Metapost: Bias and the Dome

I wish I had the link, but here's the gist from a conversation about "lipstick-gate" on MSNBC:

MATTHEWS: Now, it'll die, as we said, it'll jump the shark. Two days ago, no, we're all talking about -- you're waving the tabloids around, come on. Two days from now -- I want to ask you, what will we talk about two days from now?

SCARBOROUGH: Whatever the McCain campaign wants us to talk about, because the McCain campaign is assertive.

Substitute Dole for McCain and you have in one simple sentence everything that is wrong with the news "industry" today.

Sad, really.

Oops.

I wrote yesterday's response a bit too hastily. Having glanced back at it today, I noted that I said there were 150 or so mentions of JLF in the "pages" of the N&O. That's actually too high. It's more like 100 a year in the N&O, including online stories. Additional online mentions (in blog comments and such) would take the number up a bit more, but not by several thousand.

But McCrory and Dole have also taken steps away from their national candidates (and from Bush). I think this year everyone wants to run their own race.

"Have also"? As in, Perdue has take steps away from Obama? For God's sake, that was the whole point of my comment. She showed up at a major event for him, but his plane broke down. She even ended up speaking at that event - yes? Then, during the other event she was at a debate! That is way, way, way different than Elizabeth Dole being "too busy" to attend the Republican National Convention.

OK, Protzman, I'll play a little.

First, the web is forever. You can try to make nice now, after scoring some traffic off this thread today, but your previous tirades and, yes, personal attacks on Ryan and other N&O folks can't be erased from memory. It is entirely possible to raise a reasonable objection, here or elsewhere, without resorting to name-calling or making stuff up.

Second, you can repeat your "Art Pope spends $5 million" meme as often as you like, but that won't transform it into an argument that makes any sense. The Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation, run by liberals and partisan Democrats for decades, is larger and spends far more money each year on public-policy organizations, research centers, campus programs, and activist groups than the Pope Foundation does. The left-of-center groups in NC have always surpassed the right-of-center groups in total annual revenues and expenditures, as far as I can determine (by using 990s, not making things up). The last time I computed it, the disparity was more than 2 to 1. There are simply more left-leaning foundation grantmakers than right-leaning ones, and they have more resources at their disposal. Of course, the organizations differ significantly in programming and target audiences, so some dollars are spent more directly on policy advocacy than others.

Third, you really need to apply a common-sense filter when you attempt to do content analysis. You now claim (http://bluenc.com/node/11607#comments) that the John Locke Foundation has received 3,620 mentions on the N&O website compared to 558 for NC Justice Center/Policy Watch. Really? Didn't the 3,620 figure strike you as improbably high? Over what period? My guess is that you didn't use the archives, or use them correctly. If you Googled, you goofed. JLF is mentioned in the pages of the N&O roughly 150 times a year, give or take. There'd be some additional online-only mentions, but not several thousand.

Lastly, I guess you think that any publicity is good publicity. But in all honesty, every time you write absurdities or launch into loony tirades, you marginalize yourself a bit more, damage your cause, and benefit JLF. I know plenty of NC politicos, Rs and Ds, who read BlueNC just to see what you'll say next, for the comedic value. Unless I miss my guess, it was never your goal to become a clown.

But here we are.

It probably just slipped Protzman's mind the hundreds of millions that George Soros and MoveOn.org is spending to manufacture facts that suit them. When you get caught in obviously silly comments from the left you lose credibility. You seem to have a facination with what Pope is doing that you forget what Soros is doing. Your double standard rears it's ugly head again.

It is the job of the media to report actual facts and let you decide. Not create your opnion for you that the left wing media outlets like to do. The National Barack Channel and MSNBC have joined the likes of The DailyKos in their attempted smear attacks against Sarah Palin and indeed shows their true bias.

I do believe that we all have bias' but Ryan should not take it as a personal attack when his writing is challenged. I do believe most of what Ryan writes on our politics belongs in the editorial.

And my opponent has been quoted a lot about his endorsing Obama, yet my endorsing of McCain to counter him is not newsworthy? I say there is bias here on local elections.

Paul Terrell III
http://terrellforhouse33.blogspot.com

Thank you for the gracious approach. I much prefer to have my work discussed and debated than to be personally attacked. As a professional reporter, I can't really respond to the attacks and it can bias me against what may be a perfectly legitimate complaint.

— RTB 

Gotta love transparency. Thanks for posting this. Just to be clear, I wrote:

I don't believe it is intentional, but it is nonetheless real.

Unlike some on the left, I'm not arguing there is an ideological bias at the Dome, or even at the N&O. I'm arguing that the way your organization operates is fundamentally flawed. News organizations that are strapped for time and resources are soft targets for those who wish to influence the public agenda. And frankly, the right-leaning organizations are better at that kind of manipulation than those on the left. Why else does Art Pope spend upwards of $5 million to manufacture news and opinions for your consumption? Their strategy of trotting out "experts" with "reports" works. They fill the news vacuum they know exists with a steady stream of propaganda, and news organizations drink it up like sugar water. The same phenomenon applies to campaigns.

I don't envy you trying to navigate the minefields and strike the right balance. It's a thankless job. But I do think you could do better.

"Comrade ThunderPig has repeatedly engaged in anti-social behavior, which threatens the stability of the Worker's Paradise. He shall be interned forthwith in the Gulag at Fuquay-Varina, at the site of the former bourgeois amusement complex 'Two Flags over Fuquay-Varina', where he shall remain until reeducation is complete."

That's comedy, John. Pay attention.

I tend to think the Dome does a decent job of covering both sides equally. At times it may lean to one side or the other but that may be based on activity out of one campaign or lack of activity out of another, not something Dome is doing intentionally.

I laugh out loud when someone on one thread is alleging bias to the left while on another thread someone is claiming conservative leaning.

The Hood comments are funny, I didn’t think he drank so may need to send someone over there to check on him.

The language sensitivity is a little over the top. If you can say it on broadcast TV in the daytime, then for the most part it should be safe for the blog. We are all adults and for one main exception on here, we mind our manners.

Bias?

Everyone is biased. If both sides are mad at you, then you are probably doing it about right.

This is about the only place one can go to in the state for a steady diet of news, especially news about politics in Raleigh.

Full Dislaimer...I am extremely biased against newspapers for their nearly Marxist bias in covering the news. I expect that because you aren't covering the news from that viewpoint makes you a right winger to the (descriptive withheld to maintain PG Rating) bloggers at Blue NC.

Wow! John Hood has a sense of humor. It's a little on the stilted cynical side, with just a dash of sarcastic contempt. But there is some comedic value there, so there is a glimmer of hope for you.

"I demand more coverage of Palmetto State politics."

Okay, here's what you do, John. Set up a foundation, and then create a network of websites, concerned citizens' organizations and talk radio stations, and then hire some "experts" to analyze science, industry, socioeconomics, etc., and then you can supply the coverage that all those folks are hungry for!

I know. It sounds kind of spooky, but there's a vacuum to be filled, right?

I guess I'm just nutty, but I don't think the Dome's coverage is particularly slanted. I certainly haven't agreed with the take of every post by RTB and other staffers, and there have been times I thought a given story or tidbit was inappropriate, but it would be kind of strange if I always agreed or approved with something a newspaper published.

You have to assume that a journalist is, at some level, human (no, really). Objectivity is a goal that I assume most journalists are consciously striving for,but it's not possible to achieve perfect objectivity. Sometimes a person might bend over backward the other way to compensate for biases that he/she is conscious of. Sometimes a person will allow his/her inner snark to come up for air. I get the impression that the Dome staff makes an effort to be objective, and I make an effort not to assume that just because I wish a given story were written a different way that this means the reporter was being unfair.

One of the problems I have with the Dome's recent behavior is the "Claims Dept" series. Regardless of which side pays for the ads, there seems to be a focus (here) on analyzing the Democrats' performance in office, while virtually ignoring what Republicans have (or have not) done while in office.

Even the analysis of the AFP ad for Dole on gas prices was labeled as mostly accurate, even after a few of us proved (in my opinion) that it was grossly inaccurate.

Well, I for one am tired of Dome's obvious and egregious bias in favor of North Carolina news and political races. There is another Carolina, you know, and rumor has it that millions of people live there. You even have a sister paper in Columbia, so don't even try the excuse that you just can't get any good information from south of the border.

I demand more coverage of Palmetto State politics. And while you're at it, cure cancer and bring back "Jericho." Do what we say or else.

My problem is that in posting Candidate X's press releases, or in posting what Candidate X said at some event, you often refuse to mention when Candidate X is lying.

Yes, you perform fact-checks of political ads. That is helpful. However, more fact-checking needs to be done on day-to-day statements of politicians. Your job isn't just to report what happened. Your job is to make your readers more informed.

Take, for example, offshore drilling. Republicans make continued claims on the effect offshore drilling will have on gas prices. We know, via the government's own Energy Information Administration (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo07/issues.html) that offshore drilling will only change prices in 20 years time, and only by 3-5 cents per gallon. This fact should be repeated every time a politician tries to claim otherwise.

Otherwise, I don't see a particular conservative or liberal bias. I just think you're biased against calling a liar a liar and informing your readers.

I am sure the BlueNC folks are ecstatic that they got a mention on Dome. This is the biggest thing that has happened to them since Ellen's wedding. I must say that I log on to the Dome because your comments are objective. You certainly do not need to log on to BlueNC to learn what they think. Their views are about as far left as you can possibly get without being committed.

Keep up the good work and you will continue to upset the BlueNC folk. Or doing nothing will upset the BlueNC folk. As a matter of fact, they will be upset either way or neither way or any way.

That's a fair point. I think I've been interested in the question because of the fact that she did a mailer with Obama, which is very unusual in North Carolina politics. But McCrory and Dole have also taken steps away from their national candidates (and from Bush). I think this year everyone wants to run their own race.

— RTB

Wow. What BlueNC thinks is your criteria for judging political bias? Pot. Meet kettle.

Going by the people on that site, Bev Perdue, Joe Hackney and Marc Basnight are all too conservative for NC too.

Heck, most of them there think Che Guevara was too conservative for Cuba.

I think this is just some ploy by Dome to generate a record amount of comments and page hits.

You continually suggest that Bev Perdue is avoiding Barack Obama. Yet, she was at one event that Obama missed because of mechanical issues and was doing a televised debate during another.

Will you stop suggesting that Perdue is avoiding Obama or will you at the very least MENTION the above two FACTS every time you suggest it. And, not in an update after it has left the front page or as an addendum five paragraphs down the page.