The Boston Globe, The Washington Post, Liberal Bias and a Conservative America

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 8th, 2013

Politics 101

Far Fewer People pay to read Papers Online than they once Paid to read them in Print

The Washington Post has a market capitalization of $4.2 billion.  Which is the number of issued shares of publically traded stock multiplied by its stock price.  In other words, this is what the shareholders of The Washington Post believe the paper is worth.  Yet on Monday they sold the paper for $250 million.  Which is 94% less that its market capitalization.

This follows the sale of The Boston Globe.  Which The New York Times sold for $70 million.  After buying it for $1.1 billion in 1993.  Coincidentally, a loss of 94%.  The Washington Post and The Boston Globe show how newspapers have lost their value.  Each paper suffered huge declines in circulation.  And with fewer people reading these newspapers advertisers placed their ads elsewhere.  Which led to tens of millions in annual losses.  Common in much of the established print media.  Why?

In part because of the Internet.  People like getting their news online.  Free.  Some papers have installed pay-walls for their online content.  Some more successful than others.  But far fewer people pay to read these papers online like they once paid to read them in print.  On paper.  Old-school style.  Yes, online content is instantaneous.  Up to date.  Free (much of it).  And you don’t get that black ink on your fingers when reading the paper.  But is there something else causing papers like The Boston Globe and The Washington Post to fail so miserably?  Perhaps.

Approximately 75% of all Americans do NOT call themselves Liberal

The problems these papers are having are caused bytheir liberal bias.  This is why so many people are refusing to pay to pass the pay-wall.  And why they aren’t buying the print version.  Because today there is choice.  A lot of choice.  And a lot of choice that doesn’t insult them on a daily basis.

The (once) leading newspapers, the television news networks, the public schools, our colleges and universities, Hollywood, television and the music industry (apart from country music) leans left.  People are bombarded with a liberal agenda from school to television to the movies to their music.  Making the liberal agenda appear to be the mainstream thought.  But it’s not.

According to Gallup the ideological breakdown of the country in 2011 (and 2010, 2009, 2004, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1988, 1997 and 1996) was approximately 40% conservative.  While 35% identified themselves as moderate in 2011.  And those calling themselves liberal came to 21% in 2011.  So nearly half of all Americans call themselves conservative.  While 75% of all Americans do NOT call themselves liberal.  So is it a surprise that newspapers with a liberal slant that insult approximately 75% of the population are failing?

The Boston Globe and The Washington Post are Failing because People don’t like Elitists talking down to Them

The American people don’t like the liberal agenda.  Even liberals don’t like the liberal agenda when it affects their lives.  Matt Damon is a diehard liberal.  And champion of our public schools.  Loving their liberal agenda.  But when it comes to his own kids, surprise, surprise, they go to a private school.  Just like President Obama’s daughters.  The president is such a fierce supporter of our public schools that he ended the school voucher system in Washington DC.  Keeping those kids in the public school system.  Because he took away their choice.  While exercising his choice with his own daughters.  As the president believes that private schools are better than public education.  And he wants to keep the poor people out of them.  Which is what cancelling the school voucher system did.

And just recently we’ve seen Congress and their staff get an exemption from Obamacare.  The same Obamacare they’re forcing on the masses.  But those working in Congress have the best health insurance plans known to mankind.  And they’re expensive.  So much so that the government (i.e., the taxpayers) pays 75% of their premium costs.  They liked their plans.  They wanted to keep their plans.  But an unattended consequence of Obamacare put them in the same boat as the rest of us when it came to their health insurance.  And it was just a gosh-darn shame that these people would have to pay an enormous amount of money for their gold-plated-Cadillac plans.  So the executive branch of the federal government will pay (i.e., the taxpayers will pay) their 75% subsidy so they can keep the plans they like.  Without seeing their premiums going up.  Unlike the rest of us.

This is why papers like The Boston Globe and The Washington Post are failing.  Because people don’t like elitists talking down to them.  Telling us that we don’t know what’s best for us.  Or that we are simply too stupid to know that things we don’t like are actually good for us.  Like our public schools.  And Obamacare.  While the very people telling us this are exempting themselves from these very things.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Mainstream Media and their Owners are biased in Favor of Government Largess, not Objectivity

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 10th, 2011

The Mainstream Media is Biased after All

Problems with a for-profit education dependent on federal student loans beset The Washington Post.  Reveals a clear and present bias.  And threatens the venerable masthead (see The Washington Post’s dependence on the government it covers by Glenn Greenwald posted 4/10/2011 on Salon).

“The fate of The Post Co. has become inextricably linked with that of Kaplan, where revenue climbed to $2.9 billion in 2010, 61 percent of The Post Co.’s total,” the article detailed; “the company is more dependent than ever on a single business,’ [CEO Donald] Graham wrote in last year’s annual report, adding that the newspaper had never accounted for as large a share of overall company revenue as Kaplan does today.”

And that single business is an educational one.  A network of for-profit universities aimed at those who can’t afford a traditional college education.  These ‘poor’ people often pay for this education with federal loans.  And, of course, education is highly regulated by the federal government.  So this puts this The Post Co. into a bit of a sticky wicket.

Put another way, the company that owns The Washington Post is almost entirely at the mercy of the Federal Government and the Obama administration — the entities which its newspaper ostensibly checks and holds accountable.

Which is another way of saying there is a conflict of interest.  Which may taint their objectivity.  At times.  Not necessarily.  But possibly.  Which may explain the dominance of FOX NEWS.  Who may be beholden to corporate interests, too.  But it is clear that they are not beholden to the Obama Administration.  No, the current administration doesn’t much care for FOX.  Which can’t help but to lend an air of objectivity.

Beyond being reliant on federal money and not alienating federal regulators, the Post Co. desperately needs favorable treatment from members of Congress, and has been willing to use its newspaper to obtain it…

The Post is hardly alone among major media outlets in being owned by an entity which relies on the Federal Government for its continued profitability. NBC News and MSNBC were long owned by GE, and now by Comcast, both of which desperately need good relations with government officials for their profits. The same is true of CBS (owned by Viacom), ABC (owned by Disney), and CNN (owned by TimeWarner). For each of these large corporations, alienating federal government officials is about the worst possible move it could make — something of which all of its employees, including its media division employees, are well aware.

Of course, they left off two other entities that depend on not alienating the federal government.  PBS.  And NPR.  They have no corporate middlemen.  They get their funding directly from the federal government.  So they’ll be even more careful not to bite the hand that’s feeding them.

It would appear that journalism somehow went awry.  They will still criticize corporate fat cats.  Just not the corporate fat cats that sign their checks.  Or the government that signs the corporate fat cats’ checks.

The whole point of the First Amendment’s free press guarantee is that adversarial journalism is possible only if journalists are independent of political power. Yet the U.S. now has exactly the opposite dynamic: most major media outlets are owned by corporations that are anything but independent of government: they are quite dependent upon political officials for their profit in countless ways. We have anything but an independent press, which is another way of saying we have anything but a free press.

It is interesting that many attack the Republicans for being in the hip pocket of the big corporations.  And some of their loudest critics are themselves in the hip pocket of big corporations.  But claims of media bias are laughed off by those in the hip pocket of big corporations.  Meanwhile, they attack FOX NEWS for not being a legitimate news organization.  When many of these attackers are themselves far from legitimate.  So are these people inherently immoral?  Amoral?  Or are they just human?

Currying favor with political officials is how they secure scoops, leaks and access. Because media stars are now as wealthy and celebrated as the politically powerful whom they cover, they identify on socioeconomic and cultural grounds with these political officials; media stars are far more integrated into the halls of political power than they are outside of them.

They’re just human.  Craving attention.  Fame.  Wealth.  The good life.  And more fame.  They all want to be Walter Cronkite.  To become a legend.  By achieving greatness just for reporting the greatness of others.  That’s why reality television is so successful.  People watch rank amateurs achieve celebrity without any real talent.  And they say, hey, that could be me.  And so it is with many of today’s journalists.

FOX NEWS Dares to say the King Isn’t Wearing any Clothes

So how biased is today’s media?  Perhaps not that biased.  Here’s a newspaper story pretty critical of President Obama (see O meets the fog of war posted 4/10/2011 on New York Post).

Gen. Carter Ham, who commanded US military forces in Libya until control of the operation was handed over to NATO, told a Senate hearing Thursday that “there might be some consideration” of sending US ground troops to Libya to aid the anti-Khadafy rebels.

But President Obama said there would be no boots on the ground.  That we were only there on a humanitarian mission to protect Libyan civilians.  That we would be in and out in days, not weeks.  That there would be no mission-creep.  But this sounds like mission-creep.  A lot like in Vietnam.  We were only advisors at first.  To help an outmatched military force.  Then the mission crept.  And the next thing we knew we had hundreds of thousands of boots on the ground.  Could history be repeating?

The point being that situations, both on the ground and in the air, tend to change in unpredictable ways.

Gen. Ham surely knows this. Indeed, brand new second lieutenants know it.

But there’s no indication that President Obama and his defense team understand it — which probably explains why he doesn’t hesitate before making sweeping promises about the length and nature of America’s military commitments.

Perhaps.  While another Democrat president bungles us into another long-term military commitment in a land far from home that never attacked us.

Now that’s a pretty critical, objective news report on the Obama administration.  Perhaps the news media can maintain objectivity in the face of their corporate overlords dependent on the federal government for their profits.  Wait a tic.  The New York PostRupert Murdoch owns this, doesn’t he?  The same Rupert Murdoch who owns FOX NEWS?  Why, yes.  He does.  No wonder the New York Post isn’t afraid to say the king isn’t wearing any clothes.  Their income isn’t dependent on pleasing the king.

I guess a good rule of thumb for objective journalism is this.  Does Rupert Murdoch own the media outlet?  If so, it’s not an Obama administration toady.  And most likely objective.

A Detailed and Objective Mea Culpa

If you want to read more about the problems besetting The Washington Post thanks to its Kaplan division you can read a pretty detailed and objective accounting of it in The Washington Post (see The trials of Kaplan Higher Ed and the education of The Washington Post Co. by Steven Mufson and Jia Lynn Yang posted 4/9/2011 on The Washington Post).  It’s a fascinating read.  And quite the mea culpa.

Yes, they may be biased.  But they don’t like the position they’re in.  And that says something about the organization.  Besides, Charles Krauthammer is a columnist over there.  Not exactly a friend of the Obama administration.  And any paper that has Krauthammer as a columnist is all right by me.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,