Maybe the media as a whole isn't biased

[noxiousdog]

but Slate sure as hell is!
Kevin Arnovitz, Fray Editor: Kerry
Paul Berman, Contributor: Kerry
Henry Blodget, Contributor: Kerry
Paul Boutin, Technology Writer: Kerry
Phillip Carter, Military and Legal Affairs Writer: Kerry
Bryan Curtis, Deputy Culture Editor: Kerry
Sara Dickerman, Food Writer: Kerry
Daniel Drezner, Political Scientist and Contributor: Kerry
Jonathan Epstein, Software Development Engineer/Program Manager: Kerry
Gretchen Evanson, Office Manager: Kerry
Mia Fineman, Curator and Art Writer: Kerry
Kris Fritz, Software Development Engineer: Kerry
Richard Ford, Law Professor and Contributor: Kerry
David Greenberg, Contributor: Kerry
Christopher Hitchens, Contributor: Kerry
Jim Holt, Contributor: Kerry
Margo Howard, Advice Columnist: Kerry
Fred Kaplan, Contributor: Kerry
Jon Katz, Contributor: Kerry
Mickey Kaus, Contributor: Kerry
David Bradley Kenner, Intern: Bush
Kathleen Kincaid, Design Director/Lead Program Manager: Kerry
Laura Kipnis, Contributor: Kerry
Steven Landsburg, Economic Writer: Bush
Josh Levin, Assistant Editor: Kerry
Dahlia Lithwick, Senior Editor: Neither (Canadian, but leans to Kerry)
Rachael Larimore, Copy Editor: Bush
Scott Moore, General Manager of the MSN News and Information Division: Kerry
Robert Neubecker, Illustrator: Kerry
Timothy Noah, Senior Writer: Kerry
Meghan O'Rourke, Culture Editor: Kerry
Josh Payton, Interactive Designer: David Cobb
Jill Hunter Pellettieri, Assistant Editor: Kerry
David Plotz, Deputy Editor: Kerry
Charlie Powell, Illustrator: Kerry
William Saletan, Chief Political Correspondent: Kerry
Jack Shafer, Editor at Large: Michael Badnarik
Gerald Shargel, Contributor: Kerry
Lee Smith, Contributor: Bush
Laurie Snyder, Copy Chief: Kerry
Mark Alan Stamaty, Illustrator: Kerry
Mike Steinberger, Wine Writer: Kerry
Dana Stevens, Television Writer: Kerry
Seth Stevenson, Contributor: Kerry
Chris Suellentrop, Deputy Washington Bureau Chief: Kerry
Maureen Sullivan, Copy Editor: Kerry
June Thomas, West Coast Editor: Kerry
Louisa Herron Thomas, Intern: Kerry
Julia Turner, Assistant Editor: Kerry
Garry Trudeau, Contributor: Kerry
Eric Umansky, Contributor: Kerry
Jacob Weisberg, Editor: Kerry
Owen West, War Stories Contributor: Bush
Robert Wright, Contributor: Kerry

[Mr. Sparkle]

Who they vote for isn't relevant to their reporting.

Opinion columns on the otherhand... though, while many of their best writers are clearly liberal biased, I can't imagine anyone calling them "hacks". They're not mouthpieces for the Kerry campaign by any means.

As an aside: I'm suprised Hitchens is voting for Kerry.

[Defiant]

.

[noxiousdog]

Who they vote for isn't relevant to their reporting.

Opinion columns on the otherhand... though, while many of their best writers are clearly liberal biased, I can't imagine anyone calling them "hacks". They're not mouthpieces for the Kerry campaign by any means.

As an aside: I'm suprised Hitchens is voting for Kerry.

A log of people are. Especially since just last week, he was slightly for Bush.

[Vegetable Man]

Who they vote for isn't relevant to their reporting.

Agreed. Especially some of those guys, I have quite a bit of respect for Drezner, and he hits Kerry hard a lot.

As an aside: I'm suprised Hitchens is voting for Kerry.

Meh, not me. He's a reformed liberal turned libertarian. But it does come a bit surprising after reading this article the other day:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20 ... s=hitchens

[noxiousdog]

So if you pick a candidate to vote for, you're automatically a biased reporter?

No. But having your membership 35% points away from mainstream means you have a biased magazine.

[Mr. Sparkle]

You should read Show Us Your Ballots: Our case for journalistic disclosure

The second reason is one Michael Kinsley and Jack Shafer cited when we conducted our survey in 2000: to emphasize the distinction between opinion and bias. Journalists, like people, have opinions that influence their behavior. Reporters and editors at most large news organizations in the United States are instructed to keep their opinions to themselves to avoid creating an impression of partisanship. Len Downie, the executive editor of the Washington Post, famously goes so far as to avoid even voting. Slate, which is a journal of opinion, takes precisely the opposite approach. Rather than bury our views, we cultivate and exhibit them. A basic premise of our kind of journalism is that we can openly express what we think and still be fair.

Fairness, in the kind of journalism Slate practices, does not mean equal time for both sides. It does not mean withholding judgment past a reasonable point. It means having basic intellectual honesty. When you advance a hypothesis, you must test it against reality. When you make a political argument, you must take seriously the significant arguments on the other side. And indeed, Slate writers tend to be the sort of people who relish opportunities to criticize their own team and give credit to their opponents. Or so we'd like to think. By disclosing our opinions about who should be president, we're giving readers a chance to judge how well we are living up to these ideals.

It's an interesting philosophy... I think they do a great job (though I generally agree with their writers)... it's seems better to be aware of a writers opinion, even if you don't think it is overly biasing them.

[Holman]

Slate isn't a news outlet; it's an opinion journal. It's *supposed* to be biased. Why not complain that National Review is biased, too?

[Edmond]

You miss one:

Owner: Bush

[noxiousdog]

Slate isn't a news outlet; it's an opinion journal. It's *supposed* to be biased. Why not complain that National Review is biased, too?

1) I don't know that I was complaining other than just being shocked at that kind of slant. I don't think you fully appreciate the work required to have that kind of spread. The possibility of it occurring by chance is .5%

2) Because MSN doesn't host it? Everytime you sign into Microsoft messesger you can get a Slate article on the popup. While it seems obvious now that you mention it, I don't read Slate enough to know that I was only getting 1 version of the story.

Edmond: How often do you read the owner's opinion?

[Edmond]

Edmond: How often do you read the owner's opinion?

I meant that as a joke. I don't even know if the owner is a Bush supporter or not.
But I believe that if the person who signs the paychecks of the writers is a strong Bush supporter, s/he may have influence on how the viewpoints (especially if those are anti-Bush) are being protrayed in the opinion columns.

[noxiousdog]

Edmond: How often do you read the owner's opinion?

I meant that as a joke. I don't even know if the owner is a Bush supporter or not.
But I believe that if the person who signs the paychecks of the writers is a strong Bush supporter, s/he may have influence on how the viewpoints (especially if those are anti-Bush) are being protrayed in the opinion columns.

Apparently not unless 90% of Slate got fired today.

[Enough]

Slate isn't a news outlet; it's an opinion journal. It's *supposed* to be biased. Why not complain that National Review is biased, too?

1) I don't know that I was complaining other than just being shocked at that kind of slant. I don't think you fully appreciate the work required to have that kind of spread. The possibility of it occurring by chance is .5%

The work required? So you are basically expressing you believe there is a deliberate pain-staking conspiracy at Slate to only hire writers who will vote Kerry? Wow, meet mr. tinfoil hat.

I've seen you decry the anybody but Bush voter, who we both know are certainly not always liberal (jblank, Hitchens, etc). Is it possible a few of those Kerry voters at Slate didn't go through a vetting process before they were hired and possibility are voting Kerry more due to a dislike of Bush than anything else? And even if the overwhelming majority were liberals, it's not like an earth-shattering revelation that Slate leans left is it? It sure wasn't news to me. I trust you all have the critical reading skills to still find articles of value on Slate much like Triggercut recently found a good one on Fox.

[Mr. Sparkle]

Slate isn't a news outlet; it's an opinion journal. It's *supposed* to be biased. Why not complain that National Review is biased, too?

1) I don't know that I was complaining other than just being shocked at that kind of slant. I don't think you fully appreciate the work required to have that kind of spread. The possibility of it occurring by chance is .5%

2) Because MSN doesn't host it? Everytime you sign into Microsoft messesger you can get a Slate article on the popup. While it seems obvious now that you mention it, I don't read Slate enough to know that I was only getting 1 version of the story.

Edmond: How often do you read the owner's opinion?

They honestly are very fair in their presentation. The writers I read, at least, argue a position on an issue by refuting the opossing view point completely in a point by point fashion. As far as I've seen, they give a full reporting of the relevant facts, and the alternate ways of interpreting them (and why the way they disagree with is wrong). They always come to a conclusion at the end, which is likely to be liberal-biased, but they are honest in pressenting both sides IMHO.

[noxiousdog]

The work required? So you are basically expressing you believe there is a deliberate pain-staking conspiracy at Slate to only hire writers who will vote Kerry? Wow, meet mr. tinfoil hat.

Lets assume that 48% of the population is for Bush and 48% of the population is for Kerry and 4% is for a 3rd party. The possibility of randomly choosing a 57 member staff that votes 90% Kerry is roughly one out of 512 or 0.2%

In fact, you're talking about a staff that, if recent polls are to be believed, are 4%-8% more similiar than the black caucus. Yes, that does take some work.

I've seen you decry the anybody but Bush voter, who we both know are certainly not always liberal (jblank, Hitchens, etc). Is it possible a few of those Kerry voters at Slate didn't go through a vetting process before they were hired and possibility are voting Kerry more due to a dislike of Bush than anything else?

Of course it is. But we're not talking about a few. We're talking about 90%.

And even if the overwhelming majority were liberals, it's not like an earth-shattering revelation that Slate leans left is it? It sure wasn't news to me. I trust you all have the critical reading skills to still find articles of value on Slate much like Triggercut recently found a good one on Fox.

Yes, it is an earth shattering revelation that Slate is more pro-Kerry than Black-America.

I hardly ever read Slate unless it is as a linked article from another site, but they must do a great job, because it certainly doesn't generally read like TPM or Daily Kos.

[Enough]

Since you don't read Slate that often you probably are not aware of how much they like to bash Democrats too. They are more contrarian than anything, read the linked endorsements for Kerry. Endorsement might even be too strong of a word for most at Slate, they are weak on Kerry in a hold your nose and vote kind of way. The mostly liberal blog Pandagon just had a post on this claiming their endorsements were too tepid.

Out of curiosity how are the folks over at the National Review voting this election?

Edit to include some quotes from the writers at Slate:

Timothy Noah, Senior Writer: Kerry

Sen. John Kerry is the least appealing candidate the Democrats have nominated for president in my lifetime. I'm 46, so that covers Kennedy, Johnson, Humphrey, McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, and Gore. McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis get the worst press in this bunch, but I liked all three of them and still do. I can't pretend to like John Kerry. He's pompous, he's an opportunist, and he's indecisive. Although I'm impressed by Kerry's combat record in Vietnam, I can't suppress the uncharitable suspicion that what drew him there wasn't patriotism so much as a preppy passion for physical challenge and the urge to buff his future political resume.

Still, I'm voting for Kerry.

Daniel Drezner, Political Scientist and Contributor: Kerry

This is a foreign policy election for me, and I've never been less enthused about my choice of major party candidates—it's like being forced to decide whether The Matrix: Reloaded or The Matrix: Revolutions is the better movie. However, for reasons I largely spelled out in my last essay for Slate and fleshed out here, here, and here, I've reluctantly decided to back Kerry. As a Republican, I remain completely unconvinced that Kerry understands the limits of multilateral diplomacy. As a social scientist, however, I can't vote for a president with this track record on foreign policy who doesn't believe that what he believes about international relations might, just might, be wrong.

Christopher Hitchens, Contributor: Kerry

I am assuming for now that this is a single-issue election. There is one's subjective vote, one's objective vote, and one's ironic vote. Subjectively, Bush (and Blair) deserve to be re-elected because they called the enemy by its right name and were determined to confront it. Objectively, Bush deserves to be sacked for his flabbergasting failure to prepare for such an essential confrontation. Subjectively, Kerry should be put in the pillory for his inability to hold up on principle under any kind of pressure. Objectively, his election would compel mainstream and liberal Democrats to get real about Iraq.

The ironic votes are the endorsements for Kerry that appear in Buchanan's anti-war sheet The American Conservative, and the support for Kerry's pro-war candidacy manifested by those simple folks at MoveOn.org. I can't compete with this sort of thing, but I do think that Bush deserves praise for his implacability, and that Kerry should get his worst private nightmare and have to report for duty.

These are not exactly what I would coin a ringing endorsement for Kerry by any stretch of the imagination. And I only posted a few like this out of the many that read the same way in your linked article.

[Mr. Sparkle]

Hitchens "endorsement" reminds me a lot of Andrew Sullivan's:

If Kerry get's elected, then nurturing democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan become bipartisan issues.

Kinda interesting...

[Holman]

So we seem to have established several things:

1) Slate is generally anti-Bush;

2) Slate leans liberal but is by no means Mother Jones;

3) Slate comprises a relatively small number of writers, most of whom come from the same part of the political spectrum (and in this it is just like 99% of all other opinion journals).

Are *any* of these things a surprise to anyone who has looked at one day's "issue" of Slate? The charge of "bias" would only matter if Slate presented itself as anything but what it is (for which see above).

Bias implies dishonesty, as when a media outlet claims to be reporting just the facts but is actually presenting opinion. Opinion journals are biased by nature. Bias is in fact their strength.

After all, it's not as if Slate's motto is "We Report, You Decide."

[Mr. Sparkle]

Personally I think that Today's Papers is one of the greater ideas since sliced bread.

It makes it easy for me to peruse the major papers, and compare the differences in their coverage... from headline wording, to where the article is placed. It can be quite enlightening,

Eric Umansky is voting for Kerry, but I don't doubt his intellectual honesty.

[noxiousdog]

Slate was mistaken about Hitchen's endorsement.

[Mr. Sparkle]

Slate was mistaken about Hitchen's endorsement.

I think Hitchens should have more balls and say who he prefers, instead of hiding behind the fact that as a UK citizen(I think), he can't even vote. I guess he sort of says that he wants "none of the above", by saying he wouldn't vote if he could...

An interesting opinion column is on Reason about the the defection of Liberal Hawks.

Money quote:

So if the liberal hawks honestly thought the war could be conducted without brutality, they were merely naïve. If, however, they are not so much disappointed in the war as tired of Bush, they are something worse. I'm not going to prescribe how anybody should vote, but are there any issues of greater moment than the invasion of Iraq? What is the case for turning out a president who delivered something of such importance to people who say they wanted it? That Bush supported the Federal Marriage Amendment? That No Child Left Behind is underfunded? That Michael Powell has been too rough on Howard Stern? Are these the same people who spent the last three years reminding me that there's a war on?