http://rhetorica.net/archives/001397.htmlTomasky finds that conservative editorial pages are far less willing to criticize a Republican administration than liberal pages are willing to take issue with a Democratic administration.
The paper, "Whispers and Screams: The Partisan Natures of Editorial Pages," was written by Michael Tomasky while he was a Fellow at the Shorenstein Center in the Spring of 2003. Tomasky has been a political columnist for the New York Observer, the Village Voice, and, most recently, New York magazine.
Michael Tomasky looked at 510 editorials over the past decade. He found that on their editorial pages The New York Times and The Washington Post criticized the Clinton administration 30% of the time. By contrast, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Times opposed the Bush White House 7% of the time. "The liberal papers praised the Clinton administration only 36 percent of the time (the balance were mixed). The conservative papers, on the other hand, praised the Bush administration 77 percent of the time. The liberal papers criticized Bush 67 percent of the time. The conservative papers criticized Clinton 89 percent of the time."
Tomasky also found a "striking difference in tone between the two sides as well," with the conservative papers using far "harsher" language in responding to Clinton and engaging in ad hominem attacks. The two sides, therefore, "represent two different models of journalism. The conservative editorial pages are more likely to think of themselves as being 'on the team,' as it were..."
In sum, Tomasky writes, "the two sides define partisanship quite differently and envision the roles they play as political actors very differently as well."
The 57-page report can be found at ksg.harvard.edu/press...omasky.pdf
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
