The Wall Street Journal Runs a Front Page Liberal Electioneering Puff Piece on the Blue Dogs; Liberal Bias?

The Wall Street Journal is commonly, and mistakenly in my view, thought of as a newspaper with a “conservative” point of view, stemming, I think, first from a failure to separate and distinguish a paper’s editorial point of view from that of the “straight news” writers, and second, from unfamiliarity with the product.

The WSJ editorials are indeed conservative in point of view, but I have long been of the opinion that many if not most of the WSJ writers covering the political and economic beats are for the most part liberals. Many perhaps only mildly so, but it’s hard to tell how left they really are for their liberal slant oozes out in bits and dollops, here and there, usually restrained, in otherwise “straight” news stories. It’s in the subtleties, the different shadings sketched for liberals versus conservatives, and one has to be a regular reader to pick up on this stuff.

But here’s one sans subtlety, from the WSJ of October 26 (link). WSJ writer and columnist Gerald F. Seib has a paean to so-called “moderate,” so called “Blue Dog” Democrats and a lamentation of the bleak reelection prospects many of them are facing. This electioneering puff piece is given front page placement by WSJ editors.

The “Blue Dog” Democrats are, as is well known, Congressmen who talk like conservatives back home but vote like liberals in Washington. When their votes are not needed for passage of a liberal bill they get a pass for a “no” vote they can wave around back home to fool enough foolable voters. But their support for the ultraliberal radicalism of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi has unmasked them and destroyed the myth before suddenly attentive voters, and, as Obama’s mentor and spiritual advisor Rev. Wright famously once said, the chickens are coming home to roost.

But to Seib, on the front page of the WSJ no less, the loss of any of these so-called “moderate” Democrats is a “stark indicator” of how this election could result in a “more polarized” Congress. Apparently to him, the more Congressmen there are who oppose the ultraliberal agenda, the more polarized the Congress is. The Blue Dogs are a “human bridge” connecting Democrats and Republicans, and their loss would be a tragedy. On the Senate side, the late Ted Kennedy is held out by Seib for his ability to “cross the aisle” to “work with” Republicans, but to get them to do what I ask—of course to support the liberal agenda, and John McCain, at least until lately, is held up admiringly as one of those so snookered.

Much of the blame for the dire straits of the Blue Dogs, says Seib, goes to the “tea party movement,” which has produced a “crop” of candidates who, according to an unnamed “senior GOP House aide,” “aren’t interested in coming here to compromise.” How convenient for Seib, finding a “senior” Republican aide, rather than a Democrat one, to slam the tea party movement as loaded with rigid, uncompromising ideologues (how believable is this old bit -- using an anonymous “quote” by a Republican senior insider to slam Republicans?). Don’t you see, says Seib, even responsible Republicans think those damn tea partiers are extremists for not wanting to compromise with Democrats to support the ultraliberal agenda.

Liberals and most conservatives think the WSJ is as reliably conservative as the New York Times is reliably liberal. Would that only be so.

John M Greco

Latest Data – Newspapers Still Dying; But the Chicago Sun-Times Has New Owners Who Bet They Have a Miracle Cure

Editor & Publisher reports (link) that over the past six months, of the 22 largest circulation newspapers for which there is data, all but one lost circulation; only the Wall Street Journal increased sales. In fact, percent declines for 15 of the 21 were in double digits. The Associated Press reports (link) that “average daily circulation at 379 U.S. newspapers plunged 10.6 percent in the recent April-September period from the same six-month stretch last year.

The internet has dealt the newspaper business a serious blow, but not just because the news and information is free and always available. It’s also because the internet houses all sorts of information from all sorts of political views, allowing readers to bypass the heavy, typically liberal biases of publishers. Moreover, faced with shrinking sales, many papers seem to have dumbed down the content, apparently trying to make inroads with what I have previously described as the demographic that doesn’t read much. That can’t be a smart strategy.

If “newspapers” are to survive, they need to see themselves as being in the news and information business, need to be able to charge customers for their content whether on paper or on the internet, and need to maximize the potential customer base by delivering news and information that’s balanced and fair -- a tall order for what seems like most newspaper publishers who apparently would rather die with a biased product than succeed without one.

Megan McArdle writes (link) at the Atlantic:

I think we're witnessing the end of the newspaper business, full stop, not the end of the newspaper business as we know it. The economics just aren't there. At some point, industries enter a death spiral: too few consumers raises their average costs, meaning they eventually have to pass price increases onto their customers. That drives more customers away. Rinse and repeat . . .

Meanwhile, a Chicago investor group has put up about $26 million to now own (link) what’s left of the Chicago Sun-Times, which in recent years has not only been dumbed down like so many other papers but has been driven hard to the left, leaving even middle of the road liberalism in the rear view mirror. The last bunch had a business plan whose key point was to alienate 50% of its potential readership base -- the only thing at which it succeeded. Do the new owners have some secret sauce or just hubris? We’ll find out soon.

Some Previous Related Posts:

Sinking Liberal Newspapers Throw Readers Overboard, & the Chicago Sun-Times as a Case in Point

Chicago Newspapers Fight for Air – Struggle for Control at the Sun-Times, and the Tribune Dumbs Down

Ray of Hope at the Chicago Sun-Times Newspaper


John M Greco

Liberals Who Read Only Liberal Media Don’t Know the Half of What’s Really Going On – Case in Point: The Obama Team’s Bungled Freeman Nomination

From time to time I’ll be speaking with a liberal friend – I have two in mind – who will seem incredulous when I mention a "hot” political story. Incredulous because they had never heard of it, and incredulous because I would give credence to a story they hadn’t seen mentioned in the New York Times or the Washington Post or on NPR or Public Television or CBS, NBC, ABC, or even in the local Chicago papers (both of which -- one worse than the other -- are oriented toward the liberal). One friend benevolently implored me to stop reading “those conservative” web sites.

Of course, the “joke” is on them. It’s their understanding of events that’s incomplete, because they rely on liberal news sources once thought to be “objective” but which now only carry stories that promote the liberal agenda and often completely ignore stories that undermine their liberal views or liberal leaders. Conservative sources, on the other hand, because their viewpoints infrequently penetrate the dominant liberal “mainstream media,” not only offer news and information one can get nowhere else but, and here’s the important point, they also take note of the liberal media and the stories they are covering and not covering. In taking note of what the dominant liberal “mainstream” media is covering, they thus give readers “both sides” of stories.

This asymmetry -- liberal sources filter and carry stories only to further liberal aims while conservative sources cover both sides -- calls to mind that old TV series Upstairs Downstairs and the more recent movie Gosford Park. In these stories the “upstairs” British aristocrats know only their world, and sometimes that not even well, while the “Downstairs” help, who live and function in not only the Upstairs world but also in the real Downstairs world, see the complete picture. The Downstairs crowd knows both worlds, while the Upstairs crowd knows only its own artifice.

The recent story of the ultimately unsuccessful nomination of former Saudi ambassador Charles Freedman to be the Obama Administration’s new Chairman of the National Intelligence Council is an excellent case in point. The aspect of the story of interest here is not how someone so Anti-Israel and so pro-Saudi could be nominated – that’s easy to figure. My point here is how the icons of the liberal “Mainstream Media” didn’t cover the mushrooming controversy over his nomination. Clearly the liberal media wished to shield Obama from yet more embarrassment and scorn. For some, like the New York Times, the first mention of this whole controversy was when the nomination was withdrawn. Liberals reading only the NYT or the Washington Post must be wondering -- what the hell just happened?

On March 10, Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair announced that Ambassador Charles W. Freeman Jr. has requested that his selection [by the Obama Administration] to be Chairman of the National Intelligence Council not proceed. Director Blair accepted Ambassador Freeman’s decision with regret.

Earlier, on March 5, Michael Goldfarb wrote (link) at the Weekly Standard Blog:

So far the Washington Post and the New York Times have failed to run a single news story on the controversy surrounding Freeman's appointment to a key intelligence post. The AP [Associated Press] is busy writing about Sasha and Malia's new swing set. Perhaps an official investigation, launched with bipartisan support in Congress and involving a steaming pile of political hypocrisy, will be enough to warrant a report.

Here’s Mark Steyn writing after the withdrawal of the nomination at National Review online in a post titled “Don't read all about it!” (link):

I'm glad to see the back of the Saudi shill Chas Freeman, but I wonder what Mr and Mrs America will make of it tomorrow morning, reading for the very first time how the "Outspoken Former Ambassador" (as the AP's headline has it) was scuttled by a controversy their newspaper saw fit not to utter a word about. As far as I can tell, the only papers in America to so much as mention the Freeman story were The Wall Street Journal, Investors' Business Daily, The Washington Times, The New York Post, The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, The Augusta Chronicle, and The Press Enterprise of Riverside, California.

But if you rely for your news on The New York Times, The Boston Globe, The Detroit News, The Philadelphia Inquirer, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Miami Herald, or The Minneapolis Star-Tribune - just to name a random selection of American dailies currently sliding off the cliff - the end of the story will be the first time you've heard of it.
The US newspaper has deluded itself that it's been killed by technology. But there are two elements to a newspaper: news and paper. The paper is certainly a problem, but so is the news - or lack of it. If you're interested in news, the somnolent US monodaily is the last place to look for it.

Finally, on March 11, only after the nomination’s withdrawal did the liberal New York Times and the Washington Post cover the story. How did they do? Did they finally reveal the details? Here’s Mark Steyn again, writing (link) at National Review online the day after the withdrawal:

Following my [earlier] remarks on American newspapers' suicidal antipathy to news, I see the Washington Post has now run its first news piece on the Chas Freeman story: “Charles W. Freeman Jr. withdrew yesterday from his appointment as chairman of the National Intelligence Council after questions about his impartiality were raised among members of Congress and with White House officials.” Actually, I don't think his best friends would claim there was ever any question about his "impartiality." And, from that textbook example of reportorial torpor, [the coverage is] notably shy on details on exactly what "questions" were raised….

Meanwhile, what excuse has the New York Times given for not covering this story, so embarrassing to Obama? Michael Calderone writes (link) at the liberal-slanting website Politico:

For nearly three weeks, the nomination of Chas Freeman as chairman of the National Intelligence Council has been a hot-button issue among bloggers…. But one outlet that didn’t weigh in until last night was the New York Times. Dean Baquet, the [NY] Times Washington bureau chief, told Politico that there had been “a relentless effort to get coverage for Freeman and his issues," but the paper had to make choices with how to best use resources and personnel. “The main reason we haven’t covered it until something happened is that this is not high enough a job for us to cover relentlessly …” Baquet added….

Greg Sargent, [writing ironically at a website owned by the Washington Post Co.], … wrote that the Times “overall silence is even more bizarre when you consider that its hometown Senator — Chuck Schumer — played a major role in Freeman’s ouster, airing his opposition in private conversations with White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.”

So, now that the New York Times and the Washington Post have discovered this important story, how is their coverage? Not so good, according to James Kirchick writing (link) at Contentions March 12:

[In today’s article,] the New York Times today essentially reprints Chas Freeman’s conspiratorial view of how his appointment as Chairman of the National Intelligence Council went down, in a story headlined “Israel Stance Was Undoing of Nominee for Intelligence Post.” There is no mention of Nancy Pelosi’s anger at Freeman’s support for the Tiananmen Square Massacre or the 87 Chinese dissidents and human rights activists who signed a letter in protest of his appointment. “The reality of Washington is that our political landscape finds it difficult to assimilate any criticism of any segment of the Israeli leadership,” the Times quotes Robert W. Jordan. Who’s he? Like Freeman, a former Ambassador to Saudi Arabia…. Go figure. Having largely ignored this story for the past two weeks, the Times now puts this misleading piece on page 1…. A Washington Post story by Walter Pincus, meanwhile, is no better. Pincus, like the Timesmen, makes no effort to look past Freeman’s claims that he was done in by the “Israel Lobby,” ignoring the China angle….

My liberal friends would be wise to stop relying on the New York Times and the Washington Post for their news and information.

John M Greco

Ray of Hope at the Chicago Sun-Times Newspaper

The Chicago Sun-Times is struggling, just like most other newspapers. And, like the Minneapolis Star Tribune which just announced bankruptcy, the Sun-Times has become ultra-liberal in recent years, not just in its editorial views but in its slanting of straight news stories and in its roster of columnists (link). But long gone are the days when three or four papers in a big city could profitably stake out differing political points of view and cater to a specific readership. Why a newspaper today would deliberately alienate half of its potential customers is hard to understand. Nevertheless, that's the Sun-Times strategy.

With that strategy, the paper itself says it's losing about $20 million a quarter and burning through cash (link). Already just this month it has announced closings of some Chicago suburban newspapers (link) and non-union pay cuts of 7% (link). But no worries -- no doubt everyone there is in the full throes of Obamamania, if the cover and web site are any indication (link).

Now comes word that one large shareholder, unhappy with the way the paper has been run (link), has finally obtained sufficient support from other shareholders to replace the Board of Directors of the Sun-Times parent organization (link).

Newspapers can and should perform a valuable public service. They can and should take editorial points of view, but should be dedicated to providing straight news that's balanced and fair. When they distort and manipulate the news itself, they fail their readers. Chicago would be better served with two well-run newspapers, and one can only hope the new Sun-Times Board has the requisite sense of urgency, clarity of purpose, and set of skills. It can start by removing the now pervasive liberal bias in its news stories and replacing half of its currently all-liberal columnist panel with conservatives.

John M. Greco

Chicago Tribune Rearranges Deck Chairs As Its Ship Sinks -- Now Will Publish in Two Formats

The Chicago Tribune continues its slow slide to oblivion, which is very, very sad to see for those of us who appreciate the critical role newspapers play when they do their job well in a balanced and fair way.

The Tribune has announced (link) that it will convert from a broadsheet to a tabloid format for street sales, retaining the larger, traditional format only for home delivery. It claims that content will be the same, although I'm skeptical for if so why would it incur additional costs to publish in two formats. The Tribune apparently hopes to attract more "street " purchases, now a small fraction of their overall sales, by people, otherwise craving for the Tribune's product, currently put off by the larger format.

The Tribune continues to struggle to survive. Its parent company is in bankruptcy (link), it seems indifferent to the web given its mediocre and slow site, and it recently apologized (link) for its dumbed-down appearance and content since its last redesign only months ago (which I wrote about here).

This latest move is truly rearranging deck chairs as the big ship sinks. I recall the old broadsheet Chicago American newspaper, which in its final days 30-40 years ago also clutched at straws as it drowned: less content; dumbed-down articles; a shift to tabloid format, and a name change -- to the chicago today -- all lower case apparently so as to not seem intimidating to potential readers (believe it or not).

Yes, the internet has dramatically changed the world for newspapers, who no longer have a monopoly on news and information and whose biases in reporting, undoubtedly longstanding, are now painfully exposed. But it is not at all clear that "newspapers" cannot survive. They must, however, reinvent themselves as a news and information source with multiple distribution methods focused on delivering content so good and original that customers will pay for it, even on the web. They would need to be much leaner and much more focused, and not offend potential customers with bias in "straight" news reporting (link). The customer base would be smaller but profitable.

Since the Tribune management thinks their ship is sinking because the deck chairs are poorly arranged, time for new management, and there is not a moment to lose. Trying to appeal better to people who don't read much is doomed to fail.

John M Greco

Chicago Newspapers Fight for Air – Struggle for Control at the Sun-Times, and the Tribune Dumbs Down

A big fight for control is going on at the Sun Times Media Group, whose principal asset is the Chicago Sun-Times newspaper. I recently wrote (link) about how the Sun-Times has decided to alienate 50% of its potential readership by becoming increasingly ultra-liberal not only in its opinion but also in its slanting of “straight” news stories, a move that could only speed up its demise.

But hope springs eternal. A few weeks ago, Davidson Kempner Capital Management, one of the company’s largest shareholders, began an effort to replace almost the entire board of directors in an attempt to revitalize the company and avoid collapse. It must get holders of more than 50% of shares to support this move.

Yesterday the company’s third largest shareholder K Capital announced its support of this effort, stating that it “is shocked that the board would fight this proposal given the disastrous operating results and shareholder losses over the last few years due to the board’s inaction.” Ann Saphir at Crain’s Chicago Business online reports (link):

Sun-Times Media is losing money despite cutting $50 million in expenses this year, and its shares trade for less than a dime apiece. K Capital’s vote to install a new board at Sun-Times brings publicly declared support for the initiative to 27% of outstanding shares…. The company … said the attempt to oust the board would do no more than delay plans that are underway to bring the company back to profitability.

The current board’s plan is apparently to gradually disappear. Ann Saphir posts another report (link) today at Crain’s:

Sun-Times Media Group said its ongoing cost-cutting efforts will reduce it to a "fraction” of its current size. The company, which runs 70 community papers in addition to its flagship Chicago daily, plans to eliminate “several” unprofitable titles next year…. The reduction is part of a previously announced plan to trim $50 million in expenses. Sun-Times Media cut 534 employees, or almost 20% of its workforce, in the past 12 months. It also eliminated 16 titles. The current plan for an additional $50 million in cuts will go further, the company said [today].

As to the fight for control of the board, Saphir reports that yesterday shareholder Davidson Kempner stated that “[t]he directors who have presided over the deterioration of [the] Sun-Times do not possess the skills or experience to rescue this business.”

Meanwhile at the Chicago Tribune, part of its own revival plan is to make the newspaper more appealing to people who don’t read newspapers. Joseph Epstein posted a review (link) of the recently redesigned Tribune in the Wall Street Journal on December 13, titled “Another Newspaper Bet Goes Bad.” He doesn’t like what he sees:

Struggling to make changes that will attract the young and other readers with short attention spans has everywhere failed to bring salubrious results. In the case of the Chicago Tribune all that has been accomplished is to make the paper -- with more color photography, shorter stories, more features, less hard news -- seem more like USA Today, of which the world does not need more than one. This has brought greater discontent among loyal Tribune readers and done little to bring in new readers. I am not a regular reader of the Tribune, but when I do pick up a copy these days it feels like nothing so much as holding the local evening television news in my hand, and that's not a happy feeling.

As for the current value of the shares of these two companies – well, for the Tribune Co., now in bankruptcy, the value is zero, as it has no shares, and for the Sun-Times Media Group (SUTM), shares last traded at a whopping 5 cents, a 16% drop from the 6 cents at which shares were trading when I last posted on this topic 19 days ago.

John M Greco

Tribune Company Files For Restructuring Bankruptcy, But the Unanswered Question Is How Can Its Newspapers Compete With Free News on the Internet

Today the Tribune Co. filed for restructuring bankruptcy. At the Chicago Tribune newspaper’s web site, Tribune reporters had this to say (here):

Chicago Tribune parent Tribune Co. filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection today in Delaware so it can restructure its debt. The company said it has sufficient cash to continue to operate its media businesses, including publishing its newspapers and running its television stations and interactive properties, without interruption…. But the situation at Tribune Co., which has suffered from industry-wide declines in advertising revenue that have eroded its cash flow since the deal was done, is emblematic of the squeeze felt throughout the media business overall, and newspaper companies in particular.

The Chicago Tribune newspaper is the historical and perhaps psychological core of Tribune Co., which also owns other newspapers. To be sure, the recession has depressed newspaper advertising revenue, and the credit crisis has made it difficult for the Tribune Co. to handle its unusually high amount of debt. But these factors simply place the Tribune closer than most peers to the bleeding edge of the internet razor that is slicing through the newspaper industry. In the newspaper business, much of the advertising, the main source of revenue, is gone for good.

More and more people get their news and information from the web, and this trend will only accelerate. It is not clear how much value there will be for me, as an average customer, in the printed product. But the web site is a different matter. While I can easily get national and world news and information free on the web -- I don’t need the Tribune to supply me with that -- I need the Tribune for local news, which is hard to get elsewhere.

The Tribune needs to develop a compelling web news and information product that I’ll be willing to pay for; say, $30 a year. It would need to be focused on local news and commentary. The opinion must be balanced and fair, rather than predominately from the liberal point of view, and must not slant straight news stories. I recently posted a commentary titled “Sinking Liberal Newspapers Throw Readers Overboard, & the Chicago Sun-Times as a Case in Point” (here) about how the Chicago Sun-Times has responded to the newspaper crisis by becoming ultra-liberal not only in its opinion but in its reporting of straight news stories. Not very smart; I don’t need that.

It’s not clear that the Tribune understands that I really need it only for local coverage. For example, in yesterday’s print Sunday Tribune, about two-thirds of the front page of the sports section consisted of a giant picture of a college football player and an accompanying article. He plays for a Florida school. The stories of the college basketball games of Illinois, DePaul, and Notre Dame from the day before – all major teams with huge local followings – were somewhere inside, not as important to the editors as a story about a star player in Florida. I can read about star Florida players somewhere else for free.

The product people running the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times newspapers seem asleep at the wheel, at their best, or recklessly destructive, at their worst. They will not survive without a clear understanding that they need to provide news, information, and opinion that I cannot get elsewhere for free, in a balanced and fair way, at a price I’ll be willing to pay.

Additional local coverage and comments at Illinois Review (here) and Marathon Pundit (here). Also, see Hugh Hewitt (here); and see Michele Malkin's update (here) on the state of decline in the newspaper business. UPDATE: Tom Roeser weighs in (here), and John Hinderaker at PowerLine comments on the general state of the newspaper industry (here).

John Michael Greco

Sinking Liberal Newspapers Throw Readers Overboard, & the Chicago Sun-Times as a Case in Point

The decline of American newspapers appears relentless – shrinking readership, dropping ad revenues, and mounting losses as former readers increasingly look to the web for their needs. But as their businesses sink and with water up to their knees, the liberals in charge blissfully carry on.

Although newspapers have a long tradition of taking sides politically, in recent years liberal newspaper writers have increasingly promoted the myth of the “objective” journalist – balanced and fair, just reporting the news. This myth in reality has been nothing more than a great lie to brainwash inattentive readers to the increasing one-sidedness of their product.

But now, faced with a downward spiral with no end in sight, one would think that rational newspaper people would recognize that now they cannot afford to alienate any potential readers with extreme political ideologies, and that offering a product balanced and fair in reporting and commentary would be the best chance at survival. One could think that, but then one would be wrong.

Why would the ultra-liberals who have taken over most newspapers (and all of the wire services) increasingly force conservatives and Republicans, a big portion of potential readership, away from their product? Well, to start with, liberals in the media don’t see their work as a business – they see it as a mission to promote the liberal agenda among the malleable proletariat, the ones with all that false consciousness. And like the scorpion that stings the frog giving it a ride across a pond, thus drowning them both, liberals just can’t help themselves, even if they wanted to.

Case in point – the Chicago Sun-Times newspaper. As it sinks, it veers left. Here are just two examples of the depths to which the Sun-Times has sunk – from two articles I clipped, both from the same day in the paper, March 8, 2008, on consecutive pages:

(1) Article on page 14 regarding Vice-President Cheney’s graduation address at the Great Lakes Naval Base in north suburban Chicago: Big headline: “It Took Him 8 Years To Get Here”; Sub-header – “Cheney visits base for graduation, though Iraq veteran not impressed”. While stating that 4,000 were present for the graduation ceremony, the author focuses essentially the entire article on the anti-Bush and anti-Cheney comments from just one man, a training officer. How representative was that one man’s sentiments of the entire audience? Not very, I’m sure, but that’s not the point when your role as a “journalist” is to be an ultra-liberal advocate in every “straight-news” article you write.

(2) Article on page 15 regarding the special election to fill the seat of retiring U.S. Rep. Dennis Hastert, pitting Republican Jim Oberweis, a man with interests in a financial services firm and a dairy company, against Bill Foster, a physicist: Big headline: “Physicist vs. Ice Cream Man in Rare Saturday Election”; the last paragraph reads “Obama and 28 Nobel Prize winners have endorsed Foster. Hastert and Republican John McCain have endorsed Oberweis.”

Now I have my share of criticisms of these Republican politicians, but smears and dripping condescension at every opportunity in what are supposed to be non-opinion, straight news articles are tiring and pathetic, and drive away readers. But this has become common in the Chicago Sun-Times. And as for its commentary, their columnists are no different – the paper prominently displays ultra-liberal featured writers who provide cheap shots and invective rather than reasoned arguments. The sports pages are very good, though, and are now the only reason to buy the paper.

So how is the Sun-Times doing these days? The paper is the primary asset of its parent company, the publicly-traded Sun-Times Media Group, which also owns many small local suburban newspapers. The company just reported that in the most recent quarter it lost over $168 million. That’s 168 million dollars. The last closing stock share price – 6 cents.

John Michael Greco