example (I no nothing about the Washington or Dallas papers) is easily explained by four factors unrelated to an alleged liberal bias of the Times: 1. The Jayson Blair debacle (which I’ve never heard described as a liberal penomenon, simply bad journalism); 2. The Judith Miller debacle in the run up to war (which, if any indication of bias, is an indiciation of conservative bias on the part of the Times); 3. The Post cutting its price in half so that it cost 1/3 of the Times instead of 2/3; and 4. the fact that the Times readership has dwarfed that of the Post for so long that it room to fall and the Post had room to grow.
Finally, on your poll: First of all, you’re welcome – I’m glad I could help. Second, I would be shocked if the results you predicted didn’t come to pass. That said, if you took a poll of three people at a Lamont volunteer meeting, you would end up with a poll that said that Lamont would get 100% of the vote. Not exactly scientific and certainly not evidence of anything.
I think what most FIC members, readers, supporters object to is not liberal bias but very specifically the disregard for sanctity of life, marriage, and the implicit or explicit acceptance of sexually immoral behavior.
I don’t think we (Social Conservatives, if I may?) necessarily have any problem with other positions that are characterized as liberal be it foreign policy, tax policy, education, or welfare. Those are important issues to many of us, but they aren’t moral issues. They are areas where the conscience leaves us free to disagree.
Liberalism is broader than same-sex marriage, abortion on demand, right-to-die. Many self-identified liberals (in the state legislature even) share our socially-conservative values or would at least acknowledge room for compromise.
Please excuse the redundancy. I’ve already made a similar comment in response to the earlier post (Circulation off 10% …).
Education isn’t a moral issue? Welfare and tax policy aren’t moral issues?
Foreign policy, where thousands of lives can be saved or slaughtered by the stroke of a pen — no moral component there? So we are “free to disagree” on issues like Rwanda and Kosovo and Iraq, but not on issues of sexual and reproductive choice?
You’re right when you say that “liberalism is broader than same-sex marriage, abortion on demand, right-to-die” — it’s just a shame that groups like the Family Institute aren’t. Instead of badgering people who have a genuine moral basis for wanting to marry their partner, or who don’t believe that life begins at fertilization, you might find common ground with those who seek to protect existing lives from the harsh effects of poverty, inequality, disease, environmental degradation, war, and genocide.
Plus, circulation is down nearly everywhere – I think it’s most likely that you’re drawing dishonest conclusions about a 10% drop, when American newspapers across the spectrum are seeing a general decline.
http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2005/
narrative_newspapers_audience.asp?cat=3&media=2
http://www.newsdesigner.com/archives/002647.php
Thats fine, as I said above, we can agree to disagree choice and marriage issues.
I still don’t see any evidence that ties the Courant’s declining circulation to the perception of liberal bias.
Oh, and I’m fully with Matt above – if you define moral issues narrowly enough to exclude foriegn policy, tax policy, educational opportunities, and welfare policy, then that is not a definition of morality that I am familiar with, or that I would want to become familiar with.
Scott,
I agree with you that there is a serious issue of terminology. Liberal has many connotations, and some that would define themselves as liberal are with us on the key moral and family issues of our day.
Usually we use the words “anti-family” to describe the moral agenda of those who want to redefine marriage, believe that babies are simply a bundle of tissue to be discarded at will, and have a notion of separation of church and state that means that it’s ok to believe in God, just don’t let those beliefs into the public square.
Increasingly, however, even in strongly Democratic and usually “liberal” circles, the word liberal is no longer tied to a more expansive view of governmental involvement in curing poverty and working for the little guy, but in a full-scale assault on traditional moral values. For example, I was talking to a Hispanic minister the other day who, when referring to a legislator that is with us said, “He’s a good conservative Democrat.” He meant that he was with us on key moral issues. I can’t think of a single legislator in our General Assembly who would define him or herself as a liberal and is with us on the issues.
Conservative can also have varied meanings and is problematic, but we must use some word to describe ourselves. Usually we use “pro-family”, but even that is contested. I’m sure the commenters would be none to happy to be labeled “anti-family”, though it is my belief that, regardless of intent, the social policies of those who advocate experimenting with marriage are detrimental to the family, and are therefore in a very real sense, “anti-family.” This does not mean that the people who support these positions are all evil or anything like that. It simply means that the policies that they are advocating are wrong and damaging to the family.
I don’t really care about the labels. People who know us, know what we believe. They know that we work with members of both parties, different religions, different backgrounds. Those that believe in the importance of marriage as the union of a man and a woman, in the importance of religious faith to a good society, in the sanctity of human life are bound together by these shared beliefs, not by labels.
But we have to use labels and, for now, liberal or conservative, pro-family or anti-family are some of the best choices. Andrew Sullivan would prefer that we are called “Christianists” so that he can try to create some sort of weird parallel to “Islamists.” I, for one, will take conservative over such nonsense.
Brian, thanks for the clarification. Pro-family is fine by me. I disagree with some other views commonly labeled “conservative”. We do have to choose some label or as you point out one will be chosen for (or against!) us.
Matt, you wrote:
“Instead of badgering people who have a genuine moral basis for wanting to marry their partner, or who don’t believe that life begins at fertilization, you might find common ground with those who seek to protect existing lives from the harsh effects of poverty, inequality, disease, environmental degradation, war, and genocide.”
These aren’t exclusive alternatives. Many pro-family folks sacrifice time, treasure, life, and limb in places like Darfur and the hard streets of Bridgeport.
I, for one, would love to see some actual evidence that the perception of liberal bias at the Courant is causing declining circulation. Whenever you guys are done gazing at your navels that is.
As anaside, since the civil unions legislation passed, I have noticed that my wife and I have been fighting more. Correlation or causation?
Your poll exposes this site as a pious fraud, most likely by ID (Ignorant Design).
If you wanted an honest poll you would add this choice to it:
Yes, the Courant is on right-wing-crack!
But the goal of your FIC site is obviously not to inform people with honest ideas. Your agenda is to perpetrate mass ignorance on society with biased deceptions and myths.
Instead of looking for dividing factors amongst political and religious factions, any group that claims morality and religion as their compass would be looking more at the issues like poverty and the enviornment that could be uniting factors.
Your sites agenda exposes the not-so-hidden hate and divide messages that false christians emulate.
Stephen,
I have finally found some time away from “perpetrating mass ignorance on society” and can give you a brief response.
While name calling may be your idea of informing “people with honest ideas” I prefer to engage in actual debates based upon substantive disagreement.
However, you should note, that we posted your comments and will make every effort to post all comments, no matter how out-there they are, as long as they are not obscene.
We value debate, but if you came here to simply vent some of your anger, we’re willing to expose it to the world.
Sherlock,
I’m done navel gazing. See original post and follow-up for evidence.
We never claimed that we were producing a research paper on the declining fortunes of the Courant. What we claimed is that their decline in circulation has something to do with their liberal bias.
Therefore, the mere fact that people are saying that they have dropped subscriptions because of inappropriate content and bias make clear that there is some correlation. This alone is evidence.
Some people have dropped their subscriptions due to the Courant’s liberal bias. We’ll do an e-mail tomorrow and find out how many more. Regardless, business’s generally do not like even small percentage of their clients dropping their product for the same reason.
The idea that redefining marriage will hurt society is not based only on a selfish notion that if “I’m not directly hurt, it doesn’t matter.” The great increase in divorce over the last four decades is not making me get a divorce, but it is still a serious public policy matter.
Though there have been direct consequences of same-sex “marriage”–halting the Catholic Church’s ability to place adoptions for the most needy children in Massachusetts, lawsuits against the Knights of Columbus in Canada, fining private businesses who won’t recognize same-sex unions–the longer term effects on religious liberty and the family are the greatest threats.
If you look back through our posts you can find plenty of data showing a connection between nations that have passed same-sex “marriage” and the decline of marriage in general and assaults on religious liberty.
Stanley Kurtz and Maggie Gallagher are just two authors that have addressed this issue. See especially Gallagher’s http://www.marriagedebate.com/.Yours,
Brian S. Brown
Anecdotes are not evidence. What is the definition of “some” in the context? How does this compare to the numbers who have cancelled their subscriptions for other reasons? How does it compare to the number of people who have cancelled subscriptions due to the perception that only a quagmire like Iraq could ever make the Courant endorse Democrats? How do the number of subscriptions compare to the number bought at newstands? Have newstand sales declined or just subscriptions? Those questions are answered by evidence, not conjecture.
Therefore, the mere fact that people are saying that they have dropped subscriptions because of inappropriate content and bias make clear that there is some correlation. This alone is evidence.
No, absent any discussion at all about how many people cancelled because of perceived bias weighed against how much circulation has dipped, it’s not evidence, it’s conjecture. If less than .1% of the dip in circulation can be shown to be because of perceived liberal bias, than it’s pretty weak evidence that liberal bias surely is a factor to be considered in the drop in circulation. Using your logic, if three people cancelled their subscriptions because they went blind, we could have a reasonable conversation about how blindness was a factor to be considered in the decline of the Courant!
Also, as an aside, some clarification of terms is probably in order. From your comments above, it seems clear that you are only talking about abortion and gay marriage, but asking about liberal bias includes issues of taxation, education, war, etc. I think you would get a very different answer if you asked simply about liberal bias than you would if you asked if people stopped reading the Courant because it “want[s] to redefine marriage, believe[s] that babies are simply a bundle of tissue to be discarded at will, and [has] a notion of separation of church and state that means that it’s ok to believe in God, just don’t let those beliefs into the public square. ”
No one asked you to write a research paper, as you snidely suggest, just be able to pack up your assertations with something more than knowing “some” people for whom your assertation is true. Remember your assertation? “There are likely many different reasons for the Courant’s decline. But the paper’s liberal bias is surely one of them.” Surely is a strong word and it was yours, not mine. If you are so sure about it, what made you so sure? It doesn’t seem to be empirical evidence since you cite none. If you want to be taken seriously, its a good idea to not pull things out of thin air and proclaim how sure you are.
And, again, if you are planning on emailing your group of supporters to find out why they dropped their Courant subscriptions, without asking a larger base than your membership and while ignoring the ratio between subscriptions and newstand sales, you might as well not bother – you are predetermining your result. If I email everyone on my block to find out where they live, I would be very foolish indeed to conclude that most people in Connecticut live on my block.
Blaming the decline in marriage on same sex marriage is fundementally flawed argument. The existence of one does not affect the other in any way shape or form. It does, however, suggest a decline in your idea of religion and a decline in your control over it. Welcome to the new age of enlightenment. One that you can no longer control.
Looking through your posts I see plenty of flawed assumptions based on deceptions and lies. Just because you say it is so does not make it so. And just because you quote some other wingnut does not make it fact either. Welcome to reality. A reality that you will no longer control.
Freedom is something that I served in the military to protect. I enjoy the religious freedom to be married to the women of my choice without the need of some gay or lesbian person to sanction it. Gays and Lesbians deserve the same freedom to marry the person of their choice without my forcing my world views upon their personal freedoms. It is what rational people call equality.
If you can’t handle the responsibility that comes with these freedoms, the very same freedoms that allow you to legally hold your own misguided beliefs, the freedoms that are entrenched in the Constitution of the United States of America, then that is a sad statement on your personal religion and patriotism.
Please continue to expose your nonsensical gay-bashing Christianist messages of hate. Oh sure, you can wrap them up in pretty words… But they are still what they are.
I find “christianist” to be an apt term for some — though I don’t know enough about the Family Institute to apply it to your organization specifically. It’s a term that describes those who misuse the tenets of a religion to marginalize those with other beliefs from exercising those beliefs or participating in civil society.
Someone bombing an abortion clinic or stockpiling weapons to attack Congress because of some tenet of Christian faith would be a Christianist.
Followers of a religion who would not allow a gay marriage to take place in their place of worship are not Christianists. However, those who would keep same-sex couples from being married by other religions or by a government agency because their religion doesn’t allow such a marriage — those people are Christianists. (Much as those in the mideast who would keep women from going out in public or showing their faces because of a Sharia law would rightly be termed Islamists.)
I don’t know if FIC is explicitly Christian, you seem to be somewhat careful not to make outright biblical cases against marriage equality and reproductive choice. So I don’t know if “Christianist” applies.
Sherlock states:
Anecdotes are not evidence.
Anecdotes are evidence, just not the strongest type of evidence. I never argued that they were conclusive or anything like that, just that we have received numerous calls, emails, etc. that people are tired of the Courant’s bias and some have cancelled their subscriptions. This was a starting point.
What is the definition of “some” in the context? How does this compare to the numbers who have cancelled their subscriptions for other reasons? How does it compare to the number of people who have cancelled subscriptions due to the perception that only a quagmire like Iraq could ever make the Courant endorse Democrats? How do the number of subscriptions compare to the number bought at newstands? Have newstand sales declined or just subscriptions? Those questions are answered by evidence, not conjecture.
These questions could only be answered by the very costly and intensive survey-based marketing research study that you say you are not asking me to right. Please reread post and links. I provided three links showing that in a number of cities conservative papers are growing while liberal ones are losing circulation. Also, these links touch on the questions you are asking. The evidence is there, you’re just looking in the other direction.
Using your logic, if three people cancelled their subscriptions because they went blind, we could have a reasonable conversation about how blindness was a factor to be considered in the decline of the Courant!
No, wrong again. I am specifically asking the reason why they cancelled their subscriptions. No logic problems here.
All that I am seeking to provide evidence for is that some not insignificant number of people have cancelled their subscriptions due to the Courant’s liberal bias. Because FIC is specifically concerned about the sanctity of life, same-sex “marriage”, and moral issues, the Courant’s decidedly “liberal” or “anti-family” stance on these issues particularly concerns me. If FIC receives one hundred phone calls, e-mails, or letters on the Courant’s bias, and each phone call represents hundreds of more people out there who feel the same way, you begin to talk about significant numbers of people who have cancelled.
Why? Because the Courant lost roughly 20,000 subscriptions in the last 10 years. They went from roughly 200,000 subscribers to 180,000 subscribers. We find, say, 2000 people (10 percent of the total decline) who dropped their subscription over the Courant’s bias and we’re beginning to talk about bias being not just a factor, but a significant factor in the Courant’s decline. Of course, over the course of the ten years many people will be new subscribers and many will fall off, so the picture is not static. Some may subscribe because they love the Courant’s promotion of same-sex “marriage” and all things gay, and some may leave because they simply don’t have time for the paper or whatever other reason. We know that. That’s why we’re asking for the reason. But absent a study bringing in all of these factors, even just 2000 people dropping their subscriptions over liberal bias is still something the Courant should be worried about. (I think the number is larger based on the evidence I’ve already produced.)
In constituent relations, one phone call, e-mail, letter, or conversation usually represents a hundred to a few hundred constituents. We’ve received roughly 200 such messages over the course of the last five years alone. That represents conservatively two-thousand people who have have cancelled.
Based on the fact that these were people coming to us and the experience of other cities, I believe the number could be significantly higher than 2000.
Remember your assertation? “There are likely many different reasons for the Courant’s decline. But the paper’s liberal bias is surely one of them.” Surely is a strong word and it was yours, not mine.
Reread that sentence and you see that your whole line of argument fails. We already grant that there are many factors to the Courant’s decline. We don’t have to prove that it is the only, the most important, or the major factor–just that it was a factor.
Or apparently provide any numbers at all that aren’t preceeded by if. I agree that if 10% of the readership left because the Courant doesn’t treat three cells in a petri dish as a baby then you are right. My argument is that if my dog had thumbs, he’d be my cousin, but I can’t show you his thumbs and you can’t show me that 10% or even 1% of their readership left because of the perception of liberal bias. You can say if alot and for that I comend you – often wrong, but never uncertain.
I am going to leave this here and go rejoin the reality-based universe. Plus, I’ve gotten three emails from three different Nigerian ministers. Apparently they represent three thousand ministers who will all help me get millions out o fNigeria if I send them a small amount of money to get them started!
The media bias goes beyond the Courant. The fact remains that all major news media are experiencing declines in audience. Virtually all newspapers are experiencing declines in circulation. TV news is also experiencing declining numbers.
They would blame it on technology changes, such as the Internet. They think people are receiving information from the Internet because its free, or more convenient than TV/newspapers.
That may be, but the Internet seems to be the only place where one can get the “other side of the story.” I think people are getting tired of paying for articles that insult and ridicule their faiths and beliefs.
As I read the above postings, I find it amazing people don’t see the media bias. During the Senate campaign, while the editorial page may have endorsed Lieberman, Lamont was on the front page almost daily.
As we get into the next legislative session, we’ll see more sob stories of gay couples moaning that they can’t get married, and that people aren’t accepting their lifestyles.
Another example of media bias is the stem cell research controversy. The Hartford Courant recently ran another endorsement of “stem cell” research funding, failing to acknowledge the different kinds and rejecting the facts that embryonic stem cell research has been successful in producing tumors in the brains of laboratory rats.
Brian and Peter, keep up the good work!
A sidenote: You can access all Hartford Courant (and other papers’) articles, editorials (as if there is a distinction,) etc. for free by searching the database at http://www.iconn.org
Matt Said:
“Someone bombing an abortion clinic or stockpiling weapons to attack Congress because of some tenet of Christian faith would be a Christianist.
Followers of a religion who would not allow a gay marriage to take place in their place of worship are not Christianists. However, those who would keep same-sex couples from being married by other religions or by a government agency because their religion doesn’t allow such a marriage — those people are Christianists.
Incorrect. Someone that would bomb a clinic is not a Christianist. That is more like a Christofascist. (Eliminating any opposition to their personal beliefs)
Christians believe in their personal religion but respect others rights to their own religious beliefs.
Christianists (Christianism) want to turn their personal religious belief into law. (Unconstitutional to say the least)
Brian is a minor league Dobson and this is a Christianist/Christianism site. They want laws that adhere to their personal religious beliefs, laws that go against the Constitution. They may carefully try and portray it as otherwise for political reasons, but it is a Christianist site nonetheless.
It is also safe to assume that FIC fudges ALOT on their political weight concerning this website. But that is something I will Blog about later today… I suppose lying is a good moral value for families as well? LOL
BTW: You can safely add “Drinking Liberally in New Milford” http://drinkliberal.blogspot.com/ to your opponents list. Your site will be exposed for the sham that it is. It is truely sad that your definition of facts is “Liberal”…
Matt:
I guess I am a Christianist and would love to provide you with Biblical arguments against same sex marriage (not the spin of marriage equality) and child killing (otherwise known as reproductive-choice). Where do we start?
[…] He subscribes to the Courant, and will probably get a second subscription now. […]
ALSO POSTE AT AN ABOVE COMBOX IN RESPONSE TO Sherlock’s request for proof, and Matt, while there are declines, the ones for the known liberal leaning outlets are severe–3% to 10%–and have occurred over the past 4 years consecutively, whereas the ones who aren’t well known as liberal leaning or are known as centrist/right are seeing much lower declines of around 1% in most cases (KEEP IN MIND THE FOLLOWING NUMBERS ARE FOR ONLY THE MOST RECENT 6- MONTH PERIOD).
This is about as close to “evidence” as you probably are going to find:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003316421
“This is the fourth consecutive semi-annual report to register a severe drop in daily circulation and — perhaps more troubling to the industry — Sunday copies. While the estimated decline 2.8% for daily circulation for all reporting papers may seem negligible, consider that in years past that decrease averaged around 1%. Sunday, considered the industry’s bread-and-butter, showed even steeper losses, with a decline of about 3.4%.
The Los Angeles Times reported that daily circulation fell 8% to 775,766. Sunday dropped 6% to 1,172,005.
The San Francisco Chronicle was down. Daily dropped 5.3% to 373,805 and Sunday fell 7.3% to 432,957.
The New York Times lost 3.5% daily to 1,086,798 and 3.5% on Sunday to 1,623,697. Its sister publication, The Boston Globe, reported decreases in daily circulation, down 6.7% to 386,415 and Sunday, down 9.9% to 587,292.
The Washington Post lost daily circulation, which was down 3.3% to 656,297 while Sunday declined 3.6% to 930,619.
Circulation losses at The Wall Street Journal were average, with daily down 1.9% to 2,043,235. The paper’s Weekend Edition, however, saw its circulation fall 6.7% to 1,945,830.
Daily circulation at USA Today slipped 1.3% to 2,269,509.
The Chicago Tribune showed slight declines. Daily dropped 1.7% to 576,132 and Sunday decreased 1.3% to 937,907.
Losses at the Miami Herald were steep. Daily circulation fell 8.8% to 265,583 and Sunday fell 9.1% to 361,846.”
The LA TIMES, SF Chron, Wash.Post, NYT, The Boston “abortion-facts-ignoring Ellen Goodman” Globe. All well-known as left-leaning, and at least 3 of them proven to be according to this UCLA prof. whom I cited in a combox above (http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm ).
The WSJ and The Chicago (“After reassessing the administration’s nine arguments for war, we do not see the conspiracy to mislead that many critics allege”) Tribune. Both known for being more conservative or centrist.
Now, if you can, with a straight face, sit there and say that the NYT, The Globe, the Courant, LA Times, SF Chron, and Wash.Post aren’t leftist, I suggest you sit down and really read them cover to cover online or otherwise for the next 6-12 months, and compare them to The Washington Times for the same period.
I GUARANTEE you will see the difference and will get TWO completely different ideas about what’s going on in our nation and in our world.
Excellent case in point: Let’s take a poll:
1) What paper is your primary newspaper, and
2) What do you know about Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” speech on the aircraft carrier.
NO CHEATING NOW. Just answer it here, right now, off the top of your head. No googling or research of any kind. What did that phrase refer to, to your recollection, and what paper do you read?
Sorry, should have written “have occurred over the past 2 years consecutively”
not “4.”
Sherlock said, “I, for one, would love to see some actual evidence that the perception of liberal bias at the Courant is causing declining circulation. Whenever you guys are done gazing at your navels that is.”
Matt said, “I think it’s most likely that you’re drawing dishonest conclusions about a 10% drop…”
Stephen said, “Your poll exposes this site as a pious fraud, most likely by ID (Ignorant Design)….But the goal of your FIC site is obviously not to inform people with honest ideas. Your agenda is to perpetrate mass ignorance on society with biased deceptions and myths…Looking through your posts I see plenty of flawed assumptions based on deceptions and lies. Just because you say it is so does not make it so. And just because you quote some other wingnut does not make it fact either. Welcome to reality. A reality that you will no longer control.”
Have any of you even read the UCLA professor’s study that found left-leaning bias in major media outlets (I gave you the link above, I’ll give it to you again:
http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm
Have you no answer to my providing “actual evidence,” Sherlock, and to showing that “gazing at their navels” isn’t what was happening here?
Matt, I showed you there were in fact in several specific newspapers 8, 9 and 10% drops IN A SIX MONTH PERIOD. Guess if you extrapolate, then that could very well be 16%, 18% and 20% drops over a year’s period?
Are you willing to acknowledge that we aren’t being “dishonest” and then to be a big man and apologize for accusing anyone here of that?
Stephen, you called the bloggers here liars and wingnuts and accused them of being out of touch with reality.
Who’s out of touch with reality? (To copy one of your phrases: “Hmmmm?”)
Honestly, the three of you positively drip with sneering condescension, yet when you are answered respectfully with some of the very evidence you mocked as being nonexistent, you have absolutely. nothing. to. say?
YOUR strong, inflammatory words, fellows, “expose the not-so-hidden hate and divide messages” that those who like to bash all Christians emulate.
I still await your responses.
Well said, Annie.
Glad to see someone else is paying attention to the Editor & Publisher findings and the UCLA/U of Chicago study. All of these sources are bastions of liberal think, so it is pretty amazing that they are admitting the truth on these matters. Have you read E&P’s periodic surveys regarding the makeup of media outlets? The reporters responding to the surveys overwhelmingly self-identify as “liberal.” Overwhelmingly. Makes it hard for Stephen and his cohort to refute.
NaCN, actually no I hadn’t read those, but will try to add them to my list of sources to check from time to time. Thanks!
Any idea if we’re ever going to hear a response from Sherlock, Stephen or Matt?
Hey, guys. I’ve admitted when I’ve been wrong and apologized for it too. Online, to the whole world. It’s tough to do, and if you ever get up the nerve to do that, it will be accepted graciously and without an “I told you so.” I’ve really worked hard to leave my sarcasm out of this combox (and it was tough to do that too), sarcasm like that which you’ve dished out to us here, though believe you me, I can dish it just as bad as you can. (I’m from Noo Yawk ya know.)
Instead, I’d really like to hear if/that you’ve learned something here. Even if it’s not to jump down someone’s throat and to not put forth with statements of “fact” or taunting challenge without having done your own homework thoroughly first.
Or email me. smok22andthensome ([a t )] yahoo [[[dot]]] com.
I have several liberal friends who once came at me swinging, seeing me as their enemy, actually. Now we’re all good.
All it takes is an open mind.