Media Matters: Rebutting the Myth of the "Liberal" South Dakota Press
Media Matters has given me permission to reprint their findings on the abysmal lack of progressive voices in South Dakota newspapers, including that supposed bastion of liberalism, the Sioux Falls Argus Leader.
With thanks to MM’s Justin Cole, here it is:
——-
| Black and White and Re(a)d All Over SOUTH DAKOTA
View the Full Report |
When it comes to nationally syndicated columnists, South Dakota’s daily newspapers are dominated by conservatives, leaving progressive voices behind.
________________________________
SOUTH DAKOTA MEDIA: Daily Newspapers at a Glance
- In South Dakota, there are 11 daily newspapers with a total circulation of 144,974.
- Conservative syndicated columnists appear a total of 30 times per week in South Dakota newspapers. Centrist columnists appear a total of seven times, while progressive columnists appear a total of 14 times. [1]
- Taking newspaper circulation into account, these columnists have the potential to reach South Dakota readers a total of 874,425 times each week.
SOUTH DAKOTA VOICE: Who Is Being Heard?
- Nationally syndicated conservative columnists account for 57 percent of the column impressions in South Dakota, while nationally syndicated progressive columnists account for only 26 percent of the column impressions. [2]
- Those conservative columnists reach South Dakota readers 266,108 more times than their progressive counterparts.
- The top nationally syndicated columnists published regularly in South Dakota consist of five conservatives, one centrist, and one progressive.
| Newspaper | State | Circulation | Conservatives* | Progressives* |
| Aberdeen American News | SD | 16,467 | 50% | 25% |
| Brookings Register | SD | 1,232 | 57% | 29% |
| Huron Plainsman | SD | 6,250 | 100% | 0% |
| Madison Daily Leader, The | SD | 2,181 | 0% | 0% |
| Mitchell Daily Republic , The | SD | 10,463 | 60% | 20% |
| Pierre Capital Journal | SD | 567 | 33% | 33% |
| Rapid City Journal | SD | 30,721 | 63% | 13% |
| Sioux Falls Argus Leader | SD | 56,379 | 50% | 33% |
| Spearfish/Lead/Deadwood Black Hills Pioneer | SD | 2,987 | 0% | 0% |
| Watertown Public Opinion | SD | 10,995 | 60% | 40% |
| Yankton Daily Press & Dakotan | SD | 6,733 | 50% | 50% |
* These data reflect only regular (at least once a week) conservative and progressive columnists, for the full report go to: www.mediamatters.org/op-ed and to view state-by-state or specific newspaper data go to: http://mediamatters.org/reports/oped/search
| Newspaper | State | Circulation | Occasional Conservatives** | Occasional Progressives** |
| Aberdeen American News | SD | 16,467 | 40% | 30% |
| Brookings Register | SD | 1,232 | 57% | 29% |
| Huron Plainsman | SD | 6,250 | 100% | 0% |
| Madison Daily Leader, The | SD | 2,181 | 0% | 0% |
| Mitchell Daily Republic , The | SD | 10,463 | 62% | 19% |
| Pierre Capital Journal | SD | 567 | 33% | 33% |
| Rapid City Journal | SD | 30,721 | 63% | 13% |
| Sioux Falls Argus Leader | SD | 56,379 | 50% | 32% |
| Spearfish/Lead/Deadwood Black Hills Pioneer | SD | 2,987 | 75% | 25% |
| Watertown Public Opinion | SD | 10,995 | 60% | 40% |
| Yankton Daily Press & Dakotan | SD | 6,733 | 47% | 53% |
* These data reflect only occasional (at least once a month but less than once a week) conservative and progressive columnists, for the full report go to: www.mediamatters.org/op-ed and to view state-by-state or specific newspaper data go to: http://mediamatters.org/reports/oped/search
[1] These figures account for columnists appearing in multiple papers; if a particular columnist is in five separate papers, he or she is counted in these figures five times.
[2] Similar to the advertising term “ad impressions,” “column impressions” counts the number of copies of each column that appears in print.
Todd Epp
23 Comments
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (23)
Amazing they can make money
Most people understand when they read the op/ed page that they're reading opinion. When it comes to actual news stories, like the vast majority of the national media, the South Dakota newspaper media is still overwhelmingly slanted to the Left as well. The Rapid City Journal has improved greatly under the new editor Mikel LeFort, but the Argus Leader is still somewhere in the neighborhood of the New York Times, ideologically speaking. The Aberdeen News also leaves something to be desired. And most newspapers that carry wire stories on the world/national scene use Associated Press, which is extremely liberal. Other wires such as Reuters are also about as liberal.
It's ultimately the news stories themselves that shape public opinion. Liberal reporters shape that opinion--whether they realize they're doing it or not--by what they investigate and what they ignore, what they say and what they don't, and how they say the things they do say. Clever use of the right adjectives and adverbs can radically alter how a reader perceives the facts of a story (whether he views the statement of a Democrat credibly, or views a Republican as a lying rich fat-cat, for example). The facts of the story may be accurate, and so might the quotes be, but a few well placed descriptive terms by the reporter can add or subtract credibility greatly. The language of some media reports even goes so far as to leave the reader with the almost subconscious impression that the liberal worldview is automatically assumed/known to be true, and that the conservative/traditional worldview is considered highly suspect.
It's here, not in the op/eds but in the news reporting, where fairness, balance and objectivity really count...and that's exactly where it's overwhelmingly slanted from a liberal perspective.
MYSiouxFalls Still Online
Thursday, 04 October 2007
MYSiouxFalls.com will continue to operate as it restructures it's business. The news website that started July 10 will continue to have news, weather and other pertinent information. With a limited staff, the emphasis will be the Sioux Falls metro area. As the website continues to evaluate it's position in the news area, it will keep the flash video concept to report the news along with text reading.
When I suggested that fact from the data he used at least warranted a footnote, Ellis commented that I had missed the point. Which apparently is that anybody who disagrees with the Bush Iraq war is crying crocodile tears about the losses because well. even in peace time military people die.
Ellis wants us to think his apples are aardvarks even as he lambastes the "liberal press".
Projection has been honed as a kind of fine mental illness in the right-wing myth generator system.
You of all people should understand that allegations of media bias, whether left or right, have NOTHING to do with Op/Ed pages -- but in the presentation of NEWS. Obviously, op/ed pages skew one way or the other, hence the term Opinion/Editorial. Duh.
You've also failed to note that MediaMatters is a left-wing front group. Their current phony controversy surrounding Rush Limbaugh is largely fabricated. Any information they release is not to be trusted.
Remember, that's just your OPINION.
All the media angst over the 3,000 military deaths is another example of bias in the NEWS. If they cared about presenting a factual, balanced picture, they'd discuss the fact that deaths in Iraq have been fairly light considering most military campaigns, and stop trying to use their deaths as a tool to get us to walk away and show our enemies what a bunch of wusses we are.
And Toonces, my opinion doesn't dictate reality any more than yours does. The facts constitute reality,and they overwhelmingly point to a leftist worldview in the news. You can either look at the evidence or continue to ignore it.
As Ellis fully realizes, it is not the relative magnitude of the losses such as those made by comparing WWII losses to Iraq losses, but the fact that nearly all the losses in Iraq are actually totally unnecessary.
The rightwing continually whines about there perception of bias in the liberal media. Mostly that bias is that it reports actual news instead of the grotesque mixture of spin and news the rightwing loves to hear from entertainer Limbaugh and Fox "NEWS", and also all those obviously conservative-slanted columns predominating in SD newspapers.
Doug, I guess you're entitled to say our brave military folks died for nothing in Iraq, just died in vain, but please don't say it around their families. Their families know better and they know how important their work in Iraq is, but it would be cruel to imply otherwise in the face of their loss.
As for Doug's refusal to acknowledge the overwhelming list to the Left in news reporting, apparently the self-loathing often experienced on the Left extends beyond a discomfort with American success, reaching even to an inability to accept the supremacy of their own viewpoint in the media.
But thanks, Todd, for allowing me to set the record straight (for everyone except Doug) on your blog.
In light of all evidence to the contrary Bob holds on to his demogagary - he is a True Believer, as described in Ike's favorite book, True Believers, by Eric Hoffer. The right wing demogagary of the media is traced in The Republican Noise Machine, by David Brock. It is quite the modern spectacle how the right wing can plant Judith Meyer as a faux reporter into the New York Times to amplify their lies, all the while using faux aghast that the paper is liberal to its core so should not be trusted. Or have O'Reilly or Limbaugh in the main stream media and at the same time pretend the media is liberally biased. One should also find it troublesome that our state's universities' journalism departments sheepishly concede their Fourth Estate moral obligation to call out the faults inherent in current practices by the South Dakota media - afterall, is not that what tenure is largely about, having the academic freedom to address social ills.
I sure would not want to hire Ellis to build fence.
Every intelligence agency around the world (and Bill Clinton when he was in office) believed Saddam had WMDs--why else would he refuse to cooperate with the weapons inspectors? And we gave him several months in our "rush to war" to send his materials to Syria.
Then there was the matter of those 17 UN resolutions he was thumbing his nose at.
And there was the matter of him firing on US and British warplanes 200+ times in the previous year.
And there were the Palestinian terrorists he was funding, and the meeting between one of the 911 terrorists and one of Saddam's officials (but no, that couldn't possibly have any sort of terrorist connection, could it?).
We also need to deal with Iran, which is working on nukes and is one of the biggest funders of terrorism in the world. It would have been insane to deal with Iran with our flank exposed in Iraq; we had to deal with Iraq first.
Liberals are so oblivious of evil, it's scary. If you want to commit suicide, that's your choice. But as for me and my family, we'd like to live in peace and security here in America.
And I'm thankful for our solders going to Iraq to deal with a homicidal despot, and for fighting terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them here. Their sacrifice isn't "unnecessary," and I'm very grateful for it.
I hope that helps.
A lot of men died in Normandy because the western world was literally threatened by fascist and/or Nazi tyranny. A lot of men died needlessly at Normandy as well because of military screwups.
The painting of war as some glorious quest for purely noble causes does a real diservice to actual thought.
Bush, Inc. has if nothing else skillfully persuaded millions of people that they are doing God's work when in fact they are engaged in devilish folly.
Bush support despite all his and his administrations propaganda spewing now has popularity in the 20 to 30 percent range. Surely a shame that this impeachable liar wasn't correctly perceived for what he was prior to the elections. It is a bit late now, but he and Cheney should still be impeached to send a message to future Presidents.
I am baffled by Republican and wingnut high ire and outrage because of Clinton's sexually-challenged ethics. Apparently spilled semen is more important to them than the lives of 3000 men and women who have died needlessly because Bush looked us in the eye, smirked and lied through his teeth about lives and sacred honor.
Lieberman is a coldly calculating weasel..Democrat or not..mostly not... Why Gore ever chose that turkey as a VP candidate was and still is beyond me. As a Republican he serves no purpose. As a Republican wearing Democrat's wool, he is a valuable shill for the military-industrial complex and his perception of what is ultimately good for Israel...whether or not he is correct. Not a surprise that Ellis is blind to the fraud that is Lieberman.
Any sizable operation, including military ones, will experience incidences of human error. But it appears, Doug, that you hold our military in such low regard that you can't even acknowledge such a momentous, historic and heroic event as the Normandy Invasion without a swipe at the military for "screwups." That attitude tells me a lot.
As if we didn't know beforehand, documents from the Iraqi government obtained after the invasion of Iraq leave no doubt that Saddam planned to go ahead full-bore on his WMD program after he fooled the international community into ending weapons inspections (which was on the verge of happening before Bush pushed for the invasion). But since there is no evil overseas and all the evil lies with Americans who love our country, that's all probably very reassuring to you.
The threat of terrorism from Iraq and Iran and other sources around the world may very well constitute a greater threat in many ways than Hitler's Germany did.
For instance, while some civilians were killed during WWII because of their proximity to military-value targets, terrorists SPECIFICALLY target civilians. Consider also that there were more CIVILIAN deaths on 911 than there were MILITARY deaths at Pearl Harbor.
And while Hitler targeted Jews (which was bad enough), terrorists will kill anyone--Jews, Europeans, Americans, and even other Muslims if they're on the wrong side of the terrorist's aims.
No, sadly the only evil many American liberals see is in their own country--a country that has brought more freedom and prosperity to the world than any other country in history. They see an evil president (he believes in Jesus, after all), and evil Christians and evil people who believe in the traditional values that built a great nation. But they see no evil from communists, no evil from terrorists, and no evil from other despots.
I wonder what this liberal perception of what evil is and what evil isn't says about liberals themselves?
"Doug, I guess you're entitled to say our brave military folks died for nothing in Iraq, just died in vain, but please don't say it around their families. Their families know better and they know how important their work in Iraq is, but it would be cruel to imply otherwise in the face of their loss."
My brother served in Iraq and fortunately returned. A friend of his who was a father to 3 young children did not. It very easily could have been my brother instead.
When my brother left -- all of our family supported our brother for sticking it out and doing his job and following orders, but NO ONE in our family supports the Bush Admin. and this war. If my brother had died there, we'd be the first to say that his death was based on a lie that the Bush Admin. snookered the whole country in. We'd be the first to hold up the spotlight on who is profitting and making HUGE money off of the blood and sacrifices of our service.
I just cannot believe those that still hold on and cling to the lie. Iraq didn't attack us on 911 -- but the Bush Admin. would LIKE us to believe that. We are worse off in so many ways because of the Bush/Cheney residence in the White House, that I can't believe you buy into the stuff they buffalo out. Our involvement in Iraq is no comparison to a real and just involvement in War, such as WWII. Back then, people bought war bonds, rolled up their sleeves and made genuine sacrifices to pay for the war. Our President put on his chimp-like smirk and told us to go shopping.
This is not a just war, no matter how much you try to polish and shine up the turd ... it's still a turd and courtesy of George W. Bush and his ilk.
My goodness, look at how twisted the undergarments got over the Move On ad. Our elected officials had to even get together and make an official condemnation. Meanwhile, Rush puts his foot in his mouth regarding "Phony soldiers" and no one is allowed to call him on that?
The whole "if you don't like the war, you're phony, UnPatriotic, etc" stuff is just another way to direct our attention elsewhere than on, uh, looking AT the Iraq occupation and how we got there, and critically examining how to get out.
I can shrug off Rush and realize he's a doofus. I'm amazed though that the Right can't shrug off MoveOn or Media Matters. How about people take responsibility for their own actions and realize if they say something outrageous or offensive, it's fair to call 'em out on it?