Comments, Boxscores

With a controversial Republican administration and Republican control of both houses of Congress, it seems likely that Democratic partisans would be energized by opportunities for criticism, systematically increasing their partisanship scores. Despite that expectation, Republican pundit Ann Coulter has maintained the lead in the 2003 Lying in Ponds partisanship rankings through a series of rants which attempt to convince the reader that the political world is very simple to understand -- all liberals are bad, all Democrats are bad, and all Republicans are good. None of Ms. Coulter's 50 columns this year came close to contradicting that formula. The simple methods used here cannot quantify the nastiness of some of Ms. Coulter's attacks -- in one August column she wished that Al Gore and Gray Davis had been killed in Vietnam: "Both were veterans, after a fashion, of Vietnam, which would make a Gore-Davis presidential ticket the only compelling argument yet in favor of friendly fire." For more on Ms. Coulter's problems, see the Spinsanity topics page, where there is a section devoted to documentation of her manipulative rhetoric and inaccuracies.

Paul Krugman's partisanship score was slightly lower than last year, but the extreme partisanship of his columns was essentially unchanged. Mr. Krugman has written two columns each week for The New York Times for four full years, including the final year of the Clinton administration, covering topics from elections in France to the space program. In response to readers' comments, I've tediously gone through all 382 of Mr. Krugman's Times columns, looking for "harsh criticisms . . directed against Democrats", but have been simply unable to find a column which consists mainly of substantive and unambiguous criticism directed at Bill Clinton or Al Gore or Terry McAuliffe or Tom Daschle or Al Sharpton or Howard Dean or Gray Davis or any other Democrat. That distinguishes Mr. Krugman from fellow left-leaning pundits such as Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich, Bob Herbert, Michael Kinsley, Thomas Oliphant, Mary McGrory, Helen Thomas, and even Robert Scheer and Molly Ivins, all of whom have found occasions to substantively criticize their own party in only the last couple of years. How many "crossover columns" would an ideologically strident but truly independent columnist write out of 382 opportunities? I don't know, but certainly far more than zero. Mr. Krugman is clearly a gifted economist and writer, but for whatever reason, his columns have scrupulously observed party boundaries, finding unlimited time to discuss Thomas White and Trent Lott but no time at all for Marc Rich or Al Sharpton.

Just behind Mr. Krugman in the rankings were two fairly similar columnists, Robert Scheer and Molly Ivins. Neither pundit wrote a substantive crossover column in 2003, although Mr. Scheer came close with some vigorous praise of the Reagans and criticism of California Attorney General Bill Lockyer. Both columnists share with Ann Coulter the infamy of their own section on Spinsanity topics page.

A little further back are a cluster of moderately partisan columnists -- Daniel Henninger, Mona Charen, Michael Kinsley, the late Robert Bartley, Maureen Dowd and Cal Thomas. Each of these columnists demonstrated an ability to occasionally write an entire column devoted to criticism of their own party or praise for the other.

Last year's final rankings had WSJ OpinionJournal columnist Collin Levey second in partisanship only to Paul Krugman. After going that entire year without a single positive Democratic reference, her columns this year (they stopped in August) were very different -- only a single Democratic reference, and it was positive. Clearly I made the charge of partisanship against Ms. Levey last year on the basis of insufficient data, and I sincerely apologize for that. Ms. Levey writes mostly about cultural issues; I've since taken the approach that Lying in Ponds will attempt to evaluate only pundits who focus on politics rather than local, international or cultural issues. Last year's third place columnist, Claudia Rosett, writes mostly about international affairs, so she was not evaluated this year.

I'm looking forward to another year of exploring the issue of partisanship, with some roster changes and the presidential election sure to keep things interesting. Upon which political enemies will Ann Coulter wish death and destruction this year? Will Paul Krugman be able to write another 100 columns without a single contrary note? Will editors at The New York Times and The Washington Post begin to insist that their columnists disclose potential conflicts-of-interest (George Will) and honestly acknowledge blatant manipulation of quotes (Charles Krauthammer and Maureen Dowd)? Stay tuned . .

[permanent link]

The Columnists

• George Will I. They don't make presidents like they used to.
• Paul Krugman. It would be good if journalists covering the 2004 election paid attention to actual policy proposals, but I'm not optimistic.
• Bob Herbert. Devious Indians have taken all our high-tech jobs.
• Charles Krauthammer. Bush's policies have succeeded brilliantly in forcing Iran to agree to inspections, but we have to bomb them anyway.
• David Ignatius. Fundamentally, the president can't decide what the point of his foreign policy is -- it's "a healthy tension."
• David Brooks. Michael Oakshott probably wouldn't have invaded Iraq, but if he had he would have done it without a proper plan so, you see, it's okay that Bush has screwed everything up.
• Richard Cohen. I probably should've written this column about metrosexuals a couple months ago when someone might have cared.
• Thomas Friedman. They may not like us in France, but the USA is big in Poland.
• George Will II. Why mention Howard Dean's explicit disavowals of a third party candidacy when doing so would ruin a perfectly good column?
• Jim Hoagland. The future's hard to predict.
• David Broder. Looking back on a year's worth of criticism of my work, it turns out that I was right.

The Op-Ed You Actually Need to Read

• Juan Cole and Shahin Cole discuss the future of Shi'ite politics in Iraq

NOONAN ALMOST THERE: With today's column, Peggy Noonan has 23 for the year, still one short of the 24 (two per month) necessary to qualify for the final Lying in Ponds Top Ten list. Mary McGrory is in the same boat, having written 22 columns before illness prevented her from continuing.

[permanent link]

Mr. Brzezinski's personal records show that he collected almost $170,000 for attending eight such meetings in the 1990's, according to an aide. Mr. Buckley estimated that he had earned perhaps $200,000 or more. Mr. Will could not recall how many meetings he attended; an aide later confirmed that the per diem for each meeting was $25,000.
. . .

In a column syndicated by The Washington Post Writers Group in March, Mr. Will recounted observations Mr. Black had made in a London speech defending the Bush administration's stance on Iraq.

In a rebuttal to Mr. Bush's critics, Mr. Will wrote, "Into this welter of foolishness has waded Conrad Black, a British citizen and member of the House of Lords who is a proprietor of many newspapers."

Asked in the interview if he should have told his readers of the payments he had received from Hollinger, Mr. Will said he saw no reason to do so.

"My business is my business," he said. "Got it?"

Alan Shearer, editorial director and general manager of The Washington Post Writers Group, said he was unaware of Mr. Will's affiliation with Hollinger or the money he received. "I think I would have liked to have known," Mr. Shearer said.

Additional criticism is offered by Paul Krugman.

[permanent link]

The other day I found myself reading a leftist rag that made outrageous claims about America. It said that we are becoming a society in which the poor tend to stay poor, no matter how hard they work; in which sons are much more likely to inherit the socioeconomic status of their father than they were a generation ago.

The name of the leftist rag? Business Week, which published an article titled "Waking Up From the American Dream." The article summarizes recent research showing that social mobility in the United States (which was never as high as legend had it) has declined considerably over the past few decades. If you put that research together with other research that shows a drastic increase in income and wealth inequality, you reach an uncomfortable conclusion: America looks more and more like a class-ridden society.

And guess what? Our political leaders are doing everything they can to fortify class inequality, while denouncing anyone who complains--or even points out what is happening--as a practitioner of "class warfare."

The institutions of free, representative government and those of political partisanship have been intertwined -- and at odds -- since the founding of the American Republic. As with so many other disputes in the public sphere, the primary problem lies in failing to draw bright lines and to keep each category of political activity within its proper confines.
. . .

Basically, the political game will attract public attention and involvement only if there are (at least) two distinct and competitive teams, but it will not command the public trust and confidence without distinct and inviolable rules and nonpartisan referees and commentators.

In journalism and in the public policy business, for example, it's okay to have strong opinions about issues and to advocate them (though not in a way that warps the news coverage of politics). But it's not okay for partisanship to intrude in the discussion. Right now, if you'll pardon the oversimplification, left-of-center folks tend to vote Democratic and right-of-center folks tend to vote Republican. But left-of-center journalists and political activists should be willing to criticize Democrats when they enact bad policies or engage in unethical conduct. Similarly, right-of-center commentators should be willing to criticize Republicans on principle or policy, whatever the short-term impact on public opinion or elections.

Okay, I'll pick up her tattered banner and defend Ann Coulter on her abortion article...

..what she is saying in her piece, rather clearly, if too starkly for some, is that there is a moral equivalence between killing an abortionist and performing an abortion. You may disagree with this belief, but it's hardly "kooky": Polls consistently show that a majority of Americans believe abortion should only be allowed in the most extreme of circumstances, as it is believed to involve the taking of innocent human life. (Among other things, a majority believes life begins at conception-a pretty "kooky" view to the bulk of the out-of-the-cultural-mainstream press: CNN, CBS, and the like).

In truth, Coulter's article does a considerable service to ideological balance on this issue, given that the pro-abortion media make it seem as if every abortionist's life is at risk for his line of work. If you saw the numbers in percentage terms, the lack of real risk to abortionists might be clearer-a baby carried by his/her mother into an abortion clinic has a nearly 100% risk of being killed, while seven murdered abortionists divided by some number in the thousands would be some small fraction of one percent.

These are numbers that most of the press would rather ignore, especially the total number of abortions since '73-when do you ever see that?

It may seem crude or inept or offensive to make the point as bluntly as Coulter does, but people who consider the question honestly may be persuaded by her argument, which, again, assumes that the abortionist's life and the aborted baby's life are equally valuable. If one assumes otherwise, it's not surprising that offense is taken.

Archives

• December 2003
  
• November 2003
  
  • DeLong Defense
  • Paul Krugman 2001
  • The Economist
• October 2003
  
  • Coulter 2002
  • How Partisan is Robert Scheer?
  • Fight or Flight
• September 2003
  
  • Henninger's Slur
  • Tomasky and Equal Time
  • Coulter as Pujols
  • Krugman as Goldwater
• August 2003
  
  • How Deep is Your Partisanship?
  • Sadly, No
  • Defining Partisanship
  • David Brooks 2003
  • Luskin on Lying in Ponds
  • More Coulter Nastiness
  • The Tomasky Report
• July 2003
  
  • Upsetting the Krauthammer Equation
  • WSJ vs. NYT
  • Degrees of Negativity
  • Six Month Reviews
• June 2003
  
  • Spinsanity on Coulter, Scheer
  • Coulter Takes the Lead!
  • Dean Esmay Discussion on Political Arrogance
  • Kudzu-Eating Goats
• May 2003
  
  • Scheer and More Scheer
  • Good and Partisan?
  • Blogiversary #1
  • The Many Nicknames of Maureen Dowd
• April 2003
  
  • Sweeping Generalizations
  • What Makes a Columnist Good?
  • Partisan or Critic?
• March 2003
  
  • Is Motivation Important?
  • Party Adherence
  • Another PI Proposal
• Februrary 2003
  
  • The Atlantic
  • Nicknames
  • Partisan Non Sequitur Hall of Fame
  • A better PI
• January 2003
  
  • Gorillas of Shrillness
  • Trent Lott as a Scandal Case Study
  • 2002 Team Championship to WSJ OpinionJournal
  • Partisan Punditry 2002
• December 2002
  
• November 2002
  
  • Krugman 2000
  • Ideological yet Independent
• October 2002
  
  • Dowd and the Rule of Laws
• September 2002
  
  • Metafilter
  • Enron By Month
  • Example of Evaluation of References
  • Offhand References
• August 2002
  
• July 2002
  
  • Six Month Reviews
• June 2002
  
  • Paul Krugman and Balance
  • On The Media
  • Enron as a Scandal Case Study
  • Most 2002 References to the Word "Enron"
• May 2002
  
  • Paul Krugman's view
  • Howard Kurtz column
  • Tapped, Andrew Sullivan, democrats.com

Lying in Ponds is an attempt to encourage vigorous, independent commentary in the American punditocracy by quantifying and analyzing partisanship. Lying in Ponds tries to draw a fundamental distinction between ordinary party preference and excessive partisanship. The presence of an excessive partisan bias transforms journalism into advertising, too distorted and unreliable to be useful in any serious political debate. Political parties are a healthy, essential part of American democracy; excessive partisanship is not. Lying in Ponds currently tracks the Democratic and Republican biases of a selection of regular political columnists from various sources, including the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal's OpinionJournal, and the Washington Post. partisan a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person; especially: one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance Lying in Ponds on Yahoo

FINAL 2003 Lying in Ponds Top Ten

Other Statistics

The Pundits

Punditry and Political Resources

Some of the sharpest political commentary on the web can be found at Mickey Kaus' kausfiles.com.

Eric Alterman's book Sound and Fury : The Making of the Punditocracy, has an excellent history of the development of political punditry in this country. Alterman discusses his interesting and provocative ideas about how to elevate the level of pundit discourse. It is a valuable book despite the distracting ideological baggage. Mr. Alterman now has his own blog, Altercation, which is lively and has the added advantage of referring to one of my very favorite Python sketches, "The Argument Clinic".

The American Prospect has a great weblog called Tapped.

The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz "keeps a watchful eye on the national media."

According to Dr. Andrew R. Cline: "The Rhetorica Network, including my Rhetorica: Press-Politics Journal web log, is my attempt to explain the persuasive tactics of politics and the press." His discussion of media bias is very good.

Daniel W. Drezner covers "politics, economics, academia, globalization... all from an untenured perspective". ".

The National Public Radio's On the Media program has lots of interesting stuff.

Economics professor Brad DeLong publishes his "thoughts of the moment on economics, and on other topics as well" in his Semi-Daily Journal.

Susanna Cornett publishes Cut on the Bias: "keeping an eye on the spins and weirdness of media, crime and everyday life."

"Got my mind on the media, and the media on my mind", Media Minded is written by an anonymous "copy editor at one of America's largest daily newspapers."

Dean Esmay is "Defending the liberal tradition in history, politics, science and philosophy" on his blog, Dean's World.

Punditwatch is Will Vehrs' "weekly review of the pundits".

One of my favorite old TV shows was Fernwood Tonight, which starred Martin Mull as a sarcastic talk show host. I remember him telling guests that they were "so close to being interesting." That's the way I feel about Bob Somerby's The Daily Howler. He sporadically posts articles skewering (usually justifiably) members of the press for "howlers", which he defines as "stupid and ridiculous logical blunders". It would be so much better if Somerby were able to overcome his obvious partisan bias. He received a lot of attention during the 2000 campaign by defending Al Gore (his former Harvard roommate) from unfair criticism.

Life Outside the Punditocracy

James Lilek's Daily Bleat is an outstanding, ecclectic weblog. It's all great, even the baby pictures, dog pictures and frequently-changing page designs.

On its FAQ page, the prolific InstaPundit writing team, pretending to be a single Tennessee law professor named Glenn Reynolds, responds to the question "Aren't you biased to the left? Aren't you biased to the right? Aren't you a jingoistic, libertarian, cultural imperialist?", with "Yes."

My friend Paul's poetry site, haiku in low places.

For a list of North Carolina bloggers, go to North State Blogs

Raleigh blogger Don McArthur dispenses blather at the Misanthropyst.

Blogger Lee Ann Morawski (formerly of Chapel Hill) dishes out "opinion, insight, commentary, sarcasm, scathing polemic, and wit" at Spinsters.