The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    acanuck's picture

    Affirmative action for right-wing hacks!

    By acanuck on Sun, 11/16/2008 - 7:09pm |

    Last week, I berated Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell for her flawed conclusion that her newspaper had a pro-Obama "tilt":

    http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/acanuck/2008/11/washington-post-has-the-worst.php

    She follows up today by doubling down: not only is the tilt a problem, part of the solution is for the media -- not just the Post! -- to consciously hire more conservatives, just as they did in the past with women and minorities.

    Affirmative action! It is true that a disproportionate number of right-wing ideologues will be coming onto the labour market in the next month or so. But that is because they were so spectacularly wrong on so many things. Why subject the public to yet more of their erroneous opinions now?

    Howell casts her goal as "more intellectual diversity among journalists." But the lead to her column shows that isn't the only thing on her mind:

    Thousands of conservatives and even some moderates have complained during my more than three-year term that The Post is too liberal; many have stopped subscribing, including more than 900 in the past four weeks. It pains me to see lost subscribers and revenue, especially when newspapers are shrinking.  

    I think that is, literally, the bottom line. Pander to the right if you must -- if that's what it takes to retain circulation.

    Ms. Howell should be forewarned: lefties and moderates can cancel subscriptions, too. 

    Comments

    Hum, my local NPR station interviewed the NPR ombudsman, and she said that NPR was likewise accused of having a "liberal" tilt. Turns out they ran more stories on Palin and McCain then they ran on Obama and Biden. (Biden, you know that "other" half of the ticket?)

    Go figger.

    I would have to say, reading the Post somewhat regularly, that they don't tilt anything. Good grief, as opposed to what? The New York Times? The Atlanta Journal Constitution? How many stories on Palin vs. Biden, eh?

    Give people a break. If the post lost a lot of subscribers, it's likely due to Ms. Howells sloppy and inept pronouncements.


    by Bwakfat (not verified) on Sun, 11/16/2008 - 8:47pm

    No matter what they do the Post will eventually go the way of the dodo bird.


    by tiggers thotful spot (not verified) on Sun, 11/16/2008 - 9:09pm

    Apparently Howells doesn't get how it works:

    1. Every "liberal" newspaper I've seen includes both "liberal" and conservative opinion on its editorial pages.

    2. Every "conservative" newspaper (as example) I've seen includes ONLY conservative opinion on its editorial pages.

    Howells: ANY newspaper/medium will be accused by conservatives of being "too liberal" if it isn't EXCLUSIVELY CONSERVATIVE.

    Because they are NOT conservatives: they are anti-diversity demagogues who will tolerate NO opinion other than their own. Regardless whether fascist, that is the same view held by such as Hitler and Mussolini.


    by JNagarya (not verified) on Sun, 11/16/2008 - 10:08pm

    The problem is there are true conservatives, then there are "conservatives." Only "conservatives" send letters of complaint to newspapers about perceived bias. And it's on the model of mobsters who similarly complain to the papers about stories being biased against "Italians." It's not the good ones who complain; it's the bad ones. And their complaint is essentially about the newspapers fulfilling a role in revealing who the bad are.

    Most of the evil in politics right now is among the "conservatives." True conservatives want this to be rooted out. Only the false ones complain. A paper which listens to them becomes complicit in hiding their evil


    by wyt (not verified) on Mon, 11/17/2008 - 3:24pm

    A paper which listens to them becomes complicit in hiding their evil
    _____

    Or giving them a patina of public credibility so they needn't hide.

    I remember Nixon running on the "law 'n order" platform, promising to get crime off the streets. And he did get crime off the streets: brought it into the White House.


    by JNagarya (not verified) on Mon, 11/17/2008 - 6:13pm

    Hmmm. Did she forget the the WP was pro war? In an abundance of fairness shouldn't she argue that the left should be accommodated on this issue? Don't hold your breath.


    by sooze (not verified) on Mon, 11/17/2008 - 6:20pm