Our 'liberal' media, vol. 1472

[RTFirefly]

Go here. Look at left-hand column.

This week's Newsweek cover:

In Europe: Losing Afghanistan - Is Victory Turning to Defeat?

In Asia: Losing Afghanistan - Is Victory Turning to Defeat?

In Latin America: Losing Afghanistan - Is Victory Turning to Defeat?

In the U.S.: My Life in Pictures (Annie Leibovitz)


I hope I don't need to explain why I have a problem with this.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

Why do you hate Annie Leibovitz?

[jjimm]

Just goes to show that Europe, Asia and Latin America are a bunch of weenies.

[myskepticsight]

Yeah, Annie Leibovitz is like my idol. No hating on her.

And duh our media is crap.

[Marley23]

This is that "fuzzy geography" Bush complained about in 2000.

[Captain Amazing]

Well, apparently the story is still there, at least. It just doesn't get headlined.

[Little Nemo]

Typical liberal media. Can't pass up a chance to feature a counter-culture lesbian unmarried mother on the cover.

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by Captain Amazing

Well, apparently the story is still there, at least. It just doesn't get headlined.

Yeah, but it sure makes a difference if the story's on the cover, where you'll see it on the magazine rack and briefly think, "Oh shit," even if you're buying Sports Illustrated or Penthouse.

Same think as before the Iraq war where what Bush and Cheney said would be front-paged, and the stories debunking their claims would be on page A17.

[Loach]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

Yeah, but it sure makes a difference if the story's on the cover, where you'll see it on the magazine rack and briefly think, "Oh shit," even if you're buying Sports Illustrated or Penthouse.

Same think as before the Iraq war where what Bush and Cheney said would be front-paged, and the stories debunking their claims would be on page A17.

If you are going to make an argument against there being a liberal bias in the media Newsweek is not a good example for you.

For the record I just came from the MSN homepage (of course it may be changed when you view it) where the main field had a large picture of a burning car with a link to the Newsweek article , Return of the Taliban. They are not exactly hiding the story.

[Evil One]

I think it's marketing, not an ideological conspiracy. There are not as many people in other parts of the world who know or care who Annie is.

Plus, the cover is designed to influence impulse buyers. Perhaps Newsweek thought Annie was more buyer friendly than a taliban fighter.

[Squink]

Originally Posted by Evil One

I think it's marketing, not an ideological conspiracy.

Marketing is an ideological conspiracy.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Squink

Marketing is an ideological conspiracy.

It can be, but it needn't be. A lot of times it's just giving people what they want.

In this case, we don't know if Newsweek changed the cover of the US edition in order to downplay the Afghanistan article or if it changed the cover of the international editions in order to downplay the article on A.L. Since Newsweek has printed many a cover which refects poorly on the administration it's unreasonable to assume that in this particularl case they were trying to supress that article. I mean, why print it at all if they were trying to do so? They're certainly not compelled to print anything about Afghanistan if they don't desire to.

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by Loach

If you are going to make an argument against there being a liberal bias in the media Newsweek is not a good example for you.

For the record I just came from the MSN homepage (of course it may be changed when you view it) where the main field had a large picture of a burning car with a link to the Newsweek article , Return of the Taliban. They are not exactly hiding the story.

1) Remember that, despite appearances to the contrary, putting something on a website doesn't exactly impact the electorate in a big way. The covers of the big newsmagazines still get a LOT more eyeballs than the front page of msn.com.
2) And it's the same cover for a week, as opposed to the front page of MSN, which might change every 37 seconds for all we know.

Finally, consider the importance of the story. America's involved in two wars right now - Iraq and Afghanistan. We'd said we won Afghanistan back in December 2001; everybody knows Iraq (which we'd also once said we'd won) is a mess (the only question is, how bad of one), but in the minds of most Americans, Afghanistan had been done except for some nation-building.

It's certainly important for the world to know Afghanistan's starting to go south, but it's especially important for America to know it, because we're the country most deeply involved.

This is NEWS; Annie Leibovitz is FLUFF. Putting the fluff story on the cover, and burying the real news inside, is making a statement. It's saying, if you're not already paying enough attention to the news to actually read a weekly newsmagazine (a rather hefty chunk of the electorate, I'm sure), we're not going to trouble you with this story, despite its geopolitical and domestic political implications.

A liberal news medium WOULD put this story on the cover here as well as elsewhere. The electorate needs to know about this; an electorate that knows this Administration's approach to the War on Terror has all but lost us Iraq, and is on the verge of losing Afghanistan too, is going to have some decisions to make.

Newsweek is only 'liberal' by comparison with Time and US News.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

Yeah, but it sure makes a difference if the story's on the cover, where you'll see it on the magazine rack and briefly think, "Oh shit," even if you're buying Sports Illustrated or Penthouse.

Right, but their goal is to sell magazines, not to get people who don't buy their magazines to think. And they figure that people will buy more magazines if they have a cover story about Anne Liebowitz than about Afghanistan.

[kaylasdad99]

Originally Posted by John Mace

It can be, but it needn't be. A lot of times it's just giving people what they want.

Nah, that's vending. Marketing is telling people what they want.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

Finally, consider the importance of the story. America's involved in two wars right now - Iraq and Afghanistan. We'd said we won Afghanistan back in December 2001; everybody knows Iraq (which we'd also once said we'd won) is a mess (the only question is, how bad of one), but in the minds of most Americans, Afghanistan had been done except for some nation-building.

How do you know what is in the minds of most Americans? I'm not being snarky-- is there some polling data or some other info that you're basing that statment on?

It's certainly important for the world to know Afghanistan's starting to go south, but it's especially important for America to know it, because we're the country most deeply involved.

What do you mean by "most deeply involved"?

I actually think Europe is in more danger of Islamic terrorism than the US is because many countries have a large muslim population that are not well integrated into those societies and are disproportionately poor and unemployed. The muslim population in the US is much more integrated into the overall society. If you mean we're the guys with boots on the ground, I don't know if that's the best assessment either. The operations in Afghanistan have been largely turned over to NATO, and the US is just one player among many-- as it should be.

[John Mace]

Actually, it appears that most Americans do think things are going badly in Afghanistan. Link.

[wring]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Actually, it appears that most Americans do think things are going badly in Afghanistan. Link.

damn - there's more 'merican hatin' 'mericans than I thought!

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by kaylasdad99

Marketing is telling people what they want.

Nope. That's only part of it. Good marketing more often starts by finding out what people actually do want.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by wring

damn - there's more 'merican hatin' 'mericans than I thought!

Don't worry. They probably think things are bad for the wrong reasons.

[wring]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Don't worry. They probably think things are bad for the wrong reasons.

Whew!

[neutron star]

Originally Posted by Captain Amazing

And they figure that people will buy more magazines if they have a cover story about Anne Liebowitz than about Afghanistan.

Do they? Virtually every person in this country knew about the war in Afghanistan.

It's hard to imagine that too many people who aren't photography buffs would know who Anne Liebowitz is. Sure, most of them are familiar with her famous photographs, but they don't know her name (I know I didn't; I had to look her up on Wikipedia).

Indeed, the powerful photo of a grizzled Taliban with an RPG and his accompanying story got a 4/5 rating on MSNBC, while the Liebowitz photo and article rated a mere 2.5.

How does that sell magazines?

[Mtgman]

I can guarantee that worldwide, magazines which feature lesbians outsell magazines featuring geopolitical commentary on Afghanistan.

Enjoy,
Steven

[John Mace]

Does she by any chance have a new book coming out? If she does, is that book by any chance published by a company that owns Newsweek? Just a thought...

[John Mace]

New Book: Check
Publisher: Random House (owned by Bertelsmann, AG)
Ties to Newsweek: Doesn't seem to be any

[neutron star]

Originally Posted by Mtgman

I can guarantee that worldwide, magazines which feature lesbians outsell magazines featuring geopolitical commentary on Afghanistan.

Well, I love lesbians as much as the next guy (actually, probably more), but she isn't exactly a 21-year old starlet.

Do you think that a cover piece featuring, say, Rosie O'Donell would sell a lot of copies?

[yojimbo]

Originally Posted by Mtgman

I can guarantee that worldwide, magazines which feature lesbians outsell magazines featuring geopolitical commentary on Afghanistan.

True, it seems though that Newsweek made the decision that in this case outside the US the Taliban fighter and the Afghan story on the cover would sell more.

I doubt you'd see a big difference in numbers of people who know recognise Liebowitz by name in the average US city and the average European city. They'd know her work, sure, but as has been said she doesn't exactly have strong name recognition outside of photography/art people.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by yojimbo

I doubt you'd see a big difference in numbers of people who know recognise Liebowitz by name in the average US city and the average European city. They'd know her work, sure, but as has been said she doesn't exactly have strong name recognition outside of photography/art people.

I don't know about that. I'm not a photgraphy buff by any means, and I've head of her for years. She's especially famous for the Yoko/Lennon cover picture on Rolling Stone years ago-- she was on that paper's staff for quite some time. And then there was the Demi Moore in a pinted suit photo. I suspect she's the most famous celebrity photogragher in this country.

[John Mace]

BTW, it's Liebovitz.

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by John Mace

BTW, it's Liebovitz.

Gaudere's Law strikes again: it's Leibovitz.

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Actually, it appears that most Americans do think things are going badly in Afghanistan. Link.

Am I missing something? I don't see that anywhere, although in the Gallup poll, the 49-46 margin in favor of 'going very or moderately well' is slimmer than I would have expected.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

Am I missing something? I don't see that anywhere, although in the Gallup poll, the 49-46 margin in favor of 'going very or moderately well' is slimmer than I would have expected.

My bad-- I added up the last three and didn't see that the final category was "unsure" (5%). At any rate, the groups who think things are going well and the groups who think things are going badly are within the margin of error (+/- 3%). That poll is only a week or so old.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

Gaudere's Law strikes again: it's Leibovitz.

That's her fault! She should pronounce it with a long "i" in the first syllable.

[neutron star]

Originally Posted by John Mace

I don't know about that. I'm not a photgraphy buff by any means, and I've head of her for years. She's especially famous for the Yoko/Lennon cover picture on Rolling Stone years ago-- she was on that paper's staff for quite some time. And then there was the Demi Moore in a pinted suit photo. I suspect she's the most famous celebrity photogragher in this country.

While those photographs are undeniably famous, I don't think her name is.

For whatever reason, the names of talented photographers don't seem to make it into the public consciousness.

For example, while this is undeniably one of the most famous photographs in the history of the world, I seriously doubt that more than a tiny fraction of Americans could tell you the photographer's name.

[Lissa]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Actually, it appears that most Americans do think things are going badly in Afghanistan. Link.

How can you say that with this

"Do you think U.S. efforts to establish a stable democratic government in Afghanistan have been mostly a success or mostly a failure?" N=755, MoE ± 4 (Form 2)


.
Mostly a
Success Mostly a
Failure Unsure

1/4-8/06 51 30 19

It seems to me that most Americans think it is a success.

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by John Mace

How do you know what is in the minds of most Americans? I'm not being snarky-- is there some polling data or some other info that you're basing that statment on?

I will confess I was just making an assumption on the basis of no polls and two data points: (1) everyone knows we beat the Taliban's asses back in 2001, and (2) it's been almost completely overshadowed in the news ever since, thanks to Iraq, and (this summer anyway) Gaza and Lebanon.

What do you mean by "most deeply involved"?

There's a 22,000 troop American force there, plus a NATO force of 20,000. So we've got more skin in the game than everyone else put together, other than the Afghans themselves.

Plus I assume we have a fair amount of political influence with Karzai's government as a result of our 2001 intervention and continued military involvement, more so than any other foreign power.

I actually think Europe is in more danger of Islamic terrorism than the US is because many countries have a large muslim population that are not well integrated into those societies and are disproportionately poor and unemployed. The muslim population in the US is much more integrated into the overall society.

I agree.

If you mean we're the guys with boots on the ground, I don't know if that's the best assessment either. The operations in Afghanistan have been largely turned over to NATO, and the US is just one player among many-- as it should be.

See above.

It's also our rep that's on the line. If Afghanistan falls apart, is Spain or Poland going to feel like they were to blame? No: we'll be the ones asking ourselves why we didn't put this war out of reach back in 2002, why we let Bush distract us with a second war in a second country before the future of Afghanistan was assured. This is our war: we got the rest of the world in there, and if we don't finish what we started, it's our bad, not theirs.

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by John Mace

My bad-- I added up the last three and didn't see that the final category was "unsure" (5%). At any rate, the groups who think things are going well and the groups who think things are going badly are within the margin of error (+/- 3%). That poll is only a week or so old.

Yeah, that's a statistical tie, especially since the MOE on the difference between the 'going well' and 'going badly' stats is close to 6% (I'll give the formula for the MOE of a difference in a moment, just for the hell of it). And the next most recent one is nearly two months old, so the Gallup's the only poll worth looking at.

OK, MOE of a difference. (Run away! Run awaaaayyy!!!!)

Let M1, M2 = MOE of estimates E1 and E2, respectively. (We'll call them both M if they turn out to be the same.)
Let R = correlation coefficient between E1 and E2.

Then MOE(E1-E2) = sqrt[M1^2 + M2^2 -2R*M1*M2]

That's more than you wanted to know already. It's the standard-error-of-a-difference formula from the top of p.11 of this PDF, only with a constant multiple thrown in for good luck.

If M1=M2 (true here), and R=(-1) (it's close here, since there are few unsures, so when the going-wells go up, the going-badlys go down by almost the exact same amount, and vice versa), then the formula simplifies to sqrt(4M^2) = 2M.

No charge for the stats lesson.

[hawthorne]

I dunno whether this is political bias or pro-trivia bias or just coincidence, but it seems it's not just this week. (See here.) Can anyone figure out how to get a whole bunch of these? Say for the last few years? Could be interesting.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by neutron star

While those photographs are undeniably famous, I don't think her name is.

For whatever reason, the names of talented photographers don't seem to make it into the public consciousness.

For example, while this is undeniably one of the most famous photographs in the history of the world, I seriously doubt that more than a tiny fraction of Americans could tell you the photographer's name.

Not really relavent.

1. That picture is ~40 years old.
2. A.L. produces photos that are part of pop culture, not highbrow journalistic work.
3. Being able to name the person who took a particluar photo is not he same as recognizing someone's name. Every American can tell you that Mozart was a famous composer of classical music, but few would recognize his work if they heard it.

[BobLibDem]

As much as I agree that the corporate media is anything but liberal, I think the true story is Newsweek wants to sell magazines as others have said above. Gloom and doom cover stories may not appeal to the casual shopper going through the checkout, but lighter stories about personalities might. If you follow the news closely enough to subscribe, you don't care what's on the cover but if it's on the rack next to other mags with Jennifer Aniston or Princess Diana it really has to compete with them by not putting hard news on the cover.

[Hook]

This is only my opinion, but Newsweek has not been a NEWS magazine in probably 20 years. It's like the bastard stepchild of US, Sports Illustrated and People with maybe 15 pages of true news, half of which is taken up with photographs!

[tagos]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

As much as I agree that the corporate media is anything but liberal, I think the true story is Newsweek wants to sell magazines as others have said above. Gloom and doom cover stories may not appeal to the casual shopper going through the checkout, but lighter stories about personalities might. If you follow the news closely enough to subscribe, you don't care what's on the cover but if it's on the rack next to other mags with Jennifer Aniston or Princess Diana it really has to compete with them by not putting hard news on the cover.

Yet in the rest of the world it leads with a proper story of interest on the cover. What does that say?

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by tagos

Yet in the rest of the world it leads with a proper story of interest on the cover. What does that say?

"Proper"? Determined by whom?

If newsweek thought they could sell magazines with a picture of Bush with horns and a tail on the cover, they'd use it. But I'm not really sure what the OP is getting at here. Is the complaint that there is no basis to say the press has a liberal bias or is he complaining because the press doesn't have a liberal bias? If the former, I agree. If the latter, I don't really know what to say.

[tagos]

Originally Posted by John Mace

"Proper"? Determined by whom?

If newsweek thought they could sell magazines with a picture of Bush with horns and a tail on the cover, they'd use it. But I'm not really sure what the OP is getting at here. Is the complaint that there is no basis to say the press has a liberal bias or is he complaining because the press doesn't have a liberal bias? If the former, I agree. If the latter, I don't really know what to say.

Well what you seem to be saying is that while the way to sell a news magazine in the rest of the world is to lead with substance and in the USA it is to lead with celebrities.

That seems to me says a whole lot. None of it good.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by tagos

Well what you seem to be saying is that while the way to sell a news magazine in the rest of the world is to lead with substance and in the USA it is to lead with celebrities.

That seems to me says a whole lot. None of it good.

Maybe. But keep in mind that Newsweek has had plenty of covers reflecting articles it has done of "substance". But it is true that news in the US has merged with entertainment quite a bit in the last 20 or 30 years. I couldn't speak for news services in other parts of the world. It's not like there isn't good, meaty news coverage here if you take some (small) effor to find it, but the MSM does offer up a lot of pop culture stuff as lead-in stories. I don't, however, think that has anything to do with either a liberal or conservative bias.

[mobo85]

For some reason, this reminds me of a feature National Geographic did in (I think) 1999, showing what the cover of their magazine looked like in different countries for a certain month. The cover story in the United States and most of the world was the 55th anniversary of D-Day, but other countries chose a different story. One of those countries was France- the country in which it actually happened!