President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%↑
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd
(D) Adam Frisch
52%↑
48%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
50%
50%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
March 06, 2007 07:17 PM UTC
24 Comments
The media is (though technically a plural noun, let’s treat it as singular for the present purpose) deeply conservative, superficially liberal, and sensationalist through-and-through. It is deeply conservative because it is owned and sponsored by Big Business, and because it is a free-market enterprise that often defines “objectiviity” as find the middle-ground of the American ideological spectrum, a spectrum that is quite conservative by international (developed nation) standards. (I was raised this latter point to the foreign affairs editor of a conservative major East coast newspaper -can’t remember which one- framing it in terms of reinforcing American biases, and she said it was a “stupid question,” greatly diminishing my faith that American journalism at least tries to be objective). There are other deep, structural dynamics making journalism deeply conservative: something called “information subsidies,” for instance. Information subsidies involve acquiring “newsworthy” information at bargain prices, which usually means acquiring it from official sources, which in turn means that it has a generally conservative bias (since official sources are less frequently social revolutionaries than status-quo advocates.
The media is superficially liberal because journalists on the whole fall on the liberal end of the spectrum. This is not irrelevent: They have some say on what stories to pursue, and how to frame them. But their lattitude is constricted by the deeper dynamics in which their roles are embedded, and the pressures on them to appear “objective” compromises their honestly liberal analyses, often to the detriment of true objectivity. The liberality of the media, like the liberality of academics, comes mostly from being very well-informed, highly analytical thinkers, with perspectives more historically and globally illuminated than average. IMHO, objectivity tends, with many qualifications, to endorse liberal perspectives. (some qualifications include understanding the importance of limited resources, and of the role individual incentives play in how social policies function, concerns of which conservative analyses have tended to be more aware, though the Dems may have captured the field in regards to the latter).
The media is sensationalist through-and-through because, again, it is generally a for-profit enterprise, and sensationalism sells. Thus, Anne Coulter’s popularity in the media. (A year or so ago, when Fox news used a sound-bite from one of their news talk shows that was a conservative making some over-the-top ad hominim remark about some liberal, my brother insisted that it was proof of their conservative bias -which requires no further proof. I knew that it was simply the juiciest soundbite, and therefore the guaranteed winner regardless of ideological bias).
Excellent. You forgot the PR firms which are hired by government/corporates to do damage control and who then act like commentators. You forgot the journalist career paths which lead from “media” to government to lobby firms to foundations to PR firms and back again.
The first are more information subsidies: Media’s hunger for cheap, “authentic” sources of information is an invitation to those with big bucks to invest in creating it, including staging events. Of course, the Left often uses this tactic as well, but since their primary resource is more in human numbers than in dollars, it is usually transparent when they do so (rallies, etc.). The Right does it far more routinely, and far less visibly: Having sophisticated, high-paid professionals on every large corporation’s staff constantly engaged in just that activity.
…In a “cheerleader who is on the honor role, but dates jocks and bikers and goes to keg parties because she wants to be bad” kinda way. And we let girls like her get away with it all the time because secretly, in our heart of hearts, we hope she’ll look at our “grocery getter” of a automobile and say “Nice ride. Can I touch it?”
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m feeling a little warm. I think I’ll go for a swim in the Platte to cool off.
I think you hit it right on the head! (no pun intended)
… I saw her speak a couple weeks ago and just lost all respect for the chic when she said that only Marines need apply for entry to her… um, heart.
You see when I joined the Army, my test scores were pretty good and the Marine Recruiter came over to try to steal me away at the MEPPS center. When he found out I could write my name he offered to send me to OCS and make me a officer. I thought it was great and asked were I could sign up, but then they found out my parents were married, so I couldn’t be a Marine. (ha, ha!)
But then they found out your parents were related, so the army was your only choice.
Even the navy wouldn’t take you
Her look has always struck me as someone who has taken way too many drugs. Yuck.
“hot” probably at least ties “sensational” for motivation to turn the lenses in someone’s or something’s direction. But sometimes, you just have to resist the urge….
I thought that it was common knowledge that if any “liberal bias” in the media ever existed, there has been no such thing for years now. There is clearly a conservative tilt to things.
So were supposed to get from this that there is no liberal bias? Seriously? I mean, why? Because my buddy (heh) Paul Campos says so?
Alright. In that case, heretofore no man or woman of conservative political persuasion shall bring forth evidence of liberal political bias from this this point in time forward!
MAN LAW!
The media has a conservative bias and this blog is ostensibly non partisan.
Don’t you feel better now?
As for Ann Coulter, funny post Iron Mike! I’ve read two of her books, and she is a funny writer. If you are conservative or not so partisan that you can’t enjoy an amusing jab or two, it’s pretty amusing. Aside from her well publicized comments, she writes very thought provoking essays that, surprisingly, I never see debunked or decried anywhere. Curious.
I watched just one interview with her, and unless she has multiple personalities, I find it hard to believe that what she writes isn’t comparably mean-spirited. No doubt her writing is witty: She has that going for her. But hateful humor is more hateful than humorous. And here I thought that you were more chimp than gorilla! (100 points to anyone who gets the reference. Hint: It was a Charlton Heston movie).
like it’s ugly cousin, “Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot”, another mean spirited but funny book.
And I am neither chimp nor gorilla, merely backwash.
I was about to quote that famous line, “ding, ding, ding, we have a winner!” on your behalf, when I noticed a major difference between Frankin’s “mean-spiritedness” and Coulter’s: Frankin’s is directed at specific individuals who have themselves been publically antagonistic, or at those who they represent, while Coulter (and Limbaugh) insult whole populations of people, many or most of whom have not engaged in such mud-slinging in any way, nor cheered on those who have. The distinction holds in the face of the most probable contention: “Lefties cheer on mud-slingers as well.” Absolutely, but neither all Lefties nor Righties do so. To attack a group indiscriminately, and not focus the attack specifically on those who are intentionally offensive, is very different from targeting precisely those who are intentionally offensive.
Not because you are wrong, but picking up snippets here and there doesn’t allow for much in depth discussion. I would have to go back and re-read Frankin’s book to see if you are correct, but my general recollection is that Frankin and Colter are both witty writers who lob bombs at the other side. Yes, I shouldn’t laugh at such meanness, it is a weakness of mine I admit. I like to listen to Howard Stern too. If I was Catholic, I’d say some Hail Mary’s and be done with it, but alas, I will just have to live with my guilt.
I just prefer it when it serves my agenda.
But, can I still read the liberal media with an umbrella in my drink?
Look the media has never been liberal. It is sensationalist in order to sell more news, but it has never pushed a liberal POV. This is even more important now since nearly all the news has to be profitable (save fox news).
there is not a tv station that is devoted to pushing the liberal view and I do not believe there ever has been. OTH, Fox is simply pushing republicanism along the lines of pravda in Russia.
In addition, there is only 1 true national liberal radio station (air america), while there are 1000s of radio stations devoted to republicanism and pushing culter and limbaugh (says a lot about republicans by using these 2 as front ppl).
In the print, there are both liberals and conservatives, but I would have to say that the vast majority is conservative. Even here, the post and the news are both conservatives (the post is at best moderate).
And the net???? well, it is ALL over the place.
There are now some liberal radio station with
From my perspective, this is irony at its finest.
Oh man, that’s too much to take.
Now she’s hot in a “cheerleader, who gets good grades and goes to keg parties where she beats up bikers and jocks and steals there girls” kind of way.
I seem to remember a Ginger Lynn video back in college that went something like that.
Is it hot in here?
What Professor Campos fails to mention (and perhaps he does not care) is that sensationalism will trump any institutional bias every time. The old adage “if it bleeds, it leads” is true. If the ostensible political agenda of the newsroom is the primary factor in news-promotion, why did we endure three weeks of all Anna Nicole Smith, all the time?
The fact of the matter is we are interested in train wrecks. Ann Coulter is the latest example of celebrities making comments purely for shock value during supposed “comedy” routines. Michael Richards’ fairly recent comments were, at the minimum, equally offensive. Shortly thereafter, he appeared on Jay Leno’s show. The difference in these situations is that Richards was apologetic, whereas Coulter was unapologetic. This appearance reflects badly on Coulter, as a person, but does not in itself make CNN conservative, or “liberal” for that matter.
Finally, Professor Campos’s own writings expose his true position. In his February 20 column, he attacked Glenn Reynolds (the Instapundit), a center-right law professor in Tennessee as an “extremist” and “fascist”. In today’s article, he implies that Ann Althouse, a center-left law professor from Wisconsin, is a member of the “right-wing noise machine.” It seems that Professor Campos must be quite far to the left politically if he sees the country’s center as conservative.
Anybody who reads his columns can see why.