Guest Post – Boris: Media bias from the market perspective

It is common pastime of catallaxians to condemn left-wing media bias: in the US, Australia and elsewhere. To be sure, claims of media bias are not confined to the right. For instance, during the Iraq war, anti-war activists such as Michael Moore condemned all mainstream US media for war mongering and support for President GW Bush. My Yugoslavian friends condemn all the Australian media for their conspiracy against Serbia. However, the right are more persistent and perpetual in their exposure of the left-wing media bias.

Of course one may say that bias is in the eye of the beholder. However Rafe recently cited a report which showed that in the US about 90% of journalists vote Democrats (sorry I forgot the correct number). Surely this is pretty solid evidence of media bias?

But the question is: why? Take the US for example. Most of the media and all newspapers in the US operate in the free market of ideas. As we all know, roughly speaking 50% of US voters vote Republicans and 50% Democrats. These numbers fluctuate from year to year, but 50/50 is a rough long term trend. Yet, it appears from the estimate quoted by Rafe that people overwhelmingly buy left of centre papers. There is some inconsistency here.

To explain better what I am talking about, let’s assume, for the sake of simplicity, that number of journalists of particular voting record translates into numbers of papers of particular political colour. Let’s further assume that each paper employs the same number of journalists (this is far from true of course, but let’s just assume this for simplicity’s sake). Then, there would be 90% left of centre papers and 10% right of centre. But this would mean that 80% of Republican voters buy left-of-centre papers! Why would they do this? Conversely, if Republican voters wanted to buy right-of-centre papers, surely this demand would create corresponding supply. No need even to create new papers; existing right-of-centre papers should increase in circulation and become on par with the New York Times! And surely at least some of the existing papers would be keen to expand their market by hiring more right of centre journalists?

There are a number of possible explanations for the existing situation. One is that many people don’t really care about paper’s political bias. They buy a paper for sports, science, crime, etc etc pages, where politics is irrelevant. Maybe due to their indoctrination in liberal arts colleges, sports journalists are Democrats, but this may not affect their reporting, or indeed sales.

A more likely explanation is that voters and newspaper readers are not the same contingents. Indeed not everyone in the US votes, and very small percentage of people buy papers. Yet this does not explain why the buyers are so overwhelmingly buy left-wing papers. Perhaps this reflects the class positions of the two parties. Papers are most likely to be read by urban intellectuals, while there may be far fewer newspaper buyers in the Heartland… But is hard to construct a similar explanation regarding electronic media, particularly television, which is a true mass medium.

Any ideas?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

209 Responses to Guest Post – Boris: Media bias from the market perspective

  1. Token

    Boris, good post, great start to get a discussion under way. The answer is people are looking for new media sources away from the traditional channel.

    First, Fox News is the largest subscription news service in the US because people are willing to pay to hear a diversity of views away from the 90%.

    Further, as technology has improved and the options on the web to provide alternate voices, the number of people consuming news from people away from the traditional sources has exploded.

    In the 1970’s people in country Australa would feel isolated looking for informed critiques on the dodgy science that underlies the AGW money go round?

    Protests that run contrary to the MSM meme that Australia can reduce global CO2 emissions by imposing a punative job descroying tax in isolation from the world. Today you are can find this information and join the resistance without leaving your local community.

  2. amcoz

    If ‘first-past-the-post’, non-compulsory voting was the vogue in Oz then only the committed, eager and those that wish to have say would clearly not have permitted Miz Dillard to gain power and corrupt the ‘supposedly’ democratic process I thought had been the basis of our founding fathers.

  3. Rebel with cause

    Perhaps it is just because so much news reporting is on government, journalists enviably want good guys and bad guys in the story and it is easier to paint conservatives as bad guys over feel good progressives.

    I’ve sometimes wondered if government were smaller what would the media report? A bit more on car crashes and human interest followed by an expanded sports section I suppose.

  4. Rebel with cause

    *That should be invariably rather than enviably

  5. Biota

    This should be viewed from the primary motivation of all commercial media- to maximise circulation/viewers in order to attract advertisers. IMO this is why the Occupiers gain so much more space than Tea Party, they are more ‘newsworthy’. Tea Party are just a boring bunch of well behaved citizens trying to make a rational point or three.

    I think the Phage and Silly are examples of editorial group think trying for the left market and finding it’s not as large as they believed.

  6. Sean

    The Ice-cream thoery of politics can be applied here…

    picture yourself on a crowded beach, ok if your english it must be on holidays. There are two entrances to the beach where people park and an ice cream seller wants to know where is the best place to park. In the middle is the best place. You capture nearly all the business as it’s no further than half the distance of the beach to get to you. Now a second seller comes along and wonders where to go. He could go a quarter of the way, just to the left or right of centre and try to capture 1/2 of the market share but he has a problem. He gives away 1/2 of the beach and then competes with the guy in the centre for probably 1/4 of the people, thus over time he loses. Rational choice, move to the centre, offer roughly the same choices as the other guy and work on PR and differentiation when only a small amount really exists. You can claim their ice creams are crap/too costly/too cheap etc. etc. but ultimately you have the chance to capture all the customers as things change or they get tired of the other guy.

  7. Hal

    Have you noticed how many newspapers in the US have or are about to fail? Maybe because only Democrats by newspapers while Republicans seek alternative sources.

  8. JamesK

    It’s not a priori party political partisanship ihn my opinion, but truly leftwing bias.

    Journalism since Woodward and Bernstein has changed like nursing from an apprenticeship to a university course.

    Universities are leftist organisations filled with many pseudo subjects with pseudo-intellectuals who are often extraordinarily unintelligent. The unproductivity and inferiority of the work is well hidden in university life.

    Any criticism of the left of centre mainstream party is usually from the left and consequently that criticism is by implication also on the right of centre party. The ABC is the classic example of this.

    In good quality newspapers and tv reporting the bias is by means of a filter which is mostly unconscious rather than deliberate misrepresentation of the news.

    A profession however is by definition a disclipline; one of which is rigorous self-examination for personal motives intruding on the performance of professional duty ie a doctor’s or a lawyer’s advice has to be in the best interesets of the patient/client rather than in the advisor’s.

    Journalism is comsiderably worse on that score than previously when it was an apprenticeship.

  9. Token

    Sean, I like the Ice Cream theory. Very neat, given that if the Ice Cream theory is in action why:

    1. Why do so many of the established brands of ice cream set up their stands next to each other on the Green Left edge of the beach?

    2. Why do these same established brands then lobby the government to set up a stand right next to them on the Green Left edge of the beach?

    The obvious effect is those brands would be slowly going out of business and resist the government ice cream stand, but in our world those same brands are using their precious advertising message to beach goers to demand more money for their government competitor.

  10. Biota

    Token, it’s because they have deluded themselves into believing that is where the market is. When an election finally comes around they will discover otherwise, just like in NSW.

  11. FDB

    Good post Boris. Two points from me:

    1) I think it’s a mistake (and one you sortakinda acknowledge) to equate journalists’ voting patterns with their professional output in a 1:1 fashion. As you say, much of what passes for reporting doesn’t really give expression to political bias anyway, but more importantly I think, political reporting really has just become a game of Rock’Em Sock’Em Press Releases. A LOT of the time, this he-said she-said means that the partisan players can say whatever crazy shit they like, and the reporters “report” it, and it’s left to the next round of reactions to develop a “story”. Under this model, the journos don’t need to be biased at all for a partisan reader to detect bias in spades, because they see stuff they agree with (from their side) right next to stuff they think is crazy and wrong, both reported more or less as fact with no analysis.

    2) The Democrats are not left wing.

  12. Sean

    So you will admit that the Republicans, with their big government programs, aren’t right wing then?

  13. m0nty

    I think it’s a pretty dumb post, Boris. Your post is premised on the assumption of: “number of journalists of particular voting record translates into numbers of papers of particular political colour”. But that’s just not true. It’s not how it works. You’re using a wrong assumption.

    Journalism itself is premised on truth and exposing reality to sunlight. As has been covered notably elsewhere, reality has a well-known liberal bias. To that extent, it is set up in opposition to conservatism. Conservatives seek to protect the status quo, even when the status quo is exposed as being contrary to society’s values. When society’s values change over time, journalism is one way that change happens.

    Whinging about that is tantamount to whinging about journalism itself. But hey, wait a decade and there won’t be any business model left for journalism, so you’ll be happy chappies! 🙂

  14. FDB

    Both parties largely consist of bought-and-paid-for corporate shill careerists, if that’s what you’re getting at, yes.

  15. Rococo Liberal

    I have always discounted left-wing bias, because in my view if it exists, it has two effectes. Firstly, it makes lefties complacent and silly. Secondly, it makes rightists hone their arguments.

    For example, every time any of us watches the ABC news, I bet that our antennae are set to filter out the leftist crap and find out the truth.

    If you complain about bias, I suppose you are saying that the ‘great unwashed’ out there are too easily influenced, and that we need balance to ensure that this doesn’t happen. If most Ctallaxians can see through the bias, and can emerge stronger, then I suspect that a great many people out there in the ‘burbs can do it too.

    In fact the more the media slants left, the more it turns voters against left-wing parties.

    We on the right should not whine about bias, but confront it with better arguments.

  16. m0nty

    In any case, a lot of this brand of wingnut angst comes from recent media reporting of Cain’s indiscretions, which you can be damn sure were sourced from Cain’s opponents in the GOP. Media bias, bulltish. More accurate to whinge about infighting in the GOP.

  17. JamesK

    Conservatives seek to protect the status quo, even when the status quo is exposed as being contrary to society’s values

    I wonder if m0nty – or his patulous sphincter – ever tires of talkin’ thru his rear end?

    “Conservatives” Are Single-Largest Ideological Group:

    “Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This represents a slight increase for conservatism in the U.S. since 2008, returning it to a level last seen in 2004. The 21% calling themselves liberal is in line with findings throughout this decade, but is up from the 1990s.

    These annual figures are based on multiple national Gallup surveys conducted each year, in some cases encompassing more than 40,000 interviews. The 2009 data are based on 10 separate surveys conducted from January through May. Thus, the margins of error around each year’s figures are quite small, and changes of only two percentage points are statistically significant.”

  18. Biota

    monty the trained journo

    bulltish?

  19. m0nty

    Of course I was speaking about generalities in that case, JamesK. Don’t be silly.

  20. m0nty

    Also, I use bulltish because there are ladies present. 😀

  21. JamesK

    The Democrats are not left
    FDB 7 Nov 11 at 8:58 am

    That is possibly the most egregiously incorrect sentence written about US politics, evah.

  22. JamesK

    The Democrats are not left wing
    FDB 7 Nov 11 at 8:58 am

    That is possibly the most egregiously incorrect sentence written about US politics, evah.

  23. Viva

    Also, I use bulltish because there are ladies present.

    Nobody around here constrains their language because women are present chum. And since, according to you, the locals like to protect the status quo, don’t bother with the faux gallantry.

  24. Rebel with cause

    Excepting the taxpayer funded ABC, is right wing talk of media bias is the equivalent of left wing talk about ‘evil corporations’? Shouldn’t there be more right wing news if there is market demand for it? Or maybe that particular segment of the market mostly gets its news and opinion for free through blogs and other websites.

  25. papachango

    I think for many people, content trumps political slant.

    I prefer the ABC news over the commercial stations and, even though it drives me nuts with it’s undergraduate class-war rhetoric, I still prefer the Age to the simplistic tabloidery of the Herald Sun. I tried the Australian for a bit, and while it was a refreshing change to have some ‘highbrow’ content that wasn’t rabidly leftwing, it didn’t make up for the lack of Melbourne content, especially with the magazines.

    It’s more about the magazines, green guide etc I only buy the Age on Sunday, and for serious political content I’ll skim the Age/ABC sites and automatically apply an anti leftist filter, then go to the Cat and Bolt’s blog for balance.

  26. THR

    FDB’s points are well made. A couple of extra ones:

    1. It cannot be assumed that journalists, even assuming they are left-wing, will be unable to constrain their political leanings. Most people who work have to constrain their true feelings on something at some stage.

    2. Secondly, media workers are not media owners. The latter are firmly in the 1%, and are not left-wing, with the exception of some marginal issues. Their revenue derives from advertising, not the leftist hordes.

    3. One shouldn’t confuse differences in right-wing opinion with a leftist alternative. Essentially. the Dems are a right-wing party with some ‘progressiveness’ on the margins. At the moment, there are genuine differences of opinion among America’s ruling elite (i.e. about economic issues), but none of these difference constitute actual leftism.

    Finally, Boris, you make the point about Serbia being demonised in the US and Australia. (To a certain extent, Russia is also). You might wish to consider why this is the case, since it’s pretty revealing about how journalism is manufactured, and about how closely aligned it is to state and corporate interests.

  27. Rebel with cause

    Exactly James, FOX is filling that right wing news segment, at least partially. The problem is that some want to have their cake and eat it too. So have FOX but still complain that CNN, NYT, or the smage is biased. Well yes they may be, but so what? If what they produce doesn’t sell, they will go out of business.

  28. papachango

    Fox News’ combative Bill O’Reilly has become a household name, drawing more than 2 million viewers a night. Sean Hannity, Shepard Smith and Greta Van Susteren are cable news stars.

    Similar to Andrew Bolt. He’s a big drawcard for the Herald Sun, and lefties can’t stand the fact that he’s so popular.

    It’s not that he’s a particularly brilliant journalist rather because there aren’t that many right wing commentators, even in the ‘hate media’.

  29. JamesK

    Essentially. the Dems are a right-wing party with some ‘progressiveness’ on the margins
    THR 7 Nov 11 at 10:28 am

    No. I was wrong.

    Apologies to FDB.

    This latest THR-affront to honesty “is possibly the most egregiously incorrect sentence written about US politics, evah.”

    Dems Show Centrists the Door


    Long-term trends show Democratic Party moving to the left

  30. Rebel with cause

    THR’s argument is the equivalent of the ‘communism has never been properly tried’ shtick. Elect the most left wing president ever and then when his presidency turns out to be a miserable failure, claim the problem is that he was not left wing enough.

  31. Jarrah

    ” Elect the most left wing president ever ”

    Wasn’t there a Franklin someoneorother who could actually claim that title? Then there was that Lyndon fella.

  32. papachango

    not to mention Jimmy Carter

  33. Boris

    I think there are some good points, but not really an answer. To FDB and THR, I can say that I deliberatey say left-of-centre term rather than leftist. Domocrats are not left wing? OK, fine with me. This wasn’t the point. Let’s say, why Republican voters buy Democrat-leaning papers? Please substitute Democrat-leaning for any occurence of ‘left’ in my post.

    Your point of view, if I undertand correctly, is that of my first suggested explanation: that journalists’ voting patterns do not translate into bias. This may be true to a certain extent but surely, as James suggested, it does affect your selection of stories etc. Of course, not in Sports, that would be an extreme, but in political, cultural, even crime etc. pages.

    As for the owners and THR’s usual class approach, the question is: why would they hire overwhelmingly Dem votinhg journalists? Surely that is not accidental?

  34. Boris

    “The answer is people are looking for new media sources away from the traditional channel.”

    I expected to hear this. But you know, let’s assume I am talking about the situation 20 years ago. I am sure the cited voting patterns have not changed.

  35. Boris

    “As has been covered notably elsewhere, reality has a well-known liberal bias. ”

    Monty, that is an interesting way of putting it. But it does not really solve the problem, does it? What you are essentially saying, the writings of liberal journalists are in demand because they reflect reality. But hey, if Republicans realise this, why do they still vote Republican?

  36. Boris

    James has a good point that Fox is precisely correcting that distortion.

  37. C.L.

    What an absurd thesis. Media bias is a “claim”?

    No, it’s an axiom. That is, an established truth.

    Who can forget those two clips of Colbert from the Bush and Obama eras wherein he ridicules Dick Cheney as a murderer for deploying an “illegal assassination squad” (SEAL Team 6) and lionises Barack Obama for deploying, that’s right, SEAL Team 6 to kill Osama bin Laden (and a whole bunch of innocent bystanders)?

  38. Boris

    I think papachango is on something here. I am not a left-winger (more like centre-right), but I never watch commercial news channels, only SBS and ABC. And my more radically right-wing friends in the US buy the New York Times. Of course, SBS/ABC is a special case as it does not compete in the market. But the New York Times does. The quetsion is: why aren’t there a paper of similar quality on the right?

  39. JamesK

    The quetsion is: why aren’t there a paper of similar quality on the right?

    Wikipedia:

    “The Wall Street Journal is an American English-language international daily newspaper. It is published in New York City by Dow Jones & Company, a division of News Corporation, along with the Asian and European editions of the Journal.

    The Journal is the largest newspaper in the United States, by circulation. According to the Audit Bureau of Circulations, it has a circulation of 2.1 million copies (including 400,000 online paid subscriptions), as of March 2010,[2] compared to USA Today’s 1.8 million. Its main rival, in the business newspaper sector, is the London-based Financial Times, which also publishes several international editions. However, in terms of circulation, India’s The Economic Times is the second most circulated business daily, after the Journal.”

  40. thefrollickingmole

    I think the rot comes from the increasing “proffesionalism” of the media. Uni degrees in asking questions?

    IF I was a journo looking for a scoop then the pub after hours would be a wonderful source of material. Quantas strike? Go to the pub most of the fitters are at, buy a round or 2 and youd get a story.

    Find the pub the coppers fequent, same thing.
    and so on.

    But there is a transmission of leftism in universities, its pervasive and largely unchallenged.

  41. C.L.

    If you complain about bias, I suppose you are saying that the ‘great unwashed’ out there are too easily influenced, and that we need balance to ensure that this doesn’t happen. If most Catallaxians can see through the bias, and can emerge stronger, then I suspect that a great many people out there in the ‘burbs can do it too.

    First, this is intellectually lazy nonsense. Exhibit A being the rise of Kevin Rudd. Second, it’s hardly the moral point. The very same casual acceptance of untruth is what undermines schooling (carbon dioxide is “pollution”), universities, the Western canon, foreign policy (Israel and the Palestinians are equally bad; or Israel is worse – so let’s give the PA millions of dollars), economics (the “stimulus” worked) etc.

  42. JC

    I couldn’t care less about a biased media. What I do care about is a biased state owned media system like the ABC. That needs to be torn down and ripped apart.

  43. ar

    Journalism itself is premised on truth and exposing reality to sunlight.

    So… reality and sunlight are different things? That’s your journalism training coming through!

  44. Boris

    James, good point about WSJ. But if for every liberal paper there is a good conservative paper, on average there won’t be any overall bias?

  45. Boris

    “I couldn’t care less about a biased media.”

    Then you are probably on the wrong thread 🙂

  46. Boris

    THR,

    Advertising revenue is proportional to circulation. If media owners are concerned about it, it would be logical for them to try to capture the conservative market, e.g., by hiring Republican-leaning journalists.

    BTW you will find that there is generally a good correlation between politican views of the owner and political orientation of the paper (despite your 1% claim). Ted Turner, Ruppert Murdoch etc.

  47. Jc

    Lol

    No I mean i don’t really care say The Age is biased. They can do what they like. I just don’t buy the paper.

    And there are papers of “similar quality on the right”. The Australian is a case in point. It would be in the top eschelon on best newspapers in the world.

    Leftwingers here understand this which Is why they raw always whining about like teenage schoolgirls

  48. JamesK

    But if for every liberal paper there is a good conservative paper, on average there won’t be any overall bias?

    Yes. there is overwhelming bias in the legacy media.

    Radio, blogs, Fox-cable and and a few newspapers.

    I disagree with JC tho’. Yhe Australian isn’t right wing. It’s reporting is non-biased and it has a healthy number of lefty op-eds with overall prepondrance of conservative op-eds. The same with the WSJ. Tyhe lefty rags are significantly biased and prior to Costello and Catallaxy’s Chris Berg The Phage – which like the NYT is extraordinarily leftist rather than merely liberal-left biased – didn’t have a single right-of-centre op-ed writer.

    So the bias in greater in number and is egregious in the legacy media.

    And in the USA as here all free-toa-air tv is liberal-left biased.

  49. Boris

    JC, if you are right then there should be no left-wing bias in the media, except for government-funded outlets. But many on this site assert that there is!

    Reminds me of the old science joke: In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice, there is!

    Time to head to the office. Cheers!

  50. JamesK

    Should read: Radio, blogs, Fox-cable and and a few newspapers provide more balanced media.

  51. JC

    Yes, I donit think the Oz’s reporting is right wing. That’s true. It’s actually investigative at times and that is a unique experience in Australia and leftwingers think any attack on their government is bias.

    However the op-ed slants right and one thing that is also unique in Australia it also attacks from the right too.

  52. JC

    Boris:

    Of course I think there is bias in private newspapers in Australia but private media can do what it wants.

  53. Adrien

    A more likely explanation is that voters and newspaper readers are not the same contingents.

    They read. 🙂

    Newspapers are insignificant compared to television. And the nature of the media means that very few people are truly ‘informed’. This extends to the Birkenstock mungabeans crew who believe they are informed because they watch documentaries.

    So television is key. And any discussion of ‘bias’ in the media needs to centre on it.

    I have my most sincere doubts as to the reliability of figures that say that 90% of the journalists in any given democracy vote for a particular party. It’s the sort of figure that only dictators can take seriously.

    That said there would be a left bias amongst journalists for the same reason there’s a conservative bias among bankers. Different kinds of people seek different kinds of work. Whether this translates into bias is something that can only be understood in the context of, well, as Conor Cruise O’Brien stated laconically, no journalist can afford to entirely ignore the views of his or her employer.

    Indeed not everyone in the US votes, and very small percentage of people buy papers. Yet this does not explain why the buyers are so overwhelmingly buy left-wing papers

  54. m0nty

    Monty, that is an interesting way of putting it. But it does not really solve the problem, does it? What you are essentially saying, the writings of liberal journalists are in demand because they reflect reality. But hey, if Republicans realise this, why do they still vote Republican?

    In an earlier age, some old beardo called it false consciousness. It’s arguable these days that wingnuts don’t know that they’re shilling for big business against the common man. Some of them embrace this battle and openly root for monopolists. Even self-styled libertarians often sacrifice their freedom-loving ideals in support of robber barons.

    The fundamental delusion of Reaganite trickledown economics has come to define the right. The rapidly expanding gap between rich and poor essentially undermines the whole right philosophy. It has no answer, no solution. When the proof that trickledown doesn’t work is presented in such stark terms based on current reality, they have no way to respond. They had just assumed that the gap would never increase because the voodoo of trickledown would magically redistribute the wealth to the middle classes. When that doesn’t happen, they’re left bereft of policy options.

    The wingnuts’ only feeble response is to attack reality, trying to argue away the truth by targeting scientists and rotating through every trick of sophistry they can think of. That only works when they are in opposition, a long way from elections, like Abbott is now. When the right actually have to come up with policies to solve the voters’ problems, they fail.

  55. JC

    In an earlier age, some old beardo called it false consciousness. It’s arguable these days that wingnuts don’t know that they’re shilling for big business against the common man. Some of them embrace this battle and openly root for monopolists. Even self-styled libertarians often sacrifice their freedom-loving ideals in support of robber barons.

    What a load of delusional horseshit. There is so much stupid in that short para that I wouldn’t succeed at untangling it in 3 days.

    Moron.

    The fundamental delusion of Reaganite trickledown economics has come to define the right.

    No one on the right ever, ever called it trickle down, you ignorant boofhead. A leftwing media troll did and it’s been a myth played out since.

    What a miserable journalist you turned out to be MontY. No wonder you don’t “practice” it.

    The rapidly expanding gap between rich and poor essentially undermines the whole right philosophy.

    Really? You mean the 100’s of millions of people joining the middle classes in the developing world suggest a wider gap?

    You know what’s cruel about you, Monty. Your stupidity and ignorance is cruelly repressive.

    It has no answer, no solution.

    Read the threads and comments at this blog for solutions. Oh that’s right you do. Lol

    When the proof that trickledown doesn’t work is presented in such stark terms based on current reality, they have no way to respond.

    See above about trickle down and the strawman you’ve created, you fat head.

    They had just assumed that the gap would never increase because the voodoo of trickledown would magically redistribute the wealth to the middle classes. When that doesn’t happen, they’re left bereft of policy options.

    Idiot.. Show me one example where aggregate incomes don’t rise with economic growth? One example would be enough, you twerp.

    The wingnuts’ only feeble response is to attack reality, trying to argue away the truth by targeting scientists and rotating through every trick of sophistry they can think of. That only works when they are in opposition, a long way from elections, like Abbott is now. When the right actually have to come up with policies to solve the voters’ problems, they fail.

    Howard was a failure. 20 years of relative free markets in China? A failure.

    Get out of here, MontY, you fat headed child.

  56. JC

    Here’s your job today, MontY.

    Show evidence that a sustained rise in economic growth did not reflect a rise in aggregate income in an economy.

    If you can I promise to leave Cat and never come back here again.

    If you can’t then that applies to you.. and in addition we do fight night the first Saturday I come back from the US.

  57. C.L.

    Trickledown economics is Keynesianism.

    Spend $50 billion on toilet blocks and burning houses down (killing four workers) and it will ‘save’ the economy.

    We won’t even start on Obama, the worst and most failed president in American history.

  58. JC

    CL

    Monty the boofhead went to journalism school and he thinks he’s an expert economist. lol

  59. C.L.

    This just in re the Brown/Gillard attempt to abolish a free press. Left-wing fruitcake and cowardly Glenn Milne fright-boy Stephen Mayne called as expert witness.

  60. m0nty

    Like I said, the wingnuts have no answer. Just insults.

  61. C.L.

    Answer to what, Monty, Obama’s record-breaking deficits and double-digit unemployment?

    First step: remove the incompetent moron from office.

  62. Rococo Liberal

    CL

    My dear fellow, you take it all far seriously. Whining about bias in the media is silly. The example of Rudd is a good one, only if we remember that he got turfed out due to the perception of unpopularity with the voters propagated by … the media.

    Your problem, as well as the media’s, is that you assume that people just read, watch and listen to the media and then automatically believe it all. People are far more contrarian than that. Look at the fact that the leftist media is 100% behind the CO2 Tax. But the voters hate it! The media bias in that case is doing more harm than good, because the voters take the view that media is in bed with the government and is not reporting the facts.

  63. Not sure about JC’s claim that no one on the right ever called it “trickle down economics”, but they sure called it “voodoo economics”.

  64. Gab

    Like I said, the wingnuts have no answer. Just insults.

    lol pot – kettle – black.

    m0nty’s discovered a new perceived insult: wingnuts. It’s been around for some time now, but he’s only just discovered it and has used it extensively today. Which only serves to weaken the impact; I think the word for this is ‘hackneyed’.

  65. JC

    “Wingnuts” only have insults. hahahahahahahhahahaha

    are you self aware, you fat head. Monty. Your abuse started in the second sentence, you dishonest little twerp.

    No right winger ever referred to Reagan’s policies as trickle down. It was a left wing media troll who coined it as an attack against free market economics.

    You can’t even get your strawman to stand upright.

    Boofheaded child.

  66. JC

    Cowardly Glenn Milne fright-boy Stephen Mayne called as expert witness.

    He’s cruising for some other journo to have a go at him another time. What an arsehole he is.

  67. Abu Chowdah

    Catallaxy’s Rain Man, JC.

  68. JC

    Not sure about JC’s claim that no one on the right ever called it “trickle down economics”, but they sure called it “voodoo economics”.

    It’s actually true, steve. But answer me this.. who gives a shit on this site if you’re “not sure” or otherwise? Who cares?

  69. C.L.

    You’re the only one “whining,” RL.

    I’m simply describing a fact.

    You’re also demonstrably wrong. The elections of both Obama and Rudd were media-achieved triumphs of journalistic corruption over the ‘common sense’ of voters.

    Media bias counts – counts for a lot.

  70. C.L.

    Not sure about JC’s claim that no one on the right ever called it “trickle down economics”…

    The phrase was inaugurated by left-wing show-man Will Rogers.

    …but they sure called it “voodoo economics”

    George H. W. Bush did as a casual differentiation hit-job during the 1980 presidential election campaign.

    Which he lost.

  71. JamesK

    steve’s latest calumny:

    Not sure about JC’s claim that no one on the right ever called it “trickle down economics”, but they sure called it “voodoo economics”

    That was George HW Bush.

    He wasn’t and isn’t a conservative.

    Moreover to describe him as being of the right – other than he wasn’t formally a Democrat – is risable.

  72. JamesK

    I don’t agree with RL’s latest comment (usu. do):

    The example of Rudd is a good one, only if we remember that he got turfed out due to the perception of unpopularity with the voters propagated by … the media.

    That Rudd grew unpopular had nothing to do with the media.

    That Howard was popular – also – had nothing to do with the media.

  73. JC

    What a fucking transparent beat-up.

    Well, some clues today. By some asonishing coincidence, the first sessions are dominated by some of the most frenzied critics of News Ltd:

    The inquiry, headed by former Federal Court judge Ray Finkelstein QC, begins public hearings in Melbourne tomorrow with academic Robert Manne, publisher Eric Beecher and Crikey founder Stephen Mayne all scheduled to appear.

    Mayne told The Australian he had not sought to appear, but had “been invited via email from a bureaucrat”.

    Which bureaucrat? Why? Who else has been singled out to give evidence?

    Also giving evidence is Paul Chadwick, a Leftist and former Age journalist who is now the ABC Director of Editorial Policies.

    The Coalition needs to find out the name of the public sector prick and once in office fire his or her arse and remove any benefits.

  74. Rococo Liberal

    How am I whining when it is you who goes on about our side being the victim of media bias. Man up! You are sounding like a reverse lefty wailing about racism.

    I doubt that the elections of Obama and Rudd were media-achieved triumphs. There were many factors involved in both, not least the actions of the candidates and their parties.

    I agree with you that there is bias and journalistic corruption, all of it from the left. What I am saying is that we on the right mopre often than not have triumphed against such bias and corruption; and we have done so not by complaining about it, but by taking it on with better ideas. John Howard, for example was a pastmater at going over the heads of the media and talking to the voters directly.

    I think Tony Abbott also has the power to do the same.

    I have a good friend in the Liberal party who says that media bias is like a sitting memebr, it may in good times provide an extra percentage point to the vote.

    Where bias is far more important is in the memes it propagates. The most insidious is the idea that somehow the government is unbiased and that business is always swayed by money. But the question is whether the media are leading or whether they are just following.

  75. C.L.

    Bunyip has more on Gillard’s move to abolish a free press:

    Start with the very first witness, Dr Martin Hirst, who will be introduced, to quote his bio, as “associate professor and journalism curriculum leader in the School of Communication and Creative Arts at Deakin University.”

    That is not Hirst’s most notable distinction, however. As is thumbnailed on the bio page of the archival website Marxist Interventions, the inquiry’s first source of wisdom “has been active in socialist politics since 1975 and claims to have been the only Trotskyist to ever work in the federal press gallery as a journalist.”

    RTWT.

  76. m0nty

    Trickle down, supply-side, horse-and-sparrow… whatever the name for it is, that’s the right’s philosophy. And it doesn’t work. You can bleat about aggregate incomes, JC, but my point was about the disparity between rich and poor. You still don’t want to address that, because you have absolutely nothing of interest to say on the matter.

    Bush Jnr’s strategy was to create a bubble that would burst just before the end of his second term, long enough to fund wars which would benefit his corporate backers, and leave his successor with a half-destroyed economy on the verge of depression. Heckuva job, Dubbya. Easily the worst post-war president, if not ever.

  77. Man up! You are sounding like a reverse lefty wailing about racism.

    which is exactly what CL (and many others) here have been doing in relation to Cain and the sexual harassment stories of last week.

  78. C.L.

    I haven’t spoken of ‘victims,’ RL.

    I’m simply describing reality: 1) media bias exists; 2) it has consequences (Obama); 3) no true conservative (or even citizen thinking manfully) responds by surrendering the field.

    Your argument – that people won’t fall for, say, an experienced far-left wacko from the world of Chicago’s aldermanic kindergarten – is axiomatically preposterous.

  79. Infidel Tiger

    Bush Jnr’s strategy was to create a bubble that would burst just before the end of his second term, long enough to fund wars which would benefit his corporate backers, and leave his successor with a half-destroyed economy on the verge of depression. Heckuva job, Dubbya. Easily the worst post-war president, if not ever

    If you wrote this shit for the Green Left Weekly, they would call you a screw loose. Dial it back to 11 you freebasing mong.

  80. C.L.

    RL joined by Steve, internet icon of masculinity.

    LOL.

  81. JC

    Trickle down, supply-side, horse-and-sparrow… whatever the name for it is, that’s the right’s philosophy.

    Oh so you concede but aren’t man enough to apologize that trickledown was never ever a term coined by the right to describe free(ish) market economics.

    And it doesn’t work.

    No of course it doesn’t. Socialism does. See Greece as the shiny socialist light on the hill which seems to be fast becoming a country version of Zuoctti park after having run out of other people’s money.

    You can bleat about aggregate incomes, JC, but my point was about the disparity between rich and poor.

    Big deal. There’s no such thing as relative poverty but only absolute poverty. I don’t give a shit if you are wealthier than me, Monty in the same way you don’t give a fuck being richer than the average Solomon Islander. You boofhead.

    You still don’t want to address that, because you have absolutely nothing of interest to say on the matter.

    I did. Your strawman was a lie from the very beginning.

    You fat headed child, MontY.

  82. C.L.

    Trickle down… that’s the right’s philosophy

    More accurately, it describes Keynesianism.

    Let’s burn down some houses or fund Solyndra and hope the cash spent trickles down to teh workers.

    Oops.

  83. JC

    Bush Jnr’s strategy was to create a bubble that would burst just before the end of his second term, long enough to fund wars which would benefit his corporate backers, and leave his successor with a half-destroyed economy on the verge of depression. Heckuva job, Dubbya. Easily the worst post-war president, if not ever

    ring ring, ring ring.

    “ooo”

    ” Hello, I think MontY has overdosed and needs attention”. He’s become very delusional.

  84. JamesK

    What I am saying is that we on the right mopre often than not have triumphed against such bias and corruption

    Terue.

    But look at the figures for people who identify as conservatives in America compared to lefties, I posted earlier in this thread.

    The elections shouldn’t be close.

    And how come the extreme leftists of The Democratic Party – reppresenting no more and probably a lot less than 20% of the US population controlled the Presidency, House Speaker and Senate Majority Leader in 2009 and two of the three today?

    The media has a lot of influence on the politically naive or disinterested wh o actually have conservative values?

    Indeed many small ‘l’ liberals live lives based on exemplarary conservative and classical liberal values.

  85. I just thought it worth noting about the only thing I could agree with in RL’s last 1000 comments, CL.

    (How’s Herman’s issues with the lay-dees going, by the way?)

  86. C.L.

    Obama spent more in six months than Bush spent winning the Iraq War.

    Bush Jnr’s strategy was to create a bubble that would burst just before the end of his second term, long enough to fund wars which would benefit his corporate backers.

    LOL:

    Bush reduced the deficit from $412 billion in 2004 to $162 billion in 2007, a 60 percent drop. In 2004 the deficit was $412 billion. In 2005 it dropped to $318 billion. In 2006 the deficit dropped again to $248 billion. And, in 2007 it fell below $200 billion to $162 billion.

    There is now no serious debate on the question: Barack Obama is the worst fiscal deadbeat and worst US president in history.

  87. Rococo Liberal

    That Rudd grew unpopular had nothing to do with the media.

    I didn’t mean that the media made Rudd unpopular (though I think it may have contributed in that it riled the people by not following their growing dislike of Rudd). But they did, once they twigged to just how unpopular Rudd Labor had become, have a lot to do with his downfall.

    I think my major point here is that a media campaign will not work unless the populace sees some glimmer of truth behind it: thus the populace will often lead the media s much as the other way around.

    The Republican Referendum was good example of this. There can be no doubt that the media pushed hard for a Yes vote, but the people resisted. Now, I suppose CL could argue that a less biased and corrupt media would have meant that the Yes vote would have been even lower than it was. That’s as may be, but I think it fails to take into account the autonomy of the individual, which I think should be the conerstone of any right-wing philosophy. If we treat the people as adults, by saying that they are smart enough most of the time to overcome left wing bias and corruption in the media, then they will act as adults. If we whine in the crusading manner of the lefty victim class, as CL seems to want us to do, we will just turn off the electorate.

  88. C.L.

    How’s Herman’s issues with the lay-dees going, by the way?

    You mean it’s not in the headlines, Steve?

    Why’s that, buddy?

  89. Adrien

    The media bias in that case is doing more harm than good, because the voters take the view that media is in bed with the government and is not reporting the facts.

    This is true. It’s true because it’s true. Factually. The media are selective in the facts that they report. This whining about bias is retarded.

    In the first place the media is amazingly homogenous. There is a spectrum of views and this is part of the tradition of the press. A legacy of the days when there were many proprietors and each was using the newspaper business to push his barrel whatever that was.

  90. m0nty

    Big deal. There’s no such thing as relative poverty but only absolute poverty. I don’t give a shit if you are wealthier than me, Monty in the same way you don’t give a fuck being richer than the average Solomon Islander.

    Rubbish, JC. The middle classes don’t like it when their real wages are going down, even if they are still above the poverty line, especially when the rich are getting huge increases in income. Both of which have been happening in the last decade.

    The right exploit the politics of jealousy as much as anyone, running scare campaigns about dole bludgers or immigrants getting a better deal (not to mention fair-skinned Aborigines). It’s not as if everyone is happy as long as they are a dollar above the poverty line. That’s silly talk.

  91. Sean

    is the equivalent of the ‘communism has never been properly tried’ shtick

    One of the leading socialists in the UK said:

    ‘We’ll be back, but this time no more mister nice guy!’

  92. JC

    MotY

    Stop fucking thread wrecking, you dipshit. This thread is about media bias, not your stupid, illiterate notion of economics. Seriously, fuck off. If you want to spam go do it on the open forum, you attention seeking troll.

  93. C.L.

    I think my major point here is that a media campaign will not work unless the populace sees some glimmer of truth behind it.

    No, let me explain this to you. Vewy slowly, as Homer would say. Frequently, the media creates that glimmer of ‘truth’. Very successfully. See Rudd as erstaz Howard, Obama as principled and intellectually gigantic messiah, Palin as creationist, Bush as dumb etc etc.

    The response is twofold: 1) point out the bias (ceaselessly) and; 2) counter the garbage.

    Alternatively, you can surrender the press field to the left – which is RL’s bizarre, effete counsel.

  94. Rococo Liberal

    SFB

    My view on this matter is probably a lot closer to those of CL’s, for whom I have the greatest respect, than you realise. We are having a debate about difference in emphasis.

    I am taking my lead from Spiked whose wonderful motto should say it all:

    Humanity is underrated.

    We on the right must fight all the time to get our views out there, but other than casually pointing out the biases and corruption of the left-wing media, we should not get too fussed about the press or TV presentation of things; that is mistaking form for substance.

  95. Sean

    The example of Rudd is a good one, only if we remember that he got turfed out due to the perception of unpopularity with the voters propagated by … the media.

    I’m convinced his semi-retarded attack on neo-liberalism was the tipping point when the media fell out of love with him. He was shown to be a massive intellectual fraud.

  96. m0nty

    Bush reduced the deficit from $412 billion in 2004 to $162 billion in 2007, a 60 percent drop. In 2004 the deficit was $412 billion. In 2005 it dropped to $318 billion. In 2006 the deficit dropped again to $248 billion. And, in 2007 it fell below $200 billion to $162 billion.

    Remind me again, 2004 was what year of the Dubbya presidency? The fourth year, when he was pork barrelling at election time? Hmm. Why use that as a yardstick? All I’m seeing there is a trillion dollars of deficit across four years. You cherrypicked the numbers, failing to include that the deficit went up again in 2008 under Dubbya. Not to mention the two wars, which were outside the budget and have cost well over a trillion as well.

    Keep throwing Dubbya’s record at me, CL, it’s easy to spank out of the park.

  97. JC

    Boris

    MontY is wrecking your thread with incoherent gibberish. Please send him to the open forum.

  98. JC

    I’m convinced his semi-retarded attack on neo-liberalism was the tipping point when the media fell out of love with him. He was shown to be a massive intellectual fraud.

    It was a truly appalling essay. It proved he was an idiot as though any proof was necessary.

  99. Gab

    incoherent gibberish

    Makes a nice change from his usual banal codswallop.

  100. Rococo Liberal

    CL

    You are misunderstanding my point. I agree that you we should hammer corruption and bias at every opportunity, but never blame it for our defeats, which is how you came across earlier. We on the right are stronger than the left because we scorn namby-pamby, run-to-mummy whinging about the naughty media.

    In fact you came across like a bit of a right-wing Bob Brown, who dismisses any criticism in the media as bias against the Greens and wants straight away to play the victim.

    There is one exception of course. JC is right, once the Coalition get back into power, they should shut down the ABC’s news and current affairs division, as it does not provide a service that is not already available from manuy other sources. That in itself would score a huge win for our side in the battle against bias.

    The media didn’t win the Republic debate, nor have they succeed in the long run with Ruddy. Gillard is another for whom the media have lauded, but the people hate. The media may win sometimes, but not all the time.

  101. JamesK

    I’m convinced his semi-retarded attack on neo-liberalism was the tipping point when the media fell out of love with him. He was shown to be a massive intellectual fraud.

    I think:

    1. His prolonged silence after Copenhagen despite calls

    2. His eventual decision to ditch the CPRS – especally given the vicious and exremist vitriol of his Lowy Institute speech which lhad been lapped up by the Canberra press gallery a year earlier and most especially his ” gretaest moral challenge of our time’ earlier rhetoric.

    The people turned on him not the media.

    Nobody of sane mind reads the fuvking Monthly

  102. m0nty

    The OP is a ridiculous troll, it gets the thread it deserves.

  103. JC

    True, James. No one even with an ounce of self respect would read Da Monthly.

    However what did happen is that lots of commentators kept referring to this grotesque Rudd essay and by not even reading it came across that he was a first order idiot and unknowledgeable, ignorant political troll.

  104. JamesK

    Yes JC.

    But after the rolled-up shirtsleeved w’end in Oct 2008 and then the Christmas break in early 2009 the essay was published.

    It showed Rudd to have the intellectual depth of an uncouth 16 yo but the gallery loved the fact that there was now no longer a cigarette papers difference between Rudd and Howard on fiscal matters but a chasm.

    They loved the formal acknowledgemnt of where Rudd was headed.

    It was only conservatives who derided the essay.

    He only lost the gallery after he was actually deposed.

    It was Latham all over again.

  105. LaRouchite

    I couldn’t care less about a biased media. What I do care about is a biased state owned media system like the ABC. That needs to be torn down and ripped apart.

    lol the ABC is biased to the Right

    PETER Costello believes the ABC is ”hostile territory” for conservatives, but a study has found its television news leans towards the Coalition.

    Economists Joshua Gans and Andrew Leigh made the finding in a research paper, How Partisan is the Press?, that also said that on another measure of bias The Age slants towards Labor.

    The study of media from 1999 to 2007 found that television and talkback radio were most likely to lean to the right, while newspapers slant left. Overall, the media showed a slight inclination to the right.

    http://www.theage.com.au/business/study-finds-abc-bias-leans-towards-coalition-20090902-f8gm.html

  106. jtfsoon

    The average IQ of this thread just went down 30 points

  107. LaRouchite

    For anyone wanting to educate themselves on the lengths to which Fox News will go to to distort the news:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies

    We Distort, You Comply.

  108. Sean

    There’s a maxim:

    ‘Be careful of triumphalisim as it may lead to a backlash’

    which I think occured. The right regrouped against a common enemy, Howard who was kicked from his own seat made a comeback to call it a work of fraud and suddenly people understood the clarity of Howard’s thought (on this economic issues at least) that they had voted for. Rudd lied to get elected and this was the perfect theme to criticise his stimulus extravaganza.

  109. JamesK

    Crikey/Phage is to DaRash what heroin is to the addict.

  110. JC

    Dild

    You need to go to the back of the class. That “research” by Andy and Josh have been a source of considerable amusement here for a few years now. Even Andy subsequently acknowledged it was flawed horseshit.

    Some of us here went a little further demanding that Andy and Josh personally recompense the taxpayer for that useless crap. The fact they haven’t speaks a great deal about integrity.

    You are so fucking brain-dead its no longer funny any more. Go away, back to Crikey, as you are more useless than a bull’s tit.

  111. JamesK

    The average IQ of this thread just went down 30 points

    jtfsoon is too conservative

  112. JC

    30 points? Try 60. Every time dild shows up here the IQ drops 60 points and you see it spiking down on the IQ meter on the right of the site. It only used to drop 56.5 points when homer was around.

  113. thefrollickingmole

    This is just funny.

    “Bush Jnr’s strategy was to create a bubble that would burst just before the end of his second term, long enough to fund wars which would benefit his corporate backers, and leave his successor with a half-destroyed economy on the verge of depression.”

    So GWB was a machiavellian schemer and political genius?
    Or was he a sup-par daddys boy and the stupidest president ever?

    Only a lefty (or a truther) could hold both of these opinions in their brain at once.
    Apparently mOnty choses GWB the genius?

  114. C.L.

    Monty was arguing that the warring caused Bush to spend like crazy. Not true:

    Bush reduced the deficit from $412 billion in 2004 to $162 billion in 2007, a 60 percent drop. In 2004 the deficit was $412 billion. In 2005 it dropped to $318 billion. In 2006 the deficit dropped again to $248 billion. And, in 2007 it fell below $200 billion to $162 billion.

    It was only after the Democrats’ GFC and redlining chickens came home to roost that spending and bailouts took off – and all of this spending was approved by Obama.

  115. boy on a bike

    To get the thread back on track:

    – conservatives will put up with a lot of left wing bias. They’ll tolerate buying and reading things that lefties publish, so long as there is some meaningful content.

    – lefties will not put up with any right wing content at all. They are intolerant and exclusive. They prefer a leftist monoculture to a political multi-culture.

    A publisher can maximise their sales therefore by appealing to swampy readers, knowing that plenty of conservatives will hold their nose and buy the paper as well.

  116. Adrien

    The average IQ of this thread just went down 30 points

    I don;t think IQ points can be counted in the negative.

    This whole thread reminds me of the most emphatically robotic left-wing bullshit. First we assume ‘bias’. W

  117. JamesK

    To get the thread back on track:

    Good asessmewnt from boab but i fear leftism is actually more sinister. Proselytism to leftism thru education via teachers and lecturers and media thru journalism schools is part of modern socialism and leftism.

    Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky outlines their methodolgy to disguise their true nature to obtain power first.

    “In the 1995 memo, Mr Bandt said he was “towards an anti-capitalist, anti-social democratic, internationalist movement”.

    Adam Bandt:

    Identifying himself as a member of the Left Alliance, Mr Bandt said, “the parliamentary road to socialism is non-existent”. He called the Greens a “bourgeois” party but said supporting them might be the most effective strategy.

    “Communists can’t fetishise alternative political parties, but should always make some kind of materially based assessment about the effectiveness of any given strategy come election time,” he wrote in the 1995 memo.”

  118. Adrien

    The average IQ of this thread just went down 30 points

    I don;t think IQ points can be counted in the negative.

    This whole thread reminds me of the most emphatically robotic left-wing bullshit. First we assume ‘bias’. Why is there ‘bias’? Because people we hate aren’t vilified and marginalized. And because governments we disapprove of get too easy a time of it.

    Hello? All governments get to easy a time of it! One of the main problems with the media has been that the traditional function of the fourth estate – to watch the State – is no longer taken seriously by anyone. We want the politicians we are deluded enough to think represent our interests to be given a free ride. And we want those are deluded enough to think are seriously worse than those we support to be condemned.

    There’s an assumption of bias at Fairfax but the Sunday Age‘s opinion page was headlined by Chris Berg condemning the Qantas leadership as xenophobic.

    Meantime the Herald-Sun can get away with writing a headline that gives the explicit impression that the OM tent city hippies mugged a cop when all they did was publish a poster of a particular cop who was thought to be, um, lacking professionalism in the compunction department. There was no effort in the story to actually investigate the truth of the allegations.

    And yet the vast majority of heads here will simply ignore that or worse actively approve of it, because News Ltd has the right line on economics. That reminds me of Communist groupthink. No exaggeration.

    Go ahead. Keep doing it y’all. It’s increasingly transparent. It doesn’t do you any favours whatsoever. Well that’s if you’re actually an advocate of classical liberalism. Very few left it seems.

  119. JamesK

    Go ahead. Keep doing it y’all. It’s increasingly transparent. It doesn’t do you any favours whatsoever. Well that’s if you’re actually an advocate of classical liberalism. Very few left it seems.

    There’s only one side advocating more media controls, standards and supervision. There’s only one side bullying media organisations and airline companies.

    Amd it’s not on this thread Adrien.

    Grow up.

  120. papachango

    Has Adam Bandit Bandt, ever publicly renounced those views, or has he even been asked by a journalist whenther he still holds them?

    Good example of media bias – they seem to make a very big deal about things Tony Abbott supposedly said years ago, but apparently having once said you’re a communist who plans to secretly infiltrate a mainstream party is cool, even years later when you’re part of that party.

    I’m prepared to be charitable and assume Bandt was just being young, idealistic and stupid, but only if he now admist he was wrong.

  121. ar

    Maybe due to their indoctrination in liberal arts colleges, sports journalists are Democrats, but this may not affect their reporting, or indeed sales.

    What about this spray, which is ostensibly about rugby?

    LAST Saturday night I was invited to a pub by a group of friends who follow a football club which I hold in similar regard to right-wing think tanks and amoebic dysentery.

    Why start off a story about sport with a gratuitous dig that will alienate readers?

  122. FDB

    I really regret having bothered to make a serious contribution to this thread.

  123. JC

    You should get that regret right out of your head, FDB. You didn’t.

  124. FDB

    I could have predicted that almost to the word JC.

    Perhaps I ought to be grateful there was no abuse.

    As best I can tell, mine was the only comment apart from RL’s that responded to the OP with something not already in it, and without any dumbarse ideological shadow-boxing.

    Like I said, WTF was I thinking?

  125. JC

    …and without any dumbarse ideological shadow-boxing.

    2) The Democrats are not left
    wing.

    Are you just smoking or graduated to injecting the substance?

  126. Adrien

    There’s only one side advocating more media controls, standards and supervision.

    Oh yeah? So control and supervision are only things that happen in parliament, or as the direct result of that that happens there?

    Do we actually have what Boris calls ‘the free market of ideas’?

    The Gillard government’s vendetta against News Ltd has nothing to do with what I’ve said. You say ‘grow up’, I say ‘learn to read’ ye daft pillock. I’m not advocating ‘media controls’, I’m saying there’s a shitload of hypocrisy here. Most of the commentors wouldn’t know a free market of ideas until they fell backwards over one. And when they did they wouldn’t like it.

    Not that I’m calling you a hypocrite Jimmy old bean. If we had one privately owned media outlet producing stuff you’d expect to get if the Nazis won the war I doubt you’d even notice.

    There’s only one side bullying media organisations and airline companies.

    Amd it’s not on this thread Adrien.

    Grow up.

  127. Boris

    “This whole thread reminds me of the most emphatically robotic left-wing bullshit. First we assume ‘bias’. Why is there ‘bias’? Because people we hate aren’t vilified and marginalized. And because governments we disapprove of get too easy a time of it.’

    No. Apparently there is a big discrepancy between the voting patterns of journalists and the general populations. If this is true, then this is an empirical evidence of bias (not necessariliy bias but some sort of colour. I do think voting patterns have an effect on journlist’s writing).

  128. Jarrah

    ” If this is true, then this is an empirical evidence of bias”

    No, it’s just a possible reason for any bias which would need actual empirical evidence of its existence.

    What I think is in fact happening is that the media is by and large very centrist, and this allows the right and the left to believe the media is biased against them.

  129. ar

    I really regret having bothered to make a serious contribution to this thread.

    Haha. Us too…

  130. wreckage

    No. Apparently there is a big discrepancy between the voting patterns of journalists and the general populations. If this is true, then this is an empirical evidence of bias

    You do not have to be a shill to be biased. You can be earnest, truthful and open-minded and you will still be biased. When all the journalists, or something like 80%+ all vote the same way, the view from the media will be biased, even if every single journalist is the best person we could reasonably expect them to be.

    2) The Democrats are not left wing.

    And the Liberals are not right wing, by approximately the same measure, which is to say, they’re all centrist careerists with a strong bent towards big business and big government forming a giant incestuous duopoly over all trade and governance.

  131. JamesK

    What I think is in fact happening is that the media is by and large very centrist, and this allows the right and the left to believe the media is biased against them.

    Jarrah’s from the krudd-Goldilocks school of policy pitching.

  132. JC

    What I think is in fact happening is that the media is by and large very centrist, and this allows the right and the left to believe the media is biased against them.

    Really Jazza?

    You think the Oz is centrist?

  133. Jarrah

    “You think the Oz is centrist?”

    By and large, yes. Its opinion pages can tend rightwards, but I guarantee you they – along with all mainstream media outlets – would only fiddle around the edges of our current system, if they had that power.

    Centre-right and centre-left… they’re all more centre than otherwise.

  134. So have FOX but still complain that CNN, NYT, or the smage is biased. Well yes they may be, but so what? If what they produce doesn’t sell, they will go out of business.

    What you are missing is that in the US, the Obama administration have tried to ban FOX from press conferences and announcements because of their “bias”, but the left wing agencies have been allowed to carry on as normal.

    http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/10/obama-administration-tries-to-ban-fox.html

  135. Which, as some people who are paying attention might be aware, is exactly what the Gillard government is trying to do with News corp.

    But being Australia, rather than just outright telling them to “piss off”, they are having an “enquiry” first, stacked with left-wing attack dogs.

  136. .

    The average IQ of this thread just went down 30 points

    HAHAHAHA

    Old lol douche is bested by the plainest of insults.

  137. Boris

    “What you are missing is that in the US, the Obama administration have tried to ban FOX from press conferences and announcements because of their “bias”, but the left wing agencies have been allowed to carry on as normal.”

    That may be the case, but, you know, presidents come and go… I actually think President can choose who to speak to…

  138. Boris

    “What I think is in fact happening is that the media is by and large very centrist, and this allows the right and the left to believe the media is biased against them.”

    yes but we all know they are slanted. NYT is mostly objective but we know it is liberally slanted. WSJ is mostly objective but we know it is liberally slanted. Same with SMH vs The Australian…

    I think bias is relative. So there is no contradiction between a Liberal voter saying that SMH is left wing and a radical leftist saying it is right-wing, just a bit less extreme than the Australian.

    So why US liberally slanted papers sell better than conservative papers? I don’t think we have a clear answer yet.

  139. Boris

    sorry: WSJ is conservatively slanted, so to speak

  140. JC

    NYT is mostly objective but we know it is liberally slanted.

    There’s no doubt and their public ombudsman has publicly stated they are. Dan Okrent , when he was the public ombudsman for the NYT ran a piece on this stating quite clearly they had a liberal slant.

  141. Boris

    ” which is to say, they’re all centrist careerists with a strong bent towards big business and big government forming a giant incestuous duopoly over all trade and governance.”

    The words Domocrats, Liberals (with capitals) may mean several things. They may mean politicians. They may mean party members and they may mean voters. The above only describes politicians.

  142. daddy dave

    Boris: your post might be retitled as “media bias: Why is it so?”
    or perhaps: “Media bias: where is the market?”

    First, why does it happen? I think this is a good example of institutional capture, as academics had an increasing influence on the media both through increased education and accreditation, and through the rise of opinion makers, who mostly formed their views out of the urban-left consensus (“luvvies” as they are sometimes called).

    So it’s basically O’Sullivan’s law. News organisations drifted leftward because they got a huge influx of university educated, inner city lefties. Anyone who thinks this didn’t happen can have no coherent explanation for the emergence of Fox. (why did, shock horror, the public suddenly want bias in their news? because it was already biased the other way).

    So it was the result of labor markets and the fact that newspapers are based in major urban areas, not supply and demand. Reader’s Digest is a classic example. A notoriously conservative right wing publication that gradually drifted towards a bland centrism, only to see its circulation decline.

    The internet has fewer barriers to entry and we see a greater range of political viewpoints. Interestingly the only self-styled neutral commentators are those being employed by old media. it doesn’t seem to be a stance that works in the online world. People want their opinion makers to have a viewpoint and commentate from that.

  143. Boris

    daddy dave, thanks for insightful comment. After submitting, I thought the best title would be: Media bias: market failure?

    I think your explanation may apply particularly to US tv prior to Fox. As for newspapers, they are so numerous and diverse, I do not think this market could be so easily ‘capturted’. Every town has a paper, and every city has a larger paper, which has a potential to attain national circulation with the right market approach (not now but in the age of newspapers). And if the right-of-centre market has a vacuuum, there must be players out there keen to expand into that market…

  144. Boris

    “Good example of media bias – they seem to make a very big deal about things Tony Abbott supposedly said years ago,”

    Tony Abbott is a likely next Prime Minister. Adam who?

  145. LaRouchite

    Really Jazza?

    You think the Oz is centrist?

    Even JC can admit the bleedingly obvious.

  146. JC

    lolDild

    whereas you want to close it down, at least I can admit the Fairfax sewer is biased and News is biased, but neither Jazza or myself would be demanding they be closed down or “refoirmed”.

    So you really need to shut your stupid trap as there’s nothing here you can add that will increase human knowledge.

  147. LaRouchite

    Shut what down, ya plank?

  148. JC

    Dild

    Almost every day you plague us with Crikey cut-outs whining about Bolt, da murduch and the horror of the “wright” wing media.

    You’re now implying you are a free speech aficionado? Please. Don’t make me feel like vomiting.

  149. LaRouchite

    What are you on about I’ve never said anything about shutting Ltd News down?

    You’ve been hanging around too many birther’s & truther’s mate.

  150. JC

    Okay, so you support the current ‘quiry or not Dild.

    Be expansive here and help increase human knowledge.

  151. Boris

    ” Frequently, the media creates that glimmer of ‘truth’. Very successfully. See Rudd as erstaz Howard, Obama as principled and intellectually gigantic messiah, Palin as creationist, Bush as dumb etc etc.”

    But how do we know these are examples of biases? I mean, objectively? If media says X is dumb (genious, whatever), maybe media is baised or maybe X is dumb (genious, whatever).

    Because you (or a right-wing paper) say X is not dumb (genious, whatever)? Well, maybe indeed you are right and media is wrong. I see a lot of bias in the media, particularly anti-Israel bias. But it is quite hard to distinguish bias from legitimate criticism.

    Back in Russia, when Boris Yeltsyn was fighting communists, the communist media potraid him as a drunk. We thought it was bias… Later we discovered he was rally a drunk, so they weren’t so biased after all… Or Nixon…

  152. JC

    Boris.

    The Age doing a weekend love-in spread with Mad bob Brown. Front page news on what Mad Bob or tubby mine think.

    There is also dishonesty through omission.

  153. LaRouchite

    Okay, so you support the current ‘quiry or not Dild.

    Be expansive here and help increase human knowledge.

    Yes I do support the current inquiry but on the topic of bias I don’t really think that is something that can or should be legislated againt.

    I’m all for people like Doug Cameron & Bob Brown to call out Ltd News for their OTT bias when they see fit though.

    I think Conroy (as much as I dislike him) refused to take questions from The Oz journo’s for awhile, nothing wrong with that shame them into some sort of professional reportage.

  154. Boris

    “The Journal is the largest newspaper in the United States, by circulation. ”

    sorry if that is the case, there shouldn’t be any overall bias in the media. Unless you accuse Murdoch of left-wing bias.

  155. JC

    Yes I do support the current inquiry but on the topic

    And the ‘quiry serves what purpose Dild? In your valued estimation.

    So you really don’t support free speech. IT just took a few comments to finally get the truth.

  156. Boris

    “There is also dishonesty through omission.”

    Don’t know about dishonesty, but there is certainly selection bias, consious or subconsious. As JamesK, Jarrah and others said, this is the main bias in the media. But documenting it is hard because it requires statistical abalysis of a large number of news and CA items.

  157. JC

    Boris.

    Take the Lurch Rudd insulation fiasco. Fairfax never went close to that story until they couldn’t avoid it.

    That’s a prime example.

    The Oz was all over it as first rate investigative journalism which sort of aligns with your Yeltsin story.

    Sometimes biased news operations can also be right.

  158. Gab

    But documenting it is hard because it requires statistical abalysis of a large number of news and CA items.

    And finding someone with an analytical mind and no bias.

    Good post, Boris, and generated quite good discussion for the most part.

  159. Boris

    “Take the Lurch Rudd insulation fiasco…”

    I know people went on about it here… But I have read somewhere that accident rate was actually lower than in such operations without the insentive. I do not want to go into this… just shows how difficult it is to distinguish and document bias.

  160. JC

    What you read was bullshit, Boris.

    200 homes burnt down that would not have done so if they mutton heads hadn’t pushed that.

  161. LaRouchite

    And the ‘quiry serves what purpose Dild? In your valued estimation.

    So you really don’t support free speech. IT just took a few comments to finally get the truth.

    As I understand it to look into whether the media here have been getting up to similar corrupt stuff in the UK.

    If so I don’t think any sane or rational person could be against that.

  162. LaRouchite

    Take the Lurch Rudd insulation fiasco. Fairfax never went close to that story until they couldn’t avoid it.

    That’s a prime example.

    I don’t know if that is true but it certainly was in respect to News Ltd here and the NOTW scandal in the UK. Initially they were very reluctant to report it and it was all left to Fairfax & Crikey.

  163. Boris

    JC you are quite possibly right. But all the same, it underscores the importance of knowing the wider picture. What I see is that people are happy to refer to a story when it fits with their point of view. Both sides do this.

  164. JC

    As I understand it to look into whether the media here have been getting up to similar corrupt stuff in the UK.

    If so I don’t think any sane or rational person could be against that.

    Who are you kidding, dild. there is absolutely no reason to conduct a ‘quiry without even suspicion of such a thing happening and you know full well who they have called to the ‘quiry and the layout.

    Stop the bullshitting and playing dumb as you’ve read what is going on at the Crikey… not that I’ve read that site but I’m 127.8% certain they have more than reported on it.

  165. JC

    Boris.

    News Media is narrowing up because of the severe competition from the web. The narrowing means you target the real audience you want to serve with opinion and analysis.

    Regular news these days has become commoditized, so value adding is offering opinion/analysis to the target audience.

    So of course news outlets are biased. They have to be.

  166. LaRouchite

    I know people went on about it here… But I have read somewhere that accident rate was actually lower than in such operations without the insentive. I do not want to go into this… just shows how difficult it is to distinguish and document bias.

    It was a massive media beat up and I lost a bit of respect for Rudd for kowtowing to The Oz over that.

    As we here have long known and talked about, the reality of the Home Insulation Program was always vastly different to its hysterical media portrayal – driven as it was by naive and innumerate journalists looking for easy sensational headlines, and partisan hacks prostituting their cheap wares before a gullible public. Having a cowardly government lacking the plums to tell them all where to stick it was another unfortunate sub-plot in this tale of public deception about the reality of a substantial piece of public policy.

    Ultimately, the HIP – as we’ve stated from the beginning, regularly, using publically available data at the time – was much safer in terms of fire rates than what preceded it. Now, however, we know that it was safer over both the short term (the fire rates over the 12 month period from installation) as well as the longer term (the residual long term fire rates that occur from 12 months after the insulation was installed).

    There’s plenty that could be said about the widespread and pathetic excuse for journalism that was involved in the coverage of the HIP program – but what else is new?

    Much of News Ltd – particularly that shit sheet The Australian – not to mention the entertainers pretending to be informed commentators that live under the bridges of talkback radio, had their heads firmly embedded up their own sphincters . But again, what else is new? Their silence on the report is pretty predictable. An under-qualified media will continue to give us under-qualified policy analysis, leaving them regularly stranded on the wrong side of reality when it all comes out in the wash. Eggs, faces and no real surprises.

    The sad part here is that a significant proportion of the public will also be left stranded in a fictional world, at least as far as those who have the not unreasonable expectation that the people informing them about political reality are actually up to the job.

    But the fault lay not at the feet of those with reasonable expectations of the fourth estate, but with those that have proven – time and time again – that they cannot live up to providing for those essentially reasonable expectations.

    http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2011/04/24/the-csiro-gets-hip-to-debunking-media-hysteria/

  167. Boris

    “As I understand it to look into whether the media here have been getting up to similar corrupt stuff in the UK. ”

    But LaR, this is absurd. You don’t initiate an investigation based on the fact that something has happened on the other side of the globe.

    I watched the UK story live. I saw live (on BBC tv) the attack on Ruppert Murdoch. In my view, the story was blown out of all proportions. They did some dreadful things and may have even lied to parliament… To do such things to victims of crime… At the same time, Britain was swept with the biggest riot after WWII.

    We need some sense of proportion.

  168. JC

    Dild

    We had numerous comments about that and the rat, Possum, was wrong, which is quite surprising for an economist but not so for a crikey contributor.

    The rat didn’t understand difference between absolute increase and marginal increase.

  169. Jarrah

    “I think bias is relative. So there is no contradiction between a Liberal voter saying that SMH is left wing and a radical leftist saying it is right-wing, just a bit less extreme than the Australian.”

    I agree 100%.

    “So why US liberally slanted papers sell better than conservative papers?”

    How do you know they are liberally slanted? That could just be your own bias showing, as you yourself point out in that first bit I quoted.

    It’s extremely hard to get reasonably objective measures of something so dependent on subjective analysis. That’s one of the reasons why any inquiry into media bias by the government is pointless, even damaging.

  170. Boris

    LaR what does your crikey story prove? That an alternative POV exists? Or you seriously suggest that crikey is more truthful than Oz? How do I know?

  171. LaRouchite

    I watched the UK story live. I saw live (on BBC tv) the attack on Ruppert Murdoch. In my view, the story was blown out of all proportions.

    How can you even say this with a straight face?

    Surely you saw that Four Corners special on the whole thing? Utterly corrupt doesn’t even begin to describe it.

  172. JC

    So why US liberally slanted papers sell better than conservative papers?”

    There are really two newspapers that count in the US. Everything else is unreadable waste of space save for the NYPost.

    These two are the NYTimes and the Wall Street Journal. Those the two that count.

    The NYT has admitted its leftwing slant and to be honest the WSJ is pretty down the middle with its news but certainly to the right with opinion.

  173. C.L.

    Surely you saw that Four Corners special on the whole thing?

    Four Corners, you say?

  174. JC

    How can you even say this with a straight face?

    Surely you saw that Four Corners special on the whole thing? Utterly corrupt doesn’t even begin to describe it.

    Most of it was about 5 years old, dild.

  175. JC

    Yep 4 Corners. That bastion of centrist analysis. Lol

  176. LaRouchite

    LaR what does your crikey story prove? That an alternative POV exists? Or you seriously suggest that crikey is more truthful than Oz? How do I know?

    Um read the CSIRO statistical analysis it links to?

    Educate yourself.

    More:

    Back in February of this year when a debate popped up in the media over the insulation program – if one loosely defines “debate” as screeching “OMG!! YOUR HOUSES ARE ALL GOING TO BURN DOWN” – we thought that it might be worthwhile for someone to take their underpants off their head and have a squiz at what the data actually said.

    What we found was that under every possible scenario, the government insulation program – far from increasing the rates of fire occurring from installing insulation – actually reduced the rate of fires and likely reduced the rate in a quite substantial manner.

    Ultimately, the data strongly suggested that the insulation program actually made the industry safer in terms of fire risk. Some folks found that surprising since it went against the hysterics – but it’s only really surprising if you weren’t paying attention.

    http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2010/10/19/insulation-fire-risk-%E2%80%93-the-data-is-in/

  177. Boris

    “How do you know they are liberally slanted? That could just be your own bias ”

    My analysis is based on the voting patterns. I think they are relevant. I agree there is far from a direct link between voting patterns of journalists and bias, but on some level (even extremely subconcious) there must be a correlation.

    Or as wreckage said: “You do not have to be a shill to be biased. You can be earnest, truthful and open-minded and you will still be biased. When all the journalists, or something like 80%+ all vote the same way, the view from the media will be biased, even if every single journalist is the best person we could reasonably expect them to be.”

  178. C.L.

    How do you know they are liberally slanted?

    It’s an established fact, that’s how.

    In 1981, S. Robert Lichter, then with George Washington University, and Stanley Rothman of Smith College, released a groundbreaking survey of 240 journalists at the most influential national media outlets — including the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS — on their political attitudes and voting patterns. Results of this study of the “media elite” were included in the October/November 1981 issue of Public Opinion, published by the American Enterprise Institute, in the article “Media and Business Elites.”

    Now look at the graph that plots the results:

    http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp

  179. Boris

    LaR, I do not watch Four Corners. My main source is BBC and it has been blown out of all proportions. The worst thing they did was listen to phones and leave some misldeading messages. Disgusting. Criminal. So what. Is that murder? Murders happen every day and no one gives a shit.

  180. JC

    Dild

    you are suffering confirmation bias.

    when the rat come here to the cat to argue his position… he was asked a simple question by me.

    I asked… are you therefore suggesting that the lurch Rudd insulation fiasco helped prevent fires then?

    He ran back to crikey without answering.

    look dild, you aren’t numerate enough to be arguing this stuff so stay well away. If you think you can answer my question then feel free to. But no fucking links to the Crikey.

  181. Boris

    of course, an elephant in this room is that by far the biggest bias of the media is not political; it is their obsession with sensation, celebrity, gossip and scandal.

  182. C.L.

    I’m the only elephant in this room, thank you. 😡

  183. LaRouchite

    JC, you seriously expect me to believe that?

    The data and graphs are all there in that first link.

    Knock yourself out.

    Not only did Rudd Labor make that dodgy industry safer but they were pilloried by The Oz for it. If Rudd had a pair he should’ve opened up on the deceitful bastards for trying to infer they were somehow to blame for cowboys not training their staff.

  184. C.L.

    It was a triumph.

    Four dead.

    200 houses burned down.

    Billions wasted on the scheme and billions more on the fix.

    Like I said, a triumph.

  185. JC

    JC, you seriously expect me to believe that?

    the rat doesn’t understand the difference between absolute and marginal increase. Yep it’s true.

    If you don’t believe what I’m telling you then answer the question I posed to the rat.

    are you therefore suggesting that the lurch Rudd insulation fiasco helped prevent fires then?

    Have a go, dild.

  186. Boris

    jc, I thinbk LaR answered your question in the affirmative:

    “Not only did Rudd Labor make that dodgy industry safer …”

  187. Sean

    The scheme was based on a dodgy calculation on the r-score of the insulation and the emissions/energy that was to be saved over the long term by the installations.

    As it happened half the insulation was below standard, a manufacturer in His or Swan’s electorate made a fortune and we got collectively fucked over.

  188. Boris

    May I respectively propose a moratorium on discussing home insulation? It was just an example…

  189. Sean

    Did the ABC report on the above information? Like fuck they did. They turn everything into ‘politics’ to avoid real debate with economically liberal views and basically deride any policy proposals from the left.

    That’s the problem with the ABC everything goes through a political filter as the politicians are their bosses. The union fuckery of the place allows them greater freedom to attack the Liberal party.

    It should be closed down, just like politicians.

  190. Sean

    I tried watching the 7:30 report but with Kerry around I couldn’t help hurling ‘softcock’ at the pathetic angle taken by all their ‘in depth’ reports any longer.

    The coverage of the Coalition asking for a cost benefit analysis of the NBN was a disgrace. They showed a whole bunch of porn addicts backing the move, then conroy, then the technologists to say it was the best technology. Fine, so now we hear about the CBA…

    -One story about e-health
    -Greater information sharing for hospitals
    -video conferencing

    So fucking what! We could spend 3x as much on health and I’m sure some people would benefit but there is an opportunity cost with every big decision, $50 billion of tax payers money and these frauds spent a week without seriously considering the purpose of a CBA. Some weed came on and said ‘you can’t calculate the benefits’ Fuck off, give it a try and make some heroic assumptions if you have to.

  191. Boris

    “That’s the problem with the ABC everything goes through a political filter as the politicians are their bosses. ”

    If that was the case, ABC would be right-wing under Howard.

  192. Sean

    No it wouldn’t. Without market forces they can continue to pander to their audience. Like I said, everything come from a political angle and is bureaucratic thus is at odds with a market based society. Everything becomes a government issue when clearly in some cases it is not.

    I can’t think of anytime the ABC have advocated a problem didn’t need a political fix.

  193. Boris

    ” as the politicians are their bosses. ”

    so what if Howard is their boss?

  194. Sean

    So Rupert Murdoch can read and control every single article in his papers?

  195. Boris

    ” Rupert Murdoch can read and control every single article in his papers?”

    He does not have to. Nor does he want to. But there is influence on the direction.

    if the problem with ABC is that it is under government control, then it follows that it will TEND TO take the colour of the government of the day. I don’t think this is quite true.

    ABC is independent. Of the viewers and the taxpayers. And that is the problem. Then all the ‘institutional takeovers’ cna flourish.

  196. JC

    Eggsactly

    Their report on the NBN was a fucking disgrace. Absolute abject total disgrace.

  197. Rafe

    Yes it is not quite true that the ABC tends to take the colour of the government of the day. Very perceptive Boris!

  198. JamesK

    ABC is independent

    And of the board.

    Its as independent as Red Kez.

    If ‘independent’ means giving the finger to the taxpayers that pay Red’s $750,000 annual salary.

    And ‘independent’ certainly doesn’t mean unbiased

  199. Boris

    And ‘independent’ certainly doesn’t mean unbiased

    Exactly.

  200. Adrien

    So why US liberally slanted papers sell better than conservative papers? I don’t think we have a clear answer yet.

    Again because to read a newspaper you have to actually read a newspaper.

  201. JamesK

    Another typically worthwhile contribution from Adwienne

  202. Adrien

    Jimmy, here’s the news pal, you are almost universally regarded as an IDIOT!

    Now do the world a favour and follow in the footsteps of the one person on this planet dumb enough to be a role model for you.

Comments are closed.