Posted: Sun 14 Sep 2008 01:51 Post subject: Once Elected, Palin Hired Friends and Lashed Foes
Quote:
Once Elected, Palin Hired Friends and Lashed Foes
By JO BECKER, PETER S. GOODMAN AND MICHAEL POWELL
Published: September 13, 2008
WASILLA, Alaska — Gov. Sarah Palin lives by the maxim that all politics is local, not to mention personal.
So when there was a vacancy at the top of the State Division of Agriculture, she appointed a high school classmate, Franci Havemeister, to the $95,000-a-year directorship. A former real estate agent, Ms. Havemeister cited her childhood love of cows as a qualification for running the roughly $2 million agency.
Ms. Havemeister was one of at least five schoolmates Ms. Palin hired, often at salaries far exceeding their private sector wages.
When Ms. Palin had to cut her first state budget, she avoided the legion of frustrated legislators and mayors. Instead, she huddled with her budget director and her husband, Todd, an oil field worker who is not a state employee, and vetoed millions of dollars of legislative projects.
And four months ago, a Wasilla blogger, Sherry Whitstine, who chronicles the governor’s career with an astringent eye, answered her phone to hear an assistant to the governor on the line, she said.
“You should be ashamed!” Ivy Frye, the assistant, told her. “Stop blogging. Stop blogging right now!”
Ms. Palin walks the national stage as a small-town foe of “good old boy” politics and a champion of ethics reform. The charismatic 44-year-old governor draws enthusiastic audiences and high approval ratings. And as the Republican vice-presidential nominee, she points to her management experience while deriding her Democratic rivals, Senators Barack Obama and Joseph R. Biden Jr., as speechmakers who never have run anything.
But an examination of her swift rise and record as mayor of Wasilla and then governor finds that her visceral style and penchant for attacking critics — she sometimes calls local opponents “haters” — contrasts with her carefully crafted public image.
Throughout her political career, she has pursued vendettas, fired officials who crossed her and sometimes blurred the line between government and personal grievance, according to a review of public records and interviews with 60 Republican and Democratic legislators and local officials.
Still, Ms. Palin has many supporters. As a two-term mayor she paved roads and built an ice rink, and as governor she has pushed through higher taxes on the oil companies that dominate one-third of the state’s economy. She stirs deep emotions. In Wasilla, many residents display unflagging affection, cheering “our Sarah” and hissing at her critics.
“She is bright and has unfailing political instincts,” said Steve Haycox, a history professor at the University of Alaska. “She taps very directly into anxieties about the economic future.”
“But,” he added, “her governing style raises a lot of hard questions.”
Ms. Palin declined to grant an interview for this article. The McCain-Palin campaign responded to some questions on her behalf and that of her husband, while referring others to the governor’s spokespeople, who did not respond.
Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell said Ms. Palin had conducted an accessible and effective administration in the public’s interest. “Everything she does is for the ordinary working people of Alaska,” he said.
In Wasilla, a builder said he complained to Mayor Palin when the city attorney put a stop-work order on his housing project. She responded, he said, by engineering the attorney’s firing.
Interviews show that Ms. Palin runs an administration that puts a premium on loyalty and secrecy. The governor and her top officials sometimes use personal e-mail accounts for state business; dozens of e-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that her staff members studied whether that could allow them to circumvent subpoenas seeking public records.
Rick Steiner, a University of Alaska professor, sought the e-mail messages of state scientists who had examined the effect of global warming on polar bears. (Ms. Palin said the scientists had found no ill effects, and she has sued the federal government to block the listing of the bears as endangered.) An administration official told Mr. Steiner that his request would cost $468,784 to process.
When Mr. Steiner finally obtained the e-mail messages — through a federal records request — he discovered that state scientists had in fact agreed that the bears were in danger, records show.
“Their secrecy is off the charts,” Mr. Steiner said.
State legislators are investigating accusations that Ms. Palin and her husband pressured officials to fire a state trooper who had gone through a messy divorce with her sister, charges that she denies. But interviews make clear that the Palins draw few distinctions between the personal and the political.
Last summer State Representative John Harris, the Republican speaker of the House, picked up his phone and heard Mr. Palin’s voice. The governor’s husband sounded edgy. He said he was unhappy that Mr. Harris had hired John Bitney as his chief of staff, the speaker recalled. Mr. Bitney was a high school classmate of the Palins and had worked for Ms. Palin. But she fired Mr. Bitney after learning that he had fallen in love with another longtime friend.
“I understood from the call that Todd wasn’t happy with me hiring John and he’d like to see him not there,” Mr. Harris said.
“The Palin family gets upset at personal issues,” he added. “And at our level, they want to strike back.”
Through a campaign spokesman, Mr. Palin said he “did not recall” referring to Mr. Bitney in the conversation.
Hometown Mayor
Laura Chase, the campaign manager during Ms. Palin’s first run for mayor in 1996, recalled the night the two women chatted about her ambitions.
“I said, ‘You know, Sarah, within 10 years you could be governor,’ ” Ms. Chase recalled. “She replied, ‘I want to be president.’ ”
Ms. Palin grew up in Wasilla, an old fur trader’s outpost and now a fast-growing exurb of Anchorage. The town sits in the Matanuska-Susitna Valley, edged by jagged mountains and birch forests. In the 1930s, the Roosevelt administration took farmers from the Dust Bowl area and resettled them here; their Democratic allegiances defined the valley for half a century.
In the past three decades, socially conservative Oklahomans and Texans have flocked north to the oil fields of Alaska. They filled evangelical churches around Wasilla and revived the Republican Party. Many of these working-class residents formed the electoral backbone for Ms. Palin, who ran for mayor on a platform of gun rights, opposition to abortion and the ouster of the “complacent” old guard.
After winning the mayoral election in 1996, Ms. Palin presided over a city rapidly outgrowing itself. Septic tanks had begun to pollute lakes, and residential lots were carved willy-nilly out of the woods. She passed road and sewer bonds, cut property taxes but raised the sales tax.
And, her supporters say, she cleaned out the municipal closet, firing veteran officials to make way for her own team. “She had an agenda for change and for doing things differently,” said Judy Patrick, a City Council member at the time.
But careers were turned upside down. The mayor quickly fired the town’s museum director, John Cooper. Later, she sent an aide to the museum to talk to the three remaining employees. “He told us they only wanted two,” recalled Esther West, one of the three, “and we had to pick who was going to be laid off.” The three quit as one.
Ms. Palin cited budget difficulties for the museum cuts. Mr. Cooper thought differently, saying the museum had become a microcosm of class and cultural conflicts in town. “It represented that the town was becoming more progressive, and they didn’t want that,” he said.
Days later, Mr. Cooper recalled, a vocal conservative, Steve Stoll, sidled up to him. Mr. Stoll had supported Ms. Palin and had a long-running feud with Mr. Cooper. “He said: ‘Gotcha, Cooper,’ ” Mr. Cooper said.
Mr. Stoll did not recall that conversation, although he said he supported Ms. Palin’s campaign and was pleased when she fired Mr. Cooper.
In 1997, Ms. Palin fired the longtime city attorney, Richard Deuser, after he issued the stop-work order on a home being built by Don Showers, another of her campaign supporters.
Your attorney, Mr. Showers told Ms. Palin, is costing me lots of money.
“She told me she’d like to see him fired,” Mr. Showers recalled. “But she couldn’t do it herself because the City Council hires the city attorney.” Ms. Palin told him to write the council members to complain.
Meanwhile, Ms. Palin pushed the issue from the inside. “She started the ball rolling,” said Ms. Patrick, who also favored the firing. Mr. Deuser was soon replaced by Ken Jacobus, then the State Republican Party’s general counsel.
“Professionals were either forced out or fired,” Mr. Deuser said.
Ms. Palin ordered city employees not to talk to the press. And she used city money to buy a white Suburban for the mayor’s use — employees sarcastically called it the mayor-mobile.
The new mayor also tended carefully to her evangelical base. She appointed a pastor to the town planning board. And she began to eye the library. For years, social conservatives had pressed the library director to remove books they considered immoral.
“People would bring books back censored,” recalled former Mayor John Stein, Ms. Palin’s predecessor. “Pages would get marked up or torn out.”
Witnesses and contemporary news accounts say Ms. Palin asked the librarian about removing books from the shelves. The McCain-Palin presidential campaign says Ms. Palin never advocated censorship.
But in 1995, Ms. Palin, then a city councilwoman, told colleagues that she had noticed the book “Daddy’s Roommate” on the shelves and that it did not belong there, according to Ms. Chase and Mr. Stein. Ms. Chase read the book, which helps children understand homosexuality, and said it was inoffensive; she suggested that Ms. Palin read it.
“Sarah said she didn’t need to read that stuff,” Ms. Chase said. “It was disturbing that someone would be willing to remove a book from the library and she didn’t even read it.”
“I’m still proud of Sarah,” she added, “but she scares the bejeebers out of me.”
Reform Crucible
Restless ambition defined Ms. Palin in the early years of this decade. She raised money for Senator Ted Stevens, a Republican from the state; finished second in the 2002 Republican primary for lieutenant governor; and sought to fill the seat of Senator Frank H. Murkowski when he ran for governor.
Mr. Murkowski appointed his daughter to the seat, but as a consolation prize, he gave Ms. Palin the $125,000-a-year chairmanship of a state commission overseeing oil and gas drilling.
Ms. Palin discovered that the state Republican leader, Randy Ruedrich, a commission member, was conducting party business on state time and favoring regulated companies. When Mr. Murkowski failed to act on her complaints, she quit and went public.
The Republican establishment shunned her. But her break with the gentlemen’s club of oil producers and political power catapulted her into the public eye.
“She was honest and forthright,” said Jay Kerttula, a former Democratic state senator from Palmer.
Ms. Palin entered the 2006 primary for governor as a formidable candidate.
In the middle of the primary, a conservative columnist in the state, Paul Jenkins, unearthed e-mail messages showing that Ms. Palin had conducted campaign business from the mayor’s office. Ms. Palin handled the crisis with a street fighter’s guile.
“I told her it looks like she did the same thing that Randy Ruedrich did,” Mr. Jenkins recalled. “And she said, ‘Yeah, what I did was wrong.’ ”
Mr. Jenkins hung up and decided to forgo writing about it. His phone rang soon after.
Mr. Jenkins said a reporter from Fairbanks, reading from a Palin news release, demanded to know why he was “smearing” her. “Now I look at her and think: ‘Man, you’re slick,’ ” he said.
Ms. Palin won the primary, and in the general election she faced Tony Knowles, the former two-term Democratic governor, and Andrew Halcro, an independent.
Not deeply versed in policy, Ms. Palin skipped some candidate forums; at others, she flipped through hand-written, color-coded index cards strategically placed behind her nameplate.
Before one forum, Mr. Halcro said he saw aides shovel reports at Ms. Palin as she crammed. Her showman’s instincts rarely failed. She put the pile of reports on the lectern. Asked what she would do about health care policy, she patted the stack and said she would find an answer in the pile of solutions.
“She was fresh, and she was tomorrow,” said Michael Carey, a former editorial page editor for The Anchorage Daily News. “She just floated along like Mary Poppins.”
Government
Half a century after Alaska became a state, Ms. Palin was inaugurated as governor in Fairbanks and took up the reformer’s sword.
As she assembled her cabinet and made other state appointments, those with insider credentials were now on the outs. But a new pattern became clear. She surrounded herself with people she has known since grade school and members of her church.
Mr. Parnell, the lieutenant governor, praised Ms. Palin’s appointments. “The people she hires are competent, qualified, top-notch people,” he said.
Ms. Palin chose Talis Colberg, a borough assemblyman from the Matanuska valley, as her attorney general, provoking a bewildered question from the legal community: “Who?” Mr. Colberg, who did not return calls, moved from a one-room building in the valley to one of the most powerful offices in the state, supervising some 500 people.
“I called him and asked, ‘Do you know how to supervise people?’ ” said a family friend, Kathy Wells. “He said, ‘No, but I think I’ll get some help.’ ”
The Wasilla High School yearbook archive now doubles as a veritable directory of state government. Ms. Palin appointed Mr. Bitney, her former junior high school band-mate, as her legislative director and chose another classmate, Joe Austerman, to manage the economic development office for $82,908 a year. Mr. Austerman had established an Alaska franchise for Mailboxes Etc.
To her supporters — and with an 80 percent approval rating, she has plenty — Ms. Palin has lifted Alaska out of a mire of corruption. She gained the passage of a bill that tightens the rules covering lobbyists. And she rewrote the tax code to capture a greater share of oil and gas sale proceeds.
“Does anybody doubt that she’s a tough negotiator?” said State Representative Carl Gatto, Republican of Palmer.
Yet recent controversy has marred Ms. Palin’s reform credentials. In addition to the trooper investigation, lawmakers in April accused her of improperly culling thousands of e-mail addresses from a state database for a mass mailing to rally support for a policy initiative.
While Ms. Palin took office promising a more open government, her administration has battled to keep information secret. Her inner circle discussed the benefit of using private e-mail addresses. An assistant told her it appeared that such e-mail messages sent to a private address on a “personal device” like a BlackBerry “would be confidential and not subject to subpoena.”
Ms. Palin and aides use their private e-mail addresses for state business. A campaign spokesman said the governor copied e-mail messages to her state account “when there was significant state business.”
On Feb. 7, Frank Bailey, a high-level aide, wrote to Ms. Palin’s state e-mail address to discuss appointments. Another aide fired back: “Frank, this is not the governor’s personal account.”
Mr. Bailey responded: “Whoops~!”
Mr. Bailey, a former midlevel manager at Alaska Airlines who worked on Ms. Palin’s campaign, has been placed on paid leave; he has emerged as a central figure in the trooper investigation.
Another confidante of Ms. Palin’s is Ms. Frye, 27. She worked as a receptionist for State Senator Lyda Green before she joined Ms. Palin’s campaign for governor. Now Ms. Frye earns $68,664 as a special assistant to the governor. Her frequent interactions with Ms. Palin’s children have prompted some lawmakers to refer to her as “the babysitter,” a title that Ms. Frye disavows.
Like Mr. Bailey, she is an effusive cheerleader for her boss.
“YOU ARE SO AWESOME!” Ms. Frye typed in an e-mail message to Ms. Palin in March.
Many lawmakers contend that Ms. Palin is overly reliant on a small inner circle that leaves her isolated. Democrats and Republicans alike describe her as often missing in action. Since taking office in 2007, Ms. Palin has spent 312 nights at her Wasilla home, some 600 miles to the north of the governor’s mansion in Juneau, records show.
During the last legislative session, some lawmakers became so frustrated with her absences that they took to wearing “Where’s Sarah?” pins.
Many politicians say they typically learn of her initiatives — and vetoes — from news releases.
Mayors across the state, from the larger cities to tiny municipalities along the southeastern fiords, are even more frustrated. Often, their letters go unanswered and their pleas ignored, records and interviews show.
Last summer, Mayor Mark Begich of Anchorage, a Democrat, pressed Ms. Palin to meet with him because the state had failed to deliver money needed to operate city traffic lights. At one point, records show, state officials told him to just turn off a dozen of them. Ms. Palin agreed to meet with Mr. Begich when he threatened to go public with his anger, according to city officials.
At an Alaska Municipal League gathering in Juneau in January, mayors across the political spectrum swapped stories of the governor’s remoteness. How many of you, someone asked, have tried to meet with her? Every hand went up, recalled Mayor Fred Shields of Haines Borough. And how many met with her? Just a few hands rose. Ms. Palin soon walked in, delivered a few remarks and left for an anti-abortion rally.
The administration’s e-mail correspondence reveals a siege-like atmosphere. Top aides keep score, demean enemies and gloat over successes. Even some who helped engineer her rise have felt her wrath.
Dan Fagan, a prominent conservative radio host and longtime friend of Ms. Palin, urged his listeners to vote for her in 2006. But when he took her to task for raising taxes on oil companies, he said, he found himself branded a “hater.”
It is part of a pattern, Mr. Fagan said, in which Ms. Palin characterizes critics as “bad people who are anti-Alaska.”
As Ms. Palin’s star ascends, the McCain campaign, as often happens in national races, is controlling the words of those who know her well. Her mother-in-law, Faye Palin, has been asked not to speak to reporters, and aides sit in on interviews with old friends.
At a recent lunch gathering, an official with the Wasilla Chamber of Commerce asked its members to refer all calls from reporters to the governor’s office. Dianne Woodruff, a city councilwoman, shook her head.
“I was thinking, I don’t remember giving up my First Amendment rights,” Ms. Woodruff said. “Just because you’re not going gaga over Sarah doesn’t mean you can’t speak your mind.”
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1449 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Mon 15 Sep 2008 01:40 Post subject:
I would expect nothing else from the NYT, the epitome of the "Obama media". Hardly an objective source of information these days. I just wonder if they would run a piece that scrutinizes their candidate, Obama. Me thinks not. Apparently many others think not as well since their readership numbers, subscriptions, advertisement revenues have taken a dive to where they have cut employment. You could probably argue that many print media operatives have faces a similar fate because people are getting their informationfrom other sources, the question remains, why?
I'm not in the tank for this woman. If I felt Obama was being unfairly treated by the traditional media, I would be on my soap box. This is not the case here with the traditional media operatives.
I would expect nothing else from the NYT, the epitome of the "Obama media". Hardly an objective source of information these days. I just wonder if they would run a piece that scrutinizes their candidate, Obama. Me thinks not. Apparently many others think not as well since their readership numbers, subscriptions, advertisement revenues have taken a dive to where they have cut employment. You could probably argue that many print media operatives have faces a similar fate because people are getting their informationfrom other sources, the question remains, why?
I'm not in the tank for this woman. If I felt Obama was being unfairly treated by the traditional media, I would be on my soap box. This is not the case here with the traditional media operatives.
Are you aware that the NYT endorsed Hillary Clinton and John McCain, respectively?
I would expect nothing else from the NYT, the epitome of the "Obama media". Hardly an objective source of information these days. I just wonder if they would run a piece that scrutinizes their candidate, Obama. Me thinks not. Apparently many others think not as well since their readership numbers, subscriptions, advertisement revenues have taken a dive to where they have cut employment. You could probably argue that many print media operatives have faces a similar fate because people are getting their informationfrom other sources, the question remains, why?
I'm not in the tank for this woman. If I felt Obama was being unfairly treated by the traditional media, I would be on my soap box. This is not the case here with the traditional media operatives.
Are you aware that the NYT endorsed Hillary Clinton and John McCain, respectively?
I'm afraid that's a bad example and one that proves Dean's point, since John McCain was to the left of many of the other Republican candidates during the primary campaign. In other words, it's no surprise they endorsed him for Republicans.
Last edited by OTHER on Mon 15 Sep 2008 14:19; edited 2 times in total
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1449 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Mon 15 Sep 2008 14:18 Post subject:
sagascend wrote:
DChapman wrote:
I would expect nothing else from the NYT, the epitome of the "Obama media". Hardly an objective source of information these days. I just wonder if they would run a piece that scrutinizes their candidate, Obama. Me thinks not. Apparently many others think not as well since their readership numbers, subscriptions, advertisement revenues have taken a dive to where they have cut employment. You could probably argue that many print media operatives have faces a similar fate because people are getting their informationfrom other sources, the question remains, why?
I'm not in the tank for this woman. If I felt Obama was being unfairly treated by the traditional media, I would be on my soap box. This is not the case here with the traditional media operatives.
Are you aware that the NYT endorsed Hillary Clinton and John McCain, respectively?
Yes, that was for the primaries. I have often said that McCain was the Times' favourite Republican, but that would change during the general campaign. The objective of the Times is to promote a liberal Democrat.
I would expect nothing else from the NYT, the epitome of the "Obama media". Hardly an objective source of information these days. I just wonder if they would run a piece that scrutinizes their candidate, Obama. Me thinks not. Apparently many others think not as well since their readership numbers, subscriptions, advertisement revenues have taken a dive to where they have cut employment. You could probably argue that many print media operatives have faces a similar fate because people are getting their informationfrom other sources, the question remains, why?
I'm not in the tank for this woman. If I felt Obama was being unfairly treated by the traditional media, I would be on my soap box. This is not the case here with the traditional media operatives.
Are you aware that the NYT endorsed Hillary Clinton and John McCain, respectively?
I'm afraid that's a bad example and one that proves Dean's point, since John McCain was the most left of all of the Republican candidates during the primary campaign. In other words, it's no surprise they endorsed him for Republicans.
My point is that there is no evidence that Obama is being treated "favorably" by a newspaper that did not support his candidacy, especially if it endorsed his competitor in the primary and has longstanding ties to his current opponent. I could just as easily make the argument that perceived support for Obama is begrudging, that the NYT is collectively "holding its nose" in support for him, much like the conservative media were for John McCain until he selected Palin.
But of course, the conservative media are rarely scrutinized.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1449 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Mon 15 Sep 2008 14:25 Post subject:
OTHER wrote:
...since John McCain was to the left of many of the other Republican candidates during the primary campaign. In other words, it's no surprise they endorsed him for Republicans.
I pretty much said the same thing!!!
Last edited by DChapman on Mon 15 Sep 2008 14:27; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1449 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Mon 15 Sep 2008 14:32 Post subject:
sagascend wrote:
But of course, the conservative media are rarely scrutinized.
Well what does the "conservative" media consist of???? A few print papers, perhaps one can argue Fox News. But as far as the traditional media operatives, the "conservative media" are few and far between. We know damn well that the NYT will support a liberal Democrat over just about any Republican these days.
Most "conservative" media outlets you are referring to are alternative media sources, a type of media outlet that did not exist 20 years ago. I love it, because without them, the liberal traditional media would be able to manipulate the elections, like they way they tried to do in 2004, but failed, mainly because of the new alternative media.
Probably because those outlets are so few and far between.
Seriously, though, Fox News is the main media outlet seen as conservative and they are lambasted all the time.
Talk radio is dominated by conservatives. I believe most mainstream, home town newspapers are right-leaning (look at the presidential endorsement records). The internet media reflect all sides, including perspectives that do not fit in either box.
I hear conservatives say all the time that the country is right leaning. If so, why would consumers of the media accept and support products that do not reflect their reality? Either this silent majority is getting their news from outlets that are substantial enough to serve their needs or there is an underserved market, which would surprise me as media corporations are pretty good at finding markets for content. Newspapers are dying and companies are snatching up papers and consolidating the market. In the meantime where are consumers turning to?
Either the public is not as conservative as people say it is, or the media is not as liberal as people say it is.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1449 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Mon 15 Sep 2008 14:48 Post subject:
sagascend wrote:
Either the public is not as conservative as people say it is, or the media is not as liberal as people say it is.
No, not at all. I think the public is not "conservative", but "a little to the right of center". This is in general. Most of the traditional mainstream print and TV media are more than a little left of center. I think there are still many people whom continue to patronize these media operatives because they have always done so. As time moves on, and these people are no longer here, the traditional media will either have to change their ways or go the way of the doo doo bird.
The NYT endoresed Hillary over Obama during the primaries was no surprise to me. The NYT was supporting a liberal "hometown" person as a New York paper, though it's laughable to consider Hillary a New Yorker.
No, not at all. I think the public is not "conservative", but "a little to the right of center". This is in general.
I didn't say that the public was conservative. I said:
Quote:
I hear conservatives say all the time that the country is right leaning
DChapman wrote:
Most of the traditional mainstream print and TV media are more than a little left of center.
Left of what center? Please define centrist views as you see them.
Also - In the other media thread I offered evidence that most media outlets are owned by a few corporations offering increasingly fragmented and segmented political content. It makes no sense to assert that corporate-owned media (owners who are overwhelmingly conservative or at most, centrist) would offer media content to a centrist/slightly right consumer base that is "liberal" unless 1) the content is actually not "liberal" or 2) the mainstream consumer is actually "liberal"
It makes much more sense that so-called mainstream media content is, by and large, "centrist." Judging by the disgruntled complaints from the right and left about media bias wouldn't that make more sense? Look at the market response that is happening: More corporate consolidation offering increased segmentation of products to consumers with certain biases while the "mainstream" outlets dwindle in relevance and importance by maintaining "centrist" views.
How many large public corporations do you know that have a "liberal" bias towards anything?
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1449 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Mon 15 Sep 2008 15:32 Post subject:
sagascend wrote:
DChapman wrote:
No, not at all. I think the public is not "conservative", but "a little to the right of center". This is in general.
I didn't say that the public was conservative. I said:
Quote:
I hear conservatives say all the time that the country is right leaning
DChapman wrote:
Most of the traditional mainstream print and TV media are more than a little left of center.
Left of what center? Please define centrist views as you see them.
Also - In the other media thread I offered evidence that most media outlets are owned by a few corporations offering increasingly fragmented and segmented political content. It makes no sense to assert that corporate-owned media (owners who are overwhelmingly conservative or at most, centrist) would offer media content to a centrist/slightly right consumer base that is "liberal" unless 1) the content is actually not "liberal" or 2) the mainstream consumer is actually "liberal"
It makes much more sense that so-called mainstream media content is, by and large, "centrist." Judging by the disgruntled complaints from the right and left about media bias wouldn't that make more sense? Look at the market response that is happening: More corporate consolidation offering increased segmentation of products to consumers with certain biases while the "mainstream" outlets dwindle in relevance and importance by maintaining "centrist" views.
How many large public corporations do you know that have a "liberal" bias towards anything?
I am confused. I was responding to this:
sagascend wrote:
Either the public is not as conservative as people say it is, or the media is not as liberal as people say it is.
sagascend wrote:
Also - In the other media thread I offered evidence that most media outlets are owned by a few corporations offering increasingly fragmented and segmented political content. It makes no sense to assert that corporate-owned media (owners who are overwhelmingly conservative or at most, centrist) would offer media content to a centrist/slightly right consumer base that is "liberal" unless 1) the content is actually not "liberal" or 2) the mainstream consumer is actually "liberal"
Hmmm, so GE is a big corporation, correct??? So according to you, then GE should be "conservative", is that how I read this, correct me if I am wrong. So then since GE owns NBC, then NBC should not be as liberal or left leaning than it is???? Or is this an exception???
As far as "centrist", that I suppose is a matter of opinion. I mean, Nancy Pelosi thinks she is centrist!!!!!!
No, not at all. I think the public is not "conservative", but "a little to the right of center". This is in general.
I didn't say that the public was conservative. I said:
Quote:
I hear conservatives say all the time that the country is right leaning
DChapman wrote:
Most of the traditional mainstream print and TV media are more than a little left of center.
Left of what center? Please define centrist views as you see them.
Also - In the other media thread I offered evidence that most media outlets are owned by a few corporations offering increasingly fragmented and segmented political content. It makes no sense to assert that corporate-owned media (owners who are overwhelmingly conservative or at most, centrist) would offer media content to a centrist/slightly right consumer base that is "liberal" unless 1) the content is actually not "liberal" or 2) the mainstream consumer is actually "liberal"
It makes much more sense that so-called mainstream media content is, by and large, "centrist." Judging by the disgruntled complaints from the right and left about media bias wouldn't that make more sense? Look at the market response that is happening: More corporate consolidation offering increased segmentation of products to consumers with certain biases while the "mainstream" outlets dwindle in relevance and importance by maintaining "centrist" views.
How many large public corporations do you know that have a "liberal" bias towards anything?
I am confused. I was responding to this:
sagascend wrote:
Either the public is not as conservative as people say it is, or the media is not as liberal as people say it is.
sagascend wrote:
Also - In the other media thread I offered evidence that most media outlets are owned by a few corporations offering increasingly fragmented and segmented political content. It makes no sense to assert that corporate-owned media (owners who are overwhelmingly conservative or at most, centrist) would offer media content to a centrist/slightly right consumer base that is "liberal" unless 1) the content is actually not "liberal" or 2) the mainstream consumer is actually "liberal"
Hmmm, so GE is a big corporation, correct??? So according to you, then GE should be "conservative", is that how I read this, correct me if I am wrong. So then since GE owns NBC, then NBC should not be as liberal or left leaning than it is???? Or is this an exception???
As far as "centrist", that I suppose is a matter of opinion. I mean, Nancy Pelosi thinks she is centrist!!!!!!
If you read the statement carefully I am not saying that the public is conservative. "As" is the key word.
General Electric is "conservative" if "conservative" means:
1. Preferring a free market economy
2. Supporting pro-business legislation and fewer regulations
3. Supporting political candidates perceived to provide the most benefits to its shareholders and will support the longevity and prosperity of the corporation
Please let me know if any of the following multinational corporations with a significant media presence would not support positions 1-3:
General Electric, AT&T/Liberty Media, Disney, Time Warner, Sony, News Corporation, Viacom and Seagram, Bertelsmann.
Please also let me know if you seriously believe that a corporation, whose sole purpose is to deliver value to its shareholders, would support a political agenda that would undermine this purpose in any way. The only relevance that a "liberal" agenda has to a corporation is in the left-leaning content it delivers to customers who demand it, or the personal political leanings of some of its employees (whose profession, by the way, insists on presenting "both sides" and staying "impartial").
I'll give you a personal example: My job, at the end of the day, is to provide services to corporations that will drive up their share price. If I did not understand and agree to the rules of my profession, I could not practice it and certainly would not be hired to practice it. My personal views on economics and politics cannot and do not factor into whether or not I do my job. Every profession has such rules, and journalism is no exception.
If you have ever spent any time in San Francisco, which I have, then the idea of Nancy Pelosi as a centrist isn't far-fetched at all. The problem with defining individual politicians as "liberal" or "conservative" is that perspective and points of comparison matter. Recall the Political Compass results - there is not a lot of ideological difference between the so-called Left and Right in this country. Most people seem to cluster in the Authoritarian Right quadrant.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1449 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Mon 15 Sep 2008 16:23 Post subject:
sagascend wrote:
If you read the statement carefully I am not saying that the public is conservative. "As" is the key word.
Yes, I fully understood what you meant. I did not mean to imply you said the public was conservative, but the message I was attempting to convey is that, no, the public is not as conservative as some say.
sagascend wrote:
General Electric is "conservative" if "conservative" means:
1. Preferring a free market economy
2. Supporting pro-business legislation and fewer regulations
3. Supporting political candidates perceived to provide the most benefits to its shareholders and will support the longevity and prosperity of the corporation
Please let me know if any of the following multinational corporations with a significant media presence would not support positions 1-3:
But how many multnational corporations support the homosexual agenda by sponsoring benefits for same sex couples?? Hardly a conservative initiative. What you have outlined is more fiscal. It does not even begin to attempt to outline what is "conservative" as in the big picture. So fiscally, the said corporations could be looked upon as "conservative", but socially is another thing. Corporations will support any intitiative that will positively support their bottom line. Obviously GE is giving the powers over at NBC free range in how to manage their network. I haven't yet seen any hint of a change in how the information is delivered or presented at NBC, so it looks to me that "conservative" GE is ok with what NBC is doing.
sagascend wrote:
If you have ever spent any time in San Francisco, which I have, then the idea of Nancy Pelosi as a centrist isn't far-fetched at all.
Like I said, it's a matter of opinion. And it's the opinion of a great many of Americans that Pelosi is far to the left. To compare her to the values of San Francisco is not valid since SF is extreme left, IMO.
But how many multnational corporations support the homosexual agenda by sponsoring benefits for same sex couples?? Hardly a conservative initiative.
Well if they want to hire the best talent and attract gay employees who are among the mest talent, they will provide benefits that attract these folks. This is not a necessarily moral decision, it is a business decision. Many companies elected to cover birth control because female employees demanded it. The Catholic Church is probably very upset about this fact but I can guarantee that no Catholic anti-birth control executive at companies who made the policy change could afford to stand in the way.
So now we are getting to the point where the idea of "conservatism" can be separated. I wonder if you could also acknowledge the variation in what you generally call "liberal" beliefs. If conservative views have variation and nuance, then so do liberal views.
DChapman wrote:
What you have outlined is more fiscal. It does not even begin to attempt to outline what is "conservative" as in the big picture.
That's exactly right, and if fiscal conservatism is a virtue in corporate society, the notion that corporate media outlets would not support fiscal conservatism is questionnable. Therefore, the accusation of "liberal bias," to use your term, is not a "big picture" point-of-view. It is phrased as a general term but I suspect it is much more narrowly confined to social issues that far-right conservatives are concerned with.
DChapman wrote:
So fiscally, the said corporations could be looked upon as "conservative", but socially is another thing. Corporations will support any intitiative that will positively support their bottom line.
Why would supporting socially liberal initiatives improve the bottom line of corporations?
DChapman wrote:
Obviously GE is giving the powers over at NBC free range in how to manage their network. I haven't yet seen any hint of a change in how the information is delivered or presented at NBC, so it looks to me that "conservative" GE is ok with what NBC is doing.
"Free reign" is an interesting concept. Why do you suppose Olbermann and Matthews were janked off of political coverage if the GE (NBC) brass allow "the liberals" carte blanche?
The question is not whether media executives are allowed or even encouraged to deliver the content their audiences demand, the question is whether "the media," and therefore, their corporate owners, have a liberal bias?
DChapman wrote:
Like I said, it's a matter of opinion. And it's the opinion of a great many of Americans that Pelosi is far to the left. To compare her to the values of San Francisco is not valid since SF is extreme left, IMO.
It's your definition of the center that I am interested in understanding. If you do not believe that the U.S. is conservative, what is it? If it is centrist, what does that mean?
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1449 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Mon 15 Sep 2008 17:22 Post subject:
sagascend wrote:
Well if they want to hire the best talent and attract gay employees who are among the mest talent, they will provide benefits that attract these folks. This is not a necessarily moral decision, it is a business decision.
Yup, but hardly a conservative business decision.
sagascend wrote:
If conservative views have variation and nuance, then so do liberal views.
ok, some examples???
sagascend wrote:
That's exactly right, and if fiscal conservatism is a virtue in corporate society, the notion that corporate media outlets would not support fiscal conservatism is questionnable.
You're right, they should and they most likely do behind the scenes. But the way you are stating your argument is that the corporate executives control the editorial boards. I have not seen this. If this was the case, then I would agree that the media would not have as much of a liberal bias that they do. I think the formula will change as advertising revenues drop because the readers are not there.
sagascend wrote:
Therefore, the accusation of "liberal bias," to use your term, is not a "big picture" point-of-view. It is phrased as a general term but I suspect it is much more narrowly confined to social issues that far-right conservatives are concerned with.
And what issues may they be, the ones that "far-right conservatives are concerned with"????
sagascend wrote:
Why would supporting socially liberal initiatives improve the bottom line of corporations?
It would not matter to them if socially liberal or conservative, if they think they can profit off it, they will do it. It wouldn't matter if it was the right thing to do or the wrong thing, no pun intended.
sagascend wrote:
"Free reign" is an interesting concept. Why do you suppose Olbermann and Matthews were janked off of political coverage if the GE (NBC) brass allow "the liberals" carte blanche?
I think I answered this in another thread, but one word comes to my mind: ratings. MSNBC is getting killed by both Fox and CNN. Fox is killing both CNN and MSNBC combined in some instances. So if the perception is there that MSNBC is in the tank for Obama (they are), most objective people are not going to tune in. Tom Brokaw is said to have complained about the two and he has pull at NBC. If MSNBC had comparable ratings, those two would still be there.If you want an example of a "liberal" who was fair and objective, then look no further than Tim Russert. Unfortunately, there are not many like him.
sagascend wrote:
The question is not whether media executives are allowed or even encouraged to deliver the content their audiences demand, the question is whether "the media," and therefore, their corporate owners, have a liberal bias?
I'm not sure about the "corporate owners", but I can asure you that the traditional media outlets: ABC, NBC, CBS, NYT, LA Times, Washington Post, SF Chronicle, and many others do in fact have a liberal bias. Many think this is the reason why they keep losing ground. I understand that liberals do not see the liberal bias in the media, not one liberal I know does.
I get the sense that "conservative" for you really means socially conservative. This is only one kind of conservatism.
sagascend wrote:
If conservative views have variation and nuance, then so do liberal views.
DChapman wrote:
ok, some examples???
1. Globalization - pro union/anti-corporate liberals oppose it, pro business/free market liberals support it
2. Gay marriage - centrist/fundamentalist religious liberals oppose it (but may support civil unions, like many moderate or fiscal conservatives)
3. Universal healthcare - centrist liberals do not support mandates or may support universal coverage for children only or can support non-government solutions for universal healthcare (like some moderate conservatives), far-left socialists support a government-owned and operated healthcare system
4. Environment - centrist liberals support working with the corporate sector to find a balance between conservation and development, far left environmentalists oppose economic development and want full protection of wildlife/wild places
5. Welfare - Centrist liberals support the focus on work and productivity, hard-core socialists would increase funding and scope for welfare.
6. Science - Centrist liberals support institutions that seek answers through scientific research and would form public policy decisions around the data while far-left activists are as anti-science as any hard core evangelical could be (i.e., many critical theorists of "Me-Search," postmodernists and radicals who believe that scientific research is a racist, imperalist activity of the West)
I can go on if you'd like more examples.
DChapman wrote:
You're right, they should and they most likely do behind the scenes. But the way you are stating your argument is that the corporate executives control the editorial boards. I have not seen this. If this was the case, then I would agree that the media would not have as much of a liberal bias that they do. I think the formula will change as advertising revenues drop because the readers are not there.
No, the lawyers who serve the executive boards control the editors, and the institutional investors (plus mere shareholders if they are lucky) control all of it with their capital. Some truth is simply bad for business, as I'm sure many editors find out on a daily basis.
DChapman wrote:
And what issues may they be, the ones that "far-right conservatives are concerned with"????
Well the one that immediately comes to mind is gay rights (and it is one that you also invoked first as a social issue). The other is abortion or "reproductive justice" as I am starting hear on the talk show circuit these days.
DChapman wrote:
It would not matter to them if socially liberal or conservative, if they think they can profit off it, they will do it. It wouldn't matter if it was the right thing to do or the wrong thing, no pun intended.
So are you saying that the "liberal bias" is there because there is no profit in "conservative" media? If so, think Rupert Murdoch would be surprised to hear that. If you alluding to the fact that corporations are profit-oriented what would be the advantage to maintaining a "liberal" media?
DChapman wrote:
I think I answered this in another thread, but one word comes to my mind: ratings. MSNBC is getting killed by both Fox and CNN. Fox is killing both CNN and MSNBC combined in some instances. So if the perception is there that MSNBC is in the tank for Obama (they are), most objective people are not going to tune in.
"Killed" is an overstatement given the resurgent growth at MSNBC, CNBC and HLN in 2007. Cable news has benefitted greatly from the 2008 election, and CNN or Fox have alternatively surged during the campaign season. In addition, the shows that are a main source of news for younger cable viewers are The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, two shows that definitely have a liberal bias (and unapologetically so). Lastly, it is very possible that the internet is siphoning off viewers who tune into network and cable news. I don't think that lower ratings can be attributed to perception of political bias any more than I think higher ratings can be attributed to the lack thereof. Unless you have a study that confirms your conclusion that "objective" people do or do not tune into MSNBC? I'll grant you that people who perceive a bias in a channel as a negative one probably won't watch it. It's the reason why I never watch Fox News but it is not the reason I don't watch MSNBC.
The overall primetime audience for Fox News is larger,
I'm not sure about the "corporate owners", but I can asure you that the traditional media outlets: ABC, NBC, CBS, NYT, LA Times, Washington Post, SF Chronicle, and many others do in fact have a liberal bias.
LOL no, you can't. One reason is because of the non appearance of sources like the AP, USA Today, WSJ, New York Post from virtually every list that you name. Why would a list of "mainstream" media not include these outlets?
The second reason is because I have seen no compelling data to demonstrate this bias. The research that presents it as such is deeply flawed, not because I disagree with the findings, but because the methodology is not sound. I am willing to overlook the sources of the data and the objective of conservative think tanks to push the notion of the liberal media, but I am not willing to overlook the fact that valid content analyses are not being conducted by these sources.
DChapman wrote:
I understand that liberals do not see the liberal bias in the media, not one liberal I know does.
Dean, this is a pretty dishonest statment! To state over and over again that something exists when the evidence provided is refuted isn't fair at all. You also have asked for examples of what the broader "liberal perspective" is and how it varies, which indicates to me that you may not be aware of the diversity of positions that you deem "liberal."
Lastly, many liberals complain that the media are biased - in favor of conservatives, in favor of big business, in favor of a two-party system, the list goes on and on. The liberal blogsphere is filled with people who believe in and gather evidence in support of whatever bias they are convinced is occurring. This may or may not be new information, but there is quite significant opposition from the left on what is reported in mainstream media. If the media have a liberal bias why would this opposition exist? Maybe the bias is not liberal or conservative. Maybe "the media" are not a monolith that ARE or ARE NOT one thing or another. There are certainly enough customers to go around.
I've said this before: If we are not willing to openly define these terms, discuss what biases actually look like, look at the specific conditions under which they might occur and whether the research looking at is is reliable/valid then there's no point.
If you are not even willing to QUALIFY this blanket statement and continue to repeat it wholesale without even bothering to define it or take a critical look at it, I think that is extremely intellectually dishonest.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1449 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Mon 15 Sep 2008 19:09 Post subject:
sagascend wrote:
Dean, this is a pretty dishonest statment! To state over and over again that something exists when the evidence provided is refuted isn't fair at all.
No, not at all. I think I have shown and proven my case. You may not agree or like it, but there are many that do agree, and they are intellectual scholars, not rednecks.
You can cite all sorts of studies, not like the methodology, etc, but when it comes to a line item to how the news is presented and the opinions of the editors, it does have a "liberal", "left" bias. Corporate ownership notwithstanding.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
