# The Conservative Advantage in Syndicated Op-Ed Columns **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 13, 2007, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-conservative-advantage-in-syndicated-op-ed-columns/419098 "2007-09-13T18:21:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2007, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-conservative-advantage-in-syndicated-op-ed-columns/419098/21 "2007-09-13T23:44:14Z")
[QUOTE=AskNott] Not really. The National Review makes no bones about being a platform for conservative opinion. The New York Times is a newspaper, and a darned fine one. [/QUOTE] Yeah, the NYT is not the analog-- especially when there is The New Republic out there. Those are the two big conservative/liberal mags. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2007, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-conservative-advantage-in-syndicated-op-ed-columns/419098/22 "2007-09-14T00:18:56Z")
[QUOTE=Renob] This certainly seems to be the case, since they list David Broder as “centrist.” Broder is, by any standards, a liberal. Perhaps not a flaming lefty, but he’s as liberal as Mort Kondracke is conservative (to choose another name from the MM list). [/QUOTE] We are well and truly fucked. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2007, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-conservative-advantage-in-syndicated-op-ed-columns/419098/23 "2007-09-14T00:40:56Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] As **John Mace** mentions, media bias is slanting the news, not publishing five column inches in the midst of twelve “Letters to the Editor” all selected because they attack Bush. That’s tokenism. Regards, Shodan [/QUOTE] Shodan, hate to be the one who has to break it to you, but I don’t think attacking Bush is politically indicative any more. Everybody hates the guy. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2007, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-conservative-advantage-in-syndicated-op-ed-columns/419098/24 "2007-09-14T00:44:19Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] I think it does. If the majority of the newspapers out there have a liberal slant to their Editorial page, [/QUOTE] They don’t. Most are conservatively biased. And before you get on my case, I have provided at least as much evidence for my assertion as you have provided for yours. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2007, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-conservative-advantage-in-syndicated-op-ed-columns/419098/25 "2007-09-14T00:46:49Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] Let’s make a few observations: First of all, it is true that a great many papers in the country have a liberal editorial slant to their unsigned op-eds. [/QUOTE] Is not. See my response to John in post 24. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2007, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-conservative-advantage-in-syndicated-op-ed-columns/419098/26 "2007-09-14T03:38:56Z")
. To **John Mace** , **Mr. Moto** (just watched one of your movies last night, BTW, good work), and **Evil Captor** collectively, regarding liberal or conservative bias on local paper editorial pages: Cite? . ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2007, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-conservative-advantage-in-syndicated-op-ed-columns/419098/27 "2007-09-14T04:51:39Z")
Here’s a peer-reviewed UCLA study that might just be a tad less biased than the _Media Matters_ study: [Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist](http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664) > [@](#): > > While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper’s news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. **Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.** > … > **Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center** , with CBS’ “Evening News,” The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal. > > Only Fox News’ “Special Report With Brit Hume” and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter. > > The most centrist outlet proved to be the “NewsHour With Jim Lehrer.” CNN’s “NewsNight With Aaron Brown” and ABC’s “Good Morning America” were a close second and third. So even if Media Matters found one small aspect of media coverage, syndicated punditry, that happens to marginally tilt to the right, it doesn’t come close to making up for the big leftward tilt of the rest of the media. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2007, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-conservative-advantage-in-syndicated-op-ed-columns/419098/28 "2007-09-14T05:35:58Z")
[QUOTE=AskNott] The National Review makes no bones about being a platform for conservative opinion. The New York Times is a newspaper, and a darned fine one. at that. [/quote] Your editorializing about quality aside, the point is that it is suspect for Media Matters (or anyone, for that matter) to make conclusions about an individual’s politics based on their serving as editor on a particular publication. I suspect that NR’s editors are probably all right of center politically, but that assumption is not exactly scientific, and such assumptions become even more doubtful when applied to publications that are not as obviously and consistently conservative as National Review. As previously noted, news coverage in the Wall St. Journal sometimes reflects centrist or even left of center views. Is it logical to assume that all the editors at the Journal are right-wing? Wait, I forgot that you pretty much _are_ assuming this. > [@](#): > > …most editors are conservative. Reporters, bound by journalistic ethics, strive to present no political positions in news stories. Journalistic ethics (a changeable construct) apply to editors just as well as reporters. And if you don’t think reporters are willing to tilt their stories in order to influence public opinion, you don’t know much about the news business. ---
**Author:** ![cerberus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/71e660/32.png) [@cerberus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cerberus)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2007, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-conservative-advantage-in-syndicated-op-ed-columns/419098/29 "2007-09-14T05:51:25Z")
It is possible that many papers have center/left/“progressive” staff op-ed people, with one or a few conservative/right syndicated columnists tossed in for “balance.” That is, it is possible that we have many left-leaning papers staffed by a super-majority of left/center people, with conservative/right “balance” provided by “outsourcing” the conservative/right stuff to syndicated people. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2007, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-conservative-advantage-in-syndicated-op-ed-columns/419098/30 "2007-09-14T06:37:36Z")
[QUOTE=AskNott] Reporters, bound by journalistic ethics, strive to present no political positions in news stories. They are honor bound to not endorse candidates. Editors are in a different position. A paper may endorse a candidate, but a news story may not. [/QUOTE] There are many ways that bias can infect the reporting of news. It doesn’t have to be a ‘slant’ to a story. It doesn’t even have to be intentional. For example, it could affect a person’s honest perception of what is or isn’t newsworthy. If you’re convinced that capitalists are robber barons driving the country to hell, then a story about a crooked businessman may seem very newsworthy to you. A story about a crooked union leader, on the other hand, may not seem that newsworthy because you believe unions are fundamentally honest so one bad apple doesn’t really change anything. It can alter the way in which you perceive the validity of a claim, and hence the level of fact-checking you feel is appropriate. If you believe that a Republican politician is more likely to be a scumbag than a Democrat politician, you may be less skeptical of a claim of scum-like behaviour on the part of the Republican, and less likely to check the facts behind it before publishing. Now, you might be doing your level best to be scrupulously honest, but your own biases color the way you perceive things. This is of course why scientists go out of their way to conduct double-blind studies - bias creeps in where you might not expect it, regardless of how honest everyone is trying to be. It would be interesting to do a study on the political stories that major newspapers and television networks have had to issues retractions for in the past few years, and see how many of them tilt left, indicating a higher level of scrutiny on right-leaning stories. Of the few I can think of offhand, all tilted left (but of course, that could be my own bias - I might not remember the right-tilting mistakes - selection bias is another common form). ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2007, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-conservative-advantage-in-syndicated-op-ed-columns/419098/31 "2007-09-14T13:51:25Z")
> [@ShadowFacts](#): > > However, I think the report does to a good job of indicating that nationally syndicated conservative opinion pieces get wider distribution than nationally syndicated liberal opinion pieces. Do you disagree with that conclusion? Subject to the caveats mentioned earlier, that seems like a reasonable conclusion. > [@ShadowFacts](#): > > I think this a good point. The report explains: “This report focuses only on nationally syndicated columnists, not each paper’s local columnists. It would have been impossible to determine the ideology of every one of the thousands of local columnists in the country, whereas the smaller number of syndicated columnists make them much easier to classify.” I don’t mean that quote to counter your point - it doesn’t - but only to point out why they say they did what they did. Understood. Nonetheless, I don’t think this can be used as evidence of “media bias”, without some analysis of both the unsigned, daily editorials in the papers mentioned, and especially with addressing what **Sam Stone** mentioned about “slanting” news coverage. When people complain about media bias, they don’t mean (usually) editorials. That is legitimate comment, from either side. What they - or at least, I - mean by complaining about media bias is things like one of the directors of ABC News instructing his reporters to slant their coverage against one of the candidates in a recent election. ([Cite.](http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:HNNaKClJsPkJ:www.uta.edu/center-for-theory/Kellner00tcINTRO.rtf+Halperin+memo+Kerry+lies&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=42&gl=us)) Publishing an editorial for or against a candidate is perfectly legitimate. Publishing an editorial and calling it a news article is what constitutes media bias. [QUOTE=Mr. Moto] Without knowing the slant of the unsigned editorials, we do not know if the conservatives were added to balance the page or reinforce the tone of the paper. [/quote] Or because the rise of Rush Limbaugh and Fox News meant that an editorial page of unrelieved leftism was less likely to attract readers who had alternatives. Heck, maybe the editors put Will there to draw in readers to as to get them to read the other, unsigned editorials in hopes of converting them. 🙂 > [@](#): > > Frankly, it really doesn’t matter either way - conservatives often disagree with each other (as do liberals), many of them have carved out respected careers in opinion journalism, and the views therefore of Buckley, Will and Novak ought to be considered on their own merits, much as the views of Broder and Kinsley ought to be weighed the same way. And perhaps the conservative editorials are there because they attract readers in a way that liberals don’t. “Conservative syndicated columnists are more popular and successful than liberal ones”. Is this an indication of bias by the editors, or an indication that the columnists provide a better product? If the success or failure of a news medium is simply a choice by the editors, why does conservative talk radio succeed and Air America goes bankrupt? > [@](#): > > If the argument is that the far left is marginalized on op-ed pages in favor of a range of opinion running from moderate conservatism to moderate liberalism, I can see that as being a defensible argument, to a point. Unfortunately, newspapers have no obligation to print anything, and the far left has always been a particularly hard sell in American politics. Nicely put (as usual). That goes to what was mentioned earlier - what Media Matters labels as “centrist” may not be what the rest of the US thinks of as centrist. And my experience is that the term “progressive” means “liberal to the point of being marginalized and therefore trying to sneak it in by the back door”. YMMV. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![ShadowFacts](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shadowfacts/32/2934_2.png) [@ShadowFacts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShadowFacts)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2007, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-conservative-advantage-in-syndicated-op-ed-columns/419098/32 "2007-09-14T14:17:58Z")
[QUOTE=Sam Stone] Here’s a peer-reviewed UCLA study that might just be a tad less biased than the _Media Matters_ study: [Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist](http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664) [/QUOTE] Actually, that is a link to a press release about the study, not the study itself. Can you provide a link to the actual study? (Not meant snarkily - I’d really like to read and evaluate it). [QUOTE=Sam Stone] So even if Media Matters found one small aspect of media coverage, syndicated punditry, that happens to marginally tilt to the right, it doesn’t come close to making up for the big leftward tilt of the rest of the media. [/QUOTE] This seems to be a decent summation of comments from several conservatives here. Since you say “if”, let me ask: do you think “Media Matters found one small aspect of media coverage, syndicated punditry, that happens to marginally tilt to the right” or not? What I’m trying to get at (similarly with John Mace earlier), is what do you think of _this study_? ---
**Author:** ![ShadowFacts](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shadowfacts/32/2934_2.png) [@ShadowFacts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShadowFacts)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2007, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-conservative-advantage-in-syndicated-op-ed-columns/419098/33 "2007-09-14T14:23:07Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] “Conservative syndicated columnists are more popular and successful than liberal ones”. Is this an indication of bias by the editors, or an indication that the columnists provide a better product? If the success or failure of a news medium is simply a choice by the editors, why does conservative talk radio succeed and Air America goes bankrupt? [/QUOTE] I don’t find this to be a compelling argument. Look at it the other way: Sam Stone claims there is a “big leftward tilt of the media.” By your logic above, that would be because the obviously liberal news is hugely popular and successful. Somehow I doubt you would agree with that hypothesis. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2007, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-conservative-advantage-in-syndicated-op-ed-columns/419098/34 "2007-09-14T14:32:34Z")
[QUOTE=ShadowFacts] Actually, that is a link to a press release about the study, not the study itself. Can you provide a link to the actual study? (Not meant snarkily - I’d really like to read and evaluate it). [/QUOTE] Here’s a link to the paper (in PDF) [http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/pdfs/MediaBias.pdf](http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/pdfs/MediaBias.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![Bill\_Door](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@Bill\_Door](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bill_Door)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2007, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-conservative-advantage-in-syndicated-op-ed-columns/419098/35 "2007-09-14T14:45:12Z")
I travel around the country quite a bit, and always buy local papers, and always read the op-ed pages and the letters to the editor. I may be subject to selection bias, but I have never seen a letter to the editor from a liberal writer cancelling their subscription because of something that reactionary son-of-a-bitch George Will said. I have seen many letters to the editor from people cancelling their subscriptions because that traitorous commie Ellen Goodman (for example) said something bad about our Commander-in-Chief. Often these letters are organized campaigns by some group. Whether you like it or not, conservatives are more organized about these campaigns, and they exert the kind of pressure that editors, and more importantly, advertisers, respond to. That’s the way the free market works. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2007, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-conservative-advantage-in-syndicated-op-ed-columns/419098/36 "2007-09-14T15:15:05Z")
[QUOTE=andros] . To **John Mace** , **Mr. Moto** (just watched one of your movies last night, BTW, good work), and **Evil Captor** collectively, regarding liberal or conservative bias on local paper editorial pages: Cite? . [/QUOTE] I made no assertions. I specifically said that the data was missing. I _suspect_ that we’d find the editorial pages to be more liberal, but I really don’t know. But here’s the thing-- this study looked at 1/2 of the equation, namely the Op-Ed pages. Without examining the other 1/2 it’s really impossible to make any conclusions about which side is getting more newspaper exposure. If they want to make the claim that the Op Ed pages lean right, then I say: So what? Tell me how both pages lean, and then we might have something meaningful. ---
**Author:** ![ShadowFacts](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shadowfacts/32/2934_2.png) [@ShadowFacts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShadowFacts)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2007, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-conservative-advantage-in-syndicated-op-ed-columns/419098/37 "2007-09-14T15:35:10Z")
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing] Here’s a link to the paper (in PDF) [http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/pdfs/MediaBias.pdf](http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/pdfs/MediaBias.pdf) [/QUOTE] Many thanks! ---
**Author:** ![Spoons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spoons/32/3141_2.png) [@Spoons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoons)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2007, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-conservative-advantage-in-syndicated-op-ed-columns/419098/38 "2007-09-14T15:50:35Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] If the argument is that the far left is marginalized on op-ed pages in favor of a range of opinion running from moderate conservatism to moderate liberalism, I can see that as being a defensible argument, to a point. Unfortunately, newspapers have no obligation to print anything, and the far left has always been a particularly hard sell in American politics. [/QUOTE] One admittedly unscientific observation I’ve made is that conservatives are willing to follow editorial rules, while liberals prefer to make their own. Thus, if an editor says, “I’ll only give you 500 words to explain your point of view,” the conservative will say “Okay, five hundred words” while the liberal will say, “I’ll just hand you my five _thousand_ word manifesto; oh, and by the way, you’re not to edit it.” Because newspapers have no obligation to print anything, guess which viewpoint in this scenario will see print and guess which will see the inside of the round file? As I said, not a very scientific observation, but after hearing many stories from left-of-centre letters-to-the-editor writers about how their letters are never printed (such letters being 2000-word “do not edit” essays when the paper’s policy states “no longer than 200 words and we reserve the right to edit for space”), I wonder if there’s any merit to it. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2007, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-conservative-advantage-in-syndicated-op-ed-columns/419098/39 "2007-09-14T18:20:24Z")
[QUOTE=ShadowFacts] I don’t find this to be a compelling argument. Look at it the other way: Sam Stone claims there is a “big leftward tilt of the media.” By your logic above, that would be because the obviously liberal news is hugely popular and successful. Somehow I doubt you would agree with that hypothesis. [/QUOTE] To establish that, you would need to compare relative success for media with an obvious slant to those with a different slant in markets where the consumer had a choice - not one-paper towns, or in an era where there was no mainstream medium that did not lean one way. That was the idea behind my comparison of Air America vs. Rush Limbaugh. Certainly there are other factors behind the rise in popularity of new media like blogs, and the overall reduction in popularity of newspapers, but when you compare, say, FoxNews with PBS, and see that Fox News has more viewers even though PBS gets subsidized, or the success of conservative talk radio and the relative lack of success of Air America, you have to wonder if a point of view besides fairly consistent liberal has something to do with it. Back in the sixties, the opportunity cost of trying to start a TV network or a newspaper was too high for the MSM to have much competition, and therefore they could push their ideas almost by default. If you didn’t like watching TV news with a liberal slant, what else could you watch? But nowadays, where the cost of starting an Internet outlet is so minimal, 60 Minutes can’t get away with a story using falsified documents even for a few days - Internet bloggers have the word out about the fraud within a few hours. That was part of the genius of Rush Limbaugh. He saw a market (conservatives) that was under-served, saw that talk radio was cheap and under-utilized, and started a trend that continues to this day. And part of the reason for the success of people like Bill Bennett and Michael Medved and the failure of Air America is that the market for liberal news is _not_ underserved - liberal media have to compete with the New York Times and PBS and ABC and CBS and NBC and all the others who have been at it for decades. Certainly if the opportunity cost is low enough, liberal outlets can spring up - withness the SDMB and the vast number of liberal blogs. But the most successful start up of traditional media nationally is Fox News. CNN started it with 24-hour coverage and a traditional agenda. Then Fox News comes along with a similar coverage style and a moderate right of center vewpoint - and beats CNN consistently. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2007, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-conservative-advantage-in-syndicated-op-ed-columns/419098/40 "2007-09-14T19:38:53Z")
An interesting facet of this debate (to be settled by some highly objective academic peer-reviewed study 😃 ) is how perceptions of media bias are affected by the degree to which the complaining party(ies) are out of power. Much of the complaining about leftist bias which formerly came from the right (not the only source of complaint, but a major part of it) diminished due to electoral successes as well as the rise in non-traditional sources of “news”. It’s only been since Bush II entered office that we’ve seen numerous claims from lefties about supposed right-wing media bias here and IRL. Attempts by people on the left to sustain complaints about right-wing bias have run afoul of the same problems that hampered their right-wing counterparts - a dearth of professional, peer-reviewed published studies by persons without an obvious axe to grind, and poorly defined, subjective criteria for establishing bias. Largely due to these factors, it is far easier to defend againsst bias charges than it is to press a successful offensive on the issue, as leftist advocates have found to their dismay. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-conservative-advantage-in-syndicated-op-ed-columns/419098.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-conservative-advantage-in-syndicated-op-ed-columns/419098.md?page=3)