Wednesday, September 12, 2007

The Commanding Heights of Op-Ed Pages   [Jonah Goldberg]

I haven't looked at this new study being touted by Media Matters about alleged conservative dominance of op-ed pages yet — beyond looking to see what it says about yours truly. But I think Josh Patashnik at "The Plank" makes a good point about another way to look at the findings. It's also worth pointing out that op-ed columnists are often selected as an alternative perspective to the editorials of the paper itself. Not that I would wholly trust Media Matters' accounting,* but it'd be interesting to know what the break down of liberal to conservative editorial boards is. Also, not all newspapers are equal. With the exceptions of the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post, I'm hard pressed to think of a top 20 newspaper that isn't liberal editorially. The New York Times sets the tone for a great deal of journalistic discourse in this country. Counting them as just another newspaper alongside a regional mid-market daily (or their circulation against several second tier newspapers combined) distorts more than it reveals. There's also the pesky issue of quality. Editors pick columnists for reasons other than pure liberal-conservative balance. Some writers are more interesting and entertaining than others. Maureen Dowd isn't a brilliant analyst, but she's very entertaining (to many) and, similarly, lots of liberals read George Will because they like his style even if they hate his politics.

* For the record, it says that I am the 7th most widely read conservative columnist in terms of circulation (and #19 overall in terms of "reach."). They use the caveat "papers regularly carrying columnist." (Interestingly — to me! — they have the number of papers carrying me at 61, which is considerably lower than the tear-sheets I get from my syndicate would suggest). But the "regularly carrying" caveat is an important one. One of the big changes in this business (which my Dad worked in for decades — for a different syndicate than my own) is that editors don't carry columnists "regularly" as much as they used to. I'm in about 100 newspapers from what I can tell (though Media Matters says it's 71; I've put in a call to my syndicate!). But a good half of the papers I'm in may only run my column sporadically. For example, I'll be in the Philadelphia Inquirer twice in one month and then not again for two months. This sort of thing has become the norm. The internet and the decline of competitive newspaper markets have made it a buyer's market and editors can buy 'em cheap off the rack whenever they want to. Having not read the report yet, I don't how this fact plays into their analysis. What I do know is that you really, really, should ask your local newspaper to carry more syndicated columnists — starting with me! It helps! Also, if you don't want them to carry me, tell them that too. Controversy also helps!

Correction! I should have noted that the Chicago Tribune is not liberal editorially. How conservative they are depends on your perspective. But as they carry my column I am perfectly willing to concede they are geniuses, giants among men, great dancers and all around wonderful people. 

09/12 01:41 PMShare