Media Elite

   Newspapers reflect public opinion more than they mold it.

   Liberal: "The Wall Street Journal is one of the most biased newspapers in the country."
   Conservative: "Yeah, but it's my kind of bias."

   If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

   Now we see the hypocrisy inherent in the system.

   So Newt Gingrich is joining CNN as the cable news outfit revives "Crossfire," its political debate program.
   Conservatives have been bashing what they call the "lamestream liberal elite media" for supposedly propagandizing readers and viewers with loony liberal ideas and not supporting their ideas.
   How do we know this? Because the so-called lamestream liberal media outlets have been reporting all their charges and allegations as well as their conservative views.
   While it may be true that reporters and editors in general tend to be liberal and publishers tend to be conservative, when it comes to writing news stories for Page One, both sides agree that documenting Truth is paramount.
   The odd thing is that the loudest complaints about liberal bias in the media are duly reported in that same media.
   So where's the bias?

   Conservatives protest that the allegedly liberal elite lamestream media fail in their duty to report on conservative views. Yet these same protests, as well as the views, are duly printed in newspapers and broadcast on TV and radio talk shows.
   Conservatives worry that if someone is not an advocate for their position, that person is therefore an adversary -- an enemy to be assailed at every opportunity. But reporters are neither advocates nor adversaries. Objectivity may not be possible in a human, but neutrality is.
   In any case, the concept of a free press means that both conservatives and liberals can publish their views. And the concept of free speech carries with it the right not to listen.
   So it is with newspapers. If readers don't like the coverage or the writing, they go elsewhere. Or they complain to the publisher and editor, and when enough complaints come in and/or enough readers, viewers and advertisers to away, the newspaper changes its coverage and writing style. And if reporters and editors don't like the new coverage and writing style, they too go elsewhere.

   A publisher may indeed try to impose his personal views on news coverage, but in doing so runs the risk of losing readers, subscribers, advertisers, reporters and editors -- in effect, the entire business. A newspaper is, at root, a business.
   That's why the Washington Post Co. sold its newspaper. For various reasons, the newspaper division wasn't making enough money to satisfy corporate stockholders.
   Whether new owner Jeff Bezos will try to impose his personal political views on the way stories are covered remains to be seen. But there's a risk in doing so. Unless, of course, the publisher's personal views match those of readers, subscribers, advertisers, reporters and editors. Then everyone prospers.

   Meanwhile, newspapers -- as well as broadcast media, including cable channels such as Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, BBC, plus those owned and operated by firms based in Paris, Moscow and Tokyo, and newcomer Al Jazeera America -- all succeed or fail based on their ability to attract readers and viewers who approve of their coverage. And in turn, more readers mean more advertisers, and thus more income.
   Each is free to choose a political framework for their news coverage, or to be neutral. Either way, that choice will influence their success or failure.

   As for conservative complaints about allegedly unfair or biased coverage by major news outlets, the complainants are free to start their own newspapers or TV operations, and attempt to attract readers of their own mind. Or they can try to make use of the many that are already operating.
   But if they want to reach the neutral and undecided public, they need to stop chanting bias and talk to the neutral reporters.