And there are plenty of conservative editorial pages in the smaller cities. Kinda like the electorate itself, big city papers, on the whole, lean more left, and those in smaller population centers lean more right, than whatever the average is.
But let’s step back a second. Your original comment was about the “conservative media.” Newspapers aren’t the only medium of opinion. Television has a lot more viewers than newspapers have readers. What’s the liberal equivalent of O’Reilly or Hannity? Or take the Sunday morning talk shows - which I don’t, thankyew, but they do publish the lists of guests for each Sunday. Some Sundays, there’s a rough balance between Dem and GOP guests; other Sundays, it’s tilted substantially towards the GOP. But it’s a rare event that it’s tilted much the Dems’ way, if it ever happens at all anymore. Or take ‘Christian’ television - there’s no liberal counterpart to Pat Robertson & Co. on CBN.
Or take radio. You’ve got everything from Rush Limbaugh for 3 hours daily on hundreds of stations, to radio preachers who add a pretty good dose of how their flock should lean politically. Balanced against that, you’ve got a fledgling Air America network, and a few Pacifica stations. The right wing pretty much owns the discussion of political and social issues on the radio. Maybe that’ll change, but that’s the way it is right now.
I realize this is a continuation of a hijack, and we should be getting back to the main issue (what was it again? ;)), but certainly large parts of “the media” are conservative, and the parts that are conservative are usually pretty strongly so, and don’t give a damn whether they represent the other POV or not. Your traditional newspapers and TV news departments, even if they lean liberal, operate from an ethic of impartiality that minimizes the effect of their tilt; unlike Fox or Rush or the Moonie Paper, they don’t feel they’re in business to be advocates.
Was it? I think the OP brought up the “conservative media”. I only pointed out that even if the media is overwhelmingly conservative (which I dispute, but let’s just say it is for the sake of argument), there are still PLENTY of liberal media outlets. And if those outlest aren’t bashing Bush for the price of oil, maybe there is a good reason that they aren’t.
Well, it used to be Phil Donohue on MSNB, but he didn’t generate the ratings. Go figure. At any rate, it doesn’t matter-- not as far as my argument goes. It doesn’t matter that there are other media. If you want to find the “liberal” mindset wrt Bush and oil prices, you do not lack places to go to find it. But the OP is implying that since he can’t find the opinion he wants, then the “liberal” media doesn’t exist.
In the case of the WaPo, they’re more likely to bash the Dems over Social Security than Bush, so it’s absurd to expect them to bash Bush over oil prices.
I think the point others are making is that it didn’t make sense for people to bash Clinton over oil prices in 1999 and 2000, either. But it happened. And now that it doesn’t make sense to bash Bush over them now (though it does make sense to bash the opposition of Congressional conservatives generally, over the past 15 years, to planning ahead with respect to conservation measures), it isn’t happening. IMHO, it’s reasonable to note that there is an unevenness of response here.
How about the NY or LA Times? Again, I’ll concede that the WaPo is not in the same league.
How do you quantify the amount of Clinton bashing vs Bush bashing? Are you saying no one has called Bush on gas prices? Kerry certainly did during the campaign. I’m sure other Dems have as well.
Was there a significant amount of Clinton “bashing” by the press over oil prices? If so, I don’t remember what it was. But if there was, then was there a legit argument to be made or not? Go ahead and make a case if you think there is one. I think most people realize that the rise in oil prices in the last few years is driven largely by soaring demand, especially in China and India. At any rate, one needs to look beyond the bashing (or lack thereof) to make an argument along the linse of the OP.
But frankly, I think it’s a fool’s erand to try to demonstrate that the media was either too hard on Clinton or too soft on Bush over oil prices. How would you even go about quantifying that? You really can’t, and so you’re left with anecdotes. And we all know what a waste of time those types of debates are.
No harm, no foul, askeptic. Other European countries do better than we do, if my limited experience of the light railway in Bonn is anything to go by.
To be fair, London’s underground shifts a bugger of a lot of people around the most crowded area in the country and you sure notice when it isn’t working. It’s still hot, packed and smelly though.
I regard the op-ed page of the NY Times as noticeably more liberal than that of the WaPo, just from the irregular sampling I get of it. I don’t read the LA Times editorials, but with Kinsley in charge, it’s got to be better than the Post.
The question is, has it gotten any ink? If a politician has a press conference in the forest, and it doesn’t get any press, has he made a sound?
A number of us remember such charges getting press coverage.
I’ve already pointed out that there’s no good case to be made that either President could have affected gas prices in the short term. However, Clinton tried to raise the CAFE standards which would have done so in the long term, and Bush has continued the resistance to such measures that his political allies have been pursuing for decades.
No, most people here know that. Most Americans probably don’t have a clue that Chinese demand for oil is now a factor in gas prices.
Well, maybe, but it seems to be hard to find any bashing of Bush in the press over gas prices. And it’s easy to beat zero.
