Lean Left? Lean Right? News Media May Take Their Cues From Customers

[DeepModem Mom]

NYT: Economic Scene
Lean Left? Lean Right? News Media May Take Their Cues From Customers
By AUSTAN GOOLSBEE
Published: December 7, 2006

....Any politician will tell you that sometimes what we call things is the most political decision of all. Political consultants like Frank Luntz, a Republican, have become legendary for their way of spinning language to partisan advantage: ”death tax” instead of “estate tax,” “war on terror” instead of “war in Iraq.” But most people expect spin from politicians. When they perceive partisan slant in the news itself, they typically interpret it as evidence of underlying bias by reporters or media owners.

But one of the most interesting things coming out of research on the economics of the media industry has been the notion that media slant may simply reflect business rather than politics.

New research by two University of Chicago economists, Matthew Gentzkow and Jesse M. Shapiro, entitled “What Drives Media Slant? Evidence From U.S. Daily Newspapers” (www.nber.org/papers/w12707.pdf) compiles some compelling and altogether unusual data to answer the question....

***

The study...analyzed 417 newspapers in the United States (accounting for some 70 percent of total newspaper circulation) as if they were politicians. The researchers measured, for example, all the times in articles about Social Security that a newspaper referred to “personal accounts” (Republican) or to “private accounts” (Democratic). Their measure of partisan slant came only from the news coverage....(O)nce the authors had this measure, they showed that the main driver of any slant was the newspaper’s audience, not bias by the newspaper’s owner.

A comparison of circulation data (per capita) to the ratio of Republican to Democratic campaign contributions by ZIP code showed that circulation was strongly related to whether the newspaper matched the readers’ own ideology.....The authors calculated the ideal partisan slant for each paper, if all it cared about was getting readers, and they found that it looked almost precisely like the one for the actual newspaper. As Dr. Shapiro put it in an interview, “The data suggest that newspapers are targeting their political slant to their customers’ demand and choosing the amount of slant that will maximize their sales.”...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/07/business/media/07scene.html?bl&ex=1165813200&en=104d1d193de53345&ei=5087%0A

[Jackpine Radical]

1. The first thing that comes to mind is to point out

that this study doesn't address the direction of causality. Maybe papers are effective in changing the politics of their readership. (No, I don't really think this is likely.)

The other point is that newspapers are kinda irrelevant as molders of opinion these days. Does their slant really matter? It would be a mistake to project the findings of a newspaper study onto the face of corporate broadcasting, which has a much larger impact on public opinion. Control the networks & you don't havfe to care what the papers say.

[John Q. Citizen]

2. The headline of the article itself is misleading, it should say newspapers.

I have a lot more questions than answers at this point about this study.


It is interesting from a conseptual point of view, though.

[Royal Sloan 09]

3. Interesting, but still

a cover for the Corporate media to continue their support for the Publicans. The last sentence says it all, "A simpler approach would take a three-word phrase that never showed up on the partisan index: follow the money."

Also the phrase, "We do not need to fear that some partisan billionaire will buy up newspapers and use them for propaganda." Wrong everyone needs to be very worried, the rich are buying up the Media groups/companies. The new owners are removing those that have different views than the new owners, multiple papers have been having this ongoing battle in their newsrooms across the USA. It's not reported by the papers doing it, of course but it's happening. The owners will have their views and interests upheld by their Corporate Media machines, such as those tax breaks and other financial benefits for themselves. Anti-trust suits are happening against several(CM's)or as the new owners like to say Media Groups. Monopolies for news and propaganda, the new Neo-Con way!

This line in the report means what, ",the data suggests that they ought to blame the public." This is what the Publicans continue to do, blame the liberal media when there is no basis to make that claim, but it goes unchallenged by the (CM) as they are covering for the party of the Publicans. Circular path for the two to support each others agendas, and still they follow the money.

The report has some points to address, but mostly shows that the (CM) is willing to start the cover-up of it's responsibilities, as the 4th Estate is being destroyed by the new owners and the Publican party in power. They seek to control the media and the masses, with the lies they will keep pushing, while omissions of the truth becomes the norm.

[Oeditpus Rex]

4. It means no such thing

Blaming the public would be absurd. Newspaper publishers and upper-level editors poll, survey and otherwise gauge their paper's readership in an effort to achieve some editorial balance — which usually isn't "balance" at all, but skewed compromise. The degree of skew usually depends on the aforementioned suits' personal opinions.

More so than readers, though, publishers and upper-level editors are afraid of offending advertisers, since they pay the bills.

There's no conspiracy here.