Free Markets, Free People

Media

Short memory theater

Speaking of “disgust”, these people disgust me – this one in particular:

Striking a tone of disgust, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi ridicules the GOP as obsessed with its loathing of President Obama and hell-bent on hurting him politically, regardless the cost. She assigns little to no blame to the president (even though Democrats privately say that’s laughable) and instead portrays him as saintly, above reproach and the victim of jealousy or something worse.

After 26 years in the House, she says, “I haven’t seen anything like it. I haven’t seen anything like it.”

She must have had an 8 year mental enema then because she did precisely what disgusts her for 8 years to a president of the opposition party.   And, of course, does anyone in the press call her on it.

No.

Then, like many of our political class, she utters nonsense that is factually inaccurate:

Then she added a line that she has used before, that drives Republicans batty: “He has been … open, practically apolitical, certainly nonpartisan, in terms of welcoming every idea and solution. I think that’s one of the reasons the Republicans want to take him down politically, because they know he is a nonpartisan president, and that’s something very hard for them to cope with.”

Does anyone in the press call her on it?

No.

“Ill served” by both the press and our politicians doesn’t even begin to cover it.

~McQ

Layers and Layers of Editors

There are always criticisms of the media for bias. Most people have come to accept that the media will report from a reliably liberal point of view, though there are idiots on the left—but I repeat myself—who say the “corporate media” has a conservative bias. But there is a bigger problem with the media than political bias. It’s the issue of competence. Most of the time the press reports on things we don’t know much about, so what with all those layers of of professional producers and editors, we just have to assume they’re doing due diligence to get the story right. Then, you see a story that concerns something you know a bit about, and you realize…they don’t. The real problem with the media isn’t bias, it’s incompetence.

Sometimes it’s egregious. Last month, TV station KVTU in San Francisco reported the Flight crew of the crashed Asiana Arlines flight as Sum Ting Wong, Wi Tu Lo, Ho Lee Fuk, and Bang Ding Ow. This report went through four levels of producers, all of whome were fired, of course—except for the on-air reporter and managing editor who gave final approval to air the names. She wasn’t fired, apparently, because she is Asian—not that seems to have made her any more knowledgeable about Asian names than her Caucasian subordinates—and the station didn’t want to upset the local Asian community any further.

As an aside, I should think that would make for an interesting discrimination claim by the fired producers and editors. Who were, also, by the way, in a pretty bad position no matter what they did. After all, if they had raised a red flag about the names, and the names turned out to be correct, then they’re the insensitive racists who think Asian names sound funny.  What a wonderful work environment of no-win situations our political correctness is creating.

Anyway, that was a pretty egregious error that touched on a sensitive subject, and even the Asian editor flubbed it. If they can’t even get something like that right, imagine how bad it gets on everyday stories. Well, happily, we don’t have to imagine it, because CNN provided a great example today. In a motorsports story on how Formula 1 racing will bring back turbocharged engines to their cars next year, CNN felt it was necessary to explain how this whole turbocharging thing worked to their less technical readers:

While a standard engine is powered by a belt connected to the crankshaft, a turbo engine runs on its own exhaust steam, making it more energy efficient.

So, can anyone tell me how many factual errors and fundamental physics violations are contained in that sentence? But CNN went further, to ensure their readers fully understood the issue.

Turbo engines also tend to be slower taking off — not ideal for F1 racing. But once in full flight, they maintain speed well, and today you’ll often find turbo engines used in trains, trucks and construction equipment.

Sure. And in industrial vehicles like the BMW M3, M5, and M6, the Subaru WRX STI, the Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution, Nissan 370Z,  and Mercedes’ AMG models. All of them are so much “slower taking off” that they struggle to hit 60 MPH in less than 5 seconds. Though, of course, they all do so.

As Jalopnik put it earlier today:

Oh boy. Is it possible for one little sentence to get so much wrong, so efficiently? It’s impressive, in its way. And, sure, it’s CNN, not a dedicated automotive site, but in an article about F1 cars and racing tech, you’d think there’d be at least some attempt to get this right. It’d be like writing an article about an election that said "While a standard election is decided by court decisions from individual citizen legislatures, a runoff election leverages polling data from the most recent census." Sure, those are real words, but they make zero sense.

The thing is, nearly every time I see a story on a subject I know something about, something in the story is inevitably wrong. So I can only assume that, when it comes to stories I know nothing about, they are equally wrong. Which means, basically, that everything you see in the news is…wrong.

That’s not “news”. That’s fiction.

~
Dale Franks
Google+ Profile
Twitter Feed

Filner/Weiner: where are the “war on women” accusations?

George Will brought up a very good point on ABC’s This Week this Sunday.  When discussing Democrats Bob Filner and Anthony Weiner and their current problems, Will uttered the following:

"If these two people, [Mayor Bob] Filner in San Diego and [Anthony] Weiner here, were Republicans, this would be a part of a lot of somber sociology in the media about the Republican war on women."

Who has heard any hint of that?  Anyone?  Are you seeing it in the media?  Given how the left and Democrats try to define the “war on women” would they really not include these two under that definition?

By the way, the panel on This Week got a huge cackle out of Will’s utterance, because, you know, obviously his square peg just doesn’t fit the round hole they have conjured in their minds.

~McQ

The Zimmerman case in a nutshell

And William Saletan Slate articulates it:

The problem at the core of this case wasn’t race or guns. The problem was assumption, misperception, and overreaction. And that cycle hasn’t ended with the verdict. It has escalated.

I almost joined the frenzy. Yesterday I was going to write that Zimmerman pursued Martin against police instructions and illustrated the perils of racial profiling. But I hadn’t followed the case in detail. So I sat down and watched the closing arguments: nearly seven hours of video in which the prosecution and defense went point by point through the evidence as it had been hashed out at the trial. Based on what I learned from the videos, I did some further reading.

It turned out I had been wrong about many things. The initial portrait of Zimmerman as a racist wasn’t just exaggerated. It was completely unsubstantiated. It’s a case study in how the same kind of bias that causes racism can cause unwarranted allegations of racism. Some of the people Zimmerman had reported as suspicious were black men, so he was a racist. Members of his family seemed racist, so he was a racist. Everybody knew he was a racist, so his recorded words were misheard as racial slurs, proving again that he was a racist.

His summary is very on point.  This entire shameful episode has been both media and politically driven.  It has never been about justice.  Never.  It has been an attempt at a high-tech lynching, based on rumor, innuendo, false reporting, political pressure and misrepresentation.

Shameful doesn’t even begin to describe it.  And now, as Saletan points out, the same groups who caused this travesty to reach the point of a trial, have now doubled down on getting George Zimmerman in other ways despite an outright acquittal on all charges related to the killing of Trayvon Martin. 

Saletan makes the point that the case was more about a series of mistakes leading to a confrontation that should have never happened and, on Martin’s side an attack that was unwarranted.  As hard as the usual suspects have tried to make it about race and racism, their attempts have failed at every turn.  The facts simply don’t support the premise at all. 

And the overreaction continues as ill-informed groups riot (more to grab a TV at Wal-Mart in some cases than to protest the verdict) egged on by a media who has all but excused rioters for their action by subtly sending the message that the Zimmerman acquittal justifies their actions.

Meanwhile, the overreactive beat goes on:

The grievance industrial complex is pushing the Department of Justice to prosecute Zimmerman for bias-motivated killing, based on evidence that didn’t even support a conviction for unpremeditated killing.

Truly amazing but not surprising. 

We can only hope that someday sanity will again prevail in this great nation of ours.

~McQ

Leftist collectivism fulfills the dreams of the segregationists

Over at Just One Minute, Tom takes a look at a couple of articles on the Zimmerman trial, and finds an astonishing admission from a black pastor.

If you’ve been paying attention to the trial, you know that it’s almost over, and every observer with a shred of objectivity thinks Zimmerman will get a “not guilty” verdict.

Problem is, the local black community was convinced from the beginning that Zimmerman was guilty. The media led them right to that conclusion with misleading reporting. For at least one outlet, NBC, it went beyond misleading into outright fraud.

Naturally, those craven journalists will never take responsibility and set the record straight. They even continue to fan the flames with race-baiting articles like the one Tom cites from the New York Times, which included this quote:

Mr. Oliver, the Sanford pastor, said he remained optimistic. “You can feel a little sense that anger is re-emerging,” he said.

You don’t have to be a trained sociologist* to know what that means – possible civil violence, maybe on the scale of the Rodney King riots.

Why anger? Isn’t an innocent man walking free a good thing? Ah, but we’re back to the world of post-modern narrative. Truth doesn’t matter, only narrative matters, and narrative doesn’t have to have any relationship to truth. In the black community, the dominant narrative is that Zimmerman is guilty. As that race-baiting article put it:

Still, black pastors, sociologists and community leaders said in interviews that they feared that Mr. Martin’s death would be a story of justice denied, an all-too common insult that to them places Trayvon Martin’s name next to those of Rodney King, Amadou Diallo and other black men who were abused, beaten or killed by police officers.

That paragraph only makes any sort of logical sense if you assume from the outset that Trayvon is innocent and Zimmerman is guilty.

Out in the real world, where people are watching the trial, there is a dawning realization that the media got it wrong in the first place, and Zimmerman deserves acquittal. Some of us actually went beyond the fraudulent reporting of the major media and realized that months ago.

But the local black community, and others like it across the nation, sounds like it is not prepared to accept that message. They’ve been told for too long how they are victims and Trayvon is just another one.

Despicable race baiters such as the author of that New York Times article, and the sociologist quoted in it, carefully nurture that attitude. Local leaders pick up the tune, amplifying it. The local educational system, mostly dominated by left-leaning teachers unions, reinforces it while simultaneously ensuring that the locals are handicapped in trying to ever break out of that cultural matrix.

The end result is a community culturally isolated from its larger society. It’s members reinforce each others prejudices, and nurture old grievances. They find themselves unsuited for life outside their local community, because they lack the education to fit in anywhere else. This becomes yet more evidence that the outside world has it in for them.

Thus is fulfilled the dreams of the southern white segregationists. Blacks are encouraged to stay in their own culturally isolated communities.** They are encouraged to believe they are somehow different and cannot mix with outside communities. Their poor education marks them as second class citizens.

Who would have thought that government dependence programs, corrupt Democratic city politicians, and a biased leftist media would accomplish what the white segregationists could not?

For me, it’s one more reason to despise the American left. I hate what they have done to my fellow citizens. I despair when I realize that a typical inner-city resident has no reasonable hope of social mobility, and is stuck in a cycle of government dependence, generation after generation. I shake my head at the nonsense peddled to them by the left and by the likes of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Barack Obama.

I hate that one of the more likely outcomes of the Zimmerman trial is that, like the Rodney King affair, black neighborhoods will end up getting torched and looted – by blacks.***

Hey, New York Times and all your “compassionate” leftist race-baiters – does this make you happy?

 

* Like the race-baiting one in the article, who complained that the non-credible, borderline illiterate star witness for the state was “mammyfied”.

** As one of the effects, just look at how many wealthy suburbs of major American cities are lily-white.

*** I hope it doesn’t happen, and my incurable optimism says maybe the evidence is so clear in this trial that it won’t. But lately, my pessimistic side has a better track record than my optimistic side. 

Suggested title for a book on the current scandals: “We told you so, you f@(%!ng fools!”

In the book In Denial: Historians, Communism, and Espionage, a great story is told about historian Robert Conquest. He wrote a book in the 1980s about the abuses of Stalinism, and got the usual roasting from Soviet apologists in academia. They accused him of cherry-picking data, failing to see Stalin’s supposed good points – the usual blather of Marxist-friendly social science academics.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, opened archives showed that Conquest not only had it right, but was actually a bit conservative is his assertions. His publisher suggested an updated edition of the book incorporating that information, and asked Conquest if he wanted to change the title.

Conquest responded “How about ‘I told you so, you f*cking fools’”? *

I’m feeling that same impulse after reviewing the cascade of scandals over the last few weeks.** Anyone who wasn’t mesmerized by Obama and actually paying attention already knew that:

1. Benghazi was not just a tragedy. It was one of the most massive screw-ups ever perpetrated by the State Department, and there was clearly a cover-up to keep the rest of us from finding out the what, where, when, how, and why.

2. The IRS was targeting and harassing limited government groups.

3. Fast and Furious was a botched effort to engineer evidence in favor of gun control.

4. Fox News was being targeted by the administration from its earliest days.

Various folks on the right could see all this, yet our supposed smart media pundits at major organizations are still expressing surprise at every new revelation. In other words, we told you so, you f*cking fools. And we were ignored, or even ridiculed as paranoid and obsessive.

I learned a valuable lesson in my first job out of graduate school. The software company I worked for was acquired by a giant corporation. The executives from that giant corporation came down for meetings after the acquisition. After listening to them for a day, I concluded that they were incompetent fools.

But I had some doubt. How could they have reached such a position of authority and still be such fools?

Yet, in the ensuing years, under their leadership, the giant corporation lost tens of millions of dollars running that small software company into the ground. They ended up selling it after five years for about five percent of what they paid for it. So yeah, those guys really were the incompetent fools I thought they were.

I now assume that if I have good reasons to believe something, the assertions of powerful or influential people don’t change my mind. I assume they are simply ignorant, willfully blind, or actively deceptive. This round of scandalous outrages by the Obama administration is just another confirmation of that assumption. If media types and establishment politicians didn’t realize these problems existed before last month, then they are f*cking fools, no matter how high they have risen in the political class.

On the other hand, if they knew the problems existed and did nothing, they are despicable villains and not fit to be in the job they hold. Not in their own eyes, of course. As Robert Conquest found out, to those on the left, even Josef Stalin isn’t really a villain.

* I first saw the anecdote about Conquest in a review of the book in Reason Magazine, Fools for Communism. I got the book, which is a concise, good read. If you want examples of willful blindness by lefties, In Denial is a great source.

** Many writers predicted Obama scandals early in his term. I’m pretty sure they feel the same lack of surprise, even if they don’t express it in such a vulgar way.

Hey, Washington Post. I got yer questions, right here.

I notice via Instapundit that a dying, incurious, partisan, biased newspaper is whining that they should be able to “ask questions” without worrying about being exposed to authoritarian thuggery. Well, sure, but why the whining? They’ve been able to ask any questions they liked since Obama came to prominence, but they’ve asked damn few of them. As Insty puts it:

Want to preserve your ability to ask questions? Try asking questions.

In case the problem isn’t obvious, let me list some questions they should have asked over the last five years:

1. Does Obama share views on what America is really like with his “God damn America!” preacher of twenty years, Jeremiah Wright? Did he really spend twenty years at the church and consider Wright a mentor, yet never hear enough to understand his pastor/mentor’s views?

2. What influence did admitted terrorist Bill Ayers have on Obama? And by the way, exactly why is a terrorist who feels zero remorse qualified to participate in political society? Are you not at least mildly curious about that? Have you tried to get Ayers to explain, or at least quoted his own words in interviews he granted before his association with Obama came to light?

3. Who authorized Fast and Furious? How was Brian Terry’s death handled internally at the Department of Justice?

4. Who authorized the raids on Gibson Guitar? Were they politically motivated? Why wasn’t their main competitor, Martin, investigated? Did Martin commit exactly the same acts, yet get off scot free?

5. Is an admitted tax cheat qualified to be Secretary of the Treasury?

6. How did an avowed Marxist, Van Jones, get control over tens of millions of federal money as a high official in the Obama administration? Who vetted him? Who selected him? Was Obama involved with that decision? Does Obama think it’s acceptable for a Marxist to be a high federal official?

7. What does Obama think about his wife spending more on a single vacation than a typical middle class family makes, gross, in their entire lives? Is she entitled to that kind of treatment? By what virtue? What if Laura Bush had taken multiple such vacations? Would the Post have been any more curious about that?

8. Why is a part-term Senator with no executive experience qualified to be president? Is that risky? Is it more risky than having the governor of a small state as a vice-president?

9. Obama stated “We won”, and apparently reached a deal with Boehner which he then recanted, subsequently demanding further concessions. Does that mean he is responsible for the impasse with Republicans over the debt ceiling, sequester, etc.? Should the Republicans negotiate in good faith with someone who has behaved as Obama has behaved? Would that be wise on their part?

10. Does Obama believe there are any natural limits on the power of government? If so, what are they? What does he think government should never be allowed to do?

11. What happened in Benghazi? What decisions were made, and who made them? Was it a back-room deal gone bad? Did the administration mistakenly give anti-aircraft missiles to al Qaeda and then try to get them back? Why were requests for security turned down? Did the administration cover up significant details simply to delay disclosure until after the election? Does the Post think that is acceptable behavior for a president? What would they say if Bush had done something similar in fall 2004?

12. Where did the stimulus money go? Who got it? What are their ties to Obama? Did the stimulus achieve any portion of its promised economic effect? Why is our economy still mired in low growth and high unemployment, even after giving Obama the stimulus he claimed would fix those problems?

13. Speaking of high unemployment, are the official numbers cooked to make the administration look good? Why had the pool of people no longer seeking employment grown so fast? Is it really just baby boomers retiring? If not, who are the others? Should we develop alternative unemployment rates that take into account people who have dropped out of employment seeking simply because of despair over ever finding a job?

14. Was it appropriate for Obama to comment at all on the Trayvon Martin case? Now that all kinds of exculpatory evidence is surfacing in the case for Zimmerman, has Obama changed his opinion of the case? Is there any reasonable evidence that Zimmerman was motivated by racism?

15. Are White House reporters afraid of asking tough questions directly of Obama? If not, why were so few such questions asked during Obama’s first term?

16. Is is appropriate that Obama does so few press conferences? Does he owe more expansive explanations of his policies to the American people?*

17. What is the complete list of people involved in the IRS targeting of Tea Party organizations? How long did it last? Was there a cover-up to keep the information hidden until after the election? Why? Do bureaucrats in the IRS consider it their job to judge the political implications of their work (which would be the case if they hid the information before the election)? If so, is that consistent with the supposed principles of supposedly non-partisan federal service? Do we need to consider alternative taxation systems just to rid the federal government of this sort of abuse?

18. Are individual tax audits random? What are the inputs to the random process? Are the actual statistics on audits consistent with the presumably random process? If not, who did the interventions that caused the people audited to no longer be random? Was it for partisan purposes?

19. Did the targeting and de facto suppression of Tea Party groups have an impact on the 2012 elections? If so, how big?

20. The Tea Party groups were ignored, and even laughed at, when they claimed the IRS was targeting and abusing them. What would the national media have done if, say, an offshoot of the Southern Poverty Law Center, or Planned Parenthood, had made such claims?

21. You now seem upset that a Fox journalist was named as a “co-conspirator”, apparently to facilitate a fishing expedition to find a leaker in the administration. What about the campaign by the White House to discredit and ostracize Fox News back at the beginning of the Obama administration? Was that proper, or an abuse of power? Do other media outlets consider Fox News a legitimate media organization? Is the claim by the Obama administration that Fox News was biased in favor of the other side imply that the media organizations they like are biased in favor of their side?

22. How do you feel about the editors of your cross-town newspaper being requested by the Obama administration to get rid of a troublesome columnist? Did you know that columnist was subjected to an IRS audit with no obvious cause?

23. Why do areas of the country with high gun ownership tend to have lower violent crime rates? Is the Supreme Court decision regarding gun ownership as an individual right being properly considered and observed by political leaders across the nation? If not, why it is OK for them to flout the Constitution?

24. Did the federal government really order 750,000,000 rounds of ammunition? If so, why? Since it’s way more than would ever be needed for their nominal excuse of “training”, what do they expect to use it for? 

25. How much is the cost of healthcare coverage going up because of Obamacare? Is Obama’s promise that “if you like your coverage you can keep it” being kept? Is the law so complex and contrary to its promises and stated intent that it should be repealed wholesale?

26. Why is college so expensive? Why has it increased in price much, much faster than inflation? Are federal loan programs partially at fault, allowing colleges to raise prices in concert with increased loan availability?

27. What’s the outlook for people in their twenties? Why is their unemployment rate so high? Are they held back from pursuing opportunities because of student loans? Were they encouraged by universities to pursue pointless degrees just to take out those loans, even though the universities knew there would no demand for those skills after college?

28. Are college speech codes a violation of the Constitution? Is the recent attempt by the Obama administration to impose a uniform, highly restrictive and ambiguous speech code a violation of free speech? What is the purpose of those speech codes? Do universities foster diversity of thought, as they claim?

29. Why did so many green energy companies take large federal loans and then go bankrupt? What were the political connections of the owners of those companies with anyone in the federal government? Who made the decisions to award those loans, and what criteria were involved in the decisions?

These are just off the top of my head. I could do more with some research. This is enough to show that the Washington Post and the rest of the national media have been failing to ask obvious questions for years.**

No doubt some of these subjects received cursory coverage, but it’s clear that the Post and most of their national media colleagues were not interested in detailed answers to any of these questions. There hasn’t been anywhere near the effort put in that the New York Times, for example, invested in an unfounded smear on John McCain in 2008.*** Only when the Obama administration started clearly abusing the press using the power of the legal system, and they could hypothetically see themselves on the other end of the abuse, do they final develop a shred of curiosity about anything that might reflect badly on Obama or the Democratic left.

Why didn’t they ask all those other questions? Because they were afraid of the answers they would get.

Honest answers to these questions would challenge a host of mistaken assumptions these popinjays in the media carry around with them. They might discover that authoritarianism and leftism go hand in glove. They might start wondering about Obama’s competence. They might find out that their political opponents (and make no mistake, they chose the leftist side in the political battle long ago) are not ignorant racist Southern white males, and have a point about the dangers of big government. They might find out that people like Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama are the main causes of racial tensions rather than those supposedly racist white males.

They might notice that the parts of the country where minorities suffer the worst are all governed by liberal Democrats and have been for decades. They might realize that it’s not accidental that the educational systems in those areas are all miserably bad. They might question whether public sector unions actually have the well-being of the public in mind.

They might discover that leftism isn’t sustainable, that our debt mountain will inevitably collapse, and that the country is headed for a financial meltdown that will likely lead to civil violence.

Finally, they might notice that they had been played for chumps and useful idiots by the Obama administration since the first time he got in front of them.

But they won’t. They will be like the academics that defended the Soviet Union and Marxism right up until 1991, and afterwards never apologized nor admitted that they had it wrong for decades. Some of them are still Marxists, in fact, and will go to their graves convinced that Communism is fine when run by the right people.

Just like the journalists and editors at the Washington Post, New York Times, Boston Globe, et. al. long ago convinced themselves that their mission was to “make a difference” and “change the world” by promoting the tenets of leftist collectivism, and will go to their graves blaming something else, anything else, for the failure of that philosophy.

* For the record, I don’t think a president, of any party, owes the media anything. A president may go to the press when he thinks it helps him govern, and ignore them when they are an impediment. But I doubt that the preening members of the national press agree with me.

** Some of these areas might very well wind up being no big deal. I find it highly unlikely that all of them would turn out so. We certainly can’t find out without some investigative journalism, and the current crop of stenographers in the media seems unwilling or unable to do it.

*** I don’t even like John McCain, and refused to vote for him, but I can recognize a smear when I see one.

What is the IRS scandal if not political?

Peggy Noonan makes this statement today:

What happened at the IRS is the government’s essential business. The IRS case deserves and calls out for an independent counsel, fully armed with all that position’s powers. Only then will stables that badly need to be cleaned, be cleaned. Everyone involved in this abuse of power should pay a price, because if they don’t, the politicization of the IRS will continue—forever. If it is not stopped now, it will never stop. And if it isn’t stopped, no one will ever respect or have even minimal faith in the revenue-gathering arm of the U.S. government again.

And it would be shameful and shallow for any Republican operative or operator to make this scandal into a commercial and turn it into a mere partisan arguing point and part of the game. It’s not part of the game. This is not about the usual partisan slugfest. This is about the integrity of our system of government and our ability to trust, which is to say our ability to function.

First paragraph … agree, for the most part.  Where I don’t agree is that there is a “minimal faith” in the revenue gathering arm of the US government.  There’s been little faith in it since it’s inception.  Most people understand that the gun is pointed at them and the prison cell is open and waiting.  They don’t pay taxes because of any “faith” or respect for the IRS or government.  They do it out of fear.

As for the second paragraph, that’s total horse hockey.  Total.

The entire point of the scandal was it targeted “political” organizations.  How does one not politicize it?  It took place under a Democratic administration and the opponents of that party were the target of the IRS.

Hello?

And what do we get from Noonan? “Hey, let’s take a knife to a gun fight”.

Noonan’s advice is, by far, the stupidest advice one could give.

Yes, this is about the integrity of the system. And, like it or not, that is directly linked to those who administer and govern.

Ms. Noonan, who is that right now? And how, if they were doing an effective job, would this have been going on for two years. Oh, and speaking of trust, how are you with the whole AP scandal? My guess is you’re wanting some heads over that.

Well, I want some heads of this. And Benghazi. And Fast and Furious.

Instead we get shrinking violets like you advising everyone to back off and not make this “political”.

BS.

~McQ

Top ten newspapers and their circulation–a six month update

Six months ago, I did some numbers and commentary on declining newspaper circulation.* By chance, I noticed a couple of web articles that give some more current numbers, so I decided to revisit the older article and see how things are proceeding.**

Here is a table I created with print numbers from 2004, mid 2012, and late 2012-early 2013 for the current (2013) top ten newspapers. The current top ten list is taken from an AP article on Huffington Post, and is ranked by their current circulation.

 

Newspaper

2004

2012

Early 2013

6 mo +/-%

Total +/-% since 2004

WSJ

2101017

1499204

1480725

-1.23

-29.52

USA Today

2192098

1627526

1424406

-12.48

-35.02

NYT

1119027

717513

731395

1.9

-34.64

LA Times

983727

489792

476148

-2.79

-51.60

Wash Post

760034

434693

432454

-0.52

-43.10

Chicago Sun-Times

453757

361523

392889

8.68

-13.41

Chicago Tribune

603315

388848

368145

-5.32

-38.98

NY Daily News

712671

389270

360459

-7.40

-49.42

NY Post

642844

344755

299950

-13.00

-53.34

Denver Post

340169

236223

223871

-5.23

-34.19

 

Back in November, I said

USA Today looks vulnerable to me, because it looks like the easiest national newspaper to replace with a web-based aggregation app. They do very little original reporting except for the sports section. They have not yet ramped up a decent web presence, and it’s pretty late in that game.

In the latest numbers, USA Today’s print circulation is down a staggering 12% in just six months. I’d like to say I was prescient, but that’s so much, I suspect that the data isn’t comparable. I suppose it could be correct, especially if they lost a major hotel chain or two as a distribution channel. It does seem indisputable that they they are on a long term trend of losing circulation fairly rapidly.

It appears that USA Today did ramp up their web presence somewhat. The reported number of “web subscribers” went from about 86,000 to 250,000. I suspect they’ve started counting the numbers differently; that much increase out of the blue, with no special reason for more eyes on their site, looks unlikely. Since they have no paid web subscribers, it almost doesn’t matter anyway because the revenue from web advertising isn’t going to support their current business model. (The uncertainty about web numbers is one of the reasons I think the methodology might have changed enough to make the print comparisons suspect.)

I also noted circulation alarms for the Washington Post last time:

The Washington Post looks vulnerable too. It also has limited web presence, and print circulation is down a staggering 40%+ in eight years.

The six month circulation change isn’t too bad for them, but Ed Driscoll noted yesterday that their financials have taken a big hit in that time period. Their earnings are down 85%. 

There are a couple of reasons I don’t pay much attention to the web numbers. First, it’s hard to compare the numbers or get any idea of trends without details on their methodology for counting “subscribers”. For example, they could take the count of people who have gone through a silly registration process where they ask for an email. Someone might register that way for one article and never come back. Or it might be based on visits, but there are lots of ways to fudge those, depending on how you count and define things.

Second, I’m guessing they are using a methodology that’s favorable to their numbers, and they still lag. For example, the largest reported number of web subscribers by any of the majors is about half of what the Drudge Report gets in unique daily visits. Drudge’s monthly unique visits would make that ratio fifteen to one instead of two to one. I mentioned last time that Huffington Post has passed NYT in daily visits.

The overall story means steadily decreasing revenues for everyone except possibly the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, and I wouldn’t be too sure about the Times. Occasionally a regional paper will have a good run and make up some ground, as the Chicago Sun-Times has done recently (passing the Tribune on circulation in fact), and I called out the San Jose Mercury News for impressive growth in the last post. But those cases are rare, and don’t seem to be long lasting effects.

Way less money to spend is convenient in some respects, though. It’s easy for an editor to rationalize ignoring a complex story such as Benghazi. Unconsciously, he may not want to cover it because of the danger to his precious historic president, but he can tell himself he just doesn’t have the resources.

One of the messages the right needs to communicate and make part of the popular understanding is how declining revenues have constrained the reporting at major newspapers. That would be one way to explain to people, without getting partisan about it, that those newspapers shouldn’t be regarded with the authority most everyone gave them thirty years ago.

 

* The Washington Post link in that blog post, showing 2012 circulation figures, is dead now. It was apparently based on an AP story, and got removed after a while. I found the original AP story on Yahoo, with all the numbers from the original cite. It’s here.

** I should repeat the same caveat as last time: I am looking primarily at print circulation declines, and so I have to do some arithmetic because the newer numbers combine web and print. Those numbers also give the web number, so I subtract to get the presumed print circulation. It’s possible that I’m misunderstanding what the web numbers mean. Some of the “web subscribers” might also receive a print edition. In that case, the print numbers would be higher. But since I think the industry would want those numbers to look as high as possible, I don’t think they’re defining things that way.

Are MoDo, et al, finally figuring it out after 6 years?

Maureen Dowd must be a little slow on the uptake if she is just figuring this out:

ABC News’s Jonathan Karl asked Obama if he was already out of “juice” to pass his agenda, citing the president’s inability to get a watered-down gun bill passed in the Senate, Congress swatting away Obama on the sequester cuts, and the recent passage of a cybersecurity bill in the House with 92 Democrats on board, despite a veto threat from the White House.

“Well, if you put it that way, Jonathan, maybe I should just pack up and go home,” President Obama said with a flash of irritation, before tossing off a Mark Twain line: “Rumors of my demise may be a little exaggerated at this point.”

Then he put on his best professorial mien to give his high-minded philosophy of governance: Reason together and do what’s right.

“But, Jonathan,” he lectured Karl, “you seem to suggest that somehow, these folks over there have no responsibilities and that my job is to somehow get them to behave. That’s their job. They are elected, members of Congress are elected in order to do what’s right for their constituencies and for the American people.”

Actually, it is his job to get them to behave. The job of the former community organizer and self-styled uniter is to somehow get this dunderheaded Congress, which is mind-bendingly awful, to do the stuff he wants them to do. It’s called leadership.

He still thinks he’ll do his thing from the balcony and everyone else will follow along below. That’s not how it works.

That may not be how it works, but for 6 long years, that’s how he’s pretended it worked, acted like it worked and claimed it worked.  Of course he’s not ever been a leader nor has he ever lead.  Even his foreign policy has been a position of non-leadership (euphemistically called “leading from behind”).  The great sucking sound you hear in DC these days isn’t just the GOP leadership.  It’s the leadership void of this president.

Of course, it is a bit funny that the sycophants of the press are just now getting around to figuring out how ineffective the man is. And while we’ve been pointing out this lack of leadership from day 1 of his presidency, let me note that, in a meta sense, it is probably a good thing he’s such a lousy leader. Lord knows what other abominable laws we’d be stuck with right now if he had even a clue about how to lead.

~McQ