Buzz.mn Celebrates National Masturbation Month

Speaking of considering how stupid something is If any conservative pundit has said that it’s not the reporting that counts, it’s a journalist’s donations that constitutes evidence of bias, that of course would be stupid.

The survey result is simply one more piece of evidence of an overwhelming liberal worldview in the working press. It this particular example it is a small number of journalists, in the larger scheme of things, as TalkLeft also says.  At the same time, do we really need more evidence?

These surveys and measures are just reminders when they come along of something that no one serious denies any longer, I don’t think.  The very large majority of the working press are liberals of some stripe. It’s not inherently bad, it just is. It’s almost undoubtedly inevitable.

A liberal will say as you do here, that since journalists are honor bound to be objective it can’t possibly matter.  I believe that if a shared worldview is shielded enough, it very likely will have a warping, blinding effect on any group, especially a morally committed group which liberals and journalists also tend to be, and it amazes me that liberals can blithely ignore this human tendency and assert that liberals are immune. 

The argument comes to down to specifics.

There are (one gathers) hundreds of people here who drag-raced into sophomore year of college and then slammed to a stop and concluded for all time that “corporate ownership” means there cannot possibly be a liberal press. From them, I want specifics: examples of  reporters, almost always liberals remember, swallowing pride and writing nonsense because of “corporate ownership.” I’d like to know how the profit-seeking monsters who have always owned the Strib went on for years not noting the editorial board. For that matter, I’d like for them to define a unified “corporate” view on almost anything, starring with the Iraq war.

Judith Miller seems to pop up a lot. She arguably did a bad job. What does that have to do with corporate ownership?  Especially since that same corporation employs no end of editorial writes who seem to be not all that stifled by the ownership’s presence?

The idea that corporate ownership will produce conservative bias is a conspiracy framework and as such is too typical of the left these days. Conspiracy frameworks are by their nature usually pretty flimsy.

The conservative view of a liberal MSM is not built on a conspiracy idea. As an idea it’s more conservative in nature, in fact, because its foundation is the actions of individuals, and how they add up and reinforce each other. 

It all comes down to specifics. Unfortunately, debating specifics with someone who has their cherished conspiracy to defend is quite frustrating. 

The same person who says “what liberal media?” will deiantly maintain that we really don’t know if the Rather/CBS documents on Bush’s service record were forged, and that Dan Rather was ousted by an organized attack from vicious conservative seeking to kill a story; and the fact that most people don’t know this proves we have a vicious, conservative press. 

Well, it’s appropriate… Lileks has been doing his part for mental masturbation for years now…

Rare b&w sports cover? It ran that way last Monday.

OK. Rare doesn’t mean unprecedented but infrequent. Although I hear the BW covers will be more common.

As for the whole media bias thang…. Consider who signs those reporters’ paychecks:

From http://www.americanp…

Since the early 1970s, countless conservative foundations have sprung up to quietly influence American public policy by identifying, training, and churning out conservative journalists, thinkers, and pundits – many of whom now hold positions of power in the media.

[In 2004], the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP) issued a detailed report by Jeff Krehely, Meaghan House and Emily Kernan entitled, “Axis of Ideology: Conservative Foundations and Public Policy,” in which they sought to gauge the degree of the right’s investment in its ideas infrastructure. Universally ignored by the mainstream media, the report’s authors identified more than $254 million worth of public policy grants made between 1999 and 2001, with just five institutions (many of which share board members and directors) laying out the lion’s share of the money. But again, this may only be news to members of the “so-called liberal media” (SCLM), who continue to treat the world of ideas as dominated by liberal academia and non-ideological foundations like the Ford and Rockefeller foundations.

Many historians identify the origins of this effort with an influential 1971 memo written by Lewis Powell-just before he was appointed by Richard Nixon to become a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. …

[Powell's] solution: a clarion call to multinational corporations to begin to fund the necessary institutions to train conservative journalists, economists and teachers to begin preaching the right-wing gospel. Joining with right billionaires like Richard Mellon Scaife, Joseph Coors and Sun Myung Moon, as well as influential pundit/politicians like Robert Bartley of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Neoconservative “godfather” Irving Kristol, the effort quickly began to bear ideological fruit.

Powell’s suggestions have been remarkably effective, as evidenced in NCRP’s report, which identified 79 of the top conservative-giving foundations, breaking down how much they gave and to whom. In the three-year period covered in the report, the 79 foundations made a total of 4,812 contributions but of these, just five foundations-Sarah Scaife Foundation, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, the Shelby Cullom Davis Foundation, and the Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation-made up over 50 percent of moneys given.

The report also found that despite the continued conservative denials, there is a unified network of interconnected organizations that work together to influence public policy. Most of the top 25 foundations do indeed have direct relationships with one another through their directors and board members. For example, “The Sarah Scaife Foundation is one of several Scaife Mellon family foundations, including the Carthage Foundation (10th largest) and the Scaife Family Foundation (19th largest), as well as the Allegheny Foundation (46th largest). Similarly, the Charles G. Koch Foundation (seventh largest) is one of several of the Koch family’s foundations, which also include the David H. Koch Foundation (eighth largest) and the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation (13th largest).” Similarily, NCRP found that 23 of the people in its database of conservative foundation and grantee board and staff members “are leaders of three or more foundations and/or nonprofits, with 19 of those individuals serving on the board or staff of at least one foundation and of at least one nonprofit. Notably, the leading family members who direct foundations also serve on the boards of various nonprofits to which their foundations often provide grants,” implying a well-connected and like-minded group of people who share a single agenda and the resources to shape public policy in its political direction.

Surprisingly, fully 46 percent of funding ($115.9 million) went directly to national and state public policy think tanks. This is telling. The fact that conservatives concentrate on policymaking at both the national and state levels signals a departure from most left-leaning and centrist foundations, which generally only focus on national issues. All told, conservatives poured $21.4 million into state-centered institutions during the study period, and The State Policy Network, funded by the Roe Foundation, exists to encourage cooperation among free-market think tanks in the network. As the study notes, this program has seen some serious growth over the last 15 years: “In 1989 there were only 12 market-oriented state-based think tanks. This number has more than tripled in the past decade, and there are now 40 groups in 37 states promoting free market solutions to policy problems and challenges.”

Conservative education reform, which received 10 percent of the total funding ($26.2 million) also benefits. “The organizations classified in the area of education can be further broken down into the following subcategories: academic change, school reform, higher education, youth development, public education, student services and museums/libraries,” the report notes. While many liberals might be unaware of the fight over our schools, conservatives have made sure that The Intercollegiate Studies Institute is second only to the Heritage Foundation in grants, raking in $14.3 million (more than the American Enterprise Institute and Cato combined), and seeks to rid higher education of alleged liberal bias, “instead instill[ing] in students the notions of liberty and freedom.” Legal programs working on issues like immigration and property rights received $24.7 million in grants in the study period, with the majority of funding ($22.6 million) going to public-interest law firms. These firms agitate for reducing government regulation and have been influential in bringing cases before the courts which attempt to eliminate affirmative action programs, turn back abortion rights, and fight to remove the government’s control over public schools. …

Yeah but PW –

I’m at a loss to see the horror story. So some decades back, conservatives decided that liberals were killing them in the think tank and foundation worlds, and decided to get real good at it themselves.  Yep.  It does pay to keep in mind that this phenomenon exists, and try to maintain some objectivity in reading the fruits of their labors, and in analyzing where their effects can be found in the press. 

But in your world, why does the existence of that effect prove that it is always and forever a bad, dishonest effect?  Why?  Why is this qualitatively different than the liberal-oriented foundation and think tank worlds, which also have gasp-inducing (evidently) “interconnections” and “shared boards” and what not.  So?  (Also, what is there in this situation that that lead to “conservative denials” – denials of what?  The nature of academic and think tank reality?

In either left or right, there might be the group think effect to take into account. The liberal version has had a lot longer to coalesce, though.

Although I suppose you’ll say the liberal side is inherently honest and sincere, so there’s no worry.

Whatever. Your link doesn’t work, so I couldn’t read the actual article. But I did have a basic question: what does it have to do with who signs reporters’ paychecks? 

The guy refers at the beginning to products of these think tanks who now hold prominent positions in the media – oh the humanity and all – but everything following just refers to the think tank and policy worlds.  Has Don Shelby been replaced by a conservative version, and you just didn’t include that part?

Well, it's appropriate… Lileks has been doing his part for mental masturbation for years now…

Rare b&w; sports cover? It ran that way last Monday.

OK. Rare doesn't mean unprecedented but infrequent. Although I hear the BW covers will be more common.

As for the whole media bias thang…. Consider who signs those reporters' paychecks:

From http://www.americanp…

Since the early 1970s, countless conservative foundations have sprung up to quietly influence American public policy by identifying, training, and churning out conservative journalists, thinkers, and pundits – many of whom now hold positions of power in the media.

[In 2004], the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP) issued a detailed report by Jeff Krehely, Meaghan House and Emily Kernan entitled, “Axis of Ideology: Conservative Foundations and Public Policy,” in which they sought to gauge the degree of the right's investment in its ideas infrastructure. Universally ignored by the mainstream media, the report's authors identified more than $254 million worth of public policy grants made between 1999 and 2001, with just five institutions (many of which share board members and directors) laying out the lion's share of the money. But again, this may only be news to members of the “so-called liberal media” (SCLM), who continue to treat the world of ideas as dominated by liberal academia and non-ideological foundations like the Ford and Rockefeller foundations.

Many historians identify the origins of this effort with an influential 1971 memo written by Lewis Powell-just before he was appointed by Richard Nixon to become a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. …

[Powell's] solution: a clarion call to multinational corporations to begin to fund the necessary institutions to train conservative journalists, economists and teachers to begin preaching the right-wing gospel. Joining with right billionaires like Richard Mellon Scaife, Joseph Coors and Sun Myung Moon, as well as influential pundit/politicians like Robert Bartley of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Neoconservative “godfather” Irving Kristol, the effort quickly began to bear ideological fruit.

Powell's suggestions have been remarkably effective, as evidenced in NCRP's report, which identified 79 of the top conservative-giving foundations, breaking down how much they gave and to whom. In the three-year period covered in the report, the 79 foundations made a total of 4,812 contributions but of these, just five foundations-Sarah Scaife Foundation, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, the Shelby Cullom Davis Foundation, and the Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation-made up over 50 percent of moneys given.

The report also found that despite the continued conservative denials, there is a unified network of interconnected organizations that work together to influence public policy. Most of the top 25 foundations do indeed have direct relationships with one another through their directors and board members. For example, “The Sarah Scaife Foundation is one of several Scaife Mellon family foundations, including the Carthage Foundation (10th largest) and the Scaife Family Foundation (19th largest), as well as the Allegheny Foundation (46th largest). Similarly, the Charles G. Koch Foundation (seventh largest) is one of several of the Koch family's foundations, which also include the David H. Koch Foundation (eighth largest) and the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation (13th largest).” Similarily, NCRP found that 23 of the people in its database of conservative foundation and grantee board and staff members “are leaders of three or more foundations and/or nonprofits, with 19 of those individuals serving on the board or staff of at least one foundation and of at least one nonprofit. Notably, the leading family members who direct foundations also serve on the boards of various nonprofits to which their foundations often provide grants,” implying a well-connected and like-minded group of people who share a single agenda and the resources to shape public policy in its political direction.

Surprisingly, fully 46 percent of funding ($115.9 million) went directly to national and state public policy think tanks. This is telling. The fact that conservatives concentrate on policymaking at both the national and state levels signals a departure from most left-leaning and centrist foundations, which generally only focus on national issues. All told, conservatives poured $21.4 million into state-centered institutions during the study period, and The State Policy Network, funded by the Roe Foundation, exists to encourage cooperation among free-market think tanks in the network. As the study notes, this program has seen some serious growth over the last 15 years: “In 1989 there were only 12 market-oriented state-based think tanks. This number has more than tripled in the past decade, and there are now 40 groups in 37 states promoting free market solutions to policy problems and challenges.”

Conservative education reform, which received 10 percent of the total funding ($26.2 million) also benefits. “The organizations classified in the area of education can be further broken down into the following subcategories: academic change, school reform, higher education, youth development, public education, student services and museums/libraries,” the report notes. While many liberals might be unaware of the fight over our schools, conservatives have made sure that The Intercollegiate Studies Institute is second only to the Heritage Foundation in grants, raking in $14.3 million (more than the American Enterprise Institute and Cato combined), and seeks to rid higher education of alleged liberal bias, “instead instill[ing] in students the notions of liberty and freedom.” Legal programs working on issues like immigration and property rights received $24.7 million in grants in the study period, with the majority of funding ($22.6 million) going to public-interest law firms. These firms agitate for reducing government regulation and have been influential in bringing cases before the courts which attempt to eliminate affirmative action programs, turn back abortion rights, and fight to remove the government's control over public schools. …

Speaking of considering how stupid something is If any conservative pundit has said that it's not the reporting that counts, it's a journalist's donations that constitutes evidence of bias, that of course would be stupid.

The survey result is simply one more piece of evidence of an overwhelming liberal worldview in the working press. It this particular example it is a small number of journalists, in the larger scheme of things, as TalkLeft also says.  At the same time, do we really need more evidence?

These surveys and measures are just reminders when they come along of something that no one serious denies any longer, I don't think.  The very large majority of the working press are liberals of some stripe. It's not inherently bad, it just is. It's almost undoubtedly inevitable.

A liberal will say as you do here, that since journalists are honor bound to be objective it can't possibly matter.  I believe that if a shared worldview is shielded enough, it very likely will have a warping, blinding effect on any group, especially a morally committed group which liberals and journalists also tend to be, and it amazes me that liberals can blithely ignore this human tendency and assert that liberals are immune. 

The argument comes to down to specifics.

There are (one gathers) hundreds of people here who drag-raced into sophomore year of college and then slammed to a stop and concluded for all time that “corporate ownership” means there cannot possibly be a liberal press. From them, I want specifics: examples of  reporters, almost always liberals remember, swallowing pride and writing nonsense because of “corporate ownership.” I'd like to know how the profit-seeking monsters who have always owned the Strib went on for years not noting the editorial board. For that matter, I'd like for them to define a unified “corporate” view on almost anything, starring with the Iraq war.

Judith Miller seems to pop up a lot. She arguably did a bad job. What does that have to do with corporate ownership?  Especially since that same corporation employs no end of editorial writes who seem to be not all that stifled by the ownership's presence?

The idea that corporate ownership will produce conservative bias is a conspiracy framework and as such is too typical of the left these days. Conspiracy frameworks are by their nature usually pretty flimsy.

The conservative view of a liberal MSM is not built on a conspiracy idea. As an idea it's more conservative in nature, in fact, because its foundation is the actions of individuals, and how they add up and reinforce each other. 

It all comes down to specifics. Unfortunately, debating specifics with someone who has their cherished conspiracy to defend is quite frustrating. 

The same person who says “what liberal media?” will deiantly maintain that we really don't know if the Rather/CBS documents on Bush's service record were forged, and that Dan Rather was ousted by an organized attack from vicious conservative seeking to kill a story; and the fact that most people don't know this proves we have a vicious, conservative press. 

Yeah but PW –

I'm at a loss to see the horror story. So some decades back, conservatives decided that liberals were killing them in the think tank and foundation worlds, and decided to get real good at it themselves.  Yep.  It does pay to keep in mind that this phenomenon exists, and try to maintain some objectivity in reading the fruits of their labors, and in analyzing where their effects can be found in the press. 

But in your world, why does the existence of that effect prove that it is always and forever a bad, dishonest effect?  Why?  Why is this qualitatively different than the liberal-oriented foundation and think tank worlds, which also have gasp-inducing (evidently) “interconnections” and “shared boards” and what not.  So?  (Also, what is there in this situation that that lead to “conservative denials” – denials of what?  The nature of academic and think tank reality?

In either left or right, there might be the group think effect to take into account. The liberal version has had a lot longer to coalesce, though.

Although I suppose you'll say the liberal side is inherently honest and sincere, so there's no worry.

Whatever. Your link doesn't work, so I couldn't read the actual article. But I did have a basic question: what does it have to do with who signs reporters' paychecks? 

The guy refers at the beginning to products of these think tanks who now hold prominent positions in the media – oh the humanity and all – but everything following just refers to the think tank and policy worlds.  Has Don Shelby been replaced by a conservative version, and you just didn't include that part?