Bunch of Junk: The New York Times Is 'Bending Over Backwards' for Conservatives?

Photo of Tim Graham.
  • Bookmark and Share

For years, liberals argued that it was absurd to argue the media had a liberal bias when Washington was dominated by Republican majorities. But now, when Washington is dominated by the Democrats, some are still clinging to the odd notion that the media "bends over backwards" against the liberal-bias charge and coddles conservatives. Take Will Bunch of the Philadelphia Daily News, and his odd logic:

This uncomfortable truth? That to accomodate the perceived notion that the news media warps things so far to the left, journalists have been playing Twister to bend over backwards to accomodate conservatives -- and tying ourselves in knots.

Exhibit A: The New York Times admits that it's easier to get on one of the most coveted pieces of real estate in American journalism, a slot on its letters-to-the-editor page, if you are a conservative. Here is what Andrew Rosenthal, the editorial page editor, said in a recent online chat:

The best kind of letter is relatively short (under 150 words), clearly written, strongly opinionated and direct. It doesn’t contain personal invective aimed at the writer or subject of an article. And it’s well written. I’ll be honest: Because of the nature of our readers, letter writers who defend Republican, conservative or right-wing positions on many topics have a higher shot at being published.

Bunch seems unable or unwilling to do the math. Rosenthal is not pledging that more right-wing letters will be published than left-wing letters. (Bunch makes no attempt to prove that’s the case.) Rosenthal is saying "because of the nature of our readers" – they’re overwhelmingly liberals – they have many more liberal letters to pick through, hence letters from the right "have a higher shot," or a better probability, of being published.

Bunch then continued by charging that at some date in the near future, the editorial pages of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution are going to move toward the right, based only on conservative-bashing "local observers" who equate modern conservatives with reactionaries and segregationists:

Exhibit B: Cynthia Tucker -- the Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial page editor of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution has long been the kind of contrarian voice that we journalists allegedly worship -- is being moved up and out of her slot in what local observers say is part of a seemingly futile bid to woo back conservative suburban readers:

It’s safe to say, however, that for the first time in generations, the state’s leading editorial page finally will have abandoned its mission as a progressive voice in favor of a carefully constructed mirage of "balance" — designed not to tell the truth, whether it’s unpopular or not, as much as to mollify conservative readers.

Isn't it amusing that the same liberals who always lament that blue-haired conservatives shouldn't disparage a smutty movie before it hits the theaters can't possibly wait for the horror of a centrist editorial page to develop before they decry it?

Bunch is so busy agreeing that liberalism offers the "truth," he doesn't address Tucker's declarations of policy on letters to the editor: truth is a "looser" concept than he's pushing. Back to Bunch:

This article about Tucker's move to Washington and away from her key local post at the Atlanta paper does a good job of laying out the broader issues, of why journalists are so self-conscious about their alleged liberalism -- some of it real but a lot of it perceived -- and why we become so accomodating to conservatives that it quickly becomes a case of being too accomodating.

That could be because efforts at balance come across as what they are — a bit patronizing. But it’s also because the practice of journalism is an essentially liberal exercise in the classical sense of the word: It places faith in the ability of people to form their opinions based on facts and reasoning rather than on preconceptions and prejudice. Meanwhile, the South’s brand of conservatism — the brand that has taken over much of the Republican Party — is essentially reactionary: Any narrative, no matter how factual, that challenges a set worldview is seen as a threat from outsiders to be battled, no matter how high the cost.

It's not surprising that there's an overlap between liberal values and journalistic values -- at least as journalists and progressives like to perceive themselves, as rational thinkers and as questioners of authority.

Are liberals really distinguishing themselves in the Obama Era as "questioners of authority," or are they more likely to be worshipers of authority, admirers of the arms of authority's spouse, and promoters of the authority's new puppy?

The last time we mentioned Bunch, he was claiming "media bias saved America." So give him credit for consistency. He wants the media all liberal, all the time. That's how you get "truth."

—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The libtard-media is so

The libtard-media is so objective that they have to prove it by printing a few "conservative" letters and by defending the liberal journalistic perspective....  They deny the bias while defending it.  They are insane.

The reason is there are no

The reason is there are no conservatives reading the old rag much less writing to them so they have no letters to print. 

"DumbAssity of Dope"

dittos

It's so transparent what they do ...

Times Admits Liberalism

Is the Times a Liberal Newspaper. Of course it is, the Times ombusdman wrote in 2004.

Absurd

Think of the argument used here: liberals are bending over backward to accomodate conservatives.

You mean, under normal circumstances, the media would be more liberal than they already are?

This is a completely self-serving, self-justifying, and self-adoring article. It starts with the assurance that liberal journalists perceive the truth. That's a whopper right there. But examine the evidence here. The two pieces of evidence that this guy puts forward are ... yes ... the opinions of two other liberals. He uses Cynthia Tucker's opinions as "evidence" that conservatives are narrow-minded buffoons. Conservatives are wrong, and the proof is that liberals say so? That's evidence?

That would only make sense to a fellow moonbat who has already swallowed the idea that liberals are heroic truth-seekers, while conservatives are Hee-Haw extras. If you start with that assumption, Bunch sounds right. That's who Bunch is writing to, the people who already assume he's right.

That's why the Philadelphia newspapers are on the verge of bankruptcy, begging for a bailout. There just are't that many people who assume that liberals are right.

NY Times

If the NY Times is bending over backwards for conservatives, please do yourself a favor, cut your losses and close up shop. Your no longer relevant.

Oh Another Point

One more thing, aside from the foolish stockholders who can't understand why they are losing money, if your an advertiser and your wondering if your getting your monies worth or thinking about advertising in this has been of a paper. Think about this, why advertise in a paper that has disenfranchised over 50% of the American public. If you don't care about your advertising dollar, please go right ahead and waste your money. OR, if you think this paper can come back and be what it once was, insist that they offer fair and balanced reporting INCLUDING it's editorial page.

If you don't do that, then you deserve to be in the same financial condition this liberal rag finds itself in.

 

Yeah, they "bend over

Yeah, they "bend over backwards" for us, while we're forced to bend over forwards for them...

The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.

Wow, I would hate to see it

Wow, I would hate to see it if they weren’t...... “bending over backwards”.

 

 

Ronald Reagan, 1962: I did not leave the Democratic party, the party left me.

Insert: your name, 2008, and the Republican party.

 

Well, there is the fact

Well, there is the fact that they haven't called for our imprisonment and execution - yet. That's something. 

The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.

Beat me to it, Chris

Although my thought was more like "it's only fair, since they've been bending us over forward for so long."

Assuming, of course, one believed it was indeed happening... which I don't.

 

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."-John Adams

Joe, Someone had to say

Joe,

Someone had to say it, right? :) 

The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.

It is the classic bait and switch...

In order to keep the status quo, you inflict fear ahead of time that something is going amiss, before it would ever, if it would ever, go that direction.

 

By making such claims, placing those already on the far left in a situation of thinking they aren't far left enough, they then will make a more purposeful effort to keep pushing more left.

People that are sick do not even realize how twisted they are and how much they prevaricate which makes them even more dangerous...

I don't think they're doing

I don't think they're doing it right.

Liberal: remove all that's Right, and this is what's Left.

meh

go bankrupt already... we're not buying it.

I love to help the helpless but I'm not gonna help the clueless   ~Dennis Miller

Ahem,...

The New York Times Is 'Bending Over Backwards' for Conservatives?

No, they're bending over forward for Obama.

>>>The best kind of letter

>>>The best kind of letter is relatively short (under 150 words), clearly
written, strongly opinionated and direct. It doesn’t contain personal
invective aimed at the writer or subject of an article. And it’s well
written. I’ll be honest: Because of the nature of our readers, letter
writers who defend Republican, conservative or right-wing positions on
many topics have a higher shot at being published.

 I think that you're missing the obvious.  What he is saying is this: Because of the nature of their readers  (overwhelmingly liberal), the few conservatives who write in are more likely to be published because they want letters that are short, clearly written, direct, and without personal invective... So the qualities in the letters sought cannot be fulfilled by their readers....

Libs do not write clearly, directly or without personal invective.  conservatives do.

 Thats what he meant...

sean robins
blog.seanrobins.com

My experience of liberal's

My experience of liberal's comments on the net is that they are full of crude and gratuitous personal attacks that display a great deal of  underlying hate and anger.  Liberals seldom provide supporting proof.  I often run across them giving links that do not say what they have claimed.  And one of their most common tacks  is to ignore the subject under discussion and out of the blue just attack some conservative or Republican for almost anything.  They exhibit an incredible inability to stay on subject preferring to focus on blaming someone on the other side for something, anything.  If their letters to the editor are along these lines, publishing very many of them would not advance the NYT's pet causes.  Probably the letters from conservatives tend to be the only ones that provoke thought.   I imagine the lefty letters often are not suitable for family viewing.

 

SN ~ Perfectly stated!

Liberals offer very little in honesty or discussion.

Tucker?

Any paper that publishes Cynthia Tucker's racist, communist screed should immediately shut their doors.  Making money is not possible with her crap in your paper.